Debunking domestic partners arguments
By Ellen Wedum/For the Sun-News The Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act, Senate Bill 12, was defeated in the New Mexico Senate on Feb. 26, even after several attempts to reach a compromise acceptable to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Posted: 03/31/2009 12:00:00 AM MDT
[Note: the complete vote can be seen at http://nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0012SVOTE.pdf. Only the Español translator included this link. –EW]
The scientist's argument.
As a scientist, I see no reason for this unrelenting determination to deny the civil rights of gays and lesbians. But then, I believe that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God created homosexuals, heterosexuals, the solstice, giraffes, and all the rest of our marvelous universe. I do not believe that homosexuality is a simple "choice," and predict that once the entire human genome is mapped, we will find that the tendency to homosexuality, as well as musical genius and other traits, is programmed into our DNA. To which some might reply, "What do you know? It may be that homosexuality is not in the genes at all."
Well, that is my point. What do I know? What do any of us know about the influence of the genes, or fetal nutrition or family upbringing? How can we presume to deny civil rights to these couples based on uninformed judgments?
The Biblical argument.
During the 2008 legislative session, opponents relied heavily on the Bible, particularly the Book of Leviticus, for their arguments against domestic partnerships (HB 9 that year).For example,chapter 18, verse 22 states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (I am quoting the King James Version.)
The Book of Leviticus was written for a community of escaped slaves, struggling for existence in a harsh environment. Reproduction was crucial to them. A woman's most important function was to produce many children, preferably boys. Likewise, men were expected to father many children, so avoidance of that duty was indeed an abomination.
Leviticus is part of a Torah ("Teaching") of some 613 rules and regulations, and a number of "abominations." These teachings helped the ancient Hebrews to survive, but many of them seem pretty ludicrous now, like calling the eating of shellfish an abomination (Leviticus 11:9, Deut. 14:9). None of today's quoters of Leviticus are out picketing Red Lobster restaurants, but you can't just cherry-pick the verses in Leviticus that you choose to apply, especially if you are applying them to folks that do not believe as you do.
There are good reasons why Christians feel free to watch football on Friday nights and Saturday afternoons, and eat popcorn shrimp and a pork-filled hotdog while they're at it; but acknowledging those reasons means recognizing and accepting changes in the rules laid down in the Torah since the time of Moses.
The legal argument.
Another argument used against the institution of domestic partnerships in New Mexico was that in both California and Massachusetts they were ruled to be the same as marriage. That argument is misleading. In those two states, the supreme courts have ruled that the domestic-partnership laws violated state constitutions by creating a separate-but-unequal institution. In California, this effectively legalized same-sex marriage (see In re Marriage Cases, 5/15/08). The issue is still unsettled in that state. In other states domestic partnership and civil union laws have been upheld. The New Mexico Constitution needs to be examined to determine whether the objection raised in California would be valid in our state or not.
The angel food cake argument.
I was talking to someone the other day who dismissively said that gays and lesbians should just go to a lawyer and draw up a contract if they want a domestic partnership. They don't need to institutionalize it, he implied. In fact, Nora Espinoza, currently the HD 59 state representative, said much the same thing when she testified against domestic partnerships in 2008: "...all you have to do is go on the Internet and there are already, um, forms, thank you, forms, that you can get ... they can be used and I implore you that you can take care of your loved ones without touching the sanctity of marriage."
To me, that is like saying that gays and lesbians are unworthy of eating angel food cake unless they make it themselves from scratch.
If you try to make an angel food cake from scratch, instead of from a mix, the first problem is that you need 12-13 egg whites. So you have to separate the whites from the yolks, and then figure out what to do with all those yolks. Next you have to use cake flour, not regular flour, and sift it before measuring. Also, the sugar must be superfine. Now wouldn't you rather just buy the mix, add water, stir, pour, and bake?
So why the denial of a "Domestic Partnership" mix? This denial is based entirely on the assumption that people are not created gay and lesbian by God, and can therefore be judged to be undeserving of "equal protection of the laws."
Will scientific research eventually prove that homosexuality, like racial characteristics, is written in one's genes? Until we know, I propose that it is better to heed the Torah of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Ellen Wedum is a retired physical chemist, enjoying her life in the mountains outside of Cloudcroft. She is active in the Democratic party in Otero County, served as the Otero County Democratic chairwoman 2007-2009, and ran for state representative in 2006 and 2008.