Legalistic Decision Tosses Prop 8 on Narrow California-Based Grounds
“Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couple alike,” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals began in what will be a landmark decision, marking the first time a federal circuit court has ruled in favor of equal rights for same sex couples.
“On that day,” the court continued, “the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution. We conclude that it does.”
The court continues, “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”
The court went on to argue that under California’s statutory law, “Same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couple” regardless of their marital status, and thus, “Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State… the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 2-1 majority, therefore argues that “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’ “
And with that, the landmark ruling makes the California’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but stays the order, allowing the ban to remain in place while the proponents of Proposition 8 prepare to appeal.
Legal scholars argued that the narrow grounds of the ruling, which focused almost exclusively on California law and ignored the broader federal questions, may make it more difficult for the Supreme Court to rule on this matter.
Courtney Joslin, a UC Davis professor of law who co-authored an amicus brief, filed on behalf of 28 California family law professors in the litigation challenging Proposition 8, said on Tuesday, “One possible reaction to this opinion is that it is limited to the unique California history and because of that the court might feel that there’s less of a need to grant review.”
Columnist Dan Walters writes, “With liberal icon Stephen Reinhardt as its lead author, one might expect a three-judge appellate panel not only to strike down Proposition 8, California’s 2008 anti-gay marriage measure, but to declare a fundamental constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry.”
“Had it done so, it likely would have invited another Supreme Court reversal,” Mr. Walters continued. “Instead, Reinhardt – showing uncharacteristic constraint – sidestepped the larger constitutional rights issue cited in the trial court ruling.”
Wrote the court, “We … need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.”
Instead, they strike it down on much more narrow and legalistic grounds, Mr. Walters argues, “with words that seemed to be aimed at an audience of one – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.”
He notes: “Tuesday’s ruling quoted extensively from a 1996 Kennedy-authored decree in Romer v. Evans, striking down an anti-gay rights ballot measure in Colorado as being unconstitutionally discriminatory. That decision was 6-3, but the Supreme Court has since evolved into a 4-4 tie between liberals and conservatives, with Kennedy often casting the decisive vote in contentious cases.”
Elizabeth Gill of the ACLU’s LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) Project wrote, “The 9th Circuit is the first federal appellate court to rule that a marriage ban for same-sex couples is unconstitutional, and the decision is one for the history books as a watershed moment for LGBT equality.”
She argued that it is important to focus on a couple of key aspects of the ruling.
“First, the court really got what marriage is all about – and why it’s different from domestic partnerships,” Ms. Gill writes.
As the court found, “The designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.”
“The court also got that the reasons for Prop. 8 cited by its proponents – responsible procreation, protecting religious freedom, and preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in school – actually have nothing to do with Prop 8. When the court says that ‘simply taking away the designation of “marriage” …did not do any of things its Proponents now suggest were its purposes,’ the court means that, yes, the Yes on 8 folks lied to California voters,” she continued.
“For all its inspiring rhetoric, however, the Perry decision doesn’t decide marriage for everyone (even marriage for Californians is still subject to appeal and likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court),” she argues.
But then she points to the momentum generated by the work in other states, with marriage bills that are pending in Washington, Maryland and New Jersey; marriage will likely be on the ballot in Maine in November; and there are anti-gay marriage amendments proposed in Minnesota and North Carolina.
“The best thing we can do to support this case is to continue working for greater protections for LGBT families in as many additional states as possible,” said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the LGBT Project at the ACLU of Northern California. “We’ll celebrate this ruling, and then put that momentum toward important battles we’re facing this year.”
Despite the perhaps legalistic and nuanced ruling, reaction was strong and overwhelmingly positive from marriage equality supporters.
“This is a wonderful victory not only for same-sex couples, but for everyone who values fairness and dignity for all families,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons others do – to make a solemn commitment to their partners and to protect their families. It’s cruel for any state to bar them from marriage, and today’s decision confirms that it’s unconstitutional as well.”
Attorney General Kamala Harris famously followed in the footsteps of her predecessor and refused to defend Proposition 8 in court – which triggered a lengthy discussion and ruling on standing that was cleared last month when the court allowed proponents to have standing to defend their own measures when the state apparatus refuses to.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice,” said Attorney General Harris. “Proposition 8 denied to gay and lesbian couples the equal protection to which all Americans are entitled. By striking this unconstitutional law from our books, the court has restored dignity, equality and respect to all Californians.”
Governor Brown, who refused to defend Prop. 8 both as Attorney General and Governor said simply, “The court has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision.”
“Today, California is significantly closer to the basic civil right of marriage equality. Like all other civil rights struggles in our history, the work is never done. Every big step forward is a step closer to eliminating discrimination in our society,” Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg said on Tuesday. “My hope is that any justices considering a potential appeal will exhibit the same level of courage we have seen today.”
Senator Leland Yee commended the decision by the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating, “Today’s 9th Circuit decision is another step forward in healing the wounds of government-sanctioned discrimination. It is long overdue for all loving relationships to be recognized and all families to be provided with the same rights, privileges and joys of marriage.”
“By declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the Court reaffirmed the highest ideals of our republic. For far too long, our nation has unfairly denied fundamental rights to individuals on the basis of sexual orientation – clearly violating the equal protection doctrine in our state and federal Constitutions,” the Senator continued. “I look forward to the day when we can finally put aside these antiquated legal battles and start honoring all individuals based on the content of their character.”
Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley, whose office has been in the spotlight on this issue due in part to her activism on behalf of same-sex couples, told the Vanguard on Tuesday, “I think it is important to understand that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding the lower court’s decision, found that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional because it deprives a specific group of people of an existing right, thus denying them the equal protection afforded by the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
She added, “I certainly hate to think it would ever be acceptable to remove a right from a class of persons.”
“I am a committed, serious-minded, Christian woman and I think: What if the people of California passed a Constitutional amendment depriving Presbyterians of our existing right to call ourselves a church? Would that be OK? Even if we could still get together and make a joyful noise and pray? To me, it would make a difference.”
“So, thank you, 9th Circuit, for emphasizing the importance of protecting our rights. All of us. All our rights,” she said but added more bleakly, “On the other hand, I still don’t know when I’ll be able to uphold a better marriage law than the one I am sworn to uphold, and do uphold. It seems like there is always more work to be done.”
And that was the message of the day – it was a victory for those who support marriage rights, but it was not the end of the story and there is more work to be done.
As Assemblymember Mariko Yamada put it in a statement on Facebook: “The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
She added, “Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that belief.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The ninth circus = the ususal suspects.
No surprise here…
More legislating from the bench from our social activists posing as judicial leaders.
US Supreme Court here it comes. It will be overturned like so many other ninth cicuit decisions.
The most overturned Circus Court strikes again…
I think this is an excellent outcome. SCOTUS can decline to hear it, and the ruling is narrow. So the issue can go back on the ballot here, and I predict that within a very few years gay marriage will be approved by the voters in this state.
Jeff Boone: “More legislating from the bench from our social activists posing as judicial leaders.”
And of course as we all know, you can only be viewed as a activist judge if you have a liberal view of the law. Bush v. Gore & Citizens United not withstanding…
Why don’t we all try a novel approach to this discussion and focus on the facts and stay away from the labels that we tend to use to push people into a box. I agree with the decision. On a very simple level you cannot take away a civil right from one section of the population without a valid reason. The California Supreme Court found that the California Constitution provides a basic right to be married. All this case says is that in California you cannot take that right away unless you take it away from everyone.
I need to read the Vanguard more often. Mark West is a wisper of hope for more intelligent discourse on this site.
“whisper” of hope. Gotta get back to work!
[i]”On a very simple level you cannot take away a civil right from one section of the population without a valid reason.”[/i]
That is an over simplification and detracts from the fundamental question about the definition of marriage. Can three people marry? The absurdity you might assign to that question would be no different than the absurdity assigned to the concept of gay marriage a decade or two ago. At what point does our social constructs begin to crumble when we dilute so many of the cultural and social norms… especially those that are based on basic biological functions?
There are plenty of differences and concerns… especially as it relates to children; more specifically childhood development. All things being equal, a traditional mother and father is a much better parental model than are same gender parents. I’m sorry, but my lesbian parents cannot relate to me as a young man growing to be a functional make adult. I don’t make light of that difference, but many seem to be willing to toss a few kids under the bus so the adults can score their political wins.
And don’t deny that acceptance of gay marriage is only a step toward secular power over private religious organizations. We see it today with government forcing private religious organizations to comply with rules in conflict with their long-standing beliefs.
Gay marriage should be separate from, but equal to traditional biologically-correct marriage. The majority of Californians agreed with this, but the 9th circuit activist-judge “Gods” in this state just treated them as irrelevant as compared to the scripture of secular progressivism.
There are already two processes of marriage: one secular, one religious. When I got married, a pastor presided over the ceremony. But the marriage was a civil document, and we could just as readily have had the document processed and validated without any religious imprimatur whatsoever. In fact, I have personally presided over a marriage with the legal standing granted to me by the county officer who administers such things. Many marriages have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. So your notion that it involves “secular power over private religious organizations” is a non-issue.
No marriage is biologically correct. What a weird term. And there is no “scripture of secular progressivism.” Perhaps you like to throw these offensive terms in to your arguments as bait or something. They detract from the points you’re trying to make, because they sound as though you are intentionally denigrating people who disagree with you.
[i]The fundamental question about the definition of marriage. Can three people marry?[/i]
Not since 1862 in the United States. Which answers the question as to why Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico.
[i]The absurdity you might assign to that question would be no different than the absurdity assigned to the concept of gay marriage a decade or two ago.[/i]
Well, can people of mixed races marry?
Yes — since 1967. It seems the definition of marriage has not been consistent. And the concept of mixed-race marriage was considered “absurd” within our lifetimes. Still is, according to some polls, in some states. [i]Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose[/i], as they say.
[i]”Many marriages have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. So your notion that it involves “secular power over private religious organizations” is a non-issue.”[/i]
Sure Don, just like civil unions are a non-issue for gay-rights activists. Give me a break. If your heart breaks over the thought of gays not being able to marry, then you sure as heck will find your heart breaking over a desired church refusing to allow a gay marriage ceremony. The material damage that can be claimed is the same.
“Difference” is going to be a constant nagging feeling that ever gay activist wants to wipe away… even if it means trampling the rights of other’s beliefs. The 9th Circuit decision is proof.
Of course it will come to this conflict. It will start with political attacks from the secular left just like the Boy Scouts have had to deal with. Then it will move to the courts where the judge Gods of secularism will preside to strike down those stupid, mean and old church traditions.
BTW, I’m pissed that the 9th circuit court located in San Francisco is so reliably liberal. I am denigrating that institution which I lost respect for long ago. However, I respect any and all opinions about the topic of gay rights. I don’t want anyone materially damaged just because of their sexual orientation. However, this is a political and cultural fight… it is the secular left against the long-standing traditions of the majority subscribing to beliefs based on the great religions. Marriage was a social and cultural construct before it was a legal arrangement. Laws that you support just trampled all over the majority holding opposing social and cultural beliefs.
Don, do you support 3 people marrying each other? If not, then why?
Note that my wife has often commented that she wished she had a wife too.
[i]”Which answers the question as to why Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico.”[/i]
LOL!
And maybe why Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
[i]”And the concept of mixed-race marriage was considered “absurd” within our lifetimes. Still is, according to some polls, in some states.”[/i]
Good point.
However, I don’t believe that mixed race marriage is forbidden as per the scripture of the great religions. As I remember from my religious history lessons, there was a lot of mixed race marriage going on around the time of Jesus and it had his blessing. Also, as it relates to procreation, there is nothing fundamentially biologically incorrect between mixed race man-woman marriage.
“One possible reaction to this opinion is that it is limited to the unique California history..”
This may not be true as it is being reported that Hawaii did exactly what California did here: the courts granted marriage rights, a referendum repealed them.
Judge Reinhart’s arguments, IMO, are somewhat “tortured” . One must accept his argument that the denial of the use of the term “marriage” is a civil right violation, something that a full panel of the 9th district and ultimately the US Supreme Court will decide.His argument concerning the feelings of second-class status that those in a same-sex union suffer because they are denied the use of the term “marriage”,IMO, is not the province of the courts to interject into their deliberations concerning unconstitutionality and substantive civil rights. The “pressure” for the US Supreme Court to take on this case( 4 Supreme Court Justices need to approve it for their consideration) is significant since there are multiple States that are following CA’s lead with popular referendums to overturn their State’s judicial action.
I have a question for all.
While listening to NPR’s coverage of this today, I heard a comment that made me see this issue in a slightly different light. The speaker was a supporter of Prop 8 and was talking about the need to support and defend
“traditional marriage”. What occurred to me is why not do both ? We could choose to support “traditional marriage” as one man and woman, and “non traditional marriage” as a same sex couple. The traditionalist could feel that their definition of marriage was not somehow being defiled, and the same sex couples could feel that their unions were being honored as the true commitments that they are. What say you ?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Sure Don, just like civil unions are a non-issue for gay-rights activists. Give me a break. If your heart breaks over the thought of gays not being able to marry, then you sure as heck will find your heart breaking over a desired church refusing to allow a gay marriage ceremony. The material damage that can be claimed is the same.”[/i]
Jeff, performing the marriage ceremony, whether in a church or not, has absolutely no legal relevance. If you made the marriage ceremony the province of various societal organizations/assemblages the problem would go away. Anyone would be able to marry, whether gay or straight or confused, as long as they could find an organization that is willing to perform the ceremony. It would be a completely voluntary construct, and would carry with it no legal rights. Government would completely divorce itself from the word “marriage.” No [u]rights[/u] would be denied anyone. Everyone would be treated equally by the law.
Currently there is no wailing and gnashing of teeth if/when a church “selects” its members, nor when an individual “selects” a church. The marriage ceremony would simply become a part of each individual church’s liturgy/sacraments. NOTE: I use the term church in a very global sense to encompass all forms of spiritual and/or secular communities.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”[b]Marriage was a social and cultural construct before it was a legal arrangement.[/b] Laws that you support just trampled all over the majority holding opposing social and cultural beliefs.”[/i]
Your bolded words are 100% correct. The simple solution is to have Marriage revert to its roots . . . solely a social and cultural construct. It really is very simple.
The Constitution of the United States of Amaerica was very specifically designed to prevent a [i]Tyranny of the Majority[/i]. What you are advocating is exactly that kind of tyranny. I fully expect that the strict constructionists currently on the Supreme Court will decide in favor of the intent of the Founders to prohibit such Tyranny.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Also, as it relates to procreation, there is nothing fundamentally biologically incorrect between mixed race man-woman marriage.”[/i]
Jeff, there is nothing fundamentally biologically incorrect in the process of adoption. Similarly, there is nothing fundamentally biologically incorrect in the process of in vitro fertilization. Many gay couples practice one or both of those processes to build their families.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”All things being equal, a traditional mother and father is a much better parental model than are same gender parents.”[/i]
That statement is not supported by the facts. In the United States 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Are you saying that a traditional mother and father divorce is a good parental model for children?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”This may not be true as it is being reported that Hawaii did exactly what California did here: the courts granted marriage rights, a referendum repealed them.”[/i]
And that referendum was a Tyranny of the Majority under the terms of the United States Constitution.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I have a question for all.
While listening to NPR’s coverage of this today, I heard a comment that made me see this issue in a slightly different light. The speaker was a supporter of Prop 8 and was talking about the need to support and defend
“traditional marriage”. What occurred to me is why not do both ? We could choose to support “traditional marriage” as one man and woman, and “non traditional marriage” as a same sex couple. The traditionalist could feel that their definition of marriage was not somehow being defiled, and the same sex couples could feel that their unions were being honored as the true commitments that they are. What say you?”[/i]
That makes 100% sense if you 1) divorce the social and cultural aspects of the current use of the word “marriage” from the legal aspects, 2) return the social and cultural aspects to social and cultural communities within our society, and 3) invest the legal aspects within the governmental licensing processes. If a couple wants to make a discretionary decision to expand their personal union experience beyond the legal licensing and participate in a social and cultural “marriage ceremony” then that is their prerogative and all they have to do is either join an existing social and/or cultural “community” or create their own unique social and/or cultural “community” in order to complete a liturgical/sacramental/spiritual union.
Sorry, Matt, but that ship has sailed. You can’t deconstruct marriage now. Remember, it was the opponents of gay marriage who set the terms of this debate. They put Prop 8 on the ballot, so it is where the choice will be made as to what is legal, what rights people have — or not.
There are already secular alternatives. Marriage as a legal status is a secular condition governed by the state. There is already the option for churches to choose not to allow marriages between members of their congregations, or outside of them, within their religious definition of the term.
Where civil rights clash with their beliefs, they may lose out. For example, the state issues divorces for Catholics, even though the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. But most of the ‘what-ifs’ put forth by Jeff and others are irrelevant or unlikely.
Some opponents of gay marriage argued against putting Prop 8 before the voters for precisely this reason. They feared the judicial consequences. But that is where the battle is joined, and clearly the religious right sees it as a battle. So trying to find a middle ground now is probably pointless.
Jeff Boone: [i]”That is an over simplification and detracts from the fundamental question about the definition of marriage. Can three people marry?[/i]
Can three people marry? Not legally in the United States, but if you look around the world there are many cultures where plural marriage is not only accepted, but the norm. This is especially true if you extend the discussion back into history.
[i]Gay marriage should be separate from, but equal to traditional biologically-correct marriage.[/i]
You are a finance guy so I will assume you didn’t take many science courses in college, but just so we are clear, what exactly do you mean by [b]’biologically-correct?'[/b] From my perspective…Ph.D. in Neuroscience…my understanding of ‘biologically correct’ is probably considerably different than yours. I will explain my view in simple terms though…from a scientific point of view, homosexuality, though not the majority trait in mammals, is in all ways normal and biologically correct.
[i]Don, do you support 3 people marrying each other? If not, then why? [/i]
You didn’t ask me, but if you had I would have said that I don’t care. It may not be for me, but I don’t have a problem if someone else wants the complication. What I DO care about are those who think that ‘marrying a 12 year old’ is OK. But if the parties are all adults, go for it for all I care. That doesn’t have ANY impact on the validity of my marriage.
[i]However, I don’t believe that mixed race marriage is forbidden as per the scripture of the great religions.[/i]
Well…I guess it depends on your definition and time frame as there are many combinations that have been ‘forbidden’ at times. But before looking at that, you need to first address your definition of the world’s ‘great religions.’ Islam? From your perspective I guess not. Really?
As a final point Jeff, I love hearing your bff Newt talk about the sanctity of marriage. Makes me laugh every time.
Mark
Mark: Good thing you said [b]12 [/b]year old:
“TEXAS: The age of consent is eighteen. With parental and judicial consent, parties can marry but not below the age of fourteen for males and thirteen for females.”
[url]http://www.enotes.com/family-law-reference/marriage-marriage-age[/url]
My answer to Jeff’s question is that I have no particular opinion about polygamy, but if a groundswell of support for it should develop I would consider that issue as needed. I don’t really care about it, though I would note that the polygamous situations I’m aware of seem to involve abusive relationships between older men and young girls who are barely women. So I’d be more likely to support polyandry, but for some reason I never get asked that question by conservatives.
I’m more concerned about the practical issue of withholding rights from people who are seeking them, then about debating the slippery-slope arguments used by conservatives on this issue.
Don
Polyandry, in the few societies that make limited use of it also does not tend to work out well for the women involved. This usually occurs when there is a relative shortage of women and involves one woman meeting the marital needs of several related men.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”You didn’t ask me, but if you had I would have said that I don’t care. It may not be for me, but I don’t have a problem if someone else wants the complication. What I DO care about are those who think that ‘marrying a 12 year old’ is OK. But if the parties are all adults, go for it for all I care. That doesn’t have ANY impact on the validity of my marriage.”[/i]
The prohibition on plural marriages actually stems from the same concerns that you have about a 12 year-old marrying. Specifically, that one of the participants in the union is disadvantaged . . . the 12 year-old by the absence of a level of maturity . . . the wives in the plural marriage by a de facto hierarchical structure that makes the “rights” of certain wives greater than the “rights” of other wives.
Matt Williams: [i]”the wives in the plural marriage by a de facto hierarchical structure that makes the “rights” of certain wives greater than the “rights” of other wives.[/i”
This in fact is a societal/cultural choice. Civil rights under the US Constitution are a completely different beast than are cultural or religious rights. The hierarchical structure that you refer to are chosen by the culture and are not inherent in the relationship. I would argue that a plural marriage is no different than a marriage plus concubine situation, or as is more common in the US, a marriage plus a ‘mistress’ or ‘pool boy’ construct. Humans get themselves in all sorts of complicated situations. None of them however have anything to do with the basic civil rights that are promised to all in the United States by our Constitution. Keep your religion to yourself as it has absolutely nothing to do with me unless I want it to.
Mark, I don’t know if your last sentence is rhetorical or specific. I wasn’t passing judgment, just observing that the nature of the plural relationships (whether wives, mistresses or pool boys) tends to produce different levels of “status” for some of the participants. Like predatory boss-subordinate relationships at work, plural marriages are sometimes forced on the “junior” wives, and “society” rightly or wrongly attempts to ensure that such unlevel playing fields are created as seldom as possible.
Mark:
Yes, Islam is one of the great religions.
It is interesting about your support of polygamy. I think it makes your support of gay marriage much more credible and defendable. I don’t think it is common for people that support gay marriage to support polygamy. I might be wrong.
On the “biologically-incorrect” challenge…
The primary social and cultural intent of marriage through the ages has been to create a family unit that expands from procreation. At least that is my understanding. Certainly modern people marry for different reasons, but unless they have health issues or age-related infertility, straight couples are capable of natural reproduction.
I use this term to make the politically-incorrect point that gay couples are 100% biologically incapable of natural reproduction. No gay couple can pass down genetic traits to offspring unless they rely on complicated science or adopt practices I don’t even want to consider. Even those gay monkey tribes we hear about cannot reproduce without infidelity (unfortunately there are no hi-tech monkey fertility clinics).
I don’t have a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, but even a simple guy like me that struggles to understand the articles in Scientific American understands the natural biological process of reproduction. Gay couples don’t have it. Therein lies one major difference. Not better, not worse… just different.
Now, adoption is an interesting point. It does not pass on genetic traits, but I can accept it as being a natural social process. Many cultures have practiced it and it does not require hi-tech science that will disappear when anthropogenic global warming and/or nuclear war sends us back to the dark ages. The problem I have with gay adoption is that there are already many straight married couples unable to adopt babies because of the lack of supply. All things being equal, I very much prefer two-gender parents raising children, so I don’t like this competition. Are gay couples more apt to adopt unwanted older children? I don’t think so… but I might be missing some stats.
Matt:[i]” That statement is not supported by the facts. In the United States 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Are you saying that a traditional mother and father divorce is a good parental model for children?”[/i]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the divorce rate of gay couples to be materially the same as straight couples. Regardless, to make a valid argument about gay parenting being equal or better, you really need to compare apples to apples. I write “all things being equal” and you compare divorced straight parents. All things being equal, two-gender parents are preferable to one-gender parents. IMO, gender and sexuality matter when raising children. Without one gender as a parental role, children of gays would need to rely on other role models. This practice is not fundamentally bad; it is just different and not as preferable. Therein lies another difference.
[i] We could choose to support “traditional marriage” as one man and woman, and “non traditional marriage” as a same sex couple. The traditionalist could feel that their definition of marriage was not somehow being defiled, and the same sex couples could feel that their unions were being honored as the true commitments that they are. What say you?”[/i]
Bingo medwoman! That would seem to be the sensitive thing to do and it would be a great compromise. Separate but equal in terms of public rights and the law. If gays would accept civil unions, my suspicion is that more churches would voluntarily support alternative ceremonies as being a unique union blessed by God. Unfortunately this political and activist judge end-around to engineer our society and culture will cause churches and conservative religious folk to dig in their heels. They really do feel like they are being attacked by the secular left in a culture war.
[i]The primary social and cultural intent of marriage through the ages has been to create a family unit that expands from procreation.
[/i]
Marriage has been a business, i.e., property contract for much of time. Procreation was only one of the purposes, and often not the primary one. Moreover, that is irrelevant to our modern understanding of marriage. Newt Gingrich does not appear to have married Callista for the purpose of procreation. Yet his marriage to her confers all the rights that she didn’t have when she was his mistress while he was married to someone else.
I actually consider Newt’s marital history to be one of the most compelling current arguments for gay marriage.
[i]If gays would accept civil unions[/i]
That wasn’t what was put on the ballot. They didn’t choose this fight.
[i]They really do feel like they are being attacked by the secular left in a culture war.[/i]
Then maybe they shouldn’t have put Prop 8 on the ballot.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the divorce rate of gay couples to be materially the same as straight couples. Regardless, to make a valid argument about gay parenting being equal or better, you really need to compare apples to apples. I write “all things being equal” and you compare divorced straight parents. All things being equal, two-gender parents are preferable to one-gender parents. IMO, gender and sexuality matter when raising children. Without one gender as a parental role, children of gays would need to rely on other role models. This practice is not fundamentally bad; it is just different and not as preferable. Therein lies another difference.”[/i]
Although it is easy to understand how you did so, you missed the point I was trying to make. Given the incredible level of “disposability” that our society has attached to marriage, saying that two sex parenting is preferable to any kind of parenting is kind of like saying that last month’s satisfaction rating of Congress is better than this month’s. The fact that is is better is meaningless when you look at the basic fact that an improvement over a 10% satisfaction level doesn’t yield a good outcome.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Bingo medwoman! That would seem to be the sensitive thing to do and it would be a great compromise. Separate but equal in terms of public rights and the law. If gays would accept civil unions, my suspicion is that more churches would voluntarily support alternative ceremonies as being a unique union blessed by God. Unfortunately this political and activist judge end-around to engineer our society and culture will cause churches and conservative religious folk to dig in their heels. They really do feel like they are being attacked by the secular left in a culture war.”[/i]
Jeff, I don’t think there would be any objection from the gay community regarding accepting civil unions as long as civil unions is all that the government offers the straight community. Divorce the term “marriage” from the government altogether. No more “Marriage Licenses” only “Civil Union Licenses.” You want a “Marriage” you go to your favorite social/cultural organization that offers marriage ceremonies and have at it. Simple as pie.
I would personally be more than willing to go back to Baltimore County Maryland and exchange my 1999 Marriage License for a reissued 1999 Civil Union License. That’s the least I can do to promote equality.
Matt, I am in agreement. Sign me up for a civil union certificate, and my church will provide me a marriage certificate. It makes the social aspect less awkware too. Once someone says they are a CU couple, I can ask “So what does your partner do for a living?” instead of “So what does your husband/wife do for a living?”
How long until gays demand the church certificate too?
I don’t think churches issue certificates, at least not legally binding ones.
There are plenty of churches that are happy to marry gays. There are plenty of churches that won’t marry people outside their congregations, and as private organizations with special constitutional protections churches can actually discriminate as to their membership.
“The most overturned Circus Court strikes again…”
The percentage of cases overturned in the 9th Circuit is about the same as the other circuits. The number is a bit higher because the 9th Circuit covers so many more states than other circuits.
But:
1. No one is sure that the Court will even take up this case in part because it was decided so narrowly and strategically so and 2. If it does get to the SCOTUS, You don’t know how Kennedy is going to rule on this, so no one knows if it will be overturned, so I find these responses a bit funny to say the least.
We could have saved a lot of time, trouble and resources if civil unions were accepted as a compromise. But some people from either side are not willing to compromise.
Why is second class citizenry an acceptable compromise to you?
JB
I think you may have misunderstood my position. I was not advocating for “civil unions” as an acceptable compromise. A “compromise” which leaves one defined group of people in society is not afforded all the same rights and priviledges is, to the best of my knowledge, unconstitutional.
What I was advocating for is a redefinition of marriage, fully equal, just preceded by different adjectives, traditional and non traditional thus honoring for both groups both the sacred and secular aspects of marriage.
“They really do feel like they are being attacked by the secular left in a culture war.”
While I acknowledge that this is how many feel, I would like to compare it with the facts of which group has actually been attacked in our society:
1) Gays being beaten and killed ( MattSheppard) for their sexual preference. Can anyone name a single person beaten or killed for
Heterosexuality?
2) Gays being systematically being excluded from major career opportunities ( military for example) because of their sexual orientation.
3) Children being taken away from their surviving parent after the death of one of their mothers because the state did not e the legitimacy of their
family
4) Partners being denied the ability to stay with their critically I’ll or dying spouse because they were not “related”.
So, by the facts, not one’s political or religious view point, which community has factually come under “attack” in a cultural war ?
Vanguard: Why is second class citizenry an acceptable compromise to you?
I don’t accept the premise of the question, so I’m not going to argue its erroneous conclusion.
medwoman: A “compromise” which leaves one defined group of people in society is not afforded all the same rights and priviledges is, to the best of my knowledge, unconstitutional.
but civil unions solve that problem. so yes it is a compromise.
“I don’t accept the premise of the question, so I’m not going to argue its erroneous conclusion.”
You do accept the premise – you have to if you are being intellectually honest with yourself because you believe the label of marriage matters, otherwise you would not care if same sex partners got that label. Whatever that value is, is the difference between first and second class status. So yes, you do accept the premise of the question which is clearly implicit in your actual argument.
[i]”Vanguard: Why is second class citizenry an acceptable compromise to you?[/i]
With all the discounting of the importance of two-gender parenting; with all the attention being paid to gay marriage; with all the snark about divorce rates, etc. related to traditional marriage… it feels to me and many others much more like traditional marriage is the thing being relegated to second class.
Quick, where do I sign up traditional marriage with protected class status?
What might your reaction be to a Traditional Marriage Pride Parade? Would the 9th Circuit Court rule it unconstitutional to exclude gays from that parade?
The solution for gays should be separate but with equal rights. The fact that this is rejected by gay rights activists is evidence that what we are experiencing is a culture war. It is not a civil rights issue. The 9th Circuit got it wrong… again. Separate, but equal civil unions remedy ALL the material harm. The only thing left is the nebulous emotional baggage of individuals struggling for acceptance and a “feeling” of equality and power. We are experiencing a minority group using politics and the courts to force others to make them feel accepted and equal. It is tyranny of a minority, who because of their inability to accept and embrace their God-given differences, have become psychologically-needy for perpetual acknowledgment and reassurance that they are not different… while ironically also being allowed to celebrate being different. It won’t work the way they envision it will work. Gay activists will celebrate their political and legal victory, and then soon realize that they have made new enemies in the culture war. People really hate to have changes to their culture rammed down their throats, and when it happens they tend to hold a grudge for a long time.
You do accept the premise….
no, I do not, and you can say it a hundred times over, and you are no closer to being right than when you said it the first time.
vanguard: Whatever that value is, is the difference between first and second class status.
nope. wrong.
vanguard: So yes, you do accept the premise of the question which is clearly implicit in your actual argument.
no, it is not. thank you.
“I don’t accept the premise of the question, so I’m not going to argue its erroneous conclusion.”
“you have to if you are being intellectually honest with yourself”
91 Octane’s response is correct, on this one. I’m afraid that the charge of “intellectual dishonestly” comes right back at you David. The label of “second class citizen” is a self assumed one. Civil Unions with full substantive rights equal to the traditional definition of marriage can be distinguished one from the other without any second-class citizen implications. As a matter of fact, since the claim is being made that the younger generation sees no value difference between the two, the argument of second-class citizen with regard to same-sex civil unions will evaporate in the future, defining two clearly distinguishable relationship unions with EQUAL value. Declaring that the inability to define a same-sex union as a marriage is a civil rights violation is another example of this requirement to accept a premise. The “narrow” decision of the 9th(remember, it was not unanimous but 2-1),claims that it applies to CA only because here a civil right was given and then taken away. If one does not accept the premise that the inability to define a same-sex union as a “marriage” is a substantive violation of civil rights(to be decided in the future by the US Supreme Court), his argument does not stand.
I am appalled at the comments above, that seem to indicate adultery is no big deal if people want to engage in it. Adultery is not a consensual relationship. The spouse cheated on did not give his/her consent, and is very much effected by adultery.
I am also appalled at the comments above, that seem to indicate polygamy is no big deal. There are very good reasons polygamy is outlawed in this country…
Perhaps the problem is with the term, “second-class citizen” which has always been used to describe substantive things like not being able to vote, discrimination in hiring ,housing,obtaining credit, etc rather than how one person or community FEELS about the other.
“The solution for gays should be separate but with equal rights.”
Yeah worked the first time we tried that. Again, the fact that you are fighting so hard on the label itself implies that you believe that there is some value to that label.
Octane: You are not making an argument, you are making an assertion that you are correct. Assertion does not prove your point. Once again, the fact that you are fighting on the labeling of the unions and trying to keep same sex married partners from having the “marriage” label means that there is a value that you ascribe that label over and above the legal rights it confers – correct?
Separate but equal! Well, we are making progress. Welcome to the 1950’s.
“Separate but equal! Well, we are making progress. Welcome to the 1950’s.”
…totally irrelevant historically. More accurately put would be “distinguishably different and equal”(in the eyes of the law which is the court’s domain). There is nothing “separate” about this issue.
Sure there is something separate about this issue. Opponents of same sex marriage are fighting to hold onto a label. The proponents of same sex marriage want access to that label. That label is the fight. To suggest people compromise is to miss the point of the entire fight.
To put it another way, the fight for equality is about the right for same sex coupled to be considered legally married and have the label “marriage: in the same way that two sex couples have had the right to do from the beginning of the marriage institution. To ask them to compromise off that label is missing the point about what this is about.
Don,
Please spare me the manufactured moral equivalency to racial inequality. We’re not talking about individual rights. Gay people have the same right as non-gays to marry a person of the opposite sex.
We are talking about the classification of an important legal and social partnership entity. Gay marriage does not compare… at all… not even close. Nobody is advocating separate rest rooms and back of the bus seating for gays. Gay marriage has no connection to hate crimes or bias against homosexuals. The vast majority of people that oppose gay marriage, support civil unions that provide gay couples all the public and legal rights and privileges provided traditional married couples.
Let’s be intellectually honest here.
What you and others object to is simply the social and cultural separation. That can only be an emotional-base argument. Would civil unions and marriage be considered different by society even while they were equal in terms of public benefits and law?… absolutely. You and others don’t have viable rational arguments against the civil union solution.
Thinking it through, if private entities (e.g., churches) continue to treat gay marriage as different, then what have you really accomplished legalizing gay marriage versus making civil unions equal? You have accomplished only a symbolic win… but at the expense of a greater culture rift.
There are always going to be a long list of social, cultural and transactional “rule” differences between gay couples and straight couples especially related to parenting. It is going to require a separate chapter/section in many Standard Operating Procedures, forms, processes. What do you fill out for the “mother” and “father” designation? Simple things like arranging chaperones for overnight school field trips get complicated by the lack of one gender or the other. Sensitivity training for kids to not talk about their “daddy” or their “mommy”, but instead just use the generic term “parent”, to protect the feelings of their schoolmate that happen have gay parents.
I have a database design and programming background.
It should be
If CIVIL UNION, then do this; else if MARRIED do this.
And not
If MARRIED and GAY and FEMALE, then do this; else if MARRIED and GAY and MALE, then do this; else if MARRIED and STRAIGHT, do this.
Jeff: Sometimes I read your posts and I really wonder where you have been for the last twenty years.
On the label point.
I once had a pet goat that thought it was one of my pet dogs. It would hang with the dogs and play with the dogs. If it could have talked, I’m sure it would have preferred to be labeled a dog. If it had a law degree, I think it might have convinced the 9th circuit to force everyone to just see goats as another type of dog and provide them all dog’s rights and privileges. Meanwhile the goat continued to march in the annual Goat Pride Festival to celebrate his unique goat-ness.
Note: only the first to sentences are true. The rest is just a story I made up.
[i]”Jeff: Sometimes I read your posts and I really wonder where you have been for the last twenty years.”[/i]
David, I do not doubt that you have trouble reading my opinions. I think you live in a bit of a bubble and have developed your own opinion that most people think the same way you do and have the same opions you do. I’m several years older than you and have had the pleasure of living in many states and many communities of this great country, and I can tell you without a doubt that the thoughts and ideas of the Davis ruling class are quite foreign to most people and also give them the impression that we have little connection with the rest of the country. Note, the US is not Europe. That may be something you need to consider.
However, blogs are supposed to be about the exchange of ideas and opinions on the topic. Maybe you should consider moving this post to the bulletin board as a “Jeff Has Been Missing the Last 20 Years” topic. Otherwise I would be interested in your arguments against what I wrote.
It’s funny that you accuse me of living in a bubble when in fact the issues you raise up are at least twenty years old. Somehow schools have managed to deal with kids who parents are both the same sex without the meltdown you describe.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]With all the discounting of the importance of two-gender parenting; with all the attention being paid to gay marriage; with all the snark about divorce rates, etc. related to traditional marriage… [b]it feels to me and many others much more like traditional marriage is the thing being relegated to second class.[/b] [/i]
Jeff, the reason that the divorce rates are so high is that we (as individuals and as a society) have made a decision, ratified by our individual and collective actions, that traditional marriage is disposable. However, our individual and collective fear of loneliness (amongst other things) causes us not to simply send marriage to the land fill for permanent disposal, but rather to the recycling facility for reuse.
David, Oh that is what you meant. Now I fee bad for going off on you about your bubble.
Okay, so that was a bad example.
There are lots of other examples.
So, let’s assume for the moment that I live in a bubble and don’t know enough about all the SOP changes that have already been made to accomodate gay parents. That only strengthens my argument about there being a difference. It is enough of a difference to warrant a different label, IMO.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Thinking it through, if private entities (e.g., churches) continue to treat gay marriage as different, [b]then what have you really accomplished legalizing gay marriage versus making civil unions equal?[/b] You have accomplished only a symbolic win… but at the expense of a greater culture rift.”[/i]
Jeff, the answer to that question is very, very simple . . . you have gotten Government out of the marriage business, and invested the management and maintenance of the marriage business to private organizations/communities.
Jeff: fair enough. But let us suppose for a second that this will cause a label problem (I don’t think it really does), is that really a reason not to do this? At some point cars are going to change to the point where they are no longer cars, is that really a reason to not to improve upon them?
For the most part what I see are people who have single parent homes, people who have two parent homes, people who have step parents, my nephew lives in a home with his aunt and uncle, the concept of a family is different and this is just one more change among many over the course of my lifetime. I just don’t see that as a reason to give us pause.
I think Matt Williams really raises a crucial point in all of this as well.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”I have a database design and programming background.
It should be
If CIVIL UNION, then do this; else if MARRIED do this.
And not
If MARRIED and GAY and FEMALE, then do this; else if MARRIED and GAY and MALE, then do this; else if MARRIED and STRAIGHT, do this.”[/i]
No Jeff, the Governmental logic statement should be
If CIVIL UNION, then do this; else do that.
——————————————————–
Each [u]private[/u] cultural/social organization/community will have a different logic statement
If MARRIED (according to our [u]private[/u] parameters), then do this; else do that.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”I once had a pet goat that thought it was one of my pet dogs. It would hang with the dogs and play with the dogs. If it could have talked, I’m sure it would have preferred to be labeled a dog.”[/i]
Jeff, there is a reason that [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_(film)[/url] was so compelling
[i]”Jeff, the reason that the divorce rates are so high is that we (as individuals and as a society) have made a decision, ratified by our individual and collective actions, that traditional marriage is disposable. However, our individual and collective fear of loneliness (amongst other things) causes us not to simply send marriage to the land fill for permanent disposal, but rather to the recycling facility for reuse.”[/i]
Matt, this is strong food for thought.
Based on my personal and family life journey, my head has been deep in the family/marriage/divorce domain.
With all my experience and thinking, research on these topics, I consider a long-term traditional marriage with children where the children are loved and cared for to be the gold standard. Next to that is any situation where a mom and dad participate and are fully engaged in their children’s upbringing/development. After that we have a plethora of alternative family situations where a loving and caring set of: same-sex parents, a single parent, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc., etc., etc. can do a great job providing meeting most of a child’s needs.
I think long-term (hopefully life-long, but at least until the children are developed into adults) marriage between a man and woman is always something we should hold in high regard and strive for. Just because it so often fails is no reason to “send it to the land fill”. Some people get lucky finding their soul mate. But more often than not, it is their upbringing and perspective about marriage and family, and their decisions and behavior related to that institution that are more directly related to its record of brevity or longevity.
Here is what I would like to see related to marriage… all of them require a legally-binding contract with termination for cause clauses, and required remediation of conflict. I would also support incentivizing the completion of a marriage class with a tax credit. Then incentivize another class for having children… possibly link that proof of class to the dependent exemptions on the tax form. My business brain can justify the resulting tax hit by calculating the real societal cost of broken marriages and crappy parenting.
Marriage is a partnership that is well-served by skills that most people do not naturally have. Those skills can be developed. One of the primary skills is communication. A partnership agreement would force much upfront communication which would serve to reduce the potential for misunderstandings. Parenting is also not a completely natural thing. Parents need to learn skills to be better parents.
[i]”If CIVIL UNION, then do this; else do that.”[/i]
Matt, I like my code better because it would filter out the polygamists! 😉
Jeff, I realize you were being humorous, but in all humor there is an element of truth. The good news is that the truth in this case is that a polygamous union would always go to the else portion of the If; else statement.
Off topic: You and Mark West and Michael Bisch and I were going to try and get together to talk a while back. That never happened. I would still like to do that if you still want to do it.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt, this is strong food for thought.
Based on my personal and family life journey . . . . . . Parents need to learn skills to be better parents.”[/i]
Based on what you have said above, I actually think you and I are not very far apart. I am once divorced and now very happily married for 13 years after a 14 year “engagement.” I think the biggest enemy to marriage is not how easily (or not easily) we can get out of marriage, but rather that we do such an inadequate job of “picking” our spouses. IMHO, ideally the two marrying parties should be one another’s bes friends. Unfortunately, I think all too often the two marrying parties are barely friends at all. That to me is a recipe for the disasterous marital situation we are currently living through.
Matt, Yes – getting to gether for lunch or after work sounds great. We could even meet at Mark’s business and try some of his great wine. I met both Mark and Michael in person (different events) and neither hit me over the head, so they might still be up for a friendly get together. I have a few business trips here and there over the next couple of months, but I can work around them. email is jeff@cscdc.org.
There are any number of specific rights that gay people cannot acquire unless they are enumerated in the civil unions you are proposing. Visitation, medical decisions, inheritance, tax filings, adoption rights, and much more.
Here are examples of the rights gays gain when their marriages are legal (New York state):
[url]http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/how-gay-marriage-will-change-couples-financial-lives/[/url]
What is the point in enumerating those rights so that a “marriage” and a “civil union” are exactly the same? And if they aren’t enumerated, then how can the status be equal?
Matt, I am lucky. I got married when I was 23 and have been married to the same woman for 29 years. We lived together for three years before getting married because I wanted to be sure. As an aside, you can guess what that meeting with her parents was like telling them their 18 year old, just graduated, daughter was going to move in with her 20 year old boyfriend that she had been dating for less than a year. Note that her dad is a retired Captain of the Davis PD and was a Sergeant at the time. Now that was scary!
Like most long-married couples, we have had our share of ups and downs. My wife is wonderful… mostly because she is, but also because she periodically lies and tells others I am wonderful! Go figure?
I agree with you that careful selection is important. However, this same sentiment can also cause problems with the “grass is greener in another pasture” syndrome. In fact, I see this drive to find something or someone better as the thing wrecking many marriages.
I do agree that you should be best friends with your spouse. Strangely though, I am aware of marriages that seem to work even though you would swear that the couple dislikes each other.
I think a big missing component of marriage these days – and may other things in modern life – is commitment. I see marriage as having made a commitment to my wife and myself and my family to stick it out as long as possible, and to work as hard as possible to make it work and make it last. I joke that as a business man I would never consider divorce because it is a terrible financial decision. Just like turning around a company, there can be a great reward for turning around a marriage… in both cases, we can come out of it much richer and much stronger. However, sadly, sometimes dissolution is the right thing to do.
Considering that, I need to get home and make dinner! =)
[video width=425 height=344 type=youtube]CbmbdWK6338[/video]
Republican Chokes Up At Gay Marriage Debate In Washington ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338[/url])
In 2008 Prop-8 passed with 52% of the vote.
The most recent Field Poll shows 51% of CA voters support allowing gays to marry.
However, when offered the choice of civil unions OR gay marriage, only 44% of the voters favored allowing gays to marry.
Given this, and the margin for error in the field poll, gay rights activists demanding the right for same-sex couples to marry have no choice but to take it to the courts. This is a big gamble because if the US Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circus Court – as it has frequently done – gay rights activists will have set back their agenda by years.
Might a better approach be to push for civil unions that provide the same public and legal rights?
wdf1, thanks for the link. Opinions on this do cross Party lines. Interesting that her arguments were all tugs at the heart and not the head.
“With all my experience and thinking, research on these topics, I consider a long-term traditional marriage with children where the children are loved and cared for to be the gold standard”
Jeff,
I think this sentence sums up nicely the reason that gays perceive the need for equality in terms of the use of the term marriage. Using the term civil union does not establish a separate but equal status. It establishes a separate and inferior status for gays. As in your own sentence, if
Traditional marriage is the “gold standard” then everything else is by definition inferior. Now I know this is your opinion. That does not mean that it should be enforced by law. Individual words do matter. Marriage as we use it today implies a commitment that is not implied by the words “civil union”. If this were not true, then there would be no fight over this issue.
For equality to truly exist, it must be reflected in both our words and our actions. Would anyone seriously think that if we allow all people to sit anywhere on the bus and to use any restroom or soda fountain but were to continue to call one visible group by what we consider a clearly perjoratives term, that we had established equality ? Probably not, but that is what you are arguing for here.
“We are talking about the classification of an important legal and social partnership entity. Gay marriage does not compare… at all… not even close. Nobody is advocating separate rest rooms and back of the bus seating for gays. Gay marriage has no connection to hate crimes or bias against homosexuals. The vast majority of people that oppose gay marriage, support civil unions that provide gay couples all the public and legal rights and privileges provided traditional married couples.
Let’s be intellectually honest here.
What you and others object to is simply the social and cultural separation. That can only be an emotional-base argument. Would civil unions and marriage be considered different by society even while they were equal in terms of public benefits and law?… absolutely. You and others don’t have viable rational arguments against the civil union solution.
Jeff
I agree that we should be intellectually honest. Your contention that nobody is advocating for second class citizenship for gays is demonstrably not true. All three of the major Republican candidates have argued forcibly for the frankly discriminatory policy Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This policy creates two distinct and unequal groups within the military. One group allowed to place their life partners picture on their desk, one not. One allowed to hold their partners hand or embrace in public, one not. It is their career that is at risk, not some subjective or emotional concern.
. This is clearly a matter or issues other than just emotional impact. To prretend that these positions by no less than presidential candidates are either non discriminatory, or not in any way related to the issue of gay marriage is, in my opinion, completely lacking in intellectual honesty.
Below is an interview statement by a Mr. Cohen, a gay rights activist, offered yesterday on Democracy Now.
“Cohen, meanwhile, is critical of the LGBTQ community’s emphasis on gay marriage, saying, “My biggest concern is how much resources in the LGBTQ movement have been funneled towards marriage equality alone, and away from basic survival [issues] that a lot of LGBTQ people still face, such as lack of access to education, healthcare, housing and criminal justice reform. And these are issues that have really taken a backseat to marriage equality, and that has harmed the most vulnerable members of our community.”
There is a body of gay activists who recognize(and embrace) the difference between same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships and see obtaining equal rights to substantive issues as the priority issue that must be addressed, not claiming the term,”marriage” for their own.
The courts are the mechanism for securing full substantive civil rights for Civil Unions if legislatures do not offer them and in the courts, IMO, this path would UNDOUBTEDLY be successful. This is the path that black Americans and women took in obtaining full and equal substantive civil rights without demanding the same word description(white male) of those who already had those rights.
[quote]I think a big missing component of marriage these days – and may other things in modern life – is commitment. I see marriage as having made a commitment to my wife and myself and my family to stick it out as long as possible, and to work as hard as possible to make it work and make it last. I joke that as a business man I would never consider divorce because it is a terrible financial decision. Just like turning around a company, there can be a great reward for turning around a marriage… in both cases, we can come out of it much richer and much stronger. However, sadly, sometimes dissolution is the right thing to do. [/quote]
Well said!
Medwoman, I find the “second class” argument telling because I perceive this push for gay marriage as the being the wrong solution for a particular common problem. I think this problem is similar to some racial issues we debate. Note that they are perpetual issues despite all our civil rights laws, affirmative action, etc., etc.
I am basing my theory my own personal life experiences, and my observation of gay people I know, combined with my assessment of how I might think and feel in their shoes.
I see a demonstrated level of personal insecurity. Of course it is natural for people to want to feel accepted and included in the larger social group. It is also understandable that a gay person might feel less accepted and included. I have empathy for this. However, this is not a situation exclusive to just gays and minorities. Most people struggle with these feelings at points in their lives.
The fact is that humans are tribal. We need to have some common social and cultural norms that bind us and make us feel grounded and allow for some basis of assumption that help us function and conduct our lives and business. Our laws and rules need to value our cultural norms and protect the health and wellbeing of the tribe. Our laws and rules also need to protect the rights of the individual.
This gets me to the point I want to make: [b]we should not, and frankly cannot, legislate changes to our social and cultural norms only to make certain categories of individuals feel more secure and accepted (read: more happy).[/b]
We should protect all individuals – regardless of their categorization – from material harm. But sadness, frustration, longing, yearning, anger… these are not material things. They cannot be quantified because they are individual emotions. They are emotions that all people will experience from time to time despite their membership in a politically-correct protected group… or not.
The arguments supporting gay marriage are all in the emotional domain. There is absolutely no material harm that cannot be solved with well-constructed laws supporting civil unions. It is because the arguments are in the emotional domain that I completely expect the march to continue toward attacking private religious institutions. Those that deny this are being intellectually dishonest, or possibly lack the emotional intelligence to make the connection.
If try to legislate to correct for our citizen’s negative emotions, it becomes a new and perpetual expectation and entitlement that is dysfunctional and detrimental. Lacking evidence of material harm, it should be made clear that solving the problems of insecurity and feeling accepted and wanted are individual responsibilities. We need to grow strength in our citizens to cope and persevere and learn how to create their own happiness.
As risk of offending some of my liberal friends, I see common indication of higher levels of emotional sensitivity combined with some deficiency for processing emotions. It is an “I feel it, so it has to be real” approach. It manifests into a sort of “savers syndrome” where sensing the negative emotions in others becomes a call to action to provide a protective shield.
We are only to protect “the pursuit of happiness”, not actually legislate to “ensure” happiness.
I think the tears shed by those lamenting the inability of gays to marry are a distraction. They are more likely a proxy for other personal sadness’s yet unresolved. Let’s use our heads for this. If marriage represents love and commitment, we do not need marriage to pledge love and commitment. There a many couples that love each other and are committed to each other without being married. If any gay person feel like a second class citizen, being able to claim the “married” label will at best be a temporary drug to mask their deeper emotional problems feeling secure and accepted. Once that euphoria wears off they will be looking for the next drug and it will be private religious organizations. We do not want this culture war to occur.
Jeff
If you feel that it is wrong to have laws to protect people from negative feelings, then why would you defend discriminatory laws that are designed to protect people’s feelings of insecurity when they feel that their religious and traditional beliefs are being threatened. Why not have laws that give every one exactly the same rights and protections ?
Jeff:
Sorry, I have been buried in work and have purposely stayed away from the discussion. I think the simple solution is to have the civil authorities get out of the marriage business and have the rights be based solely on civil unions. Marriage would then be the province of religion alone and would have no civil meaning. The problem is that the Federal Government would need to accept this before it would be truly equal. As long as married opposite-sex couples have civil rights that are not available to same sex-couples then the situation is separate but not equal.
Contrary to your assertion, I do not support polygamy per se, I just don’t view it as a moral problem, and I certainly don’t think it has any impact on my marriage. As I said, I do have a problem with the forced marriage of underage women that is inherent in many polygamous social groups. That is a very different situation than a group of adults who knowingly choose to live together as a group. The right to marry should be restricted to adults, period.
In the end, I think the government should simply get out of the relationship business.
As for your arguments about what is best for children… I have raised two biological daughters to maturity and have four underage adopted children. My nearly nine years as a Foster/Adopt parent has provided me with access to a great deal of information and experience that I didn’t have while raising my biological daughters. Simply put, while I think that a stable biological family is the best situation for children, a loving and stable foster/adopt family, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, is far better than being raised in a group home or aging out of the system without support. I don’t know the current statistics, but your contention that there are sufficient heterosexual couples to adopt all the foster kids in the State is simply wrong. There really is no competition for kids as there is in fact a paucity of available adoptive families. You may wish that not to be true, but as they say, ‘if wishes were fishes…’
Matt Williams: [i]Off topic: You and Mark West and Michael Bisch and I were going to try and get together to talk a while back. That never happened. I would still like to do that if you still want to do it.
[/i]
Jeff: [i]Matt, Yes – getting to gether for lunch or after work sounds great. We could even meet at Mark’s business and try some of his great wine. I met both Mark and Michael in person (different events) and neither hit me over the head, so they might still be up for a friendly get together.[/i]
Yes