“Hate” Against Prop 8?
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.) 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.
Comment by Julien Sharp — October 13, 2008 @ 8:59 pm - October 13, 2008
“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
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 13, 2008 @ 10:58 pm - October 13, 2008
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?
Comment by John in Dublin California — October 13, 2008 @ 11:03 pm - October 13, 2008
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.
Comment by Randy — October 13, 2008 @ 11:10 pm - October 13, 2008
“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
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 14, 2008 @ 12:40 am - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by Rob — October 14, 2008 @ 2:06 am - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by Attmay — October 14, 2008 @ 7:38 am - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by rusty — October 14, 2008 @ 10:01 am - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by rusty — October 14, 2008 @ 10:29 am - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by Jimbo — October 14, 2008 @ 11:25 am - October 14, 2008
Maggie Gallagher at NRO:
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 11:29 am - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by rusty — October 14, 2008 @ 11:58 am - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 14, 2008 @ 12:12 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 12:13 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by OutliciousTV — October 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 12:23 pm - October 14, 2008
Prop 8 = Prop hate.
That’s how it affects me personally, and no amount of rationalizing is going to make that go away.
Comment by Tanja — October 14, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by OutliciousTV — October 14, 2008 @ 12:55 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 1:38 pm - October 14, 2008
NDT, you do realize those are all illegal in the state of CA. Are you suggesting that homosexuality occupies the same social strata?
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 14, 2008 @ 2:30 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 2:32 pm - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 14, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - October 14, 2008
But is it now?
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 2:39 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 2:50 pm - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by Alexandra — October 14, 2008 @ 3:34 pm - October 14, 2008
The slope is not that slippery. The ACLU is entitled to their crazy opinion but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will happen.
Comment by OutliciousTV — October 14, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 3:48 pm - October 14, 2008
There Tanja, fixed it for ya.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 3:51 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 3:52 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 4:04 pm - October 14, 2008
Typo, “13th / 14th / 15th Amendment *law*….”
(the jurisprudence that has grown up around those amendments; the amendments themselves, of course, say nothing about marriage)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 4:06 pm - October 14, 2008
No way Attmay, it’s hot… because a man is involved
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 4:34 pm - October 14, 2008
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!
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 4:37 pm - October 14, 2008
OK. My posts are all out of order. Spam thing is messing with me.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 4:40 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 14, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - October 14, 2008
“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
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 14, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - October 14, 2008
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”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 14, 2008 @ 4:55 pm - October 14, 2008
“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
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 14, 2008 @ 5:03 pm - October 14, 2008
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 all”.
If you think that should be legal relationship, then more power to you.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 14, 2008 @ 5:09 pm - October 14, 2008
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
Comment by rusty — October 14, 2008 @ 5:22 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 5:29 pm - October 14, 2008
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.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 5:29 pm - October 14, 2008
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?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 5:33 pm - October 14, 2008
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