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
Backwards into the Future: California's Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition Apparently Passes; and Arizona's and Florida's Too
From the Wall Street Journal:
Early poll results Tuesday night showed California voters leaning toward overturning same-sex marriage in the state in a decision that could impact how the issue plays out elsewhere in the nation.
Approval of Proposition 8 would be a stunning upset in a $70-million campaign that just weeks ago looked to be running in favor of preserving gay marriage rights.
By 12:34 a.m. in California, 53.1% of voters favored passing Prop 8, as the measure is known, and 46.9% were against it, with 60% of precincts voting, according to the Secretary of State. However, both sides cautioned the vote could be very close and that it might still be early to declare a winner.
The passage of Prop 8, as it is known, would be a major victory for religious conservatives seeking to ban gay marriage in other states, and a crippling setback for the gay rights movement nationwide.
And just to throw more a wrench into things, the LA Times reports that whites opposed the initiative, blacks supported it, and latinos were split.
So is a new post-racial America one in which gays still get left at the altar? Oy.
Update: Similar initiatives specifying marriage only as the union of a man and a woman, forerver and ever or however long it lasts, passed in Arizona and Florida. Read more here.
In Connecticut, voters rejected a prop that would have allowed the state Constitution to be rewritten to ban gay marriage, which the Nutmeg State Supreme Court ruled was legal recently.
|11.5.08 @ 7:49AM|#
This is the worst thing of the evening.
Surely someone will soon post that this is somehow a victory for
liberty as it involves the granting of some positive right.
Surely these people are also raising money and speaking out to end
government recognition of heterosexual marriages. Surely.
|11.5.08 @ 7:54AM|#
I also have to love SIV's opposition to gay marriage. Anyone can supply their own "cock" joke here.
|11.5.08 @ 8:12AM|#
I can't say I'm terribly surprised by this. I think there's a
bigger "bradley effect" of sorts these days on the subject of gay
rights than there is on racial topics.
Although it is also still societally acceptable to speak out
against homosexuals, a lot of people will remain silent on the
issue - people who you would assume, by political affiliation or
other demographic, would be in favor of expanding "rights" for this
group of people.
(note: "rights" is in quotation marks for the benefit of those who
are going to argue that marriage is not a right, etc. etc.)
the innominate one|11.5.08 @ 8:19AM|#
I think the Florida amendment passed as well,
disappointingly.
Sad that black Americans, who have been the subject of much
official discrimination, turn around and choose to support official
discrimination of others.
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 8:25AM|#
Sad that black Americans, who have been the subject of much
official discrimination, turn around and choose to support official
discrimination of others.
That part really pisses me off. I mean, there are still people
alive today who lived under anti-miscegenation laws and couldn't
marry who they wanted to. Don't they talk with their elders about
the bad old days?
On the other hand, due to repression, the church has become the
center of many African-Americans' lives. I guess they couldn't see
past their fluffy little Jesus to see fit to extend a little
humanity someone else's way.
|11.5.08 @ 8:25AM|#
As a California resident, this is shameful. The most disappointing result of the whole election. Bigotry wins the day. :(
VM|11.5.08 @ 8:25AM|#
Rein and innominate -
sad but true.
just look at some of the dickheads on this board who try to reduce
this issue to the "yuk factor". For them, it reduces to some sort
of fantasized sex scene with "yuck" for them.
I don't understand why it isn't legally recognized. It should be.
Love is love.
|11.5.08 @ 8:26AM|#
Sad that black Americans, who have been the subject of much
official discrimination, turn around and choose to support official
discrimination of others.
True, but it's not without historical precedent. Just look at the
Irish.
The inclination of one group to improve their social standing is to
side with those with the most power against a common chosen
loser-group.
You see this with middle school-aged kids (most vividly with girls)
all the time.
mpp|11.5.08 @ 8:30AM|#
On the other hand, due to repression, the church has become
the center of many African-Americans' lives. I guess they couldn't
see past their fluffy little Jesus to see fit to extend a little
humanity someone else's way.
That's about the size of it. It's really not at all surprising they
voted the way they did.
|11.5.08 @ 8:32AM|#
I forgot to post under my new alias for the rest of the month,
which I garnered in a bet here on H&R that VA would not go
Obama this year.
Anyway, I want to add that it appears the Colorado ballot measure
banning affirmative action may have gone down as well. It seems
equal treatment of people under the law is a hard concept not
valued by a great deal of persons.
|11.5.08 @ 8:36AM|#
At least Prop 8 is still arguably in play. Similar measures in
Arizona and Florida passed easily. And Arkansas banned umarried
couples from adopting babies.
Anon
|11.5.08 @ 8:39AM|#
It truly is sad, if not outright infuriating. At least it was
close though. If there is any consolation to be had, I think that
this can serve as indication that though the road may be rough our
country is still making progress towards this ends.
Unfortunately, down here in Florida we had a similar proposition,
if not damn near identical: no. 2. And where it sounds like
California came close, we failed miserably. I don't remember the
exact numbers but it was something like a 70/30 split in favor of
unconstitutionally (in my opinion) defining marriage.
I find it amusing how often Americans forget why this country was
founded... or perhaps someone could explain to me how denying
people their right to love one another in whatever way they choose
upholds "liberty" or the "pursuit of happiness."
|11.5.08 @ 8:43AM|#
"or perhaps someone could explain to me how denying people their
right to love one another in whatever way they choose upholds
"liberty" or the "pursuit of happiness.""
Because the Bible tells me so.
Oh, and "yuk"
herodotus|11.5.08 @ 8:45AM|#
Sad that black Americans, who have been the subject of much
official discrimination, turn around and choose to support official
discrimination of others.
Shocking.
The next thing you know, we will hear that the Japanese, who suffer
from discrimination in many places, sometimes engage in
discriminatory acts against Koreans.
Or even more shocking, that various ethnic minorities fail to
support equal rights for women!
What is the world coming to?
|11.5.08 @ 8:51AM|#
Every time I sort of envy Massholes for their ability to have
voter initiatives that can do things like eliminate income tax and
decriminalize MJ, I turn around and see that voter initiatives can
have the opposite effect and fuck over gays and other unpopular
groups.
It's colossally disappointing that this failed in all the states it
was tried. Not a single victory for liberty and equal standing.
Kyle Jordan|11.5.08 @ 9:00AM|#
More shitty news. This sucks.
And Epi, don't be too envious of the Massholes. The dumb fucks
voted to KEEP Income Taxes.
|11.5.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Dear Leader is a against gay marriage on religous grounds.
BARACK OBAMA: "CHRISTIANIST" THEOCRAT?
Several gay friends and wealthy gay donors to Senator Barack Obama
have asked him over the years why, as a matter of logic and
fairness, he opposes same-sex marriage even though he has condemned
old miscegenation laws that would have barred his black father from
marrying his white mother.
The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.
As a Christian - he is a member of the United Church of Christ -
Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from
God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman
exclusively.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
Now Andrew Sullivan will tell you that he is lying when he said
that. Maybe he is. I don't know. Whatever Dear Leader beleives, I
can't see him spending much political capital on gay marriage or it
being much of an issue over the next four years. There are bigger
problems and if there is anything that the 92-94 Clinton
Administration experience teaches it is that certain culture war
topics are best left alone.
Kaiser|11.5.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Sad that black Americans, who have been the subject of much official discrimination, turn around and choose to support official discrimination of others.
That part really pisses me off. I mean, there are still people alive today who lived under anti-miscegenation laws and couldn't marry who they wanted to. Don't they talk with their elders about the bad old days?
On the other hand, due to repression, the church has become the center of many African-Americans' lives. I guess they couldn't see past their fluffy little Jesus to see fit to extend a little humanity someone else's way.
Excellent points here. An even bigger issue is if California can't
even squash this anti-gay marriage movement, what hope do we have
for the rest of the country?
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 9:08AM|#
And Epi, don't be too envious of the Massholes. The dumb fucks
voted to KEEP Income Taxes.
Which is sort of nice, when you think of it. If they want everyone
else to pay for higher federal taxes (generally speaking, by
electing the people they favor), they should want the same thing
locally (and as a relatively rich state, they should and do prefer
have more money leaving than coming in).
Still, I think there are other, less ideologically pure reasons it
didn't pass this time.
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Individual rights shouldn't be subject to the whim of the
majority. Initiatives should only be able to (arguably even) expand
rights.
Fuck democracy.
the innominate one|11.5.08 @ 9:13AM|#
herodotus - I detect sarcasm. I didn't say it was shocking, it's
not. It is sad, however.
John - Way to quote out of context. Obama also said he tried to
keep his personal religious beliefs out of political policy. Also,
it's not like he's any worse than Bush et al. on this position.
GG|11.5.08 @ 9:20AM|#
and Arizona's
Great. Systematic discrimination is now enshrined in our state
constitution.
Prop 101, Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, is too close to
call. (Anti-choice bastards.)
Prop 202, which would have undermined AZ's "tough on immigration"
laws, also lost.
And Arpaio won again.
Blech.
Kyle Jordan|11.5.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Hopefully Prop 101 will pass. It's one of the few things coming out of this election that I have hope for. And I don't even live in Arizona!
a name before submitting the |11.5.08 @ 9:24AM|#
California's Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition Apparently
Passes...
...AGAIN.
robc|11.5.08 @ 9:26AM|#
MNG,
Surely these people are also raising money and speaking out to
end government recognition of heterosexual marriages.
Surely.
Yep. Why just last night I went on a screed against government
sponsored marriage and how it should be ended entirely. Im not
raising money though, thats not my thing no matter how much I care
about an issue.
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 9:27AM|#
OK legal scholars:
So does the 14th take precedence over a state constitution?
Can SCOTUS squash this ammendment to the CA constitution?
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Oh, and P.S., with all due respect to any Mormons who may post or lurk, but the Church of JCLDS can go fuck itself.
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 9:30AM|#
So does the 14th take precedence over a state
constitution?
Yes. In fact, this is explicit. "No state
shall...
Can SCOTUS squash this ammendment to the CA
constitution?
Yup. Not like the current court would. But it could.
adrian|11.5.08 @ 9:31AM|#
at least the pro-marijuana stuff is passing in michigan and mass. Was it on the ballot anywhere else?
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 9:32AM|#
IIRC, SCOTUS in the past has ruled to invalidate Religious Test clauses in certain state constitutions.
|11.5.08 @ 9:32AM|#
"John - Way to quote out of context. Obama also said he tried to
keep his personal religious beliefs out of political policy. Also,
it's not like he's any worse than Bush et al. on this
position."
I didn't say he was worse, just the same. I don't see this issue
changing anytime soon.
a name before submitting the f|11.5.08 @ 9:35AM|#
OK legal scholars:
So does the 14th take precedence over a state constitution?
Can SCOTUS squash this ammendment to the CA constitution?
They would have to find another new right in the constitution that
wasn't there before, so yea, it's doable.
|11.5.08 @ 9:38AM|#
And Epi, don't be too envious of the Massholes. The dumb
fucks voted to KEEP Income Taxes.
There's a reason they're called Massholes.
|11.5.08 @ 9:40AM|#
This blows. As a native Californian, this was the issue I cared about most. I'm ashamed that my home state decided to enshrine bigorty in their constitution. hopefully, a repeal can emerge in 2010, when AA turnout will be back to normal levels so that the 70-30 block against will be lowered.
|11.5.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Sad. But Andrew Sullivan and the Hollywood crowd kind of deserved this. They shilled for a "christianist" socialist candidate and ginned up turnout for a racial group that hates them and that they didn't even need to win the election. Hopefully a lesson was learned.
highnumber|11.5.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Really sick of the Dems talking out of both sides of their
mouths on this issue.
This is a great argument against democracy.
BakedPenguin|11.5.08 @ 9:48AM|#
...it's not like he's any worse than Bush et al. on this
position.
Isn't he (and all liberals) supposed to be better on these
kinds of personal rights issues?
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 10:00AM|#
They shilled for a "christianist" socialist candidate and
ginned up turnout for a racial group that hates them and
that they didn't even need to win the
election.
I question the portion in bold.
Regardless, even Sullivan would probably take 'Obama and no Gay
Marriage in CA' over 'McCain and Gay Marriage in CA'. If for no
other reason than he isn't in CA but is in the USA.
|11.5.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I used to have a shirt that raed on the back "Go Away and Stop
Bothering Me!" I expect the gay population feels the same. I
seriously question the motives of anyone would give a rat's ass
about the personal relationships other adults choose to engage
in.
Fuckin' cunts.*
* I apologize for the obviously sexist terminology I used to
describe those I disagree with over moral issues. I could have used
dicks instead but, well, you see the problem.
|11.5.08 @ 10:16AM|#
If this passes, couldn't it be taken to the Supreme Court under the same terms as Brown v. Board of Education? I mean, most of the people for it seem to say that gays already have Civil Unions which is the same thing as a marriage just without the word. Wouldn't that come under the heading of "separate but equal"?
|11.5.08 @ 10:22AM|#
In Florida a lot of people were angry that the judicial activist courts would legislate gay marriage from the bench. So what did they do? They voted for an amendment that bans any "union" that is "substantially equivalent" to marriage. According to the FL Supreme Court, whether private contractual arrangements fall into the definition of "substantial equivalent" will be determined by the courts.
Abdul|11.5.08 @ 10:25AM|#
If this passes, couldn't it be taken to the Supreme Court
under the same terms as Brown v. Board of Education?
Two reasons why that won't happen. 1st, the current composition of
the court will not see it that way. Even if Obama gets 1 or 2
supreme court picks, he probably won't replace the court
conservatives.
Secondly, even the liberals on the court are far more gun-shy of
instituting a nation-wide social change now then they were in the
70's. They know that the general populace will hammer the Democrats
in the polls if SCOTUS ever judicially imposes gay marriage.
|11.5.08 @ 10:29AM|#
As I have posted here before, I support civil unions and
allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights and privileges
under the law as straight couples. Yet I do believe "marriage"
should continue to only refer to one man and one woman. While I
agree with Elemenope that probably one of the reasons the
African-American community is so strongly opposed to changing the
definition of marriage is because of that community's commitment to
the church, I suspect the larger reason is that the entire black
community is suffering from a lack of a strong marital foundation,
with 69% of black children being born out of wedlock. For obvious
reasons, the black community has begun to really emphasize the
importance of marriage and father's responsibilities to their
children. Expanding marriage to include gay people seems to
undercut that emphasis, by suggesting that all family structures
are equally suitable for kids - when any single mother can attest
that that is simply not true.
As for J sub D's comment, "I seriously question the motives of
anyone would give a rat's ass about the personal relationships
other adults choose to engage in," I agree that no one has any
right to judge gay people for how they live their lives. Changing
the definition of marriage, though, is a radical step which affects
everyone. It frustrates me that so many advocates of gay marriage
can't (don't want to?) believe there may be arguments against gay
marriage besides just homophobia and hypocrisy. I guess it's easier
to support something if you tell yourself that all arguments
against that thing are based in hate.
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Changing the definition of marriage, though, is a radical
step which affects everyone.
How, pray tell?
For obvious reasons, the black community has begun to really
emphasize the importance of marriage and father's responsibilities
to their children. Expanding marriage to include gay people seems
to undercut that emphasis, by suggesting that all family structures
are equally suitable for kids...
You credit bigots with higher thought processes regarding the
object of their hate. An unwise assumption. Are you really arguing
that Pro- Prop 8 voters stood in the booth and thought to
themselves "geez, if a kid can have two mothers, then people will
start to question whether we need fathers at all!".
Really?
Come on.
|11.5.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Even in California commonsense prevails. When the people are given a chance to decide they come down on the side of tradition. That's why Massachusetts wouldn't let the people vote.
|11.5.08 @ 10:37AM|#
I had to throw this out there since Jake reminded me of it. http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
rhywun|11.5.08 @ 10:49AM|#
I support civil unions and allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights and privileges under the law as straight couples.
Really? A little further down, you're implying that a child raised
by gays is just as bad off as a child raised by a single parent.
That makes no sense to me, but if you're against gays raising
children, clearly you DON'T want "same-sex couples to have the same
rights and privileges under the law as straight couples".
|11.5.08 @ 10:49AM|#
I guess they couldn't see past their fluffy little Jesus to
see fit to extend a little humanity someone else's way.
Racist!
So, does this mean that the road to gay marriage runs through a
Supreme Court ruling that the big-C Constitution's equal protection
clause requires recognition of gay marriage? Any bets on whether
Obama will make opposition to gay marriage a litmus test for his
nominees, consistent with his (professed) religious beliefs?
|11.5.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Hey Tracy and Elepomene,
I have heard those arguments before; I think everyone has. (I used
to support gay marriage, from more of a knee-jerk social-leftist
standpoint, and when called to explain my perspective, I would cite
reasons similar to those listed there.) The truth is, I think that
list makes good points and highlights holes in the anti-gay
marriage argument. But they don't, at least for me, resolve the
issue. I'd marriage is a sacred institution, which deserves a more
thoughtful discussion than flippant sophomore college-kid "problem-
solved" responses. There are very good arguments for gay marriage,
including the importance of non-discriminatory govt. policies and
the fact that many studies show children with gay parents turn out
fine.
Yet, I do worry that extending marriage to gay people opens
(further opens?) the door to making marriage an infinitely flexible
institution, which means nothing. Polygamy, inter-sibling, and
parent-child relationships would seem logical extensions of gay
marriage. And from there, why not everyone get married to each
other to form large corporations for tax relief, etc.?
I think marriage is one of the few things that make life worth
living, and it's too precious to be degraded in the way I just
described. That doesn't mean excluding gay people (or polygamous
lovers, or corporate partners, etc.) isn't problematic. It means,
to me, that we live in a real world where you often have to choose
between an array of imperfect choices.
|11.5.08 @ 10:55AM|#
The hard cold truth is this. Gays are a small percentage of
society and a large influential group in each party (blacks and
evenagelicals) are vehimently against gay marriage. Neither party
is going to push for it. The Democrats would faint if the SCOTUS
judicially imposed gay marriage. Yeah, they talk a good game about
it, but they would never want to see it happen and have it blamed
on them.
I can think of no other issue where there is a large an influential
constituency in both parties that feel the same way. Oh and as an
added bonus Hispanics hate gay marraige to. Regardless of the
merits of the argument, it is politically dead as a door nail.
|11.5.08 @ 10:59AM|#
I agree that no one has any right to judge gay people for
how they live their lives. Changing the definition of marriage,
though, is a radical step which affects everyone. It frustrates me
that so many advocates of gay marriage can't (don't want to?)
believe there may be arguments against gay marriage besides just
homophobia and hypocrisy.
As I see it, marriage in America is two seperate things.
First, it is a religious thing (the Roman Catholics consider it a
sacrament). I think most will agree that the government has no
business interfering with religious matters.
Second, it is a legal contract where two people agree to merge
their assets and responsibilities for life. By taking this very
large step they agree to court supervision in the event of the
dissolution of the contract. The state having the final say on
distribution of assets (homes, bank accounts etc.) and the
apportioning of responsibility (e.g. debt repayments, child
support).
Yes I question the motives of those who would deny same sex couples
the right to enter into these civil contracts. We can complain
about the government and employment contract benefits that are
prejudicial towards marriage, descriminating against those who do
not enter into these lifetime contracts. We can work to end things
like health insurance for spouses of government workers, immunity
from testifying against ones spouse, inheritance laws etc. and
remain consistent. Denying those benefits to same sex couples
because you are against mandated benefits for spouses and the legal
institution of marriage is simply letting the perfect be the enemy
of the good.
In a similar vein, I don't support government dollars for higher
education but I will support the ending of racial and legacy
preferences in admission to public universtities.
rhywun|11.5.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Polygamy, inter-sibling, and parent-child relationships would seem logical extensions of gay marriage.
Those things aren't "extensions" of gay marriage--they're entirely
unrelated issues that those interested parties can fight their own
battles for.
|11.5.08 @ 11:08AM|#
"Those things aren't "extensions" of gay marriage--they're
entirely unrelated issues that those interested parties can fight
their own battles for."
That depends. If marriage is something that is defined by the equal
protection clause to mean the right of doing what you wish, then
those things necessarily follow gay marriage. How can you say a gay
person is entitled under the constitution to marry another man, but
a Muslim is not entitled to have to wives? You can't.
If gay marriage comes through the legislative process as a result
of the state redefining marriage, then those things aren't related.
At that point, marriage is whatever the interests of the state
chose to define it as instead of a right. It is the language of
"rights" that drags polygomy and such into the debate on gay
marriage.
rhywun|11.5.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Oh and as an added bonus Hispanics hate gay marraige to.
Only about 50% of them, it seems, in California.
The real cold hard truth is that as long as America remains an
overwhelmingly god-fearin' nation, gays won't get marriage.
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 11:12AM|#
jake, you never answered my question.
For repetition's sake:
Changing the definition of marriage, though, is a radical step
which affects everyone.
How, pray tell?
How does a gay marriage, for instance, affect people who do not
participate in one?
How would any semantic or legal change affect the relationship (or
meaning thereof) of persons already or about to be married in the
traditional way?
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 11:13AM|#
LMNOP,
It seems icky. Also, it may lighten gay tax burdens, which hurts
everyone.
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 11:15AM|#
That depends. If marriage is something that is defined by
the equal protection clause to mean the right of doing what you
wish, then those things necessarily follow gay marriage. How can
you say a gay person is entitled under the constitution to marry
another man, but a Muslim is not entitled to have to wives? You
can't.
I see you're learning ;-)
One quibble, the 14th doesn't define marriage. The states have
large bodies of law that define rights and responsibilities of
persons that marry. The 14th says that the states cannon
descriminate in applying those laws to different persons. The 14th
could be satisfied by repealing all laws regarding marriage (ain't
gonna happen) or by applying those laws equally to all persons
wishing to join in marriage.
DarkRail|11.5.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Amen, Jake!
Ever since I've been sharing my public restrooms with darky, I've
been wondering what's next. Will people with the ebola virus and
leprosy start using my restrooms too, since toilets are now
supposedly for "everyone." Or maybe the Polish will want to shit in
my drinking fountain since it's their drinking fountain too.
America has a place for everyone. And the place for homos is in
hell. Go Jake!
(sorry, I'm a little bitter today... not too proud to be a
Californian)
|11.5.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Well, sir, I would be for the humane treatment of
humans if it didn't mean that we had to then humanely treat the
cockroaches, scorpians, and other obviously lower life forms
Sorry, but I still maintain that I'm a principaled and good
alien.
short, fat bastard|11.5.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I thought there was a "marriage penalty".
There are many.
A wife is like a girlfriend except there's no sex ;-)
|11.5.08 @ 11:25AM|#
The real cold hard truth is that as long as America remains
an overwhelmingly god-fearin' nation, gays won't get
marriage.
It's happening. Just slowly. As more states allow it and the sky
doesn't fall, more will adopt. I know it sucks, but patience is the
only recourse now.
|11.5.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Elemenope,
It's a complicated argument, and perhaps you will see it
differently than me, but here's how, in my opinion:
My feeling is that, historically, society has tended to regard
marriage as the best family structure in which to raise children.
The importance of stressing this message seems to me more important
now than ever, with 69% of African-American children being born out
of wedlock and 25% of white American kids being born out of
wedlock. And indeed, in the black community, many people are trying
to stress the importance of getting married before having children,
in order to increase the pressure on men to live up to their sexual
obligations. But this is a hard message to press when most people
aren't living their lives this way. E.g. how can one
African-American woman insist her lover marry her, when he can just
as easily date any number of other woman who aren't so demanding?
From an economists' perspective, the plight faced by many
African-American women today is the same as that faced by
bottom-wage workers whose wages are undercut by those who don't
participate in the union.
As for gay marriage, polygamy, etc., permitting them implies that
all family structures are equally suitable for raising children. It
basically says, "We as a society cannot judge which family
structures are preferable to others." Thus, by extension, being a
single parent is also equally suitable. If society wants to suggest
this, it cannot also suggest that men ought to marry women, before
having children with them. That is how it affects everyone, in my
opinion.
bored at work|11.5.08 @ 11:34AM|#
It comes down to this - hetero-sexual marriage is an institution
granted a privileged status in society for reasons that should be
obvious to anyone who got through biology 101. Namely, no
hetero-sexual relationships, no society. Marriage is a legal and
institutional recognition of that unfortunate fact, which was the
creation of nature, not politics.
There is no equivalent necessity to society that people form gay
relationships. If nobody every forms another gay relationship, no
civilizations will end, no nations will fall, and, in fact, nobody
will much miss them.
A political philosophy that requires the frivolous be considered
"equal" to the imperative, that insists that recognizing the
distinction between those things is "bigoted", that can't recognize
that the law ought to be able to treat things differently, that
are, in fact, different, is brain-dead and isn't worth the powder
to shoot it. Personally, I prefer political systems that are
grounded in reality, not sophistry.
Gay marriage is the equivalent of legal tender laws: it insists we
recognize value where most of us realize none exists.
rhywun|11.5.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Namely, no hetero-sexual relationships, no society.
I dare say that even in the absence of marriage, men and women
would somehow find a way to keep producing children.
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Jake,
You come from a very different way, and one that I will never
really agree with, of looking at gay marriage.
I have a question for you, however. Do you really think that for
raising children a 2 parent family is equivalent to a 1 person
family? Certainly no two marriages are alike, and gay marriages may
be different from heterosexual ones because of the gender of the
participants. I do not think this is a major essential difference,
but I can understand that some people would.
Do you think a child raised by two mothers (as my ex was) is worse
off than one raised by a mother and a father? And if so, do you
think that they are better or worse off than one raised by just a
mother (or father?)
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 11:49AM|#
My feeling is that, . . .
Why don't you try to make an argument based upon legal and
constitutional principles, cause no one really gives a rat's ass
what you feel.
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 11:49AM|#
BAW,
In Denmark, for example, larger and larger amounts of monogamous
couples are not getting married. They still have children, but for
some reason (which I don't personally get - I just recently got
married myself) they choose not to get married.
Do you really think marriage is essential to that sort of
relationship?
|11.5.08 @ 11:50AM|#
rhywun,
I dare say that even in the absence of marriage, men and women
would somehow find a way to keep producing children.
Archeological evidence suggests that fucking predates marriage by
millions of years. Of course, the world is only 6000 years old, so
what do those stupid scientists know?
|11.5.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Hey libertarian democrat,
I have to run down to work for about half an hour, but when I come
back, I'll respond. :)
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 12:09PM|#
My feeling is that, historically, society has tended to
regard marriage as the best family structure in which to raise
children. The importance of stressing this message seems to me more
important now than ever, with 69% of African-American children
being born out of wedlock and 25% of white American kids being born
out of wedlock. And indeed, in the black community, many people are
trying to stress the importance of getting married before having
children, in order to increase the pressure on men to live up to
their sexual obligations. But this is a hard message to press when
most people aren't living their lives this way. E.g. how can one
African-American woman insist her lover marry her, when he can just
as easily date any number of other woman who aren't so demanding?
From an economists' perspective, the plight faced by many
African-American women today is the same as that faced by
bottom-wage workers whose wages are undercut by those who don't
participate in the union.
This is an interesting game theory analysis of the choices that
African-American women must make regarding marriage, but doesn't
speak at all to the "gay marriage" angle. After all, from an
economic point of view, African-American heterosexual women are not
competing with gay men for spouses, are they? There is very little,
if any, demand overlap.
As for gay marriage, polygamy, etc., permitting them implies
that all family structures are equally suitable for raising
children. It basically says, "We as a society cannot judge which
family structures are preferable to others." Thus, by extension,
being a single parent is also equally suitable. If society wants to
suggest this, it cannot also suggest that men ought to marry women,
before having children with them. That is how it affects everyone,
in my opinion.
This is a humongous logical leap, and the point at which I really
diverge from you and think there is an error in your logic.
For a society to have said: We approve A, B, and C, it does not
follow that these approvals automatically extend to D or E.
So, in this example, if society has decided that both heterosexual
and homosexual *couples* are sufficient to provide for children, it
does not in any way follow that the society has implicitly stamped
approval for any other relationship or family structure.
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 12:14PM|#
So if the ammended CA Constitution prohibits gay marriage, does
this invalidate the marriages that already exist?
If yes, that sounds like a violation of basic legal
principles.
If not, then existing marriages are allowed but future ones are
prohibited -- this also sound like a violation of basic legal
principles.
One thing is certain, lots of legal fees will be charged to both
sides of the argument over the coming years.
|11.5.08 @ 12:25PM|#
jake -
a problem I see with your argument (and I wager, one that many here
will agree with me on) is that you take a collectivist
result-oriented view of the matter. Your argument boils down to
"the ends justify the means," as it were.
The gay people will have to not be permitted to be married by those
of us who are part of "society" because the black people can't get
their act together - is that about it?
Dello|11.5.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Doesn't the political cartoon of a Black Obama supporter and a White McCain supporter holding hands and skipping down the "No Way, Gay!" street pretty much write itself? Perhaps fawning over each other with sayings like "I love you for supporting this issue!"?
|11.5.08 @ 12:55PM|#
So, in this example, if society has decided that both
heterosexual and homosexual *couples* are sufficient to provide for
children, it does not in any way follow that the society has
implicitly stamped approval for any other relationship or family
structure.
Society may well decide both heterosexual and homosexual couples
are sufficient to provide for children, but nature has apparently
decided differently.
And fortunately, nature is impervious to the influence of moronic
political philosophies.
libertarian democrat|11.5.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Society may well decide both heterosexual and homosexual
couples are sufficient to provide for children, but nature has
apparently decided differently.
And fortunately, nature is impervious to the influence of moronic
political philosophies.
Wrong. If nature "decided" that, then there wouldn't have to be
laws or social stigma preventing adoption and marriage. Applicable
laws about child neglect and abuse would cover it. They don't, so
gays can obviously handle that well enough.
|11.5.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Society may well decide both heterosexual and homosexual
couples are sufficient to provide for children, but nature has
apparently decided differently.
Oh yes, that's it.
Just like how we shouldn't allow people to get remarried if they
get a divorce after having children. The new life partner in that
scenerio wouldn't be the child's parent just like how a child to a
gay or lesbian couple wouldn't have both parents as biological. Oh
yes, i'm totally feeling this logic.
We shouldn't allow people to adopt children, because if you're not
the biological parent, there's no sense in you raising a
child.
Oh, and why do we expect people to have children after they get
married? Mr. no-name here has correctly identified a marriage as
something that's only useful if a couple has a child, so shouldn't
having a child be a prerequisite to getting married?
All this works out so logically
I can't believe all you stupidly naive libertarians who think
otherwise.
For a magazine called Reason...
the innominate one|11.5.08 @ 1:04PM|#
a name before submitting the form | November 5, 2008, 9:35am
| #
They would have to find another new right in the constitution that
wasn't there before, so yea, it's doable.
see: 9th amendment
kinnath - that does sound like an ex post facto law,
doesn't it
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 1:15PM|#
kinnath - that does sound like an ex post facto law, doesn't
it
Gay Marriage should be a straightforward 14th ammendment issue.
Either the 14th prohibits laws banning gay marriage or it doesn't
(depending on the make up of SCOTUS at any given time).
But CA has a new wrinkle in that gay marriage is legal today (per
CA's supreme court). So banning it now throught constitutional
ammendment gets into interesting territory.
|11.5.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Okay I'm back.
libertarian democrat:
Here are my thoughts: Ideally, every child could be born and raised
by a loving and married biological mother and father. Of course, I
realize we live in a real world, where that is not possible. I
certainly support (and admire) gay couples who choose to adopt
children in need of families, (but am admittedly more hesitant
about those who go to a sperm bank since that reducese a father to
simply sperm, and am decidedly anxious about those who go the
surrogate-mother route, since that involves actively planning ahead
to take a baby away from her mother).
Elemenope:
I don't understand why you feel like I make a "humongous logical
leap." It seems to me that the basic argument for gay marriage,
polygamy, etc. is that society can't claim to know which family
structure is ideal for children. By this logic, who is to say if
marriage is ideal or not? Perhaps you mean that society could still
uphold a married couple as the ideal, even with gay marriage. But I
guess I just can't say in all faith that a gay couple is
necessarily preferable to a single mom. As long as we're talking
ideals, every child deserves a mother, in my opinion.
Elemenope|11.5.08 @ 1:43PM|#
It seems to me that the basic argument for gay marriage,
polygamy, etc. is that society can't claim to know which family
structure is ideal for children.
Where is this coming from? I've supported gay marriage for a long
time, and I've never heard this line of argumentation before.
Methinks it is a straw man. Twofold, since it first assumes that
the primary social purpose for marriage is the raising of children,
and second because it assumes some statement is being made about
the suitability of a society to determine anything with regards to
efficacy or efficiency.
While I can't directly speak for anyone else, I know I believe in
gay marriage as a simple equality issue, and I could literally care
less whether it has a salutary effect on child-rearing or familial
stability or anything else. The vast majority of supporters I've
heard frame it in the same way.
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 1:50PM|#
While I can't directly speak for anyone else, I know I
believe in gay marriage as a simple equality issue, and I could
literally care less whether it has a salutary effect on
child-rearing or familial stability or anything else.
Ditto with minor edit: I could literally not care
less whether it has a salutary effect on child-rearing or familial
stability or anything else.
Ravac|11.5.08 @ 1:51PM|#
And fortunately, nature is impervious to the influence of
moronic political philosophies.
This is true. Many animal species have no laws regarding monogamy,
polygamy, or homosexual marriage.
Lotta single mothers out there!
|11.5.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Big clue stick: gay marriage and gay rights in general are
largely upper middle class white issues. Look at the color and
affluence of those watching and participating in Gay Pride™
parades. Look the the color and affluence of those churches with
gay pastors. Look at the color and affluence of those who stood in
line in San Francisco and Boston to get married. And last week I
didn't see any variance in skin color among those on street corners
waving No on 8 signs.
Yeah, lots of poor and minority folk are gay, but they are
outnumbered by their white up and coming [sic] brethren.
The big Obama push got a huge turnout from poor and minority
demographics, but those same demographics don't tend to be very
supportive of gay rights.
|11.5.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Elemenope:
I agree with you; I think most gay-marriage supporters come from
the equality perspective, and only go to the "Society can't claim
to know, etc." argument when countered with the natural argument
that the whole point of marriage is to protect children.
Of course, given what you have acknowledged, then the question
becomes: what is marriage for? I'd argue that the whole point of
marriage is to nurture children and family stability, but then I'd
get a mouthful about how we allow infertile couples to marry, how
we allow divorce, etc. So who knows? I think marriage is a very
strange institution, which means a lot of different things to a lot
of different people.
|11.5.08 @ 2:09PM|#
"I think marriage is a very strange institution, which means a
lot of different things to a lot of different people."
Does that argue against using a single specific definition or
meaning of marriage in order to legally enshrine inequality between
two groups of people with regard to their right to marry?
|11.5.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Simple solution to the whole mess: Some brainy libertarian
lawyer come up with a boilerplate marriage contract. It needs to be
simple, easy to understand, and creates a legal partnership. It
needs to grant visitation rights "in sickness and in health",
inheritance and joint property rights "for better or for worse",
etc. Then have a nice signing ceremony with tuxes and gowns and
organ music and throwing rice, and forget all about asking
the state for permission.
Then the task becomes much simpler: get the state to uphold valid
contracts. The whole "yuck" factor never need enter into it, as
once a court upholds contractual visitation rights for traditional
couples, their rulings will also apply to non-traditional couples
and groups.
kinnath|11.5.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Some brainy libertarian lawyer come up with a boilerplate
marriage contract.
No private civil contract can immunize someone from testifying in
court against the other parties in the contract.
Until such time as the law is altered to allow the state to force
someone to testify against his or he spouse, there can be no
private replacement for the legal institution of marriage.
|11.5.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Sparky,
I think it means keeping the door open for further discussion. And
I think it means not attacking everyone who disagrees with gay
marriage as bigoted, as many have done to me in this thread.
P.S. For the record, I live in one of the states that had a gay
marriage ban this time, and I voted against it, precisely because I
recognize the issue is complicated.
Mad Max|11.13.08 @ 12:50PM|#
"How can you tell 1,000s of people who have gotten married that
you're going to take it back?"
Good question - why not ask the spouses victimized by the "no fault
divorce" revolution. At the time they got married, the laws allowed
divorce only for some kind of misconduct. Then no-fault got passed
and your spouse could legally repudiate you for any reason which
struck their fancy. They could even repudiate you to preserve their
option of switching to a new model (previously picked out). So,
after being offered legal guarantees for the permanence of your
marriage so long as you avoided marital misconduct (adultery,
abuses, crime, drunkenness), you can get cast aside anyway.
But only now it seems, do we hear how horrible it is to dissolve
marriages for reasons unheard of when the marriages were
contracted.
"On the other hand, due to repression, the church has become the
center of many African-Americans' lives. I guess they couldn't see
past their fluffy little Jesus to see fit to extend a little
humanity someone else's way."
Why can't those dumb, superstitious Negroes be more tolerant?
And again, for the miscegenation argument - those laws were
*innovations,* abrogating an even earlier tradition that marriage
does not depend on race. These laws started in some
English-speaking Protestant colonies in the 1600s, where they
rejected the sacred, sacramental character of marriage, rejecting
over a thousand years of Christian tradition.
Nor did every state have such laws, and large numbers of states
which had such laws repealed their laws before the U.S. Supreme
Court (with the support of the Catholic Church) declared
interracial marriage to be a positive-law right under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the famous California Supreme Court case in 1948 which legalized
interracial marriage, it was the interracial couple which invoked
religious freedom. The majority of the state court ruled for the
couple on religious-freedom grounds. The deciding vote was cast by
a justice who said that there was no compelling government interst
in overruling such a deeply-rooted religious practice. It was the
dissenting judges - the ones who wanted interracial marriage banned
- who called for separation of religion and state by saying that
the government's (alleged) *secular* reasons for promoting racial
purity overruled the silly religious superstitions about God making
of one blood all races.
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