Why you should care about Proposition 8
In the presidential race, California’s electoral results passed as an afterthought, the last minor barrier to an Obama presidency, and the networks took all of three seconds to call the race. But even if there was no drama in the presidential race on the West Coast, there was some excitement in Hollywood thanks to Proposition 8. The ruling to ban gay marriage in the state came down to the wire, and some ballots are still being counted. But all signs point to the measure passing, an unexpected outcome that is a game-changer in the struggle for gay rights.
In May, the California Supreme Court recognized that gay people had the right to marry, sending shock waves across the nation and sending Ellen straight to the wedding registry. Of course, that also got social conservatives up in arms and they managed to get Proposition 8 on the ballots, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While thousands of gay couples rushed to the altar, both sides on the proposition started raising money. Each campaign brought in more than $35 million, making it the most expensive measure on any ballot in the nation.
Going into the election, Proposition 8 looked like it was heading for defeat. It was lagging in the polls and Obama’s popularity meant that millions of new liberal voters were filling out ballots. However, the measure passed with 52.4 percent of the vote. That outcome is raising all kinds of questions.
Analysts are wondering how Prop 8 passed, with so many factors working against it. Some think that the new slate of Obama voters may not have been as liberal as people thought. There may have been a Bradley Effect, only with sexual orientation instead of race. And some are even wondering if Sean Penn could have changed the race: Penn is turning in an Oscar-worthy performance in Milk about Harvey Milk and his challenge to California’s Proposition 6, banning homosexuals from teaching in schools. The movie won’t be released until late November to garner some Oscar buzz, but some wonder if an earlier release of the movie might have turned the tide against Proposition 8.
Whatever the reason, it’s the outcome that really matters. Even though the state is still counting as many as 2 million mail-in ballots, opponents of Prop 8 are already gearing up for a fight. The ACLU is urging the state Supreme Court to overrule the proposition on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Gay rights groups are organizing protests and some cities are even prepping for a legal fight that would erase the proposition. And some counties are refusing to stop performing same-sex marriages until the state tells them to stop.
California’s case is interesting because it was going to the ballots to overturn the courts. This wrinkle of public opinion versus legalese adds another complication, meaning the legal fight is sure to be long. A lawsuit has already been filed and more will undoubtedly follow. Even though two other states (Arizona and Florida) passed measures against gay marriage last week, California is set to become the battleground for the fight. There’s no telling how successful these challenges will be, especially after the unpredictability of last week’s vote.
There’s a good chance that this fight will be taken to the federal courts. The current atmosphere makes it unlikely that proponents of gay marriage would bring it to the Supreme Court immediately, but the marriage issue is almost sure to end up being settled on the national stage, no matter how many politicians recite the “states’ rights” line. Whether the case comes out of California or another state, Prop 8 will certainly come up in any discussion.
For now, though, it’s unclear what will happen to the thousands of couples that were married in California when it was legal. Domestic partnerships will still be allowed, but it’s unclear if the marriages will be voided, or if they will continue to be recognized. Even more confusing is the option that they would no longer be recognized in California, but would be in other states. The last option is the most likely, but one that can also raise some philosophical questions about what a marriage really is.
As the marriages are in flux, so is the legal status of Proposition 8. However, California has captured the nation’s attention on this issue and this will likely become a seminal moment in our generation’s most defining social battle.
Check out what else happened on election night. Or you can return home.
“Analysts are wondering how Prop 8 passed, with so many factors working against it.”
Uh, cause the majority of the people evidently didn’t want gay marriage to be treated as equivalent to traditional marriage.
It doesn’t matter what sort of advertising, coercing, etc. is done, people will vote their conscience. It appears the people have spoken.
Cause the people voted...
November 10, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I think the easiest solution since we are really fighting over what the bond is called is to define it as such: Marriage is a union performed in a religious ceremony by a religious figure. Civil Union (or Envowment, or eternal union, or whatever else you would like to call it) is a union made by a member of a secular body. I am a man and plan to be “wed” to a woman by a JOP. I don’t mind for a second that our union would be called something other than a marriage provided it put in place the same benefits and protections that “marriage” does. Those is opposition to Prop 8 keep harping on separation of church and state (though this situation does not apply at all to it’s original intention). This solution would do that to the very core. It would no longer be about gay or straight but instead religious vs secular. How could that possibly not be a viable solution?
Greg
November 10, 2008 at 9:23 pm
If the same reasoning were used throughout history (cause’ the people voted… said,) then women would have never had the right to vote, nor would blacks be granted the right to marry whomever they choose. Neither case was voted in by the majority as the majority did not approve of either measure. Instead, it was overturned by federal courts. Opponents of interracial marriage and women’s voting rights referred to these courts as “activist courts and activist judges,” which not suprisingly is the same argument against gay marriage today. Imagine how different our society would be today if it was left at, “the people have spoken.”
Nathan
November 10, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I agree with the first comment. The people have spoken. Not only once but twice! And, yes, all 50 states do have rights as protected by the US constitution to govern themselves. “We the people” are the State of California and through the initiative process, WE declare how WE want to conduct the affairs of OUR state. The only reason this issue became inflamed was when Jerry Brown and his staff changed the original wording of the initiative to include the words “deny” and “rights”. Mr. Brown knew that this would stir things up, especially for a voter group which I am certain he is counting on to launch him back into the Governor’s office. (Lest we not forget, Brown was a horrible Governor.)
Moss
November 10, 2008 at 9:32 pm
If a majority of the voting population are small minded and have small hearts, does that make it legal or right? No. If it was strictly rule by majority then there would be a variety of groups of people who would be discriminated against due to race, religion, age, sexual orientation, sex, national origin, disability, and the list goes on.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don’t give a rats a__ that disfunctional heterosexual men and women get married, have kids, mess it all up and get divorced every hour of every day but these same people have a heart attack it two homosexual people talk about any type of permanent committment. What is wrong with this logic, or lack thereof.
G
November 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Deal with it, G. It’s called democracy and democracy has nothing to do with being nice to homosexuals. It has to do with vote counts.
And it’s gonna get worse. For the homosexuals. California Afro-Americans voted in record numbers 90 per cent for Obama and 70 per cent for Prop 8. Obama energized them as never before. As long as he’s around, they will be, too. That’s not good news for the lesbian wedding industry in California.
Oh well….
http://tiny.cc/yeson8buttgurl
Dale Andersen
November 10, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The courts in California gave a green light to gay marriage in May, overturning established California law, and ignoring legal precedent going back to Moses, and before. They refused the stay the implementation of their radical decision, even while there was a referendum pending on that issue.
The judiciary brazenly over-stepped their authority. One can argue that sometimes the will of the majority in a constitutional democracy needs to be overriden sometimes, particularly if the majority makes a radical change in the law. However, this was not the case, as homosexual marriage has never been legal in California, or at least not until after the court decision. The previous law was not a change, it was just defending the status quo. I’m sure our founding fathers wanted the courts to act as a brake on the excesses of the majority, not a source of radical change themselves.
So now the people have spoken. They have rejected the court’s unjustified usurpation of their rights in their democracy. They have every right to exercise their supreme authority, and reverse the law, and undo all the pseudo-marriages imposed upon them by the courts. Just as they have every right to fire all the judges on the court if they so wish.
I personally oppose legalizing gay marriage because it imposes a legal duty on everyone to recognize a gay union as being the same thing as a hetrosexual union. Even if they vehemently disagree. At the moment gays who can get married can think of themselves as being married. Other people can voluntarily think so too. Many companies willingly give gay couples in a civil union the same partner benefits as heterosexual married couples. Fine and good, if that’s what they want. Thats is what freedom is all about. However, what the proponents of gay marriage want is to force everyone to treat them as if they are the same. This violates individual rights. It does not advance the cause of freedom, but reduces it.
If gay marriage is recognized on a federal level, then gays will be able to bring in their partners into the US under immigration law. One can foresee gays going off to Bankok again and again, each time bringing back a fresh young Thai boy as their “bride” who would be lured by the prospect of getting US citizenship out of the deal.
Bad idea.
John Collins
November 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
The proponents of Prop 8 suggest that the rights that has been violated, in a similar way to the past civil injustices foisted upon minorities, is the right for two individuals in love to marry. This is not the case; the “right” is between a man and a woman generally unrelated by blood to marry. A gay man, for example, has the exact same right — to marry a woman. That he doesn’t want to, and instead wants to marry a man is beside the point. Can a woman marry her brother, or can a man take several wives? The point here is that the 2% of LGBT wants to claim a multimillennium tradition as its own, in essence be able to foist its injustices upon the other 98% of the population. So, who now is actually the aggressor?
Harry
November 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Sorry-update: The opponents of Prop 8 suggest that the rights that has been violated, in a similar way to the past civil injustices foisted upon minorities, is the right for two individuals in love to marry. This is not the case; the “right” is between a man and a woman generally unrelated by blood to marry. A gay man, for example, has the exact same right — to marry a woman. That he doesn’t want to, and instead wants to marry a man is beside the point. Can a woman marry her brother, or can a man take several wives? The point here is that the 2% of LGBT wants to claim a multimillennium tradition as its own, in essence be able to foist its injustices upon the other 98% of the population. So, who now is actually the aggressor?
Harry
November 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Very good point Harry. Next the issue will be about people who want to marry their sister, their harem, the 8 year old girl or boy down the street, and then their dog.
John Collins
November 10, 2008 at 10:05 pm
When I read anti-prop 8 rhetoric, I sometimes find myself agreeing with some of the arguments propounded, but as I continue to read I always encounter something like what “G” says (above) “…but these same people have a heart attack when two homosexual people talk about any type of permanent committment.” Typical, clear and obvious overreaching. “These same people” don’t care about your “permanent committment”. You can be committed as you like. I applaud it. Just don’t pretend it is a marriage. Marriage is not 2 men committed to each other, or 2 women committed to each other, or 2 hermaphrodites committed to each other. Marriage IS a man and woman, joined together, primarily (but not exclusively) for the purpose of harmonious and responsible procreation and rearing of children in an environment headed by one male and one female. Trying to shoe-horn these other relationships into something that looks like marriage doesn’t fool anyone. You can’t turn them into something they’re not.
Morgan
November 10, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Well said Morgan. As a person of color I really become offended by people comparing civil rights with gay “rights”. Next we should have adulterers rights? Ok that was attacking.
As a pretty “conservative” Christian I feel like many of my “conservative” Christian friends. If a man wants to spend the rest of his life with another man. Go for it bro. But please don’t impose anything on me or my kids. Or try to sue my church when we refuse to marry you.
Ben Grey
November 10, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Personally, I favor the solution of replacing any marriage with civil unions and returning marriage to a religious only status.
However, my opposition to Prop 8 is such:
This issue is not that it lost, but that it was put to the vote in the first place. To all those who say ‘The people have spoken’ I ask you this: ‘Is this really how democracy is supposed to work?’.
Locke, the philosopher who greatly inspired our founding fathers, wrote that the role of government is to protect individual rights. This bill is a stark contrast: It specifically removes a right with little reasoning behind it other than 52% said so.
I ask you this: What is the purpose of democracy?
When I lasted checked, it was to allow people to have a say in their own lives. It was to allow a man to have some control his own government. I have never seen the purpose of democracy defined a ‘to allow the majority to rule over the minority’. Yet that is what is happenning.
The citizens who voted on Prop 8 voted for a measure that they would not be affected by. The voted not on their own lives, but entirely on somebody else’s. That is not in the true spirit of democracy. Democracy was never intended to take rights from someone with no principle other than ‘the majority feels that way’
In the Prince, Machiavelli warned that democracy risks descending into anarchy. I fear that we stand on that precipice. Here, an action was taken with little principle other than what essentially amounts to mob rule. If we wish, in 2009, we can pass a proposition to overturn Prop 8. Then, in 2010, a new proposition can reinstate it. Repeat ad naseum. Without some principles to guide us, things will spiral out of control. What bill could be next if ‘the people have spoken’ is the end of all argument? What chaos could ensue?
We have long held sacred the self-evident rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In our more recent wisdom, we have embraced equality as a value. As a society we have also decided that ’seperate but equal’ is anything but. So how, in light of these principles, can we justify relagating one set of unions to a separate status based solely on the current whim of the the populace?
In this end, it amounts to this. On Nov 5th, several thousand Americans woke up to find that their lives were changed for the worse. This change came about not because they were harming anyone, not because they were infringing upon the rights of others, but because the other half of the population put their rights to a majority vote. These Americans were hurt and felt helpless. When they looked to the democratic government to protect their right to live as they choose, they found rejection. Was this what the founding fathers had in mind?
Makar
November 10, 2008 at 10:33 pm
It’s not about what the voters said anymore … this is a hateful law that is religiously motivated. If we voted in racial segregation the Feds would step in - in a heartbeat! Tell my white mother and black step-father that their marriage was invalid, leaving my two little brothers bastards … and the Feds would step in and tell you to go to hell! But take my marriage away from me and the woman I’ve loved for 13 years? Sure … that’s okay. No worries there, eh? It’s only a matter of time before “state’s rights” gives way to the Bill of Rights. Thank you!
Lynn
November 10, 2008 at 10:40 pm
It is factually incorrect that the California Supreme Court’s decision in May “got social conservatives up in arms and they managed to get Proposition 8 on the ballots.” As a California social conservative myself, I signed a petition in February or so to get Proposition 8 on the ballot, and encouraged others to do the same, well before that out-of-bounds court decision. Also, as a man married to a woman of a different race, I am appalled at the comparisons with interracial marriage. Gay marriage goes against nature and is counterproductive with respect to the propagation of humanity, whereas interracial marriage is genetically beneficial and has been practiced for millennia.
Andrew B.
November 10, 2008 at 10:57 pm
For the anti Prop 8 people who think that we can vote to revoke rights, then I guess we can throw the whole legal system out.
South Carolina just passed a prop. to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Given that 14 year olds can’t vote, we had people voting on the rights of others. It happens.
Even if we throw out the S.C. example because youngsters “can’t make good decisions”, let’s look at the host of other props. Most peo ple in Mass. don’t smoke pot, but decided to lessen the punishment on users.
Voters directly, or indirectly, choose the law of the land. I would support a prop that enforces mandatory prison sentences for convicted murderers. As someone who is not a convicted murder, should I not be allowed to vote on this issue.
Centuries of history suggest that people can vote on a host of issues that involve societal welfare. This is one of them. The people (no matter how dumb you think are) have made their decision. And yes, 52% is a majority.
I hope gay activists recognize the irony in trying to override democracy to support a right that is supposedly essential to democracy.
Common Sense
November 10, 2008 at 11:12 pm
An interesting, but not entirely valid counter.
Determining sentencing is a different matter altogether. Sentencing and justice is a fundamental part of the functioning of public society. The Massachusetts proposition may affect the amount of drugs in your neighborhood. The sentencing for murderers may discourage people from killing on another. This is the sort of thing that affects all of society and should come to a vote.
However, how two people choose to live their lives, not affecting other people, is not a matter that should have been voted on. If two commited American citizens want their union recognized on equal footing with another, there is no principle within the scope of American values that says they should be denied that. That is what the courts found when they interpretted the law: That such legal separation was in conflict with out principles.
Prop 8’s solution was ‘write a principle in’.
And please eschew the ‘4 judges’ arguement. The judges are not above the democratic process, having been ratified by the elected representatives of the people.
Makar
November 10, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Okay, seriously, think about it. In what sense is marriage a matter of SOCIAL WELFARE???? IN WHAT WAY IS MY INTEREST IN MARRYING MY LOVING, BEAUTIFUL GIRLFRIEND A BURDEN UPON YOU, YOUR FAMILY, OR YOUR WALLET??!! Yes, I voted to decriminalize marijuana on in my home state because as a tax payer, I have an interest in not allowing my government to put money towards keeping people unnecessarily constrained withing the prison system. YES, I would vote to raise the age of consent to 16 because one day, those 16 year olds will be 18, and able to determine whether or not that law is justifiable to them and act accordingly. IN NO WAY DOES MY LESBIANISM HAVE ANY BEARING UPON THE LIVES, DECISIONS OR HAPPINESS OF ANY STUPID FUCKING STRAIGHT PERSON WHO HAS DECIDED TO POST ON THIS BLOG. LET ME LOVE WHO I LOVE AND I’LL DO THE SAME FOR YOU. I have no interest in imposing upon anyone’s freedom here. You don’t have to like me, but you absolutely must appreciate my status as a fellow adult citizen. And as such, you should allow me ALL of the same rights and opportunities as are guaranteed to you by the state. And as for the comments about interracial marriage, let me use a little historical example for you. In the early 1900s, the state of Massachusetts was one of the few states to initially allow interracial marriage. A law was then implemented to prevent interracial couples from marrying in the state and then moving back home to their home states and still having their marriages recognized. In 2004, when the SJC in Massachusetts ruled that yes, gays can marry, Mitt Romney, our illustrious governor implemented THE EXACT SAME LAW to prevent gay couples from coming to Mass to get married and then leaving to go home happy. The fight is really remarkably similar.
Stop. Ignoring. The. Truth.
Ruth
November 10, 2008 at 11:41 pm
amen, ruth.
duh
November 11, 2008 at 1:00 am
I’m with Greg. I have always said that, in my opinion, the government should ONLY have civil unions for heterosexual AND homosexual couples. Marriage is an inherently religious institution. The church should decide. It’s a separation of church and state issue. If your religion says marriage is heterosexual, or your church, whatever. They can decide what to call it. But the government should NOT be able to make those decisions. It should ONLY be about rights and legal issues. It should be like it is in Italy, where in order to be recognized by the government, you get married at the capitol and sign papers and have a civil union - the rights, tax cuts, legal everything of a legally “married” couple. Then, if you get married a second time in the church - which is usually the big ceremony wedding, and it’s often first (then you go to the capitol and sign papers with your wedding party/some of it for witnesses) - then you’re married. They’re associated, but in reality, they’re completely separate. The problem started when we tied them together. Now the government is making religious decisions. Whether or not they can get MARRIED shouldn’t even be a legal issue.
A lot of people I talk to don’t have a problem with civil unions, they just don’t think they should call it a marriage because of the whole between a man and a woman shit. And while I think that’s ridiculous, because there sure as hell isn’t anything more sanctimonious about a fifteen year old girl being forced to marry a 45 year old man, or a popstar getting married to a backup dancer and some friend from back home drunk in Vegas and then getting divorced right after, or the people like Anna Nicole Smith who marry near-dead wealthy men for they money, or the 50+% of marriages that happen too fast and end in a bitter divorce, not to mention all the OTHER stupid reasons people get married, I THINK it’d be much less of an issue for most people if we separated those things again.
I don’t know. I think it would help. If the percentages were more different, and it got shot down like 70/30 or 60/40, I’d say no. But it was SO CLOSE that I think there MUST have been some on-the-fencers. There have to be some intelligent religious dudes who would realize that it REALLY WAS a civil rights, separation of church and state issue. America may have been founded by Christians - sort of - but the constitution DEMANDS separation of church and state, it DEMANDS equal civil rights, and it’s ridiculous to violate the first to deny someone the second.
Anna
November 11, 2008 at 3:22 am
I don’t see how gay marriage is an issue of societal welfare the way MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT OF MURDERERS is - if you don’t imprison murderers, they could kill again, which will obviously directly affect the general population. What’s the worst thing that could happen to you if two gay dudes get married? Their wedding is more nicely decorated than yours?
Anna
November 11, 2008 at 3:27 am
And in respect to things that are counterproductive to the propagation of humanity, should infertile heterosexuals then not be allowed to marry? Should there be federal mandates dictating that heterosexual couples must attempt to conceive children, or only engage in sexual acts with the possible outcome and intent of conception? Should we criminalize birth control again? Should people with genetic conditions be prevented from marrying or mating for the benefit of the gene pool? It hardly goes against nature - there are numerous examples of animal homosexuality outside of the human race, they’re just less commonly studied. And if you’re going to complain about things that go against nature, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re not using a computer to type that response.
Anna
November 11, 2008 at 3:32 am
Stop saying we live in a democracy. India is a democracy. The United States is a democratic REPUBLIC, or a representative democracy. We elect legislators to carry out the will of the people. We have a Constitution to protect minority groups from the majority mob. In some states, including California, we allow some acts of direct democracy, but those are intended to be tempered by procedures that limit the degree to which a majority can oppress an minority group.
The argument that allows prop 8 to be challenged in court is valid. Whether the court agrees is another matter, but it is not “anti-democratic” to take the case to court. It is in the spirit of the very principles that guided the formation of this country.
And Ben Grey, what an ass you sound like. You really think there’s no difference between the interracial marriage issue and this one? Mixed race couples were not enslaved any more than gay couples were. Both suffered the hostility of a majority in their day. Both couples were harassed, vilified by churches, denounced, etc. And it has taken court rulings to rectify both situations.
Of course gay people have not suffered to the extent that people of African descent have suffered. No one is claiming that. But gay people are killed, oppressed, fired, rejected, humiliated, denigrated and routinely hurt every day. And that is why gay people are standing up for their right to exist, including their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, endowed by their Creator, and that should be self-evident.
KevL
November 11, 2008 at 4:36 am
I just wanted to say I am undecided on this issue, and reading through the posts has pushed me to believe we should legalize gay marriage (though I still question whether it should be socially acceptable for men to engage in sexual conduct with other males, given its dangerous nature). I would also like to say that reading Ruth’s post hurt my impression of those supporting gay marriage. The harsh tone of your post is a real turn off. A good argument should be able to have a big impact without a harsh tone. In fact, your relationship will set a social standard of acceptance to which many people are opposed. Many religous people don’t want their children to think that homosexuality is an ok lifestyle, since the Bible does say that homosexual behavior is not right. I know you probably don’t think that religion should have anything to do with this, but it must, because the very concept of marriage is fundamentally religous, which is why I agree that the government should only offer civil unions and the churches should be responsible for “marriage.” Also - does anyone know of any studies relating to the development of children with homosexual parents compared to the development of children with heterosexual parents? I wonder whether children really do need a mother figure and father figure.
anonymous
November 11, 2008 at 4:39 am
Democracy is the best form of government whenever 51% agree with me. Whenever they don’t, it’s ridiculous.
Maybe now we can finally move beyond this illusion of what democracy really is.
Dan
November 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to give a full response to this article and the posts, but I do want to say this:
Marriage was not originally a religious sanction. Instead, it was a government issued measure allowing women to be treated as property. Not that John Stewart is an accurate historic reference point, but he did a really great job of summarizing how ludicrous it is to adhere to the ’sanctity of marriage’. Check out his video here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=189782
Also, to say two men together is ‘dangerous’ - that’s just silly. Lets face it, 2 men aren’t the only people using “other” portions of the body. Many straight men encourage their straight women partners to partake in the act. Done safely and consensually, the spread of disease transmission (which I believe you were referring to) can be prevented and avoided.
It’s so terribly convenient that many of these posts completely ignore the fact that women are also included in this. No comments on how “horrible” it is for 2 women to be together, are there?
Lastly, to compare homosexual love to bestiality, incest, or polygamy is simply illogical. Sorry Ben Gray - I recognize and understand that the civil right movement is important and very different from the gay marriage issue, but the similarities are too vast. Conservatives used the same “biblical” arguments to bar rights to people of color. Many used the same rhetoric, equating racial and interracial marriage to bestiality. And think about “marriage” versus “civil union” - doesn’t that sound like “separate but equal” to you?
Whether anyone likes it or not, marriage is a legal right that is being denied to American citizens. If you want the term “marriage” to be a religious term between one man and one woman - well, I’m fine with that. Change the term for ALL Americans. Make the legal government sanction a “civil union” for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
While it IS about love, it is also about the rights that are associated with marriage. There are tax cuts for married couples. There are estate/next of kin laws for married couples. There are hospital visiting rights for married couples. None of those rights are religious rights, they are social rights protected by the government. We are one of the last industrial nations to provide these rights for all Americans. It’s time that this discrimination comes to an end.
SC
November 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“There are tax cuts for married couples. There are estate/next of kin laws for married couples. There are hospital visiting rights for married couples. None of those rights are religious rights, they are social rights protected by the government. We are one of the last industrial nations to provide these rights for all Americans. It’s time that this discrimination comes to an end.”
The rights you mention - tax cuts, estate/next of kin laws, hospital visiting rights, and many many others, right down to the presumption that both members are parents of children born into the relationship, are all already available to gay couples who register as domestic partnerships in the state of California.
I’m tired of gay people calling this a rights issue. They already have every right married couples do. Calling a given relationship “marriage” isn’t a right. It’s classification.
Emily
November 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I am not SC, but I do recommend that you read their ENTIRE post, and not just a section of it that you can twist into a complete misrepresentation for personal benefit. The part of his post you argue is wrong is already completely refuted by him in his original post.
It is a rights issue, and I’m tired of straight people saying it’s not. We do not have every right married couples do, and even if we did, it’s separate but equal. Fine, if marriage is to be a religious institution, then any opposite-sex couple that marries through courts GETS A CIVIL UNION/domestic partnership/whatever the fuck else you’d like to call it. AND IF A CHURCH RECOGNIZES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, WHICH MANY DO, THEN IT SHOULD BE CALLED A MARRIAGE REGARDLESS OF THE COUPLE’S SEXES.
So fine, make government-issued agreements for same-sex couples ‘civil unions,’ but also make them that way for straight couples. And you bet your bottom dollar that if a church MARRIES a same-sex couple, it ought to be called marriage.
Dear Ignorant Emily,
November 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I did read the entire post. I actually thought SC made some good points.
I respectfully disagree with the “separate but equal” argument. The name is the only “separation”. When it comes to rights, the unions are equal. California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law, according to California Family Code §297.5, enacted in 2007.
Being with the person you love is indeed your right. I respect that. Calling a relationship a “marriage” or a “domestic partnership” however, is not a right. It’s classification.
This is a debate. The swearing - not so classy. I am, however, interested in what rights marriages have that you don’t, since that is your assertion. I’ve been unable to find anything to support that, and I am sincerely interested.
Emily
November 11, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Well, for one… same-sex marriage has not only been banned in California, but many other states. I apologize if you haven’t taken the time to research all of those other states (which would make sense to do if you’re trying to argue a point), but you’ll find in most places that same-sex civil unions do not provide the same benefits of marriage financially, politically and socially. For instance, hospital visitation rights can be and have been denied to a same-sex partner in Flordia. You’re in for a surprise if you take the time to look it up before making assertions.
Also, you didn’t really address the points of the above post. If marriage is to be a religious term, then fine. But what about the religious institutions that recognize same-sex marriage? Isn’t that hurting them that they can’t do that? Wouldn’t it not hurt the other churches/sects that do not want to recognize them?
And why aren’t ALL opposite-sex couples that do not get married through a church entered into a civil union? Instead, they receive a marriage license… now respectfully tell me how that isn’t separate but equal.
oh emily...
November 11, 2008 at 11:30 pm
saw the florida reference and just thought I’d provide a little information to the already vibrant discussion. The text of the passed amendment in its entirety(reqired 60% and achieved it, it gained more than 50% in all counties except the one that contains Key West):
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized
-defines marriage as a legal union
-precludes the subsequent granting of rights by future civil union or domestic partnership category by forbiding “substantial equivalents”
There were multiple measures passed across the nation on November 4th, not just California, What is the line that we draw? Is California in the right if it establishes a parallel set of rights identical for now but governed by separate statutes and separately modifiable, as is the argument for “domestic partnerships”? Is it right that rights granted on one coast can be ignored when visiting the other? When was the last time in our history that someone’s legal rights varried as they crossed state lines? penal codes can change from state to state, but by choosing to create alternate paths to a set of rights there is zero guarantee of those rights being honored throughout the country.
Ive often felt that people miss the point about the greatness of the American form of government. It isnt the act of voting. It is the knowledge that after the voting,an individual knows that he or she is still entitled to the same protection of that government.
usually.
David H
November 12, 2008 at 4:45 am
To respond (for the last time) to the comment above David H’s: As this article was about Prop 8, and as I cited California law, clearly I was referring to California’s laws governing domestic partnerships. The “separate but equal” argument doesn’t hold water there. Plessy v. Ferguson established that separate but equal facilities were to be provided for blacks, but over a half century later, the US Supreme Court found that those facilities (including schools) were in fact vastly unequal in quality. Hence, Brown v. Board of Education. In California, regardless of Prop 8’s passage, domestic partnerships are both
Separate in name from marriage (satisfying Prop 8’s proponents), and
Equal (in terms of rights of responsibilities, which should satisfy Prop 8’s opponents if this were indeed an issue of rights alone).
So throwing around a politically and emotionally charged term such as “separate but equal” does nothing but inject feelings and passions related to an entirely different issue into the current debate in an attempt to lend it the credibility it lacks on its own merits.
I think you’d find that you have an unlikely ally in people like myself, even among Prop 8 supporters, who would call their legislators, donate money, and demonstrate peacefully alongside you for equal treatment of and rights for gay couples. But the snarky, “in-your-face” vibe that is put out by people on both sides of this issue (such as in your two anonymous posts) is a turnoff to those seeking understanding and middle ground.
Having said that, I appreciate David H’s comment.
The fact that marriages performed in one state are not recognized by others, and incidentally, recognized by some churches and not others, certainly adds to the complexity surrounding this issue. I’m not pretending it’s simple, and I suspect the debate will continue until there is a federal resolution that addresses the many ramifications of the differing state positions.
Emily
November 12, 2008 at 7:20 am
Yes Emily, you’re REALLY trying to seek understanding and the middle ground, with your original post:
“I’m tired of gay people calling this a rights issue. They already have every right married couples do. Calling a given relationship “marriage” isn’t a right. It’s classification.”
Stop trying to act like the bigger person, and be the bigger person you describe.
oh emily...
November 12, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What’s the hang-up with calling same-sex marriage ‘marriage’?? Who is it hurting?
John
November 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm
With attitudes like “oh Emily”s, the gays will defeat themselves.
Please, keep yammering.
go prop 8
November 12, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I would still really like to have someone explain to me how there’s anything sacred about the more-than-fifty-percent of “eternal sacred bonds” that end in divorce.
Anna
November 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm
OK-this separate but equal thing needs to be clarified. I’m glad you bring up Brown v. Board Emily, bravo, however you seem to have completely missed the point of that landmark case. Brown did not say that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional because the facilities for blacks were so grossly inferior to those of whites. The entire point of the case and its heavy reliance on studies of black schoolchildren was to prove that separate is INHERENTLY unequal. As you say, in many circumstances gay couples can receive the same legal and economic rights as married straight couples. So apparently the only reason we don’t call that a marriage is to somehow register our disapproval of that union. Sorry, that doesn’t meet the rational basis test, much less strict scrutiny (that will be used in these cases when sexual orientation finally becomes a suspect classification).
Believe what you want to believe but quite frankly the next generation of Americans is running out of patience with those motivated by fear, hate and/or closemindedness. I may be straight but when the rights of other law abiding citizens are infringed upon it cheapens the promise of freedom for all of us. Oh and next time you invoke history, crack open a textbook first.
Sorry Emily
November 24, 2008 at 4:39 am