Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
gmatts|10.24.08 @ 10:04AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 10:22AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 10:25AM|#
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".
|10.24.08 @ 10:37AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 10:39AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Just curious, was this piece published in any California mainstream dead tree periodicals?
sk84speed|10.24.08 @ 10:45AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 10:51AM|#
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!
|10.24.08 @ 11:04AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:06AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:15AM|#
A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be recognized by a Christian nation.
猪|10.24.08 @ 11:21AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:23AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:28AM|#
William R.,
Private businesses can, and should be allowed to, discriminate at
will.
Government should not.
|10.24.08 @ 11:28AM|#
(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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:35AM|#
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
|10.24.08 @ 11:37AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:38AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:40AM|#
The state discriminates against property owners all the time. Good gravy, where are you coming from.
|10.24.08 @ 11:40AM|#
"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 >
|10.24.08 @ 11:41AM|#
"The state discriminates against property owners all the time.
Good gravy, where are you coming from."
And that's bad. What's your point?
|10.24.08 @ 11:43AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:44AM|#
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!
|10.24.08 @ 11:48AM|#
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
|10.24.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"[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|10.24.08 @ 11:49AM|#
also, you forgot fisting. crisco to the elbow!
This is why libertarians are going to stay in their mother's
basements for ever.
|10.24.08 @ 11:50AM|#
"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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:50AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:52AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:53AM|#
"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|10.24.08 @ 11:55AM|#
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...").
|10.24.08 @ 11:55AM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Gay marriage just encourages pedophiles.
Gay adoption just eliminates the need for these perverts to troll
the streets looking for victims.
|10.24.08 @ 11:56AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Why are there societal norms against Frank marrying his daughter for tax purposes???
|10.24.08 @ 11:57AM|#
"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|10.24.08 @ 11:58AM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 11:58AM|#
"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|10.24.08 @ 11:59AM|#
"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?
|10.24.08 @ 11:59AM|#
jake,
Did I misread you, or did you really just disparage ideological
consistency?
Hypocrisy is a virtue now?
|10.24.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Why not allow 60 year old Frank who is dying of cancer and
is worth millions to marry Laura his daughter?
Indeed, why not?
|10.24.08 @ 12:03PM|#
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??
|10.24.08 @ 12:03PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:05PM|#
"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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:08PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:10PM|#
A marriage based on sodomy is immoral and should never be
recognized by a Christian nation.
Yeah! Like Spain!
Oh wait..
|10.24.08 @ 12:10PM|#
"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?
|10.24.08 @ 12:12PM|#
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")? ...
|10.24.08 @ 12:18PM|#
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."
|10.24.08 @ 12:18PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 12:21PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 12:21PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:26PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:28PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 12:29PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:30PM|#
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?
|10.24.08 @ 12:30PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:32PM|#
"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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:32PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:35PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:36PM|#
TAO,
And, I should point out, a consistency is only foolish if your
premise is flawed.
|10.24.08 @ 12:40PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:43PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:45PM|#
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?"
|10.24.08 @ 12:48PM|#
"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.
|10.24.08 @ 12:52PM|#
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 ;-)
|10.24.08 @ 12:57PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:06PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:11PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:17PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:17PM|#
jake - come. on. is that prejudice going to magically dissipate because the gay fellas can marry?
|10.24.08 @ 1:18PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:20PM|#
All gay marriage does is force the states politically correct bigotry on people. It is the state trying to force its agenda on society.
projecthappy|10.24.08 @ 1:21PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:22PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:25PM|#
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"?
|10.24.08 @ 1:27PM|#
The only moron I see is your sorry ass.
"Correct me if I am mistaken but are you asking for a
CHAAAAALLENGE????!!!!"
|10.24.08 @ 1:29PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Challenge to what. This is a fucking internet forum. Gawd, you really must be a loser in this game we call life.
|10.24.08 @ 1:32PM|#
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.
Tacos mmm...|10.24.08 @ 1:39PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:40PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 1:41PM|#
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?
|10.24.08 @ 1:42PM|#
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.
Tacos mmm...|10.24.08 @ 1:45PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:46PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 1:51PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 1:52PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 1:52PM|#
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?
|10.24.08 @ 1:53PM|#
"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?
Handsome Dan|10.24.08 @ 1:55PM|#
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...|10.24.08 @ 1:57PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 2:07PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 2:10PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 2:21PM|#
"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".
|10.24.08 @ 2:26PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 2:43PM|#
"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?
|10.24.08 @ 2:45PM|#
"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?
|10.24.08 @ 4:17PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 4:38PM|#
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.
|10.24.08 @ 7:03PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 7:14PM|#
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..............
|10.24.08 @ 9:12PM|#
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|10.24.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Gays already have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.
|10.25.08 @ 2:30AM|#
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|10.25.08 @ 10:36AM|#
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
|10.25.08 @ 12:44PM|#
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.
|10.25.08 @ 1:04PM|#
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|10.25.08 @ 1:14PM|#
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|10.25.08 @ 1:17PM|#
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|10.25.08 @ 2:07PM|#
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...
|10.25.08 @ 2:33PM|#
"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|10.25.08 @ 4:07PM|#
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.
|10.25.08 @ 4:29PM|#
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.
|10.25.08 @ 5:37PM|#
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|10.26.08 @ 2:51AM|#
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|10.26.08 @ 10:38AM|#
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|10.26.08 @ 10:45AM|#
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|10.26.08 @ 11:29AM|#
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.
|10.27.08 @ 12:15AM|#
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|10.27.08 @ 8:41AM|#
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|10.27.08 @ 9:39AM|#
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.
|10.27.08 @ 10:34AM|#
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.
|10.27.08 @ 12:15PM|#
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|10.27.08 @ 2:00PM|#
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|10.27.08 @ 2:53PM|#
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|10.27.08 @ 3:43PM|#
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|10.28.08 @ 12:40AM|#
"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.
|10.28.08 @ 2:35PM|#
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|10.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
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.
|10.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 8:16PM|#
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|10.31.08 @ 8:27PM|#
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.
|11.2.08 @ 9:31PM|#
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".
|11.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
If we are going to redefine marriage, then we should also revisit the rationale for government's various roles in marriage.
|11.5.08 @ 10:23PM|#
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!
Leave a Comment
Related Articles (Civil Rights, Family Issues, Gay/Lesbian Issues)
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
- Baby Barnum, Jesse Walker, November 5, 2009
- Bigot Bonus, Jacob Sullum, October 14, 2009
- Scars Behind Bars, Bill Flanigen, October 1, 2009
- An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage, Steve Chapman, August 20, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245