Apple Against Proposition 8
Successful computer technology computer Apple made a public statement against California’s Proposition 8 bill. Proposition 8 would make it once again illegal for gay couples to get married in the state of California for it defines marriages as between a woman and a man.
“Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation,” the company said on its website.
“Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.”
If Proposition 8 passes, and recent polls indicate that support for it has increased significantly in recent weeks after a passionate offense carried out by its proponents, it would result in amending the Constitution of California to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.
If passed, California would become the first state in the United States of America that adopts such a radical measure in order to prevent gay couples from getting married.
Same sex marriages were made illegal by Californians in 2000 when they supported a law that defined marriage pretty much in the same words as Proposition 8. However, since that time California’s Supreme Court ruled the law to be in breach with the state’s constitution, meaning that a significant constitutional change would have to take place.
Opponents of gay marriage went to work, and came up with Proposition 8 earlier this year.
When the debate first started, a majority of Californians said they opposed the bill. Now, however, with only 1.5 weeks to go, polls indicate that Proposition 8 could very well pass.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I guess I missed where the “fundamental right to marry” comes from?
That is a human right.
Seriously Michael? A human right to engage in a legal contract?
I mean, everyone certainly has the right to freely associate or form personal relationships/sexual partnerships, whatever- but a human right to participate in the marriage contract?
Yep. Read the European Declaration for Human Rights, art. 12. and universal decl. of human rights art. 16.
I didn’t give an opinion…
The issue of whether it’s a human right, a fundamental right, or simply a regular right is quite besides the point. How does changing the quality of this right change the issue of whether it is wrong to deny it for some and allow it for others? I sustain that it is wrong to deny it on the basis of sexual orientation, and this evaluation changes not at all depending on the kind of right marriage is.
Unless someone is willing to explain to me how marriage is not a fundamental right and that if it were it would then be ok for gays to marry, and why that is.
It’s actually a huge difference, Claudia- unfortunately I have to run and can’t discuss it now.
Michael: because the EU declares it makes it fact?
Not trying to pick a fight but I will come back to my standard argument, other than historical norms (i.e. the state sanctions marriage as it always has) or religious norms sanctioned by the state, what the essential thing lost by someone not being able to have their relationship/contract sanctioned by the state. With that answer what is it about that relationship that would prevent it from occurring between two adults of the same sex or an uncle and niece, or two male adults and one woman.
I would contend than other than historical and religions norms there have been no clearly delineated state interests. Now if we have that discussion then my hunch would be that we’d find that the state interests in marriage lie in population growth and sustainability, child rearing, economic stability etc. If we take that step then version of marriage that best address population maintenance/growth, successful child-rearing and economic stability would that relationship/contract between a man and a woman. It’s not guaranteed but research would indicate of all the “versions” of marriage/couple contracting it delivers the best results.
Otherwise it is the state sanctioning and essentially private contract.
Should read
“Otherwise it is the state sanctioning an essentially private contract.”
Um. Yes. That makes it a codified right. And the universal declaration of human rights is … a UN document, so you’ll have to deal with that one I’m afraid.
So if you are asking whether it is a human right or not: yes it is. It’s codified as such.
the EU making a law does not impose that law on the United States any more than it’d impose it on any non-EU Country. If the Legislative branch were to propose legislation based on a EU Law, that’s a different matter.
Interested my comments mean:
1. It’s a legislated human right for me since I’m European
2. IT’s a legislated human right via the United Nations, which makes it a human right in the U.S. as well.
More questions?
I have yet to hear a cogent argument against allowing homosexuals to marry that does not fall into one of three pitfalls: 1) it is based on religion, 2) it would not have allowed interracial marriages to be legalized, or 3) would also forbid marriages of infertile couples. If someone has such an argument I would be interested to see it.
I think that it would be better of governments in the US to get out of the marriage business altogether and instead issue civil unions to any pair of consenting adults regardless of sex or sexuality. If couples want be married in addition to or instead of having this contract let them go to a religious or secular institution or just gather friends and family and have the ceremony.
Grewgills – I’ll give you two pretty common-sense points.
The entire argument behind gay marriage hinges on two assumptions: 1) people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, and 2) not allowing gays to marry constitutes unequal treatment. Neither of these are necessarily true, though.
On the first point, I empathize with people who make the first argument. However, it is not true that heterosexual people can marry anyone they want either. You can not marry someone if you are already married. You can not marry someone to whom you are closely related by blood. There are reasonable societal reasons these marriages are prohibited just as there are for homosexual marriage prohibitions as well. Those arguments, by the way, have been made quite amply for quite a few years now.
On the second point, not letting two people of the same gender marry each other is not unequal treatment because no two people of the same gender may marry each other now, regardless of the reason. There are practical reasons that two men might want to marry (spousal privilege in court, for example, or perhaps two elderly widows seeking the civil benefits of such a union). They can not for the same reason that two gay men can not get married. The same rule applies, no matter your reason. Taht is the very definition of equal treatment.
I’m sorry, Michael but I do not recognize the UN’s legal authority over me. I have a country of citizenship and that country’s laws are the only ones I recognize. If that country passes a law that affirms that the UN’s resoutions are binding on me as if they were US law passed in accordance with the US constitution and my state constitution, then I would do so. But it has not and so I do not recoggnize it.
Besides, how would the UN enforce its laws anyhow?
Art VI of the Constitution of the United States:
Thus, whether you “recognize” it or not, those conventions of the United Nations to which the United States is a signatory and which have been ratified DO have full authority over citizens of the United States and are enforceable in the United States through the U.S. court system, as specified in Article III, Section 2.
It is perpetually amazing to me how many Constitutional fundamentalists are ignorant of these key clauses in the Constitution. For example, someone should give Ron Paul and his fans a highlighted copy of the Constitution in the hopes that they will finally read these clauses before claiming to speak authoritatively and exclusively on the behalf of the Constitution, but that is beside the point here.
Anyway, having proven that any properly ratified UN treaty is binding U.S. law, I have to show its relevance to this discussion. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
The United States of America is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it may be possible to spin it as non-binding in a legal sense because the document was originally written as aspirational, not binding. It has since attained the status of binding customary international law, but I don’t need to get into the debate over the legitimacy of that for the simple reason that no such spin can escape the binding legal nature of the US-sponsored UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights (a very useful tool of international law that the US cites with great frequency in its relations with authoritarian states like Russia and China), which in section 23 states:
This convention was signed by the United States on 5 Oct 1977 and ratified by the United States on 8 Jun 1992. It is therefore a binding principle under U.S. law that there is a “human right to marry”. Whether that extends to same-sex couples is a matter for interpretation, as it is linguistically possible to construct the sentence in either inclusive or exclusive senses. But you are flat wrong, Jimmie, in rejecting on face all authority of UN Conventions under U.S. law or their applicability to this issue generally.
P.S. Does it show that I am prepping to teach a course on international law?
Just speaking of semantics here: Marriage is NOT a human right in the US and in certain other countries. In the US, you need to get a LICENSE to get married. A license indicates an authority bestowing someone the right to carry out an action or business. It may not be handed out in certain circumstances. For instance, certain US states and some countries require blood tests (for relatives, HIV, etc.) that could possibly block a marriage. Some states or countries may block someone’s right to marry if the person is deemed mentally incapable. All of these are up for debate philosophically but in practice it’s not a universal human right. It seems to me more like getting a license to “play house”.
Personally I’m going to have to agree with most restrictions certain states or governments put as they see fit, but I guess the idea behind the “right to marry” was to make sure that interracial or intercultural marriage would happen in case of consenting adults blah blah. Also racist agendas do try to prevent certain groups from procreating (or have done so in the past).
However, if you cannot prevent a person of a certain ethnicity from marrying someone belonging to the same group, you may always make the marriage impossible by requiring the spouse who plans to immigrate to your country to speak the language. So some conversational language proficiency is a de facto requirement for the “right” to marry for immigrants of certain countries, hardly qualifying as a “universal” right. Such immigration laws exist in certain very European countries and I guess in this case, it depends on what the meaning of “human rights” is. So let’s correct that European “universal human right” as the following: Marriage is your universal right unless you are an immigrant wishing to live with your spouse in his/her native country. If that’s the case, you need to be tested for language and culture tests. Oops, Europe caught doing nasty in some naughty little hypocrisy yet again. Sorry Michael I just can’t resist.
Selin: that is not correct.
In the Netherlands, you also need it. Yet it’s a human right (as accepted by the UN and EU, so that’s double for us). The right to protest is also a human right, yet one needs permission in NL as well.
Human rights do have “except for” clauses. See, for instance, the freedom of speech which is also a human right, but has been restricted in many countries nonetheless in order to “protect society” or other individuals.
Yes, too many “except for” clauses for the lawmakers to make sure that those nice loopholes exist when you need them. If the “except for immigrants” clause is good enough for you to still call something a “universal human right”, that’s your prerogative.
I assume in Netherlands they don’t require blood tests. So you can marry a close relative in Netherlands? Or mentally incapable people are allowed to marry there when they want to? There’s a reason for a “license” after all, but maybe in Netherlands you don’t need a license to get married, in the US you certainly do. Okay, I’ll let that pass.
BUT a “universal human right” is applicable as long as you’re not infringing upon other people’s rights. That’s the standard for free speech and for everything else. So how’s an immigrant infringing on a native’s right by coming to the country to marry someone? (By getting on their nerves on the street, etc….) I mean, I’m trying to follow the noble intent of the exception to the “right to marriage” reasoning here. What kind of exception clauses are these, and are they true to the SPIRIT of human rights? I think the immigrant test definitely fails it. Sorry.
“There are reasonable societal reasons these marriages are prohibited just as there are for homosexual marriage prohibitions as well.”
What are those ‘reasonable societal reasons’ for prohibiting homosexual marriage. Please limit them to ones that do not fall into one of the three pitfalls I mentioned.
“You can not marry someone to whom you are closely related by blood.”
There are genetic reasons for not marrying a close relative (though those go away if there will be no procreation).
“On the second point, not letting two people of the same gender marry each other is not unequal treatment because no two people of the same gender may marry each other now, regardless of the reason.”
That is not really the same. Heterosexual people are allowed to marry the person that they are in love with. With homosexual prohibited, they do not have the same right.
@Michael van der Galien
EU law is not applicable on US Soil. That’s it, end of story. How is that a difficult concept to understand? Yes I know Europe likes to tell the US to keep it’s nose out of everyone’s business. And Europe would do well to keep it’s nose out of ours.
So Jason,
Your Article 16 specifically lacks something.
what is it.
back to the non-applicable part then.
@Interested
“EU law is not applicable on US Soil.”
He never said it did. The UN treaty that was ratified by the US has legal standing in the US, as Jason much more comprehensively illustrated.
@Grewgills
yes he did
and no Jason didn’t
@Interested
“yes he did”
Read what he wrote carefully. He initially mentioned EU law in conjunction with UN treaty as evidence of codification of marriage as a codified right. In later mentions he specifically refers to it as binding on him as a citizen of the Netherlands. Both of those claims are factual.
“and no Jason didn’t”
Again, read what he wrote carefully. The US is legally bound to abide by treaties that it signs. If it were not there would be no point in any international treaty the US was a signatory to. I hope that this is not your position.
Michael and Jason: although you two have correctly, I think, shown that marriage has ‘been codified’ as a natural right, that doesn’t mean that everyone necessarily agrees that that designation is a correct understanding of what ‘natural rights’ actually means.
And my disagreement with that is supported in the exchange you had with Selin, for example- if one has to apply to the state for permission for a certain act, then it doesn’t really make sense to say that that right inherently existed and is not within the power of the state to grant or deny to people.
There are concentric circles of rights, I would think- with the broader ones being at the center with no moral authority of the state to interfere with, but then more specific activities that are based on those natural rights but which are not themselves natural rights (eg, your comment about getting a permit to demonstrate, Michael- because the general right to free speech is a natural right, but the specific activity of organizing a demonstration in a particular place and time is not itself a natural right but derives from it.)
I haven’t studied the subject as some of you have, but this just seems common sense to me.
@Grewgills
wrong again Grewgills.
I suggest you read more carefully, and while I appreciate your apparent feeling that the two are unable to defend their positions – I assure you they have the capacity to attempt to.
@Jimmie
What is to stop a man and woman who don’t love each other from getting married in order to lay hands on the ‘civil benefits’? Nothing, that’s what. So how can you possibly say that for another two people who just happen to have the same genitalia it is better to prevent ALL marriages, even the productive, socially beneficial ones, than to allow the possibility to trick the system like this?
I thought marriage was about love, not sex. When will social conservatives stop smearing sex all over every argument to get their way.
Unless they’re blood relatives or already married to someone else .. and so on, right? I’ll agree there..
I would totally agree with this too. Marriage is such a tricky topic, the government should just get their nose out of it.
But that is not where we are right now. If we could get equal civil benefits in all states (California already has them), what would the motive behind making it a “marriage” be? To wear a fluffy dress? To change someone’s name? To save physical intimacy till after the ceremony — only to find out you’re not really gay after all? To make a lifelong commitment that can be canceled at any time? I mean as most people see marriage today, it really is little more than a big expensive party followed by a few years of playing house and fighting alot.. and don’t kid yourself, gay couples fight too.
So why insist on the traditional title, unless its to mess with people who still believe in traditions? It seems to me that the push for gay “marriage” over “civil unions” with equal legal benefits is about mandating social acceptance and forcing compliance in any organization or even any family or individual that disagrees.
Are those words overkill? Maybe.. but consider this:
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities closed down because they did not want to place children with homosexual couples; the courts in MA found their discrimination illegal. The same courts ruled that parents who don’t want their seven year olds to hear stories advocating homosexual marriage at school no longer have a choice.
I’m LDS (Mormon) and alot of people kinda hate our guts for supporting this prop. I know alot of LDS people fear that soon we’ll be forced to seal same-gender couples in our temples or renounce our status as a church. I don’t know if I believe things would go that far, but who knows? Call us narrow minded jerks if you want, but should a judge be able to rule over a situation like that? I know they claim they won’t, now. We’ll likely find out soon enough.
Having government issued, equal-right civil unions with optional religious / social ceremonies according to ones own religion, customs, or whimsical ideas — and then calling it whatever you want at that point, seems the only real solution to this hot topic. Can someone help me understand why people on either side of this issue want more?
You can’t be guaranteed a right to anything just because of a genetic/psychological defect.