California Proposition 8

[Stankeye]

Sometimes I am amazed at the enigma that is California.

We can pass a law allowing farm animals to stretch their legs but not allow fellow human beings to get married?

 

[PhantomWolf]

IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually. I can only hope that, when the opportunity arises, Obama will nominate Justices who respect the rights of all citizens.

To remove the civil rights of people is a perverted act.

Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?

 

[luchog]

blah blah blah

I'm very impressed by how cleverly you manage to consistently avoid adressing the issue of intersexed individuals.

Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?

The proof is stupidly simple.

The US government accords over a thousand legal privileges of various sorts to married couples. A substantial fraction of these are also available to immediate blood relatives, but not anyone else.

Another fraction is available to non-related people via civil contracts (a "civil union" is nothing more than a civil contract). These can be, and often are, challenged and overturned by blood relatives. These same privileges granted via a government-recognized marriage are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overturn by anyone outside the marriage; and typically requires a judgement of mental incompetence or fraud. By contrast, in a civil contract, a judgement of overriding interest is often sufficient.

Yet another fraction is available only to legally-recognized marriages, and are not available via civil contract (many of these are related to taxes).

The US Constitution requires all state governments to recognize all marriages which are also recognized by the Federal government. This is known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". This is not true for civil unions or many other civil contracts.

The only qualifications for entering into a marriage are mutual consent, having reached the age of consent, and the physical sex of the two parties involved.

That clearly makes it as much a civil rights issue as any race, sex, or belief-based laws. Restrictions based on gender are just as illegitimate as restrictions based on race (interracial marriage was legally banned in many parts of the US, until 1967). Sex is not allowed to be used as a discriminatory criterion for any other partnership or civil contract; yet it's allowed to be used so for marriage contracts.

If interracial marriage is a civil rights issue, then same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

Personally, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage game at all. Marriage should be a strictly religious status, and historically typically has been. The government should only enforce civil contracts, not religious ones. It's involvement today is nothing more than an anachronistic remnant of the state holding religious authority, and the dominant local religion therefore wielding substantial political power. It's one of the few remaining holes in the "wall of seperation between Church and State".

 

[Meadmaker]

And this is the main intangible I was thinking of in my earlier post. If marriage/domestic partnerships is solely a contractual arrangement, then I have no problem at all with incestuous marriages. But, marriage is clearly associated with sex (reproductive issues aside, as non-fertile couples are allowed to marry, provided they pass the gender test). If the sex is "icky" for whatever moral reasons, people are opposed to calling it marriage.

I personally think this is wrong.

To expand just a bit on the incest question, in the most extreme cases (mother/son, brother/sister), marriage is irrelevant, as the birth relationship already guarantees most of the rights and privileges of marriage, which is why most people justifiably ignore that issue. Many places already allow first cousins to marry. Would you consider that incestuous?

When it comes to first cousin marriages, I am undecided, leaning toward allowing it. It's a bit difficult for me to relate to, personally, as I have no first cousins, and am almost entirely out of touch with my extended family.

I don't think "icky" quite covers it in the case of incestuous relationships, especially of the brother/sister, father/son, sort of relationships. I think most people feel that if a man were to try to marry his son, he would either be trying to get a tax advantage of some sort, not having a "real" marriage, or most people would, at the very least, say that there was some form of family dysfunction and/or mental illness. Either way, I would say it ought not be allowed.

By the way, the birth relationship doesn't guarantee very many of the rights/privileges of marriage. (And after age 18, confers none of the responsibilities.) I can't file a joint tax return with my mother, or include her on my health insurance, nor, if I were an immigrant to the United States, would she be entitled to join me.

And impotent individuals are allowed to marry. Shall we conclude that sexual intercourse is not relevant to marriage?

Of course, unless we declare that, legally, a marriage really is just a standard contract between any two consenting adults, with no other implications or requirements, sexual intercourse, other sexual relations, and reproduction are all relevant to marriage, even though there are marriages in which some or all of those activities are impossible.

As a matter of practical consequence, the question of incest isn't very important, because there is near unanimity that incestuous marriages ought not be allowed, but in trying to explain why they ought not be allowed, I think it helps expose questions about what marriage is, and why the state is considered to have the authority to regulate marriage.

 

[Alt+F4]

if someone can show that domestic partner status...and marriage status are inherantly and in practise unequal...then heterosexual and homosexual unions should be the same.

but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.

Here's an example from our very own New York City. If you are a city employee you can add your spouse to your health insurance at no cost. If you have a domestic partner, rather than a spouse, then the city considers what it pays for the domestic partner's insurance as income of the employee.

For example, if the city paid $3,000 for the domestic partner's health insurance then the employee gets a 1099 for that amount and has to pay tax on that money. The married couple pays nothing.

 

[Alt+F4]

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Yes they are wrong. In 1959 would a ballot meaure in any southern state have approved the desegregation of public schools? Of course not, but an "activist" Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown. Same circumstance in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia.

Now looking back on these cases 40, 50 years later of course we can all agree that school desegregation and the right to interracial marriage are morally and ethically acceptable despite what the electorate at the time thought. In my opinion, the public simply needs more time to become enlightened. One day those who voted for prop. 8 will understand that taking away the rights of others only diminishes themselves.

In the meantime, as we wait, it scares the hell out of me that well funded special interest with lots of cash can take rights away from people in a democracy. What's next, separate California water fountains for Mexicans and "whites"? Hey, get enough signatures on a petition and it could happen.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes they are wrong. In 1959 would a ballot meaure in any southern state have approved the desegregation of public schools? ...One day those who voted for prop. 8 will understand that taking away the rights of others only diminishes themselves.

Except that wasn't the question.

What I had said was to note that the voters were willing to allow the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage to be granted to homosexual partners, they were not willing to say that such a union was "equal" to a marriage.

It's that intangible thing. The civil rights issues you discussed dealt wth very real things that people wanted to do, and the law prevented them from doing it. Today, the majority of people would let them do what they want, but they simply won't let the state call it "marriage".

We can put voters in a handful of groups. There are some people who think homosexuality is wrong, and are perfectly willing to pass laws against it. This used to be the majority, but today is a small minority. There are those who would have no laws against it, but would refuse to recognize it in any manner. Those people would oppose either marriage or "civil unions". The third category is those who are willing to grant "civil union" status, that is identical or nearly identical to marriage. There are those who are willing to let gays be married, making no distinction at all between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and there are those who insist that anything short of full and complete equality is unjust. Any distinction between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple is, in those people's minds, an infringement on civil rights.

My question was directed at that third group. To rephrase it. Suppose you find someone who is willing to grant all the tangible benefits* of marriage to gay couples, but they are not willing to call it "marriage". This denies gays a certain level of intangible benefit, by creating an official distinction, however, meaningless in practice, between the two sorts of unions. It somehow marks them as different. There are plenty of people in that group. Are those people wrong?

ETA: All the references to Loving v. Virginia and the civil rights movement are also somewhat misleading. In those days, "marriage" was a requirement to legally have sex or live together. To deny someone the right to a marriage was also to deny them the right to a relationship. That's no longer true today, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to not acknowledge that difference.

========
*and obligations and responsibilities of marriage, of course, but that goes without saying. Still, I think if it were said somewhat more often, you might find more approval for your agenda.

 

[Moochie]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.

I'm incredulous that the right of people to marry was put to the vote. Bloody ridiculous.


M.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I said that the intangibles were motivating factors, but not really relevant to the ballot initiatives.

What I meant was that the ballot proposition defines law, i.e. tangible things. It is tangible to say that a pair of people can have something called a "marriage license", an official government document. It is tangible to say that a couple can have a "civil union license", and say that a "civil union license" is treated, by law, exactly the same as a "marriage license".

The associated intangible is saying that, since there are two different things, they are inherently "unequal". The first intangibly you noted was "equality".

Okay, I understand what you mean.

I think that's the most important of the intangibles, and the one that motivates people to vote as they do. The people of California said that while they were willing to grant people the legal benefits (and responsibilities,,,there are some, aren't there?) of marriage, they are not willing to say that a homosexual union is "equal" to a marriage.

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Yes. And I recognize that that's an opinion. I think putting it to popular vote and declaring victory when you win barely over half is the wrong way to amend a constitution, though. "Tyranny of the majority" comes to mind.

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.

It's not hard to answer ("No. Because it confers no tangible benefits that do not already exist or that cannot already be obtained by other means, and there is no class of people on whom it would confer intangible benefits. Genosexuals?") but it's a red herring.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

There are several places that governments could draw the line that are rational. Drawing the line at one man/one woman is rational. As is drawing the line at first cousins or what have you. But governments should consider the intangibles in their calculus about where that line is drawn. I think the line should be neither rigidly fixed nor an open free-for-all. It should be moved conservatively, moved only if there is substantial interest in moving it and one or both of the following:
1) moving it would be a net benefit (tangible and intangible) both to the people affected and to society as a whole;
2) not moving it is a net cost (tangible and intangible) both to the people affected and to society as a whole.

It's a tricky calculus to be sure, but in my opinion it clearly comes out in favor of moving the line to include same-sex marriage.

 

[PhantomWolf]

nor an open free-for-all.

But if it is a Civil Right, and according to the UN is it, shouldn't it be availible to everyone and anyone? I'd even have to question why the Governments of the world should be allowed to licence it, what other rights do people require the obtaining of a state issued licence before being allowed to claim it?

 

[Thunder]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?

American society has decided that "marriage" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman. i dont see anything wrong with that.

 

[Moochie]

Sorry Terry, I don't think you are going to get an answer other than that. I am usually pretty good at seeing the "other side" of things. I am strongly pro-choice but I can make myself see where the pro-life folks are coming from. I believe in universal healthcare and state-paid education all the way through college, but I can see the other side.

As for this case, I can't wrap my mind around it. Religious bigotry is the ONLY explanation. How, how, HOW does you marrying another adult of the same gender infringe on my liberties in ANY way?! It doesn't. Plain and simple. It has to be religious bigotry.

Totally agree. There is no rational argument that can be made. It's bigotry -- religious or otherwise.

I'm wondering at the wording of the proposition. Seems to me there might have been more than a few "donkey" votes.


M.

 

[shadron]

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

The Ick factor. Genetic arguments fall short because we have so much better ways to determining who falls into catagories that should not marry each other, but that is not used to prevent people from marrying geneticaly incompatable people.

Exactly. Children are told, through many channels, but especially religious ones, that incest and homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, perverse (see BB's post in the use of that word), cruel, wrong, illegal, unclean. This starts long before a child can even understand what the ramifications, let along the mechanics, are. How else are they going to define it when it comes their turn to describe it?

In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up. They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership" of some other unclaimed term (a glimp? a burple?), and remove all mention of marriage from the legal books. Of course, the word will then have two meanings - the meaning of a union sanctified by the church, and the "common" meaning, which will, for example, always refer to a legal declaration of a domestic union as a "marriage license". Coolaid faced that sort of TradeMark problem for years, and eventually lost its name to the common pool of English. So be it. Perhaps the churches will want to take legal measures o protect their property:

American society has decided that "Marriage™®©(pat'd pending)" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman.

...and with that I have no problem either.

 

[Moochie]

Because the religious fundamentalists don’t care about marriage. Not since Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife.

This is all about the gays. First they ban gay marriage. Then they will ban gay people from adopting children. Then they will work to ban gays from working in jobs that involve contact with children, like teaches, day care workers, pediatricians, Catholic priests, etc. Then they will ban gay people from having any contact with children whatsoever (even their family). Finally, all gay people or anyone who just “looks” gay will be stripped of their citizenship and shipped to Cuba.

I guess Ryan Seacrest had better learn Spanish, then.


M.

 

[shadron]

There is no such word as “ppl”.

True. But the concept was communicated to you anyway, was it not?

 

[PhantomWolf]

In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up.

Well to be fair, Marriage as we know it was a religious thing before it was a Sate thing.

They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership" of some other unclaimed term (a glimp? a burple?), and remove all mention of marriage from the legal books.

Actually I totally agree, in fact the silly thing is that De Facto, or common law relationships are far more common these days and in many countries are granted none of the protections of marriage. (NZ is one of the few examples I can think of that treats De Facto relationships, including same sex ones, equally to marriages for property rights and such.) Instead of forcing people that don't want marriage to be changed from 1 man and 1 woman to accept an all-inclusive (except those we are still bigoted against like sibblings) marriage definition, why not just change the systems to include all de facto relationships (regardless of the couple) above a certain term as recognised by the State and also introduce a legal next of kin where the person can choose who represents them as next of kin. This actually solves all issues very easily, but hey why would we want to get all logical about it?

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?

Last place I worked at had unisex toilets -- that's what we call them here in Australia. There was a receptacle for (gasp!) used tampons in each. They were, in fact, no different than the toilets in our homes, and, yes, everyone's fecal matter stunk.


M.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time. As a skeptic and rational person, surely you're aware of that?


M.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time. As a skeptic and rational person, surely you're aware of that?


M.

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

 

[Mitchell314]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

The worst (except for...well, you all know the quote).


Banning gay marriage or discouraging it is not the governments' (for that matter, anybody's) job.