Why Not Support the Federal Marriage Amendment?

For those of you who don't already know, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, is coming up for a vote this week. I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I think it's a really bad idea. Probably most of you have already heard why same sex marriage should be allowed, and you've probably already developed your own position on the issue. So I'm going to turn my comment around, and ask Why Not? To start, I'll throw out a few of the arguments I've been hearing from people supporting the FMA and / or against same sex marriage in general:
1) Marriage is a sacred institution, and would somehow become un-sacred if gays and lesbians are part of it. (I'll call this the "Sanctity of marriage" argument)
2) Marriage's purpose is to create a legitimate structure for producing and raising children (the Procreation argument)
3) Same sex marriage is bad for children (as Mrs. Lovejoy so often says in the Simpons, "Won't someone think of the children?!")
4)If we allow same sex marriage, we'll have to permit incest, bigamy, bestiality, and pedophilia (the Pandora's box argument)
5) Queer people shouldn't try to assimilate into mainstream culture, but should create their own institutions, or not (the Queer theory argument)

Let's start with the sanctity of marriage argument, which is counter-intuitively the most valid, in my opinion. If marriage is "sacred," where does the notion of sacredness come from? If you ask most people where it comes from, they'll say it comes from some kind of higher power (usually the God of the Christians, Jews, or Muslims). Ok. I concede that many scholars, and many unscholarly types too, in those religions believe that their God commands that marriage be only between a man and a woman. No problem. But why should the law reflect that belief? Does "separation of church and state" just mean "separation of minority churches and state?" Even if 90% of Americans belong to one of the three main churches and all agree with this supposed commandment (assumed only for the sake of argument), does that mean the law should be used to enforce those churches' edicts? Another cliche, the "tyranny of the majority," comes to mind. If people with this view feel so strongly they want to deny marriage to gays and lesbians, why can't they simply lobby their churches to refuse to perform such marriages? Still not convinced? Read on...

Procreation argument
This one's really easy. If marriage is about having and raising children, then why aren't couples required to take a fertility test prior to getting a license? If at least one partner's infertile, the whole thing's off, right? Alternatively, why not require married couples to produce some minimum number of children anyway? Sound like an invasion of privacy? Sound just plain wrong? Bingo.

Won't Someone Think of the Children?
A lot of people bring this one up, but they're uncomfortable taking it all the way through. So, gay marriage could be bad for children because:
1) Gay couples won't stay together, and more children will be exposed to broken homes
2) Gay couples won't be monogamous, or will be otherwise sexually irresponsible, and more children will be exposed to bad moral examples
3) Gay parents will produce gay children, and that leads to more gay people to deal with
4) Gay parents will molest their children, leading to broken lives and lost innocence
5) The fact of having gay parents will engender awkwardness and isolation for a child as he or she grows up

These are just the first that come to mind, but I'm sure there are some more. Ok, let's start with divorce. If we're really concerned about divorce, then why are no-fault divorce laws on the books, and why do we have so many heterosexual couples getting divorced? Beyond that, for those studies that say homosexual couples don't last as long as straight couples (usually as evidence of a character or moral failing in gays), do those numbers really mean anything when heterosexual couples have thousands of years of history, status, tradition, and infrastructure to nurture and support their relationships, and homosexuals do not? I don't think so. Next - gay children. First, studies of gay adoptions have generally disproved this notion. But even if it were true - so what? If you think gay people are innately bad, and bad for society, nothing I say today will change your mind. Child molestation - again, most studies of pedophilia have shown that pedophiles are often heterosexual males who molest girls, and most child abuse happens in heterosexual family structures. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I seriously doubt gay marriages are going to result in more child abuse. Child socialization - ok, so yeah, kids of gay parents will sometimes struggle with the stigma as they're growing up. But what about children of minority parents growing up in whitebread communities? If we're concerned about the stigma of being gay, and the effect it has on children, we should then add to the stigma by further reducing the status of gay people?

Pandora's Box
First of all, I fail to see the logic in comparing homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, bigamy, etc. Where is the harm done in consensual adult sex, period? All the other examples represent situations where a) harm is inherently obvious, and / or b) consent is questionably ascertained at the least. In homosexual marriages, I don't see the harm, or the lack of consent.

Queer Theory
True, gay people have spent a long time differentiating themselves from straights. But similar to the first "sanctity of marriage" argument, why should a cultural imperative of one group be coercively enshrined in law? If some gay people want to differentiate themselves, but want some of the legal or economic benefits of marriage, why can't we have both marriage and civil union, or domestic partnership too? Why not make both or all three institutions open to gays and heterosexuals? We could think of it as a cafeteria-style marriage.

Well, I think that sums it up. If you've read this far, I thank you for your interest and your time. Please, comment away, or email me separately. I welcome the opportunity. For those of you who I may have convinced, call your senators now and let them know how you feel. Glory Be!

A Hearing at the House

Moving on to the legislative branch of the government, I went to a "markup" hearing at the House of Representatives yesterday. The bill being marked up was H.R. 4586, the Family Movie Act. The Act's purpose is to provide an exception under copyright and trademark law for companies that provide filters and similar tech products that mute audio and / or skip scenes in motion pictures. Presumably, the Act will protect companies like Clearplay, a company that makes special DVD players and downloadable filters that, when used in conjunction with a conventional DVD, allow parents or other concerned individuals to filter out objectionable content, like sex, violence, and profanity. Not suprisingly, the Hollywood movie studios and directors have sued Clearplay and similar companies for copyright and trademark infringement.

One of my tasks at the company I'm interning with is to analyze the legal implications of products designed to allow consumers to control their own experience of copyrighted works, such as movies, TV, radio, and books. The lawsuit against Clearplay and the Family Movie Act that it spawned are timely events for my analysis. From the time I first started covering the suit and the legislation, I've been struck by the obsessive greed underlying the studios' actions. Ultimately their position can be stated thusly: "We want to control every opportunity to make money off of our films, no matter what." So far, they've been pretty successful. They get to control the video market, the licensing market, and the timing of movie screenings around the world. The Family Movie Act creates a chink in their previously seemingly invulnerable copyright armor, and the studios are understandably worried.

The funny thing about this is that Clearplay's business model shows just how ridiculous and greedy the studios' position really is. You see, Clearplay doesn't actually sell the movies themselves, they just sell DVD players and filters. The customer has to go out and buy or rent the movies to watch them. Even better, bootleg copies of DVDs won't work with the Clearplay filters. So, in a situation where Clearplay is used, the studios get their sale or share of the rental fee, just as if Clearplay wasn't used. Better still, if you assume that people who use Clearplay wouldn't buy the movies if Clearplay weren't available, because they're concerned about the objectionable content, then the studios have Clearplay to thank for the increased sales they get from reaching a market of people who otherwise wouldn't buy or rent their movies. End result - with Clearplay, the studios make more money.

But the studios want the courts to force Clearplay to pay the studios to license their products, or otherwise cease doing business. The studios say that while a user can legally get up and hit the mute button, or even use the remote control to do it (although someone was probably asleep at the wheel when the remote control was introduced, else I'm sure they'd have sued those manufacturers as well), to accomplish the same effect, to make a product that automates that process is just plain robbery. Hence the need for licensing. Licensing means that Clearplay would have to pay a fee to the studio for every film it makes a filter for. And of course, the studio could always refuse to license the product, for whatever reason. If Clearplay has to pay more money to the studios, they have to recoup that cost somehow, right? So then the cost of Clearplay goes up, and consumers have to pay more. What's more, if studios are given the exclusive right to license, they can conceivably control ALL aspects of Clearplay's products, like when filters are introduced to the market (e.g. notice how long it takes for DVDs to come out?) and what kinds of material can be filtered (maybe the studios allow filtering for profanity and sex, but not violence).

Just imagine if every product ever developed had this kind of legal structure. If you bought a car, you would only be able to buy licensed add-ons, like stereos, CD players, and fuzzy dice. Of course, car manufacturers would probably conclude that fuzzy dice would cheapen their image, so they would refuse to license any fuzzy dice. As we all know, there are already licensed extras for cars, but they are sold in the same market as unlicensed extras, and are usually more expensive, presumably because they are higher quality. But aren't competition and choice part of what America is all about? If licensing is exclusive, choices are limited, and ultimately the consumer loses. So, in short, the Family Movie Act is a really good idea.

That's me with the hat and sunglasses. 

Mr. Smith Goes to the Supreme Court

So I finally got to see the Supremes. Or the Justices of the Supreme Court, that is. One of my assignments for my internship this summer was to go to the Court on decision days and check to see if a certain decision had come down. If so, I was to return to the office at all possible speed. The company would reimburse the taxi fare on the day our decision came down, but only Metro fare on any other day. My task was politely nicknamed “sentry duty.”

Of course, our decision was the VERY last one to come down, on the last, unscheduled day of the entire 2003-2004 term. On previous occasions of sentry duty, I had foregone even checking to see if I could get into the courtroom itself. Rather, I had gone to the Public Information Office downstairs, where all the other non-profity people hang out, fanning themselves absentmindedly with whatever suitable materials are at hand, patiently tolerating, and sometimes rolling their eyes, as the power-starved, ambitious young African American woman who works there shouts down the hallway, (“EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME!”) telling us all to keep our voices down. But on this day, I thought, “Why not?” I walked out of the public area on the ground floor, past the cracker-jack security force in the lobby, and back outside, to the grand, marble staircase that fronts the Court. A lone security guard stood in front of a metal and plastic pedestal that said “Courtroom Tours: M-F 9:30 – 4:30 PM”.

It was 9:45 AM, and I knew the Court would convene at 10:00 AM. “There’s no way,” I thought. Nonetheless, I asked the guard if I could go up. He said that he’d have to check. After a few minutes, he waved me up without a word. Whether he “checked” by telepathy, radio, or intuitive judgment I have no idea. I giddily lurched up the staircase – I couldn’t believe it! Passing through yet another security checkpoint, I entered the courtroom. The floor of the room is marble, and the seats are old-fashioned pews, just like they still have in those Congregational or Episcopalian churches, the ones that are exceptionally boxy. The walls and ceiling are covered in ornately carved wood panelling, and behind the Justices’ bench hang lush purple velvet drapery. The overall effect is much like a very rich church’s sanctuary.

At 10:00 AM sharp, two strident bangs of a gavel called the Court to order. The bailiff, a middle-aged white woman, announced the entrance of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Everyone jumped to her feet without hesitation or forethought, with an accompanying, near-simultaneous stomping noise from hundreds of feet striking the floor. Chief Justice Rehnquist (a.k.a. “My Hero” – jk!) appeared out of nowhere, seemingly gliding on air to the center chair, while Justice Scalia became briefly ensnared in the drapery, causing me to think of the Wizard of Oz, just as he was unmasked by Dorothy and her gang of misfits. After all of the nine Justices were seated, and yet another movie reference, this time to the Nine Ring Wraiths from Tolkien, came to mind, the bailiff shouted out, “This Court is in Session. God save the United States of America, and God save the Supreme Court!”

Despite my misgivings about the use of the word “God” in governmental proceedings, gooseflesh sprang up on my forearms, and a barely perceptible shudder worked its way through my body. The gavel rang again, and with a “whumph!” hundreds of butts hit the pews. Justice Kennedy presented the opinion of the Court on the case I had been assigned to monitor. Prior to the decision, the general consensus among various civil rights organizations was that this case would be decided for the government, representing a loss for free speech and the unmatched wildness of the Internet media.

As Kennedy read out the first few paragraphs of the opinion summary, I thought for sure the consensus was right – we were going to lose. But then his tone shifted, and with a single phrase (“but the government has not met its burden,”) victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat! With a racing heart, I furiously scribbled notes of the decision for my report back to the office. Within moments of Justice Kennedy’s conclusion, and even before the bailiff rapped the gavel to announce the adjournment of the Court, the entire audience leapt to its feet. I was filled with a sense of awe and wonder at the gravity and wisdom with which the Court rendered its decision, even with the sure knowledge that even the Supreme Court is not immune to politics. With the final bang of the gavel, the press and interested parties like myself made a beeline for the exit, hands fishing in pockets and briefcases for cell phones that weren’t there (no electronics are allowed in the courtroom). As I walked down the majestic marble steps in front of the courthouse, I smiled to myself, thinking, “yes, indeed, God save the United States.”