Blow to Secularism
Monday, 15. November 2004 - 7:44 PM
The Raving Atheist has a scathing, sarcastic indictment of the crazy law that discriminates against gay marriage, which has been passed in as many as 11 states (gasp!) in the US.
If you’re a gay couple and live in one of those jurisidictions — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon or Utah — one of your most precious rights has been sacrificed out of “respect” for the religious beliefs of your fellow citizens.
Worse follows:
You don’t have the right to call them homophobes, of course, because that would be intolerant, but you do have certain obligations. Under penalty of imprisonment, you must pay taxes at the higher single rate to finance approximately 1,400 state and federal benefits and exemptions that you, no matter how deep your love and commitment for each other, will never receive. You’ll be deprived of Social Security, Medicare, pension plan and annuity benefits; you’ll never enjoy adoption or foster care privileges; you’ll be stripped of the ability to supervise your partner’s medical care or even visit during hospitalization; you’ll be denied wrongful death, loss of consortium or crime victims’ recovery compensation. Yes, you will be forced contribute to the full cost of the courts, legislature and other state machinery necessary to regulate and distribute those gifts to God’s chosen fornicators — but when it comes time to collect your share, well, fuck you.
Notice the double standards, the duplicity, and the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Mere conservative Christian vote-bank pandering? Secularism sacrificed at the altar of “mutual respect for religions.” Beautiful. But all along, we thought that a secular state isn’t dictated by religion. Doesn’t this amount to ostracization? Because some religion says that the only accepted definition of fornication happens to be between the opposite sexes, how right is it to impose such strictures on people who don’t adhere to that definition?
Just curious: are we going back in time, to the good old days where the Church shared the bed with the King? What’s next? A similar anti-abortion ban disguised as law? Witch hunting?
Of course, the Raving Atheist has solutions… go read the full entry and enjoy.
16. November 2004 - 12:15 AM
Whoa! You too read the Raving Atheist? I thought it was just us. Interesting…
16. November 2004 - 6:54 AM
Would you support Polygamy also? Perhaps if the right were extended to people of all religions?
16. November 2004 - 10:44 AM
MadMan,
Indeed, I do although I’m not an atheist. I like to keep my mind open to all kinds of perspectives; as they say, there’s something you can learn from everybody.
Ravi,
I’ll reserve my comments on this one.
18. November 2004 - 3:32 PM
Sandeep
Why evade Ravi’s question? By extension, you should support polygamy too. I do. I see it as a simple contract.
I see no role of the state in banning polygamy. If partners wish, they could have a clause for or against polygamy in the original marriage contract.
18. November 2004 - 3:45 PM
Whoa Yazad, hold on! I’m not evading Ravi’s question. I was swamped with work, no time.
In fact, I *do* support polygamy on a different ground: monogamy is a perversion of nature (how? no time to explain now, maybe in a later post).
In the interest of maximizing individual freedom, one way to look at polygamy is to *not* let the state interfere, as you said.
The other way–which is pretty much common some countries today (don’t know if it is formalized on paper)–is to put an “open marriage” clause in the marriage contract; you know, what is commonly called “extra marital affairs.”
Polygamy=many wives
My clause=many “wives” without the formal stamp of “marriage.”
Isn’t the bottomline same in either case?
I wrote this in a hurry, so *do* poke holes if you find any (wink).
19. November 2004 - 1:33 PM
Polygamy includes both polyandry and polygyny.
Let us accept that the state should have no role in banning polygamy. A man could be married to any number of women each of who might have multiple husbands. Surely, we cannot restrict polygamy to men alone, because we ain’t MCPs.
Now suppose a husband files for divorce from one of his wives and the wife demands alimony. Is the court to refuse her plea because she has other (supporting) husband(s)? Suppose it does, what happens if during the course of time the (ex-)wife divorces all of her remaining husbands, one by one, and eventually ends up spouseless? Years later, is the first ex-hubby conveyed the shocking news that he has to start paying from then onwards his share of the alimony for his long-divorced ex-wife? Looks like a massive mess to me.
Ok. So we enact a law that stipulates that when a person A enters into wedlock with an already-married person B, then both are deemed to have forefeited their right to take recourse to state-run civil justice system if they should seek dissolution of that marriage. That should solve the problem. Or does it? Let us say that a complex web of conjugal relationships started innocuously enough: with marriage between Mr A and Ms B. That is, neither of them has entered into a polygamous arrangement as yet. A while later, Ms B enters into wedlock with Mr C, thereby surrendering her right to approach courts if she desires B-C serparation. But what if, later, Mr A wants to annul his marriage with Ms B? The law prevents Ms B from demanding alimony only from Mr C, not Mr A. Or should the law, tired of being the ass all the time, reason that since the dumbass Mr A consented to Ms B marrying Mr C, he gets what he deserves, and so he can’t file for divorce with state-run family courts? In other words, should the law be changed to stipulate that the moment a conjugal relationship begins to include more than two persons — no matter on whose account — all individuals in it will have been deemed to have lost their rights to state-dispensed family justice, long as they live? Is such a law equitable and just?
Take into account battles for custody of children, and the necessity of DNA tests to establish parentage. Throw in legalization of gay marriages too and account for the fact that some folks have bisexual orientation. Man, it could get unmanageably complex!
But seriously, I do believe that the state has a right to impose rules regarding matrimony — heterosexual matrimony at any rate — because we still live in an unequal society where women are dependent on men for livelihood. Even otherwise, I believe that the state will continue to have a right to set the rules because it will continue to be called upon to settle disputes for dissolution of marriages, inheritance of property etc. Monogamy gives order, keeps things simple, and also (in an unequal society) prevents exploitation of women. Why should those who want multiple partners insist on state’s legalization of polygamy? They might just as well go ahead and live with their partners, and the state isn’t gonna put them in jail for that! (To the best of my knowledge, adultery is not a crime in India; only, it is admissible grounds for seeking separation.) One can’t have it both ways: contest the state’s right to set rules regarding marriage but at the same time demand its recognition of one’s marriage(s).
Never have I ranted as much on a non-issue as I have now. Idle brains and all that.
Cheers,
RR
22. November 2004 - 10:38 AM
adultery is not a crime in India
Actually, RR, it is.
And the double standard in the law is astounding. The woman who is cheating on her husband is not guilty of anything. Who is? Why, it’s the person she sleeps with on the side.
India Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines adultery as :
“Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery.”
Ain’t that great? But wait, there’s more!
If I sleep with your wife, for example, I can be actually punished under the law by imprisonment up to five years or by a fine, or both.
Yes, our laws allow adulterers (and only men at that) to be put in jailing for sleeping with a married woman.
Actually, I was wrong about that one. It’s not all men who can be put in jail. Let’s take the same example and say, RR, that you cheated on your wife and slept with some unmarried woman. Guess what? You are safe because the law doesn’t consider you an adulterer. Just make sure she’s not married, OK?
22. November 2004 - 1:50 PM
Well, fine, I stand corrected, partially (see blow). It is obviously a crappy, antiquated piece of law bequeathed to us by Victorian era Brits.
I define adultery as violation of sexual trust. One example of this is sex between two partners either of who is, or both are, married but not to the other partner. I regard this as a moral offence, where the party violating trust is the guilty party.
This definition flows from my belief that the conventional monogamous relationship is a compact of trust, and adultery as defined violates it. Note that if the husband sleeps with another woman with the consent of his wife, or the latter has an affair with another man with the consent of her husband, it does not constitute adultery according to my definition, because no trust has been violated.
The bottomline though, is that to treat adultery — according to my defintion or 497 or any other definition, as long as what is being defined is consensual sex — as a “criminal” offence is just plain lunatic. To punish the guilty with jail term etc is barbaric. Adultery at best is legitimate grounds for seeking separation, and that’s it.
Now that I’ve explained where I stand, two points need to be noted.
#1.To fall under the purview of adultery according to 497, the act has to be performed “without the consent or connivance of” the husband, which is not the case in the polygamous scenario. So while I, gratefully, stand updated in matters of legal knowledge, my original argument remains not the least bit weakened by IPC 497. Remove that line — “To the best of my knowledge, adultery is not a crime in India” — and read my post again.
#2. I’m a little puzzled by your method of illustrating your argument with personalized examples, in what I thought was a non-acrimonious, fun discussion. Or am I misreading you? You won’t be offeneded if your mother is used as an example in discussions like this, would you?
22. November 2004 - 1:55 PM
And by the way, if you somehow got it into your head that I am a staunch defender of Indian legal code, remove it, pronto! I assess things case by case, and arguably, there are many peices of antiquated law still obtaining in the Indian code. At the moment though I am vastly more concerned about (lack of) laws that deal with terrorism than those that deal with adultery.
26. November 2004 - 2:02 PM
“To the best of my knowledge, adultery is not a crime in India” — and read my post again.
I was only disputing that particular part of your comment, RR.
I’m a little puzzled by your method of illustrating your argument with personalized examples
In my outrage against laws like this, I might have been more offensive than I intended to be. Nothing personal. I apologise.
26. November 2004 - 4:45 PM
I apologise
Madhu, so nice of you.