Can an openly gay judge rule on the constitutionality of a same sex marriage ban? That was the question that supporters of Proposition 8 posed before a federal court.
The court, in a 21-page opinion, denied the motion to vacate the judgment. The movers in the suit argued that Judge Walker should have been disqualified from presiding over this case based on “statutes require a federal judge to recuse if, inter alia, the judge has a substantial non-pecuniary interest in the case, or if there is some fact that brings the impartiality of the judge reasonably into question. If the judge does not recuse, a motion for disqualification may be made by a party.”
After Judge Walker had retired and appeal was pending, it was reported that Judge Walker is gay and is in a same-sex relationship.
Supporters of Proposition 8 argued that Judge Walker stood to personally gain from his own verdict.
Last month, Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU of Northern California and Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Perry v. Brown, urging the U.S. District Court not to vacate last year’s historic ruling invalidating Proposition 8.
The brief contended that the Prop 8 supporters’ motion closely parallels long-discredited historical attempts to disqualify judges based on their race, sex or religion.
The groups argued that the Prop 8 supporters’ argument boils down to the notion that essentially no gay, lesbian or bisexual judge could impartially preside over a case involving the rights of same-sex couples – an offensive suggestion that has been consistently rejected by the courts in similar cases involving race and sex discrimination.
Ted Olson, the attorney representing same-sex couples who sued to overturn proposition 8, argued this would create an untenable standard under which no one could judge over any civil rights type case.
“What would a judge do who was Mormon, knowing the Mormon Church took such an active role” in campaigning for Prop. 8, Mr. Olson asked, according to the Associated Press. “What would a judge who had a nephew or niece or son or daughter who was gay or lesbian do? We have an unlimited number of permutations of what a judge might be asked to disclose.”
The US District Court for Northern California, in the ruling against the movers, concluded, “that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4).”
The court added, “Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings.”
They later added, “The fact that a federal judge shares a fundamental characteristic with a litigant, or shares membership in a large association such as a religion, has been categorically rejected by federal courts as a sole basis for requiring a judge to recuse her or himself.”
While there has not been a specific ruling that would consider whether a “judge presiding over a same-sex marriage case who is also in a same-sex relationship has a disqualifying non-pecuniary interest,” the court argued that other courts have held that “where federal judges have possessed speculative [non-pecuniary] interests as members of large groups, these interests [are] too attenuated to
warrant disqualification [under Section 455(b)(4)].”
They thus argued, “These cases lead the Court to adopt the following legal conclusion: In a case that could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public, the fact that a federal judge happens to share the same circumstances or characteristic and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public, is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4).”
The Court found that “Judge Walker was not required to recuse himself under Section 455(b)(4) on the ground that he was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship and, thus, could reap speculative benefit from an injunction halting enforcement of Proposition 8 in California.”
They noted, “In particular, in a case involving laws restricting the right of various members of the public to marry, any personal interest that a judge gleans as a member of the public who might marry is too attenuated to warrant recusal.”
“Today’s ruling is another heartening victory in our struggle for equality. We applaud the court for rejecting the pathetic attempts by Prop 8 backers to viciously malign Judge Walker,” said Jim Carroll, Interim Executive Director of Equality California.
He added: “Because proponents of the marriage ban have repeatedly failed to present even a shred of evidence to support the insidious discrimination that Prop 8 fosters, they tried and failed to hide behind groundless, shameful arguments to discredit Judge Walker – arguments that fail to hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. As more and more Americans support equality and freedom, we are hopeful that families headed by same-sex couples will one day soon see justice. Thanks to the American Foundation for Equal Rights and its talented legal team for their ongoing commitment to this noble fight.”
Commentary
This ruling only makes sense. After all, some might argue a black judge could not reasonably sit over a civil rights suit since the ruling might favorably impact him personally. That clearly has not not been established practice. Moreover, why would a black judge be more impacted over anti-discrimination policies than a white judge?
The court makes this point as well, arguing, “Requiring recusal because a court issued an injunction that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases.”
The court rightly adds, “Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute.”
The supporters of Proposition 8 have argued for a ban on same sex marriages as a form of protection for marriage. But if they argue that a gay judge is conflicted out, is not a Christian or a straight person similarly impacted, based on their very own arguments?
It is one thing if the judge has a direct stake in the case, in terms that the general public does not have. However, having the same stake as any other member of the public should not force any judge to recuse himself or herself from a case.
Those who brought forth this motion deny this is based on bias against gay or lesbian judges, or based on the broad proposition that a gay or lesbian judge is incapable of being fair if sexual orientation is an issue in a case.
But it would seem that is exactly what is being alleged here. By bringing forward this motion, it would seem to show bias precisely against a judge solely on the basis of sexual orientation, while ignoring the fact that potentially a straight judge of Christian religious affiliation might have the same bias, but in the other direction.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Today’s ruling is another heartening victory in our struggle for equality.”
today’s ruling represents nothing of the sort, it shows if a group gets fanatical enough, it can override the voters will by hook or by crook. the voters struck down gay marriage by a majority, yet the minority is ruling here. And just where does this concept of equality come in? all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. and you are the most equal if you happen to support the most politically correct forms of thought.
Altho I am not in favor of halting the enforcement of Prop 8 for various reasons, I agree with the courts ruling here. While Vaughn’s sexual orientation would explain perhaps why he would lean in favor of declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, I don’t see how it would disqualify him from rendering a decision in the case.
But like Musser, I do feel the will of the majority has been thwarted by a vocal minority. As such, it sets a dangerous precedent that the will of the people can be overturned if the protest group gets aggressive and loud enough. There is no “will of the people” anymore in CA…
Musser: [i]it shows if a group gets fanatical enough, it can override the voters will by hook or by crook. the voters struck down gay marriage by a majority, yet the minority is ruling here.[/i]
With your position, do you think you would you have taken a “states’ rights” stance on civil rights issues of the 50’s and 60’s when the Warren Court overturned Jim Crow laws and Congress passed the Civil Rights act(s)?
Excellent point, wdf1. If segregation had been put to a popular vote, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and interracial marriage would still be a crime. Some things should never appear on a ballot and the choice to deny large segments of the population their basic civil rights is one of those things.
[quote]With your position, do you think you would you have taken a “states’ rights” stance on civil rights issues of the 50’s and 60’s when the Warren Court overturned Jim Crow laws and Congress passed the Civil Rights act(s)?[/quote]
That is then, this is now… are you really going to argue the times are the same?
“After Judge Walker had retired and appeal was pending, it was reported that Judge Walker is gay and is in a same-sex relationship.”
This is not true. Judge Walker’s homosexuality was well-known in San
Francisco and was reported on in the newspapers well before the appeal or his retirement.
Judge Walker attempted but failed to get this trial televised as this was the policy of the Federal Courts. He publicly made it clear BEFORE the trial what his position was on the issue before him. I would expect this ruling to be appealed.
ERM: [i]That is then, this is now… are you really going to argue the times are the same?[/i]
I’m talking about the kinds of legal justification that you and your son are making.
The civil rights era included legal arguments that states (with majority support) had the right to enact laws that restricted civil rights of a minority group vs. the federal position that this violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It appears to be a similar situation now. If my comparison is off base, then please explain why.
[quote]But like Musser, I do feel the will of the majority has been thwarted by a vocal minority. As such, it sets a dangerous precedent that the will of the people can be overturned if the protest group gets aggressive and loud enough. There is no “will of the people” anymore in CA…
[/quote]
This case is the test of the constitutionality of the will of the people, who are not entitled to place an unconstitutional prohibitiion on the rights of others.
Proposition 8 passed narrowly enough that you can hardly call those of us who opposed it a fanatical special interest group. But even if we were, the constitutionality of this issue needs to be addressed and decided. Because if it’s not consitutional, the “will of the people” is irrelevent.
[i]” right to enact laws that restricted civil rights of a minority group”[/i]
By differentiating gay civil unions from traditional marriage, are gays persecuted and harmed similarly as was the basis for and justification for civil rights legislation?
“Equal protection”? What are we protecting gays from… the stigma of not being able to claim they are the same as a traditional married couple? Wow, let me lose sleep over that. Legislated social engineering won’t work to change minds on this. Gays can claim they are married today, but at the park pushing their baby stroller, all traditional married parents will note them as different. That should be okay.
Show me a person with indignation exceeding any rational perspective, and I will introduce to you a person that will always find another source of indignation. When they group together they become a real drag. Next stop… gay rights activists and the ACLU file lawsuits against private churches for refusing to marry gay couples.
I read that folks in Utah are gearing up for a fight to get man-woman-woman marriage legalized. Why not? Even if the will of the people rejects it, all we need is a polygamous judge to overturn their rejection.
What really frosts me is the tactics of the activist working to change the definition of marriage to include non-traditional members… they use the courts to overturn the will of the people while they demand the will of the people overturn the decisions of elected representative. To hell with principles when you are trying to get your way, eh?
[i]”He publicly made it clear BEFORE the trial what his position was on the issue before him.”[/i]
What fantasy world are you living in? Produce some evidence that Walker ‘publicly made clear’ his position on gay marriage ‘before the trial.’
D2, just because you have a right to your own opinions, you don’t have a right to your own (made up) facts.
Excellent Column in today’s Sacramento Bee:
[b][quote]Marcos Breton: Another ruling backs gay marriage:[/b]
Little by little, in one court ruling after another, the legal opposition to gay marriage is being discredited.
It happened again Tuesday when lawyers against gay marriage were shot down in federal court after trying and failing to assassinate the character of a judge who had ruled against them.
Vaughn Walker, the former chief judge of the U.S. district court in San Francisco, had ruled that Proposition 8 – California’s gay marriage ban – was unconstitutional. “Traditional” marriage lawyers didn’t go after Walker on the merits of his ruling. They went after him because it was later learned that he is gay.
So what? Does that mean that African American judges can’t rule on affirmative action cases? Or that female judges can’t rule on reproductive rights? Or Latino judges can’t rule on immigration cases?
Walker’s successor, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, dismissed the argument Tuesday. “The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public … is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” Ware wrote.
[u]Frankly, this is what gay marriage opponents always do. During the Proposition 8 campaign of 2008, they played on fears and biases. They mobilized people in the faith community who were moved by ancient interpretations of what marriage should be. They also scared enough people with manipulative commercials that warned of gay marriage being taught in schools.
In Walker’s court, gay marriage opponents were defeated when Walker ruled that arguments against same-sex marriage denied gay people due process and equal protection under the law.
Many counter that Proposition 8 was the will of the people. Indeed it was, but was it constitutional?[/u]
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering that question and whether Walker’s ruling was right.
Regardless of his sexual orientation, how can Walker not be right?
It’s one thing for Catholic leaders to deny gay marriage because they are moved by centuries-old canon law.
But how can a secular government deny gay marriage?
Whenever I’ve asked this question, I always get one in return: Are you gay?
No, I’m not.
[u]The ideas being promoted here are due process and equal protection under the law. We either believe in them or we don’t.
It’s true that our religious beliefs can inform law. But they can’t dictate law.[/u]
In clear and concise language, Walker essentially wrote that while striking down Proposition 8 last year.
Then the losing lawyers went after him. Gay marriage opponents couldn’t beat him with reason or intellectual might. So they tried to discredit him personally and lost.
They better get used to it.[/quote]
Excellent editorial today by the Sacramento Bee:
[b][quote]Editorial: A clear rejection of unwarranted attack on judge[/b]
On the merits and the law, those who want to ban same-sex marriage in California lost a landmark ruling last August. So they resorted to a ridiculous personal attack against the judge who threw out Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of gays and lesbians. Judge Vaughn Walker, the Prop. 8 proponents asserted, could not be fair and should have been disqualified because he didn’t disclose that was in a decadelong relationship with another man – a fact he did not confirm until after he retired in February.
Thankfully, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed that challenge and upheld a principle at the core of our legal system.
Every judge brings his or her personal beliefs and life experience to a case. But jurists take a solemn oath to put all that aside and to be impartial. Why should judges who happen to be gay be held to a different standard?
“This is the first case where a same-sex relationship is the subject for disqualifying a judge, so it is important that we treat it seriously and get it right,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said during a hearing Monday.
With his ruling, he did.
“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” Ware wrote.
Federal judges can be disqualified from a case if they have a financial interest in the outcome, a close friendship with litigants, or a strong personal bias. Ware forcefully reinforced that a judge’s race, gender, religious affiliation and, yes, sexual orientation isn’t enough by itself.
The Prop. 8 proponents insisted that they weren’t saying that Walker, who was randomly selected to hear the case, should have been disqualified just because he was gay. The issue, they said, was that he was in “the exact same shoes” as the gay and lesbian couples who brought the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8 and could personally benefit from his own decision.
But by their logic, female judges could be challenged from presiding over sexual harassment, abortion or equal pay cases. As Ware asked, would black judges like himself be barred from civil rights cases? Would reverse discrimination cases be off limits to white male judges? Would heterosexual ones be forbidden from taking on gay rights cases? Where would you draw the line?
The ultimate fate of Prop. 8, the ballot measure that voters approved in 2008 banning same-sex unions in the state, will almost certainly be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. It should be decided on the law, not on the kinds of spurious arguments that were rightly rejected Tuesday.[/quote]
For once I agree with Sanity Defense here.
Mussers, David and Elaine: is it your position that the majority of people can vote to deny a minority of people rights?
I suspect that your response here will be that you do not believe that this violates the [constitutional] rights of oe group of people. That is certainly your right to believe, but that would seem a question that the courts have to decide. No?
On a related subject the San Francisco Chronicle reports today:
[b][quote]Bankruptcy court blasts Defense of Marriage Act:[/b]
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer – Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The latest legal manifesto for gay rights comes from an unlikely source – the nation’s largest federal bankruptcy court, which declared that a law denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
[u]”This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection” from creditors, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles said Monday.
“In this court’s judgment, no legally married couple should be entitled to fewer bankruptcy rights than any other legally married couple.”
The law that the court said is unconstitutional is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows only male-female couples to claim federal marriage benefits and authorizes states to deny recognition to same-sex couples legally wed elsewhere.[/u] The benefits include money-saving joint income tax returns, Social Security survivors’ payments and the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration. They also include joint bankruptcy filings, which allow people in economic distress to avoid paying multiple filing fees and let couples use their pooled income to pay each other’s creditors, said Robert Pfister, lawyer for the Los Angeles couple challenging the 1996 law.
[b]No purpose:[/b] Denying such benefits to a legally married same-sex couple serves no purpose in a bankruptcy case, the court said, noting that the couple’s creditors have not objected to their joint filing.
“Creditors in this case, as in other cases, simply hope to be paid what they are owed,” the court said. “Beyond that, no creditor’s notion of morality concerning a same-sex marriage … has any valid bearing on the creditor’s rights in this case.” At least 10 suits challenging the 1996 law are pending around the nation, including cases in San Francisco and Oakland seeking insurance coverage for same-sex spouses of government employees. But only one other federal court, in Massachusetts, has declared the law unconstitutional.
[i]Continuing….On a related subject the San Francisco Chronicle reports today:[/i]
[u]President Obama had criticized the law but defended it in court until February, when he said he now considered it unconstitutional and told his Justice Department to withdraw from the cases. House Republican leaders have appointed a private attorney, Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to take over the defense.[/u]
[b]No-show in L.A.:[/b] Clement filed arguments in the San Francisco case June 3, saying the law was justified by tradition and biological differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. He also accused Obama of abandoning his constitutional duties.
But Clement has yet to appear in the bankruptcy case, even though the court delayed the proceedings for two weeks at House leaders’ request, Pfister said. Clement’s office did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Pfister’s clients, Gene Balas and Carlos Morales, married in August 2008, three months after the California Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians had a right to wed in the state and less than three months before voters overturned that ruling by passing Proposition 8. The couple filed for bankruptcy in February, citing medical bills, illnesses and periods of unemployment since Balas was laid off in 2009 from his job in the financial industry. Pfister said the Chapter 13 filing was intended to establish a five-year repayment plan, but the federal bankruptcy trustee said the joint application violated the 1996 law.
[b]’Strong message’:[/b] [u]The bankruptcy court’s ruling was signed by 20 of the court’s 24 judges, with no dissent. Bankruptcy cases are usually heard by a single judge, and Pfister said he’d never heard of a ruling signed by that many jurists. “I think it sends a very strong message,” he said.[/u]
No one appeared in defense of the law, but the court cited arguments against same-sex marriage that members of Congress and government lawyers have invoked in the past – that a ban is needed to encourage heterosexual marriage and child-rearing, maintain traditional morality and save the government money. [u]The law serves none of those purposes, and instead amounts to an attempt to enact “the moral views of the majority … as the law of the land,” the judges said.[/u]
[b]Legal trend:[/b] [u]The ruling comes in the wake of a federal judge’s decision in August striking down Prop. 8, and another federal judge’s ruling in September overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that barred openly gay or lesbian troops from serving in the military.[/u] Congress later voted to repeal that law, but it remains in effect during a Pentagon review.
Monday’s ruling is binding only on bankruptcy judges in the Los Angeles district. It can be appealed to a federal judge or to a special panel of bankruptcy judges. But if Clement files a government appeal, Pfister said, his clients will seek immediate review in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is also considering the same-sex marriage case.
Bankruptcy and all other technicalities related to civil unions can be addressed with policy changes… instead they are being used by the gay power activists as a disingenuous weapon of marriage destruction.
“If segregation had been put to a popular vote, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and interracial marriage would still be a crime. “
This is hardly the case. You wouldn’t get 10% of the population voting for such things today.
Now let me say that I favor marriage rights for gays. But the arguments for it that are advanced here are absurd.
The underlying issue is whether having marriage limited to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. To assert that it is, you need to claim that the writers of the constitution intended it to be interpreted on this issue to mean that one could not restrict gay marriage. Such a claim is preposterous. If you had made such a claim to any of the writers of the constitution you would have been considered deranged.
Something isn’t unconstitutional just because it doesn’t fit into your moral code of what is right and wrong. What we have here is a left-wing ideology imposing itself on society, no different than when religious extremists try to impose their moral codes on society.
The issue of civil rights is very different, and was resolved, in part, by constitutional amendments.
“Produce some evidence….”
It was some time ago now but a search of SF Chronicle archives would reveal a regular Chronicle commentator article ,at that time, discussing Judge Walker’s lifestyle. His personal passion(bias?) on this issue was
suggested in his attempt to get this trial on TV, in the face of a long-established prohibition in the Federal Court system .His public comments concerning the “damage” he felt was done to the self-esteem of gays when society denies them the ability to be married, IMO, strongly suggested a personal position/bias.
Judge Walker should have recused himself. The fact that he did not is reason to suspect bias. Judges should be hyper sensitive to the consideration of bias and be ultra conservative in their decisions for what cases to hear or not hear.
American attitudes toward inter-racial marriage: [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx[/url]
So 25 years after Loving v Virginia, you could have had a majority vote in favor of prohibiting inter-racial marriage. The California Supreme Court ruled against interracial marriage in 1948 at a time when there was even less approval. It often falls to the courts to protect minorities from the preferences of the majority.
[i]”To assert that it is, you need to claim that the writers of the constitution intended it to be interpreted on this issue to mean that one could not restrict gay marriage.”[/i]
The writers of the constitution held many views that we might find inapplicable or even repugnant today. Strict constructionism has its limits. Its use by Republicans and conservatives is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. Further back, strict constructionism was used by post-Civil-War Democrats to try to restrain the federal government during Reconstruction. A strong adherence to strict constructionism seems to be more a matter of political convenience than historical consistency.
“Judge Walker should have recused himself. The fact that he did not is reason to suspect bias.”
If Walker should have recused himself because he is Gay then who should have judged the case? Would you automatically assume a heterosexual is somehow less biased?
Also, all of the polls I have read indicate the Prop 8 election outcome would be different today – times are a changing!
J.B.: [i]Judge Walker should have recused himself. The fact that he did not is reason to suspect bias. Judges should be hyper sensitive to the consideration of bias and be ultra conservative in their decisions for what cases to hear or not hear.[/i]
Does that mean that a hypothetical heterosexual judge should have to recuse himself from such a case because he might be biased the other way? Who would be an appropriate judge?
[i]”The writers of the constitution held many views that we might find inapplicable or even repugnant today.”[/i]
And, those writers of the constitution would find many of today’s views repugnant. They would certainly be scratching their wigs in consideration of the social implications of gay marriage.
I have somewhat a related question… has the number of gays as a percentage of the total population increased since the late 1700s? Unlike racial issues, I don’t find any historical record of discussion about this topic of gay rights.
In a previous discussion with a gay friend I posed the question of “biological correctness”, and he had an interesting response that we may be experiencing a macro biological shift in more homosexuality. Considering this; a measurable decline in male testosterone production; anti-male political correctness; changes to the role of traditional men resulting from the woman’s movement legislating female preference in the name of equality… it seems we are “progressing” to some unknown definition of gender and sexuality. Anthony Weiners aside, it is difficult to know if this is something to resist, something to look forward to, or something to ignore as inevitable. My sense is that it is something to resist for a three reasons. One – biology: homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce and gendered parents play an important role in raising children who also need to develop their sexuality. Two: if it is a natural macro biological shift, or if it is right or inevitable, it benefits from a struggle to prove it. Three: I have sons and I am much more worried about sons than I am daughters these days.
[i]JB: Judges should be hyper sensitive to the consideration of bias and be ultra conservative in their decisions for what cases to hear or not hear. [/i]
Using this definition there could never be an unbiased judge as there will always be some criteria that critics can use to impugn a decision. Judge Walker was correct not to recuse himself, which was confirmed in this ruling.
Attack Judge Walker’s decision on its merits if you can, not on the basis of his personal life.
With homosexuals not being able to be married there is alot of legal “fraud” happening. If they are married, there would be held to the same accountability has heterosexuals when it comes to paying taxes, qualifying for loans, public assistance, adoptions, etc. I will give you an example. If there is a gay couple living together and they are not legally married, one is working and the other is not. The one that is not working can go to Social Services and apply for government assistance and the income of the spouse will not be counted. Does that sound right? I believe that the civil unions play into their favors as far as spousal benefits but the regulations are completely different for married couples. In another case, you have a lesbian with over $140k a year income. Her spouse who is not working, moves her mother into the home and applies for in house support services. Now that spouse is recieving a pay check to take care of her own mother. If they were married, she would have been considered over income and not received the services. This is not the only reason for the equality but remember that equal means in all aspects. Times Are changing. California is the true melting pot. We have more diversity and acceptance than any other state. So why shouldnt we take the lead in this?
[quote]”If segregation had been put to a popular vote, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and interracial marriage would still be a crime. “
This is hardly the case. You wouldn’t get 10% of the population voting for such things today. [/quote]
But a lot of that is due to the fact that it has been illegal for fifty years. You have several generations born not knowing segregation.
Tecnichick: Again all these things can be handled with policy changes for civil unions. Think equal rights, but different labels. Similar to boys and girls, Democrats and Republicans, Latinos and Jews. We need labels to help us keep track of our differences, so we can work at being tolerant and accepting of those differences.
Your point about CA taking the lead… there are many indications that CA leads with something other than a full intellectual faculty… we tend to just do what feels good at the time without much consideration of consequences.
[i]”Using this definition there could never be an unbiased judge as there will always be some criteria that critics can use to impugn a decision.”[/i]
Obvioulsy there is a need for objective consideration. Judges do recuse themselves, right? Under what circumstances? Why is this decision any different? It is a political and emotional issue… and likely a very personal issue for a gay judge… one that has some record of speaking out on related topics.
[i]”Also, all of the polls I have read indicate the Prop 8 election outcome would be different today – times are a changing!”[/i]
Be wary of equating poll numbers with voting outcomes in a case like this. I agree with the general point that the hatred of homosexuals in our society is decling rapidly. Within 10-20 years I think there will be a majority of voters in a majority of states who will vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage. But for now, even in California, I don’t think there is a majority of the voting population which agrees with you or me.
For one thing, a high percentage of the hatred of gays is among older voters; and a high percentage of the population which favors equal treatment when it comes to marriage is young. Old people vote in high percentages. Young people don’t.
Another factor is the intensity of belief about this issue. Those who hate homosexuality the most are highly religious. They intensely believe homosexuality is a sin against nature. The Mormon Church, for one, was very outspoken in this regard. That’s why many religious Mormon’s fought Prop 8 so vigorously.
On the other hand, a large percentage of people who favor equal rights are personally unaffected by a change in the law*. I fit in this category. I’m not religious and not gay. I voted against Prop 8, but with no more passion than I vote on any issue. Very often people with no passion on an issue just don’t vote at all.
A final factor with regard to the polls is this: It is probably the case that some who oppose gay marriage are lying to pollsters. You can generally figure out which side in any debate is the politically correct side. Here it is the pro-gay marriage side. People on the wrong side of political correctness will sometimes not want to admit that. So they simply say they have no opinion or they favor gay marriage. Then when they get in the secret voting booth, they vote against the gays.
*I would imagine almost all gays voted No on Prop 8; and likewise would vote in favor of a measure legalizing gay marriage. They surely have passion and intensity on this issue. But their real problem is that they are a small minority — 5 percent or so** — compared with the large percentage of our population which takes its cues from god-fearing holy men:
[img]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/haggard.jpg[/img]
** ([url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx[/url]) “A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than “occasional” homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says “around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual.” The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.”
Let me put a different perspective on this discussion. I am all for equal rights for gays. I just don’t want to redefine the definition of conventional marriage to get there. It is as simple as that.
[i]JB: It is a political and emotional issue… and likely a very personal issue for a gay judge…[/i]
Your passion on this issue suggests that it is equally political and emotional for non-gay individuals as well. Does that not suggest to you that a non-gay judge could be viewed as equally biased? Where do you draw the line?
[i]ERM: I am all for equal rights for gays. I just don’t want to redefine the definition of conventional marriage to get there.[/i]
Marriage is both a civil right, and a religious rite, but those two things are not the same. If we look ONLY at the civil right then IF any two people are allowed to marry, then any OTHER two people should be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender, race, social status or political persuasion. Without that, one class of citizens will be denied the rights allowed another. If Civil Unions are to be equal to Civil Marriage, then they should be identical. Separate but equal doesn’t work.
None of this however has ANY impact on the religious rite, so your church is welcome to discriminate as much as they choose. The issue is not religious, it is a one of Civil Rights, and all should have the access to the same.
When the will of the majority is unconstitutional ( discriminatory) , the constitution takes precedence.
“That is then, this is now…..are you really going to argue the times are the same?”
No, but I am going to argue that discrimination is always the same.
“ What are we protecting these gays from ?”
1) From being denied equal rights and responsibilities under the law.
2) We are protecting the right of a same sex life partner to have the same hospital visiting rights as a heterosexual partner
3) We are making sure that adoptive rights are the same for homosexual as heterosexual partners.
“But at the park pushing their baby stroller, all traditional married parents will note them as different”
Noting differences is fine, discriminating based on them is not. I am a heterosexual mother, and I have no problem with two mothers or fathers giving loving attention to their child at a park, any more than I would object to parents of another race or religion caring for their child. If they are hanging out at the park with their child, they are obviously not threatening anyone else.
“to hell with principles when you are trying to get your way”
For instance as when trying to continue to discriminate against an unpopular minority?
“…as a disingenuous weapon of marriage destruction”
No, Jeff. These f”olks do not want to destroy marriage. They want to participate in it in the same way that you and I have been able to because of our heterosexual orientation. You perceive it as an attempt to destroy marriage because of your narrow definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman. The nuclear family as we have defined it has neither anthropologic nor biblical support as the only viable family structure.
“homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally”
Neither can a number of heterosexual couples who suffer from infertility. Should they not be allowed to marry ?
“…gendered parents play an important role in raising children who also need to develop their sexuality”
I would like to see your objective data to support this statement.
“ It is a political and emotional issue….and likely is very personal for a gay judge…”
Probably no more so than for a heterosexual judge who feels that traditional marriage is somehow threatened by allowing homosexuals the same marital rights as heterosexuals.
[quote][i]ERM: I am all for equal rights for gays. I just don’t want to redefine the definition of conventional marriage to get there.[/i]
Mark West: Marriage is both a civil right, and a religious rite, but those two things are not the same. If we look ONLY at the civil right then IF any two people are allowed to marry, then any OTHER two people should be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender, race, social status or political persuasion. Without that, one class of citizens will be denied the rights allowed another. If Civil Unions are to be equal to Civil Marriage, then they should be identical. Separate but equal doesn’t work.
None of this however has ANY impact on the religious rite, so your church is welcome to discriminate as much as they choose. The issue is not religious, it is a one of Civil Rights, and all should have the access to the same. [/quote]
Mark, well said! All marriages in America are essentially civil, but not all marriages are religious. In America our government cannot establish a religion and conversely no religion or discriminatory view points should establish or dictate what a civil marriage between two consenting adults should be or called. In 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional the court did not call mixed race marriages anything but marriage. Equal Protection under the Law requires that a secular government treat all its citizens equally regardless of their race, gender, religious affiliation and sexual orientation. To do otherwise is a flat out discriminatory action which segregates people from being treated as equals.
More good news – Equality Marches Onward!
[quote][b]New York Gay Marriage: State Assembly Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill[/b]
First Posted: 06/15/11 09:52 PM ET Updated: 06/16/11 12:02 AM ET
[img]
[/img]
By Dan Wiessner
ALBANY, June 15 (Reuters) – The New York state Assembly approved same-sex marriage on Wednesday and the bill is likely to face a vote in the Senate on Friday, where it only needs support from one more senator to pass. The Democrat-dominated Assembly voted 80 to 63 in favor of the marriage equality bill introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat in his first year in office.
The state-by-state battle over gay marriage has become one of the most contentious U.S. social issues ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.
“Only second-class states have second-class citizens,” said Assemblyman Charles Lavine, a Democrat who voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and several other states allow civil unions. The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004.
New York’s Assembly has easily passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage several times in recent years. But the move was rejected the first time it was voted on by the then Democrat-led Senate in December 2009. The Senate is now controlled by Republicans and currently 31 of the 62 senators have publicly indicated support.
Senator Ruben Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, is the only Democrat out of the party’s 30 senators who does not support same-sex marriage, while Republican senators Jim Alesi and Roy McDonald, have said they will vote in favor of it.
On Tuesday “Sex and the City” actress Cynthia Nixon and New York Ranger ice hockey player Sean Avery lobbied lawmakers in Albany to legalize gay marriage. Nixon has been engaged for two years to a woman and wants to get married in her home state.
Rev. Duane Motley, a Christian lobbyist, said in Albany on Wednesday that legalizing gay marriage would “undermine the stability of our society” because he said a child of a gay couple could only have one biological parent.
If the bill passes, same-sex couples could start marrying in New York 30 days later. The bill does not compel any member of the clergy to conduct a same-sex marriages.
A recent Siena poll found 58 percent of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage.[/quote]
[i]”The bill does not compel any member of the clergy to conduct a same-sex marriages.”[/i]
I wish the bill compelled better grammar.
oh, please.
I’ve heard all the self-righeous rants, and I’m not impressed in the least.
First of all homosexuals are not forced to sit at the back of the bus, have hoses turned on them during civil protests, forced to drink at “homosexual only” drinking fountains, denied opportunities for employment simply for being gay…. you get my drift.
So to make these comparisons is between civil rights 60’s era jim crow and gay marriage is reaching to say the least.
Furthermore, when it came out that Professors in sacramento donated $ to the no on 8 campaign, their names were posted on the internet, the implication being that if you personally opposed gay marriage, you ought to have the hammer brought down by the PC gestapo.
in otherwords, you do not have a right to hold your own viewpoints, if it doesn’t fit a PC template.
Musser
I am wondering if you really believe what you just wrote.
1) “Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was not repealed until late last year.
2) Jim DeMint and Carl Palladino have both called for homosexuals not to be allowed to be teachers.
3) Gays are still beaten, tortured, tied to fence posts in this country
4) On a more personal note I have been told, until a few years ago, to advise gay patients to lie and say they are sisters so that they can have the sane visiting rights as their heterosexual counter parts.
5) the “outing” of gays has been a well known phenomena in this country so it is a little hard for me to get too outraged at making public the names of political donors as some “Gestapo tactic”.
Or do you really not consider the above examples discriminatory?
How about all of the states where same sex partners cannot adopt and do not have full parental rights?
Sorry, but none of the things you mentioned even comes close to the level of jim crow, where our government made it official policy to treat blacks like dogs. Now there are provisions which explicitly state homosexuals cannot be discriminated against. i.e. “thou shall not discriminate on the basis of race,….sexual orientation…” sorry, but the two aren’t comparable. So I’ll throw the question right back at you: do you really believe what you just wrote?
Medwoman: “little hard for me to get too outraged at making public the names of political donors as some “Gestapo tactic”.”
yes, I know. that’s the problem.
DMG: “How about all of the states where same sex partners cannot adopt and do not have full parental rights?”
what about them?
David: you are the one who set the bar at Jim Crow, why is that a requirement for the government to take action?
“New York Gay Marriage: State Assembly Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill”
Moderate Republicans and Democrats elected to historic conservative Republican seats in the 2008 Republican political rout, now find themselves vulnerable in the current political climate. My guess is that this bill will again fail in the NY Senate.
Musser: [i]Now there are provisions which explicitly state homosexuals cannot be discriminated against. i.e. “thou shall not discriminate on the basis of race,….sexual orientation…”[/i]
…except when it comes to the rights and privileges of civil marriage.
DMG:[i] “How about all of the states where same sex partners cannot adopt and do not have full parental rights?”[/i]
Musser:[i] what about them? [/i]
Marriage equality would provide those rights.
“David: you are the one who set the bar at Jim Crow, why is that a requirement for the government to take action?”
I did not bring up Jim Crow. Your supporters did:
WDF1: With your position, do you think you would you have taken a “states’ rights” stance on civil rights issues of the 50’s and 60’s when the Warren Court overturned Jim Crow laws and Congress passed the Civil Rights act(s)?
WDF1: “…except when it comes to the rights and privileges of civil marriage.”
we are not talking about “rights and privileges” of civil marriage. We are talking about redefining marriage all together -something your side is taking to unhealthy extremes.
DMG: “How about all of the states where same sex partners cannot adopt and do not have full parental rights?”
Musser: “what about them?”
Same sex parents go through all sorts of legal gymnastics in order for both parents to be recognized as the kid’s parents, and often they don’t succeed. In many cases, only one of them can really get that recognition. This includes issues of social security, health benefits, and even visitation rights in hospitals.
It is interesting to me the difference in mindset for how we should go about changing society. Gay-rights activists envision the Gestapo approach… hate crime laws and other laws to force society to accept what they either don’t accept on principle or are ignorant about. Certainly sometimes this approach is necessary. However, taking the forced approach comes at a great cost, because when one group forces their principles on another group, resentment and anger builds. Our civil war was an example of this… a probably necessary forced approach with extremely high costs. Almost 150 years later and much of the south is still resentful of the Yankees, and white southerner bias against blacks is still the most prevalent in the country. It is a fact that most wars today are the result of one group threatening unwanted social and cultural change on another. It is a very costly approach to expedite social and cultural change. We should do it only when necessary.
Unprincipled bias is ignorance. For this, a better solution is education. Instead of gay-rights activists spending so much time, effort and dollars to force their principles on others, a much better approach would be to spend it on programs to educate the ignorant. However, those that stand on principles should be allowed to hold those principles as long as they don’t unfairly or illegally harm others in the process.
If the gay-rights movement succeeds in overturning the will of the CA people… even if they manage to squeak by on another initiative popular vote… they will win the battle, but not the war. In fact, I would anticipate forced legalization of gay marriage to harden those principled against it… and cause more anti-gay sentiments to build and fester. If winning this battle in the courts is a good deed, it will certainly not go unpunished in the long run.
If I were gay and in love, I would be happy with a separate but equal spousal union. Visit the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco to note how gays celebrate their individual and group uniqueness. Certainly that event does not represent all gays, but it is celebrated and supported by the gay-rights community. So, if attention to uniqueness is so desired and supported, then why this battle about gay marriage? It begs the question: how important is this battle for gays? Because we can create a separate but equal mechanism with civil unions, my sense is that gay marriage is more a symbolic win being sought. I see the indignation over gays not being able to legally hold the label of marriage a manufactured emotive, and a means to an ideological and political end. It is not rational and it is certainly not comparable to the fight to stamp out racial discrimination.
Musser: [i]We are talking about redefining marriage all together -something your side is taking to unhealthy extremes.[/i]
Please explain why defining marriage as being between two people (not necessarily just a man and a woman) is an unhealthy extreme.
“You perceive it as an attempt to destroy marriage because of your narrow definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman.”
I don’t want to speak for JB, but I see the institution of marriage as we know it crumbling. Personally, I don’t think that is a healthy thing. I also believe strongly in equal rights for gays. I just don’t believe redefining marriage is the way to obtain those equal rights. A lot of my own personal history with respect to marriage, which I don’t care to go into here, plays into my thinking.
“However, taking the forced approach comes at a great cost, because when one group forces their principles on another group, resentment and anger builds.”
You’re right. Gay rights activists didn’t put Prop. 8 on the ballot.
“Because we can create a separate but equal mechanism with civil unions…”
Prop. 8 didn’t attempt to do that. Why not?
This battle was brought by the opponents of gay marriage.
[i]”You’re right. Gay rights activists didn’t put Prop. 8 on the ballot”[/i]
It was a response to their tactics for using the judicial and the solid majority Democrat legislature to railroad their principles.
Note too that supporters of prop 8 did not purposely go after and ruin the careers of people that contributed to its defeat.
[i]”Prop. 8 didn’t attempt to do that. Why not?”[/i]
Gay rights supporters are not putting their energy toward that either. Why not?
[i]”I see the institution of marriage as we know it crumbling. Personally, I don’t think that is a healthy thing. I also believe strongly in equal rights for gays. I just don’t believe redefining marriage is the way to obtain those equal rights. A lot of my own personal history with respect to marriage, which I don’t care to go into here, plays into my thinking.”[/i]
I agree with Elaine here and personally add my belief that, all things being equal, children are better off with man-woman parents.
I watched a great movie “The Kids are Alright”. Another Annette Benning masterpiece. Note that they had to use a weak and dysfunctional father to make the political case that the two children of a lesbian couple were not ultimately harmed by the lack of a male father role model. Hollywood is reliable supporting the politically correct storyline. However, the movie and actors did a good job demonstrating the risk of gender and sexuality confusion that exists for children of gay parents. I think we are fools for ignoring this consideration. The health and well being of children is infinitely more important than adult hurt feelings over a label.
“Prop. 8 didn’t attempt to do that. Why not?”
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment that defined “marriage” as between a man and a woman;period! It did not address the remaining differences in substantive rights between marriage,thus defined, and civil unions. The proponents of substantive equal rights for same-sex unions could achieve this,UNDOUBTEDLY,IMO, through the courts. Why has this not been the strategy,so obviously successful in addressing past inequalities in civil rights, of those advocating equal rights for the same-sex unions?
[i]”“homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally”
Neither can a number of heterosexual couples who suffer from infertility. Should they not be allowed to marry ?”[/i]
Medwoman: are you making the case that homosexuality is a health problem?
ERM: [i]I see the institution of marriage as we know it crumbling.[/i]
How do you see this as happening through allowing same-sex marriages? This broadens the recognition of committed relationships between two individuals, which, to my way of thinking, strengthens the institution of marriage.
JB: [i]Note too that supporters of prop 8 did not purposely go after and ruin the careers of people that contributed to its defeat. [/i]
Whose career is ruined because of his/her support of prop 8?
wdf1:
Here is one of many…
[url]http://www.millennialstar.org/sacramento-theater-director-resigns-over-prop-8-donation/[/url]
“Prop. 8 didn’t attempt to do that. Why not?”
If Prop 8 had gone beyond declaring the traditional definition of marriage as a part of the CA constitution and addressed benefits/substantive rights, it would not have passed constitutional scrutiny by the CA Supreme Court since it would have materially altered the function of CA government.
[quote]How do you see this as happening through allowing same-sex marriages? This broadens the recognition of committed relationships between two individuals, which, to my way of thinking, strengthens the institution of marriage.[/quote]
What stops the train of “broadening marriage” running downhill? We have now had a reality show on television involving polygamous marriages. Utah as a state is hardly committed against such practices. Adultery is no big deal in court, with the advent of “no-fault divorce” (don’t even get me started on this one). My gut feeling is our institutions are crumbling… and we are headed in the wrong direction… Just my personal view 🙂
Interesting commentary on our human sexual evolution (or devolution):
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145810050665030.html[/url]
[i]”This broadens the recognition of committed relationships between two individuals, which, to my way of thinking, strengthens the institution of marriage”[/i]
I appreciate this thought. My mother passed away two years ago, and my father remarried in 6 months. Many family and friends were steamed, but I knew my dad loved my mother, but he also loved being married. The point of “loved being married” is something that helps me understand the reason gay couples want the same.
However, the reason my dad loves the institution of marriage is rooted in his Christian tradition of life-long man-woman partnership and committment. It is a sacred cultural institution in this respect. However, the civil side has about destroyed this understanding… having stripped away the sacred cultural meaning and replaced it with the control of government bureacrats and divorse attorneys. We keep lowering the bar and widening the door… and we continually cheapen the meaning and intent of marriage. By failing to differentiate gay and straight marriage, we throw another monkey into the wrench of marital cultural confusion.
Protecting marriage as the traditional sacred cultural institution is not anti-gay, it is pro tradition and and pro sacred culture. We need much more of that protection for our factured society… especially given what it is doing to our children. I don’t see legalized gay marriage as a benefit to marriage, as much as I see it as another attack on traditional values and sacred culture.
That which is sacred does not apply to those who are secular. We live in a secular state and country. Preserve your sacred traditions through your churches, not the state constitution.
Ah, but then we return to the circular argument: does my sacred culture impact your secular society or does your secular society impact my sacred culture. Seems that the overused, but misunderstood, concept of separation of church and state should apply both ways, don’t you think?
We all know how well behaved the secular gay rights activists are related to our sacred religious organizations. Just ask the Boy Scouts.
Keep in mind too, that this is a change being pushed by a secular minority on a religious majority. For that secular minority to make a case that they are harmed without the change, it should be equally valid to accept the argument that the religious majority would be harmed by the change.
Despite your apparent desire to exclude their interests and concerns on the grounds that they pray and have faith in a higher entity than government, religious people are part of our secular society and deserve a voice and consideration.
“does my sacred culture impact your secular society or does your secular society impact my sacred culture.”
We all belong to the secular society. Only you belong to your particular sacred culture. Many religious groups in America have no objection to gay marriage.
[quote]Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.[/quote]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html[/url]
[i]JB: institution of marriage is rooted in his Christian tradition
this is a change being pushed by a secular minority on a religious majority.
Despite your apparent desire to exclude their interests and concerns on the grounds that they pray and have faith in a higher entity than government, religious people are part of our secular society and deserve a voice and consideration. [/i]
All of this is completely irrelevant. The issue is the constitutional rights of citizens. Your religious beliefs (or mine for that matter) have no bearing on the issue. You can choose to believe anything you want with regards to your religion. The issue at hand is whether or not the constitution allows one class of citizens to be denied rights enjoyed by another class. Argue that on the merits with facts, not your beliefs, principles or biases. The constitution was written by religious men who chose to keep their religion out of the document.
I am aware of the professed religions of Americans, as well as of how those proportions have been changing over the years. “None of the above” is the fastest-growing portion, close to 15% now.
I repeat: we all live in a secular state and a secular nation. You may profess to be a particular religion, probably a particular sect of that religion. That is irrelevant to the fact that the United States is a secular nation.
Don, I suspect I am close to as secular as you are. However, I am very interested in your opinion of the gay rights activists attacks of the Boy Scouts. I will explain myself after you answer.
Elaine
The institution of marriage has always been more fluid than you and Jeff would like to portray it. The traditional nuclear family as we have defined it in this country is only one means of familial organization. Polygamy has been the dominant family pattern in many societies and serves the family and social needs well especially when maternal death rates are high providing for ongoing female support of remaining children. In several of the south western native American groups the traditional pattern was a matriarchal society in which the woman owned the home, the children were considered hers and men came and went as they both agreed. My understanding of “family”is a means of social organization that optimally provides for the well being and development of it’s members. While I agree with you that strong families are a foundation of a strong society, I think there are many functional forms of families and any that nurture and care for all of their members should be welcomed. By “sacred culture” I believe that Jeff is referring to what is sacred to him. But our view of “sacred”is not the same. In a country with religious freedom, who is to say that your view of “sacred” should take precedence over a different view ?
I’m not sure which specific issue you are referring to with the Boy Scouts.
Local gay activists are, of course, within their rights in sending their annual letter urging a boycott of the Christmas tree lot run by the scouts. I consider the letter to the Enterprise from Ellen and Shelly to be one of the signs that the holiday season is upon us.
The Boy Scouts are within their rights to refuse leadership positions to anyone they choose for whatever reason, I suppose. Why the BSA has this problem while the Girl Scouts accept gays and lesbians is an interesting question; one organization drew a line, while the other chose to be all-inclusive (you don’t have to be religious to be a Girl Scout, either).
But if they choose to discriminate — and there is no question that, as a matter of policy the BSA discriminates against gays and secular boys — then it is inappropriate for the Boy Scouts to solicit membership in the public schools or to use public facilities.
My own experience in Boy Scouts wasn’t very enjoyable, but I hold no particular grudge against the organization. It just wasn’t for me, especially given the politics of the early 1970’s. Their position has evolved somewhat, but this statement: “Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law” could simply be changed to “sexual conduct” and thereby be non-discriminatory against[i] members[/i]. There would still be the issue of discrimination against gay adult leaders, and against secular members at all levels.
Put simply: they have a right to discriminate, but not on the public dime.
JB: [i]Keep in mind too, that this is a change being pushed by a secular minority on a religious majority. For that secular minority to make a case that they are harmed without the change, it should be equally valid to accept the argument that the religious majority would be harmed by the change.[/i]
You are assuming that homosexuals have no religious life or culture. Or that this “movement” is derived only from secular inspiration. There are many Christian churches that welcome homosexual congregants, and many homosexuals attend because they like the accepting messages, such as that God and Jesus love them for who they are, as much as He loved the lepers and prostitutes. It helps them to remain strong in their secular lives.
By the way, Jesus had two fathers, and he turned out alright.
There are Christian churches that perform same-sex weddings. For many same-sex couples, it is an oppressive secular heterosexual society that judges their marriage as less sacred than a heterosexual one.
JB: [i]gay-rights activists spending so much time, effort and dollars to force their principles on others[/i]
Gay-rights activists are not out to force their homosexual principles on others. As far as they’re concerned, you will always be allowed to maintain your heterosexual lifestyle, if that’s your preference.
Don, the gay rights movement and the ACLU have made the Boy Scouts a target simply because they disagree with their principles. Churches will be next on the list after legalization of gay marriage. What about community churches? What about churches renting public space? It won’t matter, gay activists will stage their conflict… pick a church… and then they will partner with the ACLU to sue the congregation and make national news. I am waiting for the counter suit for religious persecution.
I don’t know if the girl scouts allow gays and lesbians. I will take your word for it. If you are male, you’ll be required to have a female co-leader present in your troop. That sure sounds like gender bias to me. What is the problem, are all male sexual predators? Women, rather lesbian or straight, are not nearly as likely to be sexual predators. So, the comparison is not valid.
Let’s say the BSA allow gay troop leaders but require a straight co-leader to be present at all times. Would you support that? Would the gay rights activists and the UCLU support that? I doubt it.
[i]”and there is no question that, as a matter of policy the BSA discriminates against gays and secular boys”[/i]
“Secular boys”? I don’t know where you got that.
JB: [i]I don’t know if the girl scouts allow gays and lesbians.[/i]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_controversy_and_conflict#Homosexual_people[/url]
1. The ACLU targets discrimination, not “principles.”
2. What is a “community church”?
3. You can look up the policies of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts online. You don’t have to take my word for it.
[i]”It’s a non-issue for us,” said Lori Arguelles, communications director, who stressed that rigorous background checks are required for all staff and volunteer leaders. “We don’t ask people to declare X, Y, or Z. It’s not in our makeup to have to define people like that. The Boy Scouts believes that to be gay is somehow immoral. That is not our feeling.”(2000) [/i]
Camp Fire Girls and Boys also does not discriminate.
4. I don’t believe adult leaders of any gender or sexual orientation should be present alone with children in any child or youth organization, anytime, anywhere. Volunteer screening and training should be basic practice for all youth organizations. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
5. BSA specifically disallows atheists and agnostics (whatever they mean by that term). But their stated policy also disallows secular individuals. Although they are non-sectarian, they require religious practice. [url]http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp[/url]
I really hope that we can get to the point where sexual orientation is irrelevant to who gets married, who joins and benefits from scouting organizations and other youth programs, who holds public office, who rules on court cases, who raises children — all the myriad things that people do. Some percentage of the population is same-sex-oriented; some percentage is straight, and many are probably somewhere in between. It is not immoral, it is perfectly natural, and merits no discrimination.
[i]”You are assuming that homosexuals have no religious life or culture. Or that this “movement” is derived only from secular inspiration.”[/i]
No, I was making a point that the gay rights movement is primary driven by secular gays and liberals against primarily religious conservatives… the former being the minority… by a long shot.
[i]”By the way, Jesus had two fathers, and he turned out alright.”[/i]
LOL. Nice. Yes, but he had a mother too. Are we advocating polygamy now? Note that one of his fathers was a unique dude who was rather strict.
[i]”Gay-rights activists are not out to force their homosexual principles on others. As far as they’re concerned, you will always be allowed to maintain your heterosexual lifestyle, if that’s your preference.”[/i]
That is a big twist away from my point. I don’t have a problem with gay or straight lifestyle. Maybe I will come out of the closet later in life… or maybe I will stay happily hetrosexual until I die. The problem is that gay-rights activists are forcing me and others to change the definition of marriage. After this is done, I am no longer free to maintain my preference that marriage is a sacred and civil union between a man and a woman.
I think if a vote was held today, the number of people supporting prop-8 would be about the same.
[i]”I really hope that we can get to the point where sexual orientation is irrelevant to who gets married, who joins and benefits from scouting organizations and other youth programs, who holds public office, who rules on court cases, who raises children — all the myriad things that people do. Some percentage of the population is same-sex-oriented; some percentage is straight, and many are probably somewhere in between. It is not immoral, it is perfectly natural, and merits no discrimination.
As George Will said, to young people gayness is like being left-handed. It’s irrelevant, it’s no big deal, and the topic is boring.”[/i]
I agree with Will’s quote. Statistically things will change as more young vote and the older generations die off.
The problem with your list is that some things do not matter and some, like the raising of children, do matter. I would prefer we get to the point where sexual orientation is irrelevant for things that are irrelevant; then then be honest about the differences that are relevant.
I would also prefer that religious groups are not persecuted and attacked because they hold legitimate principles that differ from secular progressives.
JB
I truly Am at a loss to understand why you feel that “changing the definition of marriage” means that “I am no longer free to maintain my preference that marriage is a sacred and civil union between a man and a woman.”
No one is proposing that you should have to abandoned your preference. All that is being asked here is that others have the same rights to exercise their preference. When interracial marriage became legal, no one was forced to marry outside their race or even to believe that it was a moral choice.
If it were the case that “marriage”in this country were not so inextricably tied not only to religious beliefs but also to rights and privileges throughout the society, I doubt you would have had the situation where both sides feel so persecuted. What “gay activists “are seeking is not the destruction of your values, religion and beliefs, but rather the right to fully exercise their own.
Also, I do not think it is consistent to say “I don’t have a problem with gay or straight lifestyle” and then maintain that ” I would prefer that we get to the point where sexual orientation is irrelevant for things that are irrelevant, then be honest about the differences that are relevant.”
Like raising children. Again, I would ask for any objective evidence that there is any difference to the children whether they are raised by loving, caring heterosexual vs loving caring homosexual parents. Or am I misunderstanding your belief that homosexual child rearing is somehow inferior to that of homosexuals?
Medwoman: [i]”I truly Am at a loss to understand why you feel that “changing the definition of marriage” means that “I am no longer free to maintain my preference that marriage is a sacred and civil union between a man and a woman.”[/i]
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot understand the point since it is covered in your question. If marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman, then how could I maintain that preference? Use the example of meeting someone in business and shaking their hand and learning that they are married… now I having to figure out which “type” of marriage to keep from making embarrassing assumptions. Gay marriage is not the same; it will never be the same… no matter how much you and others want it to be so.
Aside from this example, there are two main reasons I do not support gay marriage. (Please note that I like to debate this issue on its merits but in reality I not some extremist against gay marriage. If society accepts it I will accept it and move on. But, I think it is a change that requires copious debate and resistance from those with different perspectives and beliefs.)
1. Personally and from observation, I know what it is like to grow up without a father or without a mother… even in what I would call a loving household. I think my perspective is shared by the majority, and certainly by many people that have direct experience dealing with the same. It is probably too strong of point to say that having same gender parents would damage a child, but it would certainly result in something significantly lacking. My sons learned most of what they know about how to related to and treat women they meet and care for from observing the relationship of their father and mother. My sons learn what is means to be a man by observing and learning from their father. They learn what about how a woman thinks, feels and responds from observing and learning from their mother. Supporters of gay marriage like to gloss over this point and claim it is a non issue because there are no studies with measurements to prove it. First, there are no studies measuring the correct things. Second, it doesn’t matter what is measured because the argument for two gender parenting being better for children is complete common sense.
2. People of faith today are persecuted and marginalized for their beliefs. PC correctness has run amuck trying to make everyone feel accepted no matter how they act and what they believe in as long as it is not Christian. We are growing immorality at an alarming and destructive rate. Marriage was a sacred rite before it was even considered a civil right. We need more, not less, of our historical rituals of spirituality and faith-based culture injected back into our society. The teachings of Christ are to accept and love all people despite their differences. It does not teach to make all people the same. That is what the secular left is after… to somehow make all people the same in a civil and social context: no gender differences… no race differences… no any differences. Yet, they have their preferences for where they apply cultural respect… and it is anything other than what this country was founded on. I find that practice repugnant and it is worth a fight.
JB
1) why would you feel any need to guess.Do you feel the need to know the race of an associates spouse before you meet them.
2) I don’t want heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be the same. I want.all successful marriages to be celebrated.
3)Common Sense is not always right. Some examples : Before women got the vote it was commonly believed that we were not rational or knowledgeable to take on such weight matters. There was a time in our country when common sense dictated that people of different races should not marry. Saying that something is right because you believe it does not make it so. Thus the request for some data to back your assertions.
4) And I would agree with you that if making everyone the same were the goal of “the secular left” that would be worth fighting against.
However, I am fairly sure that I would, by your definition, be a member of the secular left and I can assure you that is not even close to my goal. My hope for our society would be that everyone is treated the same under the law and within all our public institutions and dealings.
My hope is also that recognizing that we as Americans represent a number of races, religions, philosophical beliefs, and sexual orientations that all should be respected and valued equally ( including Christians ; ) and that none should receive special privileges not accorded to all.
I realize that this will feel like a loss and a threat to Christians who have previously held a preferred position in our society. But I will maintain the a society free of discrimination based on group membership is a cornerstone of our nation and should take precedence over personal preference.
Medwoman: you cannot and should not separate society from its culture. Cultures can and should evolve, but progressives push the envelope to far and too fast.
As for the current template for progressives, there are enough contradictions that makes a person’s head spin. Those on the left push for social change of inclusion that requires breaking down of cultural norms they suddenly find distasteful. However, those on the left also wring their hands over the destructive quality of man and opine for a smaller and more constrained human population to “save the planet”. Toward this end they add hard and enforced changes to our society which then requires a new culture to develop. For example, we Americans should immediately stop owning guns, and stop eating meat, and stop burning fossil fuel.
Think about this… it is the concept of values and forced conformity. The left does not value or accept conformity to the standard cultural definition of marriage. They are working hard to force a change through a civil mechanism. Meanwhile, the left is also attempting to force conformity on many other issues, beliefs and behaviors they value. It is the elitism of the intelligentsia… they always know what is best for me, right? Their educated secular values over my ignorant sacred values, right?
Our difference is simple to understand: we reject each other’s vision for social and cultural conformity on many issues. I think you look backwards in our cultural history and see more bad than good, and hence have no problem breaking down norms with new rules to live by. I, on the other hand, see more good than bad in our cultural history, and want to preserve what we have and bring back much of what we have lost to combat the degradation that progressives have already caused. Our culture is too fragmented. Morality is no more… it is every man and woman and group for themselves. And don’t bring race-based civil rights into this argument because ending slavery was a moral issue championed by the political right, and Reagan and Bush were friendlier to illegal immigration than Obama is.
Cultures bind a people, not city councils, legislators and courts. They do the opposite…they fracture a people. They do some good work, but generally at a cost… sometimes a very high cost.
If you support gay rights then fight for civil unions or domestic partnerships to provide equal protection under the law. That way you get your civil-sided win while allowing the majority of Americans to keep the culture that they value. That is a win-win.
JB
1) “progressives push the envelop too far, too fast” I am sure it seems too fast for you. For me, many of the changes have been far too slow.
42 years ago a high school friend of mine who was gay wanted to serve in the military and knew that would not be feasible. Do you really
believe that 40 years is too short a time in which to eliminate obvious career discrimination ?
2)”they suddenly find distasteful” There is nothing sudden about the dislike of discrimination. I disliked discrimination when it affected me adversely when I went into medicine at a time when women were still considered questionable as doctors, and I dislike it equally now when
Men are limited in their career choice since many women don’t want a male gynecologist, not because of competence or ability to empathize but simply based on gender.
3) Enforced conformity ? How is your insistence on maintaining the definition of marriage as one man, one woman not the same forced conformity that you eschew from the left ?
4) When I look back, I see both good and bad. Just as I see both good and bad in the present. What is much more important is my view for the future. I would like to see a society in which all peaceful participants in the society are accorded the same rights. Is that not the promise of our constitution? I do not see why it is better to wait an arbitrary number or years to establish equality for all.
5) Again no one is asking the majority to give up the culture they value. The request is that the majority not impose their values on others. And I do not see “separate but equal” which is what the “civil win” vs marriage argument amounts to, as a win-win.
[i]”Men are limited in their career choice since many women don’t want a male gynecologist”[/i]
That is an interesting one… are you suggesting we force women to accept male gynecologists to stamp out this type of discrimination?
Absolutely not. As you said, education is a better way to go. I just find it ironic how the tide has turned, and how discrimination is wrong, and counterproductive regardless of it’s target. In this case, both parties stand to loose. The men, because of restricted career opportunities, the patients because choosing the best doctor can be of major importance and is not gender driven.
Sexuality and gender identification are powerful influencers that seem to lead many people to make decisions not always good for them. Education, in my opinion, is the most desired mechanism to change individual behaviors, not rules. AS a teacher I know I have done my job when my student believes what I have taught is his own idea to exercise.
JB
Now you have hit on a fundamental difference between our views.
As a teacher, I know I have done my job when my student understands what I have taught, judges it’s worth against other concepts and ideas and chooses the best path based on all the information.