Creation vs Choice is Key to Domestic Partnership Arguments
by Ellen Wedum
Cloudcroft, NMThe Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act, Senate Bill 12, went down in flames on the New Mexico Senate floor on February 26 this session, even after several attempts to reach a compromise acceptable to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Among those voting in opposition were all three senators representing Otero county: Vernon Asbill, Dianna Duran, and Tim Jennings.
[The complete vote can be found at http://nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0012SVOTE.pdf. –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 also that God created homosexuals, heterosexuals, the solstice, giraffes, and all the rest of our marvelous and fascinating 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 many 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 the domestic partnership 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, from my personal copy—I know that there are more scholarly versions, but the KJV is the one I am comfortable with. I like all the shalts and thous and whatsoevers.
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 Hebrews to survive 5,000 years ago, 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 others who do not believe as you do. Chapter 26, verse 14, states “But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments....” Note the phrase “ALL these commandments” (my emphasis).
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 Leviticus 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, such as Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Maine, District of Columbia, and Maryland, domestic partnership and civil union laws have been upheld. Clearly 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. This leads you to make a LOT of custard, eggnog, yolk-laced scrambled eggs, or whatever you can come up with. You end up cooking two or three things instead of just the cake you want.
Next you have to use cake flour, not regular flour. Also, the sugar must be superfine. The recipe I looked at said to spin regular sugar in a food processor for about two minutes. I don’t have a food processor. Oh, don’t forget to sift the cake flour before measuring it out.
Now wouldn’t you rather just buy the mix, add water, stir, pour, and bake? Commonly available mixes are Betty Crocker, Duncan Hines, and Pillsbury. So why the outrage over a “Domestic Partnership” mix? Those who deny that people are created gay and lesbian by God believe that the “from scratch” option should be the only option available to a homosexual couple.
All these arguments against domestic partnerships, and all this insistence that you can choose whom you love, seem as unnatural and contrived to me as homosexual love must seem to those who are determined to deny its existence. I do not believe that the brain can control the passion of the heart. In the words of Kahlil Gibran, “And think not you can direct the course of love, For love, if it finds you worthy, Directs your course.” Or, as an anonymous poet wrote, “True love cannot be found where it truly does not exist, Nor can it be hidden where it truly does.”