The Case Against Proposition 8
If you live in California, Tuesday not only brings you the choice for president, but also Prop 8, which would remove the rights gay couples currently have to marry. Current polls show that it could go either way.
Californians have an opportunity to make history yet again by voting against a proposition that helps no one and harms many.
The arguments for Prop 8 vary from the incorrect to the prejudiced to the simply misleading. Proponents of Prop 8 have been supported by a massive amount of out of state funds coming chiefly from the Mormon church, who seems very interested in limiting the right of people who don’t even live in their states. It is sadly ironic to see Mormons, who have had to confront quite a bit of discrimination themselves, jump so enthusiastically on the opportunity to foist such things on others. Equally disturbing is the support of Prop 8 in the African American community, that has apparently forgotten the time when mixed marriages were also considered a threat and an abomination.
Prop. 8 proponents were not content with trying to instill the fear of gays committing to life-long monogamous relationships backed by a government contract (though why this instills fear is beyond me), they had to beef it up.
Allowing gay marriage would force children to be taught about homosexuality in schools!
This is categorically false of course, and even if Prop 8 passes it would have zero influence on whether homosexuality came up as a subject in a school.
Churches would be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax except status!
Another lie naturally (see link above). Public use property owned by the church or anyone else is required to conform to anti-discrimination laws that forbid denying service on the basis of a number of things, like race, religion or sexual orientation. Again, the passage or failure of Prop 8 matters not at all in these cases.
But why the need to spread misleading information in order to make the prospect of not passing Prop 8 more scary? Possibly because there is a fear that the traditional arguments against gay marriage don’t convince enough people. Let’s review the most typical ones:
Marriage traditionally is a loving union between a man and a woman.
Depends on what you mean by “traditionally” I guess. Marriage has had many meanings during many times. True, male and female relationships were typical, but love was not necessarily involved. Neither was the government, for most of history. Marriage of one man to many woman has strong historic roots, and yet it’s considered illegal in the US.
Gay marriage threatens traditional marriage/children.
This is of course the most common argument, as well as the least supported. The problem is that it is never,
ever, accompanied with the slightest bit of evidence. Four countries plus Massachusetts allow gay marriage now. There is no study showing that gay marriages cause more divorces, cause higher rates of child abuse, tsunamis, locusts, nothin. In order to say that something is a “threat” you need to be able to show the harm that will be caused to that which is threatened.
Gay marriage will lead to gay parenting and children are better off with a mother and a father.
Studies are, admittedly, somewhat limited on the matter of gay parenting. Those that have been done show absolutely no harmful effects towards children, but the studies are rather limited due mainly to issues with sampling. Studies done on children of single mothers show that there is significant harm done by not having one parent in the home (though I don’t know how controlled these studies are for other factors, like poverty) and yet we allow single mothers to keep their babies. Of course this goes up against the same barrier as the “teaching kids about homosexuality” and the “tax exempt status” barrier from before. Prop 8 has nothing to do with it. Adoption by Gay people is legal in California and will continue to be legal if Prop 8 passes. Not one single child will be “protected” from the non-horror of having gay parents if those parents are not allowed to marry.
Gay marriage may lead to more gays having or adopting children, because they feel they can give them more guarantees in life yes. However it is folly to suppose that by preventing gay marriage you are preventing gay parenting. Gay families already exist, and they will continue to exist if you remove the rights of the parents to marry. What is true is that by not allowing the parents of these children to marry, you leave them more vulnerable in the event something happens to one parent. The government partly takes a part in civil marriage because of a need to protect children. Why then would you deny that protection to the children of gay couples?
Gay marriage will lead to multiple marriages, or human-animal marriage.
There are two gaping holes in this argument. One is that you cannot argue against something that is right by saying that afterwards something that is wrong could be made legal. If it’s ok for gays and lesbians to marry, it’s ok. You can’t deny it saying “Well, it really should be your right, but since we’re afraid it could lead to other things, we’re going to go ahead and deny you that right”.
As to the actual slope itself, I simple don’t see it as so slippery. Bill Maher put it best:
Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species marriage. When women got the vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to Salmon.”
Marriage is really about having and raising children. Gay people can’t do that.
If marriage is really about raising and having children, then sterile couples should not be allowed to be married. Neither should old people be given that right. Neither of these can biologically have children, after all. Lesbians of course can and do have biological children through artificial insemination.
To the many people who may be considering eliminating the right of gays and lesbians to marry based on religious convictions, I ask you to please reconsider. Remember that following religious doctrine must be a choice, and should not be imposed by the government. It’s quite possible that according to your own religious doctrine, I myself cannot have a valid marriage. I’m not religious, and therefore am incapable of taking sacraments of marriage, rendering any marriage I make null and void in the eyes of your religion. Should the law prevent the marriages of atheists and agnostics? For Catholics, divorce is not an option, and yet it is legal. I don’t see the Catholic Church running to fight against the legality of divorce.
I do understand that religious beliefs are very deeply held, and I can’t help but accept that some people will vote for Prop 8 because their preacher or priest told them to do so. But consider the fact that the license that the government issues is not a marriage before God. Think that the real marriage is the one that occurs within your church. The other is just a legal contract that can already be undertaken by many people who could never marry in your church. Don’t you think your sacred marriage is strong enough to resist the presence of other kinds of marriage? Don’t you feel that your faith is big enough to not need the government to back it up?
I urge Californians to do the right thing and not take away the rights of thousands to establish a committed and lifelong relationship with the same legal protections as everyone else.
I leave the final word to Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, once an opponent of Gay Marriage.
You claim that gay marriage is a fundamental right and then you claim that saying it will be taught in schools is ‘categorically wrong.’
How does that make any sense?
You want something legally defined as something that’s a ‘fundamental human right’ but you have the gall to go and try to get people to believe that keeping such a legal definition, keeping it considered a ‘fundamental human right’ will not be a status that will get it taught in public schools.
What do you all take us for?
Will someone tell me what other fundamental human right is not taught in our public schools? What fundamental human right does not shape the presentation and total underlying structure of education???
I’d like to know.
“Studies are, admittedly, somewhat limited on the matter of gay parenting.”
Would we implement some novel way of tinkering with biology if studies on it were ’somewhat limited’?
Yet they’re all ready to go to work, as if the health and capacities of one generation of kids indicates the effects, good or bad, that could flow from such a foundational alteration of the core unit of society. Why are we only looking at this now? Why are we so ready to jump into endorsing a structure that would condone as equal situations that would deprive children of either a mother or a father, as if gender didn’t matter, as if gender didn’t transcend sexual orientation.
Why does no one of those ready to tweak this institution try to look five, six or twenty generations after the fact into possible outcomes?
We’re ready to scream and holler when changes are done in various etiologies. Yet we’ll tweak the underlying guiding structure of our culture at the flip of a hat. Four judges get some screwy conglomeration changing views on what constitutes equality and their role and they legislate a new legal definition to one of the core institution in humanity.
Where’s the equal consideration for the generations yet to come? Where’s the equality, the equal chance for kids to have both a father and a mother? Why are we ignoring all of humanities genetic and memetic evolution for some untenable claim on ‘equality.’ This isn’t about equality, it’s about putting the sexual desires of parents above the fostering of the best conditions of children and humanity.
For years domestic partnerships have been legal in California and they are not taught in school. Neither will marriage.
There is no procreation requirement for marriage. Prisoners, the elderly, and infertile people can get married. Around 50% of all marriages in the US involve NO children.
VOTE NO on PROP 8
50% of weddings are non-religious, so religion should play no role in defining CIVIL marriage. Let the curches keep their sacrament of marriage, but leave my civil rights alone.
@QQQ
How can you possibly suggest that someone advocating an optional union of two loving people (otherwise indifferent to yourself), would support the horrid concept of forcing people who detest each other to stay together? VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
Vote yes on 8.
HiveRadical, I take you for someone who hasn’t really read the post. Please quote where I said that marriage was a “fundamental right”. I didn’t did I? I happen to believe that marriage is an important institution and that’s why it’s wrong to deny it to 10% of the population. Your conclusion about it necessarily being taught to children is also entirely wrong. State education law does not require education about marriage of any sort, which of course includes same-sex marriage. You are again asserting that Prop 8 will prevent something it can’t. You could eliminate the right to marry, even the right to vote, from gay people, and that still wouldn’t prevent anything in school.
As to your “children deserve a mother and a father” you are again showing you didn’t read the article closely. You perhaps think single mothers should be forced to give their children to heterosexual couples? In any event, AGAIN you are claiming Prop 8 does something it does not. Gay couples already have children, and will continue to have them Prop 8 or no Prop 8. However, passing Prop 8 would deny the parents of those children the right to marry, and therefore leave them more vulnerable than their peers.
Gays will not go away passing Prop 8, schools will not be affected for good or ill with Prop 8. Children will not magically all have mommies and daddies with Prop 8. Prop 8 only exclusively takes a right away, it gives nothing in return.
I hesitate to join this discussion since it is so heated, but I have a question that hopefully we can have a civil discussion about. Please understand that I think there are good people on both sides that have good intentions and make good arguments. However, this questions remains unanswered in my mind:
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, why should polygamy still be illegal? What argument for gay marriage does not also apply to polygamy?
Some might point to the child abuse or forced marriage that is sometimes associated with polygamy. But it is a slippery slope argument to argue that polygamy should not be legal because that would legitimize child abuse.
Others might argue that homosexuality is not a choice, by polygamy is. However, it is my understanding that the whether it is a choice or not doesn’t have much to do with its constitutionality. But perhaps someone can correct me on that.
That leave the only reasonable explanation: more people think polygamy is immoral than think homosexuality is immoral. However, if this really is the only difference, it is hypocritical for gay marriage activists to argue that one group’s morality should not be imposed on them, while at the same time arguing the polygamy should remain illegal because it is immoral.
Let me be clear that I don’t support polygamy. Nor do I believe it would immediately happen after legalizing gay marriage, but I don’t see the legal justification for treating it differently, and therefore it would only be a matter of time before the courts ruled that way, citing the legality of gay marriage as precedence.
Let me be clear that I understand that “slippery slope” arguments are not always valid. I of course think the bestiality argument is ridiculous. But I don’t see my argument above as a slipper slope. I’m not arguing that polygamy is one step down the slope from gay marriage. I’m arguing that it is at the same level from a legal perspective. Again, I’m not a legal expert so if someone can clear this up for me, please do.
For Catholics, divorce is not an option, and yet it is legal. I don’t see the Catholic Church running to fight against the legality of divorce
This, and the rest of your paragraph about religious aspects of marriage, are the best arguments for why marriage must be considered in its two aspects- the religious and the secular. That’s why I favor getting the govt out of marriage altogether- preserving a civil union structure which would involve what we now have as the civil part of marriage (going to the courthouse to get the license) which would be a separate aspect from the religious ceremony (and in the case of Catholic and some other churches, the sacrament aspect of it.)
I agree that the govt shouldn’t discriminate (although it can still be argued that homosexuality isn’t an identity, since the science isn’t there to prove that it’s not just a choice- and so the whole concept of discrimination isn’t on very firm ground there.) But I’d be fine with dispensing with that argument and allowing govts to grant civil unions to hetero and homosexual couples (I do think there should be language that puts up the barrier against the slippery slopes of bigamy and child marriage very firmly.) I know that some Christians will still oppose civil unions even under these circumstances, and they represent on extreme. On the other end though, are the homosexual marriage advocates who not only want legal civil unions but want to be able to call it a marriage and have everyone in society accept it as such. That is not only going too far (you can legally enforce tolerance of your views but can’t force people to agree with you) but also puts at risk the separation of Church and state from the other side (because there WOULD be pressure on churches to sanction these marriages) and it shows that these people are just as extreme as their ideological counterparts. If they would accept the limitation of the distinction between secular civil union and the religious tradition of marriage, they’d have a better chance of obtaining their goals.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, why should polygamy still be illegal? What argument for gay marriage does not also apply to polygamy?
I would posit that gays and lesbians only option for happy partnership is through union with someone of their same sex, wheras a man wanting to marry three women can probably live with being married to just one. Polygamy is not inborn, as homoexuality is.
You are right of course that biology is only a part of the argument, as religion is not inborn and yet the law protects it’s free exercise. My main moral issue with polygamy is that it seems to be overwhelmingly exploitative and based on an unequal relationship between the husband and the many wives (you don’t se the contrary much, do you?). On the other hand I can’t see any particular moral reason why such marriages, if clearly based on a free decision by all the involved parties, should be forbidden. Loveless marriages exist in heterosexual relationships and we still consider them legal and, though unimaginable to me, it could be that certain groups of people would like to be in a plural marriage without it being some sort of FLDS child exploitation nightmare.
The one issue I do see as at the very least difficult is that plural marriage represents a legal nightmare in terms of matters of inheritance, child custody, taxes etc. Legally nothing changes within a gay marriage because the law does not differentiate between spouses in terms of their rights before the law. It does however assume there are two of them and including more would involve some very complicated legal wrangling. That doesn’t make it wrong of course, just difficult.
However I do believe that the issue of polygamous marriages and same-sex marriages need to be taken as separate debates. Just because you approve of one does not mean you must approve of the other. They can and should be discussed separately, since they involve a different set of motivations and difficulties, both personal and legal.
I agree that the GLBT community does not want to touch the polygamy debate with a nine yard poll. It’s understandable really; they have quite enough fighting their own battle and the last thing they need is to tie themselves to a group even less popular than themselves.
What I find highly ironic, while we’re on the subject of polygamy, is the position of the Mormons. Here is a group of people who were persecuted in part for their marriages. Many of them have ancestors who were in polygamous marriages and have sympathy for the practice. They react with hostility to the idea of the rest of the world dictating their practices, and yet have no problem doing the very same thing to gays and lesbians in the state next door.
The bottom line about this ad is this: Fighting bigotry by embracing bigotry is a self-defeating enterprise because it legitimizes bigotry in principle.
The “Courage Coalition” has inadvertently exposed themselves as hypocrites who oppose bigotry except against Mormons. And there is no way for them to be politically effective after that except among people who were voting their way anyway.
Polygamy is not inborn, as homoexuality is.
Uh, where’s the proof to support either part of that? Biologically, is there actual evidence of an inborn trait of homosexuality? And is there not evidence that men in particular might have wiring to be polygamous rather than monogamous?
Christine, there is a significant amount of research emerging that shows it is likely that homosexuality is at least in some cases biological. (Link provided is an example, but is not the sum total of the relevant research. Here is a somewhat better summary of one study.)
C. Stanley, the whole “civil unions vs. marriage” aspect of the debate seems to be hugely important to all sides, and yet I see it as the least of our worries, oddly enough. It seems more of a semantic argument than a real argument. The important thing for me is that it is equal for everyone, gay or straight. They can call it Mickey Mouse for all I care. If I get married, I’ll consider myself married, no matter what the contract says. Likewise, as much as my contract says “marriage”, theoretically many religious people won’t consider me “married” since I won’t do it in a church.
The reason the battle is being waged on “marriage” is because GLBT people know it’s inviable to ask straight people to take away the word “marriage” from their contracts so everyone can have it equally. I suspect that a lot of people would feel violated if they were told they could no longer call their marriage a marriage because it didn’t happen in a church. In a way, it would be healthy actually. Give straight people a taste of what it’s like to have others decide for you what your relationship means.
If it meant an end to the debate, I’d certainly sign on the dotted line to make it all “civil unions” even if I personally don’t believe the word “marriage” belongs only to the religious. It’s name is less important than it being the same contract for everyone. I think the best compromise would be to make the civil contracts called “Civil Marriage” contracts, in order to diferentiate them from religious marriages, which would be up to each Church.
Claudia, I have long maintained that the furor over “gay marriage” is in part a result of gay-rights advocates’ refusal to accept the “civil unions” compromise and their insistence on the word “marriage”. This insistence is understandable out of a desire to avoid being placed, even rhetorically, into second-class status. But it was a strategic error insofar as the word “marriage” carries deep emotional meanings and traditions in our culture. As such, it helped mobilize conservative opponents much more strongly than would have been the case with “civil unions”.
Of course, that doesn’t excuse anti-gay bigotry or prejudice. But those who seek to make political change shouldn’t be naive. Politics is a strategic environment and the choice to embrace a framing that is guaranteed to maximize the other side’s advantages is just strategically stupid.
Claudia, if you are serious about wanting to promote a political compromise, rule #1 is that you have to take the concerns of all sides seriously whether or not you agree with them.
And no one would ‘tell people they can’t call their union a marriage’. People can and will call their unions whatever they please. Gay people for decades have formed unions and called them marriages, and have referred to their partners as spouses, husbands, wives, whatever. There wouldn’t be a law against doing so. However, there wouldn’t be a law or a piece of paper certifying that the state recognize the union in that way. And that’s as it should be, IMO- that’s how you appropriately separate the religious from the secular (frankly I don’t think that the majority of heterosexual couples today should call their unions marriages according to the sacramental aspect of it, but that’s my opinion- but my point is that even in the case of heteros, I don’t think it’s the state’s business to determine that either.)
Jason, I just took a look at the second link and first of all, the sample size is ridiculously small and at best would only be a first attempt to gather evidence- would need a lot more than 90 scans to draw any broader conclusions.
And second, I find it absurd that the researchers are claiming that the traits they examined would necessarily be inborn instead of considering that these traits too develop over time and are influenced by environment. Somehow they’re acknowledging that the traits previously studied relating to sexual attraction are not conclusive biological evidence because they could be learned responses- but the traits they are studying are also subject to environmental influences (and this is something I have some knowledge of, because I’ve reviewed the literature pretty extensively on the neuronal wiring of anxiety/depression and fight or flight responses because I’ve studied childhood development as it relates to anxiety disorders in kids.)
I don’t think I claimed that the evidence was conclusive, nor did I claim that it explained all homosexuality.
But it is interesting to note that the only evidence that exists AT ALL on the point indicates that homosexuality is intrinsic, not a matter of choice. Even if it is “environmental”, it is STILL not a matter of choice, is it?
I’m having a bit of a weird day, here. On three separate issues now, I am arguing explicitly against a position that I used to hold.
Yes, I know you weren’t claiming it was conclusive and I hope it didn’t come across like I was arguing against you in that manner. I was just pointing out the extent to which I see it as inconclusive.
I disagree with your second paragraph there about the evidence, because environmentally influenced traits by definition are NOT intrinsic. Now, I will grant you that many of these traits appear to be a confluence of both intrinsic biological wiring which is then fully expressed as a trait under certain environmental circumstances.
That’s how it currently appears to be with depression and anxiety disorders, for instance. Individuals are born with a genetic tendency toward those disorders in some cases- and then the environmental influences ultimately determine whether you end up with an individual with OCD, social anxiety, etc, or if you just have someone who’s a bit more inhibited, a bit more regimented, or shy.
It may end up being the same with homosexuality. But in the case of anxiety disorders, society is pretty settled on the notion that the disorders are disruptive to normal life functioning and thus there’s an attempt to figure out how to adjust the environment to prevent the expression of the trait. With homosexuality, the research will more than likely open up a can of worms because some people obviously feel that this trait is not a negative thing and the evidence will be used to support the idea that environmental manipulation isn’t desirable, whereas other people will feel it is a net negative trait and thus should be manipulated.
Personally- and this is just my gut feeling, not scientific- I think that most of our sexuality is conditioned, and thus I feel that homosexuality may develop in many individuals who aren’t really hard wired for it while there may also be a smaller percentage who have such strong intrinsic wiring for it that it would truly be going against their core self to try to counter- condition them. So my feeling would be somewhere in between- accepting that some people truly are homosexual, but recognizing that how we as a society allow our teens to be conditioned could either promote homosexuality, or treat it more as an anomaly (which can still be done in a respectful manner IMO, though I realize that’s fraught with difficulty.)
But even more importantly, I think that the best thing for all concerned would be to separate the issues of legal discrimination from moral acceptance. We have laws to protect against racial discrimination, but people aren’t and can’t really be forced to associate with other races if they choose not to. I think that homosexuals perpetuate the problems when they seek to have everyone accept homosexuality in a morally equivalent way to heterosexuality, when really all the law should do is prevent discrimination on that basis.
My point in my second paragraph was to say that even if homosexuality is in whole or in part environmentally determined, that still constitutes an argument in favor of equal rights. We don’t prohibit people with anxiety or OCD or Aspberger’s from getting married, do we?
Uh, I don’t think you’re making sense now, Jason. Anxiety, OCD or Aspergers have nothing to do with changing the legal definition of marriage. A more apt analogy, if you wanted to go there, would be whether or not it’s discriminatory to refuse to hire someone if their anxiety disorder interferes with their job function (say an OCD person who spends hours each day doing rituals out of compulsion.) That would be an example of the law recognizing something as intrinsic and legally protecting against discrimination on that basis, while failing to consider whether there were other societal interests that had to be balanced.
”
Allowing gay marriage would force children to be taught about homosexuality in schools!”
Um, Jason, it would. Under sction 51890 of the California Education Code
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/edc/51890-51891.html
:
a) For the purposes of this chapter, “comprehensive health
education programs” are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
…
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
note that gay marriage is certainly a legal aspect of marriage.
(2) To the maximum extent possible, the instruction in health is
structured to provide comprehensive education in health that includes
all the subjects in paragraph (1).
No special opt-out clause.
It is simply incorrect to say that the proposition would harm many and help no one. It is also a lie to say that the only issue is infringing on a gay “right.” The issue at hand is one of discriminating against people with values. If gay marriage is a protected “right” then people whose values consider marriage to be the union of man and woman, then when they act on that value (such as an adoption agency refusing gay adopters, or a parent who doesn’t want their children to be taught that gay marriage is that same as child-producing marriage), the law will force them to compromise their values or endure the punishments associated with ‘intolerance.’ This uses law and “rights” - fundamentally American principles - and repackages them as weapons against people with values.
I personally support protection of the rights of those living an alternative lifestyle. They endure mistreatment and unfair prejudices, but a no on Prop 8 is not protection that group of people - it is an affront against values-based Americans.
JasonJack,
Under California Education Code § 51101, parents and guardians have the right to:
• Examine the curriculum materials of the class.
• Work with the schools to adopt policies that outline how parents, staff and students mayshare in the responsibility for development and well-being of the students.
• Observe classrooms and meet with teachers.
• Have a school environment for their child that is safe and supportive of learning.
• Be informed about the above rights to participate in the education of their children.
Under numerous California Education Codes, parents have (and will still have) the RIGHT to advance notice and will be able to pull their child out of class if the school wishes to teach about gay marriage. (education codes 51931(b), 51933, 51937, and 51938).
Frankly, however, I have never heard about schools teaching anything besides “traditional” marriage, and very litte on that subject to begin with. In my experience, schools are wary to teach about single parents, divorced parents, children whose guardians are their grandparents/aunts/uncles, adopted children, or any other sort of “alternative” family arrangement.
Prop 8 writes discrimination into our Constitution for the first time in our state’s history. When the majority can strip rights away from minorities, that is a truly slippery slope.
Sam,
It is unfair to say that gay people do not have values. I’m sure many of them do, and perhaps many are religious as well. Because someone’s values are different than you own, it certainly does not mean that they do not have any at all.
In my lifetime, I wonder if I will see the day when everyone respects everyone else’s values equally? I honestly hope so.
Here’s my question…Maybe someone can answer it for me. When this proposition first came out that it would be on the ballot for tomorrow we saw a ton of television ads for the No on 8 campaign and they all had to do with homosexual couples marrying…even kissing after their marriage ceremony. If the No on 8 supporters think that this is all about love why have their commercials completely taken all of these gay marriage ceremonies off the tv. It seems to me that maybe they are a little scared that people will be turned off by the ads and have focused now in a different direction??? It doesn’t make any sense to me…Maybe someone has an opinion on this? If you are trying to promote something put it out there. Let everyone decided for themselves. Be proud of who you are.
I am for traditional marriage. Please vote Yes on proposition 8!
” . . . a massive amount of out of state funds coming chiefly from the Mormon church, who seems very interested in limiting the right of people who don’t even live in their states.”
This is false on two counts. First, all donations from Mormons have come from individual Mormons and not from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Second, most of the contributions from Mormons, in fact, have come from the 740,000 Mormons who reside in California.
By contrast, the $1.25 million donation opposing Prop 8 from the California Teachers Association came from the organization itself, using the compulsory dues of its members, with no provision for dissent by individual teachers. At least one $1 million donation opposing Prop. 8 came, with much publicity, from an out-of-state individual.
Both sides on the issue understand that California is a bell-weather state, and people from throughout the nation have contributed to both sides of the issue.
Some opponents of Prop. 8 have exercised shameful hatred against Mormons. The Daily Kos calls for using “any legal tool at your disposal” to retaliate against Mormons (http://tinyurl.com/5mpkpc) and provides a link to a list of individual Mormon donors, and sfgate.com still publishes a post suggesting that Mormons be shot “so that they don’t try to attack again and take more of your rights away.” (http://tinyurl.com/6rp6s7),10/26/2008, 3:21:10 PM).
hthalljr’gmail’com
Ding Ding! Wrong. The LDS Church has donated the sum of 2 million dollars officially, without counting the amounts that it exhorted it’s faithful to contribute. They sent letters to all their churches ordering them to organize against the proposition. This was not the initiative of California mormons, it came from way up top.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051
“That’s why I favor getting the govt out of marriage altogether- preserving a civil union structure which would involve what we now have as the civil part of marriage (going to the courthouse to get the license) which would be a separate aspect from the religious ceremony”
That is what I have long thought would be the best solution. Let government deal with the contractual aspects and have the couples decide what other ceremonial aspects they want. Everyone who is married can still call it marriage. They loose nothing.
Re: exploitative marriages (children etc)
There are already laws that limit contractual obligations to those capable of giving informed consent. I don’t think that this would prevent polygamy or polyandry, but I don’t know that there is a legal obligation to do so as long as the relationships are not abusive or exploitative.
Claudia,
Thanks for your reply regarding my polygamy question. My snarky response to your argument is this: So bisexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a gay marriage, since they would be happy in a heterosexual marriage? Of course I know I’m splitting hairs there, and I understand your more general point.
Still, it seems to me that the legal argument for gay marriage does not center on whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not (for the record, I believe it is mostly not, although difficult to scientifically prove). Instead it centers on the rights of couples. The majority opinion in the CA ruling, for example, cited as an example the lifting of the ban on interracial couples in 1948. Clearly one can’t argue that any particular white person cannot be happy unless he marries a black person. Clearly that is a choice, and yet the courts still ruled to protect that choice (which of course was correct), and then stated that gay marriage is analogous.
So, even if it were scientifically proven that homosexuality is a choice, it appears that would not have affected the legal standing of gay couples, according to the ruling (although it would perhaps affect public opinion, which could indirectly affect the court). If anyone can cite where in the ruling it uses the argument that homosexuality is not a choice as support, I’m be interesting in knowing it. I admit to not having read much of it, but I’m going off of second-hand accounts. But from what I understand it wasn’t the central argument.
I agree with you that it does seem like those involved in polygamy tend to be at a much higher risk of child and spouse abuse, but from a legal perspective I think you’d have to separate the two unless it can be successfully argued that polygamy inherently leads to abuse. And I agree with you in terms of the legal complications that would arise, but again that’s not much of an argument against it.
Anyway, thanks for you honest reply to an honest question. I guess we’ll see soon enough how this thing plays out.
Claudia, it would be nice if you actually read your own material before you went way over the top accusing a church that you should know some of your fellow editors have many close family members in of blatantly illegal political activity.
1) The donation is in-kind, not cash. It covers travel expenses only.
2) The amount was a little over 2 THOUSAND dollars (a meaningless pittance) not the massive 2 million you claimed.
Speaking as someone who spent over 2 decades as an active Mormon, I would also say that I find your unsupported allegation that the LDS Church sent letters “ordering” member congregations to organize in favor of Prop 8 to be highly implausible. It doesn’t work like that at all, not even at the basic process level.
I agree with you regarding the issue of prop 8 itself, but I honestly find offensive your crusade to smear the entire LDS Church. I mean, isn’t anti-Mormonism bad enough already without adding more false charges? Or is it because it is a religion, it deserves nothing better anyway from an atheist POV? It is also highly distressing that you cannot spare a moment to condemn those who call for physical violence against all Mormons over at DKos.
I hope you will retract your erroneous information and press forward with your campaign for tolerance without embracing intolerance towards Mormons as your tool.
there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.
We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.
If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.
It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.
This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.
Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.
They are absolute anarchists.
Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.
So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.
Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.
Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.
All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.
The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.
That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.
We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.
Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.
to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”
Couldn’t agree more. Look at my post from yesterday about that ad (though not aired, is not such a great statement from certain wings of the No on 8 side) that painted Mormons as a Gestapo-like force, ready and willing to raid homes to take away rights. The underlying idea is more symbolic, I think, but given many people’s already existing prejudices against Mormons, such images are a little dangerous.
Gre wgills said it best in the comments of that article:
@Christian
And how good are notification laws? Do I have to be notified when evolution is taught in Biology? no. Will some teachers teach/mention gay marriage? some will, others will not. Will I be warned before hand? probably not.
You assume much about our school system.
Let’s just keep marriage where it should be, in the home, and not have parents angry at teachers and make schools fight about this.
The Mother and Father raise the children the best. let’s not leave it to the schools.
@Claudia, Assistant Editor
Claudia,
Let me first ask you a question. Are you a Mormon? Doesn’t really sound like it. I am a “Californian Mormon” and NOBODY “ordered” me to do anything. Anyone who knows anything about our church knows that the family is something we put a lot of emphasis on. It is the center of our religion. We even have a proclamation about it and it was written long before proposition 8 was an issue. Without anyone telling us what to do, many church members would have organized together to fight for this proposition. And just to clear this up…There are a lot of other people voting yes besides just mormons. A few years ago when we voted to legalize gay marriage in California a vast majority (over 60%) voted no. Last time I checked California was not made up of over 60% of mormons. If that statistic is true let me know. That would mean our message is spreading faster than we thought… Anyway, instead of focusing on one group why don’t you and the opponents of Proposition 8 fight for it. So should all of us “mormons” bash the teacher’s union for donating over a million dollars for the cause. Those teachers didn’t even have a choice as to wether they agreed or not. I know a lot of teachers asking for their union dues back. Stick to your side of the issue and fight for it. There are always going to be two sides…That’s why it is on the ballot. Let the voting show what Californians want. Whatever the result it would be nice to think that people could at least be respectful of another’s position.
Thank you, Dara! It’s interesting over the last few days of blogging how ugly this discussion is getting on the internet. Last time I checked, Mormons still have the right to vote, the right of free speech, and the right to donate to whatever political cause they choose. And, you’re right, we were not “ordered” to do anything.
Dara, nowhere do I imply that the majority of voters are Mormon. I do imply though that a large proportion of the movement for Prop 8 comes from Mormon churches and a lot of that comes or is directed from people not in California. It’s their right to do so, naturally enough, but somehow I suspect that if the reverse were true and a huge number of Californians were putting money and effort into legalizing Gay marriage in Utah, I’d be hearing a lot about “outside interference”.
As for respect, I respect the individual but in this case I simply cannot respect the position, as I consider it fundamentally prejudiced. That doesn’t need to mean that the person holding it is a bad person or hates others, but the position is one I cannot respect. Could you respect the position of believing races should remain pure and race-mixing be illegal? Good people have held that belief before. That didn’t make the position itself respectable. As long as the person holding such a belief does not seem to hold hatred for GLBT people (and let’s admit upfront that many supporters of this proposition, with their insinuations that gays want to prey on children) the most I can do is believe that a supporter of Prop. 8 is sadly mistaken and hope that someday they come around.
You may or may not want to get married at a church, but there are other gay couples who do and have shown that they are willing to take churches to court if they do not get their way. A church or individual should not be forced by the courts into action against their religious beliefs any more than a gay person should be taken to court and forced to practice religion. (the first is happening while the later is not)Addressing the school issue, in Massachusetts, where gay-marriage is legal, Robb and Robin Wirthlin have stated,”After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade. We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage but the courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.” (their interview is at http://www.ProtectMarriage.com) If you still some how think things will be different here, in San Francisco, a group of first grade students were taken on a school-sponsored field trip to a gay wedding. The teaching of young children about gay marriage has already happened.
why should you all be a judge of what is going on? should you all have control on how we live? should you all have control on where we live? and, should you all have control on who we see? that is where this is at in this life. this is America and this is the freedom state of all states. so why is it you all are trying to control on how we should live? we do have the right to chose how we will live and that means on who we will be with. and if you say you are with god, then you should know that we are all gods children. or did you miss that? what do you expect from the children? everyone will be different for chose. no one will live the same life as you want them too. so you all think about it and try to understand what is going on.. we all say marrie the person that make you happy, right? then why should you make it the worst day for them? just to ask, did god say marrie 2 or more woman for as wife’s?