Proposition 8 and the quiet governor
Back in April, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to fight any attempt to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. "I will always be there to fight against that because it should never happen," he told the Log Cabin Republicans at their San Diego convention -- a month before the state Supreme Court recognized the right of gays and lesbians to marry. And after that ruling, the governor again promised to oppose the effort to take away that right -- now known as Proposition 8.
But Schwarzenegger has been awfully quiet about an issue that could use his visible presence. Not that he has switched camps. He just hasn't been showing up to remind Californians that they generally champion expansive civil rights, not the elimination of such rights. He hasn't been around to reassure voters that their churches won't have to conduct same-sex marriages and their preschoolers won't have to attend gay weddings.
He attends rallies for Proposition 11, on redistricting, but is quiet about opposing Prop. 8.
In May, the Times editorial board, cheering the state Supreme Court ruling, noted:
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he would oppose a ban, and his leadership on this matter is warmly welcomed."
Opposition, yes. Leadership, no. The governor said in April he would always be there. Guess he never said exactly where.
Photo by David McNew/Getty Images
Responsible Procreation's first principle is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for the children we create, barring dire circumstances or tragedy.
That principle is found throughout the world. That an SSMer here would disparage it is confirmation that he or she does not know the subject material and is reliant on an identity filter to attack the core of marriage. Hence it was not such a reach for that commenter to try to try to attach Catholic and Hispanic to a fundamental principle to which that commenter later alluded when glibly pointing at "paternity tests".
Heh.
Likewise when pointing to the same-sex moms -- the child's mother and grandmother. The commenter shoots own foot, again.
Double Heh.
The commenter repeats the act when confirming that there is no requirement for same-sex sexual behavior and, therefore, "gay marriage" is not a sexualized type of relationship, at law. If "same-sex" equates to "both-sexed" then neither is marriage, in that commenter's mind.
But that would be a false equivalency. See the marriage presumption of paternity and various aspects of the laws governing age of consent and annulment. These do not fit the "gay marriage" concept that the commenter promotes.
Triple Heh.
The rest is more nonsense that can be compared with the racist identity filter that SSMers are supposed to equate with sex integration but instead, shooting the old foot again, manage to aptly compare with the gay identity filter. And they do so thinking they are demonstrating the strength of their assertions.
Quadruple Heh.
Posted by: Chairm | October 23, 2008 at 02:28 PM
"No group of Californians should have their constitutional rights put up for popular vote. "
Right. Constitutional rights should not be voted on by "we the people", but by 7 black robed elitists who know what's best for us.
Posted by: Marty | October 23, 2008 at 07:32 AM
"Responsible Procreation [which, FYI, google suggests is a Hispanic Catholic phrase]... arises from the nature of humankind, which is two-sexed;" The concept of responsible parenting arises from the idea that people shouldn't make babies, then abandon them.
"government does not own civil society -- at least not while we are not enslaved." Precisely. No need for the nanny state to regulate this type of social association. Vote no on 8.
"marriage presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced. If a couple enter the social institution" Seems you've never heard of paternity tests...
"When it comes to kids, if two moms are better than one, why not three or four or more moms?" In fact, more moms are (statistically) better. That's why having a grandmom (who is herself a mom) is (statistically) better than lacking a grandmom.
"incestuous sexual relations when they would simply like to gain the benefits that gay and lesbian couples have been clamoring for?" There is no current requirement to have sex to become married. Nor does prop8 require that. Perhaps you are anticipating that forced sex will be the goal of the fundies' next Prop? Thanks for the warning, and thanks for admitting that gays and lesbians are currently deprived of "benefits". I'm glad you agree with the CA supreme court ruling that prop 22 violates due process as applied to non-criminals.
"We can love the sinner and hate the sin, as God does." We had to destroy the village to love the sinner. :-)
"too many hetero couples who are at wit's end with their marriage and the only thing that has stopped them from straying or divorcing isn't trying to work things out - it's the financial liabilities and proceedings they'd have to go through to dissolve said contract." Uh huh. so I don't know why any gay/les/etc want to get married, but that's up to them.
"... we should be impeaching the judges that went against the peoples will. If we allow them this chance to overrule the people by voting no on prop. 8" Hmmm... the CA and federal constitutions are also the people's law. (Per CA supremes interpretation), constitutional due process overrode the CA code introduced by prop 22. The CA supremes simply resolved the conflict between two people's laws in favor of the higher law. CA constitution somewhat mirrors federal constitution. hxxp leginfo.ca.gov - .const - .article_1 So if prop8 passes, conflicts with CA constitution will likely need resolving. Whichever way that goes, one side or the other will appeal. I doubt that prop8 can then "win" against *federal* due process. Seems that Scalia and the other repug activist judges would have difficulty overturning the 5th and 14th amendments. But legal rulings are much driven by arcane precedent(s).
Posted by: let them marry nanny goats | October 23, 2008 at 12:37 AM
[An error occurred during my editing. herein corrected:] "same-sex marriage to be... encouraged in schools" Hmmmm, I highly doubt that *REJECTING* Prop 8 will lead to public schools performing marriages.
Posted by: Let them eat typos | October 23, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Thomas said:
>> The government-approved title of the Proposition, as it appears on the ballot is: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"
And:
>> I must say: Your challenge has been met.
* * *
Not quite.
I asked, what is being banned. The title, such as it has been rewritten by an opponent of the proposition, suggests that something is being eliminated.
The two are not one and the same.
As for the propagandic title which refers to the right to marry, well, it presupposes that a same-sex relationship is capable for forming a bonafide marriage.
It equates "same-sex couples" with the both-sexed conjugal relationship type.
Even that prejudice title says nothing about gayness.
That returns you to the challenge that you have yet to meet.
Please be more precise.
Same-sex couples means what to you? Please state the essentials, the core, the nature of "same-sex couples".
Presumably it is a type of relationship unlike other nonmarital types of relationships. Please state the distinguishing features.
Now is that banned? Nope. Is it forbidden? Nope. Is it ellminated? Nope.
It is false that gays lacked the right to marry before Proposition 8 and false after ratification of Proposition 8. You have not cited the gayness test that is in the marriage statute or in Proposition 8.
If you depend on "same-sex" as proxy for gay, then, you depend on a false equation for "both-sex" is not proxy for straight in the marriage statutes.
In fact, there are explicit boundaries against the right of both-sex couples to marry. These arise from the core of marriage, the social institution that integrates motherhood and fatherhood, for instance.
* * *
Thomas said:
>> "Protect Marriage" is a lot more innocuous and noble sounding than "Let's Deny Gays the Right to Marry."
We can agree that some bumperstickers don't convey a fulsome argument, one way or the other. "Marraige equality" for instance is noble sounding but says nothing about what is at issue.
"Protect Marriage" has the advantage of being true, whereas "Deny Gays the Right to Marry" does not.
Consider, and think through, the points I have raised in my previous comments. I said nothing about increasing or decreasing the chance someone might become gay. I did not say that the man-woman criterion is designed "to promote procreation".
You dropped the responsible part of Responsible Procreation, for some unstated reason.
I did ask about the marriage presumption of paternity (i.e. seperate but equal vis-a-vis one-sex arrangements) and the integration of motherhood and fatherhood (again, see seperate but equal).
I did speak of the preferential status of the core of marriage. And I did ask for the core of the relationship type that you have in mind. In other comments at this blog I have referred to three basic types of relationship statuses: tolerative (those not outlaws or criminalized), protective (to address special vulnerabilities and no more), and preferential. Marital status is special status -- it is preferential.
It seems that you would say that gayness, alone, is worthy of more than tolerance, more than protections, and even more than preference. It is somehow superior to the core of marriage?
I also did not use the phrase "the nature of" in the way you have; you, not I, have commited the naturalistic fallacy. Also, I spoke of essentials while you spoke of marginal examples of "natural diversity".
You constructed a false dilemma when you said that either my view of marriage is purely religious or a personal grip against gays. Reread my previous comments and you will see in the content no explicit and no implicit dependance on religion nor on personal animosity toward you or other gays.
I disagree with the merger of marriage with nonmarriage, call it "gay marriage", "civil union", "domestic partnership", or "the homosexual relationship". It is wrong to join nonmarriage to the hip of marital status, the way that the recent expansion of domestic partnership did.
I am not opposed to protections, based on the core what is being protected. Provison for reciprocal beneficiaries has long-existed in our legal tradition and in our culture. It does not require a relationship status, at law, just an affidavit of commitment.
But I stop well short of special status for gay identity politics. I strongly disapprove of empowering Government to promote identity politics of whatever kind.
* * *
Marriage is special because of its core. I still await a clear statement of the core of the relationship type you have in mind.
For that is what you might claim would be eliminated, banned, forbidden, or whatever.
* * *
The word, marriage, refers to the social institution that the government recognizes but does not own.
There is no constitutional right of you or anyone else, of whatever identity or sexual proclivities, to empower the Government to own the foundational social institution of civil society. Society merely delegates to government the role of regulating the parameters of marriage. That delegated authority does not entail laying claim to outright ownership of civil society.
Marriage means something. Since you have yet to clearly state the meaning of the relaitonship type you have in mind, should we all here agree that for you marriage is meaningless? Has it no core meaning?
Surely you say not.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Jeffrey H. said:
>> Society should support the goodness of love and committment between two people who want to share their lives with each other and care for each other. As far as I can tell, that strengthens the institution of marriage. Gay people are saying "we believe in marriage and we want to participate".
And:
>> You are preventing the children of same-sex couples from having a secure and stable environment under the law.
* *
If the core of the relationship that you have in mind is "love and commitment" and sharing with and core for each other, then, would you provide a good reason to draw the boundary against related people and already-married people.
"Gay marriage" does not create the legal child-parent relationship as directly as adoption. In fact, for a scenario that would lack either mother or father, there are two prerequisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to assign the child a substitute parent. These requirements are not the core meaning of marriage but in fact are the virtual opposite.
You might think that using "donors" does not require relinquishment, but of course it does through statutory law on the subject. It also requires the government to enact enabling statutes to replace the relinquisher with a substitute. Besides, going outside the relationship for "donations" is a form of extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. So when you point to children in the same-sex scenario, you point outside the core of marriage.
I am not preventing what you say. I am affirming the core meaning of significance of the social institution of marriage.
In contrast, your remarks are pushing for the abolition of of that core and a dminishment of that signficance -- and you would do so for the sake of gay identity politics.
The actual disagreement is not about "the right to marry" nor about children in same-sex households.
It is about marriage, its meaning. What is the relationship type that you have in mind, Jeffery, and what are its essentials? Your previous comment suggested that raising children is an essential, yet that's not what others who favor "gay marraige" have asserted.
According to Census data, about 90% of the adult homosexual populaton does not reside in same-sex households; and about 97% does NOT reside in such households with children resident. Keep in mind that not all such households would convert to "gay marriage" if it were to become available -- maybe just 25% over a decade or so. So when you talk of children in your previous remarks, you are pointing at a tiny fraction of a tiny segment of a small part of the homosexual population. It is marginal even among that population.
Besides, each of these children would have had both a mom and a father; most of them, by far, still do, but one or the other is nonresident.
That's the virtual opposite of marriage as practiced in this country. And as embedded in our marriage and family law -- see the marriage presumption of paternity.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Thomas said:
Chairm, I respect your dialogue. I respect the fact that you employ your words with a degree of intelligence, sharpness and wit. [...] But I can't for the life of me apply your rationale to the majority of your fellow supporters - because they haven't thought the matter through. [...] Just because you're part of the same army doesn't mean you're fighting the war for the same reasons.
Thomas, I appreciate the kind words. Please keep in mind that I have engage this issue with many people of many different backgrounds, political affiliations, religious/irreligious beliefs, educations, and thoughtfulness on the subject matter. In other words, I have learned over the past decade a great deal about all sides of this issue -- and there are many more than just two sides.
That said, I also appreciate the rest of your response.
However, I must say that even the most prominent public representatives of the pro "gay marriage" project have been very inadequate in explaining the core meaning of what they have in mind. It does not matter how articulate they are on gay rights because the marriage issue really is not a question of gay rights. It is about the core meaning of marriage in our culture, our customs, our laws. And while even the most thoughtful advocate of the "gay marriage" project may be in full swing when talking about gay rights, he or she is typically tongue-tied when it comes to the essentials of the relationship type they would have the government recognize as "marriage". They actually say nothing much defintive on that central point.
[When I say, typically, I do mean, by type, rather than, usually.]
Also note that we are speaking of a foundational social institution, first and foremost. Some things are so profundly influential on a society that the common person, the regular guy and the bigtime academic, will not dissect its meaning with precision. That does not mean there is no core meaning. A social institution is a coherent set of principles and practices. If we examine the anthropological record, the consensus is that the man-woman criterion of marriage has been a near-universal feature throughout recorded human history -- across cultures, faiths, customs, traditions, legal systems.
[When I say, near-universal, it is a term used by anthropologists who always leave room, however slight, for the possible discovery of some as-yet-unconfirmed or -unknown true exception. None has been found. Only speculative and very rarified potential exceptions that are more apparent than actual have been identified, vaguely.]
Now, when it comes to tradition, you might object and say that tradition is not good enough. But you have also referred to love which points not at a legal requirement, not at a constitutional requirement, but rather at a fairly recent tradition of romantic love. Based on the rules of argumentation that the pro "gay marriage" side has used in courts, legislatures, and in other public forums, it is unacceptable to rely solely on tradition; if something is not a legal requirement, and enforced absolutely, then, they say, it cannot be essential. Thus, by that sort of thinking -- however well thought out you might imagine it to be -- love is not an essential of the relationship type that is in mind.
Just turn the tables and use your argumentation against, say procreation as definitive of marriage, your own idea of what marriage might be. Love will occur with or without a licence. It will endure with or without a special status at law. Besides, what kind of love, how much of it, is required before the government unilaterally dissolve such a relationship type? What if a marriage is loveless, according to your own criteria, or becomes loveless? Is it love that the government is trying to promote?
Alternatively, re-examine the claims about promoting stability. Try to use those claims while excluding related people or already-married people. Don't use sterotypes to exclude people or you might be guilty of bigotry and/or an inappropriate expression of personal animous.
See, I think it is fairly straight forward that sex integration, combined with Responsible Procreation, provides sufficient reason to draw the lines as societies have drawn them. Even those in the past, where we today might have done things differently. The core remains even if the parameters and protocols might vary.
However, with the proposed merger of "gay marriage" and marriage, it seems to me that the core meaning is dropped and some substitute takes its place. Yet, what is that replacement -- that core meaning?
Maybe it is just my not paying enough attention, but I have been making a huge effort because equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happines are very important goods that a society, such as ours, is best to promote for the flourishing of this and future generations.
Simply put: I refuse to buy what you are selling "sight unseen". Tell me the core of the thing, its essentials, its definitive requirements.
I've already pointed at such: the man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes; the marriage presumption of paternity stands for Responsible Procreation. These are not detailed in the marriageability laws, however, until the push for "gay marriage" I don't think that anyone really questioned whether or not the government recognized a social institution of civil society, rather than owned and created it. The core is recognized in the law and it is that recongition -- those requirements -- that are under assault by the people who cannot seem to come up with a clearly stated description of their alternative -- and of alternative requirements.
That means the gay rights issue is not really about the meaning of the word, marriage, but it is about the desire to impose gay identity politics onto marriage for a nonmarriage purpose.
You might wish to brush aside this basic problem with the pro "gay marriage" side's thinking, but please resist that impulse. Consider the harm of empowering Government to make law and social policy based on identity politics. You'd object to a religous form of identity politics, right? Don't think that gay identity politics would be less objecitonable, both in principle and in practice.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I've written comments in response to Karin's question but these have yet to appear.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM
"Polls have shown an absolutely ironic reality: Men favor Prop. 8, while women oppose it." wow. freaky. reminding me that (per polls) a high % of blacks/african-americans favor prop8.
"...polygamy and incest..." Incest is obviously bad, because the child is not a consenting adult. What's the harm in polygamy? I'll never partake, and I'll let pro-8-ers explain how other people's consenting polygamy hurts me.
Let's also dispose of the tired old joke about trees marrying goats if prop8 is rejected. Trees, jellyfish, and
"[gays can't have kids!... prop 8 is about protecting/promoting procreation]". yeah ok, bring on prop# whatever, wherein the state forces copulation and pregnancies. Btw, some gays who were previously in het relationship have biological kids.
"sexual orientation "indoctrination" is a failure and you should have nothing to fear; if your kids are straight, they'll turn out straight" Exactly. The reason why I'm sure a gay person knows he/she is attracted to same sex, is because I've been attracted to girls since before elementary school (though I only realized when i was in 3rd grade). This is why exposure to lots of facts, and as little training as possible are best. (unfortunately most adults aren't aware of how they can facilitate this.) Btw, I can imagine bis being unsure to a later age whether they might be monos, due to the typical timelines of school crushes.
"Do all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths" Yes. and out the backs and tops and bottoms. :-)
alonganong, danielle [snipped] Agreed.
"Can not wait for the election so this long pathetic opinions STOP!!" Heh. Try going here: hXXp://google.com. Do not type "prop 8".
"for several years now and I have not noticed any threats to my hetero marriage." Lord preserve us! You didn't even notice how your mind was commandeered by the Gay Mainstream Media! Repent now for your years of reading newspapers!
Posted by: Let them marry silver bling things | October 22, 2008 at 09:42 PM
"People in Haiti survive on mud pies. Think of all the money various churches are spending for Proposition 8. Couldn't this money be better spent in other ways?" Think of how much "christian" money is wasted on b00lsh11timg self-serving false prophets such as james dobson, marion robertson, etc etc.
"I don't know about MA law, but at what point did parents lose their right there to opt out their kids from objectionable material?" (Might take some googling to find that.) Another debatable point about conflicts of rights: meathead parents' rights to inculcate vs their offsprimgs rights to awareness of reality. Seeing a boring vid (in a social science class) about people tossing uncooked rice at a couple of lesbians won't traumatize any kids. Does parental right to turn their offspring into KKKers override the kids' right to not become a KKKer? Similarly (religious rights vs societal interests), any parent can tell their kids to *not believe* in biological selection and a non-flat Earth. But the kids need to be aware of science/fact. I know religion is irrational. *And* I want kids to learn about religion. How else will they have a chance to realize as I have?
"humanity's oldest institution as something it is not." Uhuh. Chicken or egg. No "institution" (custom) can be determined to be "oldest".
"Just because many of today's marriages fall short of that ideal .." Yes, just because a law doesn't work as well as desired (such as laws that try to restrict the loose trade of inherently fatal and indiscriminately applied weapons, laws to prohibit child-molestation, etc), does not suggest that laudable effort be abandoned.
"prevent the teaching of same-sex marriage to their children" Do you ever *think* about the catch-phrases you parrot? "teaching of same-sex marriage " just means teaching that it exists. Assuming fundies dislike Stalin (despite their emulation of Soviet communists) as they dislike "same-sex marriage", do they then oppose schools teach about Stalin? There's a big difference between *indoctrination/programming* (eg, jesus/allah is your savior, cuz my koran/bible says so, bah blah) vs *knowing* (eg, that F-4s were flown by USAF during the Vietnam war).
"same-sex marriage to be... encouraged in schools" Hmmmm, I highly doubt Prop 8 will lead to public schools performing marriages.
"that parents will still have the right to review material... what is to stop courts from removing this right[?]... [parental review] denies same-sex couples the right of having their alternative lifestyles legitimized" Same sex relationships are already legal. It's a fact. Kids should know that. Freedom of speech allows you tell people you meet that same-sex relationships shouldn't be legal.
Posted by: Let them eat white robes | October 22, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Just like with the "gun rights" thing, Obama as US president will no longer represent *only* his senate district. In the quote i saw, I think he said he's personally opposed to "gay marriage". I agree with above comment saying obama and the schwarzer are sissies. Yet "discretion is the better part of valor (whatever)" especially in politics. I don't like schwarzer, and will never vote for him, but I don't crit him on this.
"Proposition 8... does not eliminate rights" That's pure bs. But at least you didn't try hiding it. "[blahhh blah...].. social institution of marriage.." is not for the nanny state to enforce. Xmas gift-giving is a social institution, too. "Proposition 8 protects the freedom to express this viewpoint,.." If you want a hetero marriage, get one. If you like talking about hetero marriage, then "express" yourself. Yes or no on prop 8 will do nothing regarding your freedom of speech or regarding het marriage.
"... photographer that refused a gay wedding based on beliefs and got sued" Actually, if you refer to the NM thing, she was *fined*. However, here you have a debatable conflict in rights. Can a "straight-acting" photog refuse to work a fundie event? Can a card-carrying KKK waiter refuse to serve "gooks" or "darkies"?
"all it takes is one gay couple to march into a Church that is against same sex marriage and demand a ceremony" They might try, but nothing will happen, because that example directly involves a church. Consider that "liberal feminazis" have "run society down the drain" (whatever) "for decades", yet somehow no church has been forced to hire female priests (fathers, popes, pastors, mullahs, etc). Yes, slippery slope stuff does happen in the marginally rational sphere of societies, but you should rationally consider such irrationalities :-) Mainstream churches are legally "sacred". (Rutherford Institute will never pro-bono for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Peyote users.)
If you think legal same-sex marriage is a slippery slope, then *any* legal marriage is a slippery slope. So, you'd better constitutionally outlaw marriage, since it leads to gay marriage, which leads to rock marrying a couple of sexy car tires until they become worn out ("tired"), then divorcing to marry-up to a fresh copy of "The Taming of the Shrew", blah blah, pigs flying, blahblah. (wow. rocks can be ruthless social climbers. who knew?)
Posted by: Let them marry bibles | October 22, 2008 at 09:22 PM
As a wife, and mother I wanted to share why I feel a 'YES' vote on Proposition 8 is the right thing to do.
I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal happiness for his children. I believe it is my responsibility as a parent to teach my children that procreation is a sacred channel that brings children into this world. I have discovered many of life's greatest joys are found within the family, as we give our best efforts to raising our children with faith, love, forgiveness, respect, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. It isn't always an easy course, but as our children have grown into young adults, I can say it has been worth it.
I believe tolerance is respect for the customs, ideas, and beliefs of others. Respect is not synonymous with acceptance and embracing the beliefs of others, but the willingness to allow others to practice their beliefs, religious or otherwise, how, when, and where they may. Tolerance is a two-way street. My fear is that we have changed the definition of tolerance to that of acceptance, and if one person does not accept the choices of another, they are labeled as 'intolerant' or worse, a 'bigot'. This labeling alone demonstrates intolerance to differing beliefs, and strikes out against our freedom of speech. The tyranny of tolerance is enforced with violence, hatred, threats, or disrespect. Those who choose to do so violate the very principle they claim is their right.
I will vote 'yes' on proposition 8 on election day. Not because anyone else has told me to do so, but because I have read and studied the issue. I want California to continue to be a state where domestic partnerships may share the same legal benefits as married couples, but the sacred institution of marriage as defined by God, and accepted by man for centuries of time, remains a union between one man and one woman. I want my children to be free to raise their children according to their family values, morals and ethical beliefs; to love all people as children of God, respecting others opinions, and being able to express their own beliefs without the threat of violence, hatred, or disrespect.
Posted by: Steadfast1 | October 22, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Rise up Americans rise up! This is not so as much of an issue of same sex marriage as it is an issue of the government over ruling what the people have already voted in to law. Prop.8 should not even be on the ballot it is already the law. Instead we should be impeaching the judges that went against the peoples will. If we allow them this chance to overrule the people by voting no on prop. 8 we will see them do the same on other things too. Basically making the peoples vote senseless.
Let us say we elected a Governor in California and a few judges don’t like him because he won’t give them a raise so they kick him out and put in their own governor. Judges will be able to override any decision the people vote on. I am not willing to allow this to happen in my state.
To be outlandish what if a judge was gay and decided he wanted to ban all heterosexual marriages. And by doing so he takes away the rights of women and men everywhere. Would you allow that to happen? I am all for equal rights in America, but I am not for the right of a single judge over throwing how the people of this great country vote.
So I leave you with this: Can you pick a better country? God Save America and it’s people.
Posted by: Proud American | October 22, 2008 at 03:53 PM
@David S:
You're quoting a lot of stuff out of context there. Many of the verses you note have nothing to do with homosexuality. I've stated many times over to various others that unless you're an expert in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, you should lay off trying to interpret the English meanings of certain texts. I include myself in on that admonishment.
(Particularly the Timothy statement. I don't know how you're reading it, but "lovers of their own selves" is a narcissist, not a homosexual.)
If we're going to use the Bible - which I *do* believe in, btw, being raised a church-going Christian boy - to dictate our political practices by its literal English wording, then every law and admonition in Deuteronomy that precedes and follows the contentious "men laying with men" verse should also be followed - including the one about stoning a child that curses their parents. If you'll support that law, I'll support your discrimination against gays.
Posted by: Thomas | October 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Chairm said: "You might show me I am wrong: be very specific and tell me what would be banned."
The government-approved title of the Proposition, as it appears on the ballot is: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"
I must say: Your challenge has been met.
It's pretty clear what this amendment will do -- what it was *designed* to do. It is designed to deny gays the right to marry in response to gays *getting* the right to marry through the court's unconstitutional ruling over the previous Proposition 22.
If Proposition 8 was simply to clarify what marriage is for sake of clarification, I'd like Proposition 9 to clarify the sky's color; Proposition 10 to clarify that fire burns; and Proposition 11 to further define "child" (I'm sure Nebraska could use help with that one).
Calling something other than what it is doesn't hide the fact of what it *does*. "Let's Help Bring Stability to Iraq" is a lot cheerier than "Iraq Occupation." "Intensive Interrogation Techniques" is a lot more palatable than "Torture." "Protect Marriage" is a lot more innocuous and noble sounding than "Let's Deny Gays the Right to Marry."
Don't delude yourself into thinking this is about preserving family or even promoting procreation. Both will continue with or without government involvement. I have nothing but the utmost respect for families - I was raised in one, after all. My family - and yours - will suffer no detriment if Proposition 8 fails. My young kin has no more greater chance of "becoming" gay (if such a thing were even possible) on November 3 than they would on November 5, should Proposition 8 fail.
Why? Because it boils down to this: For gay men and women, being gay is as natural to them as being heterosexual is for you. You can't believe it because you don't *feel* it like I do, in the same way I can't feel being heterosexuality is normal for me because I don't *feel* it like YOU do. Nature is rife with homosexual examples amongst the species. Nature is also rife with examples of species that need no opposite-sex partner to procreate (in fact, a shark just did it a couple of weeks ago). Is it not possible that humans may accommodate for this same level of natural diversity. And if it is natural diversity, does that not entitle those naturally diverse members of a species the same rights and privileges you presently enjoy -- including not having to suffer under "separate, but equal" laws?
The only two ways you can answer no, from the way I see it, are the following:
-- You have a religious-based reason for your answer. In that case, I point you back to my interracial argument in which the very same reasoning was used as justification for segregation and miscegenation laws. (Case in point, before he started targeting homosexuals, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell frequently cited the Bible in his vehement opposition to interracial marriage.) Plenty of religion-based laws created out of fear or an effort to be more "pure" as a society created more problems than they solved (i.e., Prohibition).
-- You have a serious personal gripe with gays. And you know what? Out of the two reasons I've given, I'm much more inclined to tolerate this one. If you think gay sex and gays in general are icky, gross and disgusting, and are willing to say so, then SAY SO and you won't find a single argument coming from me. And if a majority of Californians want to express the same opinion via ballot - and are bold and blunt about expressing their reasons why - then I'll accept their answer for the time being and campaign to change public perception...
... but just don't give me some cockamamie reasoning like "Protecting Marriage" as their true and dear cause. Because for the majority of Proposition 8 backers - it's not. "Protecting Marriage" is just the prettiest packaging many a bigot can find in order to market their agenda to undecideds.
And if I needed another argument to support the above paragraph: If you really don't have a problem with gays having equal rights, and if equal rights dictate a non-"separate but equal" stance by the government, then why is this whole Proposition in existence in the first place? Why is this silly notion of a word-means-everything so important to you? If you were really about equal rights, an interstate effort wouldn't have been coordinated to bring this Proposition to the ballot and fund it for passing. Your familial legal commitment remains whether I call it "marriage", "civil union" or "fidelity contract" so why the big deal? Unless, of course, this isn't about family at all... and it really *IS* about the gays.
Give this some thought: It's not the word that encourages your marriage and family to stay together but the law that dictates penalties should one side break the marriage contract. I know too many hetero couples who are at wit's end with their marriage and the only thing that has stopped them from straying or divorcing isn't trying to work things out - it's the financial liabilities and proceedings they'd have to go through to dissolve said contract. Sometimes that obstacle's a good thing; it allows both parties time to work their differences out. But sometimes it's a bad thing - because it keeps two parties mired in misery until one of them thinks the benefits of divorce outweigh the penalties of divorce.
In this aspect, gay and non-married couples have an advantage - the ONLY thing keeping them together is love. And for those gay couples that have been together for 15+ years, I'd have to unequivocally say that their relationship is as strong if not stronger than most hetero relationships of similar length for that very reason.
Chairm, I respect your dialogue. I respect the fact that you employ your words with a degree of intelligence, sharpness and wit. And it's for that reason that I afford you much greater respect than I would a traditional Prop 8 supporter. But I can't for the life of me apply your rationale to the majority of your fellow supporters - because they haven't thought the matter through. I'm sure of it. And I can't see how you could think differently.
Just because you're part of the same army doesn't mean you're fighting the war for the same reasons.
Posted by: Thomas | October 22, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Im sick to death of America NOT living up to the words its espouses to the rest of the world..like some shining Marque " Liberty & Justice for All" ...REALLY? I think not...they are JUST WORDS - EMPTY WORDS! Sometimes America disgusts me....espeically when it comes to Bigotry,Discrimination, and Buy-Bull thumpers.
Posted by: Disgusted American | October 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Society should support the goodness of love and committment between two people who want to share their lives with each other and care for each other. As far as I can tell, that strengthens the institution of marriage. Gay people are saying "we believe in marriage and we want to participate". If marriage is such an important element of society, and I believe it is, then why would you want to make sure that so many people have to remain single? If you deny gays and lesbians the option of marriage then you are lowering the numbers of married people in society and doing harm to the cornerstone of the foundation of civilization. You are preventing the children of same-sex couples from having a secure and stable environment under the law.
I love how all these homophobic and bigoted people pretend that they are all for fairness and against discrimination and that they "love the sinner" but then they go on to call for denying equal rights to same-sex couples. They already enjoy the right to marry and they sure aren't going to let any one else join their private club.
It is JUST like the shameful arguments made against interracial couples not so long ago. Turn back the clock. Fifty years ago, would you have wanted to be one of the people who were for equal rights or one of the ones who wanted to make laws to keep two people of different races from marrying?
If you are fearful and full of hate and use your religion to justify your bigotry then you will vote yes on 8. If you are truly for fairness and equality and real Christian values then you will vote NO on 8.
Posted by: Jeffrey H. | October 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM
While we're sharing bible passages about God's prohibition of homosexuality, let's not forget the 10th Commandment. Exodus 20:17 says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant ... nor his ass ..."
Posted by: Wayne | October 22, 2008 at 09:45 AM
I find Lee Ramsey's comments fascinating. He says the Bible does not define marriage as between man and woman, and also seems to believe that God approves homosexuality. I use the KJV Bible, and here is what my copy says:
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Leviticus 18:22-23
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith . . .
Deuteronomy 23:17
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Isaiah 3:9
The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
Genesis 12:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
Romans 1:24-27
. . . God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator . . . For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Timothy 1:8-10
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane . . . For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind . . .
Jude 1:7-8
. . . Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Deuteronomy 29:21-23
. . . the Lord shall separate him unto evil . . . according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law: So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you . . . when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it; And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom . . . which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:
Lastly, the teachings of Jesus regarding love are often misunderstood to mean that loving the sinner means we have to accept the sin. This is simply not the case. Jesus showed love and compassion to the adultress woman, but he did not excuse the sin. Rather, he commanded her to sin no more.
John 7:10-11
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman [who had been taken in adultery], he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Lastly, the Apostle Paul clearly and accurately prophesied what our conditions would be like today. He also counseled us what to do about it. .
2 Timothy 2:1-5
. . . in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God . . . from such turn away.
Loving others in a Christlike manner does not mean embracing unacceptable behavior. We can love the sinner and hate the sin, as God does.
Posted by: David S | October 22, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Thomas said:
"Now, instead of making this a race issue, the proponents of a ban insist that it's really about promoting procreation. It's funny because if that argument were made in 1948 about why interracial marriage between heterosexuals should be allowed - it's all about procreation and family, right? - you'd have been driven out of town."
Actually the argument was made and you are making the same sort of argument that the racists made against the nature of the social institution of marriage.
The racist system selectively segregated the sexes. It used the societal esteem for marriage for nonmarriage purposes. When it came to procreation, the system prohibited the legitimizaton of children born of white men and non-white women. As for punishment, well, the Lovings were fined and jailed for their marriage. And, yes, the court did recognize them as married, if only to treat them as criminals.
You know, the Lovings were permitted to leave the state and go to a jurisdiction that would recognize their marriage. The deal was that if they returned they would be further punished. The judge in that case went farther than the merits of the case and expounded on his own personal biases. That is reminiscent nof the pro-SSM court opinions.
So, you'd rather that society bring selective sex segregation under the auspices of the social institution that integrates the sexes. You mock and scorn the centrality of procreation-- Responsible procreation -- at the heart of marriage. You disdain, it would seem, the marriage presumption of paternity which made of Mr. Loving the father of his wife's children.
But there is a great flaw in the analogy you wish to flaunt regarding race.
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. There are no subspecies of human being. Man and woman are both parts of the same race. Marriage unites humankind precisely because the human communnity is both-sexed, as is human generativity. Human beings are very social creatures -- our young are more vulnerable and are so for a longer duration than other creatures. And each of us is born equal -- of a man and a woman.
Racism exists, sure, but not race. It is only through aracist filter that one might claim to distinguish an "interracial" marriage. Yes, because racism is a reality we need to try to ameliorate the negative and corruptive influence of that type of identity filter. It is perfectly just to remove that filter from the marriage laws.
Want you want to remove is the core of marriage from the marriage laws. And you would press your own identity filter into the constitution, as well.
That kind of change is antithetical to our form of government, to our free and open society, and to the morality of treating the sexes equally and showing preferential treatment of children through the most pro-child social instituiton we have.
This is reality. The necessity of uniting the sexes is not some novel theory. This truth is far more profound and significant to the flourishing of society than anything you might have picke dup in Queer Studies or in some pro-SSM bumpersticker declaring "marriag equality".
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 01:48 AM
Thomas said:
"Let's assume that Proposition 8 deals only with gay marriage and leave arguments of polygamy and incest for Propositions that are opposed/supported by people with a direct interest in such things."
That is a very mistaken assumption.
Proposition 8 does not mention "gay marriage". In fact, it simply affirms the both-sexed basis of marriage.
But you assum otherwise because for you the man-woman criterion is a ban on something that is in fact not forbidden by the proposed amendment.
You might show me I am wrong: be very specific and tell me what would be banned. What are its distinguishing features such that society can identify it as the thing being targeted by Propositon 8?
Because if you can't do that simple task and make your answer stand up to scrutiny, then, what you should not be so hasty in trying to flee from the legitimate quesitons about how lines would be drawn around the relationship type you have in mind when you say "gay marriage".
You say you have a direct interest in changing what the government recognizes. Okay. But you are opening the gate and trying to close it against other people. Is that not exclusionary? Yeap, it is.
See, if society confuses nonmarriage -- even if just the subset that you have a direct interest in -- with marriage, then, you can't really expect people to think of "marriage" as distinct.
What you might think of as polygamy would just be adults forming consensual, caring, and loving relaitonships.
When it comes to kids, if two moms are better than one, why not three or four or more moms? If you think that the inclusion of a husband amongs all those wives would be a big no-no, then, imagine that these wives are in a same-sex arrangement. They might adopt kids. They might use "donors". Or they might be childless. It is their choice, right, and these are all adults choosing other adults of their hearts, right?
For that matter, why bother to false accuse a couple of sisters of incestuous sexual relations when they would simply like to gain the benefits that gay and lesbian couples have been clamoring for? Maybe they have children and need the protections for their family. Who are you to draw an arbitary line -- especially with all this talk about equality and discrimination.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 01:32 AM
J. said: "There's no reason two loving adults cannot marry--adults whom are not violating other laws such as incest and such."
Is there a legal requirement that makes love compulsory? Nope.
As for incest, when it comes to marriage a man and woman who are closely related need not even touch each other, much less feel sexual attraction, for their relationship to transgress the incest prohibition. That is because of concerns about sex integraton and responsible procreation.
But those concerns do not apply to the one-sexed combination, right? So why would you assume -- or have the government decide without actual evidence of incest -- that two closely related people of the same sex are guilty of "incest and such"?
There is no legal requirement that they engage in whatever an all-male or an all-female combo might do together sexually. Indeed, they may not ever do anything of the sort.
Besides, if this is so for the same-sex scenario, then, you would have society ensure that the both-sex scenario is as free to "marry" close relatives.
Afterall, the law does not prohibit all related people, just some. The line drawing should not arbitrarily exclude for that would be bigotry and hatred and such.
As for your glib remark about Responsible Procreation, I gather that you are unfamiliar with the marriage presumption of paternity.
Responsible Procreation is a coherent set of principles and practices that are central to the social institution of marriage. The principle is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, would be directly responsible for the chidren we create, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. This is one of our strongest laws in our legal and cultural traditons.
And it doesn't just pop-up out of the head of Government. It arises from the nature of humankind, which is two-sexed; from the nature of human generativity, which is both-sexed not one-sexed; from the nature of human community, also both-sexed in integrative, not sex-segregative.
The unity of motherhood and fatherhood is an essential element of cvilization. As such it is at the core of the foundational social institution of marriage. This is the bedrock of civil society. And government does not own civil society -- at least not while we are not enslaved.
It is a legal requirement that both-sexes be included in the conjugal relationship; however, we draw boundaries based on equality of the sexes and concerns about competency to partake of all that the sexual relationship of man and woman entails. It is not an arbitrary line drawnbased on consent -- for the age of consent for marriage varies considerably even within the same jurisdiction.
The marriage presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced. If a couple enter the social institution, they must learn what they are getting into -- and they must consent to the marriage presumption.
But none of this can apply to the one-sexed arrangement. And that has zilch to do with gayness or lesbianism. It has everything to do with the core of marriage.
Look, would you abolish the marriag epresumption of paternity because it does not fit the all-male or the all-female arrangements? If not, then, would you treat both-sexed couples as "seperate but equal" in this regard?
Thanks.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Karin, you have not understood my comment correctly.
It is not just a semantic quibble.
You said:
"Proposition 8 would be a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage--and the only people that affects are gay and lesbian, who unlike other adults in the state of Californai would not be free to marry the other adult of their hearts."
Prop 8 does not ban "same-sex marriage". But you say it does so let's go with that.
Tell me, precisely, what is banned. No, not the label but the core of the thing -- the features that are essential and which distinguish the relationship type from other types of relationships.
You said something about hearts. Is this a eupehmism for sexual behavior, sexual attraction, or romantic interest, or something else?
Is there a legal requirement for any of that? Or do you depend on mere tradition alone?
See, if you say something is banned, then, you need to go further than to just plop a name on it and fold your arms. You need to distinguish it from other things so that it can be identified.
Prop 8 would not prompt the government to send police in search of hearts, right? So this is not a ban on people seeking that.
This is about societal preference for the conjugal relationship type. And its core is as I described it. You might disagree, and that's fair, provided you can state the core you would rather recognize.
What are the legal requirements that define it?
My general point is that you are conflating nonmarriage with marriage. You take one tiny subset of the nonmarriage category and say it should be called marriage -- even though it is sex-segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation.
This must mean that you either object to the special status of the core of marriage and would prefer government to not express societala preference for that core; or that there is something far more significant, superior, in the center of the relationship type you have in mind and it is that core which must be shown societal preference.
Have I read you correctly? Please elaborate.
Posted by: Chairm | October 22, 2008 at 01:03 AM
Nick
I think you misunderstood my comment. This is perhaps the most important sentence in the post.
"No group of Californians should have their constitutional rights put up for popular vote. "
I'm with you that every Californian should VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8!!!
Posted by: Guy in SF | October 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I have spent many hours reviewing the issues surrounding Proposition 8, and wrote a 15-page article on the subject stating my findings and opinions, which provides all references to original source material. LA Times rules prohibit providing the URL to this article.
I am tolerant of the beliefs and lifestyles of others. But tolerance does not demand acceptance of all things being equal – such a concept is preposterous. As it relates to same gender marriage, Californians can be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of differing lifestyles, without accepting those lifestyles as being equal to the institution of marriage.
Same gender marriage will never be the same as traditional marriage, period. For starters, the plumbing is different.
Discrimination, which is often used to mean unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, is wrong. But the word discrimination also means to discern qualities and recognize the differences between things. By this definition, we all discriminate every day as a necessary part of making decisions. And recognizing the qualities and differences between traditional and same gender marriage should not mean that we are all forced to equalize them. Some allowances should be made for the differences.
In this regard, California already has the most tolerant and non-discriminatory laws regarding same gender couples that can be found anywhere in the U.S. Equality California, a leading opponent of Proposition 8, states on their website that California has already moved from being “a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation." Same gender couples can enjoin in civil unions, and be with, and love each other, and receive most every California legal right enjoyed by married couples. Passage of Proposition 8 will not change this. Thus, California has already shown tremendous tolerance and equanimity to people of same gender persuasion.
Most every day now I read articles online about how proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics and outright lies about its implications on children to win its passage. In researching this subject, I found that there have been many efforts over the years to pass California laws having to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. Some few have passed, but the majority failed. I am surprised that few have publicly observed that the failure of most of these measures to pass was likely related to California’s recognition at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. In other words, that definition, which became California law when voters passed it overwhelmingly in 2000, was an important bulwark in the legal defense of striking down proposed legislation that would mandate same gender education of our young children. That fence has been blown down now, as it were, by a May 2008 judicial fiat. If Proposition 8 does not pass, will the proposals for new legislation mandating exposing our children to increased education about LGBT issues cease? What does history already show? Any rational adult will recognize that if anything, such efforts will ONLY INCREASE, and find greater likelihood of passage. Scare tactics? We are talking about the future of our children here. While I do find some of the simplified statements made by ProtectMarriage to be incomplete, and feel that a more complete disclosure of details on each statement would solidify the positions they take, I also recognize that we live in a sound bite world. Many people just don’t want to take the time to learn about this issue. It is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is a fact of life today.
Proposition 8 is all about letting the voice of the people decide. “It’s going to happen now, whether you like it or not” smacks of arrogance and intolerance on the part of opponents of the measure. I believe that we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of differing lifestyles, but without accepting those lifestyles as being equal to the institution of marriage. That’s why I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Posted by: Steve M | October 21, 2008 at 09:05 PM