Those who read my marriage posts carefully will note that I, who love to use the George Eliotan “we” in my writing, don’t use that term as readily when discussing this institution. That is due, in large part, to my ambivalence on the issue.
While I favor some sort of state recognition of same-sex relationships, I’m not sure marriage is the right term to define them. As I have noted previously, the essence of this institution is establishing a lifelong bond between two individuals of different genders. Let me rephrase this and repeat the idea for emphasis, gender difference has long been a defining aspect of the marital bond.
At the same time, I have opposed all state referenda and initiatives so defining the institution. I believe such policies are gratuitous. I’ve always opposed unnecessary legislation such as this. Not just that, they make it more difficult for the various states to recognize same-sex partnerships.
Eight years ago when we Californians last voted on gay marriage, one could have voted against such a ballot proposition and opposed gay marriage.
With the initiative slated for this fall’s Golden State ballot, however, the situation has changed. This proposal would amend the state constitution to include the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and so overturn the state Supreme Court’s presumptuous decision.
A “no” vote (how I intend to mark my ballot) would serve to uphold that decision, giving us gay marriage in the Golden State. Thus, I will be effectively be voting for gay marriage. It is thus the first time when any state is really voting on gay marriage. “No” votes in other states would not have mandated gay marriage. The citizens of Arizona so voted and they don’t have gay marriage.
As I noted at the outset of this piece, when I have blogged on gay marriage, I have refrained from using the first person plural, thus not including myself among those advocating gay marriage and have defined its proponents as such (in the third person plural). But, in voting against this proposal, I am voting for gay marriage. Â Have I thus become an advocate of a new definition for this ancient institution?
Don’t you just love how they word ballots so a NO vote is actually a YES? They’re pretty slick on that here in Florida. The discription of the initiative looks simple, but when you actually read it, sometimes you don’t know which answer you should put.
I remember there was some issue on the ballot back in ’04. I knew I was against it, but in reading the description on the ballot, I wasn’t sure if my NO vote would oppose or support it.
My problem this time around is that, even though CA constitution can be changed back with a 51% vote – it feels much too final to vote yes. I don’t like the fact that legaleze has taken over our language. Of course no state or country even encoded the words ‘man and woman’ when describing marriage. It was like writing in the definition of day and night, everybody instinctively knows what they are.
There is a real Gotcha going on in Greece now, a new loophole created because the language police have changed the rules. And yes, I blame lawyers and the law profession in general. Common sense, common knowledge is irrelevant if a lawyer can twist the words.
So Dan, being in the same position as you are, my feeling is that I’ve been put in the position of having a real say in the States constitution. I would rather leave the door open to further discussion on the subject. By voting No, discussion in CA basically ends, since gay marriage will be the law of the land and new issues will crop up to make this one seem small and insignificant. (Yes, I do believe in the slippery slope, show me a situation where it hasn’t occurred! I can come up with a multitude of examples where it has ). Of course if I vote Yes, that will also shut down discussion.
8 years ago it was a simple yes or no. Now the issue is much more complicated. I will be voting No, realizing that I’m effectively voting for a court decision I feel was way out of line. But I don’t feel that makes me a gay marriage advocate, simply one who votes for the lessor of two bad choices.
5 years from now the Gay Equalization organizations will be onto another burning issue – since Gay marriage won’t magically do away with marginalization or discrimination against homosexuals.
Another blog has alleged that the California amendment was so carelessly written that it could be interpreted to also affect straight marriages.
I don’t know, I haven’t read the amendment. I do know that over the years, in states where I do business, that groups have frequently put poorly written initiative amendments on the ballots. If they had passed some of them would have had serious consequences.
Trace, The wording of the proposition was:
Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.
I don’t see what is ambiguous about that. Oh sure, I trust a lawyer to find something wrong with it, but that is pretty straight forward.
Marriage is to be defined as the union of one MAN and one MAN? Wouldn’t that invalidate a whole lot of California marriages?
[Big Oops! Typo caught and fixed. Thanks for alerting me to it! –Dan]
However, if the “proposal would amend the state constitution to include the definition of marriage as the union of one MAN and one
MANWOMAN…..” I am at a loss to understand why one voting “no” would not be saying “yes” to alternate combinations.Please enlighten me.
That’s the allegation about Ammendment 2 here in Florida, only I think the contention is that it was carefully, rather than carelessly, written.
Institutions change, I have a problem with the California SC’s decision, because this should be up to the people, but I don’t think calling a same sex union a marriage is a problem. I live in California and although I disagree with the SC’s decision, I will be voting no on any ballot measure banning same sex marriage.