There was a very brief letter to the editor in the St. Petersburg Tribune on September 18, lauding a recent column by Patrick Buchanan in which he praises the action of Kim Davis, the Kentucky Roman County Clerk for refusing to issues marriage licenses so that she did not have to issue them to same sex couples. I had not read the column but through the magic of the internet was quickly able to read it on the September 11, 20115 edition of “townhall.com”. In that column well known columnist compares the civil disobedience action of Kim Davis to that of that of our ancestors against the English and to that of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King. In fact, Mr. Buchanan states that:
Throughout American history, industrial workers, civil rights and anti-war activists, and political dissenters have defied laws, ignored court orders, and gone to jail for contempt.
Rosa Parks broke the law in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus. Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi, preached and practiced civil disobedience his entire life.
Now there is a statue on the mall and a holiday for King and talk of putting Tubman or Parks on America's currency.
They are honored because their defiance of court orders and law-breaking were done in the cause of social progress.”
Not surprising for those who know me, the actions of Kim Davis and individuals such a martin Luther King did not seem comparable to me. Yet, as those who know me, will also appreciate I knew that I needed to determine if it is only my personal biases which prevented me from agreeing with Mr. Buchanan. On the surface the actions of civil rights leaders, our ancestors against the English and Kim Davis seem to be same. We have individuals protesting a law or laws which they believe conflict with their deeply help beliefs. There is no doubt in my mind that Kim Davis believe that the God of her understanding would be highly displeased if she, in any way, supported the “sin” of cosigning the union of same sex couples. Mr. King often invoke his religious beliefs as justification for his civil disobedience.
The only question seems to be whether or not the action of Mrs. Davis serves the “cause of social progress”. Clearly, Mrs. Davis, Mr. Buchanan and a number of other people, believe that true social progress prohibits the union of people of the same gender because they cannot procreate. Wait a minute. That cannot be entirely true. Many heterosexual couples get married with no intention of procreating. In fact, some are physically un able to conceive a child. Some might even get married with the knowledge that they are unwilling or unable to have a sexual relationship. In fact a brief review of research indicates that it is possible that as many of 20% of couples are intentional celibate or have a sexual relationship ten times a year or less. (Some of the research seems to consider a marriage in which a sexual relationship occurs .81 times a month as celibate.) As a professional counselor I have met many married individuals who have not had a sexual relationship for a very long time. I have also met many individuals in a heterosexual relationship which is very sexual with no intention of having children.
I have previously researched the question of whether any social thinker/scientist thinks that there is a shortage of people on the planet earth. We do not seem to need more people. Some may argue that there is a shortage of people in certain races or social classes. It that was truly the situation then man people whose sexual orientation is other than heterosexual could certainly donate their sperm or loan them womb to those heterosexual couples who want but cannot conceive children.
If social progress is not served by the possibility of more children, perhaps it is served by the possibility that celibate people or heterosexual people have more energy or more financial resources to advice the cause of social progress. I am not aware of any studies which have specifically compared the number of volunteer hours of same sex and opposite sex couples. I also was not able to find the results of any research which compared dollar the amount of dollars to the cause of social justice of same sex and opposite sex couples. There is some research which indicates that, in general, same sex couple often have more disposal income which could be donated or used to stimulate the economy. If one goggles the subject one will be directed to some articles the authors of which maintain that same sex couples give more to charitable organizations.
The question still is how the prevention of social progress is promoted by the prevention of the legal unions (marriage) of same sex couples.
Surely, Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Davis and others are not proposing that same sex couples will be publicly engaging in addictive sexual behavior to such an extent that they are unable to keep jobs resulting in the community/the state becoming responsible for their care. There is no evidence of which I am aware that happens with same or opposite sex couples. It would seem that whether people who marry are same or opposite sex couples, they do so to create a home together, to support each other in sickness and in health, to share their joys and sorrows and to share all the other activities and responsibilities of this life journey. Relatively little time is time is spent in sexual activity.
It is true that in historically that:
· Many children died in childbirth.
· Many women miscarried.
· Large families were needed to do gathering and maintenance tasks.
· There was a belief that there was a shortage of sperm and thus one did not want to waste sperm.
· That there was no microscope to measure the number of sperm.
· That religious laws were created based upon these and similar beliefs.
It is also true that:
· Those relatively few humans who are 100% heterosexual may find the thought of same sex activity repulsive although the results of research in same sex institutions such as prisons does not bear out this assumption.
· Those relatively few humans who are 100% homosexual may find the thought of heterosexual activity repulsive.
· Most of us do not want to observe our family members, friends and neighbors having sex activity no matter with whom we are having sex.
· The actual sexual activity of many of we humans is more fluid than our traditions and laws indicate.
It is interesting that Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Davis and a significant number of people which inhavit various parts of this planet continue to personally find the idea of same sex marriages personally distasteful and contrary to their religious beliefs. I applaud those who are willing to lovingly speak out about their beliefs. Insisting that others have the same beliefs or that we use the religious beliefs of a few to dictate the behavior of the many is now how I understand the constitution of this country to work.
Perhaps, however, I am missing something here. I will look forward to the comment of those readers who can enlighten me about how limiting marriages to opposite sex couples promotes social progress. Of course there may be those who think our laws should reflect what we personally find distasteful, difficult to imagine, or uncomfortable. Certainly there are many countries, including the United States at times, where laws are based on such criteria.
Written September 18, 2015
RSS Feed