Gay Marriage Advocates in California Face Another Setback
While the court upheld Prop 8, it did not overturn the state’s domestic partnership program; indeed, the very language of the ruling indicates a strong affirmation of this policy which grants same-sex couples the same privileges as married different-sex couples. All the initiative did was to limit “the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples”:
Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the
laws. …As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment.
In sum, it’s all just about which unions the state recognizes as married. With California’s domestic partnership program remaining in place, the state will simply refrain from recognizing same-sex unions as marriages but will continue to grant them the same benefits it had in the past.
With rallies planned across the state and with gay groups beginning to lay the groundwork for a campaign to overturn Prop 8 at the ballot box, the debate will revolve around, to borrow an expression from Cabaret lyricist Fred Ebb, “one litle word.” The question becomes whether the state of California should call same-sex unions “marriages.”
For California to again use that word to define same-sex unions, the state constitution must be amended. And to amend the constitution, advocates of changes will have to do just what the proponents of Prop 8 did: put an initiative on the ballot and persuade citizens to vote for it. If they are to succeed in persuading citizens to vote in favor of such an initiative, advocates of gay marriage will need avoid the mistakes they made in the past. All too often, they chose to attack opponents of gay marriage, often in very personal terms.
Instead of attacking, they need to eschew the accusatory rhetoric; opponents of Prop 8 called supporters of the successful initiative “haters,” reserving special scorn for Mormons, who were among the most generous supporters of the “Yes on 8″ campaign. Bill Rosendahl, an openly gay Los Angeles city councilman, called their church a “perversion of Christianity.”
And we’re all familiar with how gay marriage advocates smeared beauty queen Carrie Prejean for saying she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.
That type of name-calling must stop. Such behavior will do nothing to change the hearts and minds of California voters.
They simply need to make a better case for gay marriage.
To that end, I would recommend a major overhaul of the leadership of the gay organizations in the Golden State, replacing individuals with a background as left-wing partisans with those able to address a broader audience. They need advocates who can reach socially moderate Republican and Independent voters who personally believe marriage is between one man and one woman, but are open to secular recognition of same-sex marriages. Such individuals might be persuaded to support state recognition of same-sex civil marriages, provided the law so recognizing those unions includes religious-liberty protections. (Those protections would reassure people of faith that state recognition of gay marriage would not prevent religious denominations from defining marriage according to their creeds.)
While yesterday’s decision is a disappointment to many who favor state recognition of gay marriage, it does not preclude them from acting in the future to overturn the new provision in the state constitution defining marriage.
It’s now up to those seeking to overturn Prop 8 to make their case to the citizens of the Golden State. And should they make a careful, considered case for state recognition of same-sex marriage, they could see the proposition overturned as soon as the 2010 elecitons. Let us hope they have learned from past failings and will, in the future, promote the benefits of state-recognized gay marriage rather than attack those who oppose such recognition.
Question: What are the ramifications of recognizing some same-sex couples as “married” and others as, for lack of a better term, “unionized?” With those couples joined before Prop. 8 being referred to by the state as “married,” while those joined afterwards as being referred to by the state as something else? Does this open an issue of equal treatment under the law? Okay, so it is three questions.
Gay marriage will only be the beginning. The door would immediately be open to every peculiar “adult arrangement” from threesomes to full blown harems. One does not need to be a committed religious individual to realize the value of the nuclear family. You could even be an atheist. The empirical data are overwhelmingly convincing on this point. Gays can do virtually whatever they want behind close doors. Civil unions are not a problem. The well established institution of marriage, however, must be reserved to members of the opposite sex who are committed to raising children. The very survival of civilization depends on it.
“They simply need to make a better case for gay marriage”
However, homosexuals are not banned from entering the Union of Yin and Yang. For example, former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and had children while a homosexual yet he was never banned from marriage nor was he thrown in prison for marrying.
May I suggest re-defining homosexual to accommodate the meaning of marriage; by altering that ‘one little word’ all problems will be solved.
Gay marriage is bad for children. Don’t we have enough fatherless children in our jails? Divorce rates are sad, but to design fatherless families (or motherless families) is narcissistic. I’m glad the majority of Californian’s African Americans stood up. Good for them.
Mr.Blatt:
“And we’re all familiar with how gay marriage advocates smeared beauty queen Carrie Prejean for saying she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Yeah…that doesn’t augur well for overturning Prop 8 for a few years, does it?
“I would recommend a major overhaul of the leadership of the gay organizations in the Golden State, replacing individuals with a background as left-wing partisans with those able to address a broader audience.”
You’re going to replace Perez Hilton? With whom?
It’s not just the leaders of this agenda that hurt the case, but the militant rank-and-filers
who go out on their own initiative and offend people.
The bitch-fest after Prop 8′s passage so demonized the Mormon and the Catholic Churches that it wouldn’t surprise me if you saw MASSIVE amounts of funds donated to keep California Str8 coming in from out of state.
And how do hey plan to persuade Blacks and Mexican-Americans?
The behavior exhibited when Prop 8 passed set that cause back by 25 years.
I hope the hissy-fit was worth it.
The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.
Peace.
DS
What the California Court did in the beginning, in my opinion, was unconstitutional and they are now trying to save face by upholding Prop 8 because they should not have ‘redefined’ marriage in the first place. Since when are courts allowed to change the definition of words just because a group of people don’t like it and want it changed?
There is no such thing as ‘gay’ marriage because the definition is a man and woman join together to become husband and wife. To say it exists is looking at the issue from a perspective that the definition has already changed (and in fact it is happening already). A man and a man do not join together to become husband and wife, or a woman and woman do not join together and become husband and wife.
If the courts think they should have the authority to change the definition of words than it also should be debated fully before any court can do so. They have stepped beyond their bounds as far as I am concerned and are not doing the job they were appointed to do.
Gays do not want marriage. They are obsessed with control. and hedonism. 28% of male homosexuals have had over 1,000 sex partners. That looks like they mock marriage.
Studies also show where there are legal unions or marriages, an extremely high number over 90% have a sex deed with a non partner in the first year after the union. They should stick with exchange of High school class rings.
Not sure how this is a setback for gay marriage… in every legal and logical book this is a major win for them. I think you should take the time to read the ruling before you post a story like this… its pretty clear cut they won again.
“What the California Court did in the beginning, in my opinion, was unconstitutional and they are now trying to save face by upholding Prop 8 because they should not have ‘redefined’ marriage in the first place.”
For them to define marriage in any context is unconstitutional. They have no business of defining what marriage means to any human being. All that should be recognized are contracts between consenting adults.
And children would be far, far better off in the household of a loving gay couple than they would be in a shelter of children where they will get little to no adult interaction.
9. seven . . . “Gays do not want marriage. They are obsessed with control. and hedonism. 28% of male homosexuals have had over 1,000 sex partners.”
By the sound of your repressed rage, that number may be 1,001 . . . know what I’m saying?
its a shame the phobic and religious wackos flap their ignorant jaws. same prob on the left, the least intelligent mouths are the ones you hear.
the issue is really simple. an innie needs an outie, an outie needs an innie. innie and innie, or outie and outie are simply an unnatural attempt to fit what does not fit.
now there. wasn’t that easy.
I like bacon. Muslims don’t. I don’t care about that because I don’t believe the things they believe. That’s why I don’t think they should have any control over whether I eat bacon or not. If they want to go through life not eating bacon, that’s fine by me. And they have nothing to worry about where I’m concerned . . . me eating bacon isn’t a threat to their way of life. Pretty simple, really.
#11 RV
“For them to define marriage in any context is unconstitutional. They have no business of defining what marriage means to any human being.”
In reality they are using the judicial system to ‘redefine’ the word marriage not define what it is because it already has an established definition.
The ‘meaning of marriage’ for people could be the topic of a talk show, but it would still be a man and a woman join together and become husband and wife.
The courts might rule that a married couple being given special rights, protections, or responsibilities (such as the husband or wife’s debts) is unconstitutional but that would not be redefining the word.
The courts have not made things clearer or more constitutional. In order for any of their rulings to be upheld they should first have to ‘redefine’ the word marriage and I would like so see the law where they have that power. I believe they have stepped out of bounds and are not doing their job, and in fact I think they are harming the judicial system.
Boys marrying boys, girls marrying girls, shhhssssh, how long before practicing pagans demand to marry oak trees? ….. Allah Akbar !
“its a shame the phobic and religious wackos flap their ignorant jaws. same prob on the left, the least intelligent mouths are the ones you hear. ”
impossible, leftists are always retards and you are a fine example
#15 — In reality they are using the judicial system to ‘redefine’ the word marriage not define what it is because it already has an established definition.
There has been an assumed definition, not established. This is the ‘tradition’ argument. The tradition argument was also used against interracial marriage. More importantly, it is also the argument currently used by muslims and others to implement practices some of us don’t like: “but it’s our tradition.”
You have to be really careful with the tradition argument. If it can apply to YOU then it can apply to others, and you probably won’t like THEIR traditions.
If you’re going to argue a position can you at least think it through?
#7 David S:
“The argument is now purely semantic.”
On the surface, it always was. Where have YOU been?
“It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.”
If it means nothing, then why the brouhaha? Do you think the Gay Lobby subjected us to more bad drama than a backstage fire at an Italian opera house for fun?
I think not.
So it must mean SOMETHING.
The Gay Lobby knew what it meant, and the folks who voted for Prop 8 knew what it meant too.
So either you are being dishonest and just trying to put a brave face on things after being kicked in the dangling bits, or you are just about the most clueless person commenting on the issue.
Which is it?
#3 — Gay marriage will only be the beginning. The door would immediately be open to every peculiar “adult arrangement” from threesomes to full blown harems.
And
#16 — Boys marrying boys, girls marrying girls, shhhssssh, how long before practicing pagans demand to marry oak trees? ….. Allah Akbar !
Guys.
Is there part of “two consenting adults” that either of you have trouble conceptualising?
I have to agree with David #2. Where do you draw the line? If something like this is legal, what’s next? Do we start lowering the the legal age limit on marriage? Do we allow someone who wants to marry they’re horse the privilege? What about a father who wants to marry his daughter? These may seem a bit far fetched to some at the moment, but I wonder if any of it is really that far away. Sometimes you have to take a stand. It isn’t about peoples rights so much as it is about keeping society from hemorrhaging from its lack of good judgment. If I tell you that you have to stop at a 4-way stop, it’s with good reason. Simply allowing anyone the right to go at anytime they wanted would result in mayhem. The majority in every society has the right to decide what that society will and will not tolerate. The rights of the many do outweigh the rights of the few. If gays and homosexuals want certain rights, they need to appeal to the people and not try to ram their cause down our throats. This just makes us more determined to fight back and say no.
Bill Perron: “how long before practicing pagans demand to marry oak trees?”
It may be sooner than you think.
Switzerland declared that individual plants have “intrinsic dignity” and that “decapitating” wildflowers is a great moral wrong.
Næss (of Switzerland) promoted an “environmental egalitarianism” based on the belief that nature and its constituent parts should be given equal consideration with human beings.
Recently, activists lived on some trees at the UC Berkeley campus for 2 years in a vain attempt
to save the trees. Said trees could have avoided the compost heap if only they had the protection
of marriage. Environmentalists could truly advance their cause by marrying to trees, bushes, even inanimate objects such as rocks (protection from mining).
susan,
i am a far right winger. so quit making yourself sound silly. your standard, i disagree therefore you are a leftard says more about your lack of understanding than mine.
religion is neither left or right, it is simply believing in something you cannot know, like santa claus. there are many right wing atheists, and many left wing Christians. ayn rand said it best, that the reason for separating religion from government is so that people that believe differently can get along. framing gay marriage in religious terms is more than stupid, it is unneeded, and irrelevant to civil affairs. that is a conservative position. something you seem unlikely to be familiar with.
Sorry David #3
“I have to agree with David #2. Where do you draw the line? If something like this is legal, what’s next?”
I was beginning to think that most people reading my post thought that I am a stark raving maniac. The reality is that I am most assuredly right. As matter of fact, some legal theorists already concede my point. Ever heard of Jonathon Turley? You might like to read the following:
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0042
This is something you can take for granted: once you have abandoned the premise—a number of people are inevitably going to take full advantage of the new situation. The crack in the damn will only get bigger.
#18 G. Alston:
“There has been an assumed definition, not established. This is the ‘tradition’ argument. The tradition argument was also used against interracial marriage. More importantly, it is also the argument currently used by Muslims and others to implement practices some of us don’t like: “but it’s our tradition.”
In anything I wrote, I challenge you to affirm it is a ‘traditional’ argument. It ‘is’ what it ‘is’ and needs no descriptive word to define it. It is an argument against ‘redefining’ the word ‘marriage’ to include other unions aside from a man and woman. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman who become husband and wife.
Adding the descriptive word ‘interracial’ does not change that definition. In order to add the descriptive word ‘gay’ to marriage, the word marriage itself has to be redefined to accommodate ‘gay’. This should not be up to the judicial system and as far as I know it is not in their job description to do so.
In my opinion it is not the job of the judicial system to ‘redefine’ words because a group of people don like the definition, or it doesn’t include them.
You also wrote:
“it is also the argument currently used by Muslims and others to implement practices some of us don’t like: “but it’s our tradition.”
If you mean my argument is the same as someone defending polygamy, or bigamy, you are completely off base and off topic.
Because you don’t agree with my position don’t accuse me of not ‘thinking it through’. Don’t distract with veiled insults, if weakens your position
tradition has a more technical name, it is the status quo. in a debate, the status quo has the presumption. the burden belongs to the affirmative, they who wish a change. the burden stays with the affirmative in an evaluative debate unless it is challenged with a prima facie moral argument. for example, the moral objections of slavery switched the burden from the north that wanted change, to the south which had to defend slavery with a rebuttal to the moral charge.
this is why both sides play morals games with the issue. one saying it immoral the other saying it is discrimination.
being that it is neither immoral, as correctly pointed out it is between 2 consenting adults, nor is it discrimination, the laws apply to all equally, the burden remains with the pro gay, or affirmative.
once you remove the bs, the argument becomes, is the united states comparatively better or worse with homosexual government sanctioned marriage. this is known as a comparative advantage case. that seems a steep enough hill for most to climb given that homosexuality, no matter its cause, is a biological natural occurring anomaly. people are not physically designed for union with someone like themselves. now there are lots of anomaly’s, good, bad or indifferent. that alone says nothing, except that once again the burden is for the pro gay people to make a case why we will better off with what they propose. need to quit diddling with the irrelevant and make the case or fergit about it.
Ok, so people are against re-defining the word marriage, even though the word has been re-defined dozens of times over for the past thousand years. The point still stands, The State has absolutley no business recognizing a word that creates a policy of discrimination. The State should get out of the marriage business ASAP, and only recognize unions, since that would be non-discriminatory.
“…since that would be non-discriminatory.”
Discrimination is a neutral term. There is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating between one thing and another. We discriminate all the time. Some of us, for instance, like chocolate ice cream, and some prefer vanilla. The only legitimate question is whether a particular form of discrimination is valid or not.
14. sheesh:
I like bacon. Muslims don’t. I don’t care about that because I don’t believe the things they believe. That’s why I don’t think they should have any control over whether I eat bacon or not. If they want to go through life not eating bacon, that’s fine by me. And they have nothing to worry about where I’m concerned . . . me eating bacon isn’t a threat to their way of life. Pretty simple, really.
May 27, 2009 – 7:46 am
More repressed rage against Muslims? It is a religious issue for them.. I take it you disrespect peoples religions.
Gay marriage is an endeavor to destroy families.
Mom, dad, sons daughters.
Gender confusion and lifestyles are the last place to go for advice on marriage, marriage laws and family values.
RE #3. David Thomson: [...] Gay marriage will only be the beginning. The door would immediately be open to every peculiar “adult arrangement” from threesomes to full blown harems. [...]
We can include here the formalization of incest or pedophilia.
RE #10/robotech master: [...] Not sure how this is a setback for gay marriage… in every legal and logical book this is a major win for them. I think you should take the time to read the ruling before you post a story like this… its pretty clear cut they won again. [...]
rob/ter again broadcasting from Laputa (or is it Erewhon?)
RE # 12/sheesh RE #9. seven; [...] “Gays do not want marriage. They are obsessed with control. and hedonism. 28% of male homosexuals have had over 1,000 sex partners.” By the sound of your repressed rage, that
number may be 1,001 . . . know what I’m saying? [...]
Fabby, you’re again tiring your right hand.
Also I admit having a great day yesterday when driving on Santa Monica @ San Vicente (W. Hollywood) and looking at the Perez Hilton duplicates protesting… so many Rapa Nui heads… oppression… my… nice purses… great haircuts… herculean shoulders and bulged crotches and miniscule legs… impressive… bottles of dehydrated water… explosion of refinment… inteligence…
Fabulous, I am sue you can find some repressed rage in the above paragraph.
The ONLY thing at stake under Proposition 8 was the question of what to call it, “marriage” or “domestic partnership.” The people chose “domestic partnership.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
“You’re going to replace Perez Hilton? With whom?”
A Pig with lipstick?
A used condom?
A tube of cherry flavored KY jelly?
The list is almost endless. I’m leaning toward a douche bag full of ice water.
To 32. misanthropicus
Nah I’m not hanging out with your pro-gay marriage religious zealots who sole goal is to push for a commie state religion to force everyone to accept what they believe and oppress every other view point. You nuts can keep having the judges hand down unconstitutional pro-gay marriage ruling all day long but sooner or later the ppl will get tired of passing amendment after amendment to stop your crusade to oppress everyone with your wonderful “equally through gayness” agenda. Your state church of gay won’t be so easy to create…
RE #36. robotech master: To # 32. misanthropicus:
[...] Nah I’m not hanging out with your pro-gay marriage religious zealots who sole goal is to push for a commie state religion to force everyone to accept what they believe and oppress every other view point. You nuts can keep having the judges hand down unconstitutional pro-gay marriage ruling all day long but sooner or later the ppl will get tired of passing amendment after amendment to stop your crusade to oppress everyone with your wonderful “equally through gayness” agenda. Your state church of gay won’t be so easy to create… [...]
Buddy, you’re barking at the wrong tree -
14. Actually, you eating bacon is a threat to them. You don’t understand it, but anyone refusing to bow down to their laws is a threat to them.
“Since when are courts allowed to change the definition of words just because a group of people don’t like it and want it changed?”
– - – - –
When the use of the word in question results in a violation of one of the rights guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution. If we hold an election tomorrow on the question “should blacks have to sit in the back of our buses?”, and the proposition wins by an eighty-to-one margin, the courts will step in and stop the madness, because the Constitution protects our individual hold on all of those enumerated rights, even when others band together to take them away from us.
(28% of gay men have had over 1000 sexual partners? Maybe if you count daydreams and fantasies, I suppose . . . )
38. myth buster . . . ” Actually, you eating bacon is a threat to them. You don’t understand it, but anyone refusing to bow down to their laws is a threat to them.”
Stay with the metaphor: “Eating bacon” is gay marriage. “Muslims” are religious conservatives. Anyone refusing to bow down to the religious conservatives’ views is a threat . . . but only in their head, not in reality.
Now you understand. Actually, you understood all along, you just didn’t realize it.
Question: If you change the definition of marriage as it has stood for the last 3 million years of human reproduction to mean “two or more people shacking up together,” then what word do you use for a man and woman committing themselves to each other for life for the purpose of making babies and raising them to adult hood, as the fruit of their holy union? I want a word for it. Eskimos have 78 words for snow. Can’t we have one word for the cornerstone of Human Survival? We already lost the word “Gay.” I can’t watch “The Gay Divorcee” with Fred Astaire today without having the unintended double entendre get stuck in my head. So for this reason, and the principles behind it, I don’t want to lose the word Marriage. Vive La Difference!
@19. Bilgeman:
The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic – but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.
The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 – denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage – it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.
The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” – the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.
You may not understand the ruling, but calling me dishonest is just ignorant. Read the decision. The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.
Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.
Real big win there…
Peace.
DS
Slightly off topic, but is “gay and lesbian” redundant? Why the need to make a distinction? And why is Ellen always used as the signpost? I get so tired of seeing her ugly mug on anything used to promote this “lifestyle.”
Prop 8 was on the ballot last November because of crazy rules in CA that make it relatively easy for voter initiatives to be qualified for the ballot. It is this same crazy initiative process that is also responsible for the fiscal crisis in the state of CA. Too many voter initiatives mandating too much money spent on too many silly things with no tax dollars to pay for it – only more bond debt. The anti-gay extremists got up in arms about gays getting married in CA and funneled a lot of money into the state to get Prop 8 qualified for the November ballot. They then spent a lot more money to ensure it won. The anti-gay marriage activists should have left it alone. But they are always shooting themselves in the foot.
Prop 8 opponents lost the battle yesterday, but – thanks to the anti-gay marriage activists – they will eventually win the war. Gay marriage was initially an issue restricted to California and a few other states. It will soon become a federal issue because of this case. And when it does, it will impact every state in the nation. David Boies and Ted Olson joined hands yesterday to challenge this CA State Supreme Court ruling. They are going to argue it is fundamentally a violation of the 14th amendment of the US constitution. They are correct. The due process clause has been applied to the right to marriage. The equal protection clause mandates that all states provide equal rights under the law to all residents of all states. That the majority of CA voters voted in favor of denying the right to marriage to gays is irrelevant. It is unconstitutional for the majority to deny civil rights to any minority. There is an abundance of case law.
I think the next step is the Ninth Circuit Court (?). This is a very liberal court and may rule in favor of gay marriage proponents. If gay marriage proponents win at the Ninth Circuit, then it would be best for gay marriage opponents to drop it. But they won’t because they are obsessed with controlling every aspect of other people’s lives. Win or lose, one side will take it to the US Supreme Court. The Supremes will be compelled to hear it because fundamental constitutional rights are involved. Although it will be interesting to see how Scalia (the strict constructionist) rules in another case involving Olson and Boies and equal protection under the law – in the end – the majority of US Supreme Court Justices will rule in favor of the 14th amendment. And when they do, denying the right of marriage to gays in any (and every) state will be a violation of the US constitution.
It is hilarious. A perfect example of ‘be careful what you wish for…’
And I forgot to say – the only reason CA State Supreme Court Justices ruled as they did was because anti-gay marriage extremists were already threatening to mount another voter initiative to recall any CA State Supreme Court Justice who ruled in favor of gay marriage.
#42 David S.:
“The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic”
Oh really? The kindly re-read this copy from Mr. Blatt:
“While the court upheld Prop 8, it did not overturn the state’s domestic partnership program; indeed, the very language of the ruling indicates a strong affirmation of this policy which grants same-sex couples the same privileges as married different-sex couples. All the initiative did was to limit “the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples””
What does this mean to you? If Homosexual partners had all the same privileges as a married couple, then there was absolutely no proscribed civil rights that needed to be extended.
“You may not understand the ruling, but calling me dishonest is just ignorant.”
If you re-read my post, I offered you a choice, and you chose dishonest…thanks for answering the question.
“Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society”
No, you don’t get away with that revisionism, chap.
Californians corrected their Supreme Court’s recent mis-redefinition of the term.
“So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well.”
Hey…you got a problem with democracy? Then go find somewhere else to live.
And seeing as how you find some need to accuse the majority as “bigots” when you don’t get your way, I think you’d be well advised to go and start packing.
“They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.”
Not necessarily…another initiative to change the constitution, and you might lose the domestic partnerships also.
You wnat to call people bigots, why shouldn’t they act like ones?
Underlying the issue of marriage is not the rights of the adults but that of the child: the child has the right to a father and a mother. Homosexual “marriage” denies such right to the child. Divorce has the same harmful effect as homosexual “marriage” and should be discouraged. The State cannot force people to remain married since contracts should be initiated and terminated with consent by all parties involved.
Stating that a gay couple next door does not harm one’s own marriage is a false argument since bestial, incestuous, polyamorous unions would not harm one’s own marriage. And so far no one is advocating for the latter type of unions.
Arguments for homosexual “marriage” are arguments for self-indulgence. My indulgences, sexual or not, are more important than the needs/rights of the child. Too often today, children are just accessories (like shoes and bracelets) to some adults’ lifestyle.
But then the current US society is quite anti-child with the mainstreaming of abortion: apparently the child does not have that inalienable right to LIFE.
Marriage is not a civil right, despite the decision of mal-educated judges. Not all heterosexual couple can marry. Cohabitation is a civil right: all heterosexual couples can cohabit. Marriage should be made more difficult, not easier, to obtain.
#39 bobby b. wrote:
“When the use of the word in question results in a violation of one of the rights guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution. If we hold an election tomorrow on the question “should blacks have to sit in the back of our buses?”, and the proposition wins by an eighty-to-one margin, the courts will step in and stop the madness, because the Constitution protects our individual hold on all of those enumerated rights, even when others band together to take them away from us.”
Huh? In your scenario what ‘word’ would the courts change the definition of to correct the situation you describe?
The definition of marriage, a man and woman join together to become husband and wife would have to be wiped from the books in order for there to be such a thing as ‘gay’ marriage. I do not think that the courts should have the power to change the definition of words because a group of people want them to.
Take the word ‘gay’ for instance. Society has become used to using that word when describing homosexual people, yet the word still retains it’s original definition of carefree, happy etc. A secondary or some might say ‘slang’ definition relates it to being used as a description of homosexuals. The same could be said for words such as bitch, breeder, sick, etc. Society begins to use a word for other than it’s base definition and it gets incorporated and becomes a secondary or ‘slang’ definition.
In the instance of saying ‘gay’ marriage, the whole base definition has to change to accommodate the word ‘gay’. This leads to the conclusion that the courts are taking it upon themselves to change the definition of a word just because some people want them to.
A argument that married couples should not be given special rights, protections, responsibilities, or obligations could be argued in the courts, but to change the definition of ‘marriage’, in my opinion, is not their job.
RE #44/Realitychecq “[...] ….. [...]”
Peyote, peyote, peyote…
#48 — The definition of marriage, a man and woman join together to become husband and wife would have to be wiped from the books in order for there to be such a thing as ‘gay’ marriage.
Isn’t the purpose of anti-gay legislation like prop 8 intended to create and enforce the definition you keep claiming already exists?
If it exists, where is this?
If it exists, what purpose would prop 8 serve? There seems to be no reason for prop 8 to have existed otherwise.
#46 — Hey…you got a problem with democracy? Then go find somewhere else to live.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is what you’re advocating: tyranny of the majority.
That’s not how it works.
#43 — Slightly off topic, but is “gay and lesbian” redundant?
YES. This needs to stop. Good observation.
#41 — …then what word do you use for a man and woman committing themselves to each other for life for the purpose of making babies and raising them to adult hood, as the fruit of their holy union?
There’s already a colloquial modifier. A man and woman living together as a married couple but without a piece of paper is referred to as “commonlaw married.”
***
All
Some here claim that the purpose of the effort is to enforce recognition of homosexuality as being normal. This is true, and it’s true because homosexuality IS normal. It’s not common, but just because it’s not common it’s not somehow “wrong” by definition.
By and large the arguments against gay marriage are based on the supposition that being gay is a choice much like protitution or being a thief. Evidence says this is incorrect. It’s not a behaviour (i.e. “lifestyle”) choice, but physiological. After all, I didn’t choose to be heterosexual. I just am. Same thing for all of us.
From the perspective of this being physiological then it seems utterly ridiculous to deny marriage. The only leg the anti-gay argument has to stand on is decades old superstition and a longstanding tradition of erstwhile persecution based on ignorance. There are times where tradition is wrong. This is one of them.
Darn those rascally Muslims! They will execute ANYONE in a gay marriage, or just Gay. Must be a lot of them in Californicationland.
#50
A majority, or a minority redefining the word ‘marriage’ through the courts because it does not include them in the definition is “tyranny” whether it be by a few or by many or by a government entity such as the courts.
It is a sad day for the judicial system when voters must affirm the definition of marriage in order that judges do not use their power to commit tyranny over the people it should be serving. It is absolutely not in their job description to redefine marriage for the simple reason that people want them to.
Tyranny has already been committed by the courts and the voter responded by passing prop 8.
As long as there are people who are convinced that their interests are served by placing power plays over men and women are different, and this is
so because there is more involved than men and women; they will continue to give better testimony of the dark side of human nature, rather than the brighter side.
For the community has to be more than, “I have my rights”. It needs to embrace the intangible as well.
misanthropicus @49
Can you please be more articulate? I have no idea what you meant by:
RE #44/Realitychecq “[...] ….. [...]”
Peyote, peyote, peyote…
g alston @50
Yes, you are correct. Homosexual behavior is the result of naturally occurring genetic variation seen throughout the animal kingdom. That it has a genetic (and neurophysiological) basis was proven many years ago.
One can genetically reengineer the brain of an animal to induce homosexual behavior. When one uses ‘conditional’ gene expression (e.g. temperature sensitive) in particular neurons of the brain, then homosexual behavior can be induced (or suppressed) by raising (or lowering) the temperature.
I know this is far too much geek speak for the anti-science crowd that resides here, but what these experiments have proven is that males are ‘hard wired’ to have sex with anything. What prevents a ‘normal’ male from attempting to have sex with other males is an inhibitory neuronal circuit. When this neuronal circuit is missing or rendered inactive by blocking synaptic transmission, then inhibition is relieved and the animal attempts to copulate with other males.
Homosexuality has been labeled aberrant, abnormal and/or mutant simply because it is exhibited by a minority of the population. But blond hair and blue eyes are also the result of naturally occurring genetic variants exhibited by a minority of the population. We certainly don’t deny the right to marriage to blonds. Why deny the right to marriage to homosexuals?
For that matter, the ability to learn and remember also has a genetic and neurophysiological basis. In the absence of particular neuronal circuits, the animal is incapable of learning new tasks. One can use similar experimental techniques (temporal and spatial control of gene expression) to increase or decrease learning ability in ‘normal’ animals.
In other words, even stupidity is not a ‘lifestyle’ choice. As evidenced by numerous posts on this web site – some by those claiming to be married – there is clearly no law denying stupid people the right to marry. At least homosexuals aren’t reproducing at the same rate as stupid people.
#52 — Tyranny has already been committed by the courts and the voter responded by passing prop 8.
Oh, the humanity! … melodrama much?
What possible grievous hurt can you claim if some couple in Tampa get married? Zero. None. Nada. Unless they knocked on your door and told you about it, you would never know.
Tyranny is grievous injury to society, like making us all work 80 hour weeks in the coal mines. Maybe your argument would sound slightly less shrill and silly if you were to just simply say you find some things unfair. (Or not. It’s still shrill and silly without going over the top.)
#55
your words
“tyranny of the majority.”
and I’m melodramatic? The courts and a minority are practicing tyranny over the majority. Tyranny is oppressive power especially by a government entity. Hmmm… fits what the courts are doing, forcing the majority of the population to go through the legislature to undo their over-reaching judicial rulings.
I didn’t claim grievous hurt but please feel free to counter my argument with distractions, accusations, and name calling.
@46. Bilgeman:
Homosexual partners had all the same privileges because they had the right to marriage. Now they are denied the term, but not the franchise. The original ruling that earned them the right to marriage was anything but semantic. Now we have the obvious absurdity of married homosexuals who could not marry again if they lost their partner. This will no doubt be disputed until the franchise is restored.
The Supreme Court did not reverse any of their previous decision in terms of the rights afforded by the California Constitution. Prop 8 changed only the term to be used in reference to these rights. I don’t have a problem with democracy – but Prop. 8 is a pointless and divisive exercise, and in my opinion a pretty clear attempt to abuse of the rights of the minority. This is not in keeping with the Republican tradition of a neutral and fair government that affords equal protection to all.
In short, Prop. 8 is not democracy – it is bigotry. It has nothing to do with getting my way – it has to do with fairness, equality and the rule of law. I feel no need to abandon my country or the principles upon which it was founded. Yet somehow you are compelled to suggest that I should leave the country whose ideals I defend tirelessly. You shame us all when you ask the state to violate our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
It’s not that I want to call people bigots. I would prefer not to have an occasion to do so – but when I see bigotry so blatant as you have demonstrated, I say so. As far as another change to the constitution, you will find that one a tough sell. The court has already affirmed that the rights are inviolable.. That’s a precedent that has been shown not to be subject to revision – you can take away domestic partnerships, but under any other name, the rights will still be inviolable. The genie is out of the bottle, and you can’t put it back by calling it funny names.
If you don’t like to be called a bigot, don’t act like one. I begin to think you may secretly enjoy the thrill…
Peace.
DS
#57 — I don’t have a problem with democracy – but Prop. 8 is a pointless and divisive exercise, and in my opinion a pretty clear attempt to abuse of the rights of the minority.
The conservative stands on *all* social issues are divisive and pointless. These are things that cannot be won, and the only possible outcome is to waste party energy.
As a lefty you ought to encourage this. Take over the world while they’re busy with pointless nonsense.
Oh, wait…
When a minority of a population along with a government entity take it upon themselves to dictate that the majority of a population must accept their redefining marriage because they want to, it is tyranny in it’s purest form.
When a minority along with a government entity will not tolerate any point of view other then theirs and force the majority to go through the legislature to reverse their over-reaching judicial directives, it is bigotry in it’s purest form.
Labeling people who are against redefining marriage as divisive, pointless, bigots, shrill, silly, tyrannical, etc., points to the importance of not allowing the courts, and a minority, to become dictatorial and intimidate the majority into deciding the issue of changing the definition of marriage to anything other than a man and woman joining together to become husband and wife.
Examining the motives and being aware of the tactics of the courts and those who wish to dictate to United States citizens how they should think and what they should change just because they say so is important and insinuating otherwise is another diversionary tactic.
RE #54/realitycheq RE #49 misanthropicus: [...] Can you please be more articulate? I have no idea what you meant by:
Peyote, peyote, peyote… [...]
It’s a diagnosis, buddy -
If the homosexuals get their way with regard to defining their arrangements as ‘marriage’, isn’t that a ‘tyranny of the minority’?
Hey I want to marry myself and get tax benefits for it, so what is wrong with that. I guess you could call it the unimarriage with deductions for myself and myself. Then I could deduct the upkeep of myself by myself. When I check into a hotel as a couple of me and myself who I married I should get two complimentary breakfasts and two beverages of the choice of me and myself, and I might also invite I to be present as well and get three of anything me myself and I want.
#56 — your words “tyranny of the majority.”
It is a phrase. It means “Mob Rule” and comes with all of implied meanings i.e. the unthinking mob. That would be you.
@62. Houdini:
As long as you are two consenting adults, go for it. Paying for double occupancy at the hotel, and the extra insurance premiums for both of you, as well as feeding both your mouths, will be a major expense. You’ll need the deductions, but the economic stimulus you provide will outweigh the loss to the treasury.
Thanks for taking the argument outside the absurd to the totally irrelevant. Very refreshing.
What part of two consenting adults is hard to understand?
Peace.
DS
misanthropicus @60
Thanks for the diagnosis. I was wondering what was wrong with you. Now I know. You are completely vacuous. I will try to break it to you gently, but I have a very difficult time being ‘buddies’ with those so devoid of intelligence.
#63 wrote:
“It is a phrase. It means “Mob Rule” and comes with all of implied meanings i.e. the unthinking mob. That would be you.”
Yes, unfortunately for you the United States is ruled by the people for the people and not the tyrannical few, although that element is constantly barking at the gates to intimidate.
Keep your chin up though because it appears that through the courts, intimidation, name-calling, and censorship, you may soon get the upper hand.
Censorship it’s a word and words have definitions and censorship is commonly used by tyrannical minorities to suppress speech, or delete material which may be inconvenient to their goals.
It’s not that I’m thinking really, it’s that you don’t like what I’m thinking and have nothing to counter with but insults.
Is there any society on earth that doesn’t depend on a cultural consensus as to what is or is not moral behavior? Has there ever been?
You know you’re old when you remember when California was trendy and progressive.
That’s where all the latest things once started – some good, like Casual Friday and surfer music, some bad like the drug culture, and some intensely annoying like “Have A Nice Day!”
California was the liberal opposite of the hidebound, narrow-minded, culturally repressed American Gothic folk who inhabited places like Iowa, or Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire or Connecticut. You know, the Rubes.