…and this is a 
The division on Proposition 8
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 25, 2008 12:10 PM, by PZ Myers
California's Proposition 8 is a ballot measure that aims to ban same-sex marriage — it is a regressive proposal that aims to strip equality from a minority population. It is revealing to see who is supporting each side of the contest.
The organizations trying to oppose Proposition 8 include Apple Computer, Sergey Brin of Google, the California Teachers Association, and the state Democratic party — anyone supportive of civil rights, progressive causes, or (to be honest) finding a profit in not discriminating against well-educated people in a technological workforce for irrelevant reasons, like what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Who is supporting it? Yahoos and churches. Once again, on a basic civil rights issue, religion comes out fighting for the wrong side. For a great example of narrow-minded wretched biblical rationalizations, listen to Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. He comes out strongly for Prop. 8, calling it a "moral issue" (which it is — too bad he's fighting on the side of evil), and trying to argue why his sheep should vote for it…and the only reason he's got is "because its always been this way". Seriously — he repeats himself multiple times, and that's the only reason he offers, again and again. Apparently, the "traditional, historical, universal" definition of marriage has always been "one man, one woman". I don't think he's been reading his bible very carefully.
So, Californians, whose side are you on? 21st century America, or the imaginary repressed Puritan America of the theocrats?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | October 25, 2008 12:16 PM
What exactly do you mean by this? I never read the Bible in much detail... Is there anything in the that suggest something else?
Posted by: Luke | October 25, 2008 12:20 PM
Right, I'm cancelling my Yahoo account and moving to Google mail. Shame on Yahoo.
Posted by: June | October 25, 2008 12:20 PM
The crazy part is that the current CA statute against same-sex marriage has been held unconstitutional based on equal protection guarantees, which flow down from the federal constitution. So, California is waging an election war to make its constitution unconstituional!
Posted by: Zeno | October 25, 2008 12:23 PM
The twelve tribes of Israel were named after Jacob's twelve sons, whom he fathered with his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and a pair of concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah. This was not serial monogamy either. What's more, Leah and Rachel were sisters, which must have added to the fun.
We are disrespecting the traditional Biblical family when we don't allow plural marital arrangements in this godforsaken country. No wonder God inflicts [insert latest newsworthy disaster] on us!
Posted by: Nancy | October 25, 2008 12:24 PM
How can anyone think that this blatant discrimination is OK? They are running yes on 8 ads constantly on tv & radio - frightening ads stating how horrible it would be if our schools taught our children that boys can marry boys. Such open hatred. It makes me so sad that anyone could not only think that way - but state it so publicly.
Posted by: Walton | October 25, 2008 12:25 PM
The organizations trying to oppose Proposition 8 include Apple Computer, Sergey Brin of Google, the California Teachers Association, and the state Democratic party -- anyone supportive of civil rights, progressive causes, or (to be honest) finding a profit in not discriminating against well-educated people in a technological workforce for irrelevant reasons, like what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. [my emphasis]
Libertarianism and the free market, anyone? :-)
I would be voting No on Proposition 8, were I a Californian; that goes without saying. Banning gay marriage is pointless, and has no legitimate secular justification. All persons must be treated equally under the law.
But, as regards the private sector, the free market ought to take care of it in time. If a shop were to put up a sign saying "NO HOMOSEXUALS", for instance, not only would they be automatically cutting off a potential customer base, but most decent non-bigoted people would also probably boycott the shop - meaning that it would be unable to compete with its rivals. This effect will become more pronounced over time as open bigotry against homosexuals becomes less widespread - just as has happened with open racial bigotry - and the private sector, acting in its own rational self-interest, will solve the problem on its own. People's desire to make money is generally greater than their hostility to minorities (otherwise capitalism simply woudln't function).
(Yes, I'm aware that exactly the same argument could be made about racial discrimination in the private sector - and many libertarians do make that argument.)
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 25, 2008 12:26 PM
This is what happens when you give people the idea that government is a tool to control society and get it to do what you want.
You get the nutjobs trying to control everything using their nutjobbery numbers.
So, may I suggest a new "progressive" position?
A return to more liberty and less intrusion from an irrational state...
Posted by: gribley | October 25, 2008 12:26 PM
Luke, PZ said "yahoos", not "Yahoo!" -- I don't think the internet company has taken a stance, and I'd find it hard to believe that they would be so regressive. There are, however, a lot of yahoos in California.
(That said, I think gmail is superior to any web-based mail client I've ever used, so you might as well switch!)
Posted by: Luke | October 25, 2008 12:28 PM
Hehe I was kidding.
Posted by: CRM-114 | October 25, 2008 12:34 PM
When I was a kid, interracial marriage was not legal everywhere. Civil rights won out, and the haters lost out, but eventually they got over it -- or gave up all hope of resegretation -- it's hard to say for sure.
Incidentally, wouldn't a one-man-one-woman law rule out Mormom polygamy?
Posted by: Zeno | October 25, 2008 12:34 PM
Proponents of Proposition 8 are celebrating their recent victory in Sacramento, where a right-wing cabal on a college student council survived a recall election. Nine percent of the student body voted, and the coalition of Mormons and Slavic Christians scraped by with a narrow majority among those voting. Some of them promptly said this meant Proposition 8 would pass in November, although the recall was not simply a referendum on Prop 8 (it was also motivated by student club members who were upset that the student council tried to choke off the minority clubs they didn't like -- like the gay club and the Muslim club). The student council's supporters were highly motivated (they're on a mission from God, after all) and that made the difference. It could turn out that way in the rest of the state if Prop 8 opponents don't work just as hard as the supporters.
Even if you don't live in California, you can help by contributing to the effort: No on 8!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 25, 2008 12:36 PM
There should be a law against this kind of proposition.
Posted by: gribley | October 25, 2008 12:37 PM
Walton, that's a logical argument, but logic is not enough. By the same token, companies wouldn't pollute their local environments, or poison their own workers, but they do it all the time -- even, at times, when it is more expensive than not polluting. Three points: First, there are often other financial factors at work, for example, catering to a racist or homophobic population; second, everyone makes decisions against their own financial interests all the time, including large companies; and finally, the theoretical free market requires a transparency of information and level of competition that is rarely seen in practice.
Libertarianism would be a great social theory in a society of utility-seeking robots. Unfortunately, it fails utterly in real human society.
Posted by: Erdrick | October 25, 2008 12:41 PM
This proposition makes me wish I still lived in CA.
Posted by: Carlie | October 25, 2008 12:42 PM
What exactly do you mean by this? I never read the Bible in much detail... Is there anything in the that suggest something else?
Don't forget King David, who had a couple hundred wives and a few hundred concubines. Or there was Moses, who claimed his wife was really his sister so he could throw her at the king to be a concubine and not get himself killed. Or the law that a woman who gets raped has to marry her attacker. Or the example of Lot's daughters, who got him drunk and had sex with him specifically to get pregnant. Of course, one might not blame them for being all messed up about sex, after their father was rewarded by God for offering to throw them at an angry lustful mob to protect a couple of houseguests he had just met. The Bible is full of interesting ideas on male/female relationships if you actually read it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 12:44 PM
We really need to start pushing for an anthropology segment on marriage and kinship to be included in high school social studies curriculi.
Posted by: Walton | October 25, 2008 12:44 PM
By the same token, companies wouldn't pollute their local environments, or poison their own workers, but they do it all the time -- even, at times, when it is more expensive than not polluting.
They do indeed pollute their local environments; but this is because of the problem of negative externalities and public goods, or, as it's sometimes termed, the "tragedy of the commons". (Coincidentally, amk and I have been discussing this on another thread.) Where you have a non-excludable public good - such as clean air - it is, indeed, in everyone's long-term interest to preserve it; but it is in each individual's immediate interest to pollute freely, so as not to have to bear the cost of reducing pollution.
The classic metaphor is that of medieval common land. Every peasant could graze his animals on the land; obviously, acting in his rational self-interest, he put as many animals as he could on the land. This led to over-grazing and the depletion of the land - even though preserving the land for future use was in everyone's collective interest, individuals' interests did not tally with the collective interest.
This is why clean air, being a public good, is an oft-cited example of market failure. But the same considerations do not apply, self-evidently, to the reduction of bigotry; bigotry is not in any trader's rational self-interest, because it restricts the number of people with whom he can profitably trade.
To address your three points:
First, there are often other financial factors at work, for example, catering to a racist or homophobic population. - True. But as I've suggested, this ought hopefully to change over time, due to social pressure; just as open racism is less acceptable than it was a few decades ago, so attitudes are changing towards homosexuals.
...second, everyone makes decisions against their own financial interests all the time, including large companies... - Again, true, but all political and economic theory, of whatever stripe, rests on the mythical Homo economicus, who acts in his own rational self-interest based on the information available to him. This is why economics and political science are never exact sciences; but it's the best model we have.
...and finally, the theoretical free market requires a transparency of information and level of competition that is rarely seen in practice. - See above.
Posted by: Jay | October 25, 2008 12:45 PM
Luke, Yahoo is not taking a stance on Proposition 8 actually--but blame Jerry Yang, not the employees. His long rambly memo explaining why he has no spine (in case we didn't already know) is posted on Valleywag in its entirety. I hear that his employees are less than thrilled about this.
Posted by: Ktesibios | October 25, 2008 12:52 PM
Outlawing polygamy was a condition for Utah to be admitted as a state. In the present, it's only loony schismatic sects split off from the Mormon church that still practice it- if you want to know how that's working out, Google "Warren Jeffs".
Well-heeled reactionaries have blanketed this state with anti-equality ads to the extent that I've had to give up listening to my car radio lest I have another stroke.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Dominionist shitbags who are buying this travesty also intend to outlaw interracial marriage after the machtergriefung. Much of the defense of miscegenation laws was couched in godbot babble and supported by fundy preachers.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | October 25, 2008 12:52 PM
PZ:
"For a great example of narrow-minded wretched biblical rationalizations, listen to Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. He comes out strongly for Prop. 8..."
And yet, whom does Obama and McCain choose to spend time with instead of visiting pro-science conventions they have been invited to?
That's right, this knuckledragger Rick Warren. Whom the two gushed all over.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 25, 2008 12:53 PM
Yes, look at all the shops and boarding houses that went out-of-business in England with signs in the window that said "No Irish. No Blacks. No Dogs."
Oh. Wait. Doh!
Posted by: SeanH | October 25, 2008 12:58 PM
You'd think, so it's a bit Ironic that the Mormons are going full steam supporting prop 8. They're hoping they might get accepted into the "real Christian" club if they can really swing for the fences on the gay-bashing.
Posted by: Eshto | October 25, 2008 12:59 PM
@Bjorn:
Marriage in the Bible is a contract of ownership = women had very few rights and were considered to be the "property" of their husbands. Husbands could acquire multiple wives and concubines and many of the Biblical patriarchs did so - King Solomon is said in the Bible to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In the Bible, even when a husband has only one wife, the wife is still considered inferior to the husband. in Biblical times, marriages were usually arranged, the women could be very young (11-13), and the women were required to submit sexually to their husbands.
And there are lots of other fun rules, like if a virgin is raped she must marry her rapist. This sound strange until you remember that the woman is considered "property". The rapist has to marry her and compensate the girl's father for his "property loss". Sort of a "you break it, you bought it" rule.
Needless to say, the Bible portrays an archaic culture with backwards, sexist values. Biblical marriage has nothing to do with love, it's about patriarchy and property.
Meanwhile, same-sex unions have existed throughout history. They were legal in the early roman empire, for example.
Also, Rick Warren is a fucking fascist, he's no better than any of the other haters even though he thinks smiling a lot makes him a better Christian than Falwell or Robertson. He's just as evil and he can kiss my ass.
Posted by: clinteas | October 25, 2008 1:00 PM
At least there seems to be a grassroots movement against this proposition,my american facebook friends keep sending me stuff to join groups against 8...
Define 21st century America ! Isnt that where all this crap is happening in the first place....
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 1:00 PM
I disagree. Bigotry is not in the self interest of a trader only if one considers a trade to be a purely material transaction, rather than a complex social one.
Discrimination in who one trades with is a huge, even if not superficially obvious, component of any real economy. What company would advertise that it proudly supplies Kim Jong Il with his sneakers? At the time of segregation in the southern US, it was not in the interest of white traders to deal with blacks; even one only considers market size, the potential loss of bigoted whites as a market usually outweighed the potential gains from marketing to blacks.
You cannot separate trade from culture as if were some separate entity any more than you can separate marriage from culture as if it were a separate entity.
Posted by: matt | October 25, 2008 1:01 PM
How is it these idiots still have tax-exempt status?? How?
Posted by: I am so wise | October 25, 2008 1:02 PM
"Who is supporting it? Yahoos and churches. "
I wonder if Yahoo Inc. ever regrets the decisions that led to its name.
Anyone who thinks the free market will prevent and fix racial or any other form of religious discrimination needs to be take out back and fire from a clown cannon into a 6th grade history class that they so desperately need.
Posted by: fly44d | October 25, 2008 1:04 PM
I voted NO on Prop 8 for sure!
Warren, Prop 8 supporters, and unfortunately many of my friends and family, gripe about the court ruling the current law unconstitutional is what has me riled up about it. WHY do they insist on being so offended that a court ruled a law passed by the people got judged unconstitutional? Don't they understand that the Judicial branch protects them from mob rule? That the constitution is what keeps the mob from easily passing laws that could reduce their rights? It is such a basic part of our government. Like being innocent until proven guilty... uh.... well..... they don't always understand that either....
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 25, 2008 1:04 PM
One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. . . I feel like this sentiment has been expressed before!
(Probably by some bisexual freak.)
Posted by: Faith Minus | October 25, 2008 1:04 PM
I live in Orange County, CA and there is quite a battle going on down here over this issue. This area is pretty conservative and on the way to dinner last night there were at least 4 corners overtaken by mobs of christian, fascist bigots waving there "yes on 8" signs. The most disturbing part about it was the amount of CHILDREN that were in attendance with their parents. All the attack ads have been warning of "gay marriage taught in schools", but these parents are putting there kids right there on the front line. It was disgusting
This morning I was happy to see the very same corners occupied with an equal amount of "No on 8" protesters. Maybe there is hope here yet.
Posted by: factician | October 25, 2008 1:06 PM
In my new neighborhood in California, there are picketers along my commute with signs that say, "Vote Yes to Prop 8" and "Prop 8 is about parental rights, vote yes" and weirdly "Prop 8 is a freedom of speech issue, vote yes". The folks who are supporting prop 8 are not even being disingenuous - they're being blatantly dishonest.
To people that I've met in person, I tell them this story: My sister is a lesbian. She has 2 sons, one of them born to her, one to her partner. If she lived in a country that didn't support gay marriage, if something happened to her, I could sue for custody of her child - and I would win. Her partner has fewer rights to my sister's son than I do. Prop 8 would give me more rights over my sister's son than his other mom. That's not right.
Posted by: GregB | October 25, 2008 1:08 PM
I am absolutely disgusted with the bigotry of the Yes on 8 people.
I posted my analysis on my own blog here:
http://www.brouelette.com/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2008/10/18#noOn8
I don't know if I can change the minds of the religious nutjobs. But I can add my voice to those who have had enough of this hatred and bigotry.
Posted by: Brandy Spears | October 25, 2008 1:12 PM
Thanks PZ for speaking out against Prop 8!
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 25, 2008 1:18 PM
"Anyone who thinks the free market will prevent and fix racial or any other form of religious discrimination needs to be take out back and fire from a clown cannon into a 6th grade history class that they so desperately need. "
Anyone who thinks "gubmint" will end or fix racial or any form of religious discrimination without a free market needs to sit down and shut up.
The freer the society, the less racial and religious discrimination. Kinda take a look around...
Granting even soft fascism in government leads away from ideas like equality and the first Amendment type of rights...
Posted by: Lago | October 25, 2008 1:22 PM
But everyone told me Jesus was gay, right?
So wouldn't he be against this proposition?
Should we remind them ever time they try and do things like this?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 25, 2008 1:22 PM
But don't you see this is a step on to the slippery slope? If today gay marriage is acceptable, before you know it we'll be seeing dog - on - Rick Santorum sex.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 25, 2008 1:23 PM
all political and economic theory, of whatever stripe, rests on the mythical Homo economicus, who acts in his own rational self-interest based on the information available to him. This is why economics and political science are never exact sciences; but it's the best model we have. - Walton
Walton, even within neoclassical economics, they are allowed to postulate bounded rationality. Beyond that narrow dogmatism, there are whole realms of behavioral and evolutionary game theory, decision theory, cognitive science, experimental economics, neuroeconomics, institutionalist economics, evolutionary economics, theories of cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution... Just because you know nothing beyond Homo economicus, don't assume the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 1:28 PM
Again, true, but all political and economic theory, of whatever stripe, rests on the mythical Homo economicus, who acts in his own rational self-interest based on the information available to him. This is why economics and political science are never exact sciences;...
Duh. I didn't read far enough to see that you've made the point I argued in my last comment. Sorry about that Walton. I completely agree with this.
This is my sticking point and my biggest frustration with political and economic theory.
These aren't the best models we have, and they've generally failed in their ability to predict behaviour. This is not to say that they're wrong, but that they're needlessly incomplete.
For example, I work on the analysis side of public health (as opposed to the policy side), and see first hand how the mythical Homo economicus model has resulted in huge failures, particularly in tobacco usage, nutrition and exercise. Despite all the efforts made by public health advocates (public or private) to disseminate information about the dangers of tobacco use, smoking rates didn't start to significantly decline until it started becoming outlawed (an act of regulation) in public places in the mid- to late-90s. Now (and especially since even government agencies are pressed to evaluate policy outcomes), those that work in public health are forced to consider the contributions of fields such as geography and anthropology to the prevailing economic rationalist theory. (If the population understands the risk factors for and the health risks associated with obesity, why are we still so fat? Are we not close enough to grocery stores or parks or something not yet considered in the economic rationalist model?)
It's all a lot more messy, but ultimately more effective.
Posted by: Demonic Gophers | October 25, 2008 1:29 PM
"There should be a law against this kind of proposition."
There is. It's called the United States Constitution. Along with the freedom of religion issue, there's Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. [...]".
We do not have the legal ability to declare that marriages performed in another state may not be valid, which Prop. 8 requires. It's quite simply unconstitutional. Whoever wrote it ought to be arrested and sentenced to mandatory civics classes.
Even if it weren't contemptible garbage, anyone with the slightest respect for our country's founding document would have to oppose it.
Posted by: llewelly | October 25, 2008 1:31 PM
<comic sans>OUR LORD GOD IN HEAVEN PROTECT US FROM TEH HORROR OF MEN HOLDING HANDS!!!</comic sans>
Posted by: Trogdorina | October 25, 2008 1:31 PM
Hey, have you seen these pro prop 8 ads? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/10/meet-the-hip-young-people-who-hate-gay-marriage.php
They feature a bunch of young hip people talking about how it's cool to refuse equal rights to other human beings. And some of them even have gay friends! Jesus Haploid Christ.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 1:34 PM
Scott, read the example I give above in which the 'gubmint' achieved more success in reducing smoking use through legislation than any free market initiatives. Smoking and tobacco use is as much a social behaviour as entrenched discrimination is.
Then sit down and shut up.
Posted by: Newfie | October 25, 2008 1:36 PM
Anybody who uses the phrase "traditional values" should be reminded that the tradition of throwing Christians to the lions was once valued. And then be asked if there should be time limits on traditions... since we're clinging to the past and all.
Posted by: Walton | October 25, 2008 1:40 PM
Brownian at #38: You make an interesting and valid point - and this is, of course, a flaw in all socio-economic models, since human beings are not always rational or consistent and do not act according to deterministic economic laws. But the problem is, if we abandon the Homo economicus model, then we have absolutely no basis on which we can accurately predict human behaviour, other than observation of past trends - which, of course, may not be continued in the future, due to the complex web of psychological and cultural factors which affect a person's decision-making.
Despite all the efforts made by public health advocates (public or private) to disseminate information about the dangers of tobacco use, smoking rates didn't start to significantly decline until it started becoming outlawed (an act of regulation) in public places in the mid- to late-90s. - That doesn't surprise me. But (since I'm not especially familiar with this area of policy, I'm speculating here) do you have statistics for the impact of Pigovian "sin taxes" on tobacco use? That is to say, do smoking rates decline when governments impose high excise duties/sales taxes on tobacco products, as they now do in most Western countries?
The best guess I could make, as to interpretation of the situation, is that most people are more inclined to gratify their short-term impulses (to smoke, eat, etc.) than to take a longer-term view of their own interests. We're getting into the territory of psychology here, a field of which I know very little, so I don't know whether there's any validity to my guess.
Posted by: GOPnot4me | October 25, 2008 1:41 PM
I'm voting "no" on Prop 8.
ALL people have a right to be miserable in wedlock.
Seriously, though, what consenting adults do in their private lives should be their business, alone.
What's next, constitutionally mandated, missionary position, procreative intercourse only?
Posted by: Stanton | October 25, 2008 1:46 PM
I oppose Proposition 8 if only because many of the arguments for it sound identical to the same arguments against interracial marriage.
Plus, these people are lying about school children being "indoctrinated into same sex marriage"? Do these people honestly think that gays and lesbians intend to force children into same sex marriages by the time children reach puberty?
Posted by: snoozebar | October 25, 2008 1:53 PM
It's a vaguely held idea of mine that the government get out of the marriage business completely. Everybody can designate one person to get all the benefits of marriage, and you can only be the designated of one. That's it. It'd make a lot more sense than all these silly rules.
Anyways, I'm Californian and voting no. I kicked 'em some money too. I just got married to my favorite guy a month ago, and can't imagine being prevented from doing that. But that's the reality for my gay and lesbian friends.
Posted by: paul | October 25, 2008 1:54 PM
I'm keeping Nov 4/5 open, just in case Prop 8 passes, so I can riot in the streets. We're so complacent that I may be the only one out there, so I'll look ridiculous, but hell with it. Any of the 22,000+ new spouses (who will be demoted to fuckbuddy strangers) who can just sit on their asses and do nothing as they're stripped of their dignity have my contempt. There are too many of us, and our allies, to keep on just talking about this shit as if it's just a theoretical discussion. We can't allow it to continue even another day.
Posted by: snoozebar | October 25, 2008 1:57 PM
Oh, and my new husband is Asian, and I'm white. Our marriage would've been illegal before 1948.
Posted by: fyreflye | October 25, 2008 2:13 PM
Note that Apple not only "opposes" Prop 8, it has just donated $!00,000 to the No on 8 campaign. So...Get a Mac!
:-)
Posted by: Liz D | October 25, 2008 2:23 PM
Of course I voted no on Prop. 8. But don't overlook Prop. 4, where organized religion has also been very, very active. Here's the No on Prop. 4 site. Prop 4, or "Sarah's Law", seeks to impose onerous parental-notification conditions for girls under 18 who seek an abortion.
Both have been funded by a select group of religious zealots. "Yes on Prop. 8" has had significant financial and volunteer support from Church of Latter-Day Saints
"Yes on Prop. 4" funding has largely come from two people, funding by Sonoma County winemaker and former Republican state Assemblyman Don Sebastiani, and Jim Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader and a major contributor to the previous parental notification measures.
Election Track also indicates either $200,000 or $400,000 (may be one donation counted twice) from the Knights of Columbus national HQ.
Posted by: varlo | October 25, 2008 2:23 PM
I like to think that I am a language purist (except when I deviate from the mother tongue by choice), and Iwill admit, with NO anti-gay sentiment that on linguistic grounds I dislike the idea of gay "marriage." (Hell, I object to marriage at all for myself. Tried it once, didn't like it.) But we have a fundidiot-inspired amendment on the Florida ballot also. I have already voted against it, would gladly do it again both here and California if I could, and in a pallid imitation of Voltaire, while I do not agree (see liguistic argument) with the verbiage of gay marriage, I will defend the right of gays to do it at least to the extent of a bruise or so. The Christo-Turds should get the xxxx out of any damned bedroom but their own.
Posted by: patrickhenry | October 25, 2008 2:23 PM
There really is an economic argument here -- by allowing this type of marriage there will be an increase in those claiming a "widow's pension" under various pension plans (and maybe Social Security too, but I don't know how that works). There will also be an additional number of spouses entitled to benefits under company medical plans. These costs are real, but in the case of medical insurance and company pensions, it's no different than if a company's bachelor employees all got married the traditional way.
In any event, this is not a moral argument. If morality is on the side of such marriages, the suddenly more expensive programs can be either adjusted, abandoned, or tolerated. I see such issues (the corporate costs) as being matters of private contract.
Posted by: SimonG | October 25, 2008 2:27 PM
I know what these religious bigots are like, but I still don't understand them. Nobody's telling them how to live their lives; they can have whatever stupid rules they like in their own little clubs. It saddens me to think that so many people can be so... I don't even know what they are: they're like some alien species.
Posted by: Randall | October 25, 2008 2:28 PM
Why is everyone getting so worked up over Proposition 8 when no one seems to care about Amendment 2? It's Florida's equivalent of Proposition 8, but all the various left-leaning places I read haven't heard about it. What, is it just assumed that Florida sucks and therefore it isn't worth putting money or time into fighting Amendment 2?
Posted by: Spaulding | October 25, 2008 2:31 PM
"Saddleback Church" opposes gay rights? That's just too easy.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 2:35 PM
Oh, we're still rational actors, it's just that we take more into account in our individual cost-benefit analyses than the economicus model describes. Fields such as psychology, anthropology provide empirical evidence for those other aspects.
Generally, sin taxes do correlate with a reduction in tobacco usage. But like most strategies aimed at changing widespread behaviours, they're of limited impact on their own, and are most effective when combined with other evidence-based measures, such as smoking bans in public areas.
Yeah, but the process is iterative, and when the perceived benefits of the long-term strategy begin to outweigh the perceived short-term benefits, we're more inclined to change our behaviour.
Are you back in school this term?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 2:37 PM
Well, I'm glad it's not before 1948 so I can offer my congratulations!
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 25, 2008 2:40 PM
@fyreflye
I would if I could afford one. And let's be honest: with Apple's profits, 100k is a drop in the bucket. Let's see their employees do matching funds, and I'll be really impressed.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 25, 2008 2:43 PM
Walton: I forgot to give you some citations, but if you search around on PubMed you can find the latest results on the effectiveness (or not) of such policies.
Posted by: Trev UK | October 25, 2008 2:54 PM
I'm a Brit living in Sacramento, so unfortunately I can't vote against this prop. Opinion polls are suggesting the prop will fail, but we all know how accurate they are. With regards the college student council that survived a recall effort here, the college includes a large number of christians from slavic countries, who came to the U.S. to escape religious persecution back home. How ironic and deeply sad.
Posted by: Nicole TWN | October 25, 2008 2:54 PM
"No on 8" is such a no-brainer that I'm more than a little surprised and ashamed that the Forces of Good are nearly tied. My neighborhood has a couple "Yes on 8" signs; I grit my teeth and restrain myself from knocking on their doors and asking them what the hell is wrong with them.
A friend of mine's rabbi had this to say on the subject. It had me cheering.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 25, 2008 3:04 PM
It's a simple little proposition, Proposition Eight:
All we ask is that you join us, as we all discriminate!
Much longer, more offensive poem here.
Posted by: EvoStevo | October 25, 2008 3:10 PM
Thanks for posting on the topic, we have got a real fight on our hands and we can use all the money and help we can get.
Posted by: NMcC | October 25, 2008 3:22 PM
"Apparently, the "traditional, historical, universal" definition of marriage has always been "one man, one woman". I don't think he's been reading his bible very carefully."
Yes, and as the Christian loon, Ken Ham, is forever pointing out, it doesn't even matter if she's your sister!
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 25, 2008 3:24 PM
"Scott, read the example I give above in which the 'gubmint' achieved more success in reducing smoking use through legislation than any free market initiatives. Smoking and tobacco use is as much a social behaviour as entrenched discrimination is.
Then sit down and shut up."
It wasn't the "gubmint's" obligation or perogative to "reduce" smoking among its citizens.
Granting government this right means you grant them the right to start banning Big Macs and apple pie, on the grounds that they cause bad behavior and fat people.
I was living in California when smoking was banned by a majority vote on a Proposition and voted for the ban. Government DOES HAVE the obligation to prevent the acts of individuals from infringing on the rights of others, and smoking in public places was an infringement on other's rights.
That is vastly different than government enacting a ban to stop people from smoking, nor should government ever be seen as a tool to curb people's behaviors if they do not harm others.
The "ban" on marriage is a case in point. Two men or women marrying has no deleterious effect (other than percieved) on anyone else, and should not even be considered a government problem.
It is a matter for private contracts and private consideration. Period.
Your very notion that government should be used to curb behavior you don't like is what I call soft fascism. Your WANT to control the habits and activities of others, even when they do not concern you. There is no difference between you and a Christian fundie in this regard. You both are guilty of trying to control others via majority control.
You get what you deserve when the government goes against what you want, then...
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | October 25, 2008 3:27 PM
/Takes a look around.
Nope. You see, the fundamental problem with your argument is you have failed to define, "free society".
Posted by: bubbaj30 | October 25, 2008 3:28 PM
Apparently, the "traditional, historical, universal" definition of marriage has always been "one man, one woman".
Well, things change. So all he has left to do is realize this and suck it up. Shouldn't be to hard for a Fundy to do now should it?
Posted by: Bay Area Yahoo | October 25, 2008 3:35 PM
This morning, I drove past some people at a very busy Silicon Valley intersection. They held signs to honk if you support Prop 8. NO ONE WAS HONKING. Of course, the signs actually said, 'honk if you support parental rights. Yes on Prop 8' but still, no honking. So glad the uptighties decided to put this on the ballot the same year as we're lining up in droves to vote for Barack Obama.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 25, 2008 3:41 PM
Uh, open racial bigotry hasn't disappeared in some areas of the country, and in fact is only no longer practiced because the government forbade discrimination in commerce, the workplace, etc. What the hell planet are you living on?
Posted by: Robert Maxwell | October 25, 2008 3:43 PM
Whats next. Brothers marrying sisters,fathers marrying daughters or mothers marrying sons.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 25, 2008 3:48 PM
Yes, Robert. All of that and more. Men marrying television sets. Women marrying shoes. It will be utter chaos! WooOOOOooooo scary!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 25, 2008 3:51 PM
Robert Maxwell @#71--
Man marries dog (really).
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/11/lifes-bitch-and-then-you-marry-one.html
Posted by: Karey | October 25, 2008 3:52 PM
Randall @55, forgive the California-centric statements I'm about to make, but the reason California's prop is a lot more important than equivalent ones in other states is because of how big and populus the state is. Its generally being viewed that whatever direction Cali takes on this issue will determine the future of the gay rights movement for the whole country. Once gay mariages start really going here, any attempts to keep it a states rights type of issue will get buried in litigation from the sheer number of gay marriages happening as a result.
Posted by: DominEditrix | October 25, 2008 3:59 PM
19: No, everyday people practice polygamy as well - there's a poly compound around the corner from my mother's house, filled with ordinary, middle-class people who wear regular clothing and have ordinary jobs.
70: "less widespread" doesn't mean "disappeared". Open racism is, indeed, less widespread than it was a few decades ago.
The Yes on 8 folks have been trying to blackmail No on 8 donors. It is apparently backfiring.
I've already voted: No on 8, No on 4 [parental notification] and Yesyesyes for Obama.
Posted by: Escuerd | October 25, 2008 4:03 PM
I'm voting "no" on Prop 8 this week. I really hope this disgusting endeavor fails, and that they gay marriages get rubbed in the faces of all of the Mormonic assholes who voted for it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 25, 2008 4:09 PM
But the problem is, if we abandon the Homo economicus model, then we have absolutely no basis on which we can accurately predict human behaviour, other than observation of past trends - which, of course, may not be continued in the future, due to the complex web of psychological and cultural factors which affect a person's decision-making. - Walton
And yet, you think you can predict that governments' actions can only make things worse? Walton, the Homo economicus model is nowhere near being even a good approximation: we know people value equity and social approval, discount hyperbolically, rely on simple rules-of-thumb, misjudge probabilities, imitate each other, are influenced by the way a decision is framed, etc. What's more, evolutionary theory can tell us something about why human cognition and motivation has the characteristics it does.
It may sometimes be useful to ask "Well, how would it be if people were well approximated by Homo economicus?", just as it might be to ask "Well, how would it be if everyone assigned equal weight to others' benefit as to their own", but using either of these models as a guide to policy, or the foundation of social science research, is ludicrous.
Posted by: Jordan Fett | October 25, 2008 4:13 PM
Whenever I read stories like this... I'm reminded of the bullshit dobsonite article PZ posted a while ago painting (what the Christians would see as) a dystopian future.
The fact that we can't settle this debate in favor of basic human freedom and goodness, makes me ASHAMED of my countrymen.
http://jdfettblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Michael | October 25, 2008 4:25 PM
It isn't just California.
FL has Ammendment #2
and there is another one in AZ.
I don't know how many others are trying it.
What I do know is that even the people that would disagree are likely to vote it in, because they word it to make you think you are voting for something good.