The first vote on Proposition 8 ...
... comes tomorrow, when the state Supreme Court decides at its Wednesday conference whether to accept or reject a petition to throw Proposition 8 -- the initiative to ban same-sex marriage -- off the Nov. 4 ballot. Additional possibilities include calling for more briefing or even setting a date for oral argument. But time is of the essence, because ballot materials go to the printer next month.
To recap: On May 15, the Cal Supremes invalidated the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage, adopted by voters in 2000 in the form of Proposition 22. Soon thereafter, an initiative petition to go the other way, enhancing the ban by making it a constitutional amendment, qualified for the ballot and was designated Proposition 8. On June 20, victorious parties in the court's May same-sex marriage decision and other opponents of Proposition 8 asked the justices to strike the measure from the ballot.
There are two main arguments. The first is that in the wake of the court's May decision, Prop 8 would so completely change the meaning of equal protection in the state Constitution that changing it wouldn't just be an amendment, but something far more sweeping -- a revision. Revisions can't go to the voters unless they were put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or by a constitutional convention.
The simpler argument is that people who signed the petition were told that same-sex marriage in California already was barred. Of course, it was true at the time they signed, but it's not now that the measure is about to go before voters.
Find information about the case before the court tomorrow here. It's entitled Bennett v. Bowen. It is near the top of the list of cases to be considered tomorrow morning in San Francisco. You'll find results posted tomorrow afternoon at he court's site here. For background on the case and links to more detailed analyses of the legal arguments, see last week's Perpetual Election update here.
Tim,
In the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."
Pot calling the kettle black? Since when did religion dictate acts of the Government? I seem to recall NOT in the Constitution. Show me in the Constitution where Political Organizations should live tax-free. Race protection was added in 1870 and Gender protection was added in 1920! Because of the many ways bigotry rears its ugly head to steal away rights, there are a few more protections that should be added. The Constitution was designed to "do the right thing". Not "if it's not in there we have free reign to screw people".
Marriage has been afforded to only men and women simply because of the over-dominance of religion. Common use as argument is a fallacutical position. Do you think gays just sprang into being recently? Their persecution has gone on for millenia. The favorite argument to discriminate against gays is the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, which is not a Christian book. It is a Jewish book, not yours. And I don't see that lobby against Gay Marriage.
No one is "stuffing gay marriage down your throat". The day they MAKE you marry your gay lover Tim, then you can use that argument. I guess it is the same as "stuffing interracial marriage down your throat" or "stuffing tolerance for those coloreds down your throat". I just don't have any sympathy for bigots.
Don't tell me you are arguing over a fricking "word". That is nonsense and a red herring. The argument is to give diminished rights and "separate facilities" like they wanted to give those non-white folks. Give me a break. Sorry there is a time where people should grow up.
Posted by: S. Lynn Richards | October 23, 2008 at 02:30 PM
I'm VOTING NO ON PROP 8 so others will no longer be able to exercise prejudice, hatred, and inequality against people simply because of their sexual orientation. It’s about basic human rights, civil rights, and respect for human beings, not about religion. Gay, straight, bi, male, female, Black, White, young, or old-we all deserve the same rights.
Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and all other religions in America have been given the right by American law to practice their religion, believe what they want, and have a right to freedom of speech. As others have the right to religious freedom, ALL people should be allowed the freedom to love and marry who they want, regardless of gender- because the religious freedom this country entitles us all to, also entitles anyone the right to NOT practice or believe in a certain religion. So, the fact that a religion dictates homosexuality is wrong or sinful does NOT require everyone else to subscribe to that belief. Before our country even began, men and women fled from England to settle in America seeking religious FREEDOM, and it is that tenant this country is built on: religious freedom-to practice and believe, or not-and freedom from tyranny.
Not to mention the fact that the institution of marriage, as far as government and the law is concerned is a CIVIL union, not a religious one. Agreeably, for many religions, marriage is sacred and a part of their religious culture. However, you don't have to be Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or religiously inclined to be married. Why is that? Simply, there exists in this country the SEPARATION of Church and State. We are allowed to be free from religious persecution in this country, and that right does not allow ANY Church to force their religious beliefs on the laws of this country, including the CIVIL institution of marriage. Separation of Church and State is at the very foundation of our country; without that PROTECTION-which is paramount to other rights we are afforded in America, such as the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, freedom from slavery, the right to vote, and religious freedom (I love my country.)-our country would become regress back to the tyrannical government our fore fathers escaped from.
We ALL have the right to our own opinions and beliefs-and that opinion may be that homosexuality is wrong, or unnatural, or you just don’t like it. Fine, but those opinions and beliefs do not afford us the right to exercise hatred through the use of our American laws or to use religion to back up those laws; because many years ago the people who built this country decided that separation of Church and State would protect the country from falling into tyranny and would inevitably protect the freedom to practice religion or believe in God.
That said, I won’t say that the Courts threw down a perfect agreement. I don’t think a Church should have to marry gay people if it is against their religious beliefs. In that same way, I don’t believe people can use their religious beliefs as a reason for why gay people can’t be legally married, when there is clearly a separation of Church and State set forth in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
But when you get down to it, for me-this is about so much more than legalizing “gay marriage”. It’s a fight against a deep seated hatred some people in our country have against homosexuals. This fight for EQUALITY FOR ALL is reminiscent of the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage for the right to vote. It’s about fighting oppression. Period.
-Excerpt from the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That ALL men are CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights; that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
”
-Note: The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.
Chief Justice Warren wrote:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Posted by: Jennifer | October 22, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Response to Lynn -- Please show us in the constitution where it guides us to consider someone to be a protected class of people because of their sexual orientation. Despite what many have writen, sexual orientation does not make up a class of people akin to race or religion.
For those who suggest the "yes on Prop 8" argument is about discrimination, witholding rights and bigotry -- I say it's pot calling the kettle black. Isn't stuffing a state ductated redefiniion of marriage down the throats of the (majority of) Californians who hold to a traditional and sacred definition of marriage more than a bit intolerant? Especially conidering this has already been voted on and the people have spoken. Before thowing the "intolerent" and "hate" cards on the table, these people might try checking in the mirror first. There is a term used when a man and a woman make a liftetime committment together. It's called marriage. When two people of the same sex want to do the same, that's fine. Let them be afforded the same rights. But, don't expect everyone to change a social term that has meant what it does even before governments existed, just because some don't like what it means and stands for.
Posted by: Tim | October 22, 2008 at 05:17 PM
It was not too long ago that the majority wanted blacks to drink from a separate water fountain, sit in a different part of the movie theater, swim in different pools and go to different schools. It was not too long ago that the majority thought women were property and not considered worthy to vote. The Constitution should be our guide, not the "majority".
Posted by: S. Lynn Richards | October 21, 2008 at 07:55 PM
There is no difference between the arguments against gay marriage and the argument against interracial marriage. And jesusmarimba it was also the same people against it - the Christians and the Mormons. In fact, one of the viscious advocates against Interracial Marriage became the head of the Mormon church, Ezra Benson - a known racist. This is all about bigotry and don't let anyone try to tell you that it is not. BTW, I am a Republican, was a mormon, and I am not gay and I could care less if gay people want to marry or not. That's their business. I am however for the Constitution strongly and efforts like this to discriminate make me sick. The churches that officially lobby their members for votes and money like the mormon church has done both times this has come up should not be allowed tax exemption - they are a political machine, not a religious one.
Posted by: S.L. Richards | October 21, 2008 at 07:51 PM
We can not remove other peoples rights.
http://www.baconvsprout.com
Posted by: Bacon | October 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM
What makes one person's belief that gay marriage is wrong carry more weight than another person's belief that gay marriage is right? The Bible? A majority? That's not equal rights for those that believe differently. There are gay people that attend church and believe in God and believe it is fine for them to be gay. Maybe Palin should change her campaign sign from "Country First" to "My God First, Your God way down on the list".
Posted by: Steve | October 20, 2008 at 07:38 PM
No on hate. No on 8.
Posted by: S | October 19, 2008 at 11:32 PM
To Jessica, Diane, and all those who fear the consequence that prop. 8 may have on children. I am a 29 year old heterosexual male. I was raised by two moms. I was fortunate and blessed to have been raised in a home where I was surrounded by unconditional love. My parents never missed a little league game. They attended every school function. They have always supported everything and anything that I have ever been involved in. My mom Pam, an attorney, taught me self-discipline, tolerance, the value of education, self-respect, respect for others, to always be true to myself and to fight for what I believe in. My mom Laura, a Labor & Delivery nurse, taught me to treat hatred with love, to be kind to others, to be sympatheic, to see the good in people and to help others who are less fortunate. She used up much of her vacation time traveling to different parts of the world, donating her time and medical skills to assist in surgeries as a F.A.R.N. in areas where people would otherwise lose their lives or loved ones simply because of poverty. She saved many lives and it is because of her influence that I chose to go to Medical School.
These are my parents. The two people whom I love with all of my heart and admire with every part of my being.
It saddens me deeply that there are individuals out there who cannot, or simply will not, recognize my family as legitamate simply because my parents happen to be Lesbians. If this form of family unity appears morally wrong to you, then perhaps it is your morals that are screwed up. I had a far better childhood than many individuals who were raised by heterosexual parents. I wouldn't change a single thing about my upbringing. This is why it baffles me when people fear the thought of homosexuals raising children. What baffles me even more however, is why anybody would try to prevent two people, who have had nothing but respect, loyalty, commitment, and love for one another, the right to marry.
Posted by: Brett | October 19, 2008 at 03:14 AM
The most wonderful day of my life was the day I married the man I love and cherish more than anyone in the whole wide world.
No wait. Scratch that. It was the day I civil-unioned with him. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
VOTE NO on Prop 8!
Everyone should be able to Marry the person they love. It's ridiculous that a gay man can marry a woman, but not another man !
Posted by: Steve | October 18, 2008 at 07:45 PM
When there is many divorce rates by straight couples, it's rather interesting how they get the same amount of praise that marraige is such a 'spiritual thing'.
VOTE NO on PROPOSITON 8!
Posted by: Alan | October 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Few years ago, I would have likely voted no on prop 8. But now, I'm wiser, and have kids, there is no way I would say no to 8. I wouldn't do that to my kids.
Yes Prop 8!
Most sociaty already respecting their way of life, why now they want to force us to chage our moral values?
Posted by: Victor | October 16, 2008 at 08:20 PM
YES
ON
PROP.
8
Posted by: Diane | October 15, 2008 at 04:48 PM
I believe that as an American, I have the right to vote for what I feel is best for our society. I also believe that children are better off when raised in a home with a mother and a father.
www.promotemarraige.com
I support Prop 8!!!
Posted by: Jessica | October 14, 2008 at 08:39 PM
There doesn't seem to be a lot that can be added to this discussion that hasn't already been added. Both sides have made arguments that support their viewpoints on the issue and they are all the arguments that can be expected from such. But what I fail to understand is why the "definition" of marriage has to be dictated to us by the courts? As far as I understand gay and lesbian couples already recieve all of the rights that are afforded to those who are married. Why do those who advocate this change in definition feel it is important for thier union to be defined by the term "marraige"? For those of us who are religious, this term has very deep spiritual significance, on par with such terms as "prayer" or "faith". I think that the government should not need to define terms for us. Lets stick to the real issues. Are gays and lesbians offered the same rights as heterosexuals? Yes. Please then, if you are Gay or Lesbian, let us who are religious continue to define marraige the way we believe. You stand nothing to lose. It is us who stands to lose. I believe, just as most Americans believe, that all citizens of this great country deserve to be treated equally and fairly. As far as I know, fair and equal treatment can be afforded without redifining the term "marraige", a term which harbors deep spiritual significance for me. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Tyson | October 14, 2008 at 12:03 AM
if prop 8 is struck down, NO ONE WILL BE LOSING ANY RIGHTS. everything will stay EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW.
prop 8 wants to TAKE AWAY EXISTING RIGHTS.
get the facts right people before you go to the ballot!!!!
Posted by: NO ON 8 | October 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM
if you are not gay or have never had feelings for someone of the same sex-whether those feelings are emotional (a 'crush' or 'being in love with someone') or sexual--you really have no right to pass judgement on gay people or think that you understand why people are gay.
as a gay woman, i think that yes, being gay is genetic to a certain (and probably immeasurable degree), but i think (especially when it comes to women) that there is some degree of choice there too. You can CHOOSE who you are attracted to. if you find yourself attracted to both men and women, but you choose that you prefer women because you like how you relate to them emotionally, that is YOUR choice to make. it is sad how in a society so high bent on choice and freedom, that the thought that someone might actually CHOOSE to be with someone of the same sex is a taboo and practically inconceivable thought.
also, as for discrimination against straight ppl---allowing gay people to marry is NOT some sort of attack on straight people. that is ridiculous. if you refuse to provide services to someone because they are gay, you are discriminating against someone because of who they are. you would not refuse to provide services to someone because he or she is Chinese, or Hindu, or a Democrat, or has brown hair. So singling out homosexuality as a basis upon which to refuse service is discriminatory. that is how the legal system works--if you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY!!
also, i just got married to my wife and i can tell you that marriage is marriage is marriage. there is nothing like it and no comparison. now that we are married, no one can say anything. no one can look at us, our union, and our relationship and consider it to be second class, or not as serious of a commitment as a straight couple. under the EXISTING LAW of California, our choice to be with each other as partners, friends, lovers is protected. Prop 8 seeks to take away the existing rights of other gay people, and therefore should be struck down.
i would like to add that a child being raised as a happy, productive, balanced, and well cared for individual in society has nothing to do with the parents being gay, straight, black white, anything. if you are good people, your child will be a good person too. if you are a happy and loving family, your child will be happy and loving. children are sponges they absorb what is around them. if you give them joy, they will be joyous. it's really not that complicated people.
so, PLEASE do not take away the rights of your fellow californians. if you have a heart, a conscience, a sense of dignity, respect and tolerance for others, and if you value equality for all, then you will:
VOTE
NO
ON
(the hateful)
PROPOSITION 8!!!!!
Posted by: NO ON 8 | October 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Logically speaking, what most people are overlooking is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Alot of people are saying, please tell me the effects gay marriage has on the rest of society. It has a HUGE effect on alot of people, every single person who doesn't believe in "gay rights" it is forced to condone their own beliefs to come to terms with what is "equal" by law but by doing so they infact lose their own equality. Mennonite churches being forced to shut down? Being on trial because you won't photograph a gay wedding? Actually "gay" means happy so lets refer to them as equality activists for now.
So lets say a "equality activist" refuses to photograph a straight wedding, of course the state will agree with them because it's against his beliefs right? That makes alot of sense, but why not the same if it's vise versa?
Alot of people say anyone whos against gay marriage is narrow minded for attempting to undermine the rights of an equality activist, however these are the same people who keep insulting Christians, openly attacking us everywhere and anywhere, banning our education from schools, barring our beliefs from being openly expressed in any education setting that's funded by the state. Yet at the same time equality activists want to do the same thing they want to indoctrinate children with what they believe to be correct, yet we cannot. Is it we that are truly narrow minded? Can you not see past your own double standards? Lots of people are comparing racism to homosexuality condemnation, I don't see homosexuals being hanged anywhere in America, I certainly don't see seperate water fountains, and seperate schools, seperate bathrooms and restaraunts. But do you want to know what I do see? I see churches being shutdown, I see christianity being seperated from schools, I see christians being alienated in public schools, and on T.V. I see them being singled out and humiliated all over the internet.
I see people try to asess situations logically, but I fail to ever see the logic in a double standard. Don't call someone narrow minded then in your own hypocrisy refuse to acknowledge trampling their rights, while you claim they do the same. People keep acting like equality activists are the victims, as far as I'm concerned if you don't support an equality activist you look Stupid, you look ignorant, you look uneducated, people tell you your living in the past, they compare you to racists, and pseudo machosist attitudes.
Everyone in America can give up their own beliefs to please the majority, they can insult anyone who doesn't believe their beliefs and use double standards to their advantage since that seems to be the norm. But I won't be swayed, I as a christian had a christian upbringing and will not in any shape or way condone my beliefs to please the masses. If you are an equality activist I don't believe what your doing is right, but your still Gods creation and he still loves you as do I. Within the next few decades, equality activists will gain rights as the religous will continue to lose them. But! Because of where we are headed religion won't matter anymore, instead we will have the wisdom of the world to guide us, and no longer the wisdom of God. You say condoning marriage is un-american? Well this is gonna suck but heres the truth.
This country was founded on the bible.
Which means AMERICA was founded on the bible.
The bible condones Equality Acitivism, or Homosexuality.
That means those who founded America believed the same thing. So like it or not, as unfair or cruel as it seems American history really doesn't support the homosexual agenda nor does it support the destruction of religion and moral standards.
It says in the bible that the wise are foolish and the foolish are wise, and I must say that makes alot of sense. I seem foolish for quoting the bible when discussing issues that our nation faces, but if our nation was founded and based on biblical views and manuscript wouldn't it be logical to use that to infact remedy the questions of many?
If I'm in history class should I use a math book to prove my points?
Now, perhaps it's true you can't choose to be straight or gay, so you're right.
But perhaps it's also true my 47 year old neighbor can't help being a pedophile so maybe I should just let him marry my 12 year old daughter like he wants. I mean why not? Wheres the harm?
And perhaps some people are just born inherently violent who are we to condone their inner nature? Considering the bible is"Incorrect" as you state and since their are no actual laws barring man from doing anything he feels is okay why can't murderers be free? Why not let rapists choose to roam the streets, how do you know they aren't genetically wired towards this kind of behaviour.
If we need some sort of guidlines to guide society where exactly do we get them from? You? No us. We make the guidelines for society, but who exactly is we? We become a smaller number every year, and small every decade. Committing adultery used to be a crime now it's almost celebrated on every popular T.V. show and movie.
You probably think I'm over reacting but I'm really not, I mean in essence society shouldn't have any rules to begin with since that condones each and every other mans beliefs and inner thoughts.
If a man believes murder is okay why should we stop him?
Answer: Because it takes away something from someone else without their consent.
What about MY consent? What about MY rights? What if I don't want my child to learn about equal rights activism? What if I don't want my child to learn about the homosexual agenda? I mean everyone else didn't want their kinds to learn about Christianity which is a "Belief" as is the homosexual agenda. Both should infact be equally acceptable by your standards, but they are not for some odd reason.
Like I said I do not condemn those who are equal rights activists, all I know is that from a logical point of view if you give something, you have to take from somewhere else. Nothing is created or destroyed but rather moved from one place to the next. You gain some rights, I lose some rights.
But if that seems okay to you then who cares. I'm just a Christian after all.
Vote yes on proposition 8, at least we'll get to keep something conservative. The tradition of a family is one I will keep sacred in my heart, not two men and a child and not two women and a child. I know in my heart that somehow, somewhere, and for some reason a child needs a mother and a father in his life. And once I find out the exact reason why, I will know what I believe so strongly and exactly why.
Until then, I will allow God to guide me, if I am to be the only one who stands for "ignorant" views then I will gladly be the fool to take the demise, rather than lose sight of my will, and become wise.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 at 09:50 PM
in conclusion:
- the more things change the more they stay the same
- people are silly
Posted by: ryan | October 11, 2008 at 06:26 AM
Elizabeth - With the domestic rights act that we have here in California, what additional marital rights or protections would you gain if you were married?
To answer your next question – it matters not to me how you get pregnant. What matters to me is that you would force any and every doctor in California to do your bidding and not give them a choice. I can see from the “… send all of this to the courts …“ statement that you would try to force every doctor to do your bidding, every photographer to do your bidding, essentially everyone in California has to do your bidding or they need to be prepared to go to court.
And, in case you didn’t notice, you're spewing forth some pretty venomous statements. For you to label me as a “… bigoted, insecure hate monger,“ is rather presumptuous considering that we have never met.
Posted by: David | October 08, 2008 at 11:13 PM
If marriage is for the purpose of procreation why not deny the right to marry to a barren woman or a sterile man. Lets make it fair for all those concerned. The constitution was put in place so the minority would be protected by the will of the majority. What is wrong with you people? better yet what is right with you people? You practice not what you preach. Judge not unless ye be judged. Why is it so important to you to bring pain to people you have never met, know nothing about. And those who are also in the minority but choose to be a vessel for this hatred. do not forget these "loving people are the same people that patrol the US borders with shotguns in the name of God. The same narrow minded bigots that would love to see all those "illegal aliens rounded up and shipped back. Gays now , maybe you next.
Posted by: Tony Holloway | October 08, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Hey Jed Bridges, with your 'statistics', did you know that MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country?
Hey David, did you know as a woman I could get pregnant any time I feel like it, whether or not I'm married to man? I don't need a doctor to inseminate me, either. If I were with a woman and we had a baby, don't you think it would be better if we had the protections of marriage to help us raise our kid? Or do you think we'd be unfit parents due to merely our genders, and the state should come in and break up our home?
Think about this, folks. This IS a civil rights issue, and you're going to lose in the end. Voting yes on Prop 8 is fine with me, since it's just going to send all of this to the courts and get more national attention - you will be making marriage equality ( the term 'gay marriage' in itself is offensive) a reality sooner than you think.
So vote yes on 8, all you bigoted, insecure hate mongers, because in the end, you will lose. Your children and their children will be as less bigoted as you are less racist than the generation before you.
Posted by: Elizabeth | October 08, 2008 at 02:44 PM
David,
Bravo! As I have sat and read this blog I have had many thoughts go through my mind. I have tried to form them into a response that would do justice to what I feel. After reading your blog I have to say "DITTO". You are absolutely spot on. Freedom of choice is an inalienable right that will inevitably be taken away if same sex marraiges are allowed. I, myself, and most others that I know am voting YES on Proposition 8.
Posted by: Sue | October 06, 2008 at 11:17 PM
While I myself am opposed to redefining the meaning of marriage, this in and of itself is not my sole reason for supporting Proposition 8. I can do no better than Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse expressing my concerns as to, "what's next?"
I will say that we have pedophiles that claim that they are “born that way.” Do we become tolerant of them by allowing them to marry children of their choosing? We have others that claim that they were born the wrong species – cat people, lizard people, snake people, etc. Do we tolerate a marriage between them and a member of the species they believe they should have been?
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Civil Society
BY JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE
June 8-14, 2008 Issue | Posted 6/3/08 at 11:48 AM
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.
Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.
Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.
It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.
Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.
And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.
The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.
McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.
If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.
Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.
Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.
Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.
The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.
Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be “gay friendly.” A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to “equality” with straight couples.
The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people’s lives.
Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church’s enemies are many. Perhaps some people don’t care for Methodists, and don’t care whether they lose their tax-exempt status.
But the Mennonites? These are the most inoffensive people on the planet. They have been pacifists for centuries. Their continued existence here in North America is a testimony to the strength of our ideals of religious tolerance and pluralism, in all the best senses of those terms. But now, in the name of equality of same-sex couples, the Mennonites are being driven out of Quebec.
Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?
Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.
Posted by: David | October 05, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Marriage, as that word is used in today's society, is NOT solely the domain of the religious, and hasn't been for some time. Any heterosexual couple can walk into their local court house and walk out married. A ship's captain can marry them. Atheists and agnostics can marry. All of those unions are recognized as marriages. The involvement of a church/priest/pastor is NOT required for a legal marriage to come into being.
That is all most same-sex couples are asking. They are not demanding that their local church perform the wedding, they just want the same legal rights and protections as any other committed couple. (And NO, "civil unions" are not equivalent. If they are, why can a woman be denied the right to sit by her female partner's deathbed in the hospital?)
I personally know a heterosexual couple (both of whom had been divorced several times before finding each other) who went to Vegas and got married after having lived together for seven years. One of the driving forces of this decision was that when he was injured during a vacation they were enjoying, the doctors wouldn't talk to her because she wasn't legally his wife. That is also what same-sex couples want: legal recognition.
Ask yourself: If someone passed a law or constitutional amendment declaring that YOU could not marry the person you loved the most in the entire world, wouldn't YOU fight it tooth and nail?
For the record, I am female, heterosexual, monogamous, single, planning to someday have a secular wedding performed by my parents (both of whom are retired pastors), planning not to reproduce (if you're going to use the argument that marriage is only to procreate, then you're challenging MY right to marry, too!), and planning to vote NO ON 8.
Posted by: Rebekah | October 04, 2008 at 03:18 AM