Ending Marriage Discrimination in California

Why Republicans should vote no on Prop 8

Republicans often say that courts should apply the law, not create it. It was really quite a stretch for the California Supreme Court to say that the Constitution of California already contains a right for same-sex marriage, when the Constitution doesn't say a word about it. The truth is: It's a new issue. To those who say the Court got it wrong, I say: I agree. It's for us to decide. Now, let's make the right decision. And that right decision, in my view, is to allow same-sex marriage in California.

Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That's why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8.

Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.

Republicans also care about jobs; and as a business proposition, it makes no sense to support Prop. 8. Discrimination at any level is bad for business. California has always made itself stronger by welcoming, not excluding, people who want to work hard and build better futures for themselves and their communities. What kind of a message does it send to workers, of any background, that we are willing to codify discrimination into our state constitution?

Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8.

Tom Campbell is a Republican and former five-term U.S. Congressman from Silicon Valley, State Senator, and Director of Finance for the State of California. He served in the Reagan Administration and clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • gmatts||

    But if we allow Adam and Steve to get married, it's so obvious that Adam and Fido the Terrier are just a step away from walking down the aisle.

  • greg||

    TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

  • ||

    If "Discrimination is bad for business at any level", then certainly we don't need anti-discrimination laws, and employers can choose whether to extend benefits to same-sex partners of their employees based on their own conscience and their sense of what is good for their own business.

  • EJM||

    Tom Campbell is a Republican and former five-term U.S. Congressman from Silicon Valley, State Senator, and Director of Finance for the State of California. He served in the Reagan Administration and clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    However, he did not host the unsuccessful 1980 version of "Camouflage".

  • ||

    Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives.

    Now, if only we could get everyone to agree on a nice, broad definition of "personal lives." A reciprocal to the nice broad definition of "interstate commerce" would do nicely.

  • ||

    When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.

    That is tough to argue with. I've no doubt some will try. Using largely fictional texts from more than a millinium ago will be used as a reason.

  • ||

    Just curious, was this piece published in any California mainstream dead tree periodicals?

  • sk84speed||

    I think the issue is not about "gay" marriage, but about marriage itself. Marriage was constitued by religion. Our Government uses marriage and family as a way to gain voters approval by providing them tax relief. If we create a flat tax that is based on individuals, then the "gay" marriage argument is no longer an argument. Marriage is not a government issue, it is individuals wanting to create a family and their freedom of religion and morals allow them to make decisions on what is correct for them and not the government.

  • ||

    I would prefer if we could just ban any state supported marriage in general and just make all marriages into civil unions. Marriage is a religiously loaded term and has no place in political discourse.

    That said, California is pretty gay already. No amount of discrimination will make it any less gay. Vote NO on PROP 8!

  • ||

    Business discriminates all the time. Come on! Many discriminate against fat people, old people, smokers, people with long hair, beards etc etc. Discrimination laws also have trampled on private property rights. Several cases where property owners have refused to rent to homosexuals have gone to court I do believe. Get a grip Reason.

  • Mike||

    Marriage contracts as a state issue are there to encourage a situation where one parent works and the other stays home with the children. It gives the stay at home parent a claim to the children, the wealth, and the family in general that they would otherwise not have as essentially (in terms of work done) and unpaid house servant and nanny. It also simplifies transfer of legal authority and wealth, as otherwise you would have to keep track of how much you "paid" your spouse every year.

    One could argue that in a completely libertarian society state marriage is unnecessary, but it is so ingrained in all our current laws that this situation is only theoretical, and therefore not a particularly useful situation to consider when deciding if gays should or should not be granted it.

  • Timothy||

    A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.

  • Thomas Jefferson||

    Good thing we and my fellow founders made it clear the United States would not be a Christian nation. You got that message right? Right?

  • ||

    I wonder what side Reason would come down on if they were forced to choose between repealing the Federal Income Tax and legislating government recognition of gay marriages? One suspects Reason has become more preoccupied with making us "equal" by legislative fiat than making us free in fact.

  • ||

    Equal protection means gay couples must be treated legally the same as straight couples. If you allow heterosexual marriage, the constitution requires that you allow homosexual marriage.

  • Ravac||

    William R.,

    Private businesses can, and should be allowed to, discriminate at will.

    Government should not.

  • ||

    (not that mike)

    "Equal protection means gay couples must be treated legally the same as straight couples. If you allow heterosexual marriage, the constitution requires that you allow homosexual marriage."

    Precisely. Repealing marriage laws altogether is clearly the best possible outcome, but allowing a certain type of contract (which is effectively what "marriage" is under the law) to a certain group of people (heterosexuals) while restricting another group of people (homosexuals) from entering into the same voluntary contract with the person of their choosing is antithetical to liberty.

    It's not a fiat prohibiting discrimination, but rather preventing the state from legislating discrimination.

  • ||

  • ||

    Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults, too? Should siblings be allowed to marry? The whole point of marriage is discrimination. It exists because society wants to hold men responsible for their sexual obligations. Gay marriage is pointless, since that obligation doesn't exist. And it simply works to further erode the social pressure on traditional marriage.

    ** looking forward to hearing all the standard knee-jerk social-leftist responses, none of which question why the institution of marriage exists in the first place

  • ||

    Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults, too?

    If you go by what's approved by the Bible and traditional ideas of marriage, than polygamy should be cool with you. Polygamy is as old as marriage.

  • ||

    Give me a break. So lets allow Adam Steve and Mike to marry Jennifer and Janet. Hell they can form a huge business arrangement out of it all. Hell, lets allow mother and son to get married for tax consideration. When mother dies son won't have to pay estate taxes. This is endless.

  • ||

    The state discriminates against property owners all the time. Good gravy, where are you coming from.

  • ||

    "Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults, too? Should siblings be allowed to marry?"

    Yes, and yes.

    "The whole point of marriage is discrimination."

    Of course it is. You may discriminate in your own marriage. You realize no one is suggesting you be forced into a gay marriage, yes?

    "It exists because society wants to hold men responsible for their sexual obligations. Gay marriage is pointless, since that obligation doesn't exist."

    Non sequitur.

    "And it simply works to further erode the social pressure on traditional marriage."

    Authoritarian nonsense. The government should not be in the business of applying "social pressure."

    < /social leftist response >

  • ||

    "The state discriminates against property owners all the time. Good gravy, where are you coming from."

    And that's bad. What's your point?

  • ||

    A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.

    Hard to argue with that. Glad I don't live in a Christian nation.

  • dhex||

    A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.

    who knew a christian nation could be so boring?

    also, you forgot fisting. crisco to the elbow!

  • ||

    That society does have some norms. It's called civilization. Europe for the most part has thrown aside its traditions and now it is dying.

    A Really Really Really Long post about gay marriage

  • ||

    "[Marriage] exists because society wants to hold men responsible for their sexual obligations. ... **looking forward to hearing all the standard knee-jerk social-leftist responses, none of which question why the institution of marriage exists in the first place"

    That may have been the original purpose. The problem is that it bestows a set of rights and obligations, and these rights and obligations are not available to gays with the same force that a marriage bestows. So there is clear discrimination. The question becomes whether such discrimination is appropriate to advance a government interest (I'm intentionally avoiding Constitutional "scrutiny" language).

    Thus, can you really say that "holding men to their sexual obligations" is a legitimate government interest in today's world? Given that divorce is easier and cheaper than ever, I would say no. Given that child support is required even if no marriage exists, I would say no. Plus, should a couple that can't conceive be barred from marriage? Should unfertile octogenarians be barred from marriage?

    So I have asked the question of why marriage exists, and found your answer wanting.

  • Timothy||

    also, you forgot fisting. crisco to the elbow!

    This is why libertarians are going to stay in their mother's basements for ever.

  • ||

    "That society does have some norms. It's called civilization."

    No shit. Most of our societal norms concern things like property rights, and equal protection under the law.

  • ||

    Hi Mike,

    Well you failed to answer the question: why do we have marriage? As WilliamR points out, the process of expanding marriage rights is infinite. If there is no point to marriage, then let's get rid of it. If there is a point, then let's decide what it is. You accuse my comment about marriage functioning as a way to hold men accountable for their sexual obligations as being a non-sequitir, but in fact, it followed directly. That is the point of marriage (in my view). That's why we have it. That's why we don't extend it to siblings or to gay people.

  • TallDave||

    As far as I'm concerned people can marry whatever they want. It's a private contract.

    Hopefully Republicans will abandon social conservatism over the next couple years and see sense on consensual transactions involving drugs and sex.

    Well, I can dream anyway.

  • ||

    "Hell, lets allow mother and son to get married for tax consideration. When mother dies son won't have to pay estate taxes. This is endless."

    Sham marriages are punishable by prison and fines.

  • TallDave||

    No shit. Most of our societal norms concern things like property rights

    I hate this idea that rights arise from social norms, because it means that if social norms change we can lose all our rights.

    Right simply are. We create governments to protect those rights, in many cases to protect them from society (e.g. "Congress shall make no law...").

  • ||

    You still haven't answered?? Why not allow 60 year old Frank who is dying of cancer and is worth millions to marry Laura his daughter?? Frank would be able to pass his estate tax free to Laura now! Why does the state discriminate??

  • Timothy||

    Gay marriage just encourages pedophiles.

    Gay adoption just eliminates the need for these perverts to troll the streets looking for victims.

  • ||

    jake,

    I obviously can't convince you to my way of thinking if you think the purpose of the government is to enforce societal norms. I happen to be a libertarian, so I do not believe this.

    Your reasoning (that government ought to engage in social planning) has been the cause of massive government expansion at the expense of personal liberties. It has been used to justify the war on drugs and Jim Crowe laws. I reject it; you accept it. So our argument has come to an impasse.

  • ||

    Why are there societal norms against Frank marrying his daughter for tax purposes???

  • ||

    "Well, I can dream anyway."

    I'd argue most social libertarians don't actually think their views will ever prevail, and this allows them to feel comfortable espousing ideologically-consistent (even if logically unworkable in the specifics) views and feel superior to the deluded masses whose views are so painfully biased and arbitrary. This kind of thing seems particularly evident in discussions of marriage. "Get rid of marriage!" "Allow polygamy!" etc. etc. People assume this will never actually happen, and so they just say whatever to be ideologically-consistent and thus... right!

  • TallDave||

    Well you failed to answer the question: why do we have marriage?

    A tradition from a time when controlling sex was more necessary, due to absence of birth control and the need for a society to produce lots of children. I would argue we've mostly outgrown it.

  • ||

    "Right simply are. We create governments to protect those rights, in many cases to protect them from society (e.g. "Congress shall make no law...")."

    This seems to be the pivotal case that libertarians have to make to convince people to hear us out. Thus far, it has been an uphill battle.

  • Mad Max||

    "If 'Discrimination is bad for business at any level', then certainly we don't need anti-discrimination laws, and employers can choose whether to extend benefits to same-sex partners of their employees based on their own conscience and their sense of what is good for their own business."

    I would be interested to know how government-issued "marriage licenses" for same-sex couples, especially in California, will affect this situation.

    California law is very strict against sex discrimination. Say there's a private company with a spousal-benefit policy. Say that the policy applies only to opposite-sex couples. (This company probably wouldn't be in Silicon Valley, Campbell's former constituency, where computer companies have voluntarily chosen to provide spousal-equivalent benefits to their employees.)

    In this company, say that an employee demands spousal benefits for his or her same-sex partner. The employee produces a marriage certificate issued by the state of California. The company refuses to extend spousal benefits because the employee's spouse is the wrong sex.

    How would the California courts respond to this situation? We have a company discriminating among employees - a male employee with a male spouse gets denied benefits, but if that employee's spouse were a woman, he would get benefits. That would be like denying benefits to a white employee because his/her spouse is black!

    Don't you think this scenario is a distinct possibility if the state of California starts issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

  • ||

    jake,

    Did I misread you, or did you really just disparage ideological consistency?

    Hypocrisy is a virtue now?

  • ||

    Why not allow 60 year old Frank who is dying of cancer and is worth millions to marry Laura his daughter?

    Indeed, why not?

  • ||

    jake: I answered your question and you ignored it.

  • ||

    Mike, you still haven't answered? Why does the state discriminate against a man who wants to marry his daughter so he can pass his estate to her tax free??

  • ||

    Equal protection means gay couples must be treated legally the same as straight couples. If you allow heterosexual marriage, the constitution requires that you allow homosexual marriage.

    I'd sure as hell like to see the look on James Madison's face it you'd sprung that one on him.

  • ||

    Indeed, why not?

    "Because I don't like it, dammit!"

  • ||

    "Why does the state discriminate against a man who wants to marry his daughter so he can pass his estate to her tax free??"

    What do you want me to say? I don't approve of the estate tax in the first place. Why does the state discriminate? I don't know, it wasn't my idea.

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | October 24, 2008, 12:02pm |

    Not even California is going to stray that far off the reservation. We are restrained by historical norms. Again it is called civilization. If homosexuals want the same tax benefits married people get, by all means they should get them. Bottom line, the idea of gay marriage is just a push to force people to accept homosexuality as normal. Ask even the most politically correct idiot in the state of California if he or she hopes their kid turns out to be gay. I think it is safe to say that 95 percent would say no.

  • ||

    A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.

    Yeah! Like Spain!

    Oh wait..

  • ||

    "Why does the state discriminate against a man who wants to marry his daughter so he can pass his estate to her tax free??"

    Sham marriages are already punished, and there's no reason put this slippery slope on gay marriage. Why not marry your dog to make sure it gets your money? Why not marry an elephant and bring its dong to the bathroom seen? Why not kill your mother then marry her corpse?

    jake?

  • ||

    Apologies, Lamar. I got caught up in a debate with Mike. Reading your comment again though, I don't see your answer to the question: "Why do we have marriage?" You disagree with my answer, but I don't see yours.

    Mike, it is a cliche by now to say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but it's still true. The truth is, living in a democracy is always a balancing act, between an array of different social needs. To condemn all attempts by the government to impose social morality as unacceptably authoritarian is to deny the fact that a society completely free of government restrictions leaves us very unliberated in other ways. How free is a starving man in China working for 50 cents an hour because the government doesn't have minimum wage laws? How free is a 16-year-old girl in an Arab society who has been married to a 50-year-old man with three other wives? Is it really necessary to point out that ideological consistency is far more dangerous than inconsistency (or what ideologues term "hypocrisy")? ...

  • ||

    jake: my answer is that the "sexual obligations" of men are enforced regardless of whether they are married to the mother or not. Child support is required regardless of marriage. Divorce is easy and abundant. Marital status has no bearing on men's "sexual obligations."

  • ||

    Bottom line, the idea of gay marriage is just a push to force people to accept homosexuality as normal.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. The fundamental difference between people like you and those who support gay marriage is that we don't consider gays to be freaks who should be ostracized and treated as abnormal.

    I may not want my child to be gay, but it isn't because being gay is abnormal, but because of the discrimination they would face by bigots like you who think that because they don't follow your preferred path they are somehow abnormal, deviant, or broken and in need of fixing.

    Once upon a time that idea black people shouldn't be slaves was considered abnormal and absurd. Same thing with inter racial marriages. Thankfully, times change, and eventually the bigots like yourself become the fringe.

  • Timothy||

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

    Homosexuality is a bad thing.

    The moral infrastructure of this country is rotting from the inside with help from people like you.

  • TallDave||

    How free is a starving man in China working for 50 cents an hour because the government doesn't have minimum wage laws?

    No more free than he would be if he didn't have a job because Chinese industry can't possibly support a $10 minimum wage without raising unemployment to around 60%.

    How free is a 16-year-old girl in an Arab society who has been married to a 50-year-old man with three other wives?

    Depends on whether she can divorce him.

    Of course, unless she's in Iraq, she probably can't even vote.

  • TallDave||

    moral infrastructure

    Is that, like, a bridge that leads to church?

  • ||

    We clearly have different ideas about what a man's obligations are. Money is only the beginning. Even so (and not to press this point because it's silly) but you still didn't answer why we have marriage. I don't think homosexuality is immoral, so I am not in the Timothy camp at all on this issue.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom,

    While I agree with you in principle, the purpose of laws like this are not to force people to stop being bigots. It is merely to prevent them from legislating their bigotry.

  • Ravac||

    So I followed the link William R posted earlier which leads to a Justin Raimondo article which basically states that the "true libertarian" stance to take on gay marriage is to reject government recognition of such marriages because it's defacto government intervention / intrusion into private lives. And it may lead to "Gay Divorce Court" on TV.

    I'm sympathetic to the hard-line 'Don't Tread On Me' posturing, but since our democratically elected government is never, ever, going to get out of the hetero-marriage business with all the tax breaks and goodies they'll continue to vote themselves, the next best thing is to force the government to give all those goodies and legal protections to the "Godless Queers" too.

  • ||

    WilliamR | October 24, 2008, 12:08pm |

    Nothing in the above post answers my question. Basically, WilliamR, you responded by saying "because that's CRAAAAZY". Why?

  • ||

    TallDave,

    Sigh. I wasn't making an argument about globalization, although we can go there if you want. I was making an argument about the inevitable idiocy of extremist libertarianism. Let's say, then, that America were to ban its minimum wage laws. A whole lot of people would suddenly be competing for unlivable wages. That is only freedom to people who define freedom by what laws they have to obey. Most of us would say freedom is more complicated than that, and has something to do with your ability to pursue happiness. That's why we have, for instance, the First Amendment. That's why we have, for instance, any law you may like.

  • ||

    "Even so (and not to press this point because it's silly) but you still didn't answer why we have marriage."

    We have marriage because we've always had marriage. It's purpose has evolved over the years. In modern America, people marry for love, and that is the basis for most marriages.

    But it seems like you're hiding behind some vague and undefined "sexual obligations" idea. If you can't define what "sexual obligations" are, then you can't really use them as a basis for marriage.

  • ||

    jake,

    I think you're missing the point when you ask questions like "why do we have marriage? what point does it serve?" The truth is that marriage, like any other contract, exists for a plethora of reasons, as determined by the people entering voluntarily into that contract. Some people get married to raise a family. Some do it to express their love. Some do it to piss off their parents. Hell, many people start families without being married.

    Marriage, as a government institution, essentially serves as a way for people to simplify the consolidation of their assets.

  • ||

    it is a cliche by now to say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but it's still true.

    The quote is "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

    Substantial difference.

  • ||

    TAO,

    And, I should point out, a consistency is only foolish if your premise is flawed.

  • ||

    Hi Mike and Lamar,

    Thank you for your thoughts. I agree; these days, marriage does seem to mean a lot of different things, and that is something I have had to wrestle with as I have struggled to determine my opinion on the gay marriage issue. I don't think it means or should just mean mean the consolidation of assets, though - as a government or social institution. I think it should continue to hold in everyone's mind the cultural resonances of romance and love between a man and a woman entering into a lifetime contract, with a recognition that children are best raised in that loving environment by their biological parents.

  • ||

    I think it should continue to hold in everyone's mind the cultural resonances of romance and love between a man and a woman entering into a lifetime contract

    Great! It doesn't need to be enshrined via force through the State. You think of it how you want, but a society dedicated to equal protection under the law should not abridge the right of contract because of the sexual orientation of the contractees.

  • ||

    True about "foolish consistency," though the general argument articulated in Emerson's Self-Reliance is that we shouldn't feel obligated to the things we said or thought five minutes ago. It's a standard poetic argument, one which reveres the imagination as the supreme faculty of the human intellect (over the limits of logic), and a good one.

    Quick excerpt:
    "The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

    But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then?"

  • ||

    "The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

    But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then?"

    What a flip-flopper.

  • ||

    What my neighbor wants to do in his own home is none of my business as long as it does not impact my enjoyment of my property and does not affect the safety of my family. If the people next door want to have swinger parties, just keep the noise down and keep off my property. If gay couples can find a religious representative to marry them, fine. As someone pointed out above, marriage is a religious term, civil unions are already recognized. Don't force religious organizations though to perform marriages if it would violate their beliefs. Anyway if gay couples marry, soon many of them will be less "gay" as they divorce ;-)

  • ||

    If the people next door want to have swinger parties, just keep the noise down and keep off my property.

    To be polite, shouldn't they invite you over, too? It seems the neighborly thing.

  • ||

    While I agree with you in principle, the purpose of laws like this are not to force people to stop being bigots. It is merely to prevent them from legislating their bigotry.

    Mike you are correct. It isn't to force them to stop being bigots -- right or wrong people are entitled to their prejudices.

    But I believe that repealing gay marriage bans will do more than merely preventing bigotry to be enforced via legislation. It will have the effect of normalizing (over time of course) something that is currently considered abnormal by most people.

    It is also a big reason why many pro-gay-marriage folks don't accept "civil unions" as a compromise. Because it still leaves the stigma intact that somehow this union is "different" than traditional "marriage" when in fact a gay marriage isn't really any different than a straight marriage.

  • ||

    Gay marriage is mostly for upper-middle class white people who want to get promoted to partner at their law firm but are afraid their boss's prejudices against gays might hinder them.

  • ||

    Same-Sex 'Marriage' and the Persecution of Civil Society

    It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.

    Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

    At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.

    And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state's Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

    The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.


    In California, government schools without parental consent are pushing the gay marriage adenda on kids as young as 5 now. Been a big story over the past few days. Your kids belong to the state. Parents none of your fucking business. This entire gay rights crap is Stalinism at its worst.

  • ||

    jake - come. on. is that prejudice going to magically dissipate because the gay fellas can marry?

  • ||

    William R - you have a lot of outstanding questions to answer. Spend your time on that rather than posting obviously-biased essays none of us are going to take seriously.

  • ||

    All gay marriage does is force the states politically correct bigotry on people. It is the state trying to force its agenda on society.

  • ||

    you've not just devolved into a foaming moron, WilliamR.

  • ||

    *now just

  • projecthappy||

    Banning same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination based on orientation. Here's why:

    A gay man is legally allowed to marry a lesbian women. Marriage is NOT denied based on your sexual orientation.

    Marriage IS based on discrimination of gender - one man plus one woman.

    The basic idea behind it, I believe, is to encourage social units that are most conducive to raising children. It boils down to whether you believe children are best served by a father + mother, or not. Yes, there are families missing one or the other. But they don't get benefits.

    As with libertarians I believe the government should not regulate "marriage", for a wide variety of reasons.

    HOWEVER, if we do have marriage, it does make some amount of sense to limit marriage to some degree. If we are to insist that the government specifically endorse any relationships between adults based on the ever-elusive idea of "equality" - then indeed we must concede inter-family and polygamous relationships. I do not necessarily oppose a sort of "civil contract" for any type of adult relationship. However, these are certainly not going to be accepted as marriage any time soon. Marriage remains a concept based on raising children. It's not bigoted to prefer that children are based by a combination of a man and a woman.

  • ||

    I don't have any questions to answer, because your questions are laughable. Lets see. Why a Father shouldn't be able to marry his daughter. Okay. Or why shouldn't a pedophile be allowed to take your five year old kid to bed.

  • ||

    The only moron I see is your sorry ass.

  • ||

    Why a Father shouldn't be able to marry his daughter.

    Don't give me this circular stuff. Just tell me why.

    Or why shouldn't a pedophile be allowed to take your five year old kid to bed.

    That's an issue of consent. Ever notice how homophobes descend into perverse and false "analogies"?

  • ||

    The only moron I see is your sorry ass.

    "Correct me if I am mistaken but are you asking for a CHAAAAALLENGE????!!!!"

  • ||

    Because no civilized society has allowed it. Same answer as to why civilized societies don't allow men to patrol for kids in nursery school for sex. Even though in the past in many gay pride parades, NAMBLA always participated. There is a push to end age of consent laws.

  • ||

    Challenge to what. This is a fucking internet forum. Gawd, you really must be a loser in this game we call life.

  • ||

    So your answer is two parts:

    1. 'Cause no one's ever done it before! That's an argument from history and it falls on its face. and

    2. Homos are perverts, and I'll prove it by talking about kiddie sex again!

    you seem to have an obsession with child sex.

  • Zeb||

    "Quoting Emerson is the hobgoblin of little minds."

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Jake,

    Since you seem to be concerned that everyone know the purpose of marriage, here's a ncie article at Cato:

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/01/14/stephanie-coontz/the-future-of-marriage/

    Stephanie Coontz has a book out on the subject that also may be of interest.

  • ||

    Thank you ProjectHappy.

    Whatever our arguments today, gay marriage is going to happen. And then polygamous lovers, oppressed beyond belief, will start to organize for legal recognition. And then siblings, and on and on. And increasingly (as it already has begun to) a married biological mother and father will not be seen as an ideal situation for raising children, but simply one of many suitable options, the most common of which will inevitably be single women on their own. This is already happening in America, e.g. the 68% of African-American children born out of wedlock and the 25% of white children born out of wedlock.

    If you're an adult male (and given that this is a Libertarian site, you probably are), then you should be thrilled. Sex without consequences!! Society doesn't expect shit from you, except maybe a paycheck, assuming you choose to stay out of jail. As for the woman and her kids, they'll be fine. The mother can console them that, yes, they may feel bereft and unloved now, but should they grow up and fall in love with a person of the same sex or multiple people or their siblings, they can marry them-- thank God!!

  • Handsome Dan||

    Projecthappy--

    Many people - myself and Mrs. Handsome Dan, for example - enter into marriage with no intention of reproducing. Why should we be allowed to get married and not Adam and Steve?

  • ||

    No marriage is tradition that formed outside the state. Gay marriage is a creation of the state. Just that simple.

    Nice dodge again kid. Using it as an example of why we don't allow fathers to marry their daughters. In the 1972 Gay rights platform(google it) one of the demands was to do away with age of consent laws. Even today that would be too much for even San Francisco.

  • Timothy||

    (pst, WilliamR, wanna touch peepees later?)

  • Tacos mmm...||

    All gay marriage does is force the states politically correct bigotry on people. It is the state trying to force its agenda on society.


    No, it is an attempt by social conservatives to stand athwart history and yell "Stop!" Western society is progressing towards acceptance of homosexual relationships as legitimate, with every successive generation showing increased tolerance of homosexual relationships, a process that is accelerating.

    Social conservatives would like to use the force of law to roll back this increasing accpetance, or to at least freeze the current status quo and prevent further changes, an attempt that I assure you, is futile.

  • ||

    Sorry Jake, even in California the gay marriage is going down in flames. They wouldn't let the people decide in Mass so they did it my fiat. When people decide its a loser.

  • Timothy||

    Fake Timothy, Please troll under your own name.

  • ||

    One more time. Gay marriage is a creation of the state. Now the state is trying to force it on the people. Marriage between man and woman is an organic institution that didn't need the state.

    It truly is hilarious to watch people that call themselves libertarian to sit back and cheer as the state forces the Catholic Church or any religious organization to get out of the adoption business because it doesn't agree with states gay agenda. Now Ministers in Candada are in danger of being charge with hate speech for speaking out against the gay rights movement. This is an all out war on civil society.

  • Hillarious||

    And increasingly (as it already has begun to) a married biological mother and father will not be seen as an ideal situation for raising children, . . .

    Don't you know, it takes a village to raise a child. And there's no good reason to prevent all the adults in the village from marrying each other.

  • Handsome Dan||

    jake--

    Do you really think that there're that many potential bro-sis (or bro-bro, sis-sis, etc.) couples out there? The push for gay marriage seems to have arose organically, if you like - there were already gay men and women in love before the whole notion of marriage equality seemed possible. Are you actually suggesting that there's a comparable amount of sibling-lovers out there?

  • ||

    "Western society is progressing towards acceptance of homosexual relationships as legitimate."

    I would argue that western civilization started out accepting homosexual relationships as legitimate. Surely you're familiar with a gay little place called ancient Greece?

  • Hillarious||

    Yo, Billy R. Bend over and take it like a real man dude.

  • ||

    Look Dick Smoker, I can't help it you're loser. That isn't my problem.

  • Handsome Dan||

    WilliamR--

    Isn't it more accurate to say that gay marriage has not been allowed to develop as a tradition due to state interference? Doesn't the state interfere more when it specifically forbids an activity (Adam marrying Steve) than when it ignores it?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    One more time. Gay marriage is a creation of the state. Now the state is trying to force it on the people. Marriage between man and woman is an organic institution that didn't need the state.


    Nothing is being forced on anyone. The first amendment does not force free speech or freedom of religion onto you. The idea that allowing more freedom (in this case, to establish a marriage contract in absence of gender specification) in some way forces anything on you is ridiculous.

  • Gimp||

    Don't force freedom on me!

  • ||

    Hi Handsome Dan, I certainly don't think there are as many siblings out there in love with each other as there are gay people. But come on, in a society dedicated to equal protection under the law, if non-related couples can get married, then related couples should be allowed to too...

    Thanks Taco for the link. I'm actually very familiar with Coontz's work. I think she is very smart and interesting, and I definitely agree with the trajectory she posits about where marriage has been and where it's going. Yet, unlike her, I find this situation horribly depressing. I guess I'm just basically a traditionalist/romantic who thinks men and women should get married, and raisee their kids. Not get divorced. And not have kids out of wedlock. That doesn't mean I want to criminalize those things; it just means that's what I believe is for the best in my heart. And I suspect more people than will admit to it feel the same way.

  • ||

    Handsome, Justin Raimondo who is more of a traditional libertarian than the clowns at Reason writes

    The gay activists of yesteryear demanded that government get out of the bedroom. Today a new generation of gay leaders is inviting government back in. The political program of the first activists centered around a campaign to legalize homosexual relations between consenting adults. Their message to all governments everywhere was unequivocal: leave us alone. The gay movement of the new millennium has a different message: far from advocating "hands off!" they want government to actively intervene on behalf of the homosexual minority. At a time when homosexual acts are still illegal in several states, the official gay rights movement is fixated on passing laws that would somehow protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination in housing and employment. From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over nearly every aspect of our lives. This reversal is all the more remarkable because it took place in a relatively short period of time, less than a decade.

    From the public schools, to trying to indict Ministers and Priest for hate speech, the Gay agenda has grown into a Stalinist like organization. In reality its the people being terrorized by the tolerance police. It is out of control. I'm going to lunch and then to the driving range to hit some golf balls. Won't be around for several hours.

  • ||

    "Handsome, Justin Raimondo who is more of a traditional libertarian than the clowns at Reason...."

    Raimondo is confused. Not surprising since he is gay yet supported Pat Buchanan. Gay rights has never been a "libertarian" movement. First, they wanted the government to stop beating them down, then they wanted the government to give them the same stuff it gives everybody else.

    When your lifestyle is criminalized, fighting to not be a criminal isn't really "libertarian".

  • ||

    Raimondo endorsed Buchanan because his foreign policy is more in tune with libertarianism than the folks at Reason. If I'm not mistaken, the editors of Reason supported the Iraq war. Or some of them did. Government didn't give the right to marry. It is an organic institution. On the other hand, one more time, gay marriage is nothing but a creation of the state.

  • St. V||

    "To those who say the Court got it wrong, I say: I agree. It's for us to decide. Now, let's make the right decision."

    No, it's not for you to decide. It's not for any voter to decide via a vote. It's not for the state to decide and it's not for the federal government to decide.

    Any ban on same-sex marriage by a government entity is quite plainly unConstitutional. Any mandate claiming same sex marriage is a right is unConstitutional.

    Marriage is a religious institution, and should be left up to the individual churches to decide. If church A won't marry Mr. Ben and Mr. Dover, but church B will, then so be it. Anything done at the state level is merely contractual rights and should involve areligious language so the religious crowd won't have their sensitivities hurt.

    Why is this so hard to get?

  • ||

    "On the other hand, one more time, gay marriage is nothing but a creation of the state."

    You keep saying that, but I'm not sure what you mean by it.

    Furthermore, your arguments in this thread are all over the place. When someone offers a rebuttal to one, you fall back on another. You also appear to be confusing gay marriage with anti-discrimination laws, which it is not.
    So, without appealing to history or "societal norms" can you explain how gay marriage is a creation of the state?

  • ||

    Agree that govt has no business dispensing preferences or penalties based on personal relationships. Ergo, end all direct and indirect tax subsidies based on marital status, relegate 'marriage' to a religious/philosophic union only, and the question of same sex marriage goes away. Contract law governs any remaining issues of personal partnerships.

  • kinnath||

    Let's conduct a little thought experiment.

    A pleasant young man is out riding a bicycle and is hit by a car. The resulting head injury leaves the young man on a respirator.

    The parents of the young man, who have been horrified by him since he came out of the closet, tell the doctors to pull the plug.

    The young man's "life partner" has no say in the matter, because blood relatives have priority in deciding these cases.

    If the two young men are married, then the spouse gets to tell the parents to fuck off and get out of the way.

    This is just one of the many aspects of the institution of marriage that are currently denied to gays.

    It's not about money, or taxes, or morality. It's about enforcing the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to allow any couple to join together. And it's about the state performing its legitimate funtion to secure those rights.

  • ||

    The parents of the young man, who have been horrified by him since he came out of the closet, tell the doctors to pull the plug.

    The young man's "life partner" has no say in the matter, because blood relatives have priority in deciding these cases.


    So what? Can a single person in the same position designate that authority to a friend, rather than his next of kin? Gay people have no more, and no less rights than anyone else.

    The bottom line is that society grants marriage and it's prerogatives to hetero couples because that relationship, in turn, returns a value to society. When you can tell us what value gay relationships return to society, then I'll be convinced that they should be granted those prerogatives.

    Marriages are recognized because they provide a social benefit. Not because they're a lifestyle accessory.

  • Douglas Gray||

    In a libertarian society, gay people would get married in gay churches, and straight churches can still refuse to marry them.

    The real issue whether to give gay couples the same access to government mandated privileges as heterosexual couples enjoy. Get rid of those "pick and choose" privileges and we wouldn't need Proposition 8. But as long as we have the State giving out money or tax breaks based on marital status..............

  • ||

    the constitution doesnt HAVE to say anything about it - anything not in the constitution is specifically retained by the people! further, why does the state need to recognize/not recognize marriage, a church issue! true separation of church and state means NO INPUT, OPINION OR ANY STANCE AT ALL on marriage.

  • Mike||

    Gays already have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.

  • ||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but isn't marriage supposed to have at least something to do with sex, or at least sexual attraction?

    What if your nature simply did not allow you to feel such attraction toward women, as it does not for millions of gay men? Would "Commit to a woman or commit to nobody" truly be a productive message to you -- on anyone's behalf -- from the government which you help fund? I think not.

    Marriage is what we define marriage as. We have the ability to change definitions. At any rate, whether or not we use the "m" word, none of the arguments against equality under the law for committed same-sex couples are holding any water. I hope you'd agree with me on at least that much.

  • John Bisceglia||

    I sincerely hope PROP 8 fails miserably.

    BUT - if it DOES passes, is everyone prepared to spend another ba-zillion dollars on PR and possibly wait 20-30 years to "win" equality in CA?

    AND - if it does NOT pass, which state will we focus on next so we can spend another ba-zillion dollars to purchase civil rights?

    I know I am virtually alone here (except for Charles Merrill and his partner), but I think all of you are insane.

    Truly crazy....one step away from writing on the wall with your feces crazy.

    Because if ALL of us truly believed we WERE equal, we would not be so patient as tax-payers and U.S. citizens. We'd simply KNOW we ARE equal, and refuse to pay into a system that not only denies our familes civil marriage but doesn't even acknowledge our existence (wait for the 2010 census).

    I'm 43, and I will NOT wait until I'm 73 for fair and equal treatment. It's OK for the country at large to be ignorant, bigoted, mid-guided, and mid-informed. But that's not my fault. So until people GROW UP and show my family the same "civil" respect heterosexually-identified families are given, I owe this country and the IRS nothing.

    How many times do I need to say this?

    TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

  • ||

    Since when can a behavior be compared to non-behavior? A homosexual's external identity is based entirely off of their behaviors where as women and ethnic groups have no say in their biologically defined status. Internally, everyone sees themselves differently than the world sees them.

    There are probably some genetic factors that would lean someone to becoming gay, but that is still under their conscious control whether or not they will be gay. STOP comparing homosexuality to race or gender.

    Anyone can get married under the majorly accepted definition of it. No one is discriminated against. Anyone can marry a member of the other gender. Also, the California Family code ensures equal recognition by the government for other contractual relationships between people.
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

    Discrimination is in itself not a bad thing. It allows the human mind to determine poison from food and light from dark. Discrimination is only a bad thing when we treat members of our species with hostility based off of their appearance, off of illogical connections. Just because something looks bad doesn't mean it is. Race and gender have nothing to do with capabilities or potential and our society treated them as if it did. That was wrong. As well, homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with the good a person can accomplish or who they can have a relationship with, thus the laws linked to above.

    We can and should discriminate based off of behavior, that is why the wealthy pay higher taxes and the felons are in prison. We need to discriminate behavioral differences if we want a cohesive society that gets along. We should never treat anyone with hostility or indecency.

  • ||

    We should have no collective right or power to use the proxy of government to dictate or define "marriage" which is the most personal and private of free associations.

    The government first began regulating marriage (in the form of licenses) in the 1850s, ostensibly to control the spread of disease, but effectively to prohibit blacks from marrying whites. STDs remained a big problem until antibiotics were developed, but mixed race marriages were prohibited until the 1950s.

    Social conservatives who feel it's their god given right to tell other people how they should live are a politically transmitted disease that threatens the health of everyone's freedom.

    Why can't you guys just live your lives and leave others to live theirs?

  • Darleen Click||

    why am I voting FOR Prop 8 even though I support civil unions and see in the future that same-sex marriage may, indeed, be legal?

    Because the CA judiciary needs to be spanked. Hard.

    And, same-sex marriage is not the equal in to opposite sex marriage, unless you buy into the fallacy that there is no difference between the sexes.

    This has always been more than just SSM. In the CA ruling, sexual-orientation has been made a "suspect class" equivalent to race. And many gay advocates have been candid that they see this as a way to shutup or shutdown any religious organization by threatening their tax-exempt status when they preach that same sex behavior is a "sin."

    This has already happened in MA, why do we believe CA would be any different?

  • Darleen Click||

    Social conservatives who feel it's their god given right to tell other people how they should live are a politically transmitted disease that threatens the health of everyone's freedom.

    Well, now, see? Bob believes that social conservatives are a disease and not entitled to First Amendment rights.

    Nice.

    And the re-education camps are established in ...3.. 2...

  • bob||

    Anyone is free to express themselves and their views. I was referring to the social conservatives who feel they have a god given right to codify their beliefs and use the coercive forces of government to impose them upon others. Like the ones that supported making mixed race marriage illegal.

    Social conservatives are welcome to enjoy the freedoms of expression and association that our Constitution guarantees to all (including Cindy and Tracie.)

    When they start using government to make laws contrary to inherent rights, I call them a disease that damages everyone's freedom.

    If the shoe fits...

  • ||

    "Well, now, see? Bob believes that social conservatives are a disease and not entitled to First Amendment rights."

    No, I don't see, Darleen. When he uses the phrase "telling other people," Bob should not have to append "with the force of law" for you to understand what he means. I'll give you enough credit to guess that you know this and are merely trying to stir the pot with this First Amendment bullroar.

    Spout your discriminatory views all you like. I welcome it, as should any good American. "At the length, truth will out."

  • zoltan||

    I've never seen so many religio-sociotards rear their ugly heads here at reason. No one even posted the trackbacks for where they came from.

  • ||

    Prop 8 has generated some pretty raw feelings on all sides. A graceful solution is for the government to withdraw completely from its involvement in marriage: no licenses; no distinction between married and single; no discrimination; no special financial benefits to married people; no special legal rights.

    Folks can still have fancy weddings; be blessed; exchange vows and rings; live together; be "married" or anything they want to call it. No one's life will change. No more laws, no more propositions, no more court rulings.

    Fairness finally to the 100 million single people. Last year my wife started collecting $700 per month from Social Security based solely on the basis of being married to me. Hard to argue that this situation is fair.

  • ||

    I completely agree, Christian. Indeed, if Prop 8 passes, that's most likely what will happen here in CA. It will require a painful and expensive reworking of the entire civil code, but in the end, it may not be a bad thing for anyone but those who insist on tying their religulous (TM Bill Maher) views to government.

  • Wayne Lusvardi||

    NO ON PROP 8 IS ANTI-FEMINIST:A MIDDLE GROUND
    by Wayne Lusvardi, MSW, Pasadena
    As a former court protective services worker for abused and neglected children, I am in favor of Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage; however, I am unpersuaded by all the arguments for and against it.

    The arguments in favor of the Prop 8 are overly defensive, conjectural, seemingly discriminatory and moralistic for the wrong reasons. Concern over a speculative future harm to children as the weakest members of society will not likely overcome the perception of actual discrimination against gays today in the eyes of much of the liberal public. Moreover, many people believe on religious grounds that children should be taught not to discriminate against gays.

    Conversely, the arguments against Prop 8 on the basis of injustice, unfairness and the unhappiness and social stigma inflicted on gays by denying them the sanction of marriage equally miss the mark. The social status of gay couples is no different than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried status, including widows.

    The notion that progressive "change" will overcome the "centuries long struggle for civil rights" for gays is historically myopic. The past Progressive reforms of busing in our public schools ("white flight") and recent reform of affordable housing credit as a civil right ("sub-prime" loan foreclosures and investor wipe-outs) are tragic cases of the unintended consequences of the politicizing "civil rights." If Prop 8 passes we may sadly see "straight flight" from our public schools by parents who were formerly tolerant of gays.

    The word "marriage" comes from the Latin word "mater" for mother. And "mater" is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. It is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status in a traditional society.

    A social order that doesn't protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can't give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health. Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society. Women's freedom to control access to their body for procreation is what modern marriage is all about. Without that there is no societal or religious basis for laws to protect marriage, particularly gay marriage.

    Defining marriage down to a mere contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless. Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Traditional man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine. Same sex marriage is anti-feminist.

    If we grant marriage rights to one group - gays - we will find it politically impossible to deny such rights to others scripted with their own resumes of "victimization." And politicians will always be ready to politicize modern marriage by expanding it beyond its original purpose.

    Marriage isn't a conspiracy of patriarchs, straights, or the respectable capitalistic bourgeoisie class. It is part of the divine and natural order - only through marriage can the world persist.

    It is more important to exclusively preserve the freedom of marriage for women than to elevate the status of a few famous elite gays who don't feel equal. Perhaps, once gays understand this they will no longer feel of lesser status; unless their true goal is to politicize marriage purely for the economic benefits therefrom which have mostly already been granted them. Preserving marriage exclusively for procreation and women's freedom transcends the politics and religion of Left and Right. Even though I am disappointed with the arguments both for and against Prop 8, I nonetheless urge you to VOTE YES ON PROP 8.

  • Alan||

    RE: A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.

    Thank GOD we are not a Christian nation!

  • Alan||

    RE: If Prop 8 passes we may sadly see "straight flight" from our public schools by parents who were formerly tolerant of gays.

    That notion is just plain wierd. What does it even mean? All of the stright families in San Francisco are heading for the suburbs becuase the SF public schools will suddenly be open to... who? what?

  • Alan||

    RE: Marriage... is part of the divine and natural order - only through marriage can the world persist.

    The "divine and natural order" of human social relationships, however divine, however natural, is not, therefore "eternal". Social relationships and norms are obviously open to progressive change as material and intellectual resources progress. That is pretty obvious, and it is certainly obvious in the case of marriage.

    "In the beginning," that is, during the age of bronze-age nomadic tribes in the middle east, women were treated as reproductive chattel, and arranged marriages based on preserving or enhancing social and economic status was the "divine and natural" order.

    Over time, however, this norm began to erode. The plight of "star crossed lovers" became of interest. Women, perhaps, were more respected as individuals. The notion of romantic love began to undermine the "divine and natural" order of the bronze age. Women might even expect to have a husband of their own, rather than to share one with several others.

    The arranged marriage began to be seen as an anachronism, and the "love marriage," before almost a contradiction in terms, seemed more part of the "divine and natural order".

    Around the turn of the 19th century, Nietzsche noted that the "love marriage" would turn all women into prostitutes. What Nietzsche seemed to miss was that women would become quite capable of economic independence apart from their sex and sexuality and that men and women would be able to enter into relationships on an increasingly equal basis.

    Today, the romantic love marriage has become the "divine and natural order" of things. It is capable of serving our more personal, individualistic romantic needs and our more social reproductive needs. Since it is as much, if not more, about love than it is about children, those who are more interested in love and less interested in children should be free to join in. And should be encouraged to do so in order to strengthen and preserve the "divine and natural order" of things.

  • ||

    I would be very interested to hear opinions regarding the rationale and justification for the government providing financial incentives and subsidies to married people and/or civil unions and taxing single people to support these benefits?

  • appending_doom||

    Darleen -

    I'm fairly certain that the Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed attempts to legislatively allow same-sex marriage, INSISTING that the courts make the decision.

    So the whole thing is sort of a Catch-22.

    (Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/29/MNG4IEVVEG5.DTL)

  • Alan||

    RE: ...for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless...

    Huh? Why is that?

    If the only thing supporting heterosexual commitment all these many long millennia was homophobia, we would have to conclude that marriage is a pretty weak and insubstantial institution. Hardly the divine and natural order of things it is made out to be.

    This is really base fear-mongering.

  • ||

    I have to say I disagree. Civil liberties should never be decided on by a vote among the people. If that were the case we would still have slavery in some southern states. That's the inherent problem with the democratic process, after all: the majority can get what they want. You can't think of gay marriage as a right we are giving to gay couples but rather something that needs to be acknowledged as already existing.

  • ||

    These Yes on 8 commercials state "if Prop 8 isn't passed, churches could lose their tax exempt status. Oh really? How? By being too political? Then they lie and say that gay marriage will have to be taught in schools. Again, not true but hell, never mind that the 10 commandments state "thou shalt not bear false witness". That doesn't slow any of these Christianists down. (I refuse to sully the good name of Christ by calling them Christians.)

    Other than the ancient Egyptians, and I believe it only applied to the Pharaohs, what country allows marriage between parents and children? None that I know of. First cousins in some countries but nothing closer than that. Has anyone noted any run on parent/child marriage applications in Canada or England?

    When they say "well, what if someone wants to marry their dog or a duck?" I don't know of any animals that can fill out an application for a marriage license AND sign their name, do you? So what are these people saying? That gay people aren't of the same species as us straight folks?

    The California Supreme Court made it very clear that their decision would not apply to polygamy nor would it force any church or religious group to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. Besides, if they are so concerned about "protecting" marriage then why don't they work to make divorce more difficult? It takes the consent of two people to get married but only the decision of one to end it. Let's get rid of the "no-fault" divorce laws and make people work harder at keeping their marriages intact. Oh, I forgot as to how many of those "family value" voters are working on their second, third, and sometimes fourth marriages. Lousy hypocrites. Why can't they just be honest and admit that they are full blown bigots! So let's hear it for discrimination the American way!

  • JB||

    The solution to all this is simple: Stop handing out marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious institution and outside the realm of government regulation thanks to the establishment clause. We don't hand out baptismal, confirmation, first communion, or priesthood licenses, yet we give secular recognition to this one cherry-picked religious institution. Can we not keep marriage in churches, and the like, and conforming to the confines selected by those religions and not the government?

  • Pepe||

    Those of you who are arguing that banning gay marriage is not discrimination because it prevents all people from marrying someone of the opposite sex are missing the point. Banning gay marriage prevents one consenting adult from marrying the consenting adult they wish to be married to. If you aren't attracted to the same sex then a gay marriage ban does not affect you in any real way. If you are then it clearly does.

    This was equally true of anti-miscegenation laws. No one was allowed to marry a member of of a different race - thus by some people's logic it wasn't discrimination. But the courts decided differently, just as they have in the case of gay marriage.

  • Alan||

    RE: Marriage is a religious institution and outside the realm of government regulation thanks to the establishment clause.

    Ain't so. Mine certanly isn't religious in any way shape or form. Marriage is no more (intrinsically) religious as is the incorporation of a business. Based on a commited personal relationship, it creates a complex of legal relationships, rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities in many different areas of life.

    It can't be dispensed within civil law without doing a great deal of damage.

  • JB||

    "It can't be dispensed within civil law without doing a great deal of damage."

    Entrenchment cannot perpetuate a constitutional violation. Allowing so would create a de facto amendment process whereby the constitution is amended after an unconstitutional law/practice goes unchallenged for a certain period of time or becomes to burdensome to correct.

    Furthermore, all religious institutions can be "dereligionized" and given secular recognition, meaning, and celebration. Tradition at some Florida colleges dictate dunking in the school fountain on one's birthday. Are we to provide government recognition of these "baptisms?"

    Just as not every dunking into a body of water is a baptism, not every coming together of two (or more) human beings for a commmitted relationship is a marriage.

  • ||

    That's why former Republican congressman Tom Campbell will be voting No on Proposition 8.



    Good ole' Tom Campbell. An important reminder of how libertarianism can't win elections, sadly. He ran against Feinstein in 2000 on a "end the drug war/against Presidential war-making power (Clinton, of course" combined with economic libertarianism and was slaughtered.

  • Alan||

    RE: Furthermore, all religious institutions can be "dereligionized" and given secular recognition, meaning, and celebration.

    Yep, and that's what happened. So it isn't an establishment issue. Won't ever be, either. Give it up.

  • ||

    The general rule is that discrimination is allowed. We discriminate every day when we change TV channels, buy one brand of soap over another at the supermarket, or choose friends. Certain exceptions to the general rule of allowing discrimination have been made for "immutable characteristics", for characteristics one cannot change, like race or gender. An exception has also been made for religion since our country was founded on religious freedom.

    Homosexuality is not immutable like race or gender. Homosexuality is, by definition, a behavior. People should be judged by their behavior. Therefore, discrimination against homosexuality should be allowed. Churches should be allowed to discourage it. Children should not be taught it. Private groups should be allowed to exclude people who engage in that behavior. However, I believe it is morally wrong to discriminate against any individual based on that individual's group classification. This applies to homosexuals, cops, or yuppies. But this would not make a good law.

    Liberals have used the definition "sexual orientation" which is a meaningless phrase. The best science can say at the moment is that a propensity for homosexuality is genetically inherited in some people. Then, environmental factors, such as overpopulation, work to catalyze homosexual behavior.

    The purpose of marriage is procreation (but it is not a requirement). Gays cannot procreate. Therefore, the only reason for gays to marry is to condone their recreational sex lifestyle. If we expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, it will dilute and weaken the institution of marriage. This will put no less than the survival of our species at risk. This we cannot afford to do. The state of marriage is already weakening with the liberalization of our divorce and family laws. If anything, we should be strengthening the institution of marriage, not weakening it.

    For these reasons, homosexual marriage should not be condoned.

  • Alan||

    RE: The purpose of marriage is procreation (but it is not a requirement)

    Nope. The purpose of marriage is love.

    "In the beginning," that is, during the age of bronze-age nomadic tribes in the middle east, women were treated as reproductive chattel, and arranged marriages based on preserving or enhancing social and economic status was the "divine and natural" order.

    Over time, however, this norm began to erode. The plight of "star crossed lovers" became of interest. Women, perhaps, were more respected as individuals. The notion of romantic love began to undermine the "divine and natural" order of the bronze age. Women might even expect to have a husband of their own, rather than to share one with several others.

    The arranged marriage began to be seen as an anachronism, and the "love marriage," before almost a contradiction in terms, seemed more part of the "divine and natural order".

    Around the turn of the 19th century, Nietzsche noted that the "love marriage" would turn all women into prostitutes. What Nietzsche seemed to miss was that women would become quite capable of economic independence apart from their sex and sexuality and that men and women would be able to enter into relationships on an increasingly equal basis.

    Today, the romantic love marriage has become the "divine and natural order" of things. It is capable of serving our more personal, individualistic romantic needs and our more social reproductive needs. Since it is as much, if not more, about love than it is about children, those who are more interested in love and less interested in children should be free to join in. And should be encouraged to do so in order to strengthen and preserve the "divine and natural order" of things.

  • Alan||

    RE: Certain exceptions to the general rule of allowing discrimination have been made for "immutable characteristics", for characteristics one cannot change, like race or gender.

    Since we are all free to choose our religion, and our choice is not an "imutable characteristic" we then SHOULD be discriminating against people based on their faith?

    Your analysis just isn't correct. We do not allow discrimination when it would be unjust to do so. It is unjust to discriminate against gays. They have a right to be who they are, whether it is a conscious decision on their part or not.

  • ||

    The issue boils down to not that we allow gay people to marry, but rather how we define marriage. What was once a conjugal relationship that transformed a man and woman into husband and wife, has now become a close personal intimate relationship that transforms two people into "spouses for life".

  • ||

    If we are going to redefine marriage, then we should also revisit the rationale for government's various roles in marriage.

  • ||

    I agree with the slippery slope theory. Same sex Registered Domestic Partners have all the same rights. We don't call heterosexuals, homosexuals nor do we call homosexuals, heterosexuals. So why do we have to use the same term to define these unions. For 6000 years of recorded history, we have defined the Union of Man and Woman marriage. I am good about giving homosexual unions their own name. But please, don't try to convince me that they are the same.

    Human Sexuality between heterosexual couples is what brings children in the world. I feel that what same sex couples want is more rights...not equal rights than their heterosexual counterparts.

    If we use your definition of discrimination, then we can say that Barak Obama is planning on discrimination against the rich based on financial status. Shouldn't we treat all who work for a living equally under the law? Listen, my liberal friends, the street moves both ways . You can't say that one thing is defined as discrimination and another is not. Who made you my God!

  • ||

    Change the Definition of Marriage = Any Person Can Marry Anything!!

  • Konkey Dong||

    You're a fucking moron.

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement