What a month it's been. Three items of note that I wish to talk about, all involving legal decisions, all in different nations.
Here in the U.S., the Supreme Court has overturned anti-sodomy laws in the state of Texas. Northward, Canada has given the okay to same-sex marriages. And across the pond, the U.K. has determined that gay couples will have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples.
Whew! That's a lot of good news in such a short period of time. I confess to being quite shocked by all of it, but especially the U.S. development. But let me address these items one at a time. I'll start with the U.K. ruling.
According to an article in the London Times, new legislation for gay couples will grant "next-of-kin rights in hospital, allow them to benefit from a dead partner's pension and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home." While undeniably a positive thing, this decision has unmarried heterosexual couples a bit miffed. And can you blame them? Say you're in a long-term cohabitating hetero relationship with your partner. You don't have the rights of a married couple. And one day, the long-term cohabitating gay neighbors of yours suddenly have rights that you don't. Is that fair? No, it's not. And even the gay rights activists who fought for this are offended that unmarried straights have been given the shaft, here.
But this isn't a failing of the ruling; it's a failing of the whole paradigm.
If marriage imparts benefits from the state, then the only proper way to extend such benefits to gays is to give gays the right to marry. Het couples have the option of marrying. Giving unmarried gay couples these rights isn't the answer.
Which brings us to Canada, where gays have just been given the right to marry. Well, mostly. See, in Canada, individual provinces and territories have the right to make their own laws on something, which supercede national law. (Used to be that way in the States, too, but now we're the other way around.) And Alberta's conservative premier has said he's not going to permit it.
Even so, we've still got legalized same-sex marriages there, if not in every province. Now, the U.S. has always officially recognized Canadian marriages here, even though we're under no legal obligation to do so. And lately, the U.S. has been going to great lengths to prevent any such recognition. Three and a half years ago, Vermont announced they were legalizing same-sex civil unions, which would allow such "united" gay couples the same rights as heterosexual married couples (putting Vermont somewhere between the U.K. and Canada, figuratively). The U.S. quickly passed legislation stating that if any state actually legalized gay marriage, no other state would be bound to recognize that marriage (a ruling which flies in the face of all historical precedent, by the way).
So we probably won't see a huge rush of gay couples from the U.S. tripping over our northern border in order to get hitched. Sure, they'll be "legal" in Canada, but once returning home, they won't be. Even so, Canada has approached the right answer, but in all likelihood, doesn't see the forest for the trees.
So let's talk Texas. Let's talk overturning stupid laws. Come on, folks, it's 2003. Anyone who thinks sodomy should be illegal is living centuries in the past. The Supreme Court (to my amazement) came to the same conclusion, stating "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."
On the surface, this would seem to be the least impressive of the three rulings. But it's not. In fact, I'd say it has the potential to be the most sweeping in terms of civil rights.
Why? Well, to explain it, we have to turn to the dissenting opinion. These are the words of that enemy of freethought, Antonin Scalia: "This [decision] effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws [against fornication, masturbation, bigamy, adultery, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive rational-basis review."
Scalia has hit it right on the head. This ruling really should be the beginning of "the end of all morals legislation."
Because this is the root of the entire thing: morality cannot be legislated, and it is detrimental to try to do so.
Why are the "solutions" of the U.K. and Canada not quite right? Because marriage should not carry any special benefits. By giving such benefits, government is effectively saying, "We feel it's proper for you to be married, therefore we'll give you something if you get hitched." That's legislation of morality, folks. Legislation by bribery, in fact. And it's wrong.
Let's look at the morality that Scalia wants to be legislated:
Scalia's hackles are up over these issues because of… say it with me… religion. Nothing more. We already have laws against harming others, and those are sufficient to protect them from any abuses of the above. Laws against sexual behavior are archaic, and based solely on religious convictions, not on sensible governing practices.
As I said above, the U.S. ruling has the potential to do the most good for all of us here in the States, whether we practice sodomy or not. We just have to make sure our legislators don't panic like they did over the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. So write your congresscritters and tell them you are thrilled with the Supreme Court's decision.
Anyone who considers himself or herself any kind of freethinker will realize that morals cannot be legislated, and that anything going on between consenting adults should remain purely between those consenting adults, without the interference (or interest) of the government. We should stand up and voice our support for all three of these decisions, because even though none of them are the full answer, all of them, to varying degrees, are steps in the right direction.
