Behind the gay-marriage talk
So it went with the supporters of Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution so that gay and lesbian couples no longer could marry. The board already has published its stand on the measure, but the editorial left out some interesting turns in the conversation.
The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.
At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.
In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot -- making it understandable where the word "homophobia" came from -- this made no logical sense at all. Same-sex couples. whether married or not, already have children. Marriage wouldn't change a thing about this picture except, perhaps, to model for children that parents tend to be married.
"Marriage means the intrinsically complementary union of husband and wife. Period."
To you, maybe, but not to everyone else. PERIOD. You ARE NOT allowed to force your"morality" on the rest of us. PERIOD!!
"Virtually all of humanity understands that simple and profound fact."
If that were true (and it's not), then the implication seems to be: "If everyone believes something to be true, then it is true." Which is complete BS! The definition of Truth makes no reference to people's beliefs. A Truth is True whether anyone believes it or not! THAT is a simple and profound FACT.
"Vote yes for common sense."
There is absolutely nothing common about "common sense" (chew on that one for awhile ...).
Posted by: Stephen | August 12, 2008 at 09:38 AM
j.a.m.:
It is not bigotry to call an idiot an idiot. It's just telling the truth. Now, if the statement had been, "Right-wing Christians are idiots! And idiots should not be allowed to marry/vote/procreate/speak in public," or something similar, then THAT would have been bigotry.
Expressing your opinion is not bigotry, but trying to force everyone else in the state/country/world to go along with your opinion -- that's bigotry!
Posted by: Stephen | August 12, 2008 at 09:19 AM
"same-sex couples who married would 'recruit' their children toward homosexuality"
Sure, because all children choose to emulate their parents regarding sex.
Is anything more off-putting to a child than the idea of parental intimacy?
Holy numbskull, Batman, that's the kind of stretch that will snap any intellectual hamstring.
Posted by: Charles MacKay | August 12, 2008 at 07:12 AM
"Choose to Be Gay"....yeah right, I decided at the young age of 12 or 13 that I wanted a lifetime of being gay....RIIIIIGHHHHHT. Yeah! I wanted to have that challenge in life.
"Recruiting". Why in the world would someone think being gay means we want everyone to be gay? Shoot I would think every gay person hopes their child is not gay so that they won't have to go through the same bigotry and harassment that they have.
Basically put, gay individuals already live in family units, already have children and already do all the same things as married folks. The only difference is that their rights are not protected to take care of that family.
Again to all the religious folks. Marriage is not a religious right, it is also a civil right, which is why persons who have absolutely no belief in God can get married too.
Posted by: Vegas | August 12, 2008 at 06:52 AM
J.A.M. -- You're right, the board isn't diverse enough. But it's a hard problem to solve when our little group, like just about every other department here, is getting smaller and smaller. There are six editorial writers now, which is less than half the number in 2004. I need to point out, though, that the blog represents the views of individual members of the board and columnists on the staff, not the board as a whole. So you can't measure diversity from any individual post.
As for moderating comments, you can read the entire policy by clicking the link to the "full legal terms" above the comment field. The short answer is, we don't block comments that are merely uncivil, nasty, mean-spirited, silly, insulting or biased. Our preference is to approve everything, frankly, because one of the core values of journalism is free speech. But we do draw the line at threats, profanity, and hate speech. The latter category is ambiguous, and we might err on the side of allowing people to be too offensive. That's how many people express themselves online, sad to say. Check out the comments on the posts regarding immigration, you'll see what I mean.
As a newspaper, we're continually discussing what our comments policy ought to be. Again, it's hard to define where the line should be between angry words and injurious ones. Trust me, I approve every comment on the blog that calls me a moron or worse, and it's not the kind of thing that brightens my day. Ditto for my colleagues. But the point here is to share the platform, and to leave it to you all (as much as possible) to decide how to use it.
Posted by: Jon Healey | August 12, 2008 at 06:18 AM
Sounds like your editorial board would benefit from a bit of diversity.
BTW, if comments are moderated, then how did the following hateful piece of ignorant bigotry slip past?
"Right-wing Christians are idiots!"
Posted by: j.a.m. | August 12, 2008 at 05:56 AM
Marriage means the intrinsically complementary union of husband and wife. Period.
Virtually all of humanity understands that simple and profound fact.
Vote yes for common sense.
Posted by: j.a.m. | August 12, 2008 at 04:53 AM
I think it is amazing that we as a society are still allowing some religions to legislate how everyone lives. Further, it ceaselessly amazes me that we have proof now that human sexuality is biologically determined (as evidenced by a number of physiological differences between gay and straight people). These differences, things like brain structure, are things that are determined by our genes prior to birth. So NO we haven't identified a specific 'gay gene', but we have determined that sexuality is genetically determined. We just don't know which genes. Why is it that they cannot imagine a supreme being who would create gay people, but cannot deny that say, hermaphrodites are born the way they are. DEATH TO IGNORANCE!! LIFE TO ELUCIDATION!!
Posted by: Byron | August 12, 2008 at 04:28 AM
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Kathy H. | August 12, 2008 at 04:17 AM
uh, "recruit"? Like current 'gays' were recruited by their (, likely,) heterosexual parents?
Seems effective (not).
If anything it's logical to assume that a majority of gays will come from straight families. Given that a number of children have a penchant for living in defiance of their parents' lifestyle or values, raised with gay parents, they might be more likely grow up straight!
Though, overall, since identity and orientation are largely influenced by factors before birth, biological parents set the stage for the child's most basic and fundamental personality traits before birth -- just like children are born with 'temperaments' or dispositions being sad, quiet, happy and gay, they can also be gay and sad, quiet, or happy and gay.
Posted by: linda w | August 12, 2008 at 03:51 AM
Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don't see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!
Posted by: Chino Blanco | August 12, 2008 at 03:10 AM
What an ignorant thing to say....
"and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. "
Recruit? Who ever made that comment you have no brains...
Marriage is for procreation? I guess we should pass laws to outlaw people that don't want or can't have kids.
Dumb redneck get a clue.
Posted by: Alex Gill | August 11, 2008 at 07:47 PM
If you ever talk to gay people, the idea of replenishing our numbers...never comes up.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that gay people have very little in common. The only things keeping us together are homophobia and oppression. If homosexuality became completely and unconditionally accepted....there would be very little reason, other than dating, for the gay community. It is persecution, death threats, discrimination that has forced there to be a gay community in the first place.
Posted by: Jason D | August 11, 2008 at 07:12 PM
It is not the gay marriage that hurts the "family values" it is the heterosexual divorces that hurt the family.
Posted by: Robert | August 11, 2008 at 06:59 PM
Not only are they mis-informed and wasting energy that could be used to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, these "Christians" are making & upholding laws that HURT children. Yes, real, living, breathing CHILDREN are being lovingly raised by same sex couples, yet these families are treated as LESS THAN other families. THAT is the abomination!
Gay Tax Protest
Posted by: John Bisceglia | August 11, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Right-wing Christians are idiots!
Posted by: Flex | August 11, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Anti-gay bigots make me so sad. All this energy they spend desperately trying to demonize and harm a minority group and their families is such a shameful waste.
Christ calls us to love one another and do unto each other as we would do unto them. I happen to be straight, but if I were gay, I would certainly want the same equal protections and dignity of marriage for me and my family.
That's why I'm voting NO on Proposition 8
Posted by: Marine Vet | August 11, 2008 at 04:18 PM