Hawaii Senate passes orientation-neutral civil unions bill

Hawaii's State Senate just passed an orientation-neutral civil unions bill. Unlike other civil unions in other States, these civil unions would be available to both same-sex and different sex couples.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/hawaii-senate-passes-civil-unions-bill.html

I support marriage equality in the sense of granting the same rights and legal nomenclature to couples without regard to couple's relative genders. Marriage equality for me could be literally civil marriage for same-sex and different sex couples, civil unions for everyone and civil marriage for no one, or nothing for anyone.

The Hawaii case is interesting because I've thought that legalizing orientation-neutral civil unions alongside heterosexual marriage could be a stepping stone toward marriage equality of the second kind: civil unions for everyone, civil marriage for no one.

http://magneticcarpet.blogspot.com/2009/11/orientation-neutral-civil-unions.html

Plural marriage and juristic personhood

I think that the arguments that encourage support for legalizing same-sex marriage might be useful for legalizing polygamy. I am going to talk about a worldview that does not necessarily coincide, at least not literally, with conventional legal theory. This ideas might be useless in American courts of law, YMMV.

I think of marriage in terms of juristic personhood.

We treat corporations and non-profit organizations with some degree of personhood, including EINs that look like Social Security numbers, tax returns distinct from the tax returns of any constituent members, and the ability to sue/be sued in court. Sometimes the coordination of combined will, knowledge, memory, actions, bodies, and responsibility we instinctively associate with a literally individual human person can also appear to limited degree in relationships between people.

If we legally banned someone's mouth from voicing medical decisions for that same person's body, that person's mouth would probably spend much time petitioning for changes in law recognizing the right of one part of a person to care for another. I acknowledge that two people related by blood are not literally parts of the same body, but for some critical situations, such as situations requiring medical decisions, the consequences of family members' legal rights to speak for each other might simulate in miniature form the consequences of the legal right for an individual's voice to speak for the rest of its person. This is one reason it is useful to recognize legal kinship. I'd rather permit family members to make certain decisions for one another than to deny such rights, compelling them to petition for that right when they could be doing otherwise productive things.

I am sympathetic to contemporary views of marriage as a bizarre old-fashioned legal construction, but I can also see some reasons to respect it. Sometimes a sexual union forms a bond between people not already related by blood. They become family in every sense that touches on the cohesion of will and actions, the desire to share responsibility, and in medical situations like those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is useful to have marriage to provide legal kinship when these relationships come into being.

These relationships can occur between people of the same sex, so it makes sense to me that we would legalize same-sex marriage.

I could also see these relationships occurring between multiple "spouses," and so I don't have an a priori moral objection to legalized polygamous marriage.

I acknowledge I have concerns that civil polygamous marriage might be technically difficult to implement. Rewriting tax forms would be a headache. Updating insurance law sounds like a nightmare. I guess I would try replacing policies that allowed a person to cover his or her one spouse with policies that allowed a collection of people to pool their payments to cover each other so that on average, 8 spouses in a plural marriage, for example, would pay the same as 8 spouses in 4 two-person marriages.

P.S. I might be interested in continuing to develop a concept of civil marriage along the lines of this blog post, but my interest in this line of reasoning and its silence regarding incestuous relationships should not be interpreted as any dismissal on my part of the possible legal suitability or morality of recognizing incest. I'm not sure I have an objection to sterile incestuous relationships per se even though I personally don't wish to enter such a relationship, as my brother, I am sure, would be relieved to know.

I do not object to plural marriage

One of the issues I hear raised in opposition to same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage is the first-step on a slippery slope to legalizing polygamous marriage. I do not sympathize with a variety of anti-gay-marriage positions in this vein. I don't think it makes sense, and I object to the way that this discussions bash people who are polygamous.

Logical positions regarding legal interpretation

Sometimes gay-marriage opponents say, "[We don't have to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil right, because if we had so to do], what would stop us from [being required to] afford the same legal treatment to plural marriage?" If someone thinks

1. that legal recognition of plural marriage is a consequence of an argument that holds same-sex marriage as a civil right, and
2. that plural marriage is objectionable

then that person can consistently find the recognition same-sex marriage as a civil right objectionable, but that person cannot conclude from this sense of objection that it is a logical impossibility for same-sex marriage to be a civil right. An interpretation of legal text is not deemed illogical merely because a person finds that its generalization is offensive.

Moral grounds

When someone uses the specter of legalized plural marriage as an objection to same-sex marriage, that person takes it for granted that polygamy is per se objectionable. Yes, there are historical instances when plural marriages existed in societies with wealth disparities leading to unequal treatment of spouses (i.e. see the polygamous Chinese marriages described in Joy Luck Club). However, that experience does not directly shed light on the workings of a polygamous relationship between consenting adults in the absence of coercion.

As a matter of accident, I happen to feel naturally monogamous, but I don't think that means that people who are polygamous are "unnatural." Even if they were "unnatural," that wouldn't mean that they were necessarily "wrong." If "natural" defined "right," and "right" determined law, then refrigeration, polyester, and condoms would be illegal.

If hospitals can't recognize civil unions . . .

I am thoroughly convinced by the testimony I heard at New Jersey's senate judiciary committee hearing on 2009 December 7 that civil unions don't work. Even though civil unions and marriage are supposed to provide the same substantive legal State rights, marriage enjoys better recognition that makes a difference at the hospital.

I hope we legalize gay marriage so that gay couples suffer fewer horrendous experiences at hospitals.

I'd also like to know whether other legal constructions that also do not enjoy the label "marriage" lead to the same horror stories we hear about in New Jersey in the context of civil unions. Even if we do legalize gay marriage, I might choose to fill out a bunch of health care proxy forms to indicate a chain of command for my closest friends to make decisions should I ever lack the ability to make them for myself. It would be really great if hospitals could understand my instructions regarding my friends as easily as they could understand the label "marriage" even though I have no intent on marrying all of my friends.

Draft 2

The State of New Jersey is unable to provide civil union partners the substantive rights it gives married straight couples even though, aside from typographical errors and unintended errors, civil union code is written in theory to provide gay couples with all the substantive, tangible rights of marriage. Putting aside the question of whether the State of New Jersey should attempt to provide the substantive rights of marriage through a civil union, it's not encouraging that even when New Jersey does attempt to do so, it fails.

Constitutional ambiguity

I thought the testimony in support of marriage equality in Monday's senate judiciary committee hearing was pretty professional and fair. The hearing was even contemporary--I heard stories of children in the awkward position of explaining to their peers that their parents were in a civil union. I heard civil union partners talking about problems proving to hospitals their legal right to know about their partners' medical condition. I heard about medical insurance companies withholding same-sex benefits that otherwise they would grant in States with same-sex marriage. I hope that the gay rights debate in this country in general soon catches up with these issues and moves to a level of discourse that doesn't sound like broken records on both sides recorded by speakers who cannot hear each other.

Many participants in the American gay marriage debate agree that whether one supports or opposes gay marriage personally, the Constitution is absolutely clear and unambiguous about due process, equal protection, and civil rights. I support marriage equality, and I often take it as a good sign when civic debates use words like "Constitution, due process, equal protection, and civil rights," but I'm not writing this blog entry to parrot the usual "gay rights are civil rights" talking point.

I write this note to call the Constitution out for being a sadistic magician: while it might speak clearly and unambiguously to both you and me, what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to me is not necessarily what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to you.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. . . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I grew up a born-again Christian believing in John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8--9 and condemning homosexuality. I left the faith in college and became open about being a gay man. Now I lobby for gay marriage.

Having been on both sides, I realize that Scripture, statistics, and logical discourse join the Constitution in volunteering their authority to enforce the beliefs of popular culture and lobbyists on both sides of the marriage debate to a point that many on both sides can only interpret the claims of the other as results of irrationality, dishonesty, or both.

The marriage equality lobby accuses conservative Christians of dismissing separation of church and state and the Constitution. Christians don't necessarily interpret the Constitution and separation of church and state in the same way as I do, but many Christians certainly believe that they must and do uphold the Constitution.

And going in the other direction, conservative Christians accuse gay Americans of lying whenever they claim that being gay is a matter of intrinsic identity rather than choice. In some Christian world views, Romans 1:18--20 can be read as saying that only by lying can any person deny that his or her conscience and mind demand a heterosexual Christian lifestyle. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

What productive conversation can result when on the one hand gay rights proponents believe that conservative Christians are incapable of logical consistency while on the other hand conservative Christians automatically categorize as lies each and every claim that gays and lesbians make about their most personal and fundamental emotions?

There are some really fundamental problems with the arguments and myths that supporters from both sides of the issue conveniently permit to circulate in popular culture. If I aired out the dirty laundry of gay culture, many conservative parents would probably attempt to enroll gay children in destructive so-called "reparative" therapies. Wait, wait, wait, before you do that, if I aired out the dirty laundry of straight culture, many conservative parents would probably enroll their straight children in reparative therapies to prevent them from having any sexual orientation.

And if I aired out the dirty laundry of the so-called Judeo-Christian position against homosexuality, many Christians would leave their faith. These painful consequences are not the purpose of this note.

The purpose of this note is to admit and ask you to admit that we often hear what we expect to hear, instead of what is realistic. As much as we'd like to think of ourselves as logical computers, much of our intellectual discourse is merely gift-wrapping for our deepest emotional convictions, which sometimes lack the consistency and sense necessary to possess an articulation in language.

I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is not that some people want what's "right" while some people want what's "wrong." Does anyone actually believe that he or she wants what's wrong? I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is that people from both sides of the issue simply have different personal emotional experiences. Wait. Stop. This blog entry is not a cheerleading piece for politically correct warm and fuzzy respect for all personal emotional perspectives. The origins of differences in personal experiences are important.

I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. They benefit their communities as do straight couples. I know this because I sincerely recognize gay couples as deserving of marriage and say it face-to-face. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart: it drives my so-called "dispassionate and logical" thoughts to justify same-sex marriage, and it drives me to fight for its legalization.

Are you unable to find this emotional experience in your heart when you ask whether you can support marriage equality? When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, don't they live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment? Have you tried to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married" believing sincerely that it is true?

I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not through any distinguishing fault on the part of gay couples to live up to the label "marriage," but through the fault of some gay marriage opponents who don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what happens when they tell a gay couple with honesty and warmest embrace, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."

Due process/Equal protection + Democratic election = Presumed sub-human until popularly perceived as human

There are serious problems with the conceptual organization that our Constitution prescribes for our system of government. At face value the Constitution respects due process and equal protection, but at the same time, the Constitution is (a) written in English and (b) interpreted by elected officials.

In many cases, you don't enjoy the same civil protections as "real" citizens until you convince the electorate to support public servants who recognize (a) that you, a person or class of people, share those features of civic personhood that define those people who already enjoy the full civil rights of American citizenship, and (b) that "treating you the same" literally means "treating you the same" in the most direct way in written language and actual operation.

The only people who were granted full citizenship at this country's birth were white men. The default assumption has often been that you do not have rights until you convince at least a significant minority of existing citizens that you deserve citizenship as much as they. The Constitution's prescription for due process and democratic election has an interesting consequence: we have due process in the sense that classes of people often have to perform due diligence demonstrating their humanity before government recognizes their rights. It's different in spirit from "innocent until proven guilty"; it's sub-human creature until proven, to a hostile and skeptical crowd, human.

Citizenship is a club that often assumes a priori that prospective applicants outside its membership deserve to be excluded.

Abbreviated gay Asian-immigrant lobbying spiel

Dear Senator Turner,

I'm a student at Princeton University asking for your vote to support marriage equality because marriage equality is an important part of my Asian immigration story.

My parents came from Taiwan in the 1970s to look for a better future in the United States. Growing up, my mother was afraid to talk about politics in Taiwan because she was afraid that the government would "disappear" her. But in America, she could be hopeful that I could be whoever I honestly was.

I was born in Red Bank in 1982, and my parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I told them I was gay in 2006, and now they support marriage equality.

I don't think my parents ever thought that I their son, born in New Jersey, would be pleading for my rights. But about thirty years after they got their citizenship, I'm in their shoes, making a case for my full rights. I know I'm doing the right thing because my parents showed me that sharing our honest selves is how we get our civil rights in America.

A fair chance for gay couples

Dear Senator Turner,

I was born in Jersey and raised in Calfornia. I came back as a graduate student in physics at Princeton University. I support marriage equality.

My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian, and I was a true born-again believer before I converted to atheism in college. I still remember how to draw the "cross and the chasm" to illustrate the salvation that the Jesus of the Evangelical tradition offered through John 3:16. I can recite, "salvation not by works, but by the grace of God alone," until I turn blue.

I am also a gay man. I came out to my parents in 2006, and now they support marriage equality alongside me.

Having come from both sides, I honestly believe that New Jerseyans, both those supporting and those opposing marriage equality, believe with honest conscience that they support civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. We are all sincere in our patriotism.

This is not a letter explicitly about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. This is a letter about the deepest convictions and emotional knowledge that so often, for us as human beings, inform our more analytical arguments about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion.

I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart that tells me that legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do.

Now I want to ask you and anyone yet to commit to supporting marriage equality whether the same experience is part of your heart. When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, do they not live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married"\ believing sincerely that it is true?

I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not because gay couples fail to live up to the label "marriage" as well as straight couples, and again in my personal experience gay couples I call "married" act like straight couples I show the same respect, but because some people who oppose gay marriage don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what would happen if they said, "hello," to a gay couple and with deepest honesty and warmest embrace, said, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."

Sincerely,

David Liao

Letter to Representatives re: New Jersey marriage equality

Edited from a letter handwritten to representatives while lobbying for marriage equality in Trenton on 2009 December 7.

Dear Representative,

I'm a student at Princeton University and a resident of your district. I want to tell you about being a gay man looking hopefully toward marriage equality.

My parents immigrated in the 1970s from Taiwan. My mother had to wait a year after my father arrived to join him here. Becoming American citizens took a lot of patience, but it was worth it.

My mother told me about the differences between the Taiwan where she grew up and the America where she and my father raised me. My grandfather told my mother to be politically silent or else be "disappeared" by the government. In America, she could be hopeful that her sons could be whoever they honestly were.

In 1982, I was born in Red Bank. My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I came out to my parents in 2006, and my parents now support marriage equality.

Through their patient work while waiting to earn American citizenship and through their acceptance of me as their gay son because they knew me personally, my parents taught me that acceptance and recognition reward patiently introducing one's honest self. That's why I'm hopeful as a I write this letter about my family story, my American story, and ask for your vote to pass marriage equality in New Jersey.

Civil unions are not a substitute at the hospital for being able to say, "We're married." I am a gay New Jersey resident hoping to be allowed to have a husband one day, so I honestly need your vote.

Sincerely,

David Liao

Legislative District 15

Causes

I hope you visit these organizations I support. Follow me on facebook and twitter to suggest organizations to support.

2009

Princeton Fund for Reunion

$10.00 2009 December 31

Oxfam America

$10.00 2009 December 31

Garden State Equality

$25.00 2009 December 31 (GSE Action Fund 501 c4)

$25.00 2009 December 31 (GSE Educational Fund 501 c3)

Harvey Mudd College

$25.00 2009 December 31

American Civil Liberties Union

$12.50 2009 December 31

WNET/Thirteen

$15.00 2009 December 31

Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research: Kinematics for a Cure Jess, Luc, and Audy

$12.50 2009 September 04

Maine Freedom to Marry/Equality Maine/Protect Maine Equality

$5.00 2009 November 02 (plus $0.25 tip to ActBlue, http://www.actblue.com/page/noon1redalert) http://gay.americablog.com/2009/10/one-last-money-push-for-maine-message.html

$17.50 2009 October 15 (plus $0.87 tip to ActBlue)

$10.00 2009 September 30 (plus $0.50 tip to ActBlue)

$10.00 2009 August 20 (plus $0.50 tip to ActBlue)

$5.00 2009 July 15 (plus $0.25 tip to ActBlue)

$7.50 2009 June 23

Lambda Legal

$5.00 2009 June 24 -- Thanks to Robin Baur for the suggestion.

George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund

$5.00 2009 June 23

Jon Corzine for New Jersey Governor 2009

$10 2009 June 23

Human Rights Campaign

$12.50 2009 December 31

$7.50 2009 June 15 in thanks for Joe Solmonese's letter to Obama re: U.S. vs. Smelt

$20 2009 January 20

Americablog

$5.00 2009 June 15 for working on U.S. vs. Smelt

New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus

$20.00 2009 November 10 (in kind)

$20.00 2009 June 12

2008

No on Prop 8 $1010

Barack Obama for President $50

Hillary Clinton for President $25

New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus $30

Electronic Frontier Foundation $15

Free Software Foundation $15

Additional donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union, Northern California Public Broadcasting (PBS stations KTEH and KQED), and Oxfam America.

NJGMC and Christian atheism

First posted online 2008 May 04.

Our choir conductor asked us to write short responses to some questions for an upcoming concert. He asked, "How has being involved with NJGMC changed you"? I wrote

In 1998 I found my voice at a summer camp that reached out to youth music ministers at Chinese churches. During my membership in the Protestant faith, music was an essential tool for coordinating the community to witness its most fundamental beliefs. I received dismissive resistance and disrespectful judgment when I came out in college, first as an agnostic/atheist, then as a gay man. Christianity and I parted on unfriendly terms. I kept singing, but I performed no outreach repertoire for a decade. Joining NJGMC reminded me that music was a tool to convey personal experiences and hopes for community reconciliation in emotional and artistic terms that written platforms sometimes cannot. By joining NJGMC I met members of living, inclusive Christian faiths. NJGMC reminded me that music was a tool for nurturing and healing society, and through NJGMC I found a community that affirmed for atheists, as much as it affirmed for adherents of any other faith, the responsibility and privilege of bearing witness to social needs and hopes.

on Saturday afternoon, 2008 May 3.

Equality Forum 2008

This afternoon the choir sang at the 2008 Equality Forum National Faith Service in Philadelphia, PA. http://www.equalityforum.com/2008/interfaith.cfm The speaker was the retired Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong who affirmed what I had written the preceding day. Traditional conservative literal Christian theology claimed that through disobedience humankind fell from its God-given perfection to worthless dependence on divine salvation. Literally, Jesus is sacrificed in humankind's place. This obsession with worthlessness is a form of congregational abuse, which then leads the abused congregation to abuse others: Jews, African slaves, African Americans, women, and now queer minorities. Spong explains that minority oppression and its roots in self-denigration explain Christianity's modern battles with Darwinian evolution and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and the rest of the queer alphabet soup. Darwin claimed that humanity is a work in progress; we never fell from perfection. We need no rescue, and in liberal interpretation Jesus is not a barbaric sacrifice for our wretchedness, but an example for us to improve ourselves. The LGBT community happens to be the in-vogue minority group upon which to transfer abuse. Spong reads in the book of John the purpose of Jesus: that humankind might have life and have it abundantly. In other words, Jesus showed how we might be ourselves without putting others down, eventually freeing us to give ourselves to others. Spong opened his sermon by apologizing to the LGBT community for the suffering that the Christian community has wrought.

Christian atheism

Spong belongs to a group of theological dissenters who use the name Christian in ways that no one from my childhood church ever would. I would consider Spong and similar liberal Christians atheists. They do not take literally the concept of a divine magic man in the sky or even anywhere "out there." Instead, the concept of God is more like a quality, like that of perfect Love. Jesus held the title of Lord for showing what this God was. Jesus was raised from death when his work and teachings continued God in the world after his physical death. I see no serious distinction between my beliefs and Spong's. Anglican Christian atheism reminds me of Unitarian Universalism and Reform Judaism. These religions share two aspects. First, each of them affirms liberal humanitarian principles. Don't mess with people just because they are different. One would probably find among adherents of these faiths many members of the American Civil Liberties Union. Second, each of these religions bear witness to the hopes for using a long-cherished human belief system for humanitarian good in a modern world. These religions recognize people's spiritual or aspiritual inclinations as tools that can be honed for global benefit. I hold that my atheism, scientific atheism, is a religion like those just mentioned. I support the American Civil Liberties Union and I keep alive the practice of natural science because I think it deserves a chance to be a tool for spreading well-being and kindness. I prefer to think of disbelief or the absence of belief as examples of belief systems in the sense that negative numbers are part of the real number line even though sometimes they are distinguished from the positive values. Furthermore, a common thread among atheists is the expectation that no evidence shall ever surface persuading the scientific method of the presence of personal God-like beings. Strictly speaking I remain agnostic on this issue since I live purely in the present. Strictly speaking it is a matter of faith to believe fully that no such evidence shall ever appear. Let me get back to the philosophy at another time. Let me end by saying that these religions agree that we can improve the human condition by cherishing and reflecting upon diverse spiritual heritages, and the responsibilities and privileges of bearing witness to social needs, hurts, and hope belong to all people regardless of specific spiritual heritage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson

Philosophy and religion

First posted 2008 June 15 as a personal page linked from my facebook profile.

This description is a cartoon of my religion, in part, because it is a goal rather than an achievement, and, in part, because I simplified the philosophy and psychology for brevity. My religion looks in some ways like what secular humanism would become if it were modified in the way that Christianity was modified to bring forth liberal Episcopalian and Unitarian Universalist practices or in the way that Judaism was modified to become Reform Judaism. See also Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria, a related, but distinct philosophy http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Person

I would like to use the word religion to collect some attempts to describe, prescribe, and practice "sustaining personhood." To the degree that an entity displays intelligence, sentience, and communicates a will, I say that the entity is a person.

Mindfulness

Don't panic -- Constructive interactions with reality often depend on surrendering immediate eruptions of grasping, struggling, and urgent concern. A mental anchor, I like to use the rise and fall of the breath or a dead stare, helps focus quiet attention upon the present. Other mental anchors in common use include schedules of rituals, fasts, and feasts.

Social contract

Exercise wisdom -- the discipline to focus, despite immediate desire and concern, proficient intent upon actions the foresight of intelligence and responsibility recommend Account for responsibilities honestly -- no person may demand another person's obligation by mere wish. We agree to make clear expectations and commitments in written contract and an intentionally sincere reflection of such records in oral memory. Exercise intelligence -- the ability to describe perception accurately, completely, and with productive brevity. Practice science -- the practice of describing perception accurately, completely, and with maximum brevity gives a coordinating language for government and social discussions

Affirm faith and reason

In human languages I speak, the word "truth" describes propositions in logic and faith, but the meaning of the word shifts with context. There is similar sloppiness in computer programming. In MatLab, I could declare a variable a = 1; equal to the integer unity. I could also declare a variable b = boolean(1); equal to the boolean value "truth" with binary representation 1. These variables are distinct. MatLab reports that a == b; a and b are labeled by the same binary value, 1, but the contents of these variable include their type, not just their number, and a and b are distinct because the integer 1 is not the boolean 1. I emphasize a similar distinction between the labels "reasoned truth/knowledge" and "truth/knowledge in conviction" despite their interchangeability in human speech. In the context of reason, I say that a proposition is "true" or "knowledge" when it is consistent with the scientific method, including the almost-aesthetic criterion of Occam's razor. In context of faith, I say that a proposition is "true," "knowledge," or "known with complete conviction," when its proposition raises within my gut a vibrant expectation and sense of presence or reality. Believing in a personal god while evaluating the proposition of god as scientifically false are compatible expressions. Such simultaneous expressions do not render a person internally inconsistent or cognitively dissonant.

Value of faith and skepticism

Sentience is finite. We do not witness during the performance of logic the atomic psychological processes that sustain our consciousness. You don't speak fluently by contracting and relaxing consciously each pair of muscles that control your breath, tongue, and lips. You "intend" the words and sentences, and underlying circuitry manifests the motions of your mouth. To sing, I sometimes conjure images of acoustic space and energy sources. I can hold that physics disproves the literal interpretation of these images while at the same time devoting to the images sincere trust, and by such feeling coordinate the production of sound otherwise impossible. While results vary by person, most people summon some degree of emotional communication to coordinate within themselves and with their peers the actions required for cooperation. I affirm in logic the value of faith for such coordination, and I affirm in logic that valuable practices include the practices of faith and skepticism.

Value the search for dispassionate logic

I have met no person divorced from passion, but the professional pursuit of dispassionate logic is nevertheless fruitful. We use the fruits of scientific analysis and engineering each day: information technology, electricity, etc.

I use frequently the label "atheist"

My personal philosophy is agnostic, my logical model of the world is atheistic, and my taste in faith is mixed. I like using nihilistic language as a reminder not to take things too seriously, but I don't like rehearsing it exclusively. Mere logical affirmation is sometimes insufficient for enabling wisdom that follows through with proposals for social cooperation. Sometimes a person more effectively focuses consideration on others or brings forth courage for tasks of magnitude by envisioning and trusting spectacular images historically described as "spiritual." I feel that two people who hold philosophies similar to the one described on this page, with the exception of the issues in the preceding paragraph, differ on issues of taste. They're kneading similar dough, differing primarily when choosing cutters they use to sculpt their goods. The joys, well-wishes, and attention invested in preparation and the good works and community built by sharing and enjoying these pastries are robust to changes in outward form. Many members of the church of my childhood were fundamentalist Protestants. The responses I received for revealing my agnosticism and coming out gay hurt. The philosophy on this page allowed me gradually over the last year to participate with the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus in singing at congregation services. I share in the feast of those liturgical practices that resonate with my philosophy, and I leave on the plate others that don't match my tastes.

Acknowledgments and influences

Fundamental Protestant Christianity Secular humanism and atheism Agnosticism Episcopalian Christianity (Spong) Unitarian Universalism Reform Judaism New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus Nihilism and existentialism Mindfulness and Eastern meditation Lockean social contract theory Hume Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics Family and friends

Why discuss gay marriage

First posted 2008 November 22 on a separate website.

Friends have asked me why it matters to argue about the names of partnerships like civil unions and marriages. As a country, I think we must maintain awareness of other issues including torture, education, and social security, but the question of gay marriage has arisen in various ballot initiatives and court cases, and I have personal experience being a sincere and fervent support of opposing sides in this debate, so I feel people might be interested in my perspective.

The gay marriage debate embraces at least three questions: (1) What set of legal rights and responsibilities enumerated under traditional civil marriage laws should government afford same-sex relationships? (2) If the response to (1) is that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex and heterosexual couples should be the same, then should the legal constructs afforded to these kinds of couples be given the same legal name? (3) If the response to (2) is that same-sex and heterosexual couples should be indistinguishable in legal nomenclature, should the label afforded both kinds of couples be civil unions, marriage, or something else? In practice it is by far most important to answer question (1), but the question at hand in California is actually (2). California answered question (1) by providing domestic partnerships, which enumerate for same-sex couples all of the rights that civil marriages enumerate for heterosexual couples. The court case "In re: Marriage Cases" and Proposition 8 ask question (2): should these enumerated rights be enumerated under the same label. Does it matter? Think of all the vows that you've ever heard at gay and straight weddings. Remember how the partners described how they improved and completed each other. Remember how they described their feelings and lives. Your mileage may vary, but as far as I can tell, the relative sexes of the partners distinguishes the meaning of the vows in the same way as their relative skin colors--with consequence insufficient to distinguish the unions in name. In my personal philosophy, neither the distinction between same-sex and heterosexual unions nor the distinction between interracial and intrarracial should be recognized in the names of those legal unions. Having a segregated legal vocabulary, with its connotations lent to the vernacular, could encourage a culture of viewing these distinctions, rather than the orientation-neutral aspects of the family-forming process, as the important features that deserve to define the unions. I don't think that's beneficial for family values. In my experience, Evangelical Christian theocrats constitute a disproportionate fraction of proponents for reserving a distinguished name for heterosexual unions. I draw a partial parallel with Christian support into the twentieth century for reserving a distinct name for intraracial unions. In both cases, the reservation of a special term for heterosexual legal unions has for significant motivation and effect the respect of conservative Abrahamic beliefs. In the case of gay unions, I believe this religious influence is not merely significant, but primary, so I find nomenclature segregation unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.

Orientation-neutral civil unions alongside heterosexual marriage

Because of the significant time that might intervene before all 50 States and the federal government recognize same-sex marriage, I am interested in considering stop-gap measures for partial rights. Civil unions for same-sex couples are one method that some States have explored. I would be interested in the viability in general and on a State-by-State basis of the proposal below: leave civil marriage for heterosexual couples for now while adding civil unions that are available to both same-sex and heterosexual couples. The primary purpose of this document is to articulate the proposal, with only a cursory exploration toward the end of features relevant to political viability.

ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL CIVIL UNIONS AND PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PROPOSAL

David Liao

DRAFT 2008 November 6 14h24 EST

Princeton, NJ

PURPOSE: To write a legal construction that addresses priorities from different sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

PROBLEM: Traditional marriage proponents and same-sex marriage proponents hold conflicting priorities. The fight for highly incompatible laws favoring either side consumes a lot of time, money, and energy that should probably be spent somewhere else, like solving our massive shortfall in entitlements, preventing nuclear proliferation, supporting education, maybe even mitigating genocide if that can be done realistically. To enumerate these views from both sides with accuracy, I must include moral statements from both sides, but for the purpose of this document I'm not discussing whether these judgments are "true." We can do that in university research on psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy. I'm asking whether we can write a proposal for law that satisfies enough of these priorities so that both sides of the debate can agree to a political solution. Two sides can disagree morally, and they can each view a proposed law as a compromise of their consciences and beliefs, but those sides can nevertheless agree to sign such proposals into law as a matter of political business. Traditional marriage proponents frequently hold

T1. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

T2. The orientation of the partners distinguishes fundamentally relationships from each other. The distinction is so fundamental that it should be enshrined in civil law. The legal instruments that afford civil protections to same-sex relationships should be distinguished in name from civil protections for heterosexual relationships.

T3. Heterosexual relationships are the best relationships for social functions including raising children. Therefore, same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal recognition that looks anything like marriage. These beliefs are often inspired by Evangelical Christian readings of the Bible or by research that is biased severely by such religious beliefs, i.e. Family Research Council.

Same-sex marriage (personally I prefer to refer to myself as an orientation-neutral civil marriage proponent) often hold the following priorities regarding civil law

S1. Government should afford same-sex relationships the same substantive legal protections and obligations currently afforded to heterosexual marriage by enumeration in marriage law.

S2. Government should offer these protections and obligations by way of a legal instrument that treats different-sex and same-sex couples in the same way, same even in the name given to the instrument. To offer parallel institutions of civil unions for same-sex couples, but not for most heterosexual couples alongside civil marriages for heterosexual couples, but not for same-sex couples, is demeaning to both civil unions and civil marriages. The mere observation that a same-sex couple is not a heterosexual couple is by itself inocuous and factual: we can obviously distinguish between gay and straight couples. However, to emphasize this distinction in the name of legal instruments trivializes other important aspects relationships, i.e. that loving relationships constitute family units that should be enjoy civil protections and responsibilities.

S3. Same-sex relationships are fundamentally identical to heterosexual relationships, and the legal instrument of civil marriage already exists fully coded in precedent and in writing, so the legal instrument protecting same-sex relationships should be none other than civil marriage.

I don't see a way to satisfy each priority; taken together they appear incompatible. However, I have also ranked the priorities according to the importance that typical proponents might assign to them, and I propose a legal instrument that satisfies priorities T1 and S1 while satisfying in compromised sense both T2 and S2.

SOLUTION: ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL CIVIL UNIONS I propose that we enact civil unions at the State and federal level that bring all the State and federal rights and responsibilities of civil marriage with the eligibility requirements of civil marriage, except that the genders of the partners need not be different.

SATISFIES T1 TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PRIORITY: MAN-WOMAN DEFINITION This construction does not modify in text the heterosexual-only civil marriage laws in States and federal code. This construction would be compatible with State and federal laws and Constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus priority T1 is satisfied.

SATISFIES S1 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRIORITY: EQUAL ENUMERATED PROTECTIONS The construction by definition affords to same-sex unions all rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual marriages as those rights and responsibilities are _enumerated_ _under_ civil marriage law.

COMPROMISED SATISFACTION OF T2 TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PRIORITY: SAME-SEX PROTECTIONS AND HETEROSEXUAL PROTECTIONS MUST BE DISTINCT IN NAME The construction of orientation-neutral civil unions leaves intact some distinction between same-sex unions and heterosexual civil marriages. Same-sex couples must use a legal instrument that is open to same-sex and different-sex couples alike, but different-sex couples can use marriage, which is not available to same-sex couples. Thus the instruments available to same-sex and different-sex couples are distinct in name.

COMPROMISED SATISFACTION OF S2 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRIORITY: SAME-SEX PROTECTIONS AND HETEROSEXUAL PROTECTIONS MUST BE INDISTINCT IN NAME The construction of orientation-neutral civil unions gives to same-sex couples and different-sex couples an instrument for recognizing legal rights and responsibilities that does not change its name according to the relative sexes of the partners. By virtue of the that T2 and S2 can both be satisfied, in spirit the satisfaction is compromised in both cases. The remaining priorities are not satisfied. Same-sex relationships are not outright denied legal protections, so T3 is not satisfied. Same-sex relationships are not called marriages in legal code, so S3 is not satisfied.

RESULTS AND ADVANTAGES COMPARED WITH EXISTING PROPOSALS POLITICAL VIABILITY -- No politician GOP or Democrat can viably deny legal protections to same-sex couples, but at the same time it is politically impossible (at this time) to offer orientation-neutral civil marriage in most States and certainly at the federal level. An orientation-neutral civil union separate from a heterosexual civil marriage law is more palatable. It can also be constructed in pieces. States with domestic partnerships/civil unions sometimes start by constructing small unions with a handful of basic protections, i.e. hospital visitation. As the public becomes comfortable, additional protections are added until civil unions enumerate all the same rights that civil marriages enumerate. Related unions do get passed into law: France has a Pacte de Solidarite which is an orientation-neutral domestic partnership enumerating a subset of rights enumerated by marriage laws.

ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH LEGACY LAWS -- Orientation-neutral civil unions can be added to the law books of many States and the federal government even when Constitutions strictly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This could not be done for orientation-neutral civil marriage. Unfortunately, states with laws that withhold the legal rights and responsibilities enumerated by marriage for unmarried couples are incompatible with my proposal. However, those states also have domestic violence problems because by passing those amendments they have unwittingly removed vital protections for heterosexual couples living out of wedlock. This is just one reason to repeat State amendments withholding the protections enumerated by marriage laws from unwed couples, and if States repeal these amendments, orientation-neutral civil unions become legally possible.

FINE-GRAIN DEMOCRACY -- We agree to a sets of laws governing millions of Americans at the federal level and often millions of Americans at State levels. It is expensive to administer votes and changes to laws, so we go years between ballot measures attempting to make large changes to law. If we can't quite agree to a proposal in a given election, even if we are talking about 52%-48% margins, and even if those views change in a matter of months following the election, we have to wait years before we bring the issue to vote again.

While enacting orientation-neutral civil unions would provide immediate written guarantees of protections, responsibilities, and nomenclature for same-sex and different-sex couples, the social respect afforded to a civil union as opposed to a marriage would remain a matter of personal belief and collective social attitude. The orientation-neutral civil union is a vehicle by which straight and gay couples can gradually move society toward a non-discriminating culture.

Everytime a straight or gay couple elects to enter into an orientation-neutral civil union, that's a public written statement and cultural vote in favor of equal respect for same-sex and different-sex unions. The orientation-neutral civil union can also be a vehicle by which conservatives can maintain society's traditional values. A conservative couple can choose to decline an orientation-neutral civil union and instead choose a heterosexual civil marriage as a written statement and cultural vote that this special institution retains contemporary relevance, moral importance, and social consequence. The proportion of straight couples who choose one option is a way for conservative and progressive straight couples to communicate back to society a collective opinion of the relative importance of heterosexual civil marriage vs. orientation-neutral civil unions.

The aspect of the same-sex marriage debate that has fundamental importance for the traditional marriage proponents is whether government and society should respect and recognize same-sex unions. I understand that generally the traditional marriage position is that same-sex unions deserve basically no respect or recognition because gay people deserve to go to hell. If the traditional marriage proponents cannot let their government give the full respect and recognition of civil marriage to same-sex unions, can they at least agree to institute orientation-neutral civil unions for the purpose of allowing straight couples to choose the kind of union they wish to enter? I know that just bringing the issue to a vote is insulting for both sides of the debate, but these issues keep coming up, so can we at least agree to make changes to make the vote occur in a more real-time way? I'm asking that we provide the option for straight couples to enter either heterosexual civil marriages or orientation-neutral civil unions so that straight couples can voice their respect for traditional marriage or orientation-neutral civil unions in an organic process that is smooth and on-going in contrast to the brief punctuations that we get every couple of years under the current system of ballot measures and polls. I'm asking that we introduce the legal currency of orientation-neutral civil unions alongside the legal currency of heterosexual civil marriages that already exists. Straight couples will then have the democratic power to endow those currencies with value that varies according to the frequency of couples who enter each kind of union. Gay couples will have the opportunity to influence currency values by choosing to accept or decline orientation-neutral civil unions.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I hope this proposal offers something for people from various persuasions.

LIBERTARIAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM -- Eventually I hope that heterosexual civil marriage because unused legacy law. That society would probably find it easy by legislation or lawsuit to strike the law from the books, leaving only a secular civil union. I hope that this goal can attract from Libertarians who believe in minimizing government. I'm not proposing to abolish marriage rights altogether, but I'm proposing a structure that might one day eliminate from our laws language that is maintained for the mere purpose of paying special respect to certain religious faiths.

PARTIAL ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SECULAR STRAIGHT COUPLES -- Orientation-neutral civil unions give straight couples the option of entering into unions whose name does not hold religious overtones. In States with same-sex-only civil unions, straight couples do not have this option yet.

PROGRESSIVE PRAGMATISM -- I believe the hallmark of the Democratic party is becoming the ability to deal with a ground situation and temper the pursuit of ideology and ideological strong-arming in order to achieve practical goals. Democrats are willing to drill for oil in order to pass energy legislation. I personally would be willing to leave civil marriage between a man and a woman _for now_ if I could sooner and over a broader section of American States secure orientation-neutral civil unions.

GRANDFATHERING RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM -- Leaving intact contemporary heterosexual civil marriage laws so that they might stand alongside the new orientation-neutral civil unions laws gives religious conservatives an institution all their own, for which they can show support by electing to enter civil marriages rather than the civil unions that would be open to same-sex and different-sex couples alike. They can have this option for now and for years as long as straight couples have the option to enter into civil unions.

METHODS I would prefer to enact these changes through legislation, but I guess we could also affect parts of it by having straight couples sue for the right to enter into civil unions rather than civil marriage. Lawsuit is probably not an ideal way to do this since religiously conservative Justices might judge in favor of separate but equal in order to avoid judgments that could easily be turned around to allow same-sex access to civil marriage.

Not all gay men have AIDS

First posted on my other website 2009 June 22.

If you followed a link to this page, you might want to use the "Revisions" tab to find the version that was cited. I've been editing, and some of the sections might be moving around. I grew up in a conservative Chinese Christian household, but my parents were very supportive when I came out. They scheduled a visit to NJ so they could hear me sing with the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus, where they were happy to meet my boyfriend. My mom said she remembered one of the songs because she and my father danced to it in the 1970s. They met through ballroom dance. The pastor at the old church they visited gave a sermon against same-sex marriage saying that gay men have a life expectancy of 40 years and that average healthcare costs would decrease if we did not have the problem of gay men with AIDS. I asked to talk to the pastor, who responded hoping to find common ground. I disagree with the idea that we should ban same-sex marriage because people have HIV. My guess is that we agree we can and want to reduce HIV-related suffering by helping people to make informed choices about sexual behavior. Sexual contact exchanges bodily fluids, which can transmit HIV and other infections. The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission is abstinence, but barrier protection, awareness of the HIV status of the partners involved, and promiscuity are all factors that affect risk. I believe we prevent transmission by creating an open culture that encourages asking questions, learning about the varied risks associated with different forms of sexual contact, and having conversations with partners about condom use, fidelity, and blood testing.

Links

Condoms and blood testing (a) increase safety, but (b) do not guarantee it. It's everyone's responsibility to understand both of these features. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated relative risks associated with various sexual activities.

• Varghese, Maher, Peterman, Branson, Steketee, Sex Transm Dis. 29(1): 38--43 (2002). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11773877 (Click on the Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins link on that page to access the text).

Trying to change someone's sexual orientation is not productive. From personal experience and knowing lots of gay people, I imagine that trying to change someone's sexual orientation is probably about as effective and at least as painful as trying to force someone to change religion.

• "All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings." American Psychological Association accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatabout

Most gay men do not have HIV/AIDS.

• Based on CDC publications, a blogger estimated, "there are roughly 635,000 gay or bisexual men living with HIV/AIDS. This is about 12.0% of the gay male population. . . . These numbers are estimates." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 31 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/the-prevalence-of-hiv-in-the-gay-community
• You can perform a similar calculation using information from the CDC yourself. "MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men." Centers for Disease Control accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm The prevalence of HIV among men is described at the CDC link below accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/united_states.htm

Do all gay men get AIDS and have a life expectancy of 40 years? When I hear people say that all gay men have AIDS and have a life expectancy of 40 years, I feel I should provide a link describing the Family Research Council. I would be hesitant to cite content from the FRC as legitimate research.

• The Family Research Council cited a report as evidence that "committed" gay men have 8 partners outside the relationship each year. Their conclusion was not supported by the report because the "purpose of the study was to look at how AIDS is transmitted," so "all monogamous couples were specifically excluded from the study." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 21 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/21/2386
• In a 2001 paper, researchers who studied life expectancy among gay men during the 1980s and 1990s note that their research has been misused by organizations such as the Family Research Council to oppose gay civil rights. The researchers described their 1997 research, "we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. . . . In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia. . . . we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group." Emphases mine. Hogg, Strathdee, Craib, O'shaughnessy, Montaner and Schechter, "Gay life expectancy revisited," International Journal of Epidemiology 30(6):1499 (2001). http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
• Look at the faces of the men with whom I sing on the website of the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus. If gay men typically died around age 40, many, if not most of the chorus members wouldn't be part of the chorus. http://www.njgmc.org/

Culturally-related factors can contribute significantly to HIV transmission rates and prevalence. The transmission rate among men who have sex with men varies wildly among ethnic groups. At the order-of-magnitude level, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male population is similar to the prevalence in the general adult populations of some sub-Saharan African countries.

• "The high numbers of new HIV infections in young, black MSM are of great concern because the number of new infections was approximately twice that of young white and Hispanic/Latino MSM of the same ages (between 13 and 29 years)." Centers for Disease Control accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/qa/subpopulation.htm
• " . . . HIV/AIDS does not impact the gay community uniformly. For example, African American men who have sex with men are ten times as likely to be HIV positive than white MSM." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 31 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/the-prevalence-of-hiv-in-the-gay-community

I think opposing same-sex marriage is an unproductive way to address the transmission of HIV. It might make the problem worse. The press release below describes such speculation, though I withhold comment regarding the research itself, which I have not yet read.

• "'Intolerance is deadly,' Mialon said. 'Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk.'" "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rate," Emory University, 2009 June 4 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html

Associating HIV/AIDS with gay men could lead to unnecessary HIV transmission among straight people by giving them an exaggerated sense of safety.