Proposition 8 on the California November ballot seeks to revise the state constitution with the following words:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote. Prop 22 had the same language as Prop 8, but it changed the California Family Code, not the Constitution. Prop 22 was overturned by the California Supreme Court by a 4 to 3 vote on May 15, 2008. Because of this ruling, the California Supreme Court created a right for same sex marriages to be performed in California.
The pro Prop. 8 position: “The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences.” From ProtectMarriage.com.
The Anti Prop. 8 position: “ Every Californian should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.” From Equality California.
I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. It has been the basis of civilization since the beginning of time. When societies support the values of traditional marriage, they are strengthened. When they don’t, they are weakened and often collapse.
Some supporters of same sex marriage want everyone to believe that my position is bigoted, hate-filled, and discriminatory. They describe Proposition 8 as an attempt to take away basic rights and freedoms from loving couples that have been denied the ability to marry. The same arguments have been made against the Boy Scouts of America for their position to prohibit openly gay scoutmasters and other leaders. However, in both the case of marriage and of the Boy Scouts, it is possible to support a traditional position without being bigoted.
Being pro-marriage has nothing to do with being bigoted, hate-filled, or discriminatory. I recognize marriage as a core ideal. Redefining marriage from between a man and a woman to between any loving couple is dangerous public policy. It is replacing millennia of wisdom with what some think is the only fair and appropriate way approach the concept of marriage. It has far-reaching consequences.
There is another important issue to address. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22. A clear majority of voters expressed their political will that California public policy should only recognize marriage between a man and a woman . In 2008, by a 4 to 3 vote, the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the California voters. Their lengthy written opinion had to stretch to find a civil right in the state constitution to make their case to allow same-sex marriage. One of the arguments of the anti Prop 8 groups is that Prop 8 takes away a constitutional right to marriage. The right was only created by the slimmest of majorities of the court in a very strained opinion. Proposition 8 only restores the will of the people as expressed by Proposition 22 in 2000.
I’ll write more about my thoughts on this later. I just wanted to make a quick outline of the issues. Click here to read what I wrote in May.
I welcome your comments. Whatever your position, please be respectful.
If you would like to support Proposition 8, please contact www.ProtectMarriage.com and click on the red Donate button. You can donate on-line or print a form to donate by mail.
Tags: Prop 8, Proposition 8, same-sex marriage, Traditional marriage
August 4, 2008 at 9:55 am |
I believe this is the great battle of our time–to preserve the democratic ideals of a country founded on 1) the rights of the people to have their voices determine their laws and 2) the basic moral principles transmitted through the Judeo-Christian ethic. If either of these pillars fall, I feel the United States is doomed to follow the Greek City States, the Roman Republic, and the British Empire into the list of failed experiments. That which is greatest in us will be crushed under the weight of social reengineering, impassioned enmity, emotional rhetoric, and all in the name of tolerance. Thank you for your post!
August 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
I don’t think all the folks opposing marriage equality are haters or homophobes. I think the vast majority are probably good, decent people — who have a hard time empathizing because the idea of homosexuality feels incredibly foreign and unnatural to them. Well, it IS unnatural to them. Just not to us.
I like to compare it to left-handedness. It affects a small minority of people, causing them to do many important things in the exact opposite way that the majority does. Left-handedness was once considered evil, or “of the devil.” Kids — as recently as the last century — would sometimes have their left hands tied in an attempt to force them to be right-handed. Like sexuality, a person can choose — through tremendous willpower — to use their non-dominant hand for ordinary tasks. But why?
Remember, we are talking about CIVIL marriage here. No one is going to force any church to marry any couple they don’t want to marry. No one has succeeded in convincing the Catholic church to marry divorced people, or the Mormon church to marry non-members in one of their temples.
What’s on the table here is equality.
Let me tell you a true story. I had an uncle-in-law who was in a relationship with a man for more than 35 years. They did all they could to legally formalize their relationship, but they could not marry.
When this uncle died of lung cancer, his partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits, as he would have if they had been able to marry.
In addition, his partner had to pay inheritance tax on the 50% share of their house which my uncle had bequeathed to him. If they had been married, this wouldn’t have happened, as spouses are free from inheritance tax.
Finally, the property tax basis on the house went way up, because it was registered as s change in ownership. Again, had they been married, the tax would not have changed.
These three things combined meant my uncle’s partner could no longer afford to stay in the house they had shared for three decades.
Does that seem fair or equitable to you?
I honor your right to believe as you do, and would fight to protect that right. But under our Constitution, your idea of what God wants is not allowed to trump my idea of what god wants. You must articulate a rational states’ interest in denying marriage equality — but no one has yet been able to do that.
August 4, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
I’ve linked to your post from Jeremiah Films’ Protect Biblical Marriage … I have nothing against Gay people either; the issue is marriage; no-fault divorce did hurt marriage (may we be forgiven for allowing it).
August 5, 2008 at 7:19 am |
Your story, Tom, is a said one, but a federal domestic partner law could fix those problems without changing the definition of marriage for the vast majority of people.
Is it fair that children in the public schools from kindergarten on up should be forced to learn that same-sex marriage is as normal as traditional marriage no matter what their own values are? Is it fair that Church-sponsored adoption agencies should be required to permit adoption of children to same-sex couples or give up their ability to promote adoption altogether? Is it fair that those children, who every study shows do better with both a father and a mother, not two of each, are deprived the best possible conditions to grow up?
Is it fair that when 61% of the people vote to pass a law, four judges can overturn it? If the gay rights coalitions are so concerned with equity and fairness, why do they not put this issue on the ballot and settle it according to the democratic process instituted for that purpose? Why must they circumvent the will of the people? If judges can change the law in the face of a clear majority opposition, then equality before the law is a myth for all of us.
August 5, 2008 at 11:06 am |
CB -
If there were a federal domestic partner law that was required for ALL couples, and the state stepped out of “marriage” entirely, I’d be fine with that. But I don’t see that happening. Given all the thousands of laws on the books relating to “marriage,” I think marriage equality is the only way to achieve true civil equality. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong on that, as long as the final result is true equality.
In terms of children learning that same-sex marriage is normal no matter what their values are, let me say this. First, in California at least, parents have the right to remove their children from sex ed and health classes if the parents disagree with the curriculum. Second, yes, children NEED to learn that there are different ways of being in this world. Gay people exist. We fall in love, we make commitments to each other, we sometimes raise children, we pay taxes, we do valuable work. Some of us are selfish jerks, some of us are civic heroes. (The guy who led the charge on United 93 that saved the Capitol? A gay man.) Just like some straight people are selfish jerks and others are civic heroes. So yes, it IS fair that children learn about the different sorts of people who make up this world and the way they interact with it and with the people who populate it.
As far as church-sponsored adoption agencies go, if they are going to participate in state programs, they must follow state rules. I’m fine with the Boy Scouts keeping out whoever they want to keep out. They are a private organization. But don’t expect any tax breaks from the rest of us.
In terms of children growing up with both a mother and a father, let’s say you’re right and that kids do best with both in the home. Answer me this: how will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexual couples from having children?
Is it fair when 62% of the people vote to pass a law and have four judges overturn it? Absolutely. It’s call the separation of powers. The judiciary is there in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The people of Virginia overwhelmingly wanted to keep miscegenation legal in that state — the Supreme Court thought otherwise.
“If judges can change the law in the face of a clear majority opposition, then equality before the law is a myth for all of us.” It’s exactly the opposite — if judges CAN’T overturn an unconstitutional law, even if the majority wants it, then equality before the law is a myth.
August 5, 2008 at 11:10 am |
“The people of Virginia overwhelmingly wanted to keep miscegenation legal in that state — the Supreme Court thought otherwise.”
Sorry, that should have read “ILlegal in that state.”
August 5, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
Hi Tom…
You have said what the California Supreme Court has done. They have written “marriage” out of California law and, misleadingly, have left the word “marriage” in the law. That’s why there are no longer the words “husband” and “wife” on California marriage licenses. There are only the titles “Party A” and “Party B.”
This is an unconstitutional growth in the scope of government. Any growth in government is not to be lightly entered into. Growth in government that comes in a misleading “Trojan Horse” of equality should be rejected outright. People who have previously had no animus towards the gay community will now connect it with tyranny and deceit. The gay community should reject this Court’s decision and vote “yes” on Proposition 8. There are other ways to achieve equality.
Marriage is a gender-positive institution. It is not the same as a same sex relationship. Why should anyone want to say that it is? When women sought equal rights, they did not claim to be men. It surely wasn’t plausible for the African American community to gain their civil rights by claiming to be Caucasian.
August 6, 2008 at 8:25 am |
“Marriage is a gender-positive institution. It is not the same as a same sex relationship. Why should anyone want to say that it is? When women sought equal rights, they did not claim to be men. It surely wasn’t plausible for the African American community to gain their civil rights by claiming to be Caucasian.”
No. All women and African Americans wanted was equal treatment. There are 1000+ benefits (on the federal level) that accrue to married couples that my partner and I don’t have access to. If government is going to be involved in “marriage” at all, the rights and responsibilities associated with the recognition of committed civil relationships must be extended equally to all.
August 7, 2008 at 9:13 am |
All laws “discriminate” in one way or another. After all the word discriminate means “to recognize the difference between.” (Latin discriminare “to divide,” & Latin discrimen, derived n. from discernere “to discern” OED). Not everyone is considered legally an adult. Not everyone qualifies for social security. Not everyone is required to register with selective service. Not everyone is allowed to drive or drink. The law sets standards or conditions in which these activities are allowed or required, which means it must “discriminate” between those who qualify under the law and those who don’t.
In a society laws are enacted which reflect natural law and the moral preferences of the citizens of that society. In this country, sexual practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy and pedophilia are considered immoral and without legal justifications and protections.
The analogy between banning homosexual marriage and anti-miscegenation laws is not accurate. In Loving v. Virginia the Virginia law was struck down because it denied the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain legalized racism. The court concluded that using race to deny a couple the right to legally marry was illegally discriminating and therefore unconstitutional. Yet, it did not change the legal definition that marriage be confined to the union of one man and one woman. To claim that the definition of marriage was somehow changed with this ruling is to imply that African-Americans were somehow not men or women and needed the definition of marriage to change in order to participate.
Marriage laws were not created to persecute or deny specific rights to homosexuals as anti-miscegenation laws were to deny rights to African-Americans. Marriage laws were designed to carry on an institution which for over thousands of years and for practically every culture provided the foundation for stable societies. Unlike African-Americans under anti-miscegenation laws, homosexuals are perfectly able to participate in heterosexual marriage. Likewise, they are free NOT to participate in heterosexual marriage. No discrimination is occurring, as in the case of anti-miscegenation laws. Therefore the comparison between the two issues is fallacious and to broaden the analogy the way advocates of this issue do is to open the door to also legalize incest, bigamy, polygamy and pedophilia as long as the parties consent and love each other. Do we really want our laws to be this “undiscriminating?”
August 7, 2008 at 11:59 am |
“No discrimination is occurring, as in the case of anti-miscegenation laws.” Tell that to the Lovings. I think they felt discriminated against.
I respect your points in terms of not everything being legal for everyone. However, in all the examples you cite (age of majority, Social Security, selective service, etc.) there are rational reasons upon which the discrimination is based.
You also say: “In a society laws are enacted which reflect natural law and the moral preferences of the citizens of that society. In this country, sexual practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy and pedophilia are considered immoral and without legal justifications and protections.” Again, all of these have rational — not simply moral — reasons why they are prohibited. Bigamy usually involves deception — one spouse doesn’t know about the existence of others. In polygamy, the extra wives usually know about the existence of their “sister wives”, but this (as well as bigamy), creates an inherently INequitable situation. More than one spouse means more than one beneficiary for Social Security, health care benefits, etc. This, therefore, cannot be classified as “marriage equality” in the way that marriage between only two partners (same gender or not) can.
Pedophilia involves the participation of a minor who can’t legally consent to a sexual relationship. Again, a rational, logical reason for the proscription. Not merely a call to morality.
Incest is trickier. The rational reason why we prohibit it is because of the risk of birth defects from inbreeding. However, I can see no logical reason why two sisters — or any two relatives — who want to reap the benefits of civil marriage should not be able to do so. As long as they are willing to take on the responsibilities, as well (shared debt, only one legal spouse at a time, difficulty and expense of dissolving the relationship, etc.).
What I want to know is — and no one has yet been able to give me a truly rational, logical response to this — what is the compelling states’ interest in denying marriage equality to same-sex couples?
August 8, 2008 at 11:17 am |
First of all, whether we like it or not, marriage in our time is extended to us by the state (civil authority) and not the church, even though it may be a member of the clergy who officiates at a wedding and subsequently signs the legal forms.
Secondly, when you actually read the Bible, you find many marriages that are ordained and approved by God that would not be allowed or approved of in our time.
For example, Abraham–the patriarch of the three great monotheistic faiths–first had a child with a concubine; then had a child with his wife (who was also his sister); and then cast the mother of his first child and the child himself off into the desert to die.
What would our reactions be if we saw this story on CNN today?
And yet God not only tolerates the relationship between Abraham and Sarah, God blesses their relationship.
There are numbers of other relationships found in scripture that defy the “rules” defined in scripture itself, but the truth is that it is up to God to make determinations about us as individuals, and us in our relationships. Up to God always, and not up to us.
August 11, 2008 at 11:15 am |
You misunderstand me. Of course the Lovings were being discriminated against. They were being prevented from participating in marriage as it was defined, between a man and a woman. The laws surrounding marriage were being violated by the subsequent anti-miscegenation law.
This is not the case here. Any gay man or woman can still participate in marriage as defined, between a man and woman. That is equality.
But that is not what the homosexual marriage proponents want. What they want is to change the definition of marriage. An analogous situation is if a student demands a teacher change course standards so they can get a certain grade even though they are capable of meeting the standards; they just don’t like them or want to meet them. The teacher refuses to change the standards, knowing that a change in standards will probably lead to a lack of clarity for what is expected for the rest of the students and ultimately may degrade the results of the educational process. Although the student has an equal opportunity to achieve the desired result, he is mad at not getting his way and declares that the teacher is unfair because his perspective of the course and the educational process is different than the teacher’s. But just because someone declares something unequal doesn’t make it so. The teacher has not taken the right of the student to take the course or to succeed in it. He has the same chance as the rest of the students. It is his choice to do so or not. Just because he doesn’t like the consequences of his choices, or wishes he could make different choices, doesn’t mean he is being treated unfairly or inequitably.
The Constitution was designed to balance the need for a strong central government with guaranteeing the protection of the will of the people, as determined by the majority. That’s why we have elections, to determine the will of the majority of the people (or least those who choose to exercise that right). The first of these, as represented by the states, instituted the Constitution, setting it up as the standard by which subsequent laws might be measured. The Supreme Court was responsible to uphold the original will of the people as contained in the language of the Constitution. That majority vote was held nearly inviolable by the framers and early judges. That’s why it takes a super majority to amend the Constitution. It is difficult to change the Constitution because the will of the people was considered vital to protect. Judicial Review was originally evaluating the Constitutionality of laws based on the language of the Constitution, not the intent. Where the language of the Constitution was silent, the Supreme Court stayed out of the matter (see Wolfe, Christopher. “From Constitutional Interpretation to Judicial Activism: The Transformation of Judicial Review in America.”). It is only since the 1930s that the Supreme Court, shifting its mode of operation from examining the Constitution to using legal precedents as the basis of its deliberation, that judicial activism has enabled minority opinions to circumvent the will of the people.
In fact, the Constitution is basically a document that limits government, so that the federal government cannot encroach upon either the rights of the states or the will of the people as manifested by the majority. It also guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Though the Constitution does contain protections of individuals as listed in the Bill of Rights and some subsequent amendments, it does not list in those rights any mention of the right to marriage.
However, even using the intent of the Constitution instead of the language of it doesn’t protect homosexual marriage. The framers never thought to protect marriage under the Bill of Rights because marriage was a human and societal institution so ingrained in human life with several millennia of practice behind it; they never expected it to be in danger of federal or state law. But even if they had protected it in the Constitution, homosexual “marriage” would not have been included because “marriage” meant a union between one man and one woman.
So either looking at the language of the Constitution or the intent behind it, same-sex marriage is not supported. Therefore this issue is by default left up to the individual states.
The California Constitution provides for direct initiative and referendum (2.8.a). A majority of voters has the right to initiate and pass state law. In 2000, 61% passed an initiative defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Since neither constitution explicitly defines marriage, it is in the right of voters to decide this issue.
States’ interest in recognizing the traditional definition of marriage:
1) To uphold the will of the people. To undermine the will of the people on an issue not guaranteed or protected by either state or federal Constitution violates the principles of democratic government and sets up conditions that could lead to the demise of the democracy.
2) Traditional marriage is the best environment for rearing children. There is a vast array of studies that show this to be true. The few studies which measure committed homosexual relationships against traditional marriage are inconclusive due to insufficient sampling or show that homosexual relationships are about equivalent to single-parent homes. (See sources below)
3) Traditional monogamous marriage is healthier for adults. Reports show that homosexuals die earlier that heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of suicide, rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV and other infectious diseases (see sources for #3). Of course it is up to each individual person whether to engage in sexual behavior that is risky, but should that behavior be legitimized and normalized by codifying it into law?
To change marriage to include homosexual relationships would devalue the traditional ideal of marriage, which though not perfect, is still the best and healthiest environment to perpetuate the principles and ideals of American society through the rearing of children. The alternative is to institutionalize and normalize a relationship that is at best less than ideal and at worst a possible threat to children, adults, and democracy. Doesn’t the state have a compelling interest to protect its citizens against such threats?
Some Sources for #2
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York: Basic Books.
Dawson, D. (August 1991). Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well Being: Data for the 1998 National Health Inteview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 573-584.
Hunter, B. (1997). The Power of Mother Love. Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press.
Kamarck, E. a. (1997). Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s. Progressive Policy Institute.
Pruitt, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why Father is as Essential as Mother Care. New York: Free Press.
Tasker, F. P. (April 1995). Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 203-215.
Upchurch, D. M. (1999). Neighborhood and Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity. Journal of Marriage and Family , 61 (4), 920-933.
Some Sources for #3
Bell, A. P. (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cameron, P. e. (1994). The Longetivity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying , 249-272.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (May 2001). Taking Action to Combat Increases in STDs and HIV Risk Among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Corey, L. a. (1980). Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men. New England Journal of Medicine , 435-438.
Hogg, R. e. (1997). Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men. International Journal of Epidemiology , 657-661.
August 11, 2008 at 11:58 am |
CBarlow,
You couldn’t have said it better! Thanks for clarifying everything. I, for one, will definitely be voting for Prop 8! I hope others will be brave enough to stand up for Prop 8 as well, despite those who would label supporters as bigots and haters. I just want to keep marriage as good as it can be!
August 12, 2008 at 10:41 am |
Wow! This is a great debate. I appreciate the lack of hateful language and the great amount of respect towards people. This is a wonderful example of how we can debate and respect each other.
There is not much more that I could say that hasnt already been said but I do wish to express my support of Prop. 8.
Marriage is an institution that has been designed for thousands of years to be between a man and a woman.
In different periods of time – God has made allowances for those like Abraham and Isaac to allow for more than one wife. Not sure why – but he did.
However – he has yet to make adjustments to its core – the man and the woman.
It is true that we live in a society where the marriage is civil despite it religious roots. But now the civil laws may change what it has always been and it is our moral duty to protect it from changing. That is what makes America so great. The voice of the people can protect that which is sacred.
Regarding the courts having a responsibility to protect the minority from the tyrnanny from the majority.
Really – this isnt tyranny. C’mon. I think we can all come up with real examples of tyranny. Tyranny deals with oppression. Homosexual couples are not being dealt with differently than heterosexual couples who choose not to marry.
Homosexuals have long regarded themselves as living an alternative lifestyle. That is true. That is exactly what it is. It is an alternative, it always will be. Changing the definition of marriage will make it seem like it isnt.
August 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
“They were being prevented from participating in marriage as it was defined, between a man and a woman. ”
Almost. Marriage was defined (at least in Virginia) as between a man and a woman of the same race.
“Any gay man or woman can still participate in marriage as defined, between a man and woman. That is equality.”
And the same argument was used by Virginia in an attempt to retain their anti-miscegenation laws: a black man could marry only a black woman, a white man could marry only a white woman. That is equality.
“States’ interest in recognizing the traditional definition of marriage:
1) To uphold the will of the people. To undermine the will of the people on an issue not guaranteed or protected by either state or federal Constitution violates the principles of democratic government and sets up conditions that could lead to the demise of the democracy.”
Unless the will of the people creates unconstitutional laws, as it did in this instance and as it did in DC, where the will of the people was for a handgun ban.
“2) Traditional marriage is the best environment for rearing children. There is a vast array of studies that show this to be true. The few studies which measure committed homosexual relationships against traditional marriage are inconclusive due to insufficient sampling or show that homosexual relationships are about equivalent to single-parent homes. (See sources below)”
And how — specifically — will marriage equality prevent traditional couples from having children?
“3) Traditional monogamous marriage is healthier for adults. Reports show that homosexuals die earlier that heterosexuals and have significantly higher rates of suicide, rectal cancer, liver cancer, HIV and other infectious diseases (see sources for #3).”
This is non sequitir argument. I’d imagine STD rates are higher for unmarried heterosexuals, as well.
“Of course it is up to each individual person whether to engage in sexual behavior that is risky, but should that behavior be legitimized and normalized by codifying it into law?”
Homosexual behavior is already legal, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas. Marriage equality will encourage greater stability, as well as reducing STD transmission rates.
August 13, 2008 at 9:43 am |
1) In the case of the DC gun law, the Constitution very explicitly prohibits government from denying people the right to bear arms. But the Constitution is silent on the definition of marriage. What the Constitution does not prohibit or institute is left up to the states and people (Amendment 10). The people of the state of California in a 61% majority voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
2) Same-sex marriage will not prevent traditional couples from having children, but it will force religious adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples or go out of business (e.g., Catholic Charities in Massachusetts).
3) Yes, I imagine STD rates are higher for unmarried heterosexuals; however studies have shown that the number of partners for homosexuals is significantly higher than that of heterosexuals, and indicate a lifestyle that is more risky. The New England Journal of Medicine study determined that the average heterosexual has eight partners during his or her lifetime, while the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. (Corey, L. a. (1980). Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men. New England Journal of Medicine , 435-438.)
In another study, researchers found that 43% of white homosexual males had had 500 or more partners and 28% had had over 1,000. Seventy percent stated that half of their partners were one-night stands. (Bell, A. P. (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.)
Since the domestic partnership law in California already allows homosexuals to bind themselves together in a committed monogamous partnership, how will calling it marriage, make it more healthy for homosexuals?
August 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
“In the case of the DC gun law, the Constitution very explicitly prohibits government from denying people the right to bear arms.”
The point is not how clear the law is (or isn’t). The point is that the “will of the people” wanted something that the court found unconstitutional. Same thing happened here. A majority of Californians wanted to deny marriage equality, but the court said that is unconstitutional.
“Same-sex marriage will not prevent traditional couples from having children, but it will force religious adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples or go out of business (e.g., Catholic Charities in Massachusetts).”
That decision had NOTHING to do with marriage equality, but was instead tied to Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination laws.
That said, discrimination is wrong. Which is why Massachusetts has a law against it. Catholic Charities would still have been able to qualify adoptive parents (no matter what the gender makeup of the couple) for fitness, etc. And as you probably know, gay couples tend to qualify for only the hardest cases, the children other people don’t want to adopt.
I’m sure we disagree on this, but I think Catholic Charities made a very poor decision on this one. It’s possible more abortions were performed because adoption services weren’t available. And I think a fetus being killed is a far graver wrong than being adopted by a loving same-sex couple.
In terms of homosexual promiscuity, I think it’s true that gay men have many more partners than straight men. But we are talking about TWO MEN here. If straight men could find women as willing to jump into the sack as men are, they’d be just as promiscuous. Even so, that’s no reason to deny two men the opportunity to enter into civil marriage. Besides, that male promiscuity may be offset by the faithfullness of lesbian relationships.
“Since the domestic partnership law in California already allows homosexuals to bind themselves together in a committed monogamous partnership, how will calling it marriage, make it more healthy for homosexuals?”
First, I think the word “marriage” makes a difference. But second, while domestic partnership is nearly equal legally to marriage, it’s not quite fully equivalent. And the bigger challenge is federal equality.
August 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
Federal equality for things that are actually equal.
A relationship between two of the same gender cannot be the same (or equal) to a relationship between a man and a woman.
There is no federal equality for relationships between siblings, parent and child, or cousins, either. Because those relationships are not equal to a union between consenting, non-related opposite gender adults.
And when Catholic Charities decided not to approve adoptions for homosexual couples, they were acting upon their religious beliefs. Should anti-discrimination laws usurp freedom of religion?
Many say there is no right for religious beliefs to be imposed on the public as a whole, but no one seems to have any problem imposing on religious beliefs!
October 21, 2008 at 8:45 am |
Right on! We need to get the word out that this is NOT about hate!
My piece today:
Ellen Equates Support for Prop 8 as Hate
http://thescroogereport.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/ellen-equates-support-for-prop-8-as-hate/
October 21, 2008 at 8:47 am |
[...] parents beware Massachusetts second graders Gay Marriage Certain To Impact California Education Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-Gay Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Now I Feel Bad…Gay Marriage Case Reaches Last [...]
October 21, 2008 at 8:50 am |
[...] posts: (automatically generated)a little more about protecting marriage and Prop 8Proposition 8Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-GayCalifornia and Beyond: The Battle Over Gay [...]
October 24, 2008 at 9:39 am |
[...] parents beware Massachusetts second graders Gay Marriage Certain To Impact California Education Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-Gay Ellen Equates Support for Prop 8 as ‘Hate’ California’s Slithering [...]