Proposition 8, a ballot initiative in California, would make marriage an institution confined to one man and one woman (as opposed to what? many men and one woman or one man and many women? Someone should tell the Mormon Church, the chief bankrollers of this vile initiative, about that!). It is appropriately called Proposition Hate. Polling indicates it is very close in California and this legislative bigotry may well pass, which would be a terrible tragedy. But let's face it. This war is over, even if some skirmishes are left to fight and we may lose some of them. The current younger generation just doesn't get what this is about. Here's an anecdote.
My son, who is an academic of some accomplishment, has a weakness. He loves to play football and in fact plays semi-pro ball. He's not very big, about 220 pounds, but he's all muscle and very strong and quick. His team are league champs this year. Semi-pro ball is played by men who are older and have day jobs (my son is an Assistant Professor with a PhD in mathematics, although most of his teammates have more usual jobs). These are big (he's the only offensive lineman under 300 lbs) and they hit hard. Mrs. R.,naturally is thrilled. The only things worse for her than saying her son is a football player would be to say he is an international arms merchant of a tobacco lobbyist. For my part, I understand completely the pleasure in playing football, although as a father I worry about injury and wish he would quite.
The team is based in a very tough white working class neighborhood, although the team itself is integrated. They are a tough, no nonsense bunch of guys and they love to play football. They are also not the most socially enlightened group, and can be heard on occasion to utter an anti-gay slur with little second thought. But my son tells me they don't get the anti-gay marriage stuff -- at all. They aren't in the least threatened or fearful of it and really don't understand what the fuss is about. It's not that they are liberal. It's that they are under 40. My son and my daughter and her husband are the same way. It is a non issue with them. It isn't on the radar screen and they are appalled by sentiments behind Prop 8 (none of us live in California but we know about it). Their generation will soon be the majority, and when that happens the anti gay marriage crap will be finally done with. I know that's not great consolation to couples in California whose happiness and peace of mind are threatened by this odious referendum, but I feel utterly confident this part of the culture wars is essentially over.
A dramatic case in point is yesterday's affecting press conference by Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego. Sanders campaigned for office two years ago on a platform that opposed gay marriage, although he was in favor of civil unions as a legal guarantor of rights. But the San Diego City Council just passed a resolution instructing the city to join Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose and Santa Cruz in a legal fight to challenge a recent ban on same sex marriage now working its way to the California Supreme Court. Mayor Sanders had vowed, as recently as earlier this week, to keep his campaign pledge and veto the resolution. Today, in an emotional public statement, he explained why he changed his mind this weekend:
Good for him. If you live in California, Vote No on Proposition 8.
[Update: Thanks to two commenters, I must correct an error regarding when the Jerry Sanders press conference happened. This was from over a year ago (Sept. 2007) but has just made its way to the other coast via YouTube. Nothing in the post depends on it, but I regret implying (because I thought it true) this just happened.]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
>>(as opposed to what? many men and one woman or one man and many women? Someone should tell the Mormon Church, the chief bankrollers of this vile initiative, about that!).<<
The Mormon church has been opposed to polygamy since the late 1800's. I completely abhor Prop 8, will be voting against it tomorrow, and am sickened by the LDS church's money pouring into our state to promote this vile thing, but to imply that they still support polygamy and are therefore being hypocritical is incorrect.
http://www.lds.org/ - search their A-Z directory for "polygamy"
Wow.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I like the 1st Amendment. Every part of it seems to be related to discussion of Proposition 8.
The 1st amendment guarantees my right to an opinion. The strongest differences of opinion over issues are usually questions of deciding "greater good".
I am not lesbian nor gay, but if my opinion affects my neighbor, I should think about it seriously. After much thought, my view is most similar to the one articulated here:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
It contains non-religious(not that there's anything wrong with that) arguments written by Margaret Somerville, an ethicist who has advised The United Nations.
I will vote Yes on Proposition 8 and if you will read and think about Ms. Somerville's ideas, maybe you will too.
You have the right to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's a valid or well thought out one.
You do realize Paul that legally marriage isn't about children or reproduction, it's about rights. You can believe otherwise as much as you'd like but legally and socially it's as true as saying that marriage is about property. You don't seriously believe that women are still property to men, do you?
I love how that pdf is filled with justified discrimination. It's nice that it admits it though.
Already voted NO on 8.
Had a lively discussion with my parents and sibling on the matter. My parents are voting Yes on 8, as they are from the Old Country, and believe that our Western Ways are corrupt. What makes things even more interesting is that my sibling is gay. So when that matter came up in conversation, my mother justified her opinion by saying my sibling is only experiencing a "phase," which will be outgrown eventually once my sib meets the right person and decides to settle down.
My sibling will be voting No on 8, then slapping rainbow stickers on everything in arm's reach. Sibling laughs maniacally at the idea that "this is a phase."
Another vote to bring California out of the dark ages.
I'm a little north of the 40 year age limit, but I do not see what the problem is.
Actually a point of factual correction ... this press conference was given on Sept 19, 2007. Its being reposted on youtube so your mistake is understandable.
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com&tr=y&auid=3016956
That being said, it is a strong and powerful statement of conscience that I applaud.
Christie: The LDS Church has (since the turn of the 20th century) officially acknowledged that polygamy is illegal in the US. It does not support polygamy. But "one man one woman" is not a core religious tenet of the LDS Church, historically or today. They do not believe that the Bible ordains one man-one woman (and in fact they are correct, although so what?) and for a Church that practiced polygamy (and has some church members who still do), to make a point of "one man - one woman" is hypocritical. It is purely anti-gay bigotry.
Thanks for posting this Revere. I am not sure how I missed it on the first go round. The emotional reaction he has to announcing this decision was truly wrenching, but in the end he knew that what he is doing is right.
I could never look a gay couple or a lesbian in they eyes and tell them that their dreams and desires for a declaration of matrimony is less than mine; especially considering that I am now twice divorced.
Redefining the term "marriage" has very broad consequences, affecting every law and policy about marriage. One immediate consequence in California is a new and legal path for recruiting minors into homosexual relationships. (California has no minimum age of marriageability.)
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/marriage-age-requirements/california/
All that a forty-year-old man requires in order to marry a sixteen-year-old boy is the consent of one parent or guardian (who can be a practicing homosexual), a visit to a "marriage counselor" (who can be a leader of a homosexual "religious" congregation), and an appearance before a superior court judge (who can also be a practicing homosexual.)
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1059288&_dad=portal&_s…
As California's startling new definition of marriage now stands, the judge would be forbidden to consider homosexuality as a reason to block the "marriage" of adult "Party A" to minor "Party B."
I don't know whether or not homosexual marriage to minors has already been attempted or not, but unless Proposition 8 is passed, it remains a legal - and thus a real - possibility.
hthalljr'gmail'com
Hey Paul, and hey Tracy Hall Junior: How does it feel to be a bigot? How does it feel to be heir to the traditions of Jim Crow and "white only" public accommodations, and laws that forbade marriage between people of different races?
I'll bet it feels real good. You get to believe that you're superior to the chosen group of "others." You get to give free run to your basest instincts. You get to put critical distance and plausible deniability between yourselves and your 30% probable teenage flirtation with an attraction to another guy. You get to trot out all the arguements that were used to keep the "n-----s" down, wrapped up in a package that's acceptable to discuss in public at least for now, stereotypes about pedophiles included (never mind that the biggest pedophile scandals of the last hundred years involved churches that are bankrolling this garbage).
Best of all, you don't need to shell out for a white robe to hide behind, or expensive gasoline to burn crosses, as you can do your petty hateful deed from the privacy of the voting booth at no cost and with no muss or fuss.
But guess what? Your era is over and done with, as obsolete as the "colored" signs on segregated bathrooms. You won't even have the benefit of selling it, like those signs, on Ebay as historic artifacts. Some day you may have your George Wallace moment, where you recognize that spewing that kind of garbage is just plain evil and you repent your sins. And if you don't, you'll go to your graves bitter and miserable, and the married couples both gay and hetero who walk by the funeral home won't even notice that you're there.
PS- Hey Paul, remember what the guy you were named after, said, some 2000 years ago? "Love of MONEY is the root of ALL evil." Not love of someone of the same gender. Love of money. Where's your righteous rage over that set of sins, eh?
PS- Hey Hall, hthalljr@gmail.com May your inbox be found by spambots and may the deluge of porn give you carpal tunnel of both wrists, and a sticky keyboard into the bargain. That's hthalljr@gmail.com Go get 'em, spambots!
Lol @ Tracy Hall!
I like how your only concern about no minimum age of marriageability is for homosexual relationships.
You'd let your 15yr old daughter marry, but not your 15yr old son? Sexist and homophobic!
There are no arguments regarding gay marriage that do not ultimately reduce to utterly invalid, religious rants; marriage is, first of all, a secular contract. A consensual agreement between two people, each of whom are (seemingly, at least) possessed of the faculties necessary to legally enter into such an agreement. The religious trappings are no more than incidental. Period. No on Prop (H)8. I will be voting against it, in Santa Cruz, Ca., later this morning. My eleven year old daughter will grow up in a nation where gays can wed; and where women and black people can aspire to become President (finally).
LDS is nothing more than a supercilious, whacked-out cult; steeped in superstitious nonsense that transcends even the egregious stupidity displayed by the Catholic Church...another staunch opponent of rational thought.
what's the sign-up bonus like? once the minor in question has completed their first homosexual relationships, are there any re-up benefits for continuing homosexuals? do you get dishonorably dismissed from homosexuality if you're discovered having straight sex on the side?
Dylan, LDS may be pouring the money in but in my neighborhood it is the Catholic people that have the yardsigns for PropH8...fwiw
Define "marriage" please. Honestly. Then let's discuss.
Tracy, simply replace "boy" with "girl" and "homosexual" with "heterosexual" and I think you might realize just why you're a bigot
recruiting minors into homosexual relationships
This echoes something a woman once told me in Canada...she said she had no problem with what gays did in private, but she did object to the face that "they have to recruit children because they have no other way to perpetuate their kind."
I asked her at what age she'd chosen to be attracted to men. She didn't understand the question.
Again, I'd like someone to define "marriage" and what it means to them.
I don't think I like the idea of gay marriages.
I know gays...I like gays. I wouldn't have sex with one, but I could care deeply for one and I'd certainly carry on a conversation with one, as long as he/she didn't make an "issue" out of their orientation any more than I did. You don't want me pushing religion down your throat and I certainly don't want anybody pushing gay views down mine.
Seems to me, however, that making an "issue" and perhaps being "recognized" is more important than "rights". There are other options, contracts, etc that can be used. I know many people in unwed, yet committed boy/girl relationships and with few exceptions, they are (or can be) treated by both law and society as married.
Gays are simply trying to legitimize their orientation, by using what has always been a traditionally heterosexual marriage. And that's what has (some) people up in arms. Why must everything be diluted to include everyone in the name of "understanding" and "tolerance"?
My view....but hey, I didn't like girls in the boy scouts either.
Revere,
How would your son feel about a vote that would sanction girl football teams and require them to play together.
Sure...he might like it. But honestly, what would it do to the level of intensity and the level of competition in the league?
Is nothing sacred?
Patch: Why don't you start in defining marriage, since you brought up trying to define it (I don't know why it's an important question, since the law already defines it, but go ahead). In my state it is legal for people of the same sex to marry. It has not affected any one else's marriage one wit, any more than allowing people of different races to marry has affected my marriage (although it affected my daughter and her husband's life -- for the better).
Regarding the football question, you must realize it isn't about that.
because marriage is just like full contact football. everybody knows that.
Never mind....what's the point? Generic marriages are apparently acceptable.
What's next? How long before I can marry my dog? Who cares? It doesn't bother any other marriage one wit.
I prefer a world of black and white. It gives distinction, rather than a world of gray. What institution is safe from being turned into a generic mass?
Why succeed? Why distinguish yourself? Why make distinctions in institutions?
Don't you see the slippery slope we're on?
By the way...I have no issue with an inter-racial marriage between a man and a woman.
Don't misconstrue my comments to suggest I'm a racist. In particular, the black/white comment. That's not what I meant.
Patch: I didn't think you did object to inter racial marriages. The point I was making was that the objections to inter racial marriages isn't qualitatively different (in my mind) from same sex marriages. As for marrying ones pet, that seems outlandish to me now but I don't know if it will in 100 years. I can't see the future. But what if it happens in 100 years? A lot of things will be very different then, many that would probably shock all of us today.
But when two people decide today to enter into a personal, consensual relationship that is not in any wayt different in any germane way from my own marriage of 36 years, I don't see why I or you or anyone else has standing to prevent it or even care.
honestly, i can understand this sentiment. the only problem is that the real world isn't black and white. actual moral, ethical, social, and (usually) legal problems that real people encounter and have to solve tend to be all about grayscales, our preferences be damned.
Nomen,
I agree that the increasing diversity of the world we live requires some changes. But I don't believe that making marriage a melting pot of diversity is the answer. There are other options.
Marrying my beloved dog SHOULD sound ludicrous. Because it sullies the institution of marriage with all that it entails.
Why is it so wrong to have an institution remain pure? I'm all for creating a new institution for same sex unions. Call it "Bonding" or "Unition" (a new word for United :-) But respect marriage and leave it alone.
Patch: "Why is it so wrong to have an institution remain [cultural identity category] pure? I'm all for creating a new institution for same sex unions. Call it "Bonding" or "Unition" (a new word for United :-) But respect marriage and leave it alone..."
Thank you Patch for the cultural illumination... Really, you are saying nothing different to what many of us queers feel at Pride -- think Stonewall, New York, New Year's eve 1968 -- cultural events when bored, uneducated spoiltbrat heterosexuals attempt to "colonise" our history...
If you are for same sex unions, why not let the Australian Prime Minister know -- I'm fed up with homophobic tossers frackin' around with my life!?!
Patch: Why? Because there are many people like you who feel that way? There were many people who felt that way about interracial marriage, too (probably proportionately many more in the sixties than same sex marriage today). I don't know if you are married or not, but I'm guessing that what my state does (make same sex marriage legal) had no affect on your marriage (if you are married). So what business is it of yours?
why would you think the institution of marriage, as it currently stands anyway, is in any meaningful sense "pure"? it's not as if the definition and concept of "marriage" hasn't changed dramatically in the past, including within living memory.
...what does it even mean for a legal institution to be "pure"? pure of what?
It's my business because I AM married. I am "one" of the married. I've followed the traditional roles of man and woman. It's traditional and now am being forced to include same sex marriages into the tradition and I don't think making it a generic institution gives it the justice it deserves.
You apparently value very little. So it's difficult for me to find an argument you'll understand. But do you have a doctorate? Is there any privilege in being called Doctor? What if my state decided that everyone that went to college and demonstrated an ability to learn...and graduate...now becomes a Doctor. Doesn't that dilute the institution, so to speak?
But what business is it of yours, if I'm called a Dr. or not?
So I'm conversing with Joe...and I ask Joe...are you married? He says yes. So now, I can no longer assume he's married to a woman with the same relationship issues I have. He could be gay and I'm really not interested in those relationship issues. Because I DON'T care about same sex issues. In fact, I'm somewhat disgusted by it.
And what's next? Again...marrying my dog? 40 year old men marrying 10 year old girls? Why not? What business is that our yours?
So yeah..it does matter to me. And I truly believe it should matter to you.
oh, poor, poor you. being unable to make that assumption any longer surely must hurt you far more than the inability to get married at all could possibly hurt homosexuals.
guess what? i'm married too. and Joe Random Gayguy marrying his gay lover would in no way hurt my marriage. it would neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, nor my spouse's either. having to look for somebody who's specifically married heterosexually when i want to gripe about my relationship issues would not be at all hard to cope with, for me at least.
getting married was no great achievement of education or enterprise for me. it's not something i've ever felt much need to brag about; indeed, if that were all i had to brag about i think i should brag less and work harder to improve myself.
Patch: So your position is that if something doesn't matter to me then nothing matters to me? I don't understand the logic of that. If something matters to you, does that meant that everything matters to you? So if my daughter is married to someone who is black (she is), that matters to you? That affects your marriage? If she were married to another woman (she isn't) that would affect your marriage? I guess your marriage isn't very strong, then. My question to you wasn't about dogs or doctors. It was about marriage. Don't change the subject.
The idea that everyone else's marriage is like yours seems to be the logical requirement of your position. Or is it just that the sex part of other people's marriage that you care about? How do you know what the sex practices are of the married people you know? Maybe it is something you find disgusting. Maybe you have sex practices I would think are disgusting. If you do, it doesn't affect me as long as your wife agrees. It's none of my business what you and your spouse do in your bedroom. And vice versa.
Let me ask again: what is your definition of marriage? You are the one who brought it up. For me, it is whatever legally goes under that name in the jurisdiction you live. And I want to make sure that same sex couples get the benefit of those legal protections and the sanction of society (which is clearly what you are desperate to deny them).
Typically the difference in power/position has a bearing on the legality of consensual relationships. Its difficult for the dog to be in this position both due to the nature of the human/dog relationship and the ability of our Canine partners to make their desires known to us in a clear manner. Similarly, lack of life experiences and the power differential tends to disrupt marriages between children and adults. Should children be able to marry children? Why not? As they mature they may decide to negate the contract as adults do. As long as they respect each other and have a consensual relationship whats the problem? Legal?
I'm partially thinking out loud but consider Patch full of baloney on this one. Gay marriages have NO effect on the contract with my wife. Too bad his relationship doesn't have the same foundation.
Greatest failing of democracies is that a majority can remove the rights of any minority. Thank goodness for Charters of Rights and Freedoms - AKA - constitutions.
My inability to communicate what seems so clear to me is frustrating. I'm apparently quite poor at it.
I can see your point...I know exactly what you are saying and on some level, I agree.
By the way, the fact is, while my marriage IS of no concern to anyone, I'd put it up against the happiest of marriages.
The fact that you consider it only a "contractual obligation" that may be negated on any whim is partly what's wrong with same sex marriages.
Think about it...no kids = no obligations. Split up the property and you go your own way. Marriage now deteriorates to nothing more than a piece of paper.
MY marriage may not be affected. But future marriages, including my childrens' ARE! When marriage deteriorates to contracts easily and routinely negated, lives are hurt. It should not be entered into lightly. Take a look in your local prison. See how many inmates are from broken, or nonexistent homes!
We should be doing everything we can to quit having children out of wedlock. Quit making it so easy to negate contracts, OR EVEN ENTER INTO THEM. Same sex marriages just loosen the strings even more!
My definition of marriage might differ from yours. In fact I'm sure it does. For starters, I'm sure we'd disagree that we not only made a promise to our spouse on our wedding day, but also a promise to God. I care less about what the "state" thinks about my marriage than the commitment to my spouse and God, including the children He may bless me with.
This is clearly an argument I can't win. At least not here. But it's frustrating for me to see the answer and not know how to explain it. I'm not as old as Revere, but I do remember when two people getting married was considered wrong, because of, as linzel put it, the "nature of the relationship", just as marrying my dog would be to Revere now. So what's changed? Is it just that I haven't and everyone else has? Is that also why our prisons are bursting at the seams...because everyone changed?
OK...so I digress on the prison thing. But again, do you know how many people from broken homes self medicate to ease the pain of that alone? Do you know what they do to feed their habit? Do you see gangs forming because families aren't strong? We need to keep marriage and the FAMILY (what a marriage forms) on a higher level.
So you see...it DOES effect me AND you!
Wish I could edit posts....
I meant to say:
I'm not as old as Revere, but I do remember when the same sex marriages was considered wrong, because of, as linzel put it, the "nature of the relationship", just as marrying my dog would be to Revere now.
and here i was already thinking i'd been too rough on you by mocking your point earlier.
my marriage is child-free by choice; neither of us would make a good parent, so we've decided we won't go there. now here you come and act like ours is not a real marriage or something, as if we had no obligations to one another. by extension to your stance on homosexual marriage, i can only assume you'd want us divorced by law because we won't have kids.
you, sir, are a despicable person.
The guy put in charge of spearheading the movement is called Elder Clayton, from SLC. The Catholic church is the real culprit as they asked the Mormons for their help in defeating this.
Understand what you're saying Patch but they are people and darn good people to boot. Let 'em get married if they want.
I'll end here.
But not without apologizing to Nomen, as you obviously misunderstood. I would never suggest that a marriage is not a marriage, without kids. You missed the point completely. My point was that it is easier to "give up" on a marriage if you have no obligations (kids). And seeing that example gives everyone (including couples with children) the idea that marriage is easily negated. I stand by my belief that walking away from a marriage is easier without the involvement of children. At least it SHOULD be. However, it doesn't mean that I believe that marriage itself has any less meaning without children. Again I apologize, but I think you are looking for an excuse to disembowel me.
Lea. I agree entirely that they are good people. VERY good people. Some of whom I have a deep affection for. In the end, I'm not opposed to them getting married as much as I am turning marriage into a generic event.
As I said, I struggle to make my point. I apologize to anyone I offend. I'm merely offering another opinion. I treasure the institution of marriage and don't want to see it sullied or used as a pawn in a game of political correctness.
You can have the last word.
Respectfully,
Patch
Traditional marriages used to be such that the woman was property being transferred by her father to her new husband. In recent memory, in the ceremony the bride would additionally promise to obey her husband. In some circles it probably still happens.
Surely these gender equality changes destroy tradition and make a mockery of marriage.
Your dearly held traditional marriage of the day is not as it once was, so this cannot be an argument against change.
Bigotry and perhaps fear of change are the real motivations. I thought the demands for the Religious Freedom to be Bigoted particularly ironic.
Looks like my previous attempt at a humourous post on scienceblogs has come back to bite me. Sorry.
Not A Carrot.
Probably none of us will be effected by gay marriages. maybe in a generation or two we will start to see the effects on society. My concern is for the children who will eventually be raised in these homosexual homes. Children need both a mother and a father. Mothers and fathers both contribute in different and important ways to the development of that child. It is hard for a child when they are small not to have a mommy or a daddy. I have lived it first hand. My brother and Father filled the gap of the "missing father" for one of my nieces. One of my uncles grew up fatherless. His father was killed during WWII. We are sad for situations like this because the child is not going to know one of his parents. It still takes a man and a woman to make a baby. If the home is Man/man or Woman/woman someone is missing. And a quick side note before I get labeled whatever, or I get Spam cursed from g336, My sister in law is a lesbian and I love her and her partner.
But christine, you don't see fit to allow your sister and her chosen partner to marry and form their own family?
What would stop any other male relative from stepping in to fill the father-figure role? Apparently it worked in your family, did it not?
Banning gay marriage does not change the fact that there are plenty of heterosexuals corrupting the institution of marriage in this day and age. All you're doing is depriving another group of people rights and equal protection under the law.