An Analysis and Evaluation of Rep.Tammy Baldwin's Respect for Marriage Act - Essay Example

? An Analysis and Evaluation of Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s Respect for Marriage Act For Representative Tammy Baldwin, anopenly gay Congresswoman and cosponsor to the Respect for Marriage Act, gays and lesbians in America have as much a right to marriage as heterosexuals. If the act were passed, it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which currently bans same-sex marriage in the United States. This means that gays and lesbians all over America would be able to marry freely. With this moral issue currently under fire from conservatives, I propose to defend Baldwin’s stance on the basis of its utility. If arguing from a utilitarian standpoint, I will be able to prove that the Baldwin’s decision to push for the Respect for Marriage Act is in fact a morally good decision. I will be able to do this despite rebuttals from the critics of utilitarianism and the proponents of Kantian ethics. The issue of same-sex marriage has always been a moral issue in the United States, as well as in the rest of the world. In the United States, despite the American Psychiatric Association declaring in 1973 that homosexuality is not a disease (“Facts about Homosexuality,” UCDavis), religious and conservative groups in the country have maintained their stance on homosexuality despite the fact that European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as neighboring Canada, have instituted same-sex marriages (Robinson). Despite the fact that the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia have already begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, 37 states are still under the Defense of Marriage Act (“Same-Sex Marriage,” NCSL). This means that the majority of the states, as well as the federal government, still do not recognize the sanctity and legality of same-sex marriages even in those states that allow such kind of marital union. This is where Wisconsin Representative Tammy Baldwin comes in and her Respect for Marriage Act. This bill, which is sponsored by 108 members of the Congress (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org), is, according to Baldwin, the answer to the “unconstitutional” and “un-American” Defense of Marriage Act (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org). The Respect for Marriage Act, if enacted, will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and will restore the rights of same-sex marriage couples to receive the benefits of marriage as prescribed by federal law. Another purpose of the bill is for same-sex marriages in the states that institute them to be recognized by the federal government as well as the other states that do not institute such a type of marriage (“Respect for Marriage Act,” HRC.org; “Political Positions”). In fact, the bill was re-introduced in Congress on March 16, 2011 (“Respect for Marriage Act,” HRC.org). Representative Baldwin, who is one of the staunch defenders of the bill and one of the six representatives who reintroduced it in Congress (“Respect for Marriage Act,” Okeq.org), pushes for the approval of the bill with determination and conviction perhaps due to the fact that she herself is openly gay (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org). The fact that Baldwin is homosexual herself may somehow account for her purely altruistic motives in pushing for the bill, whereas the heterosexual congressmen who cosponsor the bill may somehow do it only for hidden political agendas. Baldwin, however, may actually be motivated to do it purely for the sake of all her gay fellows. With around 9 million gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, adults in the United States who are ready to benefit from the institution of the act (“New Research,” The Williams Institute), the question now is whether this decision of Representative Baldwin is morally good or not. Based, however, on a recent Pew poll survey, 45% support same-sex marriage and 46% oppose it (“Respecting,” LA Times). This data is hopefully representative of the currently 310.5 million Americans (Schlesinger, USNews). However, the LGBT community is themselves divided into those supporting same-sex marriages and those who probably do not (Harris), although exact numbers are not available. It is, however, possible that not all members of the LGBT community are admittedly in favor of same-sex marriages, as not even all heterosexuals are in favor of marriage. These speculations, therefore, will affect the evaluation of the moral decision to be made by Representative Baldwin from a utilitarian standpoint. If I were to make a utilitarian decision procedure which reflects the moral decision about to be made by Representative Baldwin, it would definitely entail only two courses of action: to push for the bill and to defend it with all her might so that it will be passed, or to change her mind now and withdraw her support for it. For either course of action, those who will be affected include Representative Baldwin herself, the 108 sponsors of the bill, the entire LGBT community, and the American people. Baldwin herself is the one who helped push for the bill and is openly gay herself, thus she is directly affected by whatever the outcome of her decision is going to be. The 108 sponsors will also be directly affected by the institution of the Respect for Marriage Act and will earn the respect they deserve as politicians, whether or not they are really doing this for the good of the LGBT community or for selfish political reasons. As for the LGBT community, to whom the bill is addressed, the institution of the act will surely benefit many same-sex couples who are into marriage, although whatever Baldwin’s decision is, it may not benefit everyone in the community. The American people are also affected, although indirectly, because the recognition of same-sex marriages by the federal government will definitely affect the Social Security system as well as the general concept of marriage that will be taught to all children in all American schools. Thus, these four are the ones directly and indirectly affected by Baldwin’s decision. If Baldwin pushes for the institution of the Respect for Marriage Act and if the act is passed, Baldwin herself will benefit from its pleasure, thus giving 1/0 evaluation for the moral decision. The same pleasure also awaits the 107 other sponsors of the bill, thus yielding a 107/0 with no pain at all on their part. However, as for the LGBT community, considering that not all of them may be into marriage (Harris), perhaps only 90% will benefit from Baldwin’s decision, thus accounting for 90/0. Lastly, for the American people, since 45% are in favor of same-sex marriages (“Respecting,” LA Times) and that the 46% who are against it may remain unaffected by the decision, the yield is 45/0. This accounts for a total of 243/0, with 243 representing the amount of pleasure and 0 for pain. It will therefore be a purely pleasurable and an entirely painless moral decision to make. The value for pain, however, may increase a little bit if some of the 46% who are against same-sex marriages will be emotionally and directly affected by the institution of the Respect for Marriage Act. Pastors and priests, as well as other conservative and religious group leaders, may feel the pain of defeat if this is passed. Nevertheless, their number may actually be insignificant compared to those who will benefit from the pleasure. On the other hand, if Baldwin withdraws support for the institution of the bill and if this decision eventually leads to the trashing out of the Respect for Marriage Act, she herself will obviously experience pain as the bill is one of her masterpieces and as she is a homosexual herself. Thus, this will yield a 0/1 accounting for her pain. The other 107 sponsors of the bill will also feel the pain of defeat if the bill is quashed in Congress, thus accounting for 0/107. The LGBT community will also most likely experience the same kind of pain, or even deeper, thus yielding 0/90. The remaining 10% of the members of the LGBT community, who are assumed to be indifferent to the idea of same-sex marriage, are not accounted for and will presumably never rejoice in the defeat of the bill, which is supposedly for their fellows. Neither, however, will they and their lives be affected by the quashing of the bill. Moreover, as for the American people, since 46% are against same-sex marriage (“Respecting,” LA Times), then it is inevitable that this group will feel the pleasure of victory over the institution of a law that favors same-sex marriage, which most of the 46% may consider as evil. The 45% who are in favor of same-sex marriage, will, however, most likely feel the pain of defeat of a cause that they somehow shared. This pain is perhaps borne out of altruism for their brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. Thus, the yield is 46/45, where 46 represents pleasure and 45 pain. If, therefore, Baldwin decides to withdraw her support from the bill, the yield from a utilitarian standpoint is 46/243, where pain obviously outweighs the pleasure. The value for pleasure, however, may be lower than 46 if the 46% who are against the bill will either share the grief of the LGBT community or just remain indifferent to the decision. Thus, from the point of view of utilitarianism, Baldwin’s decision will either produce almost zero pain but full pleasure, or almost zero pleasure but pure pain. Based on the details above, it is therefore right for Baldwin to push for the institution of the Respect for Marriage Act. After evaluating the moral decision that is to be made by Baldwin using the utilitarian principle of Mill, I will now try to do the same thing to it using the first formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative. The first formulation is defined as: “I will do A in order to accomplish B,” and that that A can be made into a universal law, which means that it is always right under all circumstances. Therefore, for Baldwin and her decision concerning the Respect for Marriage Act, the first formulation of Kant applies in this way: “If Baldwin pushes for the bill that will recognize same-sex marriage, the federal government and all states can recognize same-sex married couples and thus provide them with benefits intended for any legally married couple.” Although the purpose is clear and, as proven by the utilitarian decision procedure, will most likely produce a pleasurable result, Kantian ethics allows us to look into the nature of the method, which is “pushing the bill that will recognize same-sex marriage.” The ethical question now is this, “Is recognizing same-sex marriage right?” and if we reduced it further, it would end up like this, “Can same-sex marriage be regarded as a universal law?” Kant, without any hesitation, would naturally reply with a resounding NO. Same-sex marriage is, first of all, against the law of nature, which is for a man and a woman to marry. If same-sex marriage were considered a universal law, then the idea of procreation of children, which only a man and a woman can do, would be reduced to nothing. The concept of the traditional family with parents of opposite sexes will also be therefore violated, and thus there would not be any more need for the words “mother” or “father,” or even “husband” or “wife.” Most of all, if same-sex marriage were allowed, then, for Kant, it would mean that heterosexual marriages would not have any more value. Based on the first formulation of Kant, a lie and the truth cannot coexist, and that one must be wrong and the other right. Truth remains right for if it were the opposite, then promises would not be valued. In the same way, same-sex marriage must be wrong for if it were the opposite, then procreation, the idea of father/mother/husband/wife, and the idea of heterosexual marriages would be horribly reduced to nothing. If, therefore, Baldwin decides to push for the bill, it will clearly be an immoral decision based on Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative. If, however, Baldwin withdraws support of the bill, her decision will still not necessarily be moral, for despite her withdrawal of support, she still allows her fellow representatives to push for the bill. The moral decision, therefore, for Kant, which Baldwin should make is to push for the Defense of Marriage Act, which supports only heterosexual marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages. Based on Kantian ethics, therefore, it is immoral for Baldwin to push for the bill, which is an exact opposite if the decision were to be made from a utilitarian standpoint. Does the categorical imperative, however, suffice? I do not think so. For me, the best course of action is still for Baldwin to push for the bill, based on its expected amount of pleasure from a utilitarian point of view. I have three reasons for this. Firstly, the purpose of every act of Congress or any other government, I believe, is for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. I don’t think a government exists to promote ethical right and wrong just like Kantian ethics. Moral right and wrong are for religions and not governments. Governments must exist to always promote the greater good regardless of whether the greater good turns out to be a necessary evil. In the same way, I do not vote for political candidates for them to teach me what is right and wrong. I vote for them to serve me in the best possible way that I can be served. I am therefore ready to accept to fact that in serving the people and in satisfying them, certain traditional values must be sacrificed. Secondly, I believe the utilitarian decision is better than that deduced from Kant’s categorical imperative because Baldwin is simply choosing the decision that will entail true goodness. What is this true goodness? This is sacrificing even the goodness of tradition and of Christian values like traditional marriage just to help the less fortunate brothers and sisters who are members of the LGBT community. As a politician with a truly functional conscience, Baldwin, I believe, would never be able to rejoice in the goodness of tradition and of Christian values if deep in her heart she knows that members of the LGBT community also want to have the same marital rights that heterosexuals have. Therefore, Baldwin’s decision to sacrifice tradition and Christianity is a testament to true altruism. Even Jesus Christ did not follow the traditional Jewish law if it interfered with His desire to help someone on the Sabbath Day. Baldwin will simply do the same thing if she continues to push for the institution of the Respect for Marriage Act. Thirdly, the Kantian analysis, specifically its defense of the natural way of life, somehow lends itself to a number of weaknesses. First, unlike telling lies and telling the truth, which are exact opposites, the idea of same-sex marriage can coexist with and does not negate at all the idea of heterosexual marriage. Second, since same-sex marriage does not seek to replace heterosexual marriage, then the former does not therefore oppose the idea of procreation. Third, the terms husband/wife/father/mother are simply arbitrary and that the sanctity of the marriage does not depend at all on arbitrary terms. Fourth and lastly, and perhaps something that a proponent of Kant may have forgotten, marriage, just like any other human endeavor or any human union, depends upon pleasure and love, not upon tradition or rightness or wrongness. One marries not because it is the right thing to do or because this is allowed by the church – but because we love and derive pleasure from it. However, despite the sensibility of the utilitarian analysis, certain objections can be raised against it. One of the objections, which is obviously derived from Bernard Williams’ idea of consequentialism, is that, in case Baldwin decided to push for the act, it was instituted and there was a social upheaval that immediately ensued. There was an increase in the incidence of pedophilia committed by gays as well as a mass reversal of heterosexual marriage and the consequent inculcation of homosexuality and the value of homosexual marriage into the minds of children. If this truly happened, then homosexuality would then penetrate deeper into the society and, in the worst-case scenario, would eventually replace heterosexuality. If this would happen, then the utilitarian decision procedure in favor of the act would fail for there would be more pain felt by the heterosexuals concerned. Due to the unforeseen negative consequences, the utilitarian analysis in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act would then have failed. Nevertheless, these consequences, if they would happen, would not have been known beforehand. The utilitarian analysis is simply a guide on how good or how bad the outcome of a moral decision would be. There is no way that one would be able to look into the future in order to come up with the correct decision in the present. The utilitarian analysis cannot determine whether the decision would be correct or not, it can only determine what would be the best decision if all those affected were taken into consideration. In short, the analysis is simply more like an assumption, and, although it is the best one, it remains an assumption. A second objection to the utilitarian analysis is that Baldwin’s decision may be tantamount to condoning homosexuality. This objection, however, is clearly based on the fact that homosexuality is an evil that should either be destroyed or, at least, not be given recognition or attention. Although the American Psychiatric Association has declared that homosexuality is not a disease (“Facts about Homosexuality,” UCDavis), it remains to be a sin, as labeled by the Christian, Catholic and Islamic churches. Nevertheless, the point is not whether homosexuality is a disease or not, or a sin or not – the point is that we are talking here of around 9 million Americans. This is not an appeal to pity but rather a realistic assessment of the fact that 9 million Americans clearly deserve what the remaining 301.5 million deserve. Besides, the possible execution of the Respect for Marriage Act clearly does not interfere with any of the preexisting laws that favor heterosexuals. Perhaps a third objection to the choice of utilitarian analysis for Baldwin’s decision is based on Kantian ethics – isn’t it also the duty of the government to promote what is natural and to contradict whatever is against nature? True, but considering that death and old age are both natural phenomena, then does it mean that the government should promote these and should avoid all measures that keep an individual from growing old and dying? Although the duty of the government is to promote what is natural, this must not stop them from determining what is also best for the citizens even if the natural were to be sacrificed. Without this sacrifice, there would be no technology, no inventions, and no bills for the minority like the Respect for Marriage Act. Works Cited “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health.” UC Davis University of California. 2009. Web. 10 Jun 2011. Harris, Lee. “Misunderstanding Brokeback Mountain.” TCS Daily. 17 Jan 2006. Web. 10 Jun 2011. “New Research Answers Question: How Many LGBT People Are There in the United States?” PRWeb. 7 Apr 2011. Web. 10 Jun 2011. “Openly-Gay Congresswoman Proposes New Marriage Act.” National Public Radio. 18 Mar 2011. Web. 11 Jun 2011. “Political Positions of Tammy Baldwin.” ThePoliticalGuide.com. 2007. Web. 10 Jun 2011. “Respect for Marriage Act.” HumanRightsCampaign.org. 15 Mar 2011. Web. 11 Jun 2011. “Respect for Marriage Act.” OklahomansForEquality.org. 22 Mar 2011. Web. 11 Jun 2011. “Respecting All Marriages.” Los Angeles Times. 20 Mar 2011. Web. 10 Jun 2011. Robinson, B. A. “How Marriages Have Changed: In the Past, Present & Future.” ReligiousTolerance.org. 23 Dec 2007. Web. 11 Jun 2011. “Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.” National Conference of States Legislatures. May 2011. Web. 11 Jun 2011. “U.S. Population, 2011: 310 Million and Growing.” USNews. 30 Dec 2010. Web. 10 Jun 2011. Read More