The web page said No on Proposition 8. Or was it Yes?
The editorial board expected a lot of response to its most recent editorial analyzing the misleading campaign claims of the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, and got it, just as most postings on the proposition do. (Previous editorials tackled the education and constitutional issues.)
Several of the commenters noted, not happily, that the editorial slamming the bigoted nature of the proposition was framed on the website by Yes on 8 ads. Why was the Times willing to sell ads to a campaign its editorial board so clearly denounces, they wondered?
Of course, advertising is one operation and editorial another. But aside from that easy answer is the more important role of a news-disseminating operation to provide for a wide variety of opinions. The editorial column is the space in the paper where the opinion staff details its analysis and recommendations of the issues at hand. Most of the newspaper belongs to the full range of opinion, including the letters to the editor, the op-ed page, the news and features pages, the ads, and the heated comments coming from both sides to the editorial and to the postings on this blog.
It's the editorial board's job to research the issues, discuss and critique them and finally deliver its considered opinion. But squelching either side of any debate is nothing we would like to see happen.
The law must be followed. Now people are coming out to challenge the state supreme court over the constitutionality of the proposition that was just passed. Would these same people be challenging this ruling had the decision been that the proposition did not pass? We know the answer to this. First, do no harm. This is inclusive of obeying the law. We have the right to question our government but there is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to disobey the law based on one's own beliefs.
Posted by: RK | November 05, 2008 at 07:06 PM
truth:
So you would deny marriage to a couple who does not plan on having children?
Why would you want to do that?
Posted by: Nonzealot | November 04, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Domestic partnerships rights and protections END as soon as you cross a state line. My partner (of 5 years) and I went to the Grand Canyon last year on vacation, if she had been injured on the trip I would have no legal say in her care or welfare, I would not even be allowed in the "family only" ambulance or ER.
Seperate but "equal"? No.
To obtain basic health benefits for her I had to show that we had a joint banking account and sign an affidavit of fiancial responsability, which also stated that we had co-habitated for 6 months prior. A newlywed heterosexual couple doesn't need to "shack up" for 6 months to get insurance, they only need to stand in front of a Judge (or similar) and say "I do."
Seperate but "equal"? No.
We took our Domestic partnership certificate to the social security administration to hyphenate our last names, we were told we had to get a court order because "it's not a marriage". A court order would cost us over $1000 in fees, for a simple name change. Our new marriage license allowed us to hyphenate in about 5 minutes, at no cost.
Seperate but "equal"? No.
Prop 8 wants to enshrine second class citizenry into the constitution, it's about gay's being "Less Than" not "Equal". A proposition about procreation would invalidate marriages that didn't produce children. A proposition about strengthening marriage should outlaw divorce. A proposition to overturn a court descision would have been authored AFTER the court descision. Prop 8 was written last October: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf
Propsition 8 is about legalizing discrimination of gays. Plain and simple. No matter how many lies they use to sugar coat it, what it boils down to it that protect marriage.com "don't want gays drinking at their marriage water fountain."
Please, Vote No on Prop 8. Equal = Equal.
Posted by: Kaellie | November 04, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Go VOTE. Whose minds are you trying to change? This is a group of decided voters. Debate as you may, but the minds here are made up. Get on the phone and call someone. We all have our reasons and we're pretty satisfied with them. We're all involved and care about the result. Prop 8 was the most important thing on my ballot today. I voted Yes. You need to go vote too.
I like the enthusiasm. If we gave this type of attention to our leader and proposition decisions, we'd improve our quality of life considerably.
Posted by: DaveM | November 04, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Marriage is not simply about two consenting adults, as some would have us believe. Why should the government confer benefits on two consenting adults who want to enjoy a "mutually beneficial" relationship? It should not. The only reason for government to support marriage is for the benefit of children -- they deserve the stability and legal obligations that come from having a married mom and dad.
If two consenting adults simply want to express their love, they can do it without government sanction and benefits.
Posted by: truth | November 04, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Doctorina,
I am distressed that you spew your false opinion without reading the law. The law in CALIFORNIA says that domestic partnerships "have the same rights as married couples." End of story. Your nonsense about "varies from state to state, blah blah blah" is irrelevant to what California law says. Please stop lying.
Posted by: You're wrong about civil unions | November 04, 2008 at 12:19 PM
NotRight and V,
You are dumb. The language you cite is not on the ballot. (read it, you might see that).
Posted by: lausl | November 04, 2008 at 12:16 PM
If this is not about taking rights away, what does this mean: http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ
The original wording of the constitutional amendment attempted to invalidate all dometic partnerships. (They must have had to change it, but the intent is still there. It clarifies this in point 6.) If this isn't discimination, then I don't know what it.
6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?
Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”
Posted by: NotRight | November 04, 2008 at 01:14 AM
The ProtectMarriage campaign has been hiding a dirty secret.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ
This is the FAQ of the website as it appeared in late 2006, when it tried to push for a ballot initiative that would be the predecessor to what is now Proposition 8.
The original wording for the amendment would have been:
“A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union
that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
Here's bullet points 6 and 7:
"6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?
Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”
7. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow the Legislature to give, or require private employers to give, the legal rights and benefits of married spouses to other relationships, such as “domestic partnerships”?
Answer: No. Since marriage would be the only legal union that may be recognized under the ProtectMarriage Amendment, no other adult relationships that attempt to imitate marriage could be legally recognized. Since no other type of intimate union would be legally recognized, it logically follows that there would also be no basis upon which to confer rights, benefits, or obligations on such un-recognized relationships."
Well, well, the true colors of the ProtectMarriage campaign are revealed. Clearly, they never intended to allow equal rights for same-sex couples AT ALL, even under domestic partnerships!
This completely undermines one of their biggest arguments: "no rights will be taken away from same-sex couples!" It was their every intention to eliminate rights!
Posted by: V | November 03, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Paul,
I urge you to reconsider, and to vote "No" on Proposition 8, for two main reasons.
1.) Although it's true that marriage helps to connect men and women together to raise the next generation, there is no logical reason to believe that marriage will _cease_ to perform this function now that same-sex marriage is legal.
2.) This proposition is poorly worded, so that it is unclear if it will sever civil unions as well as marriages. Ordinarily, a court might be able to consider what a legislature intended when they passed a law, but since this is a ballot initiative, the court won't have that information.
There are two disastrous possibilities:
-The Supreme Court of California could decide that "only marriage" is valid and recognized, and nullify all civil unions in the state.
-The court may rule that if the state cannot allow same-sex marriages, it is discriminatory to allow heterosexual marriages, thus nullifying _all_ marriages within the state.
Whatever your views on same-sex marriage, this is a poorly-written law. If it passes, the state is almost certainly in for a legal quagmire.
Posted by: Phil | November 03, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I'm distressed to discover that there are still people who think the same protections are available to people under civil unions as under a marriage law. There aren't. The protections under CUs are very different and vary widely state to state; they can be overturned if the "real" (biological) family objects - and at someone's deathbed it can get really really ugly. I'm not gay, but you don't have to be to read how the courts view CUs - well, I can see why some of the straight couples I know who have CUs but did not get married are getting nervous. Any physician can tell you that watching some nutcase bigotted family overturning a CU rights so that a dying person can't be with their partners is really awful.
Given that a supposedly religious word, "marriage," is applied to straight couples getting married by a judge in a non-religious ceremony, I think there's no reason to continue to harp on the idea that "marriage" is necessarily a religious/sacred idea . It hasn't been for a long time - and not just in this culture.
So as people who supposedly believe in freedom for all persons, we have two choices 1) stop using the word marriage to provide what are currently labeled as "marital" rights and benefits for people who are recognized in a familial relationship whether they're straight or gay or whatever or 2) just give it a freaking rest and let marriage continue to describe these relationships whether or not some radical fringe of any religion wants to use it that way within their organizations.
Religions should be free to define it their way, but there's no reason to ram it down the rest of our throats or palm peopl off with inadequate CU options.
Posted by: doctorina | November 03, 2008 at 09:12 PM
Paul,
You are right. You're opinion DOES affect your neighbor. If you are going to vote to remove the rights of your neighbor, shouldn't your neighbor have done something to horrible deserve that?
The idea that same sex marriage will in any way affect anyone other than the two people involved in that marriage is ludicrous and unsupportable. If two gay people down the street from me choose to get married, what does that have to do with me? Whether or not they are married, they're still gay and still living down the street. Nothing changes for me.
What right do I have to interfere with them?
That article you mention is absolute non-sense. Its whole premise relys on accepting that marriage is soley a celebration of the reproductive act. I challenge you to find that definition of marriage anywhere except that silly article.
If you are currently married, would you like it if I voted to dissolve your marriage based on some silly article?
Posted by: Nonzealot | November 03, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Proponents of prop 8 do not view defining marriage between a man and a woman as discriminatory, and argue that biology / culture / religion define marriage as a procreative institution, and therefore cannot be redefined. They argue that the "separate but equal" institution of "civil unions" are sufficient in recognizing equal rights.
Separate is inherently unequal.
Marriage is a celebration of mutual, monogamous love and the creation of a new family of two. By not treating all such unions equally, we *are* practicing discrimination. We are telling a minority population that they do not deserve marriage, that they can be treated differently under law.
If marriage were only a societal construct necessary for procreation, then it would not be put to a vote. The truth of the matter is, it has become a legally recognized term representing the merging of assets between two individuals. As a result, the term "marriage" is now more than a procreative relationship - it is a fundamental right between two consenting adults. Having two separate institutions to describe this legal relationship under the law is discrimination.
Vote NO on prop 8. It's not ok to discriminate.
Posted by: may | November 03, 2008 at 06:46 PM
@Paul
I read the article at the link you provided and find the argument it presents sorely lacking. Basically, the author argues that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because “Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation” and further argues that marriage “is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage”. The author’s argument fails, because the above statements are not necessarily true. The author simply states that this is how marriage is to be defined and then bases the rest of her argument on that definition. This is called “begging the question” and no logical conclusion can be drawn from such reasoning. Specifically, the author’s definition of marriage fails to take into consideration the following situations: Suppose you have two heterosexual senior citizens past the age of reproductive ability or a heterosexual couple unable or unwilling to conceive a child. Should these people be denied a “traditional” marriage? Of course not. Such a conclusion would be patently ridiculous and the author’s argument in the link you provided is similarly flawed.
Furthermore, I fail to see how you logically conclude that the first amendment provides you grounds for restricting other’s rights. Also, having an opinion does not necessarily affect your neighbor unless you use force (that is violence or the power of government) to impose your opinion on others. And before you argue that gay couples who wish to marry are forcing their opinion on you, that argument also does not hold water. Their actions of marriage do not directly (or even closely indirectly) affect your right to live your life as you see fit. The clear evidence of that is that for the last few months, same sex couples have been marrying in California and the rest of the citizens of the state have been unaffected. Unless, of course you count the shameful waste of millions of dollars being spent to deny certain citizens equal protection under the law. You are, however correct when you state that if your opinion affects your neighbor, you should think about it seriously. But not only for your neighbor, for yourself as well. For when we begin to use the power of government to force our personal beliefs on our neighbors we open up a Pandora’s box which inevitably leads to our neighbors forcing their personal beliefs on us. I don’t think you’d much like living in a society in which that practice is commonplace.
Posted by: freedomminute | November 03, 2008 at 06:40 PM
What you fail to recognize, GD, is that this proposition is not just some semantic argument about how to use a particular word in the public lexicon. It is about whether a certain group of people are to be denied the right to equal treatment under the law. This is a fundamental principle of a free society and is something that is guaranteed by the California and US constitutions. Prop 8 would change that fundamental right for some people and that is a dangerous precedent to set. Think about what rights you hold dear that might be eliminated because some group disapproved of your choices. Most people would certainly recognize that human beings have the fundamental right to marry each other. The question that Prop 8 raises is if we should exclude a certain group, namely those who wish to marry someone of the same sex, from that right. Plus, civil unions do not automatically convey the same rights as marriage in California, and even if they did, why should it be necessary to set up this distinction between citizens? In “Brown vs Board of Ed”, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but “equal” was inherently unequal. In the case of Prop 8, the citizens of California are being asked to treat one group of citizens unequally from another simply because some people are uncomfortable with that group’s choice of a mate. Regardless of whether or not you like how that group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else. If “marriage” is just a word, then why has one group of people shamefully wasted over $25 Million to deny some people the right to use it? For a further discussion of this and other ballot measures, see www.freedomminute.com
Posted by: freedomminute | November 03, 2008 at 03:54 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I like the 1st Amendment. Every part of it seems to be related to discussion of Proposition 8.
The 1st amendment guarantees my right to an opinion. The strongest differences of opinion over issues are usually questions of deciding "greater good".
I am not lesbian nor gay, but if my opinion affects my neighbor, I should think about it seriously. After much thought, my view is most similar to the one articulated here:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
It contains non-religious(not that there's anything wrong with that) arguments written by Margaret Somerville, an ethicist who has advised The United Nations.
I will vote Yes on Proposition 8 and if you will read and think about Ms. Somerville's ideas, maybe you will too.
Posted by: Paul | November 03, 2008 at 03:10 PM
This proposition is really about the use of the word "marriage." That is the only right that would be uniquely sustained by the defeat of Proposition 8. This is because interested parties would still be free to pursue "Civil Union," and, in the manner of politics, gather some additional votes from those who would find similar or identical marriage rights available to them under different terminology. I think that everyone would agree that more people would be in favor of Civil Union (both candidates for President are, for example). Yet, those who are against Prop 8 are passionate about inclusion of the word with the rights, so why would they think that those who are avidly against "gay marriage" would not be passionately against the use of that word in this context, particularly since, most likely, the number of people against the use of the word are higher than the number of people who want the right to utilize the word. Those against Prop 8, at the very least, should stop being disingenuous. If the Proposition is upheld by popular vote, the "Civil Union" approach is still open to them and whomever is elected President will be supportive of that approach.
Posted by: GD | November 03, 2008 at 03:10 PM
I actually read the editorial in the newspaper (not the web page) and I thought it was spot on and brilliant. I read the entire full page paid advertisement for the Yes on 8 campaign and then I turned a few pages and was thankful to see an editorial that rebutted every point in the "Yes" campaign's advertisement. Hopefully anyone still undecided on this issue read the editorial. It makes a sound argument as to why people should vote NO on Prop 8.
Posted by: Scott C | November 03, 2008 at 03:09 PM