Defining Marriage in California and Elsewhere
Claudia says that California’s referendum against legalized gay marriage should be rejected because Proposition 8 “helps no one and harms many” while removing the right to marry from gay couples. On the contrary, state-sanctioned gay marriage mocks the sanctity of Christian marriages, the bedrock of western civilization.
Regarding the right to marry, the ink is barely dry on the divisive, activist decision made by the state’s Supreme Court in May of this year, a decision that should never have been made given the lack of support in the state. Given that, it’s appropriate for the state’s citizens to insist that their voices be heard on the matter. But what about other states? That’s a much more interesting question.
Claudia goes on to say that legalized gay marriage would not result in additional attention being paid to the subject in public schools. That’s a highly dubious claim – legitimization leads to acceptability, meaning it’s “OK” to discuss. It also means that students cannot easily reject that acceptability. Legal = OK; disagreement is wrong.
Gay marriage doesn’t threaten traditional marriage per se. I admit that Claudia is correct about this. However, it does elevate degenerate relationships to the same level as marriage, something that’s neither right nor desirable. While polygamy, gay marriage’s closest analogy, was once common in civilized society, it too is no longer sanctioned. Similarly, slavery was once the norm and is now despised. Society strives to better itself by weeding out undesirable practices, as it should, and does well not to introduce them.
Regarding churches, gay marriages, and tax-exempt status, Claudia’s claim that churches would not be forced to choose between economic advantage and their morality is also suspect. I’m sure the initial implementation of legalized gay marriage would support her contention. However, one must also acknowledge the tendency of courts to mandate social drift on fringe issues like this one. It’s all to easy to expect activists and sympathetic courts to attempt to force this issue on a national level.
That’s where the situation gets sticky. Whether Prop. 8 passes or not, gay marriage laws that suit California would not suit Texas, that much is certain. Californians should be free to define marriage as they see fit. But Texans should have the same right, even if it conflicts with what our west-coast countrymen enact.
Unfortunately, the federal courts’ tendency has been to force homogeneity upon the states with preference to the liberal interpretation of the law. This means that Texans’ right to define marriage as we wish is endangered simply by the existence of California’s law, freshly-minted as it is. Think abortion, for example, as an example of federal activism.
Contrary to Claudia’s closing challenge, it’s not a case of feeling that my marriage or my faith will fail as a result of gay marriage being legalized. Rather, it’s simply that society has the right to define cultural standards of its own choosing without requiring every point of view or activity be allowed. On principle I would choose a country for my children that says only men and women marry and, while other arrangements are allowed, these are neither normal, desired, or self-sustaining.
Although Claudia mentions artificial insemination as a way lesbians can reproduce, it’s clear from casual observation of the natural world that homosexual unions are a genetic and social dead end. While my position may seem unfair or even bigoted, it’s really just a reflection of the facts of life.
The one legitimate issue that gay activists present is that of financial and legal disparities in health insurance coverage, inheritance, etc. These could be resolved by the creation of civil unions one on hand or more flexible beneficiary designation rules on the other. But it seems unlikely that gay rights activists will allow such a compromise to come to pass. Their objective is not merely to gain access to health benefits, et al, but to raise their relationships to the same level as traditional marriage.
This is an issue best left to individual states. And if there were some guarantee of federal restraint I would be content to let California go its own way unhindered. But because expansion of gay marriage there embodies a very real threat of federally mandated change in other states, I must advocate in favor of California’s Proposition 8.
I agree. A marriage between people of the same sex is NOT the same as a marriage between a man and a woman and hence the objection of society in general as to why it should be called with the same name. Other than that, as long all the ensuing rights given by the government to a married couple are granted to gay couples, I don’t see what the fuss is about for gay activists. Other than the fact that they want the name “marriage”.
I personally don’t care if gay people want to strut around showing their marriage certificates and stuff, so in my opinion give them the piece of paper that says “marriage certificate” on it and let them showcase their relationships on TV or come up with cute lines on shows with kids saying “I have two mommies” or whatever. Which is precisely what many see as degeneration, a kid having two mommies. Also please pay attention to how I started using the term “them” to refer to gays, but unfortunately such gay activism leads others to react precisely in this fashion, thus perpetuating the familiar “us-versus-them” situation.
But there are many who DO believe that such stuff erodes the sanctity of the marriage institution, OR who find it not only offensive but also a sign of cultural or moral degeneration on the part of society, either for religious reasons or for NO religious reasons whatsoever. For instance, I’m glad to see that incestual marriage is not allowed in societies even if it does NOT affect me personally in any way or form. Why should I care if consenting brothers and sisters of age get married? But I do, and I’m glad to see that most others feel the same. So I cannot disagree with someone who feels the same about gay marriage even if I don’t.
So same but different. That’s the law. Either deal with it or be an activist to try to change it at the risk of alienating everyone else who thinks differently. But don’t exploit unfortunate (and all too real) examples of homophobia or racism or any type of bigotry to promote a union which is completely against what natural laws dictate.
I also don’t accept analogies to interracial couples because no matter how much you tweak or twist nature with stuff like artificial insemination et al you will not be able to make a union between people of the same sex the same as a union between a man and a woman.
Also this kind of “but blacks weren’t allowed to vote” stuff is just not going to cut it and in my opinion it is very offensive to people of color. Arguments of moral equivalence to racism do not work. Trying to draw parallels with racist bigotry poses the risk of diluting what such bigotry has been able to accomplish in the past (refer to past practices of sterilizing women of color to prevent them from reproducing).
I also don’t believe that marriage is a “fundamental human right” for anybody. There are certain bars that need to be passed in order to attain the right to marry OR in choosing whom you can marry to even if it’s consensual.
SO if a society is willing to vote in majority that a couple need be of different sexes in order to accept their union as a marriage then I don’t see how any type of gay activism is going to change that, but they are certainly trying. If they succeed, then congratulations to them. I think it’s difficult, and I certainly don’t see much point to it although gay couples do. But also this proposition is not saying that gay couples should not be able to raise kids or should not have similar legal rights as married couples.
The only thing that gets me, is that the same people who are pushing for gay marriage won’t lift a finger to help other consenting adults in plural/polygamous marriages. Why is that?
And, ironically, polygamy has much more of a tradition going back to Biblical times. Gay marriage is really a very modern invention.
Oh boy where to start:
a- Re: “Gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage” Whose sanctity? Yours? The one dicated by your religion? Here’s a curious tidbit: According to a plurality of the worlds religions, if I were to be married by marriage would not be sacred. I’m an atheist, and therefore cannot have a “sacred” marriage. Should my union to a man be illegal then? After all, there is no “sanctity” in it. Unless you have a different definition of “sanctity” than “sacred”. Do share, in such a case.
Bigotry is the treatment of a group of people as lesser based on a given trait. Racism and homophobia treats people of different races or different sexual orientations differently based on biological traits they cannot change. If you wish to believe that homosexuality is a chosen behaviour and not a biological trait it’s within your right, but virtually every scientific study done on the subject contradicts you, along with every major medical and psychological association in the civilized world. The “laws of nature” show us homosexuality in many different animal species, including humans. You know what the “laws of nature” don’t show? Religion. So since religion is not a part of biology, is discrimination of the religious ok? After all, it’s not “natural”.
Much of the movement against gay marriage has very very clear signs of bigotry. Allowing Gay people to marry is a “threat”. It threatens traditional values, children, and even western civilization. Homosexuality is “denegerate” “unnatural” “immoral”. There is no neutrality here, it’s clearly trying to put one group of people as lesser to another. That some people who personally don’t like the idea of gay marriage don’t hate gays themselves does not change this fact.
As to giving gays “civil unions” it’s fairly obvious that separate is not equal. I personally don’t see why people are so willing to give gays all the rights of marriage but somehow that word “marriage” is so hard for them to swallow. Civil marriage is already very different from religious marriage. Why is the marriage of an atheist, equally invalid in the eyes of god, persmisable but the marriage of a gay couple not? Why is the marriage of two women wrong because they can’t have children, but the marriage of two sterile people ok as long as there’s one of each gender?
There seems to be a belief that allowing gay people to feel that they are not lesser than heterosexuals will somehow lead to a huge increase in homosexuality. Nothing will change in nature if gays are allowed to marry. Gay people will exist in certain numbers irregardless of if they are accepted into society as full members or marginalized as “degenerate”. Gay couples will marry in “union ceremonies” or in gay-accepting churches (and they exist, are they not “sacred”?) whether or not society deems fit to allow them inheritance and hospital visitation rights. You are not obligated to think being gay is acceptable, just as yuo are not obligated to believe being an atheist is acceptable. I’m happy that the law guarantees that I’m not an unequal citizen, and I hope dearly that California voters will not punish gays for simply being true to their identities.
If the purpose of state-sanctioning of marriage is not a traditional or a nod to certain religious values then one must ask, “other than affirming correct contractual law application, what is the state’s interest in sanctioning a marriage differentially over any other interpersonal contractual agreement?”
Taken from that viewpoint then I do believe the state has an interest in a social contractual arrangement that perpetuates the population and, based on research, has a higher likelihood of well developing the offspring and assuring financial security for the mother and her children.
Longtime reader Nevin left the following comment which did not appear or was accidentally deleted.
50% of marriages are failing and that is a statistical fact. The marriage institution is in dire straits. If gay couples wishes to be part of this shaky system, let them be….