When I saw the first ad against Proposition 8, I had thought the initiative’s opponents had developed a better strategy than had opponents of past such initiatives. Instead of demonizing supporters of traditional marriage, they focused on the benefits of recognizing same-sex marriage: the state shouldn’t treat gay couples differently than it does same-sex unions.
Since that ad, however, I–and a number of blog readers–have heard opponents of 8 resort to attacks on the initiative’s proponents. (Perhaps a good idea if you’re attacking a candidate running for office.)Â One opponent, a good and decent man who recently married his partner (and understands the obligations of the institution), echoed the New York Times in calling the Proposition “mean-spirited.” Countless others call it “anti-gay.”
With many voters wanting to treat all citizens fairly regardless of their sexual orientation yet remain wary of gay marriage because they believe the institution defines a union between two people of different genders, we need not demonize those whose arguments resonate with those “swing voters.” To be sure, there are mean-spirited supporters of Proposition 8, who do seek to marginalize gay people and repeal even the state’s landmark domestic partnership program (enacted and expanded by the elected legislature).
Most, however, favor the traditional view of marriage, not because they hate gay people, but because they see it as a unique institution with a certain gender-based definition. One blogger who supports the initiative took pains to reference the initiative’s talking points: “Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or BENEFITS from gay or lesbian domestic partners.”
To defeat the initiative, opponents must make the case for including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage and not that its proponents are bigots. Yet, a reader, a widowed gay man, experienced just such attacks when “No on 8” representative called him asking him to oppose the initiative. In his e-mail, the reader noted how he asked the caller if he favored having a lesbian teacher take her kindergarten class to her wedding:
I asked if this is what supporters of No on 8 thought was appropriate for young children, and if any other class had ever been taken out of school to see a straight marriage. . . . I thought it was inappropriate for young children to be exposed to something they did not understand and whose parents knew nothing about it, and that it undermined their argument that it would never influence schools, churches, etc. Then I was told I was obviously a homophobe. He became quite angry with me, and when I told him I was a gay man, I got the usual “self hating” gay smear.
This is not the way to win friends and influence people. The reader “would really like to be able to vote against 8, but [needs] an affirmative argument in support of that vote, and I am not getting it.” Right now, he intends to vote “Yes” on 8.
As ILoveCapitalism put it in the comments to a recent post, opponents of the initiative need make the case “why gay marriage is good for the rest of society” because, after all, this is really a referendum on gay marriage.
Demonizing your adversaries is not a good way to advance an argument. Unless the opponents of Proposition 8 learn this lesson, they doom themselves to defeat in November.
Log Cabin Republicans who vote for McCain risk creating a Supreme Court that will overturn the basic rights of gays and lesbians.
“I asked if this is what supporters of No on 8 thought was appropriate for young children, and if any other class had ever been taken out of school to see a straight marriage. . . . I thought it was inappropriate for young children to be exposed to something they did not understand and whose parents knew nothing about it“
a) When I was a kindergartner, my heterosexual kindergarten teacher (Miss Barton) got married to her heterosexual groom, and brought photos of her heterosexual wedding to my classroom and showed them to all of us kindergarten children. Was that inappropriate? I certainly didn’t feel that way at the time. And I don’t remember anyone acting that way at the time. So what’s the difference between that and what happened in San Francisco last week? Is it that it’s appropriate to show kindergartners photos of a wedding ceremony but not to allow them to physically attend a wedding ceremony? Or is it that it’s appropriate to inform kindergartners about their teacher’s legal heterosexual wedding, but not their teacher’s legal homosexual wedding? If your answer is the latter rather than the former, well, I’m sorry, but that *is* the textbook definition of bigotry.
b) The bolded part above is simply wrong. The parents of these first-grade students (they happen to be first-grade students, not kindergartners) signed permission slips for their children to attend. So, clearly, these children were attending with the full knowledge and consent of their parents. In fact, the entire outing was conceived of, and planned by, one of those parents… not by the school, nor by the teacher getting married that day (for whom the whole visit was a wonderful surprise). So yer reader is misinformed. He, and you, can learn up, here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL
As to the justification for voting no on 8, my answer (as a straight man, a husband, a father, and a weekly church-goer) is that my faith compels me to believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, and to work to ensure that all people are treated equally (and without stigma), by myself and by the government which represents me in the constitutional democracy of which I am a part. To specifically and officially bar a specific class of Californians from the relationship status which is available to every other class of Californians is to treat that specific class unequally, and with unnecessary stigma. I’d feel that very way if, instead of barring same-sex marriage, Prop 8 were to specifically amend the state constitution to stipulate that, say, members of the LDS church were legally barred from marriage. Even if those LDS church members were granted access to “domestic partnerships” (with each of the rights we associate with marriage), I’m sure we could all agree that such a proposition would be reprehensible Mormon bashing, and would be an example of the California state constitution treating LDS church members inequitably, and with unnecessary stigma.
I would be compelled, by my faith, to oppose that kind of Mormon-bashing ballot measure, just as I am currently compelled to oppose the gay-bashing ballot measure we call Prop 8.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
As you say, the opponents of Prop 8 must tell us why it is good for all society, not just gay people. A court ordered mandate does not satisfy me, too many of our appointed justices reflect the ideology of their appointers.
I just finished my abenstee ballot, and I have only Prop 8 left to mark. I will give it one more night to think about and sleep on before I complete the ballot and mail it. Can’t someone convince me to vote against it?
I know we disagree on some serious and “fundamental” issues across the spectrum but this post reminds me why I have subscribed to this blog in Google reader.
Thanks for being thoughtful.
“As you say, the opponents of Prop 8 must tell us why it is good for all society, not just gay people.”
The defeat of Prop 8 would be good for all society (and not just gay people) for the same reason that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia was good for all Americans (not just interracial couples wishing to marry): our state and our nation work best when we’re all treated equally. Specifically singling out one class of citizens to exclude from the institution of marriage does not constitute equal treatment.
If you wouldn’t stand for a constitutional amendment barring, say, African-Americans from marrying (even if African-Americans retained the right to enter domestic partnerships), why would you entertain supporting a constitutional amendment barring marriage for other groups (including, in this case, same-sex couples).
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Can’t someone convince me to vote against it?
We live in a country where the powers of the government are limited and proscribed, and where the government has to expressly justify why it must intrude into our lives.
The sole justification for governmental involvement in marriage that holds up under all cases are the legal contractual obligations and privileges under civil law that marriage bestows upon both parties. These privileges make no distinction between gender and can be entered into by any two parties through a suitable series of legal contracts, wills and powers of attorney.
The supporters of Proposition 8 are are arguing that the “will of the people” – as defined by a plurality of voters – is always sufficient justification to propel government intrusion anywhere they so decide. That their moral disapproval of homosexual marriage is sufficiently legitimate to justify amending the state constitution to treat couples in a similar situation seeking the exact same obligations, responsibilities and privileges differently.
Do you consider that a justifiable expression of governmental power? I do not. I firmly agree with Justice O’Connor when she states that “Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.” Which Proposition 8 does – in effect, it creates separate domestic partner category for homosexuals, and a traditional marriage category for heterosexuals. Which, under California law, carry the exact same benefits and drawbacks.
More frighteningly, the supporters are saying that the majority has the power – solely by virtue of greater numbers at the ballot – to put said restrictions beyond any potential judicial review. In essence, they are legitimizing depriving us of our first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Essentially, they are further perverting a document that should be the bedrock of the legal principles of the State of California – and nothing else. The Constitution of a state is not an instrument of the culture wars; it defines how the basis of the system works.
And what does Proposition 8 achieve? It essentially bans the use of the word “marriage” for homosexual couples. We still have all of the options of marriage open to us, we just cannot call it marriage. It “protects” a word – it is a victory of semantics. Can you think of a sillier exercise of government power – to tell us what word we can use to describe something?
Voting for Proposition 8 provides justifications for further governmental intrusions based on popular demagoguery, limits the ability of citizens to obtain judicial redress, and achieves nothing.
Even though it resulted in my birth, I find the heterosexual sex act disgusting. I would like to look at or hear about it about as much as I want to look at a pile of feces.
However, personal revulsion is poor basis for government policy.
If homosexuals can be forbidden by law from getting married to each other, then heterosexuals should be forbidden to have domestic partnerships. Heterosexual domestic partnerships ARE a threat to marriage. Why is no one pushing this issue?
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship. (wikipedia)
My parents have been married over 58 years, but at the time of the marriage, their union was not accepted because it was a inter-faith union, my mother, a Catholic, and her mother was the county chair of the Democratic Party and my father, a Mason and Protestant and his mother was the county chair of the Republican Party in the neighboring county, only had 7 people attend their union. But out of their marriage came 5 children, and one of those offspring ended up being gay.
Over the centuries, marriage has been a contract, with some marriages pre-arranged for financial reasons, to combine clans, to build the core of the community, to ensure the longevity of the family name. Religious institutions tracked marriages to help eliminate ‘in-breeding’. Family bibles and religious records documented marriages to ensure blood lines were kept strong. Yet in privileged ‘royal families’ inbreeding and marrying of close relatives occurred to keep ‘the family fortunes’ and the royal blood pure. Pre-arranged marriages and dowries were common. Religious institutions even had sanctions against marry outside of those groups.
‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ was the mantra. Prior to the wonders of modern medicine, many women died or suffered complications during delivery of a child, and many children died soon after being born because of the lack of ‘modern medicine. Keeping families large helped ensure ‘keeping families strong’. Daughters were encouraged to marry early (14 years old at times) so that they weren’t taxing the family’s food. Sons were kept close to assist with farms and family businesses. Children were expected to care for their parents and their elders, although life expectancy was much shorter due to the lack of modern medicine. Children who did not marry often were the caretakers of the elders, for they also had the time and did not have children to care for.
With the increase of life expectancy combined with the ever so increasing ability to extend people’s lives through medical marvels, we now ship our elders off to communites of assisted living, retirement and nursing homes. Ah, what a wonder that is to ship off our parents off, only to have others take care of them.
With the fact that gay folk come from straight families, often times men/women who did not marry were unconfirmed bachelors/spinsters. In some circles, like the Roman Catholic church, men who got the calling to serve, married the church, and so did women, our Catholic nuns/Sisters. Other communities honored these single folk who did not or could not partner up.
But with the social changes, those folk who didn’t marry moved on to cities and enclaves began to form of all these folk. Thus the gay ghettos. Like minded LGBT folk started socializing, started forming relationships and thus some of these folk started looking to emulate the families they came from, to form relationships they yearned to create and maintain, like their siblings and parents.
Some of these folk who didn’t marry often were identified early through their outward expression of gender bending. There were the ‘nancy boys/sissies/momma’s boys’ and on the other end females that were ‘the tomboys’. But inside those circles there were the ‘normal’ siblings who could pass and yet within them, they too had feelings for the same sex.
Yes, in those large metropolitan circles, gays and lesbians are very visible and are very vocal in the SSM movement. But there are rural gays and lesbians who might want to seek SSM but have developed a nice life and have their community supporters.
Gay and Lesbian DINKs (dual income no kids) are out there, along with many single LGBT folk who are not even interested in SSM. Just like not all heterosexuals will marry, either by choice or because of burned relationships, not all in the LGBT community will seek SSM.
Our lives have been extended through the marvels of modern medicine, our families have other options other than to have our elders return home for care, and LGBT folk are achieving more social acceptance (worldwide). But from the recent change of the 10% factor (1 out of 10 are LGBT) to the more conservative 4% of the general population being LGBT, SSM isn’t really going to upend the institution of marriage. There aren’t going to be a ‘majority’ of SSM couples seeking to destroy society.
Families are families. And in most families across the country, there are LGBT folk, be it a sibling, a parent, a cousin, an uncle or aunt. There are even multiple LGBT folk in some families. These are not oddities, these people are just like everyone else. And if some of these people are seeking SSM, I really don’t see why others are trying to limit these choices. Allowing SSM will actually benefit the institution of marriage, and help demostrate that committed folk can actually make things work.
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship. (wikipedia)
My parents have been married over 58 years, but at the time of the marriage, their union was not accepted because it was a inter-faith union, my mother, a Catholic, and her mother was the county chair of the Democratic Party and my father, a Mason and Protestant, only had 7 people attend their union. But out of their marriage came 5 children, and one of those offspring ended up being gay.
Over the centuries, marriage has been a contract, with some marriages pre-arranged for financial reasons, to combine clans, to build the core of the community, to ensure the longevity of the family name. Religious institutions tracked marriages to help eliminate ‘in-breeding’. Family bibles and religious records documented marriages to ensure blood lines were kept strong. Yet in privileged ‘royal families’ inbreeding and marrying of close relatives occurred to keep ‘the family fortunes’. Pre-arranged marriages and dowries were common. Religious institutions even had sanctions against marry outside of those groups.
‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ was the mantra. Prior to the wonders of modern medicine, many women died or suffered complications during delivery of a child, and many children died soon after being born because of the lack of ‘modern medicine. Keeping families large helped ensure ‘keeping families strong’. Children were expected to care for their parents and their elders, although life expectancy was much shorter due to the lack of modern medicine. Children who did not marry often were the caretakers of the elders, for they also had the time and did not have children to care for.
With the increase of life expectancy combined with the ever so increasing ability to extend people’s lives through medical marvels, we now ship our elders off to communites of assisted living, retirement and nursing homes. Ah, what a wonder that is to ship off our parents off, only to have others take care of them.
With the fact that gay folk come from straight families, often times men/women who did not marry were unconfirmed bachelors/spinsters. In some circles, like the Roman Catholic church, men who got the calling to serve, married the church, and so did women, our Catholic nuns/Sisters. Other communities honored these single folk who did not or could not partner up.
But with the social changes, those folk who didn’t marry moved on to cities and enclaves began to form of all these folk. Thus the gay ghettos. Like minded LGBT folk started socializing, started forming relationships and thus some of these folk started looking to emulate the families they came from, to form relationships they yearned to create and maintain, like their siblings and parents.
Some of these folk who didn’t marry often were identified early through their outward expression of gender bending. There were the ‘nancy boys/sissies/momma’s boys’ and on the other end females that were ‘the tomboys’. But inside those circles there were the ‘normal’ siblings who could pass and yet within them, they too had feelings for the same sex.
Yes, in those large metropolitan circles, gays and lesbians are very visible and are very vocal in the SSM movement. But there are rural gays and lesbians who might want to seek SSM but have developed a nice life and have their community supporters.
Gay and Lesbian DINKs (dual income no kids) are out there, along with many single LGBT folk who are not even interested in SSM. Just like not all heterosexuals will marry, either by choice or because of burned relationships, not all in the LGBT community will seek SSM.
Our lives have been extended through the marvels of modern medicine, our families have other options other than to have our elders return home for care, and LGBT folk are achieving more social acceptance (worldwide). But from the recent change of the 10% factor (1 out of 10 are LGBT) to the more conservative 4% of the general population being LGBT, SSM isn’t really going to upend the institution of marriage. There aren’t going to be a ‘majority’ of SSM couples seeking to destroy society.
Families are families. And in most families across the country, there are LGBT folk, be it a sibling, a parent, a cousin, an uncle or aunt. There are even multiple LGBT folk in some families. These are not oddities, these people are just like everyone else. And if some of these people are seeking SSM, I really don’t see why others are trying to limit these choices. Allowing SSM will actually benefit the institution of marriage, and help demostrate that committed folk can actually make things work.
Let me bring something up that I haven’t seen here so far. I also read Tammy Bruce’s blog regularly. She lives in California & is a lesbian. How come she’s been MIA in this whole debate on Prop 8? Nothing about this ballot question can be found on her blog. If there is, could someone tell me where she mentions it?
Maggie Gallagher at NRO:
People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship. (wikipedia)
My parents have been married over 58 years, but at the time of the marriage, their union was not accepted because it was a inter-faith union, my mother, a Catholic, and her mother was the county chair of the Democratic Party and my father, a Mason and Protestant and his mother was the Republican County Chair in a neighboring county, only had 7 people attend their union. But out of their marriage came 5 children, and one of those offspring ended up being gay.
Over the centuries, marriage has been a contract, with some marriages pre-arranged for financial reasons, to combine clans, to build the core of the community, to ensure the longevity of the family name. Religious institutions tracked marriages to help eliminate ‘in-breeding’. Family bibles and religious records documented marriages to ensure blood lines were kept strong. Yet in privileged ‘royal families’ inbreeding and marrying of close relatives occurred to keep ‘the family fortunes’. Pre-arranged marriages and dowries were common. Religious institutions even had sanctions against marry outside of those groups.
‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ was the mantra. Prior to the wonders of modern medicine, many women died or suffered complications during delivery of a child, and many children died soon after being born because of the lack of ‘modern medicine. Keeping families large helped ensure ‘keeping families strong’. Children were expected to care for their parents and their elders, although life expectancy was much shorter due to the lack of modern medicine. Children who did not marry often were the caretakers of the elders, for they also had the time and did not have children to care for.
With the increase of life expectancy combined with the ever so increasing ability to extend people’s lives through medical marvels, we now ship our elders off to communites of assisted living, retirement and nursing homes. Ah, what a wonder that is to ship off our parents off, only to have others take care of them.
With the fact that gay folk come from straight families, often times men/women who did not marry were unconfirmed bachelors/spinsters. In some circles, like the Roman Catholic church, men who got the calling to serve, married the church, and so did women, our Catholic nuns/Sisters. Other communities honored these single folk who did not or could not partner up.
But with the social changes, those folk who didn’t marry moved on to cities and enclaves began to form of all these folk. Thus the gay ghettos. Like minded LGBT folk started socializing, started forming relationships and thus some of these folk started looking to emulate the families they came from, to form relationships they yearned to create and maintain, like their siblings and parents.
Some of these folk who didn’t marry often were identified early through their outward expression of gender bending. There were the ‘nancy boys/sissies/momma’s boys’ and on the other end females that were ‘the tomboys’. But inside those circles there were the ‘normal’ siblings who could pass and yet within them, they too had feelings for the same sex.
Yes, in those large metropolitan circles, gays and lesbians are very visible and are very vocal in the SSM movement. But there are rural gays and lesbians who might want to seek SSM but have developed a nice life and have their community supporters.
Gay and Lesbian DINKs (dual income no kids) are out there, along with many single LGBT folk who are not even interested in SSM. Just like not all heterosexuals will marry, either by choice or because of burned relationships, not all in the LGBT community will seek SSM.
Our lives have been extended through the marvels of modern medicine, our families have other options other than to have our elders return home for care, and LGBT folk are achieving more social acceptance (worldwide). But from the recent change of the 10% factor (1 out of 10 are LGBT) to the more conservative 4% of the general population being LGBT, SSM isn’t really going to upend the institution of marriage. There aren’t going to be a ‘majority’ of SSM couples seeking to destroy society.
Families are families. And in most families across the country, there are LGBT folk, be it a sibling, a parent, a cousin, an uncle or aunt. There are even multiple LGBT folk in some families. These are not oddities, these people are just like everyone else. And if some of these people are seeking SSM, I really don’t see why others are trying to limit these choices. Allowing SSM will actually benefit the institution of marriage, and help demostrate that committed folk can actually make things work.
Rob offers: “More frighteningly, the supporters are saying that the majority has the power – solely by virtue of greater numbers at the ballot – to put said restrictions beyond any potential judicial review. In essence, they are legitimizing depriving us of our first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
It might be frightening to you, but what I sense is that you are denying the 1st A rights of the ballot proponents to petition the government for a redress of their grievances against the Ca Sup Ct’s unilateral action.
It’s an age-old problem those of us in the gay civil rights movement could avoid completely if we only worked more effectively on convincing a majority of voters that marriage equality is good for society –and distancing ourselves from the radical gayLeft voices who plead “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn it” approach to winning over the voters.
In 2004, Rob, 11 states went against us because of the approach “leaders’ in our movement used… in 2008, alas, it’ll be another 3 more states. How many more states pass FMAs before the gay civil rights movement disassociates itself from the failed leadership and forges a new political consensus for marriage equality?
The supporters of Proposition 8 are are arguing that the “will of the people†– as defined by a plurality of voters – is always sufficient justification to propel government intrusion anywhere they so decide.
And if you look at the California Constitution, that is explicitly spelled out as being the right of the voters.
The problem here, Rob, is that gay liberals like yourself who cannot win at the ballot box — mainly because you insist on complete sexual irresponsibility and linking your antireligious bigotry and leftist political views to your sexual orientation — have developed this twisted view that says the people of California do not have the right to amend their own constitution as they see fit. The right of the voters to determine their own government and its activity is the most fundamental underpinning of the Constitution.
The hilarious part of this argument by gay liberals is that they whine that constitutional amendments are evil and awful — while quoting amendments as a basis for their arguments.
Specifically singling out one class of citizens to exclude from the institution of marriage does not constitute equal treatment.
Then I’m sure, Patrick, you will be the first to argue that singling out pedophiles, incest practitioners, polygamists, and bestialists is “unequal” — because, after all, your faith tradition demands that ALL people, without exception, must be treated equally by you and the government, and thus cannot be denied marriage for any reason.
Meanwhile, as to your whining about the San Francisco trip, taking photographs to a class in school is different than yanking children out of school and covering them with campaign buttons — and, incidentally, even Gavin Newsom himself realizes that it was a dumb idea.
Newsom believes the students should have stayed in school that day, Jaye said. “He doesn’t think it’s a good idea for students to come out of class to attend any wedding,” Jaye said.
V the K, there are many institutions that have been around for thousands of years and hundreds of societies. Slavery and prostitution are two that come to mind. Just because something has been long established in human culture doesn’t necessarily make it good for society.
If homosexuals can be forbidden by law from getting married to each other, then heterosexuals should be forbidden to have domestic partnerships. Heterosexual domestic partnerships ARE a threat to marriage. Why is no one pushing this issue?
Wouldn’t bother me any if they were banned.
The reason it’s not a wider issue, Attmay, is because of the age limit; in California, only couples over the age of 62 can domestically partner. The reason it’s done is because, ironically, under the current Social Security scheme, for a couple whose members are both eligible to receive their own Social Security benefits, it’s better NOT to be married in the eyes of the Federal government than it is to be married because of the household limit on Social Security benefits being lower than the limit on two single people.
Prop 8 = Prop hate.
That’s how it affects me personally, and no amount of rationalizing is going to make that go away.
Not true. My co-worker became a domestic partner with her husmand a couple years before they got married. She was in her late twenties.
Outlicious, the confusion often comes from the fact that “domestic partner” can be defined on several different levels. In order to qualify under California law and receive statewide recognition as a domestic partnership, if it’s opposite-sex, at least one of the members must be age 62 or older. However, an individual jurisdiction like San Francisco can create its own domestic partnership rules which only apply to the city of San Francisco; for example, SF doesn’t have an age limit on heterosexual domestic partnerships. Furthermore, on a company level, you may sign an affadavit of domestic partner status for health insurance purposes, but it would not be automatically recognized as a sign of DP status anywhere else.
To summarize, if you’re an opposite-sex couple where both members are under the age of 62, you can affadavit as domestic partners for company health insurance, you can register with the city and county of San Francisco as DPs for their purposes, but you cannot register as DPs with the state of California.
NDT, you do realize those are all illegal in the state of CA. Are you suggesting that homosexuality occupies the same social strata?
Tanja offers: “Prop 8 = Prop hate”.
You’re right, Tanja. In fact, I think each of the proposals in AZ, FL and CA have brought out some pretty strong hatred and base emotions –unfortunately, a lot of it is from our side… present company excluded, of course.
I’m thinking of those gayLeft websites who are publishing residential addresses and telephone numbers of known supporters of CA Prop8, AZ Prop102 and FL-Amd#2… dumpster diving on those folks to the point that any information –any– is intended to be used as intimidation against them. Just like the dumpster diving and hacking of Gov Palin’s email account, it’s all under the guise that the ends justify the means for our side.
I guess the proponents’ 1st Amendment right to redress govt ends where our right to marriage is supposed to begin? I missed that part of civics class where my rights trump everyone elses’ in a democracy. Remember, these are popular ballot initiatives that are RESPONSES to gay activism and extremism in those states and nationally. If the gay civil rights movement had chosen to pursue a political course of voter education, resisted the easy win in litigating and moderated our issue toward marriage equality instead of “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn It”, we wouldn’t be in this spot.
As it is, with Obama drawing anti-gay black voters to the polls, we may very well lose this battle for marriage equality in another 3 states this year.
I wonder if ginning up the black vote will prove to be a lesson to our gay Left leadership and pro-Democrat rank & file?
“Prop 8 = Prop Hate” may look good on a bumper sticker in the Castro, but that’s about all it does. We probably won’t learn any lessons from another trilogy of failure.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but there is evidence that the Christian faith DID support and have same sex marriage ceremonies as late as the 14th century. So, in fact, by voting “No” on Prop 8, you ARE supporting traditional marriage. 🙂
sonicfrog asks: “NDT, you do realize those are all illegal in the state of CA. Are you suggesting that homosexuality occupies the same social strata?”
sonicfrog, did you know that sodomy was still on the books as illegal in California as late as 1976?
But is it now?
NDT, you do realize those are all illegal in the state of CA. Are you suggesting that homosexuality occupies the same social strata?
No.
However, the same argument for legalizing gay marriage through judicial fiat, as quoted here, works equally well for all of them; after all, they’re just a question of morality and social mores. Furthermore, since the argument is that all citizens have the right to marriage and the state cannot deprive them of it, all of the laws making them illegal are unconstitutional — as is the stance of the ACLU with its defense of pedophilia and its endorsement of plural marriage.
Every American in the United States should have the same rights and privileges as every OTHER American in the United States.
I thought that was the foundation of the Republican party.
Am I wrong?
The slope is not that slippery. The ACLU is entitled to their crazy opinion but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will happen.
Yes, Alexandra. You’re wrong. *Not* every American should have the privilege, for example, of operating on people (a physician license), counseling them for money (a psychologist license), practicing the law (a lawyer’s license), hunting (a hunting license), driving a motor vehicle (a driver’s license), etc.
Rights are universal; privileges are not. Rights come from God; privileges come from the Legislature. Rights are limitations on the harm people can inflict on each other: no one has the right, for example, to kill you, enslave you, take or destroy your property, shut you up when you’re in a public square, etc. Privileges, by contrast, grant a defined permission or authority to do something: to operate, to counsel for money, to practice law, to hunt, etc.
Two people can always make a commitment to each other at any time, whether the State recognizes it or not. That is their RIGHT.
But to have a State license incorporating them as a third legal entity (“the marriage of Bob and Mary”), which then imposes burdens and obligations on third parties – is that a right, or more of a privilege? Hint: a *license*, properly created by the *Legislature*, is involved there.
There Tanja, fixed it for ya.
Every American in the United States should have the same rights and privileges as every OTHER American in the United States.
And they do, Alexandra; every American in the United States who is of age has the government privilege to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not their close blood relative and is doing so without coercion.
But what you want is that all of those conditions for this government privilege be thrown out and that it be extended indiscriminately based on “love” because of your belief that it is a “right”.
Marriage is not a constitutional right; if it were a right, it could not be denied to anyone for any reason. It is a set of privileges that the voters, acting in their capacity as the government, have decided will be extended to those unions that society deems necessary and productive.
If marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be abridged, please elucidate a) where it is spelled out in the Constitution and b) when you intend to agitate for removals of all restrictions on marriage.
No, it doesn’t, because the others are in of themselves, illegal. Face it, morals are decided by society as much as they are by the courts. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be deviant in the same way that pedophilia is, unless you are a throwback like Michael Savage. I know you don’t intend it, but the casual reader might think you do legally equate homosexuality with the others on a moral basis.
And now, the good ol’ “Slippery Slope”. Overused, especially by those who’s arguments are not very sturdy. Many argued against the invasion of Iraq because the power stalemate would be broken and would lead to a stronger and more dangerous Iran. It was a classic slippery slope argument… that turned out to come to fruition. Despite that prediction, both you and I supported our action in the region. If you would have had known this would indeed come to pass, would you have dropped your support for the invasion? The ACLU may often time border on the bazaar (didn’t they argue that chimps had the same rights as humans or something) but they are necessary, as every society needs to have someone pushing the boundaries. The United States would not exist without them. Neither would those poor souls in Rome who would not renounce their Christian faith, knowing the certain outcome.
You’ve been listening to too much Mark Levin. “Judicial Fiat” is code for judicial review. Though not in the constitution, the founders obviously saw the usefulness of the concept. Jefferson hated the concept, and thought Marshall was guilty of overreach in his decision of Madison v Marbury, BUT, neither Mr. J, nor any of the founding fathers, pushed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to bar the courts from using it.
But what if they had.
Jefferson, like many in the day, thought that the idea of constitutionality rested within the preview of the executive branch. The President would be the final judge of the constitutionality of legislation that reached his desk – the courts had no say in this. J thought that the legislature would never pass anything that could be unconstitutional in the first place (yes, even now I can hear John Adams scoffing at the naive idealist). So instead of an number of judges having the final say of the concept of Constitutionality in California, you would prefer Arnold, or before him, Gray Davis being the arbiter of such things… shutter.
rusty:
Not accepted by their churches, you mean. They still qualified for a State marriage license, and rightly so. First Amendment law effectively prevents States from using religious difference / disputes as a discriminating factor for withholding a marriage license. Just as 13th / 14th / 15th Amendment effectively prevents States from using racial difference as a basis for withholding a marriage license.
Agree, as far as you go. But there is another factor to consider: culture. Culture matters. Married gay male couples pointedly flaunt their continued promiscuity / adultery as normal, acceptable, etc. It’s been in the New York Times.
That development is bad for our society’s entire culture of marriage. Some straights may cheat, but they don’t try to uphold it as a virtue. That – the culture of marriage in our society – woudl be one reason so many straights are skeptical of what gays will do to, or with, the institution of marriage.
I don’t agree with their skeptical conclusion. I think that, overall, the statement that even gays should form committed relationships is positive for society. So, I support gay marriage, and will be voting against Prop 8. But my point is: No, our opponents aren’t all crazy and bigoted. We have to take the time to understand them, if we ever want to persuade them. If we can’t or won’t… then we are immature people (as a community), and *might* even arguably deserve the loss we’ve got coming.
Typo, “13th / 14th / 15th Amendment *law*….”
(the jurisprudence that has grown up around those amendments; the amendments themselves, of course, say nothing about marriage)
No way Attmay, it’s hot… because a man is involved 😉
Horrible logic.
So, every gay male who gets married will flaunt their promiscuity, which, of course presumes that there are no or few gays who wish to further solidify their monogamous relationship by getting married, or that the inclusion of gays into the marriage pool, will change all who are married, gay or straight, into philandering sluts!
ILC, you were alive in the 70’s. You admitted to it in a previous post. There existed then, as their does now, a fairly sizable community of swingers. They’re pretty open about it too. The only difference is that it is old hat and is not covered by the MSP. So I guess we should ban marriage between heterosexual couple now too.
Oh, to add insult to injury, there is a <a href=”http://www.libchrist.com/new2002/collegepaper.htmlSwingers Christian group. I suppose we should ban all Christians from getting married.
Oops. Disregard my last bit. I flew of the hanlde after reading the first part of ILC’s post and didn’t read the whole thing.
ILC. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry!
OK. My posts are all out of order. Spam thing is messing with me.
Alexandra asks: “Every American in the United States should have the same rights and privileges as every OTHER American in the United States. I thought that was the foundation of the Republican party. Am I wrong?”
As a moderate GOPer, Alexandra, I’d say you’re 100% correct.
And applied to marriage equality, you can readily see why GOP Veep Dick Cheney said “We live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We shouldn’t be able to choose and say, ‘You get to live free and you don’t.’ That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into.”
It probably seems strange for any gay to reference the Darth Vader of Personal Liberties –at least that’s what our gay Left leaders and their political peers want us to think of Cheney.
But freedom does mean freedom for all. And you’ll find lots of GOPers like (and unlike) me fighting hard to see that principle upheld on marriage equality, Alexandra.
“And they do, Alexandra; every American in the United States who is of age has the government privilege to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not their close blood relative and is doing so without coercion.”
The State of Virginia argued something near identical to this in 1968, before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia. Virginia declared that anti-miscegenation laws did not abridge the rights of ethnic minorities, because under such laws, minorities retained the right to marry someone of their own race, just as caucasians did.
The US Supreme Court wisely saw this argument for the sophistry that it was. Just as I do today, when I read what you’ve written.
“If marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be abridged, please elucidate a) where it is spelled out in the Constitution and b) when you intend to agitate for removals of all restrictions on marriage.”
The California Supreme Court did not rule that marriage, per se, is a constitutional right. It ruled that equal protection under the law is a constitutional right, and that if the state were to extend a right to some Californians, its obliged by the state constitution to extend that right to all Californians (absent a very strongly compelling reason not to). Because marriage is a right that California extends to heterosexual couples, and because the court saw no strongly compelling reason to deny that same right to same-sex couples, the court ruled that California had the choice to offer marriage to all Californians of consenting age, or to none of them.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
sonicfrog points out: “But is it now? (sodomy illegal in CA)”
No, of course not. It was repealed in 1976, as I noted.
The point isn’t whether something you think abhorent is illegal or not (pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc). The point was that sodomy was illegal in California recently and you were opining that currently illegal (and not in vogue) acts shouldn’t be considered in the “same social strata” as homosexual acts. Frankly, if we get gay marriage, I think polygamists and others should enjoy the same civil rights as long as minors aren’t involved. “Freedom means freedom for all”.
“since the argument is that all citizens have the right to marriage and the state cannot deprive (pedophiles, incest practitioners, polygamists, and bestialists) of it, all of the laws making them illegal are unconstitutional — as is the stance of the ACLU with its defense of pedophilia and its endorsement of plural marriage.”
For my money you can cross the first and fourth (pedophiles and bestialists) off your list, since I don’t consider children and animals to be capable of meaningful consent (a sine qua non for marriage). As to the second and third items on your list, fine. If there are large segments of consenting-age polyamorous and related-folks who wish to marry each other, I don’t wish to stand in their way, nor do I wish to see the government stand in their way in my name. I guess I just don’t happen to feel quite as passionate about the issue, if only because I don’t happen to personally know any polyamorous folks or related people who are yearning to marry but are being restrained from doing so by our government. However, I do know lots and lots of same-sex couples who, until last May, wished to marry each other, and are now doing so (and who don’t want those marriages nullified by the state come November).
“Meanwhile, as to your whining about the San Francisco trip, taking photographs to a class in school is different than yanking children out of school and covering them with campaign buttons.”
Okay, so it’s just the actual physical relocation of schoolchildren to a wedding which is objectively immoral… regardless of the sexual-orientation of the folks getting married. Is that right? If the teacher had simply shown photos of her same-sex wedding in class (the same way I was shown wedding photos of my kindergarten teacher), that would’ve been hunky dory with you?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Sodomy is not illegal, so why are we talking about it. We’re not talking about homosexual acts, we’re talking about two consensual adults, in a legally recognized partnership, who want to be married like everyone else who can get married.
Frankly, if we get gay marriage, I think polygamists and others should enjoy the same civil rights as long as minors aren’t involved. “Freedom means freedom for allâ€.
If you think that should be legal relationship, then more power to you.
tis interesting that you bring up voters. it wasn’t long ago, well give or take 90 years, that this country actually gave women the right to vote. such a generous gift. Women certainly were up for a basic right: Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John, who was attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, asking that he and the other men–who were at work on the Declaration of Independence–“Remember the Ladies.” John responded with humor. The Declaration’s wording specifies that “all men are created equal.”
on August 26, 1920,
the Nineteenth Amendment is ratified. Its victory accomplished, NAWSA ceases to exist, but its organization becomes the nucleus of the League of Women Voters.
Various countries, usually with large non-white populations, have historically denied the vote to people of particular races or to non-whites in general. This has been achieved in a number of ways: Indirectly nothing in law specifically prevents anyone from voting on account of their race, but other laws or regulations are used to exclude people of a particular race. In southern American states before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, literacy and other tests were used to disenfranchise African-Americans.
But those are just historical snippets for thought, back to my comments under Post # 10. Families are families. Some GLBT folk are seeking the same rights as any other individual in this country, the right to form a family. Love makes a Family, and whether or not Prop 8 passes or not, change is in the air. Not all gay folk are going to consider marriage, like the many heterosexuals who choose not to enter into marriage.
Gay marriage may become a federal issue. The US is not the only country with this issue.
“For those that want to amend the (US) constitution to make gay marriage illegal, let me remind you of the purpose of the constitution. It is not a document intended to restrict freedoms in any fashion. In fact, it is intended to guarantee that government is limited so as to never interfere with someone’s life, liberty, and happiness. Those who wrote the constitution knew that without limits the government would “turn to wolves†in the words of Jefferson. I do not see anyone’s liberty or happiness being harmed by allowing gay marriage, but I do see them being harmed for disallowing it. Perhaps some people’s outdated morals would be offended, but no one is forcing them to get a gay marriage if they disapprove. Just as no one will force anyone to smoke if they think it is wrong and no one will force anyone to have a beer if they don’t believe in drinking. I think it is very hypocritical that the majority of the people who are so against gay marriage are the same people who are so interested in the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. They will defend it to the death when it comes to holding a gun, yet completely ignore the rest of what the constitution has to say. It seems that if it isn’t written in exact and plain terms, than it is not valid. If that were case, we would still have segregation. Open your minds and read the law. ” http://injuriesandusurpations.com/?p=97
I like the way Patrick admits that marriage holds no particular societal value to him, That’s really where the fault line is; between those who think a committed, monogamous bond between one man and one woman has unique societal benefits, and those who see marriage as a kind of pinata full of social benefits, with no requirement that those who take them provide anything of value to society in return.
The Republican Party was founded (Lincoln era) on the idea that every American should have the same RIGHTS as every other American, but not the same PRIVILEGES. To argue otherwise is to not know American history, and to be clueless about what the word “privilege” means. I have a longer comment on this, caught in the spamfilter. Wait for it. It should appear shortly after Alexandra’s #25.
PM:
So you acknowledge that (1) there are some minimum requirements for a State marriage license, and (2) the State, or the People, are right to define what they are.
I do!
A State license for marriage or anything is a privilege, not a right. As a privilege, it must be democratically legislated, i.e., defined by the People. That is how and why there is no “slippery slope”. We can continue to exclude pedophiles, incest couples and the polyamorous – and we should. Denial of State marriage licenses for same-sex couples is not a denial of rights; it is lousy public policy. The more we (as a gay community) scream that it is a denial of rights, the more we show the skeptical majority in the political center that we don’t know what marriage is about; in other words, the more we ensure our own defeat by running a losing campaign.
For my money you can cross the first and fourth (pedophiles and bestialists) off your list, since I don’t consider children and animals to be capable of meaningful consent (a sine qua non for marriage).
Ah, I see, Patrick; so now you’re adding conditions to marriage, when before you were stating that, quote, “to specifically and officially bar a specific class of Californians from the relationship status which is available to every other class of Californians is to treat that specific class unequally, and with unnecessary stigma”.
California’s laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, mental fluency (under the disability provision), family relationships, and so forth; why, then, do you support unconstitutionally denying marriage to people on the basis of age, family relationship, or mental fluency?
If the teacher had simply shown photos of her same-sex wedding in class (the same way I was shown wedding photos of my kindergarten teacher), that would’ve been hunky dory with you?
Fine by me.
But unfortunately, Patrick, that’s not what was done. What was done is typical of gay and lesbian parents who see their children as items to be used for propaganda purposes and “shown off” at sex fairs — which, of course, you support, due to your “faith tradition” that says doing otherwise would be “stigmatizing” gay and lesbian behavior.
rusty:
By that logic, we should wait for the people to amend the U.S. Constitution before we have gay marriage. (I disagree.)
They already have it. Again, rusty, remember the difference between rights and privileges. Any two people have the RIGHT to form any commitments between them that they want, and to implement it through the various legal steps that may be available.
What you really mean, probably without realizing or understanding it, is this:
As it happens, I agree. But let’s not confuse words. Let’s use them precisely. A State license for marriage or anything else is always a privilege, not a right. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is bad policy. Including them would be good policy. Now let’s **reach out** to the skeptics and **persuade** them, instead of childishly demonizing them.
My earlier comment on rights vs. privileges has appeared – #27.
Someone has predictably brought up:
It found, in effect, that certain well-established areas of Constitutional jurisprudence mean that no State can deny a marriage license based on the racial makeup of a couple. In much the same way, we could say that well-established principles of First Amendment jurisprudence mean that no State can deny a marriage license on the basis of a couple’s religious composition.
Now show me the well-established principles of Federal Constitutional jurisprudence which would mean that no State can deny a marriage license based on a couple’s gender composition. Bear in mind that a marriage license *is* a legislative construct and States deny such licenses to many kinds (or possible kinds) of couples.
I don’t think the pedophilia argument is weak at all. We know the liberal-left favors giving out contraceptives to children as young as 11 without parental notification. So, there is obviously some sentiment on the left that children *are* in fact capable of consenting to sexual relationships.
Furthermore, gay and lesbian liberals have already made it clear that sex with minors is “common” among gay and lesbian people, and that any attempt to raise the age of consent would be “imposing conservative moral values”.
The biggest argument is abortion. Liberals argue that minors should be allowed to consent to abortion without parental notification or consultation; given that that is a medical procedure with potential long-term effects, any state that allows abortion for children under the age of 18 without parental notification and consent — and which does not require the reporting of such in cases where the child is under the age of consent — can be said to have legitimately recognized the right of minors to consent to sex regardless of age, and of people to have sex with minors regardless of their age.
ILC, in post 41 I was attempting to point out that Abigal Adams was noted to be asking for women’s right to vote in 1776 but it wasn’t until 1920 that women were given the right to vote. so change is sometimes slow.
the idea of SSM is pretty much a big slap of realty for some folk. but we still live in country that are pretty shocked that 1. we have a person of color possibly just steps away of living in the White House and 2. there is a woman (if elected) just a heartbeat away from becoming the POTUS.
It will be interesting to see how the folk of California Vote. I am not holding my breath for Arizona or Florida. But with the recent Conn. hoopla, combined with the ‘wave of change’ rhetoric, America might see somethings that, well, is not quite ready for.
There are still racists, bigots, and misogynists out there to deal with, but don’t think that will change for awhile. I think another issue, heterosexism, and it’s ties to the religiosity, will be the ultimate hurdle.
Yes and those are either for medical reasons, i.e. cousins or siblings breeding have high chance of genetic defects, or those that are deemed illegal, i.e. polygamy. Consider too that a marriage between cousins, , such as the one between Jerry Lee Lewis and his cousinwhen performed in a state that issued such a license, was recognized in all the other states, even though the license would not have been issued in those states. And Yes, a marriage license IS a legislative construct, which means that religious beliefs have little weight in the argument of societal preference for their issuance.
i raised a stepson from the age of 3. i knew at that time there was something different about him. yes he was gay.the family all accepted it and today is 50 and with a partner. i think that ca. and other states should worry more about the problems of this country than gay marriage. they dont hurt anyone and most are born that way so God made them for a reason! GOD BLESS ALL!
I don’t impute the mindset or politics of my gay friends but am sickened and saddened when automatically assumed to be a gay-basher because of my own points of view. Saying it doesn’t make it so, unless – of course – one is in some type of juvenile denial mode. “Assumptions” and “generalities” are the enemies of civil discussion, but seem to be overly common today in most public discourse. To our loss.
“California’s laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, mental fluency (under the disability provision), family relationships, and so forth; why, then, do you support unconstitutionally denying marriage to people on the basis of age, family relationship, or mental fluency?”
Of your list of three, I personally support only one: the denial of marriage rights on the basis of age (specifically, denying marriage rights to those too young to be considered capable of meaningful consent). Marriage is a lifetime commitment, after all, to be entered willingly, with full understanding of its responsibilities, and of its meaning. I don’t consider children capable of understanding those responsibilities, or that meaning, so that’s why I draw the line there.
But, sure, once two (or more) human beings are of marriageable age, I have no desire to personally bar those human beings from entering a vow of eternal love and commitment, if that’s what they want for themselves. Truthfully, I consider it none of my business. And none of yours, to boot.
But, again, I happen to be actively working for the rights of same-sex couples at the moment (as opposed to polyamorous couples or same-family couples) simply because I personally know many such devoted same-sex couples who, until May, wished to marry and who were unfairly denied that right. By contrast, I don’t happen to personally know any polyamourous or same-family couples itching for marriage, so I guess I’m just less passionate about their cause.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
#53 49erDweet,
You have hit the nail right smack on the head. It is denial. The vast majority of gays are in very deep denial that there is any significant difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality whatsoever. They see no difference between a mother and a father and a father and his same sex partner. To them the genders are entirely interchangeable. They honestly believe they can have children together.
#50: “…we still live in country that are pretty shocked that 1. we have a person of color possibly just steps away of living in the White House and 2. there is a woman (if elected) just a heartbeat away from becoming the POTUS.”
Wrong, rusty. I’m sick of this boring, tired cliche that the better part of America is slowly waking up from a 300-year, racist, bigoted nap and Obama and Palin being candidates for the two highest offices in the land is just some new, louder wake-up call. Obama and Palin being on the ticket isn’t some middle-America bigotry vaccine that’s going to change attitudes and diminish prejudice. Their candidacies prove the opposite–that the majority of Americans don’t need to be preached to about racism and tolerance, and that most Americans really don’t give a crap about this stupid issue anymore.
The only people that are OBSESSED with race and gender these days are, as usual, liberals. Liberals are so UNCOMFORTABLE with the idea of white Republicans being COMFORTABLE criticizing black politicians for their actual policies and experience, that they feel the need to cry racism at every turn. Otherwise, their whole world doesn’t make sense. But apparently what DOES make sense is to become full-bore, shameless misogynists when a woman is given the opportunity to run for the second-highest office in the land by the GOP.
So, I reject your assertions completely–this country is not shocked in the least that Obama and Palin are running for Pres and VP of this country. The only people that can’t seem to handle it are liberals.
And the ‘slippery slope’ is why I feel it needs to be resolved in the legislature, not the courts.
Insanity like the decisions in CA, CT, MA, etc. open the door to the “If Steven and Bill can get married, why can’t I and Mary and Sue?” arguements, and no defense can be offered legally. If it is an insitution created through the legislative process (call it ‘Fred’) then when that question is raised, the answer is “Get ready to fight the good fight like we did.”
I have no desire to personally bar those human beings from entering a vow of eternal love and commitment, if that’s what they want for themselves. Truthfully, I consider it none of my business. And none of yours, to boot.
There’s nothing stopping any two people from entering into bond of commitment and love. However, when you are demanding that the state put its imprimatur on that relationship, it’s no longer just between them. It becomes everybody’s business.
And since you insist on making it my business, I insist on having a say in it.
AE offers: “You have hit the nail right smack on the head. It is denial. The vast majority of gays are in very deep denial that there is any significant difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality whatsoever. They see no difference between a mother and a father and a father and his same sex partner. To them the genders are entirely interchangeable. They honestly believe they can have children together.”
As a gay father of now 3 boys (Sean born 10/3/08; 8#, 8 oz) , AE, I can tell you that parenting children isn’t a unique set of talents available only to heterosexual couples.
There’s -0- denial in our home. But lots of love, joy, and two sets of bleary, tired parental eyes.
They honestly believe they can have children together.
Do you mean they can raise a child to become a good, model citizen, or do you mean like actually give birth (Ew)?
And the ’slippery slope’ is why I feel it needs to be resolved in the legislature, not the courts.
Insanity like the decisions in CA, CT, MA, etc. open the door to the “If Steven and Bill can get married, why can’t I and Mary and Sue?â€
Uhm, you do realize the CA legislature has passed laws approving marriage between gay couples… twice. The Governor vetoed it both times, saying he’ll wait to see what the courts decide on prop. 22. Well, there you go, and here we are.
I started reading this blog because I want to really understand this proposition before I go to the polls. The question I was hoping to read about has not been addressed. Under the current law, Is it true that if a gay couple goes to a priest or a minister and requests a marriage ceremony, and that priest or minister says no, that gay couple can sue the church for discrimination under current law? It is my opinion that a gay couple is entitled to marry, just like a jew and a catholic, they just have to go to a justice of the peace to perform the ceremony. It should not be a religious ceremony. A priest should not be forced to perform a ceremony for a jewish couple. A Rabbi should not be forced to perform a ceremony for a baptist couple. It is my understanding that voting for 8 will eliminate churches from this obligation and threat of lawsuit it they choose not to marry a gay couple. For that reason alone, 8 would get my vote. Current law should have addressed this issue for churches. Do not force my church to marry a gay couple. Do not force my children to accept gay marriage as an acceptable choice. If my religious belief is that homosexuality is a sin, then you do not have the right to teach my children otherwise. Religion cannot be taught in school. Sexual preferences should not be taught either. I guess I have 2 reasons to vote for 8. But I will vote NO because I don’t have the right to take away your rights. You don’t have the right, however, to impose your beliefs on me, my children or my church. I will teach my children tolerance. But I will also teach my children that homosexuality is a sin. If you are not an athiest, you’d better make life choices that you can live with here and in the hereafter. Writers of prop 8, next time, address specific issues about school and church. Don’t try and pass an all out gay bashing amendment. If you keep it simple, then you will get my vote. Until then, I’ll vote NO on 8. I do not hate. That doesn’t mean I approve.
Just for the record: Prop. 22 legally trumped anything the Legislature could have passed. The Legislature was grandstanding. And deliberately so. I read an article at the time to the effect that several Hispanic, Democrat legislators – enough to defeat the legislation – were deeply opposed to it and switched to voting for it strictly *on the promise* that the Governor would then veto it. They understood that grandstanding the issue would help Democrats raise cash from those rich… um… gay donors.
Livewire said:
And the ’slippery slope’ is why I feel it needs to be resolved in the legislature, not the courts.
ILC said:
Just for the record: Prop. 22 legally trumped anything the Legislature could have passed.
This is a classic Catch 22. You want the legislature to address this issue, but before the legislature did, the public intervened in a way that took the legislature out of the equation. So, by bypassing the deliberative process contained within the legislature, the courts, like it or not, become the only form of check against the “tyranny of the majority” when applied through the initiative process.
One of the biggest problems I have with this, or any initiative that amends the constitution, is that it is way, way too easy. If I had my way, you wouldn’t be able to do it through an initiative. At the very least, it should require at least 65% of the vote before it is even considered. There is a reason the federal model is so difficult. The founding fathers had the wisdom to make sure that any permanent change to the Constitution would be complicated, and take a long, long time, thereby dampening the effect of passions that often overtake people on hot button topics.
If I had my way, I would do away with the initaitive process altogether. It has resulted in too many bad laws, and has allowed the legislature of this state to become lazy and completely unresponsive to the needs of the populous. Instead of getting a proper budget passed (the current one is already in the red), the legislature spent its time passing a bill making it a crime for an automobile driver to have Fifi on his or her lap.
No. I’ve generally said that (1) State licensing schemes should be created by some form of legislation and (2) that legislative process should be democratic in nature. I have never specified if the democratic process must be direct (the Initiative process) or representative (action by a Legislature). I’d accept either. I admit, I have sometimes ‘telescoped’ my language in a way that might assume or favor action by a Legislature. But only because one can’t take all day to say everything.
In the case we’re discussing, first the people voted against gay marriage in 2000 (Prop 22). Then the CA legislature voted for gay marriage, but – I believe – they did so insincerely, knowing and hoping the Governor would ‘rescue’ them with his veto. Dial the clock back, let the Governor change his tune and say “Who knows, I might sign it”, and *then* see how the Legislature votes on it.
Bottom line: If the Legislature passed it, AND the Governor signed it, like the passage of any other law, I’d be happy with it. I just don’t whether the CA Legislature has the power to do that, after the CA initiative process has spoken on the matter; Gov. Schwarzenegger apparently believed that it did not.
Preaching to the converted…
ILC, the “you” wasn’t referring to you, it was just an expression. I should use the term “one” to be more general.
The defeat of Prop 8 would be good for all society (and not just gay people) for the same reason that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia was good for all Americans (not just interracial couples wishing to marry): our state and our nation work best when we’re all treated equally. Specifically singling out one class of citizens to exclude from the institution of marriage does not constitute equal treatment.
Entirely wrong. The victory of Prop 8 will be good for all society, because it will show the voters slapping down 4 dishonest “judges” who engaged in judicial overreach.
The voters never voted to put SSM into the State Constitution, so it’s not there, and the claim that it is there is a lie.
You want to get married? Fine. Find a member of the opposite sex, not currently married, over the age of consent, who wants to marry you. You can’t?
That’s your problem, not society’s. Marriage is the joining of a man with a woman. If you don’t want to “join” with a member of the opposite sex, it’s not society keeping you from marriage. It’s you.
I must admit, I’m confused as to whether initiative laws have a special status in CA where they can only be reversed by another initiative. (And hence, Gov. Schwarzenegger *had to* veto the Legislature’s gay marriage bill if he wanted to follow the CA Constitution.) Ahnuld thought so. These guys at Findlaw seemed to think so, too:
If it’s true, then I would have wanted gay marriage to be enacted by a new initiative a few years from now, after we’ve put California’s Civil Unions law to good use and brought more skeptics around. As it is, we have a bass-ackward process where it was dictated by courts and now we vote on an initiative to repeal it, an initiative that (I think) will unfortunately win, setting us back decades.
Rob babbles:
We live in a country where the powers of the government are limited and proscribed, and where the government has to expressly justify why it must intrude into our lives.
Just out of curiosity, who did that limitation and proscribing? Would it be the voters, through their elected representatives?
Would it be We the People?
You know, rob, it’s people like you who make me feel so strongly that things like Prop 8 must pass. Because what you’re arguing for is “judicial” dictatorship. You think that it’s good when an oligarchy that calls itself a “Supreme Court” forces on the rest of us the personal desires and whims of the members of that oligarchy. You think it’s good when the sovereignty of the voters is trampled by dishonest jerks who violate their oaths of office and rewrite on the Constitution.
And that marks you as evil. It also marks you as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. I’ve sworn multiple oaths to oppose people like you. Unlike those scum on the “Courts”, I take my oaths seriously.
Livewire said:
ILC said:
Just for the record: Prop. 22 legally trumped anything the Legislature could have passed.
This is a classic Catch 22.
***
Wrong. Proponents of SSM could put a measure favoring SSM on the ballot at any time. They chose not to. Why?
Because they knew they’d lose?
That’s not “Catch-22”, that’s the triumph of Democracy.
I must admit, I’m confused as to whether initiative laws have a special status in CA where they can only be reversed by another initiative.
Well, you have an Initiative process because you want to have a way to “go around” the “special interests” dominating the Legislature.
So letting the Legislature rewrite an Initiative rather defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.
One of the biggest problems I have with this, or any initiative that amends the constitution, is that it is way, way too easy.
As opposed to just getting 4 members of the State Supreme Court to rewrite it according to their personal whims? Now that’s “way, way too easy.”
Just out of curiosity, who did that limitation and proscribing? Would it be the voters, through their elected representatives?
Would it be We the People?
You know, rob, it’s people like you who make me feel so strongly that things like Prop 8 must pass. Because what you’re arguing for is “judicial†dictatorship. You think that it’s good when an oligarchy that calls itself a “Supreme Court†forces on the rest of us the personal desires and whims of the members of that oligarchy. You think it’s good when the sovereignty of the voters is trampled by dishonest jerks who violate their oaths of office and rewrite on the Constitution.
You’re damn right the power of “we the people” is limited. What happens, Greg, when I convince 51% of the people to make your religion illegal because we disapprove? Shall we hound the Mormons to a new Utah? Put the snake handlers on a reservation somewhere?
Or shall we deprive you of your right to be as cussed, racist and ornery as you please, because 51% of the people who show up to vote decide your brand of cussed orneriness is “politically incorrect?” Hmmm, Greg? I’m sure I can find 51% of Californians who will find your politics distasteful. Shall the citizens of the State of California pass a proposition next year making it illegal to be a Republican?
Shall we take away your beer by constitutional amendment? The people demanded that particular idea as well. Or shall we take away your cigarettes? Simply because I can round up enough votes, and it’s bad for you?
Or your right to a gun? After all, the people in DC demanded that one as well.
Ultimately, the same principle you’re so hot to use today against “me” will come around and be used against you tomorrow, Greg. Because we can always find something you do that is “immoral” or “icky” or “distasteful.” And on that day, you will be standing here and saying “the government can’t do that” despite the fact somebody can drum up a majority to do so.
That’s why the minority of rich, highly educated, idle rich old guys limited the power of the ballot, Greg, and it’s ability to allow Government to intrude into your life. Because the tyranny of the majority is a fickle thing – in the end, everybody is some kind of minority. And yes, some day the majority will turn against something you find dear, and you will pray to God for an “activist judge” to stand up there and say “no.”
Rob offers: “More frighteningly, the supporters are saying that the majority has the power – solely by virtue of greater numbers at the ballot – to put said restrictions beyond any potential judicial review. In essence, they are legitimizing depriving us of our first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.â€
It might be frightening to you, but what I sense is that you are denying the 1st A rights of the ballot proponents to petition the government for a redress of their grievances against the Ca Sup Ct’s unilateral action.
That’s essentially what happened. They had their day in court, they were heard, and it went against them. That is my problem with conservatives complaining about “judicial activism.” It’s not that they disagree with the principle of judicial review – conservatives love it when courts rule their way. Just look at the celebration over Heller. We love it when the judges vote for us, we only dislike it when the judges vote against us.
Ultimately, judicial review – and the ability of the courts to prevent popular majorities from violating our basic governmental principles – is as much a protector of the rights of conservatives as it is liberals. If not more, given the way the political tides are running. The Democrats with a fillibuster proof majority in Congress, control of the House and the Presidency – as is frighteningly possible – will ram the idea of “majority rules in everything” down our throats.
I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t like governing by referendum, and I especially do not like governing by constitutional amendment. I’m sorry, but issues of policy like minimum wage, or gambling (to quote two of the latest Ohio constitutional amendments) are not things that belong in a constitution. They are items of law for the legislature to consider. Should government by referendum (on at least the potential “I could lose my cushy Congressional seat” issues) continue and expand, I suggest a referendum for the voters to abolish the state legislature on the grounds of why pay people if they’re not doing their job?
It’s an age-old problem those of us in the gay civil rights movement could avoid completely if we only worked more effectively on convincing a majority of voters that marriage equality is good for society –and distancing ourselves from the radical gayLeft voices who plead “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn it†approach to winning over the voters.
I agree. The radical gay left needs a good stout application of duct tape to their mouths – or reasoning involving a much harder object. On a lot of issues. DADT, hate-crimes legislation, the general “America Hates Gays” and the Republican Party itself. Sadly, I think they’re more interested in scoring points off of the “bad guys” than ensuring that our gains are sustainable. Which means that for every step forward, we take two steps back. Or more.
In 2004, Rob, 11 states went against us because of the approach “leaders’ in our movement used… in 2008, alas, it’ll be another 3 more states. How many more states pass FMAs before the gay civil rights movement disassociates itself from the failed leadership and forges a new political consensus for marriage equality?
You’re preaching to the choir here. I live in Ohio, and I’m stuck with one of the more restrictive constitutional amendments on the subject. And my unofficial spot poll came about because of exactly those reasons – people took one look at things like the Folsom Street Fair and freaked out. Unfortunately, all gay guys (and to a lesser extent, gay gals) are branded with the mark of the most depraved among us.
And frankly, I think the faster we dump the “marriage equality” term, the better. Indeed, get government out of the whole marriage issue. Marriage is a sacrament from God for Catholicism, and holy for pretty much everybody. It’s a religious institution, and much of the venom and bile (on both sides) comes from that. The more extreme gay “rights” organizations are pushing to break the religions. I think we all know gay men who would be delighted to not only force anti-gay churches to allow them to marry, but force the churches to host the consummation.
Similarly, there are whackjobs like Fred Phelps (though he’s a Dem). But there are also a core group of decent people who think their religions are under attack – and when we argue for civil unions or domestic partnerships, or even just dating other guys, lots of the very same people have few problems with it.
In the end, the fight is about the word marriage, and much of the juice behind the anti-gay marriage debate comes from the word marriage. Indeed, I think Bruce quoted something like 52% of delegates to the Republican Convention were pro-gay civil union (I’m quoting from memory so the stat may not be completely accurate). Hardly the bastion of anti-gay prejudice people claim!
So compromise. Government handles the civil union of two people into a third entity. Call it a domestic partnership, or a civil union, or bob, or some other snappy title. Get government out of the word marriage. Restore marriage to it’s rightful place with the churches, and have them dispense it as their tenets dictate – as is their First Amendment right.
Like any good compromise, it gives everybody a little bit of what they want, nobody everything they want, and infuriates everybody.
Of course, that means that we gay guys and gals who take advantage of being legally joined with somebody else have to live up to the responsibility of being first and setting a good example. Or we’re gonna lose it.
Just out of curiosity, who did that limitation and proscribing? Would it be the voters, through their elected representatives?
Would it be We the People?
Troll Alert!!!
last time I read the Constitution, it established a Democratic Republic, to avoid the tyrany of the majority.
“We The People” formed a more perfect union; we didn’t entrust rule to the mob.
I will reprint a post that got eaten by the spam monster.
No, it doesn’t, because the others are in of themselves, illegal. Face it, morals are decided by society as much as they are by the courts. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be deviant in the same way that pedophilia is, unless you are a throwback like Michael Savage. I know you don’t intend it, but the casual reader might think you do legally equate homosexuality with the others on a moral basis.
And now, the good ol’ “Slippery Slopeâ€. Overused, especially by those who’s arguments are not very sturdy. Many argued against the invasion of Iraq because the power stalemate would be broken and would lead to a stronger and more dangerous Iran. It was a classic slippery slope argument… that turned out to come to fruition. Despite that prediction, both you and I supported our action in the region. If you would have had known this would indeed come to pass, would you have dropped your support for the invasion? The ACLU may often time border on the bazaar (didn’t they argue that chimps had the same rights as humans or something) but they are necessary, as every society needs to have someone pushing the boundaries. The United States would not exist without them. Neither would those poor souls in Rome who would not renounce their Christian faith, knowing the certain outcome.
You’ve been listening to too much Mark Levin. “Judicial Fiat†is code for judicial review. Though not in the constitution, the founders obviously saw the usefulness of the concept. Jefferson hated the concept, and thought Marshall was guilty of overreach in his decision of Madison v Marbury, BUT, neither Mr. J, nor any of the founding fathers, pushed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to bar the courts from using it.
But what if they had.
Jefferson, like many in the day, thought that the idea of constitutionality rested within the preview of the executive branch. The President would be the final judge of the constitutionality of legislation that reached his desk – the courts had no say in this. J thought that the legislature would never pass anything that could be unconstitutional in the first place (yes, even now I can hear John Adams scoffing at the naive idealist). So instead of an number of judges having the final say of the concept of Constitutionality in California, you would prefer Arnold, or before him, Gray Davis being the arbiter of such things… shutter.
The problem here, Rob, is that gay liberals like yourself who cannot win at the ballot box — mainly because you insist on complete sexual irresponsibility and linking your antireligious bigotry and leftist political views to your sexual orientation — have developed this twisted view that says the people of California do not have the right to amend their own constitution as they see fit. The right of the voters to determine their own government and its activity is the most fundamental underpinning of the Constitution.
Is your knee jerk reaction to automatically accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being a liberal amoral anti-theist slut?
You’ve got no idea who I am, whether I am single or not, whether I am faithful to my boyfriend or not, how often I have sex, how often I go looking for sex, and what kind of sex I have, if any. You do not know whether I am a Democrat, Republican, registered Independent or a member of some other party. You have no idea what religion I am, if any and how seriously I take my relationship with God. And, because you do not know me, you do not know how I view being gay, and where I put it in my list of characteristics that define Rob. So that is a very harsh charge to lay against somebody whom you know none of the particulars.
So leave the personal insults at the door when dealing with somebody whom you do not know.
Now, moving to the substantive part of the discussion.
You’re wrong. The most fundamental underpinning of the Constitution is the idea that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Everything flows from that, and neither a king in London, a president in Washington nor 51% of Californians can take that away from me. Those are off the table and non-negotiable unless the entire US Constitutional System is swept away.
You’re right, I do have problems with people foisting their moral disapproval on me because they can drum up sufficient numbers of people to the poll. You do too – were we to change the discussion to gun control, or free speech. In those areas, conservatives staunchly oppose the will of select majorities, holding that constitutional principles are higher. And, I suspect, you would oppose constitutional amendments prohibiting cigarette smoking or approving gambling – as were run in Ohio in 2006.
John in Dublin, California asked “I just finished my abenstee ballot, and I have only Prop 8 left to mark. I will give it one more night to think about and sleep on before I complete the ballot and mail it. Can’t someone convince me to vote against it?”
I gave him my answer in two parts.
1) I consider this an illegitimate intrusion of the government into my life, because the proponents of 8 are not demonstrating any other reason other than the fact that they want to, and they justify it by saying that, well, “the majority approves.” I consider that to be a very serious threat to individual liberty, because the only protections the minority has from the majority are the law and a whole lot more firepower.
The door to the idea that all of our civil liberties are open to revocation at the whim of the majority is one I wish to remain securely shut. Indeed, that is my greatest problem with the No on Prop 8 “I Decide” Ad featuring Austin – he says that “elections should give us new rights, not take them away.” And that is flat out wrong. Our rights and civil protections are not at the sufferance of the majority. They exist independent of the whim of the majority. And probably the most important – and certainly first listed – is the idea that government treats us all as equal under the law, not playing favorites based upon race, gender, color or creed.
Ultimately, equal treatment under the law for two men or two women who wish to be recognized as a third legal entity in the same manner as a man and a woman is an easy idea to just brush aside because it is unpopular, and because to our great disservice many who do use “complete sexual irresponsibility,” “antireligious bigotry” and “leftist political views” as the definitions of “gay” as a political identity, and not merely sexual/romantic attraction.
2) (the one you missed) Prop 8 is silly. Come November 6 and a Prop 8 passage, I can meet a guy in a bar, walk to the courthouse, and file for a domestic partnership, getting everything marriage offers except the name. Voting Yes on Prop 8 doesn’t prevent gays from shacking up and getting the automatic inheritance presumptions, the powers of attorney and proxy, the visitation rights, or the rest.
And a No vote isn’t going to force any other state to recognize my “marriage,” because their own DOMA laws and amendments prevent that. And if they didn’t, the Federal DOMA does. I won’t qualify for any of the federal marriage tax breaks either.
So what does YES on Prop 8 get you? It’s the Diet Coke of DOMAs – banning the name, but not the institution. If you truly oppose two gay guys or gals getting hitched, then write a DOMA that actually prevents ’em getting hitched.
Should John, or you, disagree with me, you’re free to vote yes on Prop 8. I think you will not like the consequences coming down the pike, but you’ve got the right to choose in a way I deem unwise. I would rather you did not.
The hilarious part of this argument by gay liberals is that they whine that constitutional amendments are evil and awful — while quoting amendments as a basis for their arguments.
Yeah, I oppose stupid constitutional amendments – the Constitution of a nation or a state is to define the workings of it’s governmental system. It’s not the tool of policy implementation, and certainly should not be used as a sour grapes ploy to do an end-run around fundamental civil liberties just because you like it. Equal protection and treatment by the law is the sine qua non of the whole system. We weaken it at our peril.
Michigan Matt,
I don’t believe that gays cannot raise children well, but I do believe that it is generally better for a child to be raised by their own mother and father than by a gay couple or even an adoptive straight couple for that matter. I also think gender matters. I think its better for a child to have a mom and a dad than to have a dad and his same-sex partner.
And in turn I believe a gay couple is preferable to a single parent. Yet single parents aren’t asking for marriage benefits. But if raising children is the criterion, why shouldn’t they?
Because marriage is a package of benefits intended to encourage the ideal, not the alternatives to the ideal. If we start treating alternatives as just as good as the ideal, then how exactly are we supposed to encourage ideals?
Ive said it before, and I’ll say it again. if you want the tax credits given for driving a hybrid, then don’t buy a Hummer.
oops forgot to close that tag. hate when that happens
I must admit, I’m confused as to whether initiative laws have a special status in CA where they can only be reversed by another initiative.
Technically yes, but an initiative can contain language that stipulates the exact conditions under which it can be ignored or overridden. For instance, Proposition 98, the K-14 minimum percentage of the state budget mandate, is written that it can be suspended with a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislature.
The rule is that the voter initiative outranks anything that the Legislature can produce, and that the Legislature has no power to sidestep or overrule a voter initiative. That was why dimbulb Mark Leno tried to argue that Proposition 22 only applied to out-of-state marriages; otherwise, his repeated grandstanding bills were quite clearly trying to supersede the established Proposition 22, and would thus be struck down immediately.
The most fundamental underpinning of the Constitution is the idea that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
That is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Furthermore, Rob, if you want to play that game, if you want to claim that marriage is an inalienable right that cannot be abridged by law or Constitution, then you need to publicly state that bans against marriage for any reason are against the inalienable right of everyone — which means that pedophiles, incest practitioners, bestialists, and polygamists must be allowed to marry and have full recognition.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right; to use AE’s example, it is akin to the government encouraging you to drive a Prius rather than a Hummer. Furthermore, if you are too tall, or have too many kids to haul, or whatnot that prevents you from getting a Prius, the government doesn’t give you the credit on your Hummer; you simply don’t get a credit. Anything else would encourage people to drive Hummers, and that’s not the point of these credits.
people took one look at things like the Folsom Street Fair and freaked out. Unfortunately, all gay guys (and to a lesser extent, gay gals) are branded with the mark of the most depraved among us.
According to its website, the Folsom Street Fair attracts 400,000 participants annually. You can’t really say its just a tiny minority of extremists, especially since so few gays are willing to condemn it.
In my hometown, the county fair draws a similar number of participants. It may not be a flattering reflection of the culture I come from, but it is accurate. And, BTW, it doesn’t feature public sex or BDSM.
I think NDT decimated the rest of Rob’s argument with his usual effectiveness, so I have nothing else to add.
HEY Sean A Take a peek at this GOP blunder.
The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women’s group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html
“The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps — instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of “Obama Bucks” — a phony $10 bill featuring Obama’s face on a donkey’s body, labeled “United States Food Stamps.”
That is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Your point?
You can’t have the Constitution nor any of the political principles it rests upon, without the Declaration of Independence. That’s what sets up the foundational principles the Constitution builds on.
Furthermore, Rob, if you want to play that game, if you want to claim that marriage is an inalienable right that cannot be abridged by law or Constitution, then you need to publicly state that bans against marriage for any reason are against the inalienable right of everyone — which means that pedophiles, incest practitioners, bestialists, and polygamists must be allowed to marry and have full recognition.
The fundamental right is to be treated equitably under the law unless there is a justifiable reason for the government not to – and making something legal for a man and a woman that is illegal for two men or two women is not treating them equitably. Nor can you provide any kind of justification for why government should treat them differently save your own moral indignation and the idea that our rights derive from the consent of the majority.
In the case of bestiality and pedophilia, the fundamentals of what make them a crime will not change. They’re rape because by definition one of the parties is unable to consent. That’s not going to change. Moreover, the situation of somebody trying to marry a child or an animal is not the same as two adults seeking to marry – the former cannot do what the latter does, consent to enter the union.
Incest is more problematic. 25 states already consider cousin marriages legal (they’re listed here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm). Of the 25 that allow incestual relationships, six allow it in situations where the potential for genetic damage to offspring is minimal (Maine), where one participant is unable to reproduce (Arizona, Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin), or the couple is old (Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah and Wisconsin). So that particular genie is already out of the lamp, and did so long before gay marriage came up.
Of the slippery slope you quote, only polygamous unions are likely to try to use equal protection under the law to remove prohibitions against them. That is certainly the group people have the least arguments against, again centering around the general “it’s a bad idea” and “ew, ick.” Not my personal cup of tea, but if you want to shack up with two ladies, or three or four and can convince them to do so, more power to you. I pretty much doubt that, given the current climate about
Marriage is a privilege, not a right; to use AE’s example, it is akin to the government encouraging you to drive a Prius rather than a Hummer. Furthermore, if you are too tall, or have too many kids to haul, or whatnot that prevents you from getting a Prius, the government doesn’t give you the credit on your Hummer; you simply don’t get a credit. Anything else would encourage people to drive Hummers, and that’s not the point of these credits.
Except that we’re not talking about whether I buy a Hummer or a Prius. That’s a false analogy. We’re talking about whether you can buy a Prius – and thus get your tax breaks – because 51% of the people are fine with you driving a Prius, but I am not allowed to buy the Prius, because 51% of the people think my Prius-driving is immoral.
Driving is a privilige too – shall we ban gay people from driving, because we think them immoral? Or shall we ban black people, just cause we don’t like the idea of black people driving? How about those women, can’t have them behind the wheel, too emotional? Nope, not at all. We do not limit driving – a privilege – unless one is physically incapable of doing so safely. And even then, you’re allowed to show up and take the test. We don’t limit it based upon color, creed, or gender.
My response to Rob is far too big to put here, so I put it on my blog, instead. You all are welcome to argue w/ me over there.
One last little note:
Some have claimed that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution prevents discrimination on things other than skin color.
If the 14th blocked discrimination based upon sex, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Considering how hard it is to get an Amendment passed, the fact that supporters of Women’s Suffrage went that route should tell you everything you need to know about that claim.