No on Proposition 8: Allow Gay Marriage in California
I will be voting against Proposition 8, which seeks to change the state’s constitution to eliminate the judicially invented right to same sex marriage. The constitution would be amended to add the language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
I am angry about the California Supreme Court’s attempt to take this matter out of voters’ hands, and part of me wants to support the measure just to flip the bird to the justices. Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.
I have already made the arguments in the past. In this post I assessed the pros and cons of banning gay marriage. Here’s my view of the downside:
The downside of banning gay marriage is that homosexuals are made to feel that they are second-class citizens. I don’t know whether being gay is genetic, a learned behavior, or some combination of the two — but I am confident that it is something that people do not consciously choose. I certainly did not consciously choose to be sexually attracted to women; that is hard-wired into me somehow. I can’t imagine it’s different for gay men.
Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination. The policy question is whether this discrimination is justified on a societal level.
My conclusion is that it is not.
Those who want to ban gay marriage advance many alleged benefits of such a ban. One of their main arguments is that marriage is the cornerstone of our civilization — and if it is defined as anything other than its traditional meaning of a union between a man and a woman, it risks losing all meaning. In that same post, I disagreed with that argument, saying:
People get married for all sorts of reasons: love, companionship, stability, raising a family, and financial reasons, just to name a few. People stay married for a similarly wide variety of reasons. I don’t think that, for heterosexuals, the availability of marriage to homosexuals plays any part in the calculus of whether they get married, or whether they stay married.
Indeed, I have never heard a single heterosexual person blame the failure of his or her marriage on the availability of homosexual marriage. And if someone tried, I suspect they would be seen as scapegoating.
I know most readers will disagree with me on this, and I certainly don’t intend to demonize the view of those who support a traditional view of marriage. But I happen to disagree with them. I support gay marriage, and that’s the way I’m going to vote.
What if the propositon said the following?
“Nothing in the state constitution shall be construed to dictate whether or not only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Andrew (3b0903) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:46 pmI respect your vote, but one of the reasons marriages aren’t doing so well is because there’s less commitment to the institution. My feeling is a no on 8 vote only weakens that institution, not strengthens it. It’s one more step down the path to social licentiousness.
Nothing in the amendment takes away from current domestic partnership laws, although a no vote will indeed allow children as young as 5 years-old to be taught in public school that gay marriage is equivalent to a thousands-of-years-old historical institution. I support Proposition 8.
Americaneocon (a45113) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:47 pmAs a Californian, I will be enthusiastically voting Yes on 8. No gay marriage!
Laws should be made by a vote of the people or their representatives, not by judges.
Official Internet Data Office (184273) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:49 pmOfficial Internet Data Office: I agree with you when you say that laws should be made by a vote of the people and not judges. However, we have the chance to weigh in on the underlying substantive issue here, and I believe that our vote should be governed by our beliefs about gay marriage in general.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:52 pmI don’t mean to sound too cynical but does it really matter what you think? Is there any chance at all the California courts will let the voters’ decision decide this issue?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:55 pmIt seems to me like you’re voting to keep it a constitutional issue, which it is not.
Andrew (3b0903) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:55 pmWell, once again Patterico, we would split votes were I still residing in California …
I’m really quite neutral on the substantive question of gay marriage but feel that it would be important for me to rebuke the California Supreme Court in light of their rather disingenuous opinion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:56 pmI am in favor of civil unions with every protection for these unions that are included in the legal definition of marriage. My concern is with activists like Andrew Sullivan who, I believe, will use legalized gay marriage to force churches to perform these ceremonies at the pain of losing tax exempt status. The ultimate solution may be to separate civil marriage from religious marriage except that, in places like Canada where gay marriage is legal, only about 2% of gays actually get married and those are mostly lesbians.
I am also concerned about teaching six year olds about gay marriage. This part and parcel of the gay marriage issue. Why else are the teachers’ unions spending millions to support No on 8?
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:57 pmDRJ #5, that’s what Rose Byrd thought.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:57 pmYes on Prop 8.
The voters spoke out on this issue not too long ago. My position is the same as it was then. This proposition just corrects what some activist judges attempted to ‘fix.’
h2u (4a7c7f) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:57 pmWell, all right, Patterico. The underlying substantive issue is whether the activity is so loathesome as to preclude legal sanction. There are many other activities besides this one which are not sanctioned–like marrying a sister, for example. I believe that it’s loathesome, and since it is, I don’t want the State (in the legal sense) teaching everyone’s children, for example, that it’s perfectly normal.
Judges or no judges, no gay marriage!
Official Internet Data Office (184273) — 11/1/2008 @ 6:59 pmWhen those 4 Judges overthrew the will of the people an email went out from my employer, the State of California. It said, in short, that no change in state benefits would occur because gay marriage is now legal. No change in benefits. Gay partners already get everything that heterosexual partners get.
So why do they want that word, “Marriage”?
I have had my dictionary rewritten by “progressives” since I was a child. Marriage already has a definition, between a man and a wife. Let’s allow the gays to come up with their own word. I’ll respect them if they will respect me, but they don’t respect me. Listen to them talk about “breeders” and “christianists”. I don’t see why Marriage has to be redefined. They are not forcing us to accept gay marriage out of a respect for our views, and I don’t like being forced to accept anything, not gay marriage, not illegal immigration, not redistributive taxation.
tyree (5c7d89) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:03 pmI don’t mean to sound too cynical but does it really matter what you think? Is there any chance at all the California courts will let the voters’ decision decide this issue?
They won’t have a choice. An amendment to the constitution is an amendment to the constitution.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:05 pmHey, is anyone having any trouble getting through to the site tonight?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:05 pmI have no objection to gay people marrying, and I will vote against Prop 8, but how this will not sanction multiple marriages, as in radical Islam or loony ‘religions’ like the one recently in the news? Those marriages really do negatively impact society.
Seriously, I want a lawyer who has obviously thought this through to tell me.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:05 pmI think it’s a stupid semantical issue. If the California Supreme Court decides that women have a fundamental right to be called “sir” I’d vote against that too.
Andrew (3b0903) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:09 pmA thoughtful analysis and politically courageous statement. I have found this and related issues difficult to think through at times, but have come to similar conclusions and will be voting with you on this one.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:14 pmWhy else are the teachers’ unions spending millions to support No on 8?
This should be very troubling to every Californian who has children in a public school.
When one considers the continual complaint by CTA of inadequate salaries, decreased funding and massive reduction in programs, it really doesn’t make sense. Unless of course, they get something in return. And altruism is never at the heart of any teachers’ union.
One should also keep in mind that California is in the irritating habit of attempting to reshape and redefine culture.
Dana (dadfd3) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:17 pmHow the hell does it happen that a referendum stating the only legitimate definition of marriage that has ever existed in Western Civilization, gets called a “ban” on the union between a particular brand of sexual deviants? It’s a “ban” on every other brand of sexual deviant as well. It does not sanctify incest, pederasty, beastiality, homosexuality or any other fetish.
Why is homosexuality the only brand of perversion that gets chosen? What about all the others? What about their “rights”?
Marriage is one thing. No political stunt will change that. It will certainly undermine legitimate marriage, though. But thats the end game anyway.
ccoffer (799932) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:17 pmThanks Patterico!
I’ve been reading your blog for some time…and it’s refreshing to hear you say that.
I live in Alaska and was sickened when our state voted to amend our constitution to ban gay marriage some years back. California should be on the leading edge of social change…so don’t stop now.
I have three daughters and have always taught then to embrace gays as they would heteros like their parents. Something I’ve taught them since they heard “faggot” and “gay” as derogatory epithets on the playground. They know to confront kids who use those terms as the bigots they are.
I’ve contributed to the No on 8 campaign, and have phoned my California friends to get out the vote.
Fingers crossed.
Karl Rove (0fb832) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:32 pmI will vote yes on 8 because I do not feel that government should interfere with a social institution that has been around for millenia . If civil unions with all the privileges of marriage are not enough, nothing will be.
Until all the implications of marriage, including bigamy, divorce, community property, child support, alimony, polygamy etc are specified as related to homosexual marriage, we should not even consider a change in historic institutions of this magnitude.
I have no way of convincing anyone who believes differently and no one who does so believe has no way of convincing anyone who believes as I do. I hope this proposition passes, but I can no longer summon much enthusiasm. The abominations of our courts and the blatantly unconstitutional proposals of our politicians have reduced what might be a major issue to a sideshow. The actions of an Obama administration with a filibuster proof Senate would reduce the importance of gay marriage to about that of the 55 mph speed limit.
Ken Hahn (e62d83) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:50 pmA man and a woman do make a better marriage than two guys, two gals or two its. The Supreme Court of Calfornia is about as screwed up as the Legislature which whose wheels have fallen off. California is now some 25 billion in debt from wasted spending and the ballot is loaded with more programs and waste.
I don’t want my marriage and children to be confused with John and Jims antics. Pretty soon they will seperate and John will want to marry his ewe,
I guess that should be legal as well. I think it is in parts of San Francisco at the present time.
Typical Whte Person (9f4d2e) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:52 pmFirst, I haven’t had any problem accessing your website. Second, it’s not just the state courts that will weigh in on this issue. I don’t think California federal courts will abstain because of a California Constitutional amendment.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:53 pmLaws should be made by a vote of the people or their representatives, not by judges.
The fact that Prop 8 is on the ballot means that the people get to decide whether gay marriage is legal or not. That outcome has been accomplished just by putting it on the ballot.
Now the question is: should the people vote in favor of gay marriage or against? I hope the people of California choose to vote in favor of it, by voting NO on Prop 8.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:55 pmHere’s the thing, I’m from California and voted yes on prop. 8 after much deliberation with myself because I have many gay/lesbian friends (married and not) and I myself am bisexual (and that was never a conscious decision, I have been aware of my being attracted to both sex’s since the 5th grade). I grew up in a very conservative area of Virginia to conservative parents and it wasn’t a fad thing as I am 37 years old so at the time I was growing up it hadn’t become a cool or acceptable thing yet.
Voting yes on prop. 8 was a very hard decision for me as if I were to ever wish to marry another woman then I may have just taken that ability away from me. So why in the world did I vote that way?
Simple. I believe in the separation of church and state. I would love to have a chance to vote that no marriage (hetro or homo) be recognized by any state. I think that state’s should only recognize civil unions (both hetro and homo) and then if someone’s religious convictions lead them to marry before the church and God then they should do so as well. Marriage should have nothing to do with the state, period. As for gays wanting marriage, if you live in CA then it is fairly easy to find a church that will marry gay/lesbian couples. I am a Christian who willingly attends a church that does not accept the homosexual lifestyle but I know that less than an hour drive away in Sacramento I could attend a church that is all for it.
Unfortunately I doubt I will ever get to vote against marriage being a ‘state’ institution.
And in case anyone is wondering, I am a conservative, a proud Republican, voted McCain, and plan to marry a male next year.
A Californian (485ef9) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:55 pmFor some reason it cut my disclaimer off but my point in stating that I am a conservative etc. is because I get sick and tired of people assuming that I am a stinky liberal just because I swing both ways.
A Californian (485ef9) — 11/1/2008 @ 7:58 pmIf you vote yes on 8 you are compelling the government to interfere on an institution.
Raise your hand if you thing that a gay married couple will somehow destroy your hetero marriage. Dude I’m in one and I need no help screwing it up…a gay marriage is the least of our worries.
Are you worried about your kids in school? Why? Because they’ll learn it’s ok to be gay? Are you worried that they get the gay virus or something?
Relax. Your kids will be fine. It’s ok they will be taught that gay marriage is ok. They will grow up being who they are.
The alternative is to teach them that being gay is wrong. Almost all kids need to be brainwashed if that’s what you want them to believe because baseline is “so what?”
The fear is palpable. No on 8.
Please.
Karl Rove (0fb832) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:03 pmExactly.
I will be voting no on Prop 8. Thanks for speaking up, Patterico.
What do you think of the parental consent prop, and prop 5?
MayBee (3114aa) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:10 pmPatterico
Could it be that this gay marriage thing is really about money?
Its about forcing corporations to extend benefits including survivorship annuities to sex partners
To me – they have always been able to be together – this is IMO purely about money
EricPWJohnson (47b9ab) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:15 pmOfficial Internet Data Office, as a Californian, I would point out that our Supreme Court justices are required to sit for election periodically, and that anger at them over this issue can be voiced by voting against them when the time comes.
Andrew, there is no way to vote for it not to be a constitutional issue, at this point. Either you vote ‘no’, letting the court’s constitutional decision stand, or you vote ‘yes’, writing a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.
DRJ, while it’s true that California’s federal courts might interpret the state Constitutional amendment as violating the federal Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, I don’t think there’s any chance that the US Supreme Court would accept it. (Although, it’s possible the state might decline to appeal).
A Californian: you will never get to vote against marriage being a state institution; but you have just voted in favor of it being a state institution in which you may partake and in which I may not. That does nothing to help achieve your goal of making marriage not be a state institution.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:17 pmEricPWJohnson: it’s not about forcing corporations to extend benefits to partners. Most large and medium-sized corporations in California already extend benefits to domestic partners because (a) there aren’t enough gay employees for it to be a major financial cost and (b) it creates the appearance of commitment to diversity, which makes them more attractive to potential employees.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:19 pmThe left always says we have to do x, y and z “for the children” — accept when it comes to anything that might cramp whims of various adult pleasures or adult sexual identity desires, and then it’s simply “to hell with the children”. In these cases the identity claims and concerns of children in the earliest stages of development end up mattering about as much as a warm bucket of spit.
PrestoPundit (ff5e16) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:19 pmSome of that happens with domestic partnerships. I’d rather people actually have to get married to get such benefits. With same sex marriage, mere sex partners won’t be enough. Perhaps.
MayBee (3114aa) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:20 pmIn states where “same-sex marriage” is not recognized, straight couples and gay couples have equal protection under the law. To get married, the rules are that you have to be 1)not currently married; 2)of legal age to marry; and 3)marry a member of the opposite sex. These rules apply to everybody, equally.
Official Internet Data Office (184273) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:21 pmPatterico:
however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.
Sorry, I’m confused by your view.
If homosexuals have the right to marry then it doesn’t matter – or shouldn’t – whether that right is mandated by the Courts or voted on by the public.
A right is a right no matter who recognizes it. No matter how it is codified or posited.
Correct?
SteveMG (e0621f) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:21 pmThe alternative is to teach them that being gay is wrong. Almost all kids need to be brainwashed if that’s what you want them to believe because baseline is “so what?”
The alternative is to let parents teach their children what they believe and see as right, no matter what that may be. The state sould not be usurping that position.
Dana (658c17) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:24 pmWe need a Constitutional amendment stating that justices must base their rulings according to the Constitution.
Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:25 pmJust a few questions, which I think line up for the answer to voting on Prop 8.
Do you believe the government should recognize and support an institution which explicitly…
1) Encourages people to take care of the children they create, and love and support the person they created the child with.
2) Fosters the best environment for child development, one where the two people who contributed their identities to the child show each day how much they value each other, and to the child also.
I’m not saying it enforces anyone to do anything, but simply encourages by recognizing those that are trying to meet those goals and giving them assistance to do so (like just about any government institution does).
But if you said yes to both, is that not marriage? And if marriage can’t be that institution (as neutering marriage will do) then what can?
On Lawn (04b503) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:31 pmAmending the constitution now only makes it easier to later discriminate against other groups. It wasn’t long ago that Christians were killed and persecuted for their beliefs (in fact it is still happening in certain places)…so if we start writing in 2nd class status to any one group now, we better be prepared to deal with other groups being targeted later. Prop 8 is wrong. We will all be sorry if it passes.
Gabriel (c93189) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:32 pmI voted absentee and voted Yes on Prop 8. The reason is simple and that is gays have been shoving their agenda down my throat for 30 years. This is my chance to say it stops here. I think I’ll be in the majority on this one.
RichardB (902bfb) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:32 pmIf I thought that homosexuals had the “right” to marry, not only would I not object to the Courts mandating that “right”, I would welcome them mandating that “right.” Indeed, I would demand they do so.
After all, that is what the Courts (broadly speaking) are supposed to do. Protect our rights from the tyranny of the majority.
SteveMG (e0621f) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:34 pmA lot of people want to justify homosexuality because they say it is genetic and not chosen. Could you not then justify any sexual deviation as genectic and not chosen; Therfore, it should be considered normal? I think the fist step to making the other deviations “normal” is to redefine marriage as something other than one man and one woman. Allowing same sex marriage is not going to harm my marrige or any other hetero marriage out there as far as I am concerned, but it does allow polygamist, bigamist, etc etc to start on their own roads to normalization in society. I don’t think that is a good idea.
matthew (1f02e1) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:35 pmI don’t live in California so can’t vote on it, but do live in Mass where this is also an issue.
I do think homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple in terms of visitation rights, tax filings, inheritance issues, etc.
I personally don’t object to homosexual “marriage” for religious reasons. However I do think it’s Orwellian to re-define the language based on legislation. Look up “marriage” in any dictionary. And like others have said it opens the door to litigation against religions that disagree. That would be stepping onto a slippery slope IMO.
Mass has a similar prop that’s stalled in the Senate. Not on the ballot this year. It would outlaw gay marriage but not provide for any civil unions, etc. I’d vote against that without a second thought. The legal rights are paramount.
However I would if I could vote yes for Prop 8. So far as I know the legal rights are maintained but it doesn’t redefine the English language by fiat and doesn’t open up religions that reject gay marriage to litigation.
beancounter (bcd38f) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:35 pmExcellent post. Thank you.
Walter Olson (e309d6) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:35 pmEh, let’s not get too clever here. Every activist “constitutional” ruling can be overruled by a constitutional amendment. That California’s Constitution can be amended by a simple majority is a mere technicality. If I lived in California and supported gay marriage, I’d say yes on 8, and once it passed (if it did), I’d then lead the charge to repeal it. I think preserving the rule of law (and rebuking judges who don’t) is far more important than gay marriage itself, pro or con. I’m also concerned that a vote widely perceived as a ratification of the CA SC’s ruling may give it extra weight in other states whose people can’t amend their constitutions nearly as easily as Californians can. Witness Massachusetts, for example.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:36 pmabe lincoln asked:
“if you call a dog’;s tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?”
you reply “5?” – and abe tells you, “You’re wrong:
just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.”
homosexuals want the state to call their relationships “marriage”, but that won;t make them marriages.
marriage IS between a man and a woman.
man/man, or woman/woman, or human/beast relationships cannot ever be marriage.
the leftist desire to define-down marriage is party of the gramscian attack on Judeo-Christian Civilization and “The West.”
in the late 1960’s they tried with the sexual revolution and telling everyone marriage was slavery and unnecessary and regressive – “FREE LOVE/FREE SEX!”
when that failed to kill marriage they decided to attack it from another angle: “gay marriage.”
currently gay people may marry EVERYWHERE – as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
these types of marriages have long existed.
the radicals want gay marriage to get our culture on the slippery slope. next up are polygamy pedophilia and bestiality.
which is a sort of INCREMENTALISM an is the same strategy they’re using to make us a socialist economy.
don’t fall for it.
bill clinton was right: DOMA was good.
reliapundit (7fc06d) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:37 pmSteveMG- I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I don’t believe gay people have the “right” to marry. I believe they should be able to marry.
MayBee (3114aa) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:38 pmThough admittedly, Andrew #1’s suggestion for an alternative Prop 8 (which merely undoes the ruling without making gay marriage unconstitutional) would have been far better.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:38 pmI can see that the majority of people in this forum were fortunate enough to have heterosexuality encoded in their genes…i guess your chromosomes forgot to encode compassion and intelligence.
Gabriel (c93189) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:39 pmThe problem with homo-marriage is of course the term marriage itself. Marriage is a religious term for the lifelong unification of man and wife in a religious event. This is why in a conventional wedding the line “holy matrimony” is used. The United States considers marriage to also be a legally binding contract.
Since homo coupling is considered by god to be unholy it is impossible for Homos to marry. The term “marriage” is strictly a term for man and wife. Homos should not be allowed to hijack the term and degrade it.
No one cares if Homos want to cohabit or have a similar legal contract as married couples do. We do not want the term “marriage” used in such unions as they are not religiously recognized and remember marriage is a religious event.
The correct term would be “civil union”. Not marriage. That’s why a amendment must take place to prevent this tradition from being attacked any further.
Guardian (c995ae) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:39 pmI struggled over Prop 8, and even after I’ve mailed my ballot, I’m still wrestling over it. I’m an Evangelical Christian, and side with my faith on the issue of homosexuality. However, faced with the prospect of constitutionalizing discrimination, this interfered with other aspects of my faith – treating all people equally, regardless of our differences. Ultimately, I voted no, as, I felt that if my own freedoms are founded on the suppression of others’, that is not the society I hope for, or that I believe my faith demands of me.
I’m still struggling, however. As a minister, I wonder how this will affect me in the near future when, as a matter of religious conscious, I decline to marry a same-sex couple, and am promptly sued. Instances like these, and not traditional marriages falling apart (which happens all the time anyway), are what I think about when people say society will be destabilized.
We’ll see Tuesday how it shakes out.
nailinmyeye (966583) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:41 pmSteveMG- I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I don’t believe gay people have the “right” to marry. I believe they should be able to marry.
Me too. I can support extending the recognition of marriage to gay people/same sex couples. But that’s different than saying it’s a “right.”
If someone says – as Patterico does – that they have a “right” to marry, then he must not object to the Courts mandating that “right.” If it’s a “right”, then we want the Courts to enforce or require it.
SteveMG (e0621f) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:48 pmI’m all for civil unions between same-sex couples and that was the law of the land before the court got involved earlier this year.
I am voting YES on Prop. 8.
“Marriage” is between one man and one woman.
Athena (fff7e9) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:49 pmi guess your chromosomes forgot to encode compassion and intelligence.
Comment by Gabriel
The Obama position stated succinctly. There is no argument. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and racist.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:49 pmi don’t see how marriage can be a constitutional issue, since it is clearly against the stated goals in the Declaration of Independence of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and marriage, as any married person will testify if their spouse isn’t present, kills all three.
redc1c4 (27fd3e) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:55 pmCalifornia already voted “We the People” already made this decision!
Stop Activist Judges NOW.
Todd (417ae6) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:55 pmI voted yes on 8.
One reason: Somewhere I read that a local city here in So. Cal changed the marriage vows to read: not bride and groom but party “A” and party “B”.
California wedding vows, now all new for 2008
I Party A, take you, Party B, to be my wedded Party A/B. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ’till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do not want to deny any rights to anyone, gay or otherwise.
But this party “A” & “B” stuff is preposterous, I would prefer exhibit “A” and exhibit “B”, its much more appropriate.
Also I think that multiple wives is next on the agenda, I cannot think of one good reason why a guy cannot have more than one wife, why he would even want to, I wont ask. But I cant think of any grounds to deny him that. And then what, maybe siblings get the right to marry or at least the one’s on Jerry Springer?
ML (14488c) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:57 pmGay marriage isn’t the problem, but if you allow gay marriage then there is little legal reason to stop polygamy. Polygamy will allow successful men to monopolize the supply of women, and that will create a population of males that are unattached and will forever remain unattached. What will a population of forever single males do? They will do whatever they want, and that is bad for society.
DFCtomm (2a862d) — 11/1/2008 @ 8:58 pmHmm. Well, he does say earlier in the post that it is a judicially invented right.
It is indeed a tactic to call things “rights” so that the courts will enforce or require what the supporters want enforced or required, without regard to the will of the majority. I’m thinking of the “right” to health care, among other things. I don’t like that tactic. I am completely with you on that general philosophy.
I’ll let Patterico explain himself on the ‘right’ to gay marriage.
MayBee (3114aa) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:02 pmGovernment decided that it had a stake in regulating marriage, otherwise what purpose would it have in requiring licenses? The interest of government in marriage is to promote the birth and rearing of children so that in its future the state will be able to provide for its means (taxes, workers, etc). People don’t need the state to have a family, the state promotes marriage as a means of promoting families. Either the state gets TOTALLY out of the business of marriage or provides the true reason as to why it cares about marriage, namely…children (eg man and woman).
jawbone (c49489) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:04 pmFor now I’m voting YES ON 8
“The downside of banning gay marriage is that homosexuals are made to feel that they are second-class citizens.”
Hogwash. Marriage isn’t about mere sexual behavior, and that’s what homosexuals are; merely sexual. They have nothing else which makes them a ‘class’ besides where they place their pathologic genitals at night.
I ‘know’ that people do not consciously choose to be attracted to human corpses. Shall there a be a ‘Prop 8’ to excuse the genetically-overpowered necrophiliacs to make them ‘first-class citizens’ instead of criminals?
/genetics is not an alibi
Fools and Blind (49a3c3) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:07 pmHmm. Well, he does say earlier in the post that it is a judicially invented right.
Yes, but he later says they have that “right.”
He said:
“Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.”
Maybe he means the “ability” or “action” and not “right”?
I’d be interested to see what he says. Very smart guy.
After all, if it’s a “right”, then we have the issue of those Churches/religions who don’t recognize that “right.” Will they be required to marry same sex couples?
Or do religious rights trump marriage rights?
SteveMG (e0621f) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:08 pmAphrael wrote: “Andrew, there is no way to vote for it not to be a constitutional issue, at this point. Either you vote ‘no’, letting the court’s constitutional decision stand, or you vote ‘yes’, writing a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.”
Actually, voting “yes” merely establishes that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This is present tense, rather than future tense, and does not bar the legislature from legalizing gay marriage in the future. It does not say: “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in California.”
Andrew (3b0903) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:12 pmAs Karl Rove said in post #20, I too have taught my children to be respectful of people no matter what their sexual orientation and not to accept the disrespect of others as “Ok”.
But I agree that the burden of proof is with those who think a basic cultural belief and behavior should be overturned. Like Patricia at #15, do all who support gay marriage also support multiple partners in a marriage, support incest in a marriage, lowered legal age of consent to allow marriage at an earlier age? What would be the legal argument opposing three people getting married? If you are going to define marriage as something other than what it has been for thousands of years who gets to decide the new definition?
The consequences need to be considered. A change in the law will not affect my marriage, but I expect it to change what my child and all children are taught in public school (as Americaneocon @ 6:47 pm and Mike K @ 6:57 pm). While the message is common that sexual activity doesn’t have to wait until marriage and there’s nothing wrong with “living together”, one who goes by another standard may be called a prude, old-fashioned, or unrealistic, they normally will not be called wrong by the authority figures at school.
So you have a 10 year old who is taught to be respectful of the teachers and to learn from them, now facing the decision of who to believe about something basic to their existence and to the existence of each of their classmates. Give the issue the power of a guaranteed civil right and now you have a child being told that their parents are evil for believing such a thing. You might as well have the child tell the teacher, “My parents hate Black people.” Will a family that wants to take in foster kids or adopt kids be treated with scorn or contempt for “not treating all families equally?” And if not, why not? It wasn’t that long ago that such an idea as gay marriage was unthinkable, and as little as 4 years ago the issue helped increase voter turnout among conservatives. If that kind of trend continues it won’t be long before being a “hetero-sexist” will be considered a hate crime.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:18 pmThe argument against discrimination is always a weak one. People and governments always discriminate for good reasons and for bad reasons. It is the underlying reason that is important in deciding whether a certain action or practice should be followed or continued. The institution of marriage as between men and women has been around for thousands of years and has served society well. To change it to help a minority group feel better about themselves doesn’t seem a sufficient one. There are other alternatives such as civil unions or partnerships that overcome a lot of the silly legal exclusions that occur in certain situations such as hospital visitations and the passing on of property after death. But to think we are so smart as to know that this type of discrimination is wrong based upon present perceptions of justice is folly at best. I think a bit of humility is called for and I would always advise for going slowly when changing such a cornerstone institution.
mbabbitt (15e0e2) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:18 pmI agree with reliapundit and jawbone. “Gay marriage” initiatives are about thought control- about shoving a progressive ideology down our throats. Even cultures that tolerated a great deal of homosexual activity never confused it with marriage. But in California and other liberal states, ideologues think they can rewrite human history simply because they can command the bully pulpit and shame the apathetic masses.
Constitutional amendments concede that we have lost half the battle, but are the only way to say definitively: Oh no you don’t. YES on 8.
Gina (da967d) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:28 pmI don’t think there’s any serious argument that any married couple is going to have a less enjoyable marriage if same-sex marriage is legalized. I think, for most people, the argument is that allowing same-sex marriage cheapens the institution of marriage.
I’ll make the point with an example that’s implausible, but stark enough to make the point more clear. (It doesn’t matter that it’s implausible because it’s just there to illustrate the point more easily.) If people could say that they were married to everyone they considered their friends–not that there’d be a sexual aspect to the friendships, but that their status as friends should be called “marriage” and should bring all the legal rights and privileges that married couples get–I think it would be widely agreed that that would cheapen the institution of marriage. And that’s even though we think that having friends is a good thing. Letting that kind of relationship be called–and treated as–a marriage would be wrong and offensive, even though it wouldn’t ruin any real marriages.
For people who think that homosexual relationships are immoral, recognizing such relationships as marriage would be far worse. Such people believe that homosexual relationships, unlike friendships, are a bad thing, so putting those relationships on a legal equality with opposite-sex marriages would be far more offensive than allowing people to say that they’re “married” to their friends.
Alan (551a6d) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:32 pmThere’s more evidence of genetic disposition to promiscuity than homosexuality. So with Patterico’s forgiveness I will do a little cut and paste…
What? Is that some tired canard that you’ve heard before? Sure polygynists can be second class even hunted individuals by law, but if we all agree its okay. Besides, when the law needs to be adjusted so we can marry the person of our choice, we can tolerate the contradiction of discriminating against the already married — if we all wink and nod.
Okay, still not enough?
The Proposition says that only a man and a woman make a marriage. It does not say gays can’t get married. Not at all.
Who says they can’t? Well re-read Patterico’s argument. Its not the law that says they can’t get married. It’s people like Patterico who claim to be championing their liberty. He says they can’t even make the choice to get married, they are held from it by some unseen set of biological forces. Or perhaps that violates the definition of gay.
Either way we are protecting what it means to be married in expecting equal gender participation, or we are protecting what it means to be gay. Apparently, at the behest of those who are promoting the definition of gay as an identity, they cannot co-exist.
While I have no problem with letting people be as gay as they can be, and even give reciprocating benefits in respect of their free will and choice of mutual trust and association, they cannot tolerate recognition that a man and a woman have something unique. Something that means the world to the children they create. Something that the government has a real interest in.
Something that the Mass supreme court painted as the moral equivalent of white supremacy to point out in schools, or any other public office.
Yes on 8. Yes on tolerance. Yes on letting homosexuals be everything they can be together. And definitely yes on marriage equality — one man and one woman.
On Lawn (04b503) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:32 pmThere are 1400 comments on the Prop 8 story at the sacramento bee.
Here’s a hypothetical for you. The other day I’m talking to a girl at the 7/11 about Angelina Jole. She says Angelina is weird.
How weird?
“She screwed her brother, weird.” she said.
I don’t believe that Angelina screwed her brother. It’s far more likely that the National Enquirer had some space to fill in their Academy Awards issue, and so they have pictures of Angolina hanging on the arm of her brother, and being slime merchants they filled in the blank with what slime merchants usually write.
But lets assume for a moment that you or I are James Haven, Angelina’s older brother.
papertiger (3cf898) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:33 pmWould not my basic instinct in that situation be leaning toward incest?
I’m not talkin action. I’m just talking about that stray thought, crossing the back of the mind as younger sister hands the mashed potatos across the dinner table.
It’s possible isn’t it.
Yes there could be that impulse, and it would be undeniably immoral.
Something buried deep inside.
Now does the existence of this impulse make me a subset of the public, a minority group, deserving the protections of society? Further then that doesn’t society owe me, due to the nature of my birth (ie – having Angelina Jolie as my younger sister) to adjust it’s legal definitions regarding cultural taboos, in order to make me feel more comfortable about this situation which I had no choice in creation of?
I think not.
Likewise homosexuals who have acted upon forbidden impulse are not afforded protections.
Gayness isn’t a disease or a birth defect – it’s a behavior.
When I say:
Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.
I mean, I want them to have that right.
Technically, they have it already in this state, although I think it was invented by the state supreme court.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:35 pm68: Believe it or not, you have to admit it was weird seeing Angelina and her brother kissing each other full on the lips. And there was a hint of ambiguity in Angie’s “I am so in love with my brother right now” acceptance speech from early 2000 (I forget if that were at the Golden Globes or the Oscars)–and I think that was after the rumors started flying.
Alan (551a6d) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:39 pmPatterico,
Although I disagree with you, I commend your honesty and courage to stand by your convictions in front of an audience that, on whole, is apt to disagree with you. I do take issue with your logic.
You state:
homosexuals are made to feel that they are second-class citizens
and also
Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination
Discrimination, IMHO, is the act of prohibiting one citizen from doing something that other citizens are allowed to do. Gay men (women) are not prohibited from marrying women (men). Based on their sexual orientation, this may not FEEL like a choice, but nonetheless it is. They do have access to that institution, just not with the same sex. Hence no discrimination.
Tim (d7321a) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:41 pmAs homosexuals have access to the same rights, via civil unions, as hetrosexuals, it appears that this battle is about appropriating the title of “marriage”. The State has a right, as long as it does not discriminate, to restrict marraige to its traditional definition. I consider it analogous to professional regulation that the State enforces. For example:
I may consider myself, and may be recognized by others, as a “healer” but I may not appropriate the title of “M.D.” unless I comply with the regulations and licensing of the State. I may argue that I am revolted by the sight of blood and therefor cannot complete medical school, but that does not mean that the State is discriminating against me.
I also take issue with your argument that because flawed people (including myself) get married and divorced then that makes the institution of marraige less of a cornerstone of society. That strikes me as being result oriented. Is the war in Iraq wrong because its planning was flawed? No, I think that a flawed/failed marraige is a reflection of the participants not the institution.
All that being said, marraige is a societal more that is governed by the State. We as citizens have the mechanism, via ballot initiatives and/or our legislators, to change the laws of the State. If we use that mechanism to legalize gay marraige, then I will recognize it. My vehement disagreement, is legislation from the bench.
As an aside, #27, don’t project your sterotypes onto me. Because I disagree with gay marraige DOES NOT make me homophobic, just as voting McCain doesn’t make me a racist. I have gay friends, gay co-workers, and, maybe one day, gay kids, but even if I lived as hermit in the woods, my circumstances should have no impact on the intelligent discussion of this subject. You shouldn’t be allowed at the adult table until you can past peddling sterotypes.
If the institution of marriage is allowed to be expanded to include Homosexuals by reason of “equal protection” concerns, this is a slippery slope that will tend to others making the same claim of equal protection for THEIR type of “marriage” (i.e. human/animal, human/?, adult/child marriage, polygamy, polyandry. the list goes on) where do you draw the line? You can say that’s a stretch but would we have had this conversation 40 yrs ago?
jcw46 (2276c8) — 11/1/2008 @ 9:42 pm“Defining deviancy down” MOYNIHAN wrote, and he was correct. Allow homosexual marriage due to “equal rights” claims opens the door to any and all to make the same claim for their particular “diversion” from the community standard and how can you argue against them?
I’m going to be selfish and vote yes on 8. I don’t want to be forced into any civil rights arrangement which requires me to recognize gay marriages, which is what the current situation would require. If I were a justice of the peace, I would be required to marry them, and as an employer I’m already required to take on not only my probably AIDS-infected gay employee, but HIS probably AIDS-infected significant other.
These types of decisions are part of why our health care costs are spiralling out of control.
Besides, didn’t the gays militate to kick the Boy Scouts out of city facilities in Berkeley because they refused to allow gay scoutmasters? The next step will be to ban churches who discriminate in their teachings against gays.
I view this as a slippery slope kind of thing, similar to California’s current requirement that all pharmacists dispense the “morning-after” pill, even if their individual beliefs would prevent it.
I’m heading them off at the pass and voting YES.
unclesmrgol (0c6c8d) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:06 pmSorry Patrick, I think you’re wrong.
But I respect your views none the less.
I’ll be voting yes.
thebronze (8157cf) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:15 pmI also want to say that homosexuals, racial minorities, religious minorities, disabled people, etc., will always feel somewhat different because they are indeed minorities in American culture. Nothing will ever change that.
I think a big truth is it takes courage and grace to live a happy life, without this crippling bitterness towards the majority, when you are in the minority in any way, but that doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to do so. A friend of mine says passage of this proposition will help her gay son overcome his sense of shame. I hope and pray she’s right but I think it’s a false hope that he will be “just like everybody else.” The societal realities will not end just because we pass it or we indocrinate most of the children.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:17 pmI don’t see much point in legally sanctioning male/male, female/female relationships whether they’re sexual in nature or not.
I have male friends that I lived with for years (when I was younger), and we’re friends ’til death do us part, but the nature of the relationship, while of great importance to us, isn’t really important enough to society to demand that the relationship be legally recognized.
I don’t think that’s the case with traditional marriage. It is important enough to society to merit a standardized legal recognition.
That being said, I’m not concerned enough about the issue to bother voting either way, so the rest of the voters can make the determination, and I’m willing to bow to the will of the majority.
Seems like a silly idea to me, but if that’s what the rest of you California voters want, I can live with it.
Dave Surls (c546fb) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:23 pmPatterico–
I could not have said it better. Despite the judicial BS making this a vote on a negative, the correct vote for liberty is a “No” on 8.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:23 pmA simple question: what argument that can be presented for gay marriage cannot equally be be presented for polygamy and communal marriages among consenting adults? If gender cannot be restricted, then why can numbers? Indeed, polygamous marriages at least have historical and religious precedences, whereas gay marriages do not.
Mike O (822344) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:23 pmDiscrimination, IMHO, is the act of prohibiting one citizen from doing something that other citizens are allowed to do.
It’s discrimination to say that homosexuals cannot marry the people they love, but heterosexuals can.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:29 pmMore on that line of thought here. I’m still waiting for something logical, other than accusations of homophobia and the laughably weak argue that polygamous marriages sometimes involve too much age differential (so do Hollywood marriages).
Mike O (822344) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:29 pmI voted yes.
If Prop 8 passes, homosexuals will still live together, sleep together and fall in and out of love with each other, among many other things.
This will also occur if Prop 8 fails.
Prop 8 has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with allowing the government to attempt to influence your personal choices and beliefs.
One may ask: Why vote for something that results in an increase in government power, the very thing you claim to be against?
Simple. Americans seem to have forgotten that many people originally colonized this country to escape the back and forth Protestant/Catholic power struggles of Europe. Why did those people change their behavior? Because they were tired of two opposing groups attempting to coerce the populace over what to believe, with punishment meted out to those on the ‘wrong’ side.
I hope to make those who really want change realize the true enemy of their freedom.
Apogee (366e8b) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:35 pmIt’s discrimination to say that homosexuals cannot marry the people they love, but heterosexuals can.
But I really love Angelina. Did you ever see Tomb Raider?
papertiger (a38535) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:37 pmI’m voting YES.
Watch health care premiums increase even quicker as activist programs encourage gays to marry someone for the sole purpose of spreading the benefits around.
And eventually we’ll have Social Security abuse of spousal benefits.
If Obama is elected and Prop 8 fails, history will look back on November 4, 2008 as the day the US went bizzaro.
PC14 (82e46c) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:38 pmI don’t care about gay marriage, so I’d vote to allow it just to make the issue go away.
Gay people don’t bother me. I have some gay friends. I don’t want to talk about their bedroom activities but I don’t have a problem with them getting the same legal status as straight couples. Ultimately, though, I don’t really care enough to go to a rally.
i like america (d2f951) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:44 pm“It’s discrimination to say that homosexuals cannot marry the people they love, but heterosexuals can.”
So? I love my dog, and I can’t marry him.
You don’t hear me complaining about it.
He ain’t complaining either.
Dave Surls (c546fb) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:45 pmWho cares! The gays I know don’t want to get married because they think that contracts work better and they don’t have to get a divorce if it doesn’t work out.
Hey, the economy is hurting, Obama is a fraud and yet we are worried about a stupid law just for 1% of the population. Give me a break.
juliej (e55cc1) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:47 pmIt will be a shame when, as likely, millions of Hollywood greenbacks succeed in taking down Prop 8.
How laughable the claim of anti Prop 8 commercials that gay marriage is a “fundamental right.” About as fundamental as polygamy, I would expect. Oops, I guess it’s that polygamy isn’t the “fundamental right” of the hour. Maybe if we give it a few years.
Lying–and lying brazenly about “fundamental rights”–however, is part and parcel of the gay rights movement.
Ok, Patterico, so you support gay marriage. Do you also support pro-homosexual instruction ram-roded to public school students through enforced curriculum? Do you support homosexual lawsuits against churches that refuse to hire gay staff or enroll gay students? If you don’t comprehend that this is what the gay rights movement has planned down the road, you are quite simply naive.
clark smith (d8da01) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:55 pmI think the Mormons have really gone to far by running the campaign to pass this prop.
Probably the end of Mitt’s political career.
Not that he had much of one.
snuffles (677ec2) — 11/1/2008 @ 10:56 pmI have always known that you are not against same-sex marriage, Pat, but I am nonetheless disappointed that you are choosing to confirm a decision that even you argued was improperly made by activist judges.
Bowers v. Hardwick reaffirmed the Constitutional right of the state of Georgia to outlaw sodomy. But by the time Lawrence v. Texas overturned it seventeen years later, Georgia’s sodomy law had already been done away with. Rather than Bowers being seen as a call to arrest homosexuals willy-nilly, existing sodomy statutes were so rarely enforced, it took over a decade and a half before a case came up suitable for overturning Bowers.
But Ron George and his compatriates don’t trust the people to make such societal changes on its own. As Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his brilliant and devastating dissent:
The California Supremes unjustly overruled the will of the people. Why shouldn’t the people overrule the court? Because it involves the Constitution? Sorry, that doesn’t fly — these are the people entrusted with recognizing the restraints placed on them by the principle of separation of powers, and they failed to check themselves. Baxter again:
IMHO, your stance is not unlike those conservatives who have for years agreed that Roe v. Wade was an abominable decision, but who have given up on fighting it on principle because of the messy political situation that would result from a Federalist case prevailing against it.
I have asked many other same-sex advocates this question, Pat, and now, I will put it to you: For the sake of argument, in the aftermath of the in re Marriage Cases decision, two sets of identical twins — two males, two females — enter San Francisco City Hall and demand a marriage license. Under the precedent set by Ron George’s court, is there a reason why they should be denied? After all, the twins are the same sex, which is no longer a barrier. The fact that society has not accepted sexual relationships between siblings is insufficient reason to prevent them. They are brothers and sisters marrying their twins, so they obviously cannot produce possibly deformed children, if that was determined to be a concern. And the fact that it’s illegal in the state of California for siblings to marry? That didn’t stop Gavin Newsom before, did it?
Fifty-nine years ago, a Hispanic woman fought for her right to marry a black man in California. Nobody would have imagined that would be used as the basis for an argument for same-sex marriage. We may be on the cusp of the culmination of the demogogic pedagogy of leftist professors over the past four decades: The election of Barack Obama to the White House. I shudder to imagine what our progressive moral anarchy will cause to future generations to embrace.
L.N. Smithee (2e7b60) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:04 pmSorry that you are so tyrannized by your own ability to distinguish between right and wrong that you fail to understand that “faggot” marriage is no marriage at all.
[I would normally delete a comment like that, but I’m going to leave it up to illustrate the mentality of the guy making the comment. That said, let’s have no more of that kind of talk. One such example is enough. — P]
Steven (c31bbf) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:11 pmIt’s discrimination to say that homosexuals cannot marry the people they love, but heterosexuals can. They cannot “marry” but they can enjoy every marital right (or they should, if not) that hetrosexuals can. Again we are debating titles and I think that your avenue of argument trivializes actual prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals. Should I have a beef that I cannot “marry” my sister but every other man can?
Tim (d7321a) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:22 pmunclesmrgol wrote: The next step will be to ban churches who discriminate in their teachings against gays.
As a great woman said lately, “You betcha!” I’ve lived in S.F. my entire life, and watched as the priorities of the Gay-stapo moved from the right to teach in public schools, to the right to domestic partners benefits for city workers, to requiring domestic partners bennies for all companies doing business with the city, to demanding that Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army abandon their religious principles or lose their city contracts, the right for city workers to have sex-change operations covered as non-elective surgery, and further and further down.
I can tell you that when they say that want an inch, they don’t really want a yard. They want a mile.
L.N. Smithee (2e7b60) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:25 pmYour vote was cancelled out by mine. But I do agree with an earlier post that insinuated that votes don’t really count anymore when it comes any issue the left trumpets as “fair”. The courts will override the voters once again in Kalifornia.
wavynavy (caf670) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:32 pmHello people! Let’s remember why this is on the ballot as a constitutional amendment! We have to amend our constitution because activist judges overturned the will of the people! Bottom line: homosexuals cannot procreate. Marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation; God saw to that. Those of you who don’t believe that God made you have to deal with that personally. I don’t want a pedophile to ask to marry an underage child because the homosexual community insisted on rubbing our faces in it! The homosexual community has all it needs with civil unions; they are not “2nd class citizens” at all!
Teri Hunter (d5eceb) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:40 pmWhy was my comment caught in moderation? It was an ordinary discussion of the subject, nothing vulgar, etc.
SarahW (a6e80b) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:51 pmI think the Mormons have really gone to far by running the campaign to pass this prop.
And if the largely obscure (and shunned) sub-group of Mormons who believe in (and practice) polygamy promoted a law that allowed a similar arrangement for everyone in general, would you be bothered by and, most particularly, opposed to it?
Why? You’re not supportive of civil rights!?
If our legal system and culture can be modified to accomodate guys who want to wed guys, and women who want to marry women, no reason our legal system and culture can’t be modified even further.
Mark (411533) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:53 pm
my probably AIDS-infected gay employee, but HIS probably AIDS-infected significant other.
It’s comments like this which cause people to conclude that opposition to gay marriage stems in part from homophobia.
It’s clearly true that a gay male is statistically more likely than a straight male to have AIDS; but there is no basis whatsoever for the presumption that a gay male is probably infected with AIDS.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/1/2008 @ 11:57 pmActually, voting “yes” merely establishes that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This is present tense, rather than future tense, and does not bar the legislature from legalizing gay marriage in the future. It does not say: “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in California.”
That’s a somewhat peculiar piece of legal reasoning. By analogy, the clause in the state constitution which says “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited
except to punish crime.” would only prohibit slavery today and would not prohibit future enactments of slavery laws by the legislature (the 13th amendment to the US constitution would, but the state constitution would not).
If this goes into the state constitution, it prohibits legislative enactment of same-sex marriage unless (a) a court finds that it violates the federal constitution (which isn’t going to happen), (b) a state court finds an inventive theory under which the constitution can’t be amended in this fashion (which I think is unlikely), or (c) the voters pass a constitutional amendment repealing it (which I suspect will happen after twenty to thirty years).
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:03 amI voted Yes on Proposition 8 via absentee ballot. Amending the state constitution via a voter approved initiative is the only way to return to the legislature and the people the power to define marriage.
The contorted reasoning of the California Court’s majority that led to the right to same sex marriage can just as easily lead to a “right” to polygamous or incestuous marriage.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:05 amRight, so when the Justices do something good you want to flip the bird at them. I know it’s called legislating from the bench. But it’s also called equal justice under the law.
Not only does this amendment interfere with the Contracts Clause of the constitution but it flys in the face of “no more” seperate but equal, whereby the state would have to recognize the segregation of a public institution, which is unjustifiable.
Harry Toor (37823b) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:06 amAmending the state constitution via a voter approved initiative is the only way to return to the legislature and the people the power to define marriage.
Amending the constitution in this way does not return power to the legislature; it prohibits the legislature from doing anything at all.
Having the vote at all put the power in the hands of the people; whether the initiative passes or not, the people will have decided.
Voting ‘yes’ expresses a policy decision that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state, nothing more.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:09 amI don’t think that, for heterosexuals, the availability of marriage to homosexuals plays any part in the calculus of whether they get married, or whether they stay married.
If you’re not concerned about the way that the legal recognition of same-sex couples will (or will not) affect the strength of typical — male married to female — relationships throughout society, then you should be concerned about the way that governmental approval of same-sex relationships will ratchet up the sexualization of our culture, above and beyond where it already is.
If elected officals (for example, Senator Dianne Feinstein, LA Mayor Antonio Villarigosa, etc, etc) and judges are legally and symbolically sanctifying homosexual unions, that automatically and naturally will filter down to the grade-school classroom. In turn, children will be introduced to concepts of homosexuality and bisexuality even more formally and strongly than what they’re already exposed to.
It’s merely the further dumbing down of our culture, in which anything goes, and if it feels good, do it (or at least sympathize with it).
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:17 amWould a church be subject to discrimination suits for refusing to marry a homosexual couple if prop 8 failed? I’m yes on 8, but I wanted to clear that up anyway.
Joseph (907127) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:32 amJoseph, there’s no evidence that they would be. The state cannot dictate to a church, “you must offer your sacraments to these people regardless of what your religious beliefs are”; that would be an establishment of religion.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:39 am“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” -LDS proclamation to the world
This is a moral issue turned into a political one. The family is central in the plan of God, and destroying the family is an act against God. Yes on Prop 8.
Adam (19421b) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:50 amWhy? You’re not supportive of civil rights!?
Mark,
Why should the gays be held responsible for possible future law changes?
The old “slippery slope” argument is strictly for low-intelligence voters, might want to try it out elsewhere.
snuffles (677ec2) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:53 amaphrael – The state cannot dictate to a church, “you must offer your sacraments to these people regardless of what your religious beliefs are”; that would be an establishment of religion.
No, but the state can, and has, equated positions on ‘political’ issues with political support, threatening tax-exemption status for religious institutions. The state need not dictate sacraments. It has plenty of leverage with the tax code.
Apogee (366e8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:01 am______________________________________
I don’t know why the inner-workings of the judicial system of our neighbors to the north are so greatly different that the incident described below won’t happen, in some form or variation, in the US. That will be even truer if (1) the voters of Calif say “no” to Proposition 8, and if (2) politicians like {{{cringe}}} President Barack Obama will be choosing judges to the federal bench and, most importantly, to the Supreme Court.
Speaking of which, that court in 2000 ruled in a narrowedly split decision (5 to 4) that the Boy Scouts of America could maintain a policy forbidding gay males from being Troop leaders or members. If that same Supreme Court in the future is greatly influenced by jurists selected by a liberal president, it certainly will hand down a different type of ruling. One in which the bylaws of the Boy Scouts will have to bend to the whims of far more people, including those who proudly march in Gay Day Parades—the Supreme Court case involved James Dale, co-president of Rutgers University’s Lesbian/Gay Alliance. Dale gave a speech about his homosexuality and was written about in a newspaper article. The Boy Scouts terminated Dale’s membership following those incidents.
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:11 am______________________________________
So even if prop 8 fails, a church could deny 2 people the right to marry in their chapel based on sexual orientation?
Could they do the same for ethnicity? Of course not. I think Apogee is correct, in that tax-exempt status could be challenged. I think lawsuits will arise.
Joseph (907127) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:13 am_______________________________
Why should the gays be held responsible for possible future law changes?
By the same token, look at all the liberals who cite the policies (or practices) and attitudes of people of the distant past (eg, the era of slavery), or certainly the more recent past (eg, the era of segregation of the 1950s, early 1960s) for the problems of today, or for why certain legislation deserves to be enacted today, or how and why it should be shaped and manipulated.
_______________________________
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:22 amA simple question: what argument that can be presented for gay marriage cannot equally be be presented for polygamy and communal marriages among consenting adults?
Well, since you ask for any argument, one will do.
There is reason to believe that gays are wired that way. Therefore, the only sexual relationship(s) they can reasonably form are same-sex ones. I have not yet seen evidence that there are those who must form multiple-partner relationships. So there you have it. It may not satisfy you, but that wasn’t a condition of your challenge.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:19 amOf course, if snuffles posts again on the NO side, I may change my vote to YES.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:22 amJoseph–
I’m pretty sure that a church can deny their sacraments to anyone they choose, so long as the denial is related to their faith. The furthest courts have gone is require non-spiritual arms of churches (e.g. public charities) to be non-discriminatory in hiring, etc. Note that Catholic hospitals don’t usually offer abortion services.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:27 amAside that gays can currently create legal and binding contracts between one another, should they ever be denied the same shit and deep shit that divorce creates!??
I say fark it, give em what they deserve!
Vows should include, Boy bitch, you think this here DUDE is worth one half of what you have made to date, and 70% of of what you will make in the future? Go for it! Congrats, you is formally fucked!
The above is actually gender neutral, cuz women have been gittin rich off of it for a very long time.
Naw, I actually think there ought to be something for those that prefer the company of same gender, or even those that do not prefer a formal marriage. I love my woman, but will probably not marry her, reasons are varied and NOT one sided at all. We are very much HOOKED up, (real fish hooks and blood), but we have our currently sound reasons for not making our union “legal’. But for sure would desire to have insurance and some things shared and eligible for one another.
But legally speaking, there is no real world for us. I can but imagine that those of single gender attraction are as conflated as we are.
TC (0b9ca4) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:08 amAs a consistent lurker on your site, I must say that I am disappointed in your decision not to vote yes to Prop 8. The issue is the will of the people–IT WAS DENIED, ROUNDLY. The will of the court usurped the will of the majority and was not determined in a lawful manner through social change and, sadly, legislation. It is a scary thing to allow unelected officials to determine a new course for a society based on their version of change and liberty. It is not their JOB.
Beyond that, what is happening is a radical redefinition of EVERYTHING…think even about the change in language…and you know you already are fighting battles about not calling people mom and dad and representing the nuclear, traditional family in texts books, etc. It is a redefining of terms based on an unhealthy, biological distortion. Keep thinking about that, rather that getting involved in emotional, civil rights talk. It is a perversion and, sadly, those people are caught up in it. If we are too afraid to speak the truth, there will be none left. “Mark my words…” Joe biden. :o)
Diane (96af42) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:35 amPatterico, you say that although the legality of same-sex marriage in California came about as the result of a flawed legal mechanism, you nonetheless approve of the resultant change, and are therefore voting to keep it enshrined in law.
Respectfully, “the ends justify the means” seems like an odd line of thought for a prosecutor.
Otis Criblecoblis (2b706d) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:20 amAs a Californian, I’d like to propose number of issues for proponents of prop 8 to consider.
Brian Carr (f038ff) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:40 amDoes society / government have an interest in protecting an institution with it’s roots in the continuation of the species and the best known method for raising the next generation?
If there is to be no natural / biological component to marriage, why is it not then discriminatory to define marriage as only between 2? Why not 3 – 4 – 5 people? After all, love knows no bounds?
Why are gays so interested in marriage? After all marriage is a religious, not civil institution. Answer – the interest is not in “achieving” marriage, it is in destroying marriage, the family and in opening a target rich environment to sue / destroy the church.
Polygamy anyone? That’s where this is going. Simply on the basis of gender discrimination, bisexuals can demand the right for at least three spouses. And traditional polygamy has a much longer history than homosexual marriage. Also, it’s recognized by some religions, so religious discrimination will be an argument used by its proponents. Realistically, after you say it is not limited to one-man-one-woman marriage will be anything the judiciary allows at that time. All this scare tactics? Can’t happen? Twenty five years ago how many people would have fantasized we would be contemplating homosexual marriage as an institution. OK by you Paterrico?
LBlake (6d3879) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:28 am“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
Patrick49 (a660c4) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:53 amWe have descended into the Alice in Wonderland world of Humpty Dumpty as every dictionary in the public library defines marriage as betwen a man and a woman and 5 black robed Humptys redefine it to their own liking or feeling or whatever. There can be no intelligent discussion on any subject when one is allowed to project one’s own definition to every word. A classic example is Obama’s promise to give a tax cut, actually a welfare check, to those who pay no taxes. Chaos reigns!
You have compromised…your vote means that you ok the field trip to a homosexual teachers marriage and on and on…..little cuts… hell with the children…
BfB (d1b4a0) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:54 amTsk, tsk.
it doen’nt matter what happens. if yes on 8 is passed, the liberal activist judges in the state/country will overide the peoples vote and make a law regardless. these are scary times ahead.
gio (39a46a) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:04 amThe idea that gays should be allowed to marry is new to our own time. Even societies with the most liberal sexual mores never crossed that threshold, until our own time.
Actually, Proposition 8 would not preclude them from marrying. It would merely preclude the state from giving such unions legal recognition by the state. If that’s bigotry, then everyone, and every society, that came before was bigoted.
Joe (db6433) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:05 amIf Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?
Now for those of you who blame President Bush for everything, consider this: George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high.
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high–14,000 +
5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!
But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’!
So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes–we got ‘CHANGE’ all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE…AND WE SURE GOT IT! …
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
Glen M (0a6366) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:06 amSociety approves of married couples. If we are married, society will approve of us.
It is as simple as that and has nothing to do with rights, benefits, love, or anything else.
stile (5938d1) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:26 amA simple question: what argument that can be presented for gay marriage cannot equally be be presented for polygamy and communal marriages among consenting adults?
Well, since you ask for any argument, one will do.
There is reason to believe that gays are wired that way. Therefore, the only sexual relationship(s) they can reasonably form are same-sex ones. I have not yet seen evidence that there are those who must form multiple-partner relationships. So there you have it. It may not satisfy you, but that wasn’t a condition of your challenge.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/2/2008 @ 2:19 am
I think the reasons to believe gays are wired that way are not nearly as compelling as the fact that most men are “hard-wired” not to be monogamous. It is not innate desire, I believe, as it is a conscious choice to have only one partner and stay faithful to that partner. (And the two go together, I don’t believe the majority of people, even in Hollywood, think it’s no big deal to “cheat” on your spouse, that’s why we still call it “cheating”.
Would a church be subject to discrimination suits for refusing to marry a homosexual couple if prop 8 failed? Joseph — 11/2/2008 @ 12:32 am
Joseph, there’s no evidence that they would be. The state cannot dictate to a church, “you must offer your sacraments to these people regardless of what your religious beliefs are”; that would be an establishment of religion. aphrael — 11/2/2008 @ 12:39 am
The Salvation Army is a church. Their activities are performed in a manner consistent with their beliefs. What about San Fran deciding they will not award a contract for social services? Is that an expression of their right to choose who they want to contract with, or a violation of civil rights because they are discriminating against someone they disagree with on religious practices? Does freedom of religion mean you can believe what you want but we’ll penalize you economically if you don’t believe what we want you to believe? (Can we say, “Hello Soviet Union”?)
Patterico, neither you nor anyone else have addressed the issue of what will be taught as normative to our children and the consequences of that. Does that mean you think the concern is too ridiculous to bother with and some of us are just paranoid, or do you believe it may be an issue but a secondary one to be dealt with when we “reach that bridge”, or something else?
As I’ve said before, I’ve taught my children not to be disrespectful of a person because of sexual preference, but that does not mean I’ve taught them to consider homosexuality “Just another valid expression of human sexuality”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:35 amAnd what about the concern that the definition of marriage will be further challenged to include polygamy, etc.? Other than Kevin Murphy’s comment (and though I disagree, I appreciate his addressing the issue), no one has addressed this. Please explain why we are wrong to raise the concern.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:39 amHow do Lawyers write Laws based in words which are contradictory and meanlingless? FOr example, the Law did this with the word ‘fetus’ and now we have discriminatory laws which change according to gender time and need:
-if She chooses to call the ‘fetus’ life then then She gets pre-natal government care,
-if SHe chooses to the ‘fetus’ a clump of cells then She gets government-funded abortion,
-now if He does anything which might bring harm to the ‘fetus’ the He is halled off to prison for murder while She is still free to choose.
Again I ask how can Lawyers write Laws based in words which are contradictory and meanlingless?
What is the meaning of ‘same-sex union between opposites’? Gay marriage is an irrational and illogical premises, how are laws written when the words used to write those laws are made irrational?
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
According to Merriam-Webster Marriage is defined as both a union of opposite sex and a union of same-sex, if this is true why then is the definition of marriage not ‘a union of people’?
Think about this for a moment, the definition as indicated in Merriam-Webster negates one another whereby dissolving the meaning. This is what will end the concept of marriage which by the way was not created by government nor by religious institutions but by the nature and need to unify the sperm and the egg into One. Neither egg-egg or sperm-sperm need to be unified as both are already one.
Without yin there is no yang, without the egg and sperm there is no human and without the construct of marriage there is no way to unify male and female.
Love cannot be defined, it is a subjective emotion upon which the Law becomes irrational. Love is no more the meaning of marriage than hate is the meaning of love.
Words have meaning, they define us and provide opportunity to communicate. Laws must be logical and rational in order to provide Justice otherwise irrational emotionalism consumes society as we see what happens when the Law fails to logically define words ie ‘fetus’.
What will the Law provide next, that Murder means Choice? That Up means Down? That Wrong is Right?
How about changing Homosexual to mean Heterosexual? This way Lawyers will have no reason to profit off their newly created gay marriage-gay divorce industry?
syn (5e8e54) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:54 amcorrection “hauled off to prison”
syn (5e8e54) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:56 amBravo Patterico!
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:58 amYou give me hope for homosapiens sapiens.
We are really all one tribe underneath it all, aren’t we?
And in America….we are all Citizens.
So you give me hope for the GOP.
In 2020 caucasian becomes a minority.
The cruel inexorable force of population demographics is going to force the virtues of tolerance, citizen liberty, and unity on the GOP. Otherwise they will inhabit the rump forever.
These little crumbs of shared humanity have inspired me to abandon my old bitter and sardonic name.
Best witches, Patterico, O honest man.
She-that-was-the-griefer
The word marriage is religious doctrine–it is not a trademark like “kleenex” or “Bandaid”.
Remove the word from Government documents starting with some specific date and substitute “Civil Union” instead.
Changing the word ‘Marriage’ is equivalent to a governmental mandate on religious doctrine. How can those who so vehemently attack any perceived mix of Church and State demand the creation of a State Religion?
As one redneck so succinctly put it: “If you want to reproduce, you should have to put up with the crazy bitch like the rest of us.” (I laughed when I heard that.)
The whole issue is simply about money and lawsuits. It has nothing to do with rights.
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:14 amOne last point; if Lawyers formulate Laws for the irrational premise ‘same-sex union between opposites’ what then happens to the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ or ‘father’ and ‘mother’?
Are they not discriminatory for those of same-sex?
Will the LAw then accomodiate by changing the meaning of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ to Person A and Person B?
Further, how can there be sperm-sperm parents or egg-egg parents? Thus far science has been unable to produce the means in which two humans of the same-sex can pro-create and before a human can adopted it must have a Father and a Mother, Sperm-Egg. There is no other way than sperm-egg and to force under the Law such thing as Same-sex Parents is anti-Science.
Listen up, even an adopted human has a Father(sperm) and a Mother(egg).
If the Law changes Husband and Wife and Father and Mother to Person A and Person B, how will the Law distinguish anything formulated in the natural world?
Will we sterilize our language to the point where we become inhuman, meaningless and non-existant?
Words have meaning, they are what define our humanity. Irrationalism is what leads to insanity; just take a look at the madness caused when ‘fetus’ was deemed sterilized and meaningless, we ended up losing our humanity to irrational insanity to the point where newborn human beings were executed for having survived their initial execution.
syn (5e8e54) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:21 amFirst of all some judges took away the will of the peope! CA schools are promoting th e lifestyle like it is “normal” and don”t you dare say anything about it being a sin in God’s eyes-Parents rights are being taken away left and right. I would never send my child to a CA public school! Keep it in the bedroom.
SueG (49443f) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:24 amCorrection ‘non-existent’.
syn (5e8e54) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:25 amAnother thing that has always irked the hell out of me:
I have seen the argument that people have “lifestyle choices” and that they all should be socially equivalent. (I have seen this in children’s textbooks.)
Isn’t a traditional marriage a “lifestyle choice”???
WTF
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:36 amYES ON 8 AND TELL THOSE FOUR IMPERIAL JUDGES TO STICK IT UP THEIR GAVLES
Krazy Kagu (ddd85d) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:40 amA very foolish position.
Why not incest then? While you are at your social engineering, maybe contemplate the previous attempts and their reults.
PashaG (3de24f) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:47 amI absolutely love my golden retriever and she absolutely loves me, who the hell are you to tell me we can’t get married. Anyone else see the problem here?
Don (2abcf2) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:58 amYour position is naive and extremely disappointing. Your argument is equivalent to giving Bill Clinton a pass because “it was just about sex”. You are dead wrong. You are doing greater harm than you can possibly imagine.
Richard L. (ba6e1b) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:03 amThere is not one single civil benefit denied gays and lesbians by the passage of Prop. 8. All the usual rights of partners in “marriage” are already conferred on same sex unions in California. The proposition simply reinstates the opinion of 61% of the voters of California that the institution of “marriage” is between only one man and one woman.
This decision lifts sexual rights above religious freedom; the very first freedom defined in our Bill of Rights. Defeat of Prop 8 will inevitably rescind the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in California. Cases will be brought swiftly to clarify its full impact in law.
Read the decision, it clearly presents the concept of traditional marriage as equivalent to discrimination according to race. Western tradition is based on Judeo Christian ethics. Nowhere in the Bible was racial prejudice taught. Banning bigotry over race was championed by orthodox Christians and Jews.
On the other hand, homosexual practice is clearly taught to be a sinful perversion in Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures. Every orthodox Christian, Jew and Muslim is now legally declared a bigot in California. Any civic expression of orthodox opposition to homosexual or transgender behavior may be prosecuted as a criminal act.
I quote St. Peter, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to obey you rather than God, you be the judge”.
One more thing that p***es me off:
The whole living a lie thing.
Isn’t any man who chooses to continue living with a woman beyond reproductive age “living a lie”?
How about a man who is wealthy enough to attract a young gravid bimbo–who chooses to stay with the one he has?
Or, the increasingly creepy Hugh Hefner?
Sexual attractiveness has little to do with traditional marriage–after youthful stupidy and hormones wear off–it is a choice. One chooses to believe in the power of a vow made before a judge, a congregation and their God. The word ‘faith’ is self-defined as a choice.
Belief in a ‘higher power’ is a choice one makes with every prayer. One also chooses to live an ethical “lifestyle”. One chooses to be self-restrained and make moral decisions even when no one is looking at them.
Why are these lifestyle choices concidered to be less valuable or valid than others? I want to know–really I do. The textbooks and philosophy expressed in the classrooms of our schools do not validate any of these lifestyle choices. Why not?
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:04 amMD in Philly, we still have no answer to that question. Even Patterico admitted that the court’s footnote about limiting the number of people in a marriage will soon fall.
Kevin Murphy, do you honestly think that a “this is my culture” or “this is my religion” argument will NOT be enough to legitimize plural marriage?! This is multicultural America!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:05 amJust remember Patterico — you will be supporting, whether you want to admit to it or not — the judicial tyranny of the court.
You make this erroneous extrapolation that banning makes gays second rate citizens…it does not. It promotes behavioural ideals, something every healthy society must do.
Richard Romano (74061b) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:09 am141 Comments and noone’s pissed that Male Homosexuals can’t legally donate Blood. Oh, you can donate it, but they put a pink biohazard sticker on it and throw it out as soon as your gone. They say they’re not discriminating, because Male Homosexuals CAN technically donate, but only if they’ve been celibate for 30 years.
Frank Drackman (57d36f) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:15 amTo Frank:
Have you ever heard of risk management? Or actuarial tables used in risk management?
To deny reality, doesn’t make it so.
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:24 amI have homosexual friends who are capable of making arguments which are not based on squealing emotionalism. I haven’t seen any of them here. Perhaps their belief in logic is a lifestyle choice.
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:32 amThe homos should show guys kissing guys in their ads. They should also tell us that guys marrying guys and having sex with each other os perfectly normal and that’s what they want to be teaching kids in school…
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:33 am“God gave them over to a depraved mind” – Rom.1
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:34 am“Democrats For Deportation”???
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:43 amAw, come on.
Couldn’t you troll with a little more class than that?
Not really. The act of pushing and passing this proposition is the specific act of return(ing) to the legislature and the people the power to define marriage. The proposition itself is the definition of marriage and I think people who are rationalizing a vote for 8 despite otherwise supporting gay marriage because of the action of the courts seem to be missing this very significant fact. That was me up until last week.
h0mi (d2c7b6) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:51 amThanks for the great post.
A note to “A Californian”, I too would rather see a complete separation between what the state gives rights to and religious marriage. If churches want to limit marriages to 30-year-olds, or white people, or opposite-sex couples, that’s their business, not mine (unless I’m a member of that church).
What’s interesting is that the very same court that has received so much antagonism actually considered precisely what you’re saying as the second of the two “remedies” it considered when it decided “In re marriage.” The court claimed, and I quote:
In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The argument in “In re marriage” bases itself on the California Equal Protection clause, which is not explicitly amended by Proposition 8–Prop. 8 was written before the ruling.
So, the passage of Proposition 8 will, I believe, lead to Yet Another Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage. (God only knows how many years of chaos we’ll see as couples wonder if they’re still married, the court may or may not invalidate existing same-sex marriages immediately, the court may or may not stay new same-sex marriages pending a new decision. But believe me, passage of Prop. 8 will put this back in the courts.
In “In re marriage”, the court said “we got two solutions, and we pick the first one because it’s more in line with legislative intent. Prop. 8 doesn’t change the argument, it does however preclude “the first one.”
However, nothing in Prop. 8 prevents the court from deciding that the combination of the text of Proposition 8 and their reading of the Equal Protection Clause can be reconciled by eliminating the term marriage from the California law books entirely.
The unintended consequences of *that* scare the hell out of me.
Joe Decker (dad834) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:00 amHard to believe? Why should a “Lunchbucket” Democrat support flooding the labor market with cheap Illegal Alien chunte labor? How does that protect wages and jobs? Please explain…kool-aid drinker. I remember when Democrats used to represent organized labor Americans…not any longer. If you flood the market with more gasoline, does the price rise or fall?
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:02 amI’ve made a response to your post which you might find interesting. It’s up at my site now.
John (3e13e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:10 amThis time, the quiet George Soros has employed every web savvy homosexual in the country in his ongoing Death to Amerika campaign, I urge all to vote YES merely as a defensive pushback. The book “Pink Swastika” reveals the National Socialist origins in a German gay bar, while a repeat of those glorious days is being attempted in Califoria today.
Tyrone (f2d5e6) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:12 amI have no beef with the act/but hate the homo (for good reason). If you think there are any heteros at Fight The Smears, or David Brock’s ministry of misinformation….
Here in FL, there is for referendum an Amendment which is terribly flawed–and in my opinion twisted and sick–which uses the defense of the word ‘Marriage’ to deny all sorts of things to homosexuals.
I did what little I could to draw people’s attention to it–and of course, voted against it.
That Amendment was all about the money. Denial of: insurance, survivor benefits, privacy, mutual support and other equally twisted stuff.
No one I know would deny any same-sex couple those things. I cannot state strongly enough my feelings on that issue.
I want the word ‘marriage’ defended as part of religious doctrine. I do not want any possibility for legal attacks on congregations for their religious beliefs. That is ALL I want.
Use the phrase ‘Civil Union’ for same sex couples and be done with it.
Eqwatz (d9bbe1) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:14 amSorry, this is NOT a civil rights issue because homos ARE NOT born gay. Not the same as being born white, black, male, female, etc…
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:20 amI’ve been quietly amused at a series of recent newspaper stories involving a new mental disease “sex addiction”.
In a more rational time–but still within remembrance, most folks would simply have characterized the problem as “the guy can’t keep it in his pants”. Now a serial adulterer goes off and talks to a shrink about his “sex addiction”.
Okay–using the same arguments that are used to support Proposition 8–i.e. gays are “wired that way” so it’s discrimination to discourage gay marriage, one can argue that polygamy or polyandry should not be barred–at least to those who suffer from “sex addiction”. So if a guy can afford it–(takes a lot of money to support a half dozen wives) and has sex addiction than legalized polygamy is on the horizon.
These are specious arguments.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:20 amShow the guys kissing the guys in your NO ON 8 ads. Stand up and be proud of what you believe in!
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:22 amThank you for including my comments…the fact that plain language so upsets you says more about you than it does about me. Why do you have to live only in euphemisms? Why is the discussion of the disgusting nature of sodomy or the absurd futility of two woman attempting to stimulate each left out of this whole issue? Answer: because obfuscation suits your aim of winning the argument. Think about it: what we’re doing with this issue is making a moral equivalent out of filthy anal sex or dildos for dykes and holy matrimony. By hiding those facts, it makes your argument easier to win. It is easier to win a philosophical argument without reality.
My original comment was a bit of a bomb throw (I admit) but it is also an attempt to try and take this discussion out of the parlor for a moment and take a fresh look at what the queers and dykes (their words when used “in-house”) are really trying to get the rest of us to accept. My question to you and all the drawing room pundits is this: does reality shock you that much that you need to censor it in order to win your arguments? I say yes, because truth is: homosexuality is disturbing, disgusting and foul and is only for the morally dissolute and disreputable.
If that offends you…there’s nothing I can do for you. Your consciences are seared.
Steven (c31bbf) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:36 amThe reality is that once the age-old definition of marriage is abandoned to include same sex couples, it can then be expanded to permit “marriage” of siblings, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, bigamy, polygamy and any other combination that adventureome folk desire. What would be the arguments against those arrangements if prop. 8 fails? Vote Yes on 8.
mhr (607ad1) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:37 amHomosexulity is depravity of the mind…period.
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (ecd859) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:53 am#
Joseph–
I’m pretty sure that a church can deny their sacraments to anyone they choose, so long as the denial is related to their faith. The furthest courts have gone is require non-spiritual arms of churches (e.g. public charities) to be non-discriminatory in hiring, etc. Note that Catholic hospitals don’t usually offer abortion services.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/2/2008 @ 2:27 am
And yet, the Churches might argue that there are no non-spiritual arms, that every charity they undertake is inspired by and infused with their understanding of what is required by their God and their faith. The Catholic adoption agency of Boston, long recognized for their sterling work in placing hard to adopt children, was forced to close down their operation. Their only other choice was to accede to the state’s requirement that they facilitate gay adoption, in contradiction to the churches stance that the homosexual lifestyle is against the will of god. Please note the “homosexual lifestyle;” Church doctrine does not hold that gays are sinful but rather that an intrinsically disordered nature poses an additional burden to living in accordance with God’s intent for the human species. Just as those with a genetic predisposition to violence or drunkenness or promiscuity have an additional burden to overcome.
I think that at heart, the controversy over gay “marriage” is not that gays are being deprived of some intrinsic right that they must have in order to fulfill their lives – certainly where it has been mandated, gays are not flocking to the institution. I think, as has been touched on here in the comments about “shame” is that gays have gone past wanting acceptance, that has largely been accomplished on a social level. I think they now want approval of their lifestyle, and “marriage,” they think, will bring them that. It won’t. It will only raise the ire of people who believe that they are being required to go against the tenets of their faith, or their natural sense of things, to accommodate the desire of a small minority to have things their way in all ways. And yes, the implications for what will be taught as state sanctioned social doctrine are enormous. See again the Massachusetts’ school system. Contract law, “civil unions” is the, please pardon the not intended pun, civil solution to this issue.
Susanna (f7ae5b) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:07 am#100 Harry Toor
The justices did not do something good. The four justices in the majority abused their authority by finding something in the CA Constitution that is not there. If it passes Proposition 8 will prevent them from flipping us the bird.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:12 am. The act of pushing and passing this proposition is the specific act of return(ing) to the legislature and the people the power to define marriage. The proposition itself is the definition of marriage and I think people who are rationalizing a vote for 8 despite otherwise supporting gay marriage because of the action of the courts seem to be missing this very significant fact..
The act of voting on this proposition is the specific act of returning to the people the power to define marriage.
Voting yes is saying “we the people define marriage this way, and the legislature may never change it.”
Voting no is saying “we the people define marriage this other way, and the legislature may never change it.”
I think marriage should be defined to include same-sex marriages. I understand if you do not; but if you’re voting under the illusion that somehow voting yes doesn’t mean choosing a particular definition and denying the legislature the power to change it, you are wrong.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:13 amtake a fresh look at what the queers and dykes (their words when used “in-house”)
Some gay people use those words in-house. Some do not. Neither I, nor my husband, nor our friends use ‘queer’ at all; and while we do use ‘dyke’, it refers to a specific type of lesbian, not lesbians in general.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:15 am#101 Aphrael
This amendment restores the situation to where it was before the court’s majority found a right to same sex marriage in the constitution. I concede your point that the amendment will prevent the legislature from authorizing same sex marriage in the future. However, the court has forced the issue by striking down a voter approved statute that banned such marriages but could have been repealed in the future.
If enacted Proposition 8 will correct an abuse of authority by the court’s majority.
Ideally, a ballot proposition that would have merely reversed the court’s decision would have been preferable. (See #s 1 and 48.)
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:22 amIf eneacted, proposition 8 will embed a policy decision in the state constitution. It’s one thing to vote for it if you agree with the policy decision; it’s an entirely different thing if you disagree with the policy decision.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:33 amI think part of this issue is that it brings into conflict two basic types of people, and no, I don’t mean gays and straights. There are those who believe that by making something “legal” you have answered any moral or common sense objection to the issue at hand. Thus, legalizing homosexual and lesbian marriage is the final word and it is time to move past it and get on with solving the important issues of the day. I believe that those in favor are making a good faith attempt to accomplish just that, remove one area of social discord from the common square. But we have seen how well that worked in the wake of Roe vs Wade. That “settled law” was supposed to diminish the acrimony in the public square and allow the maximum amount of freedom to each individual according to their conscience. Of course we have seen that the result is almost the opposite. Every January tens of thousands of people descend on Washington to protest the judicial fiat that made us all complicit in abortion if only by acceptance of the legality of that decision.
Then there are the other kinds of people who do not believe that “wishing” – or saying – will make it so. Those are the people who see clearly the unintended consequences of even the best intentioned legislation and accommodations. They know that the human heart is not going to change overnight because judges have said it must. That people will still be opposed to abortion and gay marriage and promiscuity and the host of other “life style” choices that run counter to what has been proven a successful strategy for life and societies in the past. They know that trying to maximize everyone’s liberty, or even licentiousness, must and has resulted in minimizing some liberty for some people. Take the abortion issue, since it looms so large in our society despite settled law and decades of experience. It certainly resulted in the maximizing of the freedom of women and their doctors to abort the child whenever said child was not “wanted.” But it also certainly diminished the freedom of the those who did not want to be complicit or accepting of abortion to not be so. To the extent that State laws had to be passed to protect members of the medical profession who do not want to be involved in abortions and hospitals which do not want to offer abortion services to avoid having their freedom of conscience and action burdened. You might ask, what’s the problem, then, if the “conscience clauses” of various state laws protect people from participating in actions against their conscience? The problem is that what the law gives, the law can take. And if, as Obama has stated, he will sign into law the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act)when he takes office, all those conscience clauses that protect hospitals and medical personnel from participating in activities that violate their consciences, all the safeguards against my tax dollars being used to kill children in the womb will be wiped out. FOCA is not going to end the social debate on abortion, just as Prop 8 will not end the social debate on gay marriage. To pretend otherwise is to subscribe to magical power of “wishing will make it so.”
Susanna (f7ae5b) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:38 amEmbedding a policy decision in the state’s constitution is precisely what the court’s majority did. The only alternatives are to accept the court’s decision or unembed it via a constitutional amendment.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:43 amStu707: Sure. One way or another, the result will be embedded in the state constitution. Which means the proper question is not should this be embedded in the constitution?, as there is no way to avoid that; it is which definition should we choose to embed in the state constitution?.
Note that i’m not trying to get you to agree with me on which definition we should adopt; I’m just trying to make it clear that there is no way to vote on this and not be choosing between two policy decisions, either one of which will be constitutionalized.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:46 amHow can you support courts defining words to mean what they don’t mean?
It’s Orwellian.
mockmook (ce732b) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:07 amThe Japanese call it “Siscon.” I like to call it Skywalker Syndrome.
Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:12 pmAphrael #168
I understand. I would have preferred not to constitutionalize either position.
I have made my choice to constitutionalize traditional marriage.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:20 pmI think Patterico should do himself a favor and read this excellent essay by Jane Galt. The essay does not push any particular conclusion, but is a helluva lot more intellectually honest than what I just read above by Patterico:
Redhead Infidel (726be9) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:26 pmFYI, Jane Galt, BTW, is McCardle.
Redhead Infidel (726be9) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:32 pmI votED yes on Prop 8. I have no quarrel with gays and lesbians, but can’t abide the courts redefining words in the dictionary. Besides, while people do marry for many different reasons, the fundamental purpose of marriage is to care for the children.
And try as they might, two homosexuals can’t have children without the cooperation of a 3rd party. And the responsibility for raising and caring for the children ought to be for the two – and ONLY two – people whose DNA combined to create them.
Our local (Sacramento-area) TV & radio pundit, R.E. Graswich, says that gay marriage will be self-punishing, and that “gay divorce” is the answer.
Ken Mitchell (6a8351) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:33 pmIt’s understandable to want to poke a stick in the eyes of the Ca. Supreme Court. The process by which gay marriage became legal was absurd.
That said, no matter which way the vote on Proposition 8 goes, it will “overturn” the court decision. The people are now making the choice. The past is mere prologue. But the decision on gay marriage should be made on its own merits, not as some kind of statement about the courts.
I’m with Patterico, voting no. I cannot believe we would write discrimination into the California constitution (admittedly, the state constitution is a pile of junk right now, but still.) I think the argument that gay marriage threatens marriage, families or children is the dictionary definition of unreasoned prejudice. There’s no evidence for the claim — at all. Any objective reverse-engineering of the sorry state of families now in America wouldn’t come close to identifying homosexuality as a cause. It is just as valid to suggest gay marriage might strengthen the institution.
If marriage is a good thing for society, and I think it is, then gay marriage is the perfect resolution to society’s evolving tolerance of open homosexuality. It normalizes gay relationships, creating a legal and societal structure for them.
Vail Beach (790ce0) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:36 pmRed,
We don’t need to imagine, we have MASSACHUSETTS to examine for any ill effects from allowing gay marriage.
None so far.
snuffles (677ec2) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:37 pm153/Eqwatz:
If all you want is to preserve churches’ ability to marry only heterosexuals, and to preserve their ability to teach that homosexuality is a sin (or whatever), that won’t, and can’t, be affected by the result of Prop 8.
The First Amendment prohibits interference of this sort into church business. There is no possibility of successful litigation against a congregation for this reason.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:42 pmI am in favor of sperm and feces combining to form a baby. Down with the tyranny of biology!
As soon as we allow men to marry each other, let’s put a proposition on the ballot mandating men having children.
K T Cat (7ec40f) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:46 pmSnuffles, we’ll see, won’t we? “So far” is your strongest (and most inaccurate) arugment.
Litigation has already happened and more – much, much more – is on the way. Litigation redefining religious freedom and freedom of speech. In the end, it is predicted that sexual liberty trumps ALL. I’m sure our Founding Fathers will be so proud.
Redhead Infidel (726be9) — 11/2/2008 @ 12:57 pmSociety over the past 50 years has grown far more accepting of the idea of divorce and people with a string of both marriages and divorces.
The concept of a guy and woman living together, even having children, without pursuing the symbolic and legal steps of marriage also has become routine, even fashionably non-conforming.
The taboo of extramarital relationships (thanks in part to folks like Bill and Hillary) has become less and less significant over the years.
The concept of single, teenaged girls having children has become less and less embarrassing or unacceptable over the years.
Inserting same-sex relationships into all of this will do nothing but further the cheapening and dumbing down of societal expectations and boundaries.
The symbolic and legal recognition of a guy marrying another guy, and a woman marrying another woman, and its effect on traditional notions of marriage, will be analogous to the teacher giving everyone in the classroom an “A” or “B” grade, including to the kids who’d otherwise be getting C’s, D’s or F’s.
So just as grade inflation has affected the public classroom, the same thing is happening to things like marriage.
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:08 pmThe Founding Fathers weren’t sexually repressed prudes like you Prop 8 supporters, Red.
snuffles (677ec2) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:09 pmMark, you’re just a homophobe. We know there is no meaningful difference between men and women nor is there any meaningful difference between hetero- or homosexual relationships. Just like the breakdown of the family has led to no ill effects, so too will the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals have no ill effects.
It’s only a matter of time before men can have babies. We just need to put more resources behind it! Let’s get started on that right after mandatory pre-school and free ponies for everyone.
K T Cat (7ec40f) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:12 pmIf anyone’s interested, I wrote a long post on gay marriage here, ultimately arguing against it.
Jim S. (be64e3) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:26 pm“There is reason to believe that gays are wired that way.” Such impressive scientific reasoning. The same reasoning that has argued that heterosexual people who become homosexual are ‘giving in to their wiring’, but people who move the other way are ‘fighting their wiring’.
There is also evidence for “wiring” on pedophiles and certain types of killers; so are we to accept that as well, simply because it’s ‘wiring’? I certainly don’t put homosexuality in that category, I put it in the category of life choice. Something that should be perfectly legal, but not necessarily recognized on the same level as the foundation of a naturally propagating family.
Mike O (822344) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:28 pmPatterico,
Thank you for a well-reasoned and well-written post. As a long-time reader and former CA resident, I voted for Prop 22 back in 2000 as a knee-jerk response to everything I was brought up to believe. Since then, I’ve come around to a position that sounds very familiar to everything you wrote here. Frankly, my preferred position would be to see the government get out of the marriage business all together. It seems to me that a government that provides special benefits to ANY form of voluntary association is by definition discriminating against those who do not choose to associate in this way, and history shows that marriage, in some form or other, existed long before governments as we know them anyway. However, as long as the government stays involved, it should not prefer one person’s preferred type of marriage over another’s. Thank you for demonstrating that one can be both conservative, and pro-gay marriage.
mjdaniels (2655f0) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:28 pm2 left shoes do not make a pair of shoes. A pair of shoes implies 1 left and 1 right. I don’t expect Nike to start selling Hetero (left and right) and Homo (same foot) pairs of shoes anytime soon.
roger (7faa01) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:28 pmWhile I agree with you on the basic pros and cons of the issue, if I lived in California (shudder) I would vote yes on Prop 8 specifically to flip the bird to the state supreme court.
The theory that we used to live under was that we govern ourselves as a democracy. The people of California passed a proposition a few years back that banned gay marriage. Everybody got to vote on it. Whether you like the results or not, that is how things are supposed to work in a democracy.
The heirs of Roger B.Taney are not supposed to be able to rewrite the laws to suit their caprices.
Mark in Texas (ccdea9) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:38 pmAlthough, I too agree as a matter of principle, Gays should have the right to marry, to me, it seems that there is another argument that might carry some weight.
In contemporary America (in my view) there are few true victims. The political fights are increasingly among different interest groups for maximizing the rights afforded them by the constitution and could be tolerated by society. In this scenario, most groups are part of bigger coalitions. For instance, Gay rights groups, almost always are part of anti-war and environmentalist coalitions. So, if I am opposing leftist anti-war and environmental groups, and I think that these are much more important issues than maximization of rights of an affluent, vocal, minority. Shouldn’t I oppose these groups whenever and whereever I find them, including their allies?
nirmal (fec4de) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:44 pmIf all you want is to preserve churches’ ability to marry only heterosexuals, and to preserve their ability to teach that homosexuality is a sin (or whatever), that won’t, and can’t, be affected by the result of Prop 8.
The First Amendment prohibits interference of this sort into church business. There is no possibility of successful litigation against a congregation for this reason. – Comment by JRM — 11/2/2008 @ 12:42 pm
I can easily see the argument that “churches have the right to believe whatever they want”, as long as they keep it to themselves when they gather together and do not expect their superstitions to be tolerated in the “real world” of commerce, government, education, and public policy.
A hefty amount of public and professional rhetoric already has become mainstay in the idea that separation of church and state (as you all know, not a constitutional phrase) really means you shouldn’t let religious beliefs affect how you act in politics and government.
A fundamental (and flawed, IMHO) concept is that “religious belief” is a set of quaint ceremonies and stories that some people adhere to as would people in a social club. Hence, it is assumed that there is “a real world” of “common ground” that is religion neutral or religion free. But there is no place like that by logical examination unless you accept that very limited and contrived concept of religion.
If one considers “religion” to be a system of beliefs concerning the nature of reality, reason for being, the foundation of moral principles, and how these things are implemented in daily affairs, then it is obvious there is no “religion neutral” sphere of daily human existence. There will be some systems of belief that significantly overlap, and there will be others that by definition are basically mutually exclusive in perspective, even though the logical out-workings in society look the same.
“What the heck is he saying?”- Theists may be against murder because they believe only God has the right to take a human life. Non-theists (I’m sure the vast majority) would also be against murder, but by definition because of other reasons. So, 99.9% of society agrees it is not acceptable to “commit murder”. But when the issue is “euthanasia”, infanticide, or abortion the societal agreement starts to break down because the underlying principles are different
I do not feel we’ve seen adequate rational yet why polygamy won’t be next on the list or why my child and I will not be ostracized when the thought police at school recognize we don’t adhere to the official, government mandated, legal definition regarding the morality of two people intimately living together.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:48 pmConservative and pro-gay marriage? Isn’t that an oxymoron? You are more confused than the homos…
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (7f9cc2) — 11/2/2008 @ 1:57 pmLatecomer to the debate, just a quick hit-and-run comment –
I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe same-sex couples are significantly and inherently different from diverse multi-sex couples, because men and women are different and the difference is relevant.
I do not oppose same-sex marriage becaues it hurts hetero marriage. I oppose it because it is not at all the same. Fertility issues are just one (albeit major) part of this difference.
Motherhood and fatherhood mean something. Wives and husbands are different. You do not help gay people by pretending that their unions are the same as hetero unions, by pretending that men and women are interchangable.
Accepting same-sex couples as equivalent to hetero couples is just one more step down the path of gender confusion. It is not good for society (marriage is THE institution that unites the sexes), it is not good for children (who need the male and female influence), it is not good for gay people (who live in a fantasy that denies the obvious and critical differences between unisex and diverse couples).
Amphipolis (e6b868) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:08 pmWell, I AM going to vote yes and flip the bird to the liberal justices who circumvented the will of the people to allow gay marriage in California despite the overwhelming opposition to it. How dare they?
As a parent, I don’t want homosexuality being given equal parity with heterosexuality. Whether or not one is “born” with the sexual preference, the fact remains that it is a deviation from normalcy and while I fully support equal rights for gays (employment, civil, contract, etc.), I’m sick of being derided as a “breeder” by the more radical gay element foisting their agenda on the rest of us. No matter how hard anyone tries to make the argument, homosexuality is an abberation and should be viewed as such. God condemms it and while I do not personally condemn it, I will oppose same sex marriages on moral and ethical grounds. I am voting YES on Proposition 8 to support religion and family values. This time, the gay agenda has gone too far. Homosexuality is to be tolerated, not celebrated.
Baltazar Flotard (7c2972) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:32 pmI’m not any sort of “progressive” (I refrain from sullying the word “liberal”). I’m no “social activist” of any stripe. I do not approve of judicial activism, or of efforts to warp language for political purposes.
But framing this issue like this:
“Why is homosexuality the only brand of perversion that gets chosen? What about all the others? What about their “rights”? ”
… is precisely why we’re voting on it. You’ve started from a position that already alienates the other side and pretty much forces them to fight back (in this case, with the ballot). I have no doubt that gays will gladly ask you to point out who, exactly, is harmed by their actions, as opposed to “those other brands of perversion”.
And no, pointing to a book and saying “because this says so” won’t fly.
In a similar vein, I think “tolerance” might be the wrong choice of wording here. “Tolerate” infers that you have the power and perogative to stop them from, and have simply refrained from doing so. This, too, backs them into an untenable position – you simply cannot expect them to view you as anything other than an enemy. Push it far enough and you’ll become one they cannot coexist or negotiate with, and you no longer have a functioning civil society.
Try engaging in some actual critical thinking and put yourself in your opponent’s shoes.
Tim (de0636) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:53 pmLOL
Even if it passes it will be overruled by a judiciary of elites that will protect the sheeple from itself.
JudgesOfCali (8e27ae) — 11/2/2008 @ 2:54 pmYeah, the problem is you don’t understand the concept of “consent.” The moment your golden retriever can pass the Turing Test, thereby establishing an ability to understand and consent, you can marry him/her/it. Until then, no.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:02 pmGood to see more confirmation of my decision, made many months ago, not to waste time reading this blog.
SmokeVanThorn (52e959) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:03 pmMy cocker spaniels not only understand consent, they’ve mastered manipulation. Does that make them marriage material?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:05 pmI don’t think so, but I’ll never try to outguess how 7 judges might rule. You could be right.
However, should the rule in such a way, an amendment that said that “Only marriage between two consenting human beings is valid or recognized in California” might be in order.
And if it fails, heck, I guess that’ll be the way it is. But that is no reason to vote YES now, since this is about something else entirely.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:07 pmDRJ–
If they can pass the Turing Test, yeah.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:09 pm“Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.”
Ultimately, as far as government is concerned, its not up to you any more than the court. We shouldn’t be mucking with a relgious sacrament just because the state taxes it.
If you want gays to be married, take it up with your church… and get the state to fix civil unions so they get equal rights. I wouldn’t mind getting the state totally out of the marriage defining buisness but until then, I will flip the court / government the bird and vote yes on 8.
Thomass (234bf9) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:26 pm#
Red,
We don’t need to imagine, we have MASSACHUSETTS to examine for any ill effects from allowing gay marriage.
None so far.
Comment by snuffles — 11/2/2008 @ 12:37 pm
see http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/24/same_sex_teaching_upheld/
There are no negative effects so far if you hold that children are “mere creatures of the state” and that parents should not have the right, to go along with their duty, to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs.
Susanna (f7ae5b) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:28 pmIf two men can marry why not allow polygamy and interfamily marriages? Those relationships are more often accepted (and in some places in the world the norm) than gay marriage. Can a woman, a man and his sister now demand a right to marry? I don’t see how this can be prevented when we expand from the current one man/one woman definition.
I am certain churches unwilling to perform same-sex marriages will not be allowed to have tax-expempt status, and schools will be pushing gay themed literature even more strongly than before.
Goochie (b3e3ef) — 11/2/2008 @ 3:34 pmThis is the wrong way to define it – it’s NOT “gay” marriage – it’s same-sex marriage. A gay man can marry a gay woman, vice versa.
The question is, what is the proper family structure for the government to endorse?
If 2 men are allowed to marry, then why is there an exception if they are related? Related same-sex couples should also be allowed to marry, following that logic. “Equality for all” and such.
A YES on prop 8 is a confirmation of the proper family structure – a mother and a father.
projecthappy (9059eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:05 pmCan I marry my Grandmother under this proposition? See she is a widow, and I am single, we have no other family, so I’d like to marry here for the rest of her life which should be just a year or two. She will benefit from having companionship and I will benefit by getting her estate tax free when she dies.
Win for everyone.
dan schmit (ded766) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:21 pmRegardless of what one thinks of gay marriage the idea that since homosexuals cannot help themselves they must be allowed to marry is not a sufficient reason to vote no on 8. There is all kinds of compulsive behavior that society does not condone. If you believe that homosexuality is not immoral and gay marriage helps civilization then by all means vote no. I happen to believe that gay marriage is a ridiculous proposition in light of my personal opinion that homosexuality is deviant and perverse (I mean that in the nicest way possible). Marriage is the ultimate bourgeois institution meant to stabilize society–homosexuality is a radical, destabilizing lifestyle and is incompatible with marriage.
Besides all that, when gay marriage is legal, those who refuse to sanction it will be prosecuted–priests, caterers, photographers, etc.
Peter W (d63e2b) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:26 pmI ran across an old National Review article which stated TWO non-religious, societal reasons for governments to support marriage: (1) to civilize men and (2) to provide for the raising of healthy, productive children. Not many people seem to think about the first reason much, but Orson Scott Card talks about encouraging young men to take on the “persona” of husband – a man dedicated to one woman and their offspring. This is more beneficial to society than other “personas”, like gang-banger, Lothario, street tough, etc.
Maybe you have to live in a low-income community to see the terrible effects on children when a very large percentage of their fathers do not have any intention of taking on the “persona” of husband. Marriage seems to be on the retreat in low-income areas, and may soon be common only among the well-off and the very religious.
It doesn’t do much to inspire young heterosexual men to adopt the role of a faithful husband and father when a gay married man in Massachusetts tells a New York Times reporter that he and his husband have agreed that it’s “O.K. to play around, because you have to be practical” and that most of the gay married men he knows are “mostly monogamous except for the casual three-way”.
I think that most people have met deeply committed (male) gay couples who maintain their commitment while continuing to have sex with other men. But for heterosexuals outside the intellectual set, a standard of “mostly monogamous except for the casual three-way” won’t increase the number of “low-stress” households with both biological parents which has been concluded by Child Trends to be the best environment for raising children.
Why can’t we pick another word to give dignity to gay marriages, so that we don’t decrease societal support for the ideal of sexual fidelity within traditional heterosexual marriages? While there are certainly monogamous gay men, I very much doubt that gay activists are going to push for an expectation of sexual fidelity within gay marriages. Even Andrew Sullivan, before he became such an eloquent proponent of gay marriage as a way to limit promiscuity among gay men, said that gays had a lot to teach straights about their outmoded ideas concerning sexual fidelity.
KarenT (edb648) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:31 pmActually, Karen, you’ll find that theme in the book “And the Band Played On” when Shilts discussed male homosexual sexuality. He makes the point that male homosexuality has such extremes because it is male sexuality untempered by female sexuality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:39 pmPatterico,
You’re wrong. Want to know why? Because my 22 year old son just announced, out of the blue, that he had gotten married to his girlfriend. Sounds great, doesn’t it?
My son’s marriage wasn’t a total surprise, but after I congratulated him and told him he had taken an important step that important resposibilities, he merely muttered, “Dad, marriage is just a piece of paper.”
So, this is what marriage has come down to: a “piece of paper” that merely provides a gateway to state-provided benefits. It’s now about the dollars, isn’t it?
MarkJ (42fe5b) — 11/2/2008 @ 4:56 pmWell aside from previous California laws that once excluded various types of marriages because of race or ethnicity, i.e. discrimination against a particular segment of society, that never even had constitutional sanction, should point to even those who have had a hard and fast view of how a marriage is to be defined in our society have been found wanting in the wake of history that is lit by our nation’s better angels and history of–We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men are created equal…”–promoting equality–aside from that, we have a problem with heterosexual marriage in our society. They fail at an amazing, historical rate. Wouldn’t it be better, if all of you who are so disturbed by the idea of homosexual marriage, work for real improvements in the lives of heterosexual couples. Marriage is a bedrock of society, but the real danger to heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with gay people who get married. As the poster here says, who and in what marriage would say that their marriage failed because of the gays up the street? I don’t expect to change minds here–but truth be told, this is really about the rights of fellow Americans, who live, work, pay taxes, are family, often, with the rest of us.
CitizenE (132db0) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:12 pmPatterico:
m (249f17) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:20 pmAndrew Sullivan has commended you for your post on Prop. 8.
I’ve been following Andrew Sullivan’s coverage of conservatives-of-principle supporting equality for gays and lesbians. To be honest, this to me smacks of “voting” on whether Jews should have been allowed to be considered full citizens of Germany, or on whether slavery should be permitted, and my view of anyone who would vote yes on 8 is similar to how I would feel about someone who would vote against inclusion for Jews or for slavery: deep contempt and disappointment.
What I wonder is, how many educated, thougtful bloggers with less-thoughtful readerships have stood back, disgusted at their readers, and wondered how they came to appeal to that readership to begin with. If I found that a good percentage of my readers supported what I would consider a deeply unethical and inhumane position, I think I would begin to wonder.
Lemmy Caution (ff6f97) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:20 pmAs long as we’re sanctioning perversions, I’d like to have sex with a corpse. Can I marry the corpse? We really love each other. I’d thought I’d found love with my German shepherd, but this corpse is the real thing. Can’t we express our love?
Sheesh.
Jay Guevara (b2f60c) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:54 pmBut seriously, Patterico, when marriage ceremonies in SF take on the flavor of the Folsom Street Fair, hang your head in shame. Because you enabled it.
Jay Guevara (b2f60c) — 11/2/2008 @ 5:56 pmLemmy, yep its just like slavery … except for the part about coerced labor … and just like Germany’s treatment of jews except for … well, except for the concentration camps, etc. Yep, just like it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:00 pmThe Titanic suffered no ill effects from hitting an iceberg, either.
For the first hour or so.
Jay Guevara (b2f60c) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:00 pm“Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination. The policy question is whether this discrimination is justified on a societal level.”
This is “do not consciously choose” stuff is nonsense.
We could demand that Jews choose to become Christians in order to enjoy the civil privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but we don’t.
We could demand that Catholics renounce the pope choose in order to enjoy the civil privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but we don’t.
Gays could choose to marry a person of the opposite sex in order to enjoy the civil privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but they shouldn’t have to.
Tony Comstock (73e777) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:02 pmQuite honestly marriage should not be an affair of the state. It is a sacrament in the various religions and simply does not belong in our legal structure as a civil government.
If I lived in CA I would vote against Prop. 8, on the premise that it’s discriminatory. But in truth I believe it’s time to get rid of civil marriage entirely. It never belonged in the civil law and is a remnant of the Western European culture that the first white people brought here.
We do, however, need a legal structure of committed relationships between consenting adults which are not business relationships – no argument about that. And that structure needs to contain the safeguards for family stability and care of progeny and effects which we currently have stuck in the civil marriage law.
But we are way overdue at working out an appropriate structure which will allow us to let go of the hot-button term “marriage”.
elfpix (3f024e) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:02 pmJeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy didn’t choose theirs either, so I guess that their indulging their own form of “loving” must be OK.
Jay Guevara (b2f60c) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:15 pmI think this is a state issue and should be decided as it is now in CA. For those who think gay marriage will somehow reduce the value of marrige, please explain that logic. The one thing that has devalued marriage and destroyed more children’s lives has been divorce. And I don’t see the Christian Right going crazy about divorce anymore. Why not? So please spare me the argument that gay marriage messes up kids when you have no evidence to back up such a claim. You want to rail on something that has destroyed more lives than I can even count, start making divorce laws more difficult. Maybe people would start taking marriage more seriously.
Dee (4c2ac9) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:16 pmDee, that something else has undermined marriage does not refute the assertion that same-sex marriage would undermine it. Logical fallacy on your part.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:20 pmI admit I haven’t read all the replies here so maybe this has already been answered.
For years the Catholic church refused to marry divorced people. No one sued because even though it is legal to be divorced it was against church doctrine. Exactly the same thing would happen with gay marriages. No one would ever force a minister to break church doctrine.
Several people brought up children. But it sure seems to me that you are totally disregarding the children of gay people. These kids aren’t going to go away and even if you wish to “protect” your children from learning about gay people, that is becoming increasingly impossible.
All children should have the right to have married parents. And yet there are people here that would take away that right from the children of gay families. Shame on you! Stop using children as an excuse.
Marriage is a stablizing influence on society and yet you would deny this to a large segment of society. Families are the backbone of the country and some of you want to take the legal safeguards and safety nets to gay families. Unless a couple is married they lose all kinds of federal rights that the rest of us take for granted.
Marriage is a contract between two consenting people. If we keep that contract it surely leaves out your dog or cow or multiple people. How ridiculous some of you are to bring up beastiality.
Frankly, I don’t care what excuse some of you use for a yes vote on prop.8. It’s easy to see from the posts that is homophobia plain and simple.
And I’m an old straight granny, without a dog in this hunt except for compassion and empathy with people that have been fighting for the same rights I always took for granted.
Vote NO on Prop 8
Kewalo (957019) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:21 pmIt’s puzzling to see so many people in this thread assert that “Marriage is a religious institution,” which presumably would be perverted by allowing gays to do it.
Since we allow atheists to get married, I’d say that argument gets nullified more or less instantly. (Hello? 16% of Americans are non-religious. They outnumber nearly all other minorities except for Hispanics. Get used to ’em! Certainly the justices-of-the-peace and Navy captains who perform their weddings aare used to ’em.)
Not only that, but we also allow married couples to remain childless.
And we allow married couples to practice sodomy and variously fetishized non-procreative sex.
So since marriage is NOT about religion, is NOT about children, and is NOT about certain sexual activities and positions over others….. why CAN’T gays get married?
TTT (23fb03) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:27 pmA modest proposal: we allow “gay” marriage, but ban protease inhibitors. After all, the virus deserves to live, too. Deal?
Jay Guevara (b2f60c) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:32 pmTwo years ago, I was married for the second time. Because of our age, we will not bear or raise children together. (Between the two of us, we have four adult children.) Does that threaten the marriage of younger, potentially procreative couples? Anyone offended?
Last week, I learned that a friend’s son was married recently. The young couple love each other and want to make a life together. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 is a vote to end James’ marriage.
The proper response to someone else’s marriage is to say: “Congratulations! I wish you all the best.” Two adults of the same sex who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other should not be compared to murderers or rapists.
I hope the voters of California, who now have the opportunity to decide on gay marriage, will open their hearts and vote “no” on Proposition 8.
Joanne Jacobs (eae734) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:45 pmKewalo, the problem with your little story about why no one would force churches to hold gay marriages is that you have not been paying attention to other ways in which California has recently been forcing churches into action in conflict with their religious beliefs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:47 pmKewalo
Everything in your argument can be said for polygamy.
Tell me why same-sex marriage is ok but not polygamy.
Darleen (187edc) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:50 pmJoanne
We need to use our heads to vote, not our hearts.
Darleen (187edc) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:52 pmMarriage is a contract between two consenting people. If we keep that contract it surely leaves out your dog or cow or multiple people. How ridiculous some of you are to bring up beastiality.
So do you oppose the idea of a person (often and normally a male) choosing to have more than one spouse (often and normally a female)? After all, if they’re all consenting adults — perhaps living in the backwaters of Utah or immigrants from a very ultra-traditional Muslim society — what’s it to you?!
If you hesitate to codify, or wag your finger at, such arrangments, shame on you!
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 6:55 pmThe one thing that has devalued marriage and destroyed more children’s lives has been divorce. And I don’t see the Christian Right going crazy about divorce anymore.
Which merely illustrates how lax standards and expectations have become through the years.
An example of just how half-assed (or some would say “different”) society has become is that the Hollywood community (repeat: the Hollywood community!) ostracized actress Ingrid Bergman in the 1950s for splitting from her husband and having a child out of wedlock.
That’s why it’s humorous, and also ironic, when people of the left (including a lot of Hollywood celebrities), who’ve nurtured a c’est-la-vie culture, become irate and indignant when the modern society they revel in has affected people near and dear to their hearts. For instance, a husband or boyfriend (or wife or girlfriend) who considers the idea of being faithful to the spouse or partner as boring and archaic.
If anyone has a liberal wife, and she catches you cheating, you can always proclaim: hell, if Hillary Clinton can tolerate it, so should you!
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:07 pmKevin Murphy — what’s this “Turing Test” nonsense? You act as if it a legal test. It ain’t. Find an argument with meaning in the real world.
L.N. Smithee (2e7b60) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:08 pmI’m voting YES ON 8 and will enjoy the union that God has established to be the institution of marriage, between a man and a woman….I’m always happy for the man and woman and wish them the best of luck in their lives. I even get that crawling feeling up my leg whenever I see a legitimate wedding…so beautiful.
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (074752) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:09 pmI love folks who state that they have a principled reason to oppose same-sex marriage and then use words like “loathsome” in discussing it.
BobN (95e0eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:19 pmIn California, the folks voting NO ON 8 are the same types of people who will be voting NO ON 4 as well.
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (074752) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:23 pmMark and Darlene, Personally I wouldn’t care how many spouses someone had, but when I think of the tax problems it makes me nuts. How would we apportion SS and so on?
I think keeping the marriage contract to just 2 consenting adults makes sense.
And SPQR, the only story I have seen about a church being sued was from Mass (I think) and it was concerning a public campground that was rented out to the public but denied to a gay couple. It had nothing really to do with the trying to make the minister marry gay couples. Do you know of another incident?
Kewalo (957019) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:23 pmDfD: while I’m voting no on both, your generalization clearly fails, as both Patterico and JRM have indicated that they plan to vote Yes on 4 and No on 8.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:26 pmSPQR:
If you obtusely refuse to understand a comparison, or at least pretend to, there’s little I can say to make it clearer. So I will simply note: to vote yes on 8 is to exercise the “tyranny of the majority” to deny a group something that should be a basic civil right.
In response to the “what about polygamy/bestiality/incest” crowd: the difference is that sexual orientation is a protected category, while broad sexual preference (outside of a sole consenting adult partner) is not, and that there are very good reasons for that distinction. No one has come up with a convincing reason to discriminate against gays and lesbians that doesn’t violate the anti-establishment principle.
And for the “they’ll sue churches that don’t marry gays and lesbians” red herring: churches can already refuse to marry people for failure to abide by the teachings of their religions. Orthodox Rabbis are not forced to perform inter-marriages, and Catholic priests are not forced to marry divorcees or non-Catholics. There is no reason at all to believe that the current state of affairs obliges churches to marry people who are violating that church’s precepts.
Lemmy Caution (2870fb) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:26 pmDarleen wrote to Kewalo [the self-described “white old granny”]
Here is my challenge to SSM advocates who want to fundamentally transform marriage, as posted to Patterico (but not yet answered):
L.N. Smithee (2e7b60) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:27 pmRe # 182. That’s funny, Snuffles. Completely lacking in intelligence, but mildly funny nonetheless. I gave you the fact that litigation is already in progress (contrary to your assertion that there is none) and your response is the inevitable ad hominem name-calling. There’s no dialogue whatsoever with people like you.
Redhead Infidel (726be9) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:30 pmKewalo wrote:
So what you’re saying is that because you personally can’t figure out how to tax a polygamist family, you would deny individuals the fundamental right to love more than one consenting adult.
How hateful of you!
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:32 pmKewalo, my recollection is that Catholic Charities ended adoption work in San Francisco as they were told by city officials that they had to place children with same-sex couples. A gay couple sued an Arizona adoption placement website using California Unruh act as that website would not list gay couples. The Arizona website now won’t list California couples at all. The Unruh Act is a very broad act and is already having these effects before the state Supreme court ruling. These are not unreasonable concerns.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:35 pmCatholic Charities ended adoption work in San Francisco as they were told by city officials that they had to place children with same-sex couples
which is different from saying that they must marry same-sex couples, because marriage is a sacrament and placing children for adoption is not.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:37 pmLemmy, I don’t ‘refuse’ to understand a comparison. Your comparison was ridiculous hyperbole bordering on slander.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:38 pmSPQR,
Your recollection is (rather conveniently) incorrect. Catholic Charities, despite a long history of placing a (very) few children with same-sex couples, ended the practice on orders from the Vatican, just after Boston did the same. Like Boston, they did so very, very reluctantly and against unanimous opposition of their board. As in Boston, there were many resignations from the board over the issue.
BobN (95e0eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:39 pmaphrael, non sequitur in the point I was making to Kewalo.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:43 pmInsofar as Catholic Charities or any other religious organization provides a service to the public that is regulated by the government — as adoption is — and/or uses public funds to do so, they must follow basic civil-rights laws. That is why Catholic Charities must to open to non-Catholic children and non-Catholic couples. It’s simple non-discrimination law.
If people don’t like it, they should start a movement to allow for religious discrimination with public funds — something the Bush administration is already working towards. Or they could fight to remove adoption from government oversight.
Good luck with that approach in Massachusetts and California.
BobN (95e0eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:45 pmLemmy Caution wrote:
Oh, really. What are they, Lemmy? Tell us.
But as you do, consider the fact that NOBODY would have been taken seriously in 1948 it was suggested that the California Supreme Court’s decision legalizing marriage between a Hispanic woman and a black man (Perez v. Sharp) would EVER be used as the basis for the same court declaring homomarriage a right.
In addition to your explanation, take a shot at my hypothetical challenge to limits to anti-incest laws the CSC decision opened up. I dare you.
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:46 pmComment by aphrael — 11/2/2008 @ 7:26 pm
At least you are consistent. The others are trying to have it both ways on those two issues. They are either confused or evil….ha ha ha
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (074752) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:49 pmSorry, my link should read “my hypothetical challenge to anti-incest laws.”
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:49 pmThe argument that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because homosexuals cannot procreate is just a horrible argument – if that were true, the state would not allow a couple to marry if one member of the union was born barren, or senior citizens would not be allowed to marry, or men who had vasectomies.
Regarding comments re: same sex marriage and polygamy/bestiality:
What a scare tactic! Gays don’t want to marry ten people, they want to marry ONE, and they certainly don’t want to marry animals! Darleen, Kewalo did answer the polygamy argument – it’s a marriage between two people. The argument that allowing gay people the rights and responsibilities that come with marrying who they love would somehow suddenly allow some guy to marry a gazillion women is just absurd. I’m not stupid, I get the whole slippery slope idea – that if we remove one requirement of marriage, then what will stop us from changing the whole thing? The problem is, we have changed the requirements of marriage – people get divorced, divorced people remarry, we allow interracial marriages, we allow people of different faiths to marry, and, hey, we still don’t allow polygamous marriages.
And churches should entirely be left out of the whole argument. A straight couple doesn’t need a church’s approval to get married and neither should a gay couple. A church can refuse to marry a straight couple, as should they be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple. This is another scare tactic.
I wouldn’t be surprised either way if Prop. 8 passed or failed, but it won’t really matter either way. If it passes, it will be a setback, but even supporters of this bill know it’s coming. Sure, you have the demographics of young adults supporting gay marriage, but you also have Dick Cheney with his gay daughter and my family supporting my gay sister. It’s easy to make a stranger a villain, but it’s hard to not want your gay family member, friend, co-worker, neighbor, etc., to have the same rights with their loved one as you take for granted with your own.
(Oh, and Jay Guevara – I shouldn’t even give your unbelievable comment credence, but how do you sleep at night, man?)
AR (096e95) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:50 pmPersonally, I don’t see how the state has any justification in extending special rights to anyone on the basis of their sexual relationship – except to men and women who are creating the next generation. Absent the need to support procreation, and establish rules concerning procreation, the state has no business mucking about with marriage, which is in all other respects a private and religious matter.
So extending marital rights to people who cannot procreate, even in theory, is nonsense. And it can be shown to be nonsense by looking at the results – two unrelated men can “marry,” but two related men cannot. Now please explain why the related men should have lesser rights than the unrelated men. Tell me exactly how sexual relationships between these two sets of men provide a rational basis for distinguishing them.
The inescapable fact is that once you remove sexual differentiation from the definition of marriage, marriage disappears, and you have chaos, legally & otherwise. What is going on with gay “marriage” is not that marriage is being enlarged, but that marriage is being abolished. It’s being done indirectly, and will take a couple of decades, but that will be the inevitable cultural result – particularly since the culture has already gotten to the point where marriage is optional.
punditius (857d75) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:50 pmDfD, I’m sorry; I don’t understand why voting no on 8 and voting no on 4 are linked. They’re not the same issue, and my reasons for voting no on each have nothing to do with one another; moreover, I can easily imagine an internally consistent position which calls for yes on one and no on the other (both ways, actually).
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:51 pmNow please explain why the related men should have lesser rights than the unrelated men.
Uh… for the same reason that infertile brother-sister siblings do.
(That one was easy.)
BobN (95e0eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:54 pmUh… for the same reason that infertile brother-sister siblings do.
(That one was easy.)
Precisely – there isn’t one.
punditius (857d75) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:58 pmAR wrote:
And until this summer, you could have said “…and hey, we still don’t allow gay marriages.”
But now you can’t, can you, AR?
.:*Channeling Paul Simon*:. “Slip sliding away…Slip sliding away-ay-ay…”
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/2/2008 @ 7:59 pmpunditus wrote: Precisely – there isn’t one.
That’s exactly what I have been saying.
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:03 pmComment by aphrael — 11/2/2008 @ 7:51 pm
For the Far-Leftist Liberal, Props 4 and 8 are of the same mindset of a NO VOTE for each. Are you suggesting that’s not correct?
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (074752) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:16 pmThis is comment 238+ on a long thread, so I doubt many will read it, it will be lost in the noise.
I’m not a California resident, so don’t get a vote. Maybe though I can help you decide on what to do, by laying before you some facts you probably haven’t considered.
If you state that marriage is only between a man and a woman in as fundamental a document as a state constitution, you better have a really good definition of “what is a man” and “what is a woman”. Because biologically, it ain’t that simple.
1.7% of Californians are Intersexed, with bodies neither wholly male nor wholly female. Miss Teen USA 1991 had 46xy chromosomes for example, which are normally only found in males. Medical journals are full of accounts of people with cross-sexed chromosomes giving birth, or fathering children. They’re the exceptions, most with these conditions are sterile.
So how do you define it? Shape of genitalia at birth? Well, for perhaps one in 1000, still several 10’s of thousands of Californians, they were born with “ambiguous genitalia”, a body that resembled neither norm. In the past, the practice was to surgically alter them to a more socially acceptable appearance. They didn’t get a say in what that appearance was, and there’s many boys now who are livid that they were castrated and given a “neo vagina” on the discredited theory that gender is malleable. It’s not, not for more than a few, so their lives were blighted.
We don’t do that so much now.
Oh but it gets worse. There’s two relatively common Intersex conditions, 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) where the baby always looks female at birth. But about half get a “natural sex change” later in life, and some can even father children afterwards. Changes in the other direction are much rarer, but they happen too, as they did to one woman I know who lives in LA.
So are we going to return to the obscenity we used to have, deciding what “race” someone is, and whether 1/64 Black counted as “white” for marriage purposes? They were only a tiny minority too.
I’ll quote one such situation, this is not some hypothetical, it’s all too real:
You want the California courts clogged up with cases like this? With real people, people who are human beings, being treated this way, their marriages under threat no matter who they marry? That’s what a “Yes” vote for proposition 8 means. It will be a statement enshrined in the very constitution of the state of California that there are human beings unable to marry anyone securely.
The USA signed up for the International Declaration of Human Rights – with one proviso. That the implementation of human rights such as the right to marry would be in the hands of the several states and counties. The Yogjakarta declaration clarified what those human rights meant for those whose sexuality and/or sex were not the norm. Proposition 8 is directly contrary to that declaration.
California is currently compliant. Proposition 8 would be just as retrograde a step as re-introducing laws banning “miscegenation”. Worse, in fact, that was never a part of the constitution, merely statute law.
People like us – for I’m Intersexed – have always tried to keep a low profile. Not to make waves. To try to get along. In the past, before ID keeping was so strict, we mainly managed it. No longer. We can’t remain invisible. Those who support Proposition 8 will make our children – for not all of us are sterile – “ex-nuptials”. They will destroy our marriages, some of which have lasted for decades, always under the threat that some busibody will challenge them successfully, as has been done in other states.
We exist. We have always existed. We walk among you, trying desperately not to be conspicuous.
I can’t and shouldn’t tell you what you should do, or how to vote. But I should make you aware of the consequences. Consequences that will affect our children, and our marriages.
Zoe Brain (9d8067) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:19 pmI might add that in the UK, where I was born, I’m legally male. I looked male at birth. And in Australia, where I live, I’m legally female.
If I emigrated to California, I could take my UK passport (saying female, as that’s what my body looks like, mostly – at least according to my OB/GYN) and my UK Birth Certificate saying “boy”, and what would the California constitution say then? Who could I marry if proposition 8 passes?
Zoe Brain (9d8067) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:41 pmThank you Susanna for your post at #202, where the theoretical concern is demonstrated in reality. See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/24/same_sex_teaching_upheld/
As I argued at #190, the legalization of homosexual marriage effectively marginalizes anyone who believes otherwise. You have the right to believe whatever you want as the First Amendment says, just don’t dare ask anyone to put up with your superstitions out in the real world. I “agree” with the judges ruling in the article, it seems to me the logical consequence of making same-sex marriage legally equivalent to the “old version”. The next question is whether it is legal for the state to compel people to pay taxes for public schools that they will not participate in because of religious convictions.
I understand the thread is long, and I have added comments on occasion to a thread that I haven’t read completely, but I will point out some comments have been made multiple times while other questions have not been adequately answered.
I am not persuaded by the argument that says we “don’t have to worry about marriage being redefined as more than 2 partners or allowing for incest, etc., because that is not what this is about, no one is asking for that”.
That is exactly what this is about. Do we uphold the common understanding of the basic building block of society that has prevailed for thousands of years, or do we feel that a small but persistent and vocal minority can change those societal norms? If we feel a minority can demand one change, why not another, and another? This is especially true once we say an individual has a civil right to get the government’s imprimatur on their preferred sexual expression.
This is not an issue for people of religious conviction that would find themselves marginalized as it is for the rest of you. Christianity has never depended on government approval, but governments based on Christian principles are the ones which have been most concerned with individual civil rights. Be careful what you wish for, the leaders of revolution often are the first targets of the new tyranny.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:41 pmZoe – that was an interesting & informative post, & deserves an answer that does it justice. I’m afraid I’m not able to give you one, except to say that while the amendment uses the terms “man” and “woman,” the definition to be given those terms is within the power of the state legislature to establish, within reason. It would be unreasonable, even in California, to define “man” to mean “woman.” But short of that, the application of the amendment to intersexed and transexual people could be defined legally by statue – and I hope would take into account the very real biological facts & human situations you have so clearly laid out for us.
punditius (857d75) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:46 pmConsequences that will affect our children, and our marriages.
Yep, the legal enshrinement of same-sex marriage will naturally and automatically work its way into the lexicon of children. If only because their school textbooks and word-of-mouth in general (via an atmosphere heightened by the many teachers of liberal persuasion who oppose initiatives like Prop 8 and greatly sympathize with the notion of males marrying males, females marrying females) will become increasingly geared to “gay marriage” and, of course, the subject of homosexuality.
And since male sexuality overall is very sexualized (ie, promiscuous), an off-shoot of that — that being male homosexuality — is sexualized to an even greater degree. So to assume greater openess about gay marriage and, in turn, the specifics of male-to-male relationships won’t ratchet up the amount of sexualization throughout our culture is naive at best.
No one has come up with a convincing reason to discriminate against gays and lesbians that doesn’t violate the anti-establishment principle.
Do you realize the very labels — of and by themselves — you apply to male and female homosexuals can be called discriminatory? Simply put, why are males homosexuals denoted one way (“gays”), and female homosexuals denoted a different way (“lesbians”)?
Our modern language oddly enough reflects a desire to create a separation between homosexuals who are male and homosexuals who are female. It also makes homosexuality seem even more peculiar and flaky.
An act of discrimination!
Mark (411533) — 11/2/2008 @ 8:50 pmPrecisely – there isn’t one.
Yikes! The end is near!!
Seriously, it’s still illegal and, if anyone’s going to force the issue, it’s those pesky and numerous heterosexuals, no?
BobN (95e0eb) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:15 pmL.N.,
My argument is that the definition of marriage has changed throughout history. How is allowing divorced people to remarry, interracial couples to marry, and people of different faiths to marry not a slippery slope if you think gay marriage is? All of those things did fundamentally change the class of people who were allowed to enter into marriages. Where exactly do you think we should have stopped the slope? Should marriage be as it was in Midieval Europe, arranged for property, with Catholics and Protestants separate, where women were typically as young as 12?
I think my problem with your argument – the incestuous one, above, as well – is that it presumes people cannot make distinctions between separate things (this goes for all of these silly distractions, that of polygamy, bestiality, incest). (Oh, an aside, in your hypothetical, I take real issue with the sentence, “The fact that society has not accepted sexual relationships between siblings is insufficient reason to prevent them,” as you’re implying society as a whole treats homosexual relationships as it does incestuous relationships. Please, I implore you to find me a poll where over 50% of the nation is okay with incestuous couples, as there are polls that say 50% of the country is okay with gay couples.) Like, somehow, allowing two men to marry would somehow allow two brothers to marry – if we don’t allow incestuous couples (even older ones who are incapable of reproduction) to marry now, why would gay marriage make that so? There are compelling reasons to ban incest, bestiality, polygamy – genetic concerns, coercion in families, women’s rights, animal’s rights. There is simply no compelling reason, besides your convenient when you want it to be argument of a slippery slope, to ban gay marriage. If there were any reason as compelling as the ones listed above for banning polygamy, incest, bestiality, we would not be having a realistic discussion about this. The law makes distinctions every day – why is it you understand why infants weren’t given the right to vote when women were, but not how gay marriage doesn’t allow people to marry dogs? During the 60s, people used the argument of not passing the ERA because all hell would break lose for our society, men and women would use the same restrooms, wouldn’t be allowed to have same sex schools, teams, etc, – doesn’t that argument seem incredibly silly now? Fear mongering never goes out of style, I guess.
Oh, and we’ll get this out of the way: “Yes, yes, but AR, 50 years ago, no one would’ve ever had a realistic discussion about gay marriage. Someday we’ll talk about incest this way! Slippery slope!”
50 years ago, interracial marriage was considered morally reprehensible, and now almost everyone recognizes that as one of many dark chapters in our nation’s history. It’s called evolving. Let’s see, in 50 years, I’ll be 75 – we’ll see if, after having already had numerous legal challenges to laws forbidding incest, after there’s still the concerns of genetic issues and coercion in families, if same-sex marriage opened the door to incestuous marriages. (Oh, and I’ll be laughing about it, too, telling my grandchildren I can’t believe there used to be people who compared their aunt getting married to people marrying her sister or a dog.)
Enjoyed the discussion. Must finish a paper now.
AR (096e95) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:34 pmCongrats, Pat. Your choice of being kind to gay people over giving the finger to the judiciary is a choice of chosen pragmatic, real-world justice over ideological, abstract spite.
glasnost (c75a98) — 11/2/2008 @ 9:36 pm“Indeed, I have never heard a single heterosexual person blame the failure of his or her marriage on the availability of homosexual marriage. And if someone tried, I suspect they would be seen as scapegoating.”
You’re making the point for those who support Prop 8. The argument is a non-sequitur — no one I know uses this as an argument to oppose same-sex marriage…a society should uphold behavioral values and promote ideals based on that — and no one in history, the Greeks, Moses, Jesus, the Romans, Medievals, Enlightenment thinkers, ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. Ever.
It is the height of arrogance to think we know better than key philosophers, religious leaders, and political icons that formed our Western sensibility.
Richard Romano (b96fd9) — 11/2/2008 @ 10:36 pmI’ve said elsewhere that I have a fundamental problem with the legal process that has, thus far, been observed on this issue. That I’d much rather see California voting on a measure put forward by the LGBT community to overturn Prop 22, rather than this mess.
That being said, one thing I’d like to do, and encourage others to do, is take note of the civil rights comments made by the LGBT community in the discussion around this issue. When the issue of _other_ civil rights (like, say, those guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd amendments) comes up, those comments can and should be brought back out.
Chuckles48 (0601d3) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:11 pmThis is what proponents of same-sex marriage have on their agenda: teaching children values contrary to those of their parents. http://www.article6blog.com/2008/10/29/proposition-8-and-californias-schoolchildren-a-primer-on-falsehoods/
Jann Jonnes (3be79b) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:27 pmWhy can’t a state where Republcan Governor Schwarzenegger would gladly sign a law that gave gays the right to marry pass legislation that would do such a thing?
Because the democrat legislature doesn’t want to be held accountable for it, that’s why. So they let the courts legislate it for them.
Why allow them to get away with this?
Hopefully Proposition 8 passes. And as soon as it does Schwarzenegger should challange the demcrat controlled legislature to pass a law recognizing gay marriage.
The Washington post was outraged when Maryland courts wouldn’t by this bs but aren’t outraged by the democrat controlled legislature (which has been in control of the state house for 40 years)not passing a law to make it legal. The democrats have also controlled the Governor’s mansion for the same time minus four years that Erlich was Governor.
The liberals want a free ride from the courts on issues that their a majority of their own constituency aren’t in favor of. Why give them a free ride?
zefal (46f0dc) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:40 pm“Marriage” as something available to the non-nobility only gained traction, or even sacramental status, in the 18th century. The Greeks were, of course, much more sanguine about homosexual liasons – while there isn’t literature about “marriage” per se, there certainly was a sense that same-sex relationship were socially and culturally meaningful.
You may want to look on the Cistercian tradition for the literature on what was called “Spiritual Friendship,” a (theoretically) chaste but committed same-sex relationship between monks. Look particularly at the writing of Aelred of Rievaulx and Bernard of Clairvaux.
Lemmy Caution (2870fb) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:41 pmProposition 8 is as heinous as the decision to imprison Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, as evil as the 60’s era proposition that Californians adopted allowing discrimination in public housing (overturned by the US Supreme Court, over the voter’s will to discriminate) and as wicked as the anti-miscegnation laws that forbid people to marry if their mate was unpopular with society, racially.
Marriage is NOT about children. You do not have to have children, you do not have to intend to have children and you don’t even have to be medically able to have children to get married. It is a contract between 2 people to form a union, with specific rights and responsibilities, enforceable by law. You have to get a license to marry and both parties must be legally consenting partners (now ewes, no minors under the age of legal consent). As such there is no barrier to infertile elderly couples to marry, there is no functional reason why gay or straight people should be barred from entering into this contract or being unable to exercise the rights of this contract: to form a committed union, making society more stable by agreeing to support and look after each other.
Contrarily, there is no license required to have a child. Any idiot, or genius, any straight woman OR lesbian, can obtain semen and get pregnant if physically fertile, or barring any legal barriers of prior child abuse or gross non-competence, even adopt a child from a willing agency. In the event of natural childbirth, resulting from traditional or artificial insemination, there is no prescribed rules for prenatal care and once the kid is born, no requirement that a mother provide a live in father, if one is not present due to abandonment, divorce or widowhood. NONE OF THAT REQUIRES MARRIAGE or is prevented by the lack of marriage. Only physical neglect or abuse (including sexual abuse) takes away parental rights once they are assumed for a child.
This is strictly about hatred and discrimination. Your marriage is only weakened by gay marriage if you neglect your marriage worrying too much about your marriage. If your neighbor marries in a Buddhist ceremony and you are Baptist, it has no bearing on your family or your commitment. If you teach your children to be one faith, or lifestyle, it is not the fault of the state or the followers of alternatives that your children or your wife shun your ways. That is up to them. You can’t dictate to them if you can’t convince them and you shouldn’t try to dictate that gays don’t enjoy the same contractual rights as you just because it makes your tribe more unified to hate another tribe. Raise your own damn families and let the me and my gay friends raise ours, if you can’t remember DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!!!
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/2/2008 @ 11:54 pmSorry, meant to say, the only way gay marriage can damage your marriage is if you neglect your marriage by worrying too much about gay marriage of others. We have separate laws from marriage that govern parental rights (even in the absence of marriage) and obligations of parents to children EVEN IF the children are born out of wedlock. Marriage does not have anything to do with protecting children, we will protect children even if you don’t marry. Marriage can include children but the laws are strictly separate regarding the impact of children on marriage, as opposed to the basic structure of the marriage contract before you (if ever) have children and after the children are independent minors or adults and leave the home.
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/3/2008 @ 12:03 amhttp://christians-against-prop8.tumblr.com/
follower of jesus (e06fd7) — 11/3/2008 @ 12:36 amMarriage is NOT about children.
Like hell it isn’t about children. Any major part of our culture — and marriage is a significant component of that — will and does affect children. Be it from the symbolism of youngsters envisioning a father and mother (their own or others) in a household setting, to the social cues that a society gives to them, including what’s discussed in the school room, and what adults in the halls of government either approve or forbade, you better believe they’ll be influenced by the so-called institution of marriage.
Mark (411533) — 11/3/2008 @ 12:57 am“Proposition 8 is as heinous as the decision to imprison Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor”
Obviously, you haven’t spent much time in concentration camps.
Dave Surls (e443d3) — 11/3/2008 @ 1:34 amWe live in interesting times. After a study of the few countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, France (the country of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity) rejected same-sex marriage in 2007 “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.” In French polls, the populace wanted same-sex couples to have all the rights of married couples, other than adoption and artificial procreation.
Meanwhile, in the USA, we have a presidential candidate who became famous for writing a book based largely on his experience with “father hunger” – a condition now widely recognized among the children of single women. There were other loving men in his life, but he still felt a “hole in his heart” because of his missing father. There are a few reports about the small children of gay couples inventing imaginary mothers. Children born through artificial insemination are agitating for the right to know who their fathers are.
Yet we are all expected to affirm on the pain of being labeled “bigots” that it’s all the same to children if they are raised by a mother and father vs. two mothers or two fathers. And adopted infants are forced by the power of the state to go through their lives without ever knowing a mother or a father – even when adoption agencies believe that it is in the best interest of a particular child to have a mother and father. And when the birth parents object to placement of the child in a same-sex household. Because “kids are resilient” whereas the feelings of adults in “protected classes” take precedence here.
Clearly, same-sex couples and single people can be good parents. And it entirely understandable to feel that same-sex couples should be protected from discrimination. But the court decisions in Massachusetts and California make same-sex couples a “protected class”. We are expected to pretend that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. This shuts down study and discussion of the advantages to most children of having a mother and a father, all other things being equal.
I believe that most studies of the children of same-sex couples have compared the children of lesbian couples raising children from previous heterosexual relationships to children of divorced or separated heterosexual mothers in relationships with men not related by blood to their children. At this point, we may never get much data comparing infants raised by same-sex couples to infants raised by biological parents (matched by income, education, etc). Such studies could be politically impossible now. Things would be a lot simpler if we did not pretend that there are no differences between heterosexual and same-sex relationships.
KarenT (edb648) — 11/3/2008 @ 2:40 amBecause a person doesn’t make an initial choice about their sexual orientation doesn’t mean they can’t make one. Nor does it mean they can’t change it if they arrive at a different place philosophyically. If I was raised in a barbarous culture and then discovered after the fact that canabalism was not such a good idea couldn’t I change that particular practise.
EnniP (721f55) — 11/3/2008 @ 3:00 ampunditius – re #261
Your faith in the wisdom of the legislature is touching. Perhaps if I explain my own personal circumstances, it will illustrate the problems.
As explained in COSMOS Science Magazine, I’m one of the handful of cases of a natural MtoF transition. Over 99% of such natural “sex changes” are FtoM.
I live in Australia, where same-sex marriage is illegal. I married another woman in 1981, and as late as 1985 the official diagnosis of my condition was “under-virilised male”, mildly intersexed. Psychologically, I’ve always been female, quite strongly so. But my only chance for love, companionship and most importantly, children was to live as best I could as a man. I distrusted my own feelings too, every time I looked in the mirror, I saw undeniable evidence that I was male. So I tried to be the best Man any woman can be.
In the late 90’s, my reproductive system started working, partially, falteringly, and with technical help to extract gametes (intercourse was impossible, I didn’t have the full equipment for that), after many miscarriages we had a child. I’m his biological father.
In 2005, the natural change happened, and it was so rapid it darn nearly killed me. I lost a third of my body mass in just 3 months, over a pound a day, double that at its height. As the result of these symptoms, rather than the basic tests I was given at the fertility clinic in 1985, this time I had a full work-up done. Chromosomes, MRI scans, ultrasounds, the works. And the diagnosis was changed to severely intersexed female.
Reconstructive Surgery was required, as the by now atrophied glands were a cancer risk, and other atrophy had meant my urinary tract had to be re-plumbed. I opted for a full reconstruction, leaving me functionally as well as cosmetically normal for the first time in my life.
I’m in a same-sex marriage, though it’s chaste as neither of us are lesbian, or even bisexual. But we’ve had a child together, we’re co-parents, and all the studies say that two parents are better than one. None of the studies indicate that the sexes matter significantly, and to the extent they do, same-sex couples have an advantage.
I have a letter from the Attorney-General saying that my marriage is valid, as it was contracted between two people, one legally male at the time, the other legally female. This would not be an option under the wording of proposition 8.
Our marriage has lasted for 27 years, and most definitely for better and for worse. There’s more to love than sex, despite what some groups appear to believe. It’s about raising children in loving households, with partners who have made solemn vows before Man and God.
Can you honestly think that any form of legislation could deal with such circumstances? And mine is by no means the most complex actual example, not a mere hypothetical!
Proposition 8 just doesn’t recognise biological reality. It closely resembles the anti-miscegenation laws in that regard.
Zoe Brain (9d8067) — 11/3/2008 @ 6:29 amI am amused by all the falsehoods in the comments. First off the legislature has voted -twice- to allow gay marriage but Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed it to allow the courts time to look at the present lawsuits.
Secondly – this Proposition allows the people of California to vote on this issue. So to say you want to take back the peoples right to vote on this issue by voting ‘Yes’ is ludicrous. Voting ‘No’ or ‘Yes’ is exercising that right.
So – vote ‘No’. Because in two or four years you will have to vote on this again and again because the issue is not going away. CA will have same sex marriage because that is where society is going. And its about time – there is no rational reason not to allow it.
tim (f648a0) — 11/3/2008 @ 6:49 amZefal: tim is right. The California state legislature has twice passed a gay marriage bill, and both times Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying it should be decided by the people or the courts.
If Prop 8 passes, the legislature can’t pass a gay marriage bill, as such a bill would violate the plain language of the state constitution. The only way for gay marriage to happen, at that point, would be to have another hotly contested controversial initiative on the subject.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/3/2008 @ 7:35 amAnd when given the option, it is always better to let the people decide.
The People might be drooling morons, but this IS a democracy…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/3/2008 @ 7:48 amCalifornia Boy said,
#271
Admittedly, those who oppose same-sex marriages are at times hateful and that is regretable but this issue is not motivated by hate. Same-sex marriages would reprresent a radical shift in social structures and should be a concern to everyone on both sides of the issue. While those who oppose it have come across as hateful, those who endorse it come across as glib, selfish, disinterested and manipulative.
It also is not about the ability or the choice to have children. It is about the message sent to all children and the impact that message will unavoidably have on the formation their beliefs about sex, marriage and family.
If we were being asked to pity people with this condition it would be easier to accept. We aren’t being asked to allow it for the sake of mercy, we ae being asked to endorse it as customary.
If a person is born with a deformity we do everything possible to correct it. When correction is not possible we do everything possible to help them overcome the limitations. We don’t, however, treat it as normal.
EnnisP (166c56) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:07 amYES ON 8
Just like we voted before on prop.22. Stop judicial tyranny!!
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (cd97c2) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:12 amHey Zoe, #278
EnnisP (166c56) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:22 amYou actually prove the point I made in comment 282. We recognize and sympathize fully with your situaiton. No sensible person would wish you harm or want to deny you every possible happiness in life. But, would you agree that your situation is unfortunate and should be treated rather than accepted. If I was being asked to sympathize I would gladly do so. Instead, however, we are being asked to change the boundaries.
Scott: I have not argued that the people shouldn’t be allowed to decide. I have argued that holding the vote constitutes the people deciding, and that we should decide to allow gay marriage. 🙂
My point in echoing tim is to put to rest the claim that the legislature is afraid to pass a gay marriage law itself and wanted the courts to do it for them. That’s clearly not true in California: the legislature did it twice … and the governor wanted the courts to do it instead.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:42 amAh. Well, at any rate, while we might not agree on how the vote should go (frankly, I’m not in CA, so I couldn’t care less), we at least agree that the people should decide… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:48 amBoth bills vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger also violated the plain language of the CA constitution by trying to wish Prop 22 away rather than repealing it outight and putting the matter to a popular vote. Which would be not unlike tomorrow’s in all ways but one: the “no” advantage would belong to the Prop 8/22 camp, as it rightly should.
Xrlq (eb59d1) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:58 amFor a really long time, human civilization was based on the principle of being cold at night because they couldn’t create fire. Human civilization had normalized death-by-smallpox until more than halfway through the 20th century. Arranged marriages and child brides are STILL parts of human “civilization” in many parts of the world, effectively unchanged since morning in Mesopotamia.
(Cue the singing of “Traditiioooooonnn–Tradition!”)
TTT (c764b7) — 11/3/2008 @ 9:35 amIf you are gay get out of LA. RE: to USC professor which said the opposite. Southern California should form a separate state or country minus the funny boy SF Bay area.
br_poltiical@yahoo.com (24d937) — 11/3/2008 @ 9:40 amI’m voting no, because as an African-American, I am offended by “seperate but equal” which is what civil unions are.
Leslie (663e10) — 11/3/2008 @ 10:29 amLove ya patterico but on this one I think you are wrong.
One of the primary things a society must do is reproduce itself. Biologically. The modal method of that is heterosexual. It is just and proper that the society should bound an institution that is the wellspring of reproduction. And yes I realize that there are marginal cases of non-reproductive heterosexual marriages , but the form is the same. The model is that of a reproductive, monogamous pair. It follows something deeper than supposed constitutional rights, it follows nature. You can no more get me to believe that a three sided polygon is a square than redefine a homosexual relationship as marriage.
And I know people hate this, but how if the issue is love or companionship and the rights thereto, how can, say, uncle-niece marriage or bigamy be denied? (I would have used first-cousin marriage as the example but that’s legal in Cali — probably shouldn’t be)
Mitchell Young (d3f200) — 11/3/2008 @ 10:48 amSo, you equate race with one’s choice of sexual partners?
JD (5b4781) — 11/3/2008 @ 10:53 amChristians! Don’t be fooled by a Mormon LDS trick! Save Christianity and vote NO on proposition 8! See http://Batyzim.com/ for the real, Christian, story.
Cain Hamm (e28555) — 11/3/2008 @ 12:16 pmJD: Yes, the choice of the race of your partner is as significant to your marriage as their sexual orientation: if you love someone, and both of you are legally competent to consent, it has no functional bearing on ability of the partners to FORM A UNION THAT IS BASED ON LOVE AND MUTUAL SUPPORT WITH SOME CONSEQUENCES IF THE CONTRACTUAL UNION IS VIOLATED OR ENDED.
At one time bigots saw fit to enforce racial segregation by forbidding mixed race marriage. Today, primarily religious bigots, no longer free to unify their tribes by hating other tribes like the Jews (religious tribe) or Chinese (racial tribe) have one last scapegoat, the gay tribe. To codify their subhuman, second class citizenship they seek to deny equal contractual rights to gays, much like they sought to deny employment rights to them with the proposition to prohibit gays from being teachers. Just like Jews were restricted to being moneylenders and not allowed to have other “legitimate” professions in medieval Europe.
A marriage is a fine situation to raise a child in, but it IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW. The law covers relations between two people. If they never have sex, if they have sex that is normally associated with homosexuals (oral or anal, without intention or possibility of procreating) or if they have ordinary heterosexual intercourse, it has no bearing on the marriage contract so long as whatever sex is consensual and acceptable to both partners (even the fact that there is no sex can allow a partner to dissolve the union, if that is their choice). If there are no children, there is one set of consequences, if there are children there is another set of consequences.
This contract is not undermined in legitimacy if gay people are allowed to enter into it, like all other citizens. The contract is between two people who have an equal right to initiate it and an equal right to end it. Children have no right to terminate a marriage. They can’t actively choose other parents. The state is only a party to enforce justice in practice of this contract. Churches are only parties if the two parties making the contract decide to involve it.
You may think Wiccans are going to hell, or Buddhists or even Catholics, but you can’t say they can’t have a Wiccan, Buddhist or Catholic ceremony if their church agrees to it, if they are heterosexual. Why should your opinions have any say about two other people’s contractual choices. As long as two heterosexuals do not physically or sexually abuse their kids, you have no say about their child rearing, marriage or no marriage. Why do you gain this right with homosexuals. The straight couple could be alcoholics, completely loveless and enjoy petty cruelty that is not physical or sexual, and fill the child’s head with demonstrably false nonsense and fail utterly at educating the child responsibly AND YOU CAN’T DO A THING, if the kid is not truant. Marriage is only as good as people make it, it is not inherently good.
With longer lives, most married life will be spent with no kids in the home (if you are lucky and they don’t land on your doorstep unemployed and needy). What better demonstration do you need that there is nothing to the contract that requires specific sexual equipment or practices. At some point, many men and women lose sexual functionality. Are they not MARRIED (remember the slave who asked AIN’T I A WOMAN?)? Think, and don’t discriminate. VOTE NO ON 8.
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/3/2008 @ 1:15 pmHaving voted YES on the similar Prop 102 here in Arizona, all I can say is that I respectfully disagree.
Icy Truth (0466e6) — 11/3/2008 @ 1:19 pmDave Surls: I haven’t spent time in concentration camps, I was speaking of the heinousness of the decision to strip law abiding citizens of their civil rights based on unreasoning fear and bigotry. Japanese-Americans were treated differently than Italian-Americans in wartime.
They were not hurting us, they were just different and relatively powerless compared to the majority who decided to rally around demonising others based on who they were rather than what they did. This is the same mindset that allowed us to enslave blacks for centuries, they weren’t numerous enough for us to treat them as equals and the majority enjoyed being tyrants until our society evolved and thought BETTER about the hypocrisy of slavery in a “free” society.
Think better and support a free California, don’t take away the right of gay Californians to marry the ones they love. And if you really hate gays, think of all the painful divorces in their future, since they really aren’t that much different from us straights, 50% of whom can’t stay married anyway (John McCain and Newt Gingrich, I’m talking about you… Ronald Reagan too).
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/3/2008 @ 1:36 pmwhether homosexuality is biological or not, whether it is immoral or not,– children have a fundamental right to a mom and a dad.
our society is so individualistic we forget that children deserve to grow up with the influence of both genders.
prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that parenting matters, that we should do everything we can to strengthen our marriages.
i’m voting yes. becuase children have a right to a mom and a dad, and i want to live in a society that encourages this situation.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/gender-matters-children-have-a-right-to-a-mom-and-a-dad-day-7/
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=711636269
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.31_Gallagher_Maggie_Marriage%20Matters:%20For%20Kids,%20for%20Parents,%20and%20for%20Religious%20Liberty_.xml
prop8discussion (b4cef1) — 11/3/2008 @ 3:53 pmI will be voting Yes on 8 in honor of my grandchildren. I want my grandchildren to grow up in a world of order; not a world of confusion. This is not a decision I take lightly, as a member of our family is gay, as well as good friends. I believe in loving all, but I also want the next generation of children to have mothers and fathers. This is a very difficult issue, but I appreciate the intelligent discussion on this post.
Laurie (cc6a40) — 11/3/2008 @ 4:01 pmI think California Boy had to be intentionally missing my point.
JD (5b4781) — 11/3/2008 @ 4:07 pmInteresting how the homos want to get married in a church when most of them don’t believe in God. No agenda here, right? ha ha ha
YES ON 8
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (1538dd) — 11/3/2008 @ 5:58 pmAR wrote:
You’re being frightfully myopic. Step back a moment, and tell me; what do all those changes in marriage you have listed have in common?
IMHO, at the point before marrying people of the same sex was shoehorned into the law as a “fundamental right.”
As disjointed as that sentence is, I think I know what you mean. If I do understand it as it was intended, my reply is that the in re Marriage Cases decision proves that some people cannot “make distinction between separate things.”
E.g.: Race and gender ARE “separate things,” AR. There are infinite varieties of ethnicities, but only two sexes. Before Perez, an arcane crypto-eugenicist series of restrictions on which men and which women could marry legally and create families was in place in California (the plaintiff Miss Perez, of Mexican heritage, was considered “white” in the eyes of Cal law). No matter what color or nationality a traditional married couple are, it is always a case in which the pieces fit, and thus offspring potentially could result. That is the whole point of marriage and its intended result, the nuclear family.
Now, if you believe the nuclear family has no intrinsic value, why are you in favor of other legal limits to whom can engage in a legally-recognized marital arrangement?
What do polls have to do with anything? Opinion polls are to our electoral system as polygraph tests are to court cases – they’re interesting, but when it comes to making lasting decisions, they’re not supposed to matter. Besides, the argument that the right to marry someone of the same sex is “fundamental” eviscerates any suggestion that such a right relied on the courts to catch up to modern mores. The way Marriage cases was crafted of whole cloth by Justice George, a gay couple should have been able to legally wed immediately after Miss Perez married her betrothed black gentleman back in 1948.
Interesting, AR, that you cited “compelling reasons” why not incest and polygamy. George’s majority decision only addresses the topic in a footnote:
Whoa! Where’s all the “strong and adequate justification?” Sorry, Th-th-th-th-that’s all, AR. No women’s rights, no property rights, no animal rights concerns noted by George, by George. When you compare that footnote to the long-winded explaining away of opposite-sex tradition, it reads more like a fig leaf. Rather than “just cause,” it’s more like “just because.”
If someone wants to use Marriage Cases as a weapon against polygamy or incest based on George’s footnotes, they’ll have to be as intellectually dishonest as George himself was in citing one landmark case against those for-the-moment verboten practices.
After that last portion of the footnote above, the first of two cases cited by George is Potter v. Murray City (1984), which upheld the firing of a Utah police officer for marrying a second woman as part of his pre-reformation Mormon faith. A footnote in that case noting previous supporting cases includes this:
In fact, the Potter case is prominently referenced in other opinions in which the decision is 180 degrees from Marriage Cases, upholding traditional marriage and the right of the state to reject same-sex marriage, including Andersen, et al. v. King County, which upheld the Defense of Marriage Act in the state of Washington.
The prevailing side’s opinions in Andersen begin thusly:
George picked and chose parts of Potter back up a case against polygamy (that HE should be making himself), and conveniently ignored the fact that in upholding one-man, one-woman marriage over polygamy, Potter also rejected homosexual rights to marriage as well. “Strong and adequate justification”? It is to laugh.
Anyway, as I expected, you avoided addressing my hypothetical case, as most SSM advocates have. Once the standard becomes “Why not?” instead of “Why?” The answers get harder.
No, AR, it’s called “devolving.”
Of course, I’m not talking about interracial marriage; I am talking about the fading importance of marriage in society and thus the family unit. What’s weakened it? I have long been on record as saying that serial nuptialists like Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney, and Britney Spears have done more damage to the institution of marriage than any homosexual, because they have treated it as trivial and with brazen disrespect. As I wrote in this Patterico thread shortly after the in re Marriage Cases decision, I believe Ronald Reagan – still our only divorced President – shares much of the blame for his fateful role in backing no-fault divorce.
Marriage Cases couldn’t have happened before marriage had truly become “just a piece of paper,” virtually meaningless to all but those couples who take their vows seriously.
AR, have you ever noticed that while there are a lot of people who cry foul at likening SSM to polygamy or incest, we NEVER (at least I have not) heard any of them say, “That’s where I draw the line! Marriage should only be between two totally unrelated people!”
Hope you didn’t turn in a paper in which you made back-to-back parenthetical statements, as you did above.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 11/3/2008 @ 7:42 pmthere is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.
We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.
If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.
It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.
This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.
Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.
They are absolute anarchists.
Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.
So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.
Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.
Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.
All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.
The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.
That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.
We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.
Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.
to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”
Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas (ab50cd) — 11/3/2008 @ 8:52 pmZoe – it’s not faith, it’s experience. I work for a government bureaucracy at a high enough level to see the sausage being made.
There is a saying in legal circles that “hard cases make bad law.” Yours is a hard case.
punditius (857d75) — 11/3/2008 @ 9:39 pmLN – A tour de force …
JD (5b4781) — 11/3/2008 @ 9:44 pmProp 8 need not divide liberals and conservatives. If one reasons it out rationally, voting NO on prop. 8 makes sense from all sides, from fiscal conservatives to constitutional literalists to civil rights supporters.
– Religious Rights. The first of the American Bill of Rights confirms freedom of religion. No church would ever be forced to perform a gay marriage if they didn’t want to. But those that want to can. Allow people to worship in their own way; that’s American.
joseph mckinstry (3613f6) — 11/3/2008 @ 11:07 pm– Economics. CNBC stated that gay marriages bring in an additional $228 million to public funds in CA annually, and the Congressional budget office estimates $1 billion nationally.
– Civil Rights. Until 1967 blacks and whites could not marry each other in many states. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned those laws (a court reviewing laws, sound familiar?), affirming marriage as a civil rights issue, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man'”.
– Prop 8 Takes Away Existing Rights. The CA Supreme court affirmed the right to marry whom one wants. Prop 8 would take away rights and treat people differently under the law.
In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned those laws (a court reviewing laws, sound familiar?),
No, because that change in law, and the court rulings behind it, didn’t arouse much fervor and opposition in the public. Other than what undoubtedly took place in some far corners of extremist, KKK-type of enclaves, the removal of anti-miscengation laws was treated more matter-of-factly by a good cross section of America.
The concept of same-sex marriage, by contrast, is a whole different dynamic. It’s different in that larger numbers of people, of all races and ethnicities, cringe at the thought and sight of two guys kissing, holding hands and declaring “he’s my husband, he’s my wife!”
Even in liberal Hollywood, there’s still a social-cultural sense of “misfit,” if not “uuhhh,” to a guy (more so than a female homosexual) being a self-described, self-declared gay person.
Mark (411533) — 11/3/2008 @ 11:39 pmRegarding the incest and polygamy arguments. There are NO compelling state interests that we enforce regarding the PERMANENCE of heterosexual marriage, or the requirement that people who breed (have children) provide proof of competency or obtain a license before acquiring a child through biological (non-adoption) means. As I’ve said before, any fool, addict or sociopath is allowed to bear children if she is fertile and can obtain sperm. She does not HAVE to be married. If that is the case, why do we hold gay couples’ marriage hostage to the interests of “the children”.
There are already sufficient laws on the books regarding neglect, abuse both physical and sexual. Beyond that, the state dares not go, because who gets to define what norms you teach your children, what diet you give them (as long as they are not physically imperilled) or what people you allow to associate with them. That is the province of the family not the state.
Back to my initial point, regarding incest you have potential dangers of undue influence undermining informed consent (arguably even past the age of majority) and there is a state interest in preventing the malpractice of deliberately exposing children to the genetic risks involved with incestuous breeding. For this reason alone, I could see marriage involving incest as either warranting prohibition (impaired consent) or at least requiring stronger regulation (enforced sterilisation or verifiable and regularly monitored birth control). There is no actual harm to others regarding homosexual consensual activities, but the risk of genetic malpractice ensuing from incestuous relations cannot be denied.
Regarding polygamy, you have other issues that don’t come up in a contract limited to two equal partners. Three or more partners runs the risk of unequal distribution of affection and assets. If multiple partners decide to have children who has authority over those children and how will custody disputes be arranged if there is a separation or dissolution of the polygamous contract. If many of the partners decide to focus on caregiving rather than contributing to the financial support of the polygamous family unit, does society pick up the tab for a burden one man is overwhelmed with. There is quite a history of polygamous families drawing dispropotionately from family assistance out of compassion for the children, at a cost to all other government services. Even if polygamists gave up their predilection for underage partners, which is all too common, the social welfare and budget constraints make it a contract quite different from heterosexual or homosexual two person marriage contracts. Add to that the vastly more complicated asset and support issues the state would have to adjudicate, it is reasonable to find a compelling interest FOR THE STATE NOT TO GO THERE.
Regarding bestiality and necrophilia, there are two simple words: INFORMED CONSENT. Not possible for the dead, and impossible to verify and intellectually incapable to be obtained from animals that typically are no more advanced than human infants (and we know they not mentally competent at that stage of development).
Prop 8 is nothing but institutionalizing discrimination to validate second class citizenship for a powerless minority. Vote NO on 8, reject hate.
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/3/2008 @ 11:41 pmJuan: “But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.”
How do you prove this proposition. In what way is your heterosexual union impaired by your neighbors’ engaging in a legally married union? The mind boggles. Can you not get it up, man, just thinking of them? I don’t think of my more studly or less attractive neighbors when in bed with my girlfriend. That is between me and her. Finito. Are you less affectionate or supportive if you are Mormon and your neighbors are in a Buddhist marriage, straight or no? If so, then you are not a good Mormon (or whatever you are, I just picked them at random). Your marriage is what you and your wife make of it, independent of your kids or whether or not you have kids. If you aren’t committed in your own hearts, don’t value the marriage as a couple, then you fail, independently of Adam and Steve next door.
None of your rights as a married partner can be impaired by anyone but you or your spouse. You can go to court to get access to her in the hospital, as Terri Schiavo’s husband did. You can insist on visitation and parental rights, you can remove your children from controversial school matters. I know many children who do not take part in school sponsored Halloween activities because their families or the children object. These are all enforceable regardless of legal or extralegal gay marriage, if you are straight.
You are free to raise your child as you see fit, if you choose to have one. You may teach them that Arabs are bloodthirsty, blacks are inferior or that gays are unGodly and that anyone who doesn’t belong to your church is UNGODLY. So long as your kid does not harrass other children for being DIFFERENT than him or harm them physically or disrupt their education, they can walk around with all the fear, hate or ignorance you can pack into them. The teacher may tell him to respect all people, regardless of sex, race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation but that is simply good manners and good citizenship. It is up to you to explain that there is a difference between what he can feel about others and how he can affect their lives without their permission, like me thinking you are an intolerant bigot but refraining from breaking the law by physically assaulting you or threatening you.
Please give me one example how legal gay marriage removes exclusivity from your relationship with your spouse or children. You are free to act as before, think as before and exercise every marital right you enjoyed 12 months ago, as you do today, while gay marriage is currently legal. Now it is not an exclusively straight swimming pool, like we used to have whites only pools or pool time, so if you miss that you can no longer enjoy a right free of the nightmare that another type of person is enjoying a similar right WHILE YOU ARE SWIMMING RIGHT ALONG STILL MARRIED, then you know the horror white power activists must deal with dealing with desegregated swimming pools today. Poor baby. Grow up, accept equality, Vote No on 8.
California Boy (b0d0b7) — 11/4/2008 @ 12:18 amCalifornia Boy wrote:
Do you think your insults are helping your case?
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:31 amRemoving all the ramifications of legal or constitutional mumbo jumbo surrounding the existence of same-sex marriage, just the idea of a guy being designated as either a “wife” or “husband,” or a woman being designated as either a “husband” or “wife,” will affect people’s impression of marriage in general. It will affect them in the same way they’re impacted when a particular category or achievement becomes more expansive, more soft-hearted, more sloppy, more ambiguous, more flaky.
It will be like Olympic officials expanding the boundaries of athletic competition to include those into performance-enhancing drugs. Or school officials dropping the traditional parameters of A,B,C,D and F test scores — so no student will be deemed a low achiever — or allowing virtually all students (including the semi-drop-outs) to earn nothing but As and Bs.
Marriage will become less important, less signficant, and less special when everyone in society is aware that the state (meaning the judicial and legislative branches of government) is allowing guys to be “wives” and women to be “husbands.”
Mark (411533) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:37 amI’m sorry but I won’t support recognizing homosexuality through the law, until we can at the very least define what homosexuality is, and I don’t mean the effects or symptoms. Half of my friends tell me it’s biological or something caused in-utero. The other half tell me it’s a lifestyle choice.
WTF.
Why the hell would we change an institution that’s been around for 3000+ years (that we know of) based on someone’s lifestyle choice?
Why the would we promote something that even Darwin agrees is not conducive to sustaining the species?
Either mother nature is wrong or the religous people are wrong. If you claim they’re both wrong, I weep for our future.
This month I like peas. Let’s make a law about peas.
Buddy (967061) — 11/4/2008 @ 6:30 amDo you think calling heterosexual people bigots, racists, haters, homophobes, etc…is helping your cause for the homo agenda?
YES ON 8
DfD (Democrats for Deportation) (1227d2) — 11/4/2008 @ 6:59 amCalifornia Boy (#294). Interesting thoughts. Not entirely convinced but it is food for thought. I do appreciate you being cerebral rather than caustic.
EnnisP (721f55) — 11/4/2008 @ 7:51 amI don’t think everybody who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. I would like to make some points, though:
Brandon (c0cfee) — 11/4/2008 @ 9:31 am*There are piles upon piles of evidence that homosexuals who grow up in a tolerant society can live perfectly healthy lives. No such evidence exists for polygamists.
*Dogs cannot sign marriage contracts.
*People who support gay marriage do not want to force their views down your throat. They want you to stop forcing your view down theirs.
*Nobody wants to force churches to acknowledge marriages they don’t want to.
*If something isn’t special to you unless you can deny it to others, there’s something wrong.
*Slippery slope goes both ways. If we ban gay marriage now we can ban interracial marriage in the future.
The foundation of American values is that all people are treated equal. Protect civil rights. Vote no on 8.
Bullshit. That is exactly what is happening.
Yup. Utah was a modern day Soddoma and Gomorrah.
So race and preference of sexual activity are somehow equal?
JD (5b4781) — 11/4/2008 @ 9:46 amAbsolute bullshit.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 11/4/2008 @ 9:50 amOops, you got me. You’ve clearly thought this out more than I have. I succumb to your wit and prose.
Brandon (c0cfee) — 11/4/2008 @ 11:58 amOn this, we can agree.
Even if you used a split infinitive.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 11/4/2008 @ 12:00 pmCW – they like to argue against fictional opponents, figments of their imagination, and random hypotheticals.
brandon – I await your explanation how race and sexual preference can be compared.
JD (5b4781) — 11/4/2008 @ 12:01 pmOh, I know, JD. It’s racist…err…homophobic of us and I denounce myself for visiting this site and any other site that begins with the letter “P.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 11/4/2008 @ 12:16 pmRace and sexual preference are both characteristics that people are born with. They’re also both reasons people have suffered from discrimination. And they are both generally irrelevant to determining the value of a human being.
Can you explain how number and sexual preference can be compared?
Brandon (b7aa48) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:09 pmIs there any evidence, Brandon, that sexual preference is an imutable characteristic?
JD (5b4781) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:16 pmYeah, there is. Here are responses from the American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatabout
and the Surgeon General
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm#III
Although ex-gay programs claim that sexual preference is mutable, they tend to have very small success rates. Right now, the evidence points towards sexual preference being immutable. It is also possible that preference is mutable in some people but not others.
Brandon (b7aa48) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:35 pmBrandon wrote:
I live in the ultratolerant city of San Francisco. Here’s what the city’s health department put out just last week:
*People who support gay marriage do not want to force their views down your throat. They want you to stop forcing your view down theirs.
In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEHOCKEY!”A partial listing from NPR.com, June 13, 2008:
More detail on this one:
Y’know, it’s funny — I don’t remember the last time I saw or heard of a devout Christian or Jew protesting outside a Metropolitian Community Church. But gay radicals are getting in the faces of people who worship differently all the time. Doesn’t sound like tolerance to me.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:41 pmIf something is imutable, the only possible success rate would be zero.
Your science is interesting. Could I subscribe to your newsletter?
Words have a damn meaning.
JD (5b4781) — 11/4/2008 @ 1:41 pmBrandon wrote: It is also possible that preference is mutable in some people but not others.
God knows there are time I wish people were mutable. Instead of having to hear them talk, I’d whip out my remote control, point it at them and hit the “MUTE” button.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 11/4/2008 @ 4:49 pmgay marriage should be legal. every human have the rights to make their own decision. it’s wrong and unfair. and it’s not as if they choose to be gay. they were born like that |it’s called hormones… duh| and everyone should accept them as who they are. everyone is born with a uniqueness within them self. and so what if children were taught about gay marriage. they’re gonna learn about it anyways. and because gay marriage weren’t taught to children, many teens has been humiliating gay teenagers. making them afraid to open them self up. and that causes low self esteem. and trust me I’ve seen it.
no on prop 8!!!
chee (59d4ac) — 11/4/2008 @ 5:35 pmEvidence?
Or, in the alternative, explain Anne Heche.
JD (5b4781) — 11/4/2008 @ 5:45 pmHey, chee: How do you feel about Christian students who fear reprisals every time they express belief in God and the Bible? You act as if gay students don’t have the entire education industry on their side.
Seriously. I would like an answer to that question.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 11/4/2008 @ 5:54 pmMr. Smithee,
I think, from deafening silence, that a good many people (including patterico himself?) are OK with freedom of speech and freedom of religion meaning that you can say and believe anything you want- as long as you stay in your catacomb. Really, why would any of those bitter, religion clinging people who want to stick to millenia of human history want to go to school anyway.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/4/2008 @ 6:24 pm___________________________________
Or, in the alternative, explain Anne Heche.
Or, for that matter, the actor described below.
When the lives of a quite a few of such people are analyzed, it’s surprising how many of them can be characterized as being socially and technically bisexual.
I think our laws should accomodate such behavior. So guys who want both a husband and wife should be given that right, and women who want both a wife and husband should be recognized in the eyes of the state too.
Call it two-for-one polygamy.
Mark (411533) — 11/4/2008 @ 6:52 pm
Mark forwarded: [Supposed gay actor Rupert Everett] has also admitted to sexual encounters with actresses Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle:
Between that disclosure and a racy movie from Sarandon’s early career being released on DVD today, maybe that’s why Tim Robbins is in such a foul mood.
L.N. Smithee (41cab4) — 11/4/2008 @ 7:12 pmits weird to see everyone attack the Mormon church but at least they are the only one’s stepping up to the plate and voicing their opinions. Where are the Catholics or any other religion? Gay marriage is wrong. That’s what Canada is for… so go up there and live your gay life. It makes me mad to have the minorities (like Gay Marriage supporters) think it’s discrimination and try to get what they want. If Gay marriage is allowed, i might as well marry my dog or my damn computer… love them both.
james (f050a3) — 11/4/2008 @ 8:51 pmits weird to see everyone attack the Mormon church but at least they are the only one’s stepping up to the plate and voicing their opinions. Where are the Catholics or any other religion? Gay marriage is wrong. That’s what Canada is for… so go up there and live your gay life. It makes me mad to have the minorities (like Gay Marriage supporters) think it’s discrimination and try to get what they want. If Gay marriage is allowed, i might as well marry my dog or my damn computer…. love them both.
james (f050a3) — 11/4/2008 @ 8:54 pmNone of you present a viable argument against equal marriage rights. Everything is based off religious values, that, at best, you attempt to masquerade as rational arguments, while the rest of the time you merely push around key words as if they alone make what you say the right way of doing things.
Gays getting married does not affect your marriage. If it does, then maybe you should look into yourself and see what’s going on there. It does not affect the integrity of marriage, of your marriage; only you can affect that, and those personally close to you, and those whose counsel you keep.
Marriage is, really, two things as it is. There is marriage via religion, and then there is marriage via the state. You could have a religious marriage ceremony and still not be recognized by the state, and vice versa. Individual churches can decide the former, but the latter should be available to everyone. There is no compelling state interest for it to be otherwise. So regardless of the state of affairs, no church is being forced to accept homosexuality or gay marriage, but you are forcing a class of people in the state into second-class status, and giving yourself a privileged status based on something as silly as being heterosexual. That is no great achievement; you do not deserve a reward for that. So before you go claiming this is a matter of “special rights”, realize that in forbidding individuals who are not like you from having marriage, you have just given yourself special, privileged rights.
You may believe, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is wrong, but if you’re going to fight for something in a pluralistic society, you have to have a real argument in doing so.
Lynn (a0c1a3) — 11/5/2008 @ 8:31 amLynn – You want to change the meaning of marriage. It is your responsibility to change other people’s minds. Calling people names has not proven to be very effective to date.
JD (5b4781) — 11/5/2008 @ 8:42 amBuggery suffers defeat this morning…the anticipated slide into hell has hit a speed bump.
The only bright spots in an otherwise grim election.
Steven (194ee1) — 11/5/2008 @ 12:24 pmI think gays should not marry… Women should not vote.. Blacks shouldnt own property… Yellow should be now called green.. and dogs should not have sex in public…
Biggots suck ass…
Fred Flintstone (7612f7) — 11/5/2008 @ 3:09 pmHello, California boy.
Indeed you have given me much to think about. I believe you are right, and I may have said something without much thought. It is quite possible that to have two gay people married does not violate the rights of a hetero married couple. I will have to give further thought to that. Though I am quite sure that it can inhibit the practices of different groups based on the dictates of their beliefs.
Still, my support for the proposition depends on the philosophically inclined legal issues behind the measure. In other words, the technicality of the law in its view of groups of individuals. For that is the focus of the law: what do we consider a group of people that desire to be considered a legal entity by the law?
An earlier quote on the blog shows important facts to be considered: it has not yet been shown that homosexuality is mutable. In fact, in some it may be mutable and in others it may be immutable. Now, it is quite probable that a similar situation arises for heterosexual couples and perhaps plurality inclined individuals and even people with an attraction for animals. However, as you yourself recently said, what does it matter to my marriage (I’m not married, my friend, but there is this girl I have my eye on), that other people can get excited in a different manner than the way I get excited.
Now, before I go on, legal recognition by the law of a tradition is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government for a group of people to have. The law merely gives the people the power to decide which entities are accepted by the law, and given privileges or restrictions.
For example, in business, we have several groups that are all recognized by the law. We have corporations, non-profit organizations, foundations, cartels, and monopolies. All are recognized by the law, however, they are not all granted equal restrictions and privileges. Cartels and monopolies are all RECOGNIZED by the law to be illegal. This is fine, it’s obvious.
But the law in of itself does not decide what is right and wrong, save it be against the Constitution.
The key remains the same, DIFFERENCE is real, and in it of its own sake, is considered by the law.
My argument lies in that, independent of immutable and mutable characteristics of relationships, the differences in attractions are still real and need to be seen by the law, not for moral reasons, but simply because it is necessary. Because we do not yet know the characteristics homosexual UNIONS, not relationships, have. And therefore, we are not sure about the differences they have from heterosexual marriages.
Now, the law, because of it’s privilege-allowing nature, allows the governed to create restrictions and privileges for the different groups. So we pass laws that protect corporations, banks, restrict cartels and so on.
Furthermore, we create laws that regulate relationships because of their natures. Not because we want to discriminate, but because we need to. The best way to put this is that heterosexual couples have different requests and protections from the law as do homosexuals. And this is neither unreal nor incorrect. It is a simple reality that the things that need to be administered to heteros and homosexuals can differ, and we can tell by statistics, studies, and so forth.
Now, because the institution of marriage is government recognized, there is a possibility for legislation and law to be passed on the institution. It can be made invalid, legal, illegal, like any other institution. But, furthermore, laws can be made that regulate the options, requirements, provisions, and privileges of the members who partake of the institution. For example, social security laws, casino laws, and other kind of government categorized institutions have laws that their own members argue over and vote for, and the general public has as well its voice in the saying of these institutions. For example, the general public can decide whether they want a certain kind of business in their neighborhood. The general public decided that the institution of marriage needed to allow interracial heterosexual marriages.
First, if we put different groups into the institution of marriage, we can cause problems for the technicalities of laws. Therefore, we inhibit the system from moving cleanly in terms of decision making, because the requirements of the different types of marriages. So it is a technical inconvenience.
But, something far more important to note is that the people can decide VERY specific decisions about the institutions, and they can use them to the discriminate members of their particular institutions. In other words, loop holes can be made that discriminate people who are members of the institution. In other words, bigoted heterosexual marriages can actually endorse laws that are aimed against married homosexual couples. And we are not only talking about laws at the state level. We are talking about federal laws that can regulate, privilege, and tax marriages at the federal levels. Therefore, they can unjustly treat homosexual California unions. Look around the country. The bigoted-conservative backing is there to convince the well-meaning conservative elements that their laws are good for them, when indeed they may be hurting homosexual marriages. Furthermore, legislation that would be needed by homosexual unions could be inhibited by the needs of heterosexual unions. And vise-versa.
So we create a whole new playing field for the battle of real bigots from both sides. Because indeed, some of the people who voted yes on 8 are bigots.
The question then follows:
What do we do?
We do the same exact thing that the state does when it recognizes that a tradition held by the people is influential enough.
WE CREATE A NEW INSTITUTION THAT WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE PEOPLES VOTE!
Homosexuals couples simply need to create a union, that is specific for them. It does not have to be called marriage. But it can recieve the recognition as a legal institution by the federal government.
Christians who are not bigots and adamant about gay rights would be more than willing to support laws that were favorable to a gay union!
Furthermore, the institutions could be created with the traditions that homosexuals have. And they could be created according to the beliefs of their peoples. Whether it includes the beliefs of the gay christians and of the atheists, or whomever. With their own meanings etc.
On top of that, the right taboo held by many christian sects and other people would not be violated. If someone in their church were to become a member of this new union, they could still be branded as sinners. Because it would be like a mormon going to a strip club, or a jehovas witness donating blood and such. They would be participating in an institution that is not allowed in their faith. This is already done!
So, that is another reason I feel 8 is valid. Because it should really be besides the point. Homosexual couples should have created their own union long ago to deal with their issues, joys, benefits, problems, etc.
Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas (f719ca) — 11/6/2008 @ 12:17 amI am shocked, apalled, & awakened! First of all, I am black and proud of it. Obama was equally elected for president of the USA by the will of the people. Now, there are only few folks who want to overturn the legal passaged of proposition 8 by an illegal act of force! Proposition was legally passed by the will of the people, for the people, & by the people! Why don’t they also just overturn OBAMA’S legal election that was won by the will of the people? In addition, being gay is fully 100% free CHOICE that they are making for themselves. They are crying to the world for more special rights and treatments for their act of choice. They are NOT born gay or lesbians. They are choosing to live a UNnatural sexual lifestyle. Yet, they want us to give them more special rights. They are already have millions of dollars in their bank accounts! Gays drive the most LUXURIOUS cars. They are actors, singers, movie stars and they want ‘more’ special treatments! Give us a break! We had enough of their rich spoiled life. We around the world are struggling to make ends meat while they are spending over 70 MILLION dollars in no prop 8 for more special protection of a free CHOICE of sexual living that they are making for themselves! Why don’t they give some of their $$$ millions of dollars by helping the poor? Why don’t they help homeowners pay off their mortgages? Why don’t they help create more jobs? Why don’t they donate millions to childrens hospitals? Why don’t gays come out to donate more of their money to inner citys? Instead, they keep buying more toys, more gold, more mansions & more mercedes while we americans are suffering in these hard economic times! I say we had enough of their tricks, manupilation, & perverted lifestyle and special treatments! They never had fallen under the discrimanatory act because they were not BORN that way. They made a choice of being gay! If gays want to be with cows, dogs, or animals then DON’T FORCE Your ILLEGAL perverted lifestyle on us! Therefore, we shouldn’t pay, and support their choice of unnatural lifestyle. We must make a new proposition that prohibits them from adobting babys too! We are tired of their nonsense! They must stop comparing themselves with black americans. And start waking up to their foolishness! We want a better economy! we want common sense! We want truth! We want purity for America!
It is time for America to wakes up! & Defends her little childrens!
richard (8dfe4b) — 11/6/2008 @ 12:31 amSTOP shoving your choice of sex in our face. we never took your rights away but you did it to yourselves. come to the light and you’ll be happy. thank goodness i don’t go to church for now i see to many church people claiming to be gay! what a shame. you twist your own laws of teachings. you gay were never born but by your own choosing you became gay.
stop asking me for more favors. I had it!
lisa (e686f6) — 11/6/2008 @ 2:36 pmIf we allowed propositions passed by majority to change the constitution we’d still have slavery. Sometimes the majority oppressing a minority is wrong. Next it will be you who in some way or in some belief is the minority…and YOU will be discriminated. It’s a slippery slope.
BTW Richard get your facts straight. Prop 8 ads cost over 70 Million for BOTH the YES and NO ads. THE YES ON 8 ADS spent MORE!! Research buddy. Additionally I suppose you chose to like/sleep with women? Which means you COULD CHOOSE to like/sleep with men. However you’re more in tune to what’s “right” so you CHOOSE women? Give us a break! Why are you so angry and envious. There are good gay charitable people all around you…however I’m sure they keep it to themselves with a homophobe like yourself. Deal with your issues dude!
Lisa stop shoving your anger in my face. You chose to be a sorry excuse for a woman, spreading your hate in ways that make you feel superior. I bet your such a fun person!
Buckle up everyone; the fun is only just beginning. EQUALITY in the law should come before anybody’s differing and antiquated ideology/religion. Hey but hold on to the hate as long as you can…then you don’t really have to focus on YOU!
John (a4166a) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:12 amLet’s abolish MARRIAGE under the law. Let’s replace it with civil unions for everyone with the same rights? Marriage can be used by the religious organizations…or whomever wants to use it at that point. It just won’t be recognized as anything by any government entity. That seems fair?
Juan the word “marriage” (and husband, wife, spouse) is written into laws, judicial precedents, hospital “rules”, and you name it. How do we back track this “NEW” word for gay unions into all these areas? What if heterosexual couples decide to use “mustard” for some special ceremony? Does that word then become hands off for homosexuals? Are we playing semantics around basic freedoms here!! Let’s all grow up and get over it. Most people who don’t support “gay marriage” are bigots who hate gay people and don’t want them in the world. Maybe this is a deflective activity for most? It’s evident in this blog and countless others. Let’s just encourage them to be more upfront about that point so we can address the real issues.
John (a4166a) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:33 amFirst of all.. this BS about boycotting Utah and the LDS church members is so completely outrageous. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I saw no LDS General Authorities holding guns to anyone’s head forcing them to vote. The “Against” campaign had almost twice the money donated to them as the “For”. It boiled down to bad campaign management and 52% of the citizens exercising their right to vote.
Second of all…If you are so against the Mormons and what they stand for..how about have California give back the millions of dollars in aid and relief supplies that the LDS church donated during the horrific wildfires lately. Better yet why don’t you read up on all the relief and aid the church provides across the globe.http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/0,7133,1325-1-9–cWELFAREPOSTER,00.html
I just can’t believe that no one says a thing about the millions in aid and relief but yet they only focus on the one thing that they disagree with. Go ahead and hate the Mormons…They are used to it..they’ve been persecuted beyond any other faith in America..I’m sure they can handle this. Bring it on! Next time California is on fire..I’m sure the LDS church still won’t hesitate to help regardless for your hatred. It still makes me personally sick to listen to your BS then turn around and bail you out.
The church’s statement on the issue was very clear and not mean spirited in the least. They took a stand on the definition of marriage..that’s it…It’s part of their fundamental belief structure and I would think everyone knew exactly where they stood before the whole thing happened. It’s not like anyone was surprised. Are you going to tell me that anyone that disagrees with your views should be treated the same way. Can no one disagree with you and not have retribution??
There are still a couple of misconceptions that are running rampant.
1. The LDS church only donated about $2,000 to the campaign. Church members donated the bulk of the money. So quit saying the LDS church donated $20 Million..they didn’t
2. The LDS church leaders were never once asked to approve the campaign advertisements that were released. If you find them offensive.. blame the organizers of the “For” campaign. That’s like saying that because I donated to the Republican party..I had any say in the propaganda that was produced and spewed on every channel for the last few months..Ridiculous!!
The term “Marriage” has always been used as a way to define the legal binding relationship between a man and a woman. The gay community prides itself on being different and unique… Come up with your own term and get the same legal backing. Leave my stuff alone and I’ll leave your’s alone. I could care less what you call it…just don’t call it marriage.. come up with something better..I’d support that.
In the end..just move on..Take the battle to the Supreme Court and do what you have to do. Push to get it reversed..that would be the respectable thing to do. Targeting people that voiced their contrary opinion to you only makes your cause so much less respectable. Grow up..quit whining!! You took one on the chin..now get up, brush yourself off and continue a RESPECTABLE fight. stop throwing a tantrum. You really look like babies.
Phil (b3df04) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:27 amYou can NOT be the same Phil we know and “love”…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:44 amHi, John.
Well, I don’t think I’m arguing for semantics. I think that you could create a word for a union unique to the homosexual union, filled with its own cultural meanings, legally define it in the law, and go about and make sure that every single law that applies to heterosexual “marriages” apply to homosexual “marriages”. And that in itself shows how irrational it would be. That would not happen because of the unique qualities of each “marriage”.
The law, as you yourself stated, is replete with the word “marriage” all over it. And so, if the two groups are instantly put into the legal term of “marriage”, then, all those precedents, laws, and so forth would apply to all members of the “Marriage” category. But, the problem in that is already evident. Homosexual relationships have different needs than heterosexual relationships.
The precedents should not apply to homosexual “marriages”.
We, can, as you said, go the legal route of “Abolishing” marriage, because it is a government recognized institution that is not required to exist. The Government does not require for the citizens of this country to marry in order for them to enjoy their fundamental rights. They can still vote, live, pay taxes, study, work, establish contracts, declare war, assemble, and pursue happiness.
We do not need the electoral college in order to select our presidents. The government simply needs to guarantee that people have the power to chose their president. If the people wish that system removed, they must make sure that the system does not impede democratic freedoms. Therefore, the institution of the Electoral College can be “Abolished”, because it is not a fundamental right.
We can legally abolish all marriage, therefore it is not a fundamental right.
Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas (50d9dd) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:45 amI most certainly am the “Phil” you know and love…after all…I though you guys loved everyone!!
Phil (b3df04) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:56 amI luv ya, Phil. I just won’t marry you.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:06 pmComment by Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas — 11/10/2008 @ 11:45 am
Abolishing the Electoral College….
Certainly, the EC is not at “right”, but, it is a provision of the Constitution of the United States of America (I’m sure you’ve heard of that document?), and any attempt to “abolish” it must conform to the provisions for modification contained within that document.
What a totally silly argument.
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 12:17 pmSo… whenever any democracy anywhere exists… it must have an electoral college?
Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas (50d9dd) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:10 pmComment by Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas — 11/10/2008 @ 1:10 pm
I would remind you of the statement of Benjamin Franklin, whilst exiting the Constitutional Convention and asked what type of government had been devised:
A Republic, if you can keep it.
This is not a Democracy. It is a Republic, which operates under democratic ideals.
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:35 pmIf other countries, in establishing a Democracy, wish to mimic the institution we call the Electoral College, that is their business. Of course, purists would say that an Electoral College can only exist in a Republic, since in a Democracy, the raw vote of the people is decisive; and therefore, an Electoral College is superfluous.
I am against discrimination and for the life of me do not understand those who feel that every human being who lives upon the face of the Earth must look, sound, dress and act exactly alike in order to be accepted by them.
If we conformed to these standards would we be TRULY satisfied?
Would we then live happily ever after in our All the Same world? My opinion is NO…this would be completely disastrous…it would leave us totally stripped of our uniqueness, which would be akin to life as a zombie.
I would rather not live than live a life such as that one.
Not allowing gays to be married is condoning an All the Same world.
Would you care to add your thoughts to my personal blog? I hope you do since I am trying to get a discussion going there. Thanks guys.
http://onlyonemeandmymotherisglad.blogspot.com/
badthing (6f7733) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:36 pmand another thing…
Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:37 pmYou might be more successful in interacting with others if you did not first create straw-men to attack them with.
It is always easier to argue the merits of an issue if at first you do not muddy the waters with extraneous side-issues.
Hi drew,
Thanks for correcting me on the democracy wording.
Well…
I present my argument because I feel that both sides have been arguing over extraneous side-issues. I really think that this is more obvious than many sides make it out be. I mean we have the pursuit of the Mormons now.
And then the real bigotry on both sides.
And then everyone seems so sure of their position. As if there is some great knowledge that only their side holds.
There’s no room for discussion. If you’re a religious person on one side trying to understand what is going on and find out what their position is, they cant. They’re bigots. They’re internal conflict matters nothing.
I simply try to find the obvious and try to ease things down for both sides.
I apologize.
And then people
Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas (50d9dd) — 11/10/2008 @ 1:51 pmThe truth is…..Afro-American and minority voters tipped the scales, not the LDS church. With this knowledge, there has been no backlash against blacks or minority’s….picking a fight with the LDS is simply pathetic, you know who your real enemies are….but you’re afraid of them.
kevin leddy (ba12f6) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:03 pmConsidering the skill with which the Mormons have, shall we say, dealth with authorities in the distant past…
Well, lets just say I’d worry more about pissing off the Mormons… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:12 pmLegal marriage was only invented in the middle ages to create a means by which a man could be “forced” into supporting the children he bore with another women.
Gov.ts realised guys running around having kids all over the place with no way of forcing him into fatherhood was a BAD THING. Invent Marriage — it helps society keep healthy norms.
Why Gay Men are infatuated with it is beyond me. First they can’t have children as nature intended and second most gay men are happy with the promiscuity privelages. Why create a legal mechanism for getting screwed if you are caught screwing… pardon the phrase.
Frankly, I would only allow “Gay Marriage” if they adopted a child. In this sense the construct of “gay marriage” makes for a societal purpose to creating it. Heck, I would only allow for straight marriage in the event of children,
Or as I told my wife when she debated having kids or not …. “I did not get married to have great sex and lots of narcissitic fun, For that I would stay single. I got married to have children and build something greater than me. You don’t want kids, I don’t want marriage.”
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:17 pmFirst principle of the 100lb Bully is beat up the 80lb weakling…… Gays will not pursue protesting blacks or hispanics because frankly we would simply beat them silly and get back to downing our beers.
Mormons are nice people and make for a great dog to kick in the Gay community. This whole episode is evidence enough, why I have little respect for most of these Gay Civic Organizations. They don’t have the ballz to to tackle real problems to help their community and always look for an easy out to their problems.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:43 pm