Rick Warren, The Inauguration and Human Rights

Definitions:

Pedophilia: noun; sexual feelings directed towards children.

Bestiality: noun; sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

Incest: noun; sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.

Polygamy: noun; the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. See also polyandry; polyamory.

Marriage: noun; matrimony, wedlock, union.

I’m going to guess that the above definitions may make you uncomfortable. If not, it has, I’m sure, piqued your interest. The necessity for those definitions will be made clear in the course of this essay.

The other day I heard snippets from an interview with Rick Warren, the conservative preacher Obama’s transition team invited to the inauguration. In it, he stated many of the same arguments that social conservatives use to discredit our fight for marriage equality; basically, that gay marriage would open the debate over things which are, if not flat out lies, highly misleading and doesn’t take the issue of marriage seriously.

The arguments tend to be along the lines of “protecting the institution of marriage” or “protecting the children.” In this very brief message Warren stated that he was also against pedophilia, bestiality and incest, implying that homosexuality is on par with the aforementioned situations. He holds this opinion despite the fact that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association decided in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders (the American Sociological Association did the same in 1969).

Allow me to clarify our (the gay rights movement) position. We are not trying to redefine marriage. This struggle is not even about marriage per se, but rather a step towards equality. We want to enjoy the same rights as every other American, rights they have, in theory at least.

I suppose it goes without saying that I am offended to be lumped with the Mr. Warren’s list of abominations, each of which has a legal or biological justification for their prohibition, because they either manipulate one party or are a sign of social alienation.

A marriage is between two consenting adults who wish to have their relationship acknowledged by the State (which studies have shown actually helps to strengthen relationships), to enjoy the rights granted to married couples and to accept the responsibilities that marriage carries. The definition above clearly does not deal with sex or gender; it is simply a union, although I would bet that the Yes on 8 campaign could find a definition to augment their argument.

And now to look at some of the groups/ideas we have as a minority been lumped with. Bestiality is a psychological condition (which, as I pointed out, homosexuality has been removed from that list decades ago). Further, according to the above definition, the sex and/or gender is not apparently necessary for cognizance of the situation. It is not between consenting adults, or humans for that matter. I really doubt that if gay marriage were to be federally recognized that people would start clamoring for bestiality rights. Animals are pets and food, not spouses.

There are numerous, valid arguments against pedophilia. Probably the most misunderstood or unknown fact, though, is that a vast majority of pedophiles are white, heterosexual men, not homosexuals. That is not to say that other demographics are incapable of being pedophiles; I just felt that observation was necessary. Further, no matter how someone justifies such activity (and anyone can find justification for their behavior when it comes down to it), it is still not between consenting adults; it is manipulation and is usually more about power than sex, much like rape. People under the age of eighteen are not allowed to enter into contracts; in many states, eighteen year olds are given restricted driver’s licenses (the idea being that, despite their age, they still need supervision as they are not considered fully competent, though others may disagree with me), and, as long as they’re in college, they are not considered independent until they turn twenty-four for financial aid purposes. In fact, one could make the argument that even at eighteen, there should be restrictions on marriage. How many eighteen year olds really know what they want to do with their lives? The idea of “high school sweethearts” is simply that: an idea. In some ways, I’m glad that gay marriage wasn’t legal when I reached the age of majority; it probably saved me from making some really bad decisions. Perhaps normalizing gay marriage, though, would actually have a positive effect on our decision making process since we will be able to make better, more informed decisions regarding our relationships through having a better understanding of the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. I know I got off on a tangent with this one, but there really is no fear that people will start fighting for pedophiliac rights. A marriage, in fact, is a contract and must be between to consenting adults, because children are incapable of understanding the consequences of such actions.

Contracts. That brings me to another tangent (hey, at least I acknowledge when I’m being discursive). Marriage has always been defined as a contract. Not that it never occurred, but the idea of marriage for love is relatively new phenomenon in historical terms, dating most prominently from the Victorian Age and the rise of women’s emancipation. Marriage was used to cement alliances, keep property in the family or to acquire more property. It was about maintaining and accumulating wealth, not love. There are many stories of people who were forbidden to marry someone or had their marriage annulled because one of the spouses was of the wrong social class. St. Augustine is a good example of this; his mother wouldn’t allow him to marry the mother of his child because of her social status, even though he did actually love her. Tiberius, the successor to Augustus’ throne, experienced a similar situation. So when people argue that they are trying to save the “sanctity of marriage,” they are in fact, if I may be so bold as to make a sweeping generalization, full of it.

Another of Mr. Warren’s objections is incest. Despite the fact that this could be between consenting adults, the biological ramifications are simply too great to legalize such unions. It is no coincidence that almost every society has, if not in their legal code, moral objections against incestuous relationships. One needs only to look at the aristocracy in most societies to see why. In order to keep their bloodlines pure (for instance, by refusing to marry someone below them socially), many monarchs and other blue-bloods, even through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, would only marry other royals, and, considering elites tend to be a much smaller portion of the population, this often meant they had to resort to incestuous relationships. One of the last Hapsburg royals was so deformed he could have been a stand-in for the Elephant Man because of this perceived need for purity.

Culture also plays a rather large role in how we as a society define marriage. Polygamy is a perfect example of that. For us in the West, the idea of having multiple spouses seems foreign. Yet, in many contemporary cultures, marriage as defined as a partnership between two people is certainly not a majority. In one of the “stans,” (unfortunately, I don't remember which one) a former Soviet state, the tradition is for the husband to actually kidnap his wife. If he succeeds, they get married; she does have the right to resist, and if she prevails she isn’t required to marry him. Many countries do prohibit polygamy, but by no means all of them. I only have a rudimentary knowledge of polygamy, but Islam originally allowed for polygamy, up to four wives; Mohammad, however had numerous wives, usually to fortify alliances (going back to the contractual nature of marriage), so long as the husband was capable of supporting them all equally.

So, what do we want and how does that relate to these alternative (to be polite) forms of relationships? A caveat, however: these are generalizations and I don’t claim to speak for the entire queer community; my intention is to highlight trends. Perhaps it would be easier to say what we don’t want. We don’t want to have more than one spouse. We are not trying to redefine that aspect of marriage. We do not want to legalize pedophilia as we, too, understand the negative effects on children that can last a lifetime. We are not asking for incestuous relationships. We simply want the right to marry the person that we love and have that relationship valued equally in our society. We are asking for nothing more than equal rights, our rights as citizens and as humans. We are tired of being second-class citizens and we won’t give up until we are all equal in the eyes of the State and the people. I don’t expect everyone to embrace us with open arms; I do want them, though, to realize that we are entitled to our rights. No Republican (hopefully) would suggest that the rights of Democrats be taken away, no matter how much they may disagree on fundamental issues we face as a society. Why should it be any different for our queer brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends?

We are not monsters. We are not trying to fundamentally change our society. We are simply trying to be fully active, first class citizens, just like the majority in this country. If people like Rick Warren are trying to take our rights away, then who will be next?