Commentary on the passage of Prop 8 in California

[azbadpuppy]

This is the most eloquent and well thought out  commentary I've heard yet on the aftermath of the passing of Prop 8:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652312#27652443

Very valid points, especially the 'do unto others' part. You would think that would actually mean something to those religious organizers who worked so hard and spent so much money to pass this divisive proposition. Its is just yet another example of certain groups not practicing what they preach.

[sgrizzle]

I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.

Here is the full text:

quote:
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8.  And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble.  You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

       "I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

[azbadpuppy]

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.

I'm not sure I do agree with that. This is the reason we have judges- not to make policy, but to judge what is lawful and/or constitutional. US Supreme Court judges have an obligation to uphold the US Constitution. If it weren't for them, we would still have segregation in place in many states, including Oklahoma. I think most of us can agree that judges stepping in to abolish segregation was the correct thing to do for the entire country, and in my opinion, that is exactly what should happen (and will happen) in regards to the issue of marriage. The states may have spoken, but if it is unconstitutional, it will be overturned in the US supreme court.

[dbacks fan]

Arizona Prop 102 also passed last week on this subject, but it has been mad an amendment to the state constitution tha cannot be changed by the legislature or judicial areas of the state.

In my wifes business she has several gay couples for clients, and these are not people that are now coming out, they have been together from 10 years to 30+ years with the same partner. We recently attended one couples marrige in late August. The two met 30 years ago and have been faithful and monogomus ever since. I believe that they should have the opportunity to get married, and have the same benefits as everyone else. On the other side of that, if they split up, they have to go through the same divorce proceedings.

[Hometown]

I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8.  Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.

[Neptune]

quote:I think we can all agree that judges should not be making policy. Some of the most dividing moments in the US today (abortion, gay marriage) involved a judge or judges trying to decide what should be legal.

A big proponent of sending Dred Scott back to his owner eh?  Any "dividing moment" that comes out of this will be a self-inflicted wound by Prop 8's proponents.  People who don't have a clue how the courts work.  People who have no idea what this law's ramifications are.

I don't see Prop 8 as much of a big deal.  However, my guess is that Prop 8 will be overturned.  There are potential grounds already to overturn it, then there's the effects down the road.  Until Prop 8 is overturned, it will never go away.  People act like they can codify anything and get away with it, that's not entirely true.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8.  Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.

I've read a couple of statisticians unpack the voting numbers. Even if you subtracted all of the black vote from the equation, there was no guarantee that Prop 8 would have been rejected.

I noticed the Mormon Church has been taking most of the heat for lobbying hard for Prop 8's passage in recent days. Given that church's long history of racism and, ahem, tolerance of other types of unconventional marriages, those barbs seem justified.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8.  Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.

Wow.

What about those that are caught inbetween?

[Hometown]

Is that a question or an excuse to post your cute little picture?

Actually being a Black Gay man has a lot of special challenges.  There has been lots of press and discussion of the fact that the Black Community is in denial about Homosexuality and that makes it difficult for Black Gay men -- especially in regards to HIV.

Now the broader Gay Community has also been known to discriminate against Blacks and Women, for all practical purposes banning them from their bars with restrictive rules aimed at keeping them out.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Is that a question or an excuse to post your cute little picture?

Actually being a Black Gay man has a lot of special challenges.  There has been lots of press and discussion of the fact that the Black Community is in denial about Homosexuality and that makes it difficult for Black Gay men -- especially in regards to HIV.

Now the broader Gay Community has also been known to discriminate against Blacks and Women, for all practical purposes banning them from their bars with restrictive rules aimed at keeping them out.

It was a question, your comment was so very (pardon the expression) black and white and almost sounded like you were predicting some sort of gay vs African-American political clan war. While anger I've come to expect out of you HT, I did expect you to be a lot less in love with labels.

The chance to recall one of the greatest movie review duets ever was a complete bonus.

[Hometown]

I'm talking about a possible split in a liberal coalition.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I have read that the increased numbers of Blacks that turned out to vote was a big factor in the Defeat of Prop 8.  Because of that I think Gays may be less inclined to support issues that are important to Black people.

Wow.

What about those that are caught inbetween?

Looks like Hometown "Hated it!"

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I'm talking about a possible split in a liberal coalition.

I'm skeptical of that.  There may be no love lost between the two groups, but I don't think it threatens the structure of the party. After all, they've coexisted as fellow Democrats for years, conflicts and biases notwithstanding. This pushes things a little more to the brink but it's also not something that can be laid at the feet of an exclusive part of the Democratic coalition.  A whole lot of other people voted for these odious things, too.  

I'm actually in favor of Prop 8 being challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.  They will (hopefully) settle it once and for all, and we'll finally have some national guidance.  I'm optimistic that -- even though our court has a conservative bias now  -- they will vote to expand rights rather than curtail them.

[cannon_fodder]

1. Everyone hates judicial activists - when they are not adjudicating action that you approve of.

Right to privacy - judicially created.

Enforcement of constitutional rights at the state level - judicially created

Desegregation - judicially created

3 branch checks and balances - judicially created (see Marbury v. Madison)

Federal government as social arbitrator (the new deal) - radically approved by the courts (after threatening to stack the court and remove judges)

Right to weapons - judicial activism shooting down state laws (DC gun ban)

quasi pro-choice - judicial activism
- - -

I'm guessing about 50/50 you love and hate judicial activism.  It's just not as simple as the politicians wish it was.  Sometimes majority rule is a bad thing - the majority of Saud's are OK with stoning women for not wearing a veil in public.  The majority of southerners were OK lynching the occasional "******" who got out of line and did something stupid like vote.

Not advocating FOR judicial activism, just saying it has a place.
- - - - -

2) Would someone against gay marriage please make a case for legally banning it?

Honestly, I'm at a loss (though I imagine you will be able to pick out the tongue in cheeks parts throughout).  Why do you care if Adam marries Steve?  Just as I don't care if my neighbor brings home women from the bar I am not attracted to, I don't care if Adam brings home some guy from the bar.  It may interest me in a tabloid or gossip sense of the word, but certainly not to the level of caring.

a) No personal effect
In the bedroom he can sleep in a different bed from his wife.  He can have schedule sexual encounters with his girlfriend in their fence off hot tub in the back.  Or he can have a revolving door of large busted sodomy loving bar sluts.  No real issues there.

Likewise, if my neighbor imports a bride from Singapore it does not effect my life.  If he chooses to marry a black women, live with someone and not marry, or join the priest hood and go celibate.  It does not effect me.

On a personal level, it does not effect me.

b) Tax consequences negligible

Any tax consequence would be negligible. It's that simple.  Assuming 10% of the population is gay, and a representative 50% of them got married - that's a 5% increase in married couples.  Pretending again that a couple saves 10% in taxes by being married (most savings from marriage actual come from children, mortgages, etc.)- that is a .5% decrease in overall income tax revenues.  By definition, negligible.  

Evidence exists that there will be a net GAIN in tax revenue.  Married couples would have a single home and thus each qualify for less deductions (even if they owned separate homes each could not claim it).  

Aside from the effects, is that really your argument?  Gay marriage would cost too much money?  Then why have any tax incentives for marriage - it isn't to encourage procreation, that's what child tax credits are for.  And if this is your ultimate issue - then offer gay marriage with a waiver of tax benefits.  Separate but equal.

c) Moral fabric

There are gay people.  Some people think that is morally wrong.  That thought does not change the fact that there are gay people.  Neither does forbidding gay marriage.

In every group you have radical members.  You have frat boys that hunt women for sport.  You have women that are bar sluts.  And you have gays that are man whores (or whatever the clever lesbian equivalent would be).  Yep.  Big surprise.  For some reason this is pointed out as if to prove that gay people are inherently dysfunctional in a society.  I fail to see the correlation.

Most other members of society will "grow up" and "settle down" at some point.  So even if you think gay people are more prone to a promiscuous lifestyle (which I am in no way advocating) logic entails you support a outlet to suppress such behavior.  Marriage = monogamy.  Thus, if you are concerned about the moral well being of the country and believe homosexual promiscuity is somehow paramount to that cause, gay marriage would seem to provide relief to you...

d) choice

...unless of course you harbor the belief that with enough oppression homosexuals will choose to no longer be gay. To wit I ask if you have ever decided to turn straight.  The concept of having sexual relations with another man is, to put it mildly, not appealing to me at all.  I do not recall making a conscious choice in this regard.    Thus, I surmise that most others have NOT made a choice in this matter.

Genetically, sociologically, and evolutionarily speaking then, why are there homosexuals?  I have no idea.  History long records the existence of such (the Isle of Lesbos, huh, huh) and to varying degrees accepted and banished the practice.  But in the here and now homosexuals persist randomly disbursed in society with no known genetic, social, or other "cause."  The persistence throughout would seem to indicate a lack of choice.  

I agree it provides an interesting evolutionary question, but not one particularly relevant to banning gay marriage.  Likewise, if one were inclined to believe it was a disease, genetic, or a learned behavior - then gay marriage would support your goal of eradication.  You see, a married gay man would not have children and would not pass on his genes.  Thus, coupling gay men together in marriage is probably our best bet at eradicating the "problem."

However, the basic premise of discouraging a behavior by oppressing it while said behavior has no "victim" seems inherently wrong.

e) Employment rights

Another argument is that employers would be forced to grant insurance to the spouse of a gay person.  To wit - they are currently forced to give insurance to the spouse of a straight person. So what?

How many shame marriages exist to get insurance among straight people?  Some, but not many - certainly not most.  The notion that this is a driving reason is simply erroneous.

Likewise, don't we have an insurance "crisis" in America?  Don't most people have to PAY for their spouse to join their coverage?  Is it in the interest of corporate America to discourage marriage in general?  It seems to me spouses are already worked into the system - what genitals they have doesn't seem to be that big of an issue.

And finally, if this is the killer issue draft a separate but equal clause exempting such parameters.

f) Fear and Religion

Which leaves us to the two actual underlying leaders for a ban on gay marriage.  Either a fear of homosexuals for some reason or the preachings of a religious institution.  The fear argument clearly lacks merit, as I am loath to surmise a dire end from legal gay marriage.  

Perhaps other minorities fear giving rights to homosexuals because of a perception that it would reduce their own rights or entitlements.  Perhaps that fear extends to the population at large.  Nonetheless, any such notion is without basis and selfish. Hardly meritorious of a law.

So the heart of the matter: religion.  Most people that are steadfast against gay marriage hold such a belief by religious conviction.  First and foremost - I am not aware of any edict, proposition, nor judicial order that would require a any religious institution to perform any marriage.  I am not aware of any religious person that would be required to be a part of, participate in, or even attend a gay wedding - so the only merit to the argument is that your religious conviction should be able to dictate the behavior of everyone else.

(Un)Fortunately your religious conviction has no more right to rule than my religious conviction - which hold that a person has the right to do as they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

If you hold that a persons actions must conform to your chosen religious beliefs, and such should be reflecting in the law - then you seek a theocratic state.  A set of laws that have no place in America.  And should we get a theocratic state as some fundamentalists desire, surely they would ensue to kill each other off over who's theocracy should reign supreme (see, ie, the Middle East or Reformation Europe).  

Basically, your religious beliefs are not a logical justification nor legal grounds for hindering the actions of others.  Just as a Muslim advocacy group should not be allowed to rule by Sharia and mandate a prohibition on female drivers (rule the day!), a Christian group should not be able to dictate marriage policy on religious grounds.  Nor does religion hold a monopoly on the word "marriage," which holds no particular religious connotation (here is where a zealous individual receipts a bible verse to prove that marriage is holy, faithfully failing to see the circular logic inherent to such statements).

Remember - just as you are sure you were born into the right religion... so is everyone else.  And no matter what religion you chose, there are more members of the "other" category than members of your group.  Their creation stories (aliens killed by atomic bombs in volcanoes), holy visions (so an angel showed magic gold tablets to this guy), deities (an elephant god, really?), teachings (newspaper cartoon = death) and belief systems (other religious views have merit?  Bah!) are worthy of ridicule; but our stories are holy and SHALL NOT be questioned.

- - -


Which leaves what logical argument against gay marriage?

If you just don't like it, go ahead and say so.  If you think your religious beliefs should be enforced by law and are better than other religious beliefs - have the guts to admit it.

I'm a logical person.  Logically speaking I can come to no conclusion that leads me to believe marriage should be restricted to a particular matched set of genitals.  Nor even a reason it should warrant so much attention.

[tulsa1603]

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??