The effort to invalidate 18,000 gay marriages changed my mind on writing about Proposition 8 –- our new bigotry.
I had not planned to write about the controversy being exploited by each side of California’s Proposition 8. I did not care who voted for it, how much money was spent on it or the margin of its approval. As far as I was concerned the issue would play itself out in public opinion and in time become just another footnote of our culture. While the California Supreme Court is considering whether Proposition 8 violates the State Constitution, it is the effort to invalidate 18,000 gay marriages that changed my mind on writing about the issue to expose it as the sheer, unadulterated bigotry it is — our new bigotry.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Tommy Mack
Gretings all,
If you haven't had the chance to see Proposition 8 the musical, here is the (lengthy) link.
more later.
Tommy
27 - Dr Dreadful
Unintended consequences.
There are unintended consequences to every action in life, Bob, and most voters - with the apparent exception of your good self - understand that.
For instance, take the apparently innocuous sentence 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.' Now we all know what it was intended to mean - but just suppose some court sat down and decreed that it should be taken absolutely literally.
Nothing else would be valid in California - not your birth certificate, not your driver's license, not your property deed, not your contract of employment, not your bachelor's degree. Only your marriage.
Absurd? Yes, but it is one potential unintended consequence.
28 - bob
Native Americans were devistated. Their land stolen. We need to vacate this land and give it all back. Right this wrong. African Americans were enslaved. They were promised 40 acres and a mule. We need to give it to them. It would be trillions. End of the U.S. Let's go back and truly right some wrongs.
29 - Dr Dreadful
Time for your pills, Bob... :-)
30 - Cindy D
Bob,
That's the spirit. But, I don't think that's going to be a practical solution.
We Bob, people like you and me, have to take it back. For everyone.
You may wish to begin to explore ways to do that Bob. Put those wonderful sentiments to a cause.
31 - Bobby Nichols
Post hoc, ergo prop8ter hoc... lol.
Let me play:
• redefine the word 'gay'... Wait, that's been done.
• redefine the word 'tolerance'... Wait, that's been done too.
• redefine the 'Episcopal Church'... Oops, done.
• redefine the word 'marriage'... Pending in the courts (snap!).
• A common phrase being redefined: "Tyranny of the majority"... [yet what of the tyranny of the much, much, less than 2% of society ( the GQBLT who really desire to be 'married' ) imposing their will upon societal mores?]... Been done!
• Another common phrase being redefined: "separation of church and state"... often used to allow one to appear 'Constitutionally or politically wise'. Done, done, and done !
•
•
• redefine 'God' into man's image... guess that's being done already too by secular society and some apostate faiths. (I will keep the faith... His will be done).
... I guess redefining 'bigotry' as an ethos isn't too much of a stretch.
I am amused with your definition of 'bigotry', however, in including the phrase: "one who is strongly partial to one's own group"... Better: "One who is intolerant of those who differ is a bigot".
And what of bigotry? What of those who attack faith in any way... Are intolerant of those whose vote differed in any way... Those who blacklist/'out'/continue to persecute others who gave money to the (apparently) opposing cause? These attributes are especially espoused by the GQBLT community at this time. It's the anger that betrays... yes, I've read the blogs (Google news and news alerts: "Proposition 8"... ad nauseam).
Perhaps a new word to define...
"G8": rhymes with 'Golden Gate'; a subset of H8...
As in:
"I lost my friends when I was the object of "G8" for voting for and/or contributing money to Proposition 8. My friends say they don't H8 me, but are now intolerant of those that think differently from what they do."
or further (hypothetically):
"The HR department where I work (Google Corp. for instance) found out I was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and although I didn't vote for Proposition 8 either way, it was perceived that my tithing helped contribute to its passage, so, I was "G8ed" and am not going to be considered for a raise because I (evidently) belong to a discriminatory group, and oh, by the way, I had better watch my step."
or
"The place where I work is being "G8ed" by picketers even though those who work here donated money in opposing Proposition 8 outnumbered those who donated otherwise by 100:1 in donation dollars; and if business doesn't pick up soon 30% of the workforce, approximately 20 employees who are GQBLT, as well as the 70% who are not GQBLT, will be out of work when we are forced to close down."
... Tongue in cheek: (later this very day the GQBLT community redefined the new word "G8" as 'hating gays' or being in any way homophobic, ie; a "G8er")... Not to be confused with the term "H8", a word endeared by the GQBLT community, which is a more general term.
My apology for using the term 'GQBLT' if incorrect... I read the acronym different from post to post.
Happy New Year all y'all... See you in the funny papers.
32 - bob
You won't validate my point. To you and others, prop 8 is the only and most important slight in the history of this republic. We are an imperfect society. Oh well. You see Holland. They want to roll back some of their liberal stances. Things were getting out of hand. Unintended consequences. In this country, once things are in place, it's very hard to go back.
33 - Douglas Mays
California Uber Alles...
34 - Tony
Unintended consiquences of not depriving a certain group of American Citzens the same rights afforded to other citizens? Absurd and Unamerican.
At one time people were scared that if blacks and whites married the unintended consequences would be in the invalidation of the purity of the white race. Now the same kind of people say lettig gay people become legally bound in the way all citizens are allowed to become legally bound will invalidate the purity of "marriage."
Same bigots, differet era.
"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
The Constitution is the law of the land and that law includes the equal protection clause to ensure that simple minded discrimination never supercedes natural rights.
35 - law student
"The Constitution is the law of the land and that law includes the equal protection clause to ensure that simple minded discrimination never supercedes natural rights."
There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution.
36 - Tony
No you're right there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. That is an excellent point. The Constitution does not comment on a religious institution because it is a secular document. Who would have thought?
What the Constitution does guarantee is that all citizens are entitled to the same rights and privileges under law. If heterosexual citizens are able to be joined by law and received the rights (visitation, tax classifications, ect) entitled to those entering that enjoinment, then homosexual couples must also be allowed those rights.
A heterosexual couple can be joined or "married" outside of a church as still receive these legal rights and classifications. The government has no right to comment on marriage either way because it is a religious institution -- although by giving them tax exempt status this line has already been crossed -- but this issue doesn't really come down to the sacrament of marriage. It has to do with giving a minority that a Christian minded community disdains, equal lawful rights.
Churches do not need laws like Prop 8. They can simply not marry homosexuals. It is their right as a religious body. The real intent of this law is to make sure that gay people remain an invalidated subset of a nation dominated by a perverted form of Christian morality. Like there is anything moral about persecution.
When people say they are defending marriage they cite the bible. People who fight to allow gay marriage cite the Constitution. Its so disgusting that we even have to debate whether an American citizens are allowed to join themselves with whom ever they want.
37 - vvv123
"There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution."
Same for abortion, drugs, prostitution, and at one point, slavery and women's rights. Durr, the Constitution was written a few hundred years ago, but it was written with the intent to be flexible and adaptable to new eras. Obviously, the writers could never have predicted what issues would be controversial in the future.
Not to mention, the courts have interpreted the Constitution several times to recognize marriage as a fundamental right: Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswolf v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and most recently, the CA In re marriage cases.
38 - Tommy Mack
The Constitution does not mention a lot of things -- like homosexual or gay. The latter has changed over time, anyway, as in the song "Am I Blue." (...'was I gay for a day...)But I digress.
Former Governor Browns' legal argument has to do with the California Supreme Court's ruling that marriage is an unalienable right protected by the Constitution.
Tommy
39 - Dr Dreadful
I wonder if 'Law Student' is one of those who would discriminate on principle just because there's no law that says you can't?
I see this sometimes in the low-income housing business. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability.
Some landlords look at this and note that the Act does not forbid them from discriminating on the grounds of - for instance - sexual orientation, economic status, or whether the family is on Section 8.
So they do.
40 - vvv123
Tony makes an excellent point. Churches are free to decide who they want to marry within their own grounds. For example, a Catholic church has no obligation to marry a couple where one or both spouses have been divorced before. No different here.
What a church CANNOT do is provide a business service -- i.e. publicly renting out gardens or pavilions -- and still expect to hide under the cloak of religion. This even goes for mom-and-pop Christian stores, Christian publishers, or any other businesses, precisely because they are *businesses*. You have religious rights when you practice religion, not when you practice business. This was made clear under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
As an example, if I were a extremist, racist, sexist supremacist, and I was the CEO of Walmart who had a board of directors who shared my views, I couldn't deny business to women or people of color strictly out of personal beliefs.
In other words, it makes no sense to frame Prop 8 as religious rights legislation, especially considering there is no mention of religion at all. Those who want an affirmation of first amendment rights should petition for legislation explicitly stating so, but banning same-sex marriages in order to justify a red-herring argument is plain cowardly.
41 - law student
"There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution."
And there is no mention of other rights which were enumerated later by Constitutional Amendments, including the Fifteenth Amendment which guarantees that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged” and the Nineteenth Amendment which guarantees that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.”
Rights not enumerated in the Constitution can be made constitutional by Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise they are covered by the Tenth Amendment which states, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There is a way to guarantee homosexual marriage: It’s by Constitutional Amendment.
So go for it!
42 - Doug Hunter
Dr, don't make me vomit. You really think landlords set around thinking of how they can discriminate? That's fucking stupid.
I'll tell you what happens to landlords as one of your precious statistics. Yes, surprise, I've been legally found to have disciminated.
Most of the rentals I have are middle income/college student type new duplexes/townhomes I build myself (I don't trust my money to wall street thieves and contractors don't get pensions so I do what I can) I bought a small parcel with 11 older units on it from a frustrated landlord and got my only taste of 'low income housing'. Most low income people were decent and I got along great with them just like all my other tenants.
The world was great, then she moved in. A single mother of 2 teenage kids, a nice person with seemingly good references and a fulltime job she worked hard at evenings and nights to support her family. Just the type of person who needs a quality rental a bit below market (I don't like to turnover so I treat people nice and charge fair prices) That's when the break-ins, the harassment, and 2 years of hell started. With the mother working at night the kids were left unsupervised and they were hellions.
They ran rampant through the complex eventually forcing 4 of the long term tenants out. Everyone knew who was damaging the vehicles/property and committing the breakins but no one could actually catch them in the act and they were mostly terrified of the kids (one of whom had knifed a teacher). For months I spent thousands on security upgrades for the tenants, repaired windows, cleaned spraypaint, and filed police reports trying to do the right thing and wait for proof to pass judgement. One final break-in on a christmas eve pushed me to do what was necessary. I had enough and gave the woman the notice that she needed to find another place to live. Whe calmly accepted my explanation and promised she would find something.
Then the lawyers got involved. Some liberal douchebag with an attitude like yours took the case. Probably thought he was saving the fucking world. My taxes were paying the pricks salary and I had to pay to defend myself while holding onto a non-paying tenant who scared the hell out of everyone. The case was simple, I had no 'proof' that tenant was responsible even with a mountain of circumstancial evidence and the statements of every other tenant in the complex. I lost time and plenty of money for discriminating on 'familial status'.
The silver lining is that she had some financial issue and passed a check on a closed account 3 months after the case ended and I was able to get an eviction. Of course, the bi weekly break ins and 2AM complaints immmediately ceased.
Ok, you're probably not as bad as that lawyer, you just touched a nerve there.
43 - mark
Great column, thanks from a gay man, who has no personal interest in being married, but fights for those gays/lesbians who choose that stability for themselves and their families.
Family is really the central theme from the CA Supreme Courts ruling, since gays can legally raise families, they therefore have the right to protect their families with marriage. I don't understand how prop 8 even got on the CA ballot, doesn't the state scrutinize anything they put into an initiative?
The CA supreme Court said the right to marry was so INTEGRAL to a person's Human Rights it couldn't be infringed upon or denied by the Legislature or by initiative.(page 6 of ruling)
So NO initiative that in fact would remove a person's INTEGRAL right to marry should ever have been allowed to be voted on.
44 - mark
Without expo facto, all contract law would be CHAOS, and marrige is a contract between to people.
You would never know if you signed a legally binding contract, whether a future ruling would nulify your contract. They don't need to specificly state that contracts before a new change will be grandfathered in, it goes without saying they will be grandfathered.
45 - Baritone
The real bee in christian's bonnets when it comes to same sex marriage, homosexuality in general, abortion, etc., is not earthly law - constitutional or otherwise. It's the godster! They hold to the fear that if almighty GOD perceives that they are in any way accepting or tolerant of biblically defined "abominations," that the king of kings will not punch their ticket on the paradise express. So, they feel compelled to stand up and yell and scream and stamp their feet to assure that the big guy can see and hear that they are walking the proper straight and narrow line to the heavenly choo-choo station. It comes down to self serving bullshit.
It also reveals that such people don't really believe all the crap spewed about their supposed omniscient lord of hosts. If their one god knows ALL, that it should be understood that hesheit already knows what each person does or does not believe. But their faith does not carry them that far. Rather, they must stand and make noise, vote for referendums, enact laws, change constitutions to make sure that their good ole' omnipotent ass-kickin' god gets the message - "We don't allow no peter puffin' round here!" Show me them pearly gates, lawdy, lawdy!
B
46 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps they want morality to be dictated by law because they have deep inner doubts about whether they can follow their own moral code without external compulsion.
Dave
47 - Tommy Mack
Ah, the big M word -- morality. Thank you Dave for that addition since the legislation of morality is a bugger every time its proponents give it a shot, well meaning but usually not.
Personally, morality is not having to think about what is right and what is wrong. Let us eschew dithering about what is amoral or immoral, as some will. Morality is polemic.
In the case of the proposition,the debate can regrettably turn into a pissing contest. I have observed that in such an event, a Doberman beats a Cairn Terrier everytime. It just does not stop the terrier.
Tommy
48 - Billy
A man named Vinny dies and goes to hell.
The Devil says to him "Hey Vinny we've been waitin for ya!".
Vinny smiles and walks with the Devil and the Devil says "I gotta ask you a couple questions, do you like to smoke?" Vinny answers "Ya, I love to smoke." The Devil says "Good you'll like Mondays we smoke everything cigarettes, cigars, weed everything."
"Now do you like to drink?" Then Vinny says "Of course I love to drink." The Devil replies "Great we drink everything on Tuesdays you will fit in great."
"Do you like to have sex?" Vinny says "Hell ya sex is the best." The Devil smiles and replies "We have sex with every type of woman you could think of on Wedesdays."
And the Devil finally says "Now, are you gay?" Vinny frowns and answers "NO I'm not gay! And the Devil looks down and finishes "Your gonna hate Thursdays."
49 - Billy
There was this man who walked into a bar and says to the bartender 10 shots of whiskey.
The bartender asks, "What's the matter?"
The man says, "I found out my brother is gay and marrying my best friend."
The next day the same man comes in and orders 12 shots of whiskey.
The bartenders asks, "What's wrong this time?"
The man says, "I found out that my son is gay."
The next day the same man comes in the bar and orders 15 shots of whiskey.
Then the bartender asks, "Doesn't anyone in your family like women?"
The man looks up and says, "Apprently my wife does.
Enjoy!
- Billy
50 - Billy
John invited his mother over for dinner. During the meal, his mother couldn't help noticing how handsome John's roommate was. She had long been suspicious of Johns' sexual orientation and this only made her more curious.
Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.
Reading his mom's thoughts, John volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates."
About a week later, Mark came to John and said, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don't suppose she took it, do you?"
John said, "Well, I doubt it, but I'll write her a letter just to be sure." So he sat down and wrote: "Dear Mother, I'm not saying you 'did' take a gravy ladle from my house, and I'm not saying you 'did not' take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner."
Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: "Dear Son, I'm not saying that you 'do' sleep with Mark, and I'm not saying that you 'do not' sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom"
Billy
51 - STM
Kangaroo walks into a pub and orders a beer and two whiskey chasers.
The barman walks back with the drinks, plonks 'em on the counter and says: "Hey, mate ... why the long face?"
52 - Seamus the Terrible
Hey ya heard the one about the Polish gay guy?
He liked women
53 - Seamus the Terrible
Gays don't really want to get married...its all about forced acceptance of their lifestyle.
Imagine ten years after gay marriage is legal: Children from conservative families who cannot afford to go to private schools will have to attend the state run indoctrination centers we call public schools. By then, most administration and faculty of these schools will have been browbeaten into accepting and even promoting gay marriage as an equivalent lifestyle. If they don't, they'll be fired.
Note the increased number of home schooled children. The indoctrination centers apparently do not meet parents requirements (such as not having to "unteach" your child the things they learn in them).
Does this remind you of any debate in the past, say the one about prayer in schools.
Make no mistake...the agenda here is political. It is just another battle in the culture wars.
If the state my wife and I were married in 32 years ago were to start issuing marriage licenses to gay people, we would find another state to get remarried in and send back our original license.
It isn't hate when you are making a judgment that one thing is better than another. Judging poeple is immoral. Judging impacts is not. Some folks seem to have a hard time separating those two things.
Sex between consenting adults is legal. Living together is legal. Visiting a lawyer to draw up "marriage like" arrangements is legal. Going to a church to get married in the eyes of whatever God you prefer is legal. I don't care if two gay people go to a gay church to get married. Couldn't care less.
But marriage as defined by any state should be about what is good for society. Facts are facts: straight marriage done right is best. Accept (and promote) no counterfeits.
54 - Dave Nalle
Gays don't really want to get married...its all about forced acceptance of their lifestyle.
And you know this because you're gay?
Dave
55 - Seamus the Terrible
Hey Baritone...did you notice that in none of my posts that I referred to God or religion?
56 - Seamus the Terrible
Hi Dave,
No...not gay. Just happened to notice that gay marriage got to be a big thing when someone got the bright idea to use the courts to pry gayness into our collective psyche.
57 - Dr Dreadful
Doug (@ #42), give me a break. You have one bad experience with a tenant and you want to accuse me of tarring all landlords with the brush of discrimination?
The vast majority of landlords and tenants are decent, fair-minded people. But for every tenant horror story there's a landlord who's just as much a piece of work.
It's human nature to discriminate. And it seems to be the nature of some humans to skirt the borders of the law as closely as possible.
58 - Dr Dreadful
Facts are facts: straight marriage done right is best.
How do you know?
What facts have you at your disposal to suggest that gay marriage 'done right' wouldn't be just as good as its straight equivalent?
59 - Jerry
To Seamus....how is it that you are straight and seem to know what Gay's want? As a gay man..let me be very clear...don't flatter yourself that I want to force my marriage on you...I don't know you...don't want to know you...and actually it's about me and the person I married....not you or anyone else. Mind your own marriage and do not [edited] attempt to tell anyone what I want [personal attack deleted]. I assume that you will not be sending us a wedding present!
60 - Seamus the Terrible
Jerry: You already have all the same rights as I do. My marriage isn't a right and neither is yours. I just happen to have a different opinion than you do about public policy.
Dr Dreadful: Marriage is about a union with the potential for family. My opinion is that if this were about what it really should be about (nurturing children) that we would look at the facts about which children are doing best and not delude ourselves about them.
This is about altering the nature of marriage from being about the providing the healthiest environment for children to providing a legal sanction for an alternative which will actually lead to greater discrimination (against traditional families).
61 - Shadow_Man
"...connections and alliances so unnatural, that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law..." Sound familiar? It's the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878.
We are back to square one. People talk of the majority. Let's do a history review on the "majority" and "morality" of the past. At one time, the majority supported slavery, and it was a moral normal thing. At one time, the majority was against interracial marriages, with 15+ states banning it. People and even the courts said that " it was not God's intent for a black man to be with a white woman" and "it was unnatural." Sound familiar? At one time, California voters passed proposition 14 in the 1960's with a 65% majority, a constitutional amendment intended to counter the Rumford Fair Housing Act enacted the year before, keeping racial segregation intact in neighborhoods, and allowing them to refuse to sell property to blacks in order to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods. Sound familiar? At one time, the majority were against women voting. Sound familiar?
In 2008, we haven't advanced as far as we think. And yes, sexual orientation is the same thing as race and gender, as you can't change your sexual attraction just like you can't change the color of your skin. If you are straight and really think you can "choose" to be attracted to the same sex, you might want to re-evaluate your sexuality.
62 - Billy
What is the point of GAY MARRIAGE in California Since Civil Unions between gays has the same benefits as marriage? Really Please Think About It. Why Are They fighting for gay marriage? Can can still have a Civil Union in California.
Gays are trying to forcibly Put their own views on the rest of the courts instead of threw the ballot box such as twice now, traditional marriage has already been victorious.
DON'T ALWAYS GO THROUGH THE COURTS. VOTE IT OUT!!! OH, WAIT WE ALREADY DID VOTE IT OUT.
Civil Unions = Gay Marriage.
ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS THE POINT OF GAY MARRIAGE SINCE CIVIL UNIONS ARE STILL ALOUD?
Keep Traditional Marriage Alive!
CJ
63 - Shadow_Man
To those that think it's a "choice" to be gay.
Now within the group of people that think being gay is a choice, they fall in 2 groups.
Group 1: The bigots, who try to find any excuse to condone their discrimination.
Group 2: People who actually are good people, but not informed or know enough about gay people, and thus still think its a choice.
I am speaking to group 2 here. Group 1 are bigots that will never change their mind, but that generation will die out like the racist generations. Group 2 read on.
-Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice
-Most gay people will tell you its not a choice
-Common sense will tell you its not a choice
While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that it's biological.
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ.
And it should also be noted that: "It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
But we don't need scientific evidence for this.
I shall ask you this. (If you are a female, reverse the questions) When you see a naked woman, it goes up right? They turn you on emotionally and sexually right? Now how about when you see a naked man? Does your pulse raise in the same way? Are you enjoying it? Do you go up? Do you feel sexual urges in the same way? Do men turn you on emotionally and sexually? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you find men sexually attractive? Could you be happy sexually with a man for the rest of your life? If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual, and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society, knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can't. Simple logic there.
64 - Shadow_Man
To those that say civil unions, "separate but equal" is not something to be proud of.
65 - Erin D
To all who think "majority rule" defines our government... you are wrong. Our government was crafted by men studied in and wary of direct democracy, a form of government well-exemplified by California's embrace of legislation by referendum, or "majority rule". Not only does direct democracy, or popular rule, lend itself to tyranny of the majority, it results in bad, ineffective public policy. Very few among the voting public possess enough knowledge of the myriad issues subject to legislation, or of the legislative process itself, to make truly informed decisions. So, we end up with laws passed based on opinion instead of knowledge.
That's why the founders didn't make us a direct democracy. Instead, they made us a representative republic with several distinctly undemocratic checks on the the power of the majority. Just look at our independent judiciary, or our senate where every state has equal representation regardless of population. Or look at the heads of government agencies such as the FDA, EPA, CIA, FBI- they are all appointed to their positions, not elected.
Prop 8 is a prime example of the problems with democracy foreseen by our founders.
66 - Glenn Contrarian
Erin - Well said...and I would like to link your point to what Shadow_Man posted in #61, where he points out how prejudice subsides over time. Frankly, one wonders if such could be graphed, would the level of prejudice rise and fall in roughly direct proportion to the level of ignorance? Perhaps Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best: "Fear always springs from ignorance"...and the better-educated the electorate, the less prejudicial their positions - and the positions of their elected representatives - will be.
67 - Dave Nalle
Out of curiosity, are civil unions in California actually exactly equal in status to marriages? Can a gay couple adopt a child and have both parents granted equal rights to that child? For that matter, can one of them give birth to a biological child and grant the other parent full parental rights to the child. These things are very difficult to do in other states, but they do come automatically with the rights of a legal marriage almost everywhere.
And ShadowMan the argument about whether homosexuality is biological or not is inherently self-defeating. It cannot be won. Just by making it you are acknowledging that without a biological imperative you would not have a right to be gay, and that's giving up half the fight before you even start. The truth is that polygamy also appears to be a biological imperative in humans. Where does that take us? And even if you win the genetic argument, your opponents can still say that one of the things about being rational beings is that we can overcome our biology and choose not to be ruled by biology regardless of our genetic 'defects'. You just can't win.
Dave
68 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, I don't know if you've realized this yet, but Emmerson was an idiot.
Dave
69 - Dr Dreadful
Seamus @ #60:
My wife and I have no children, nor do we intend to have any. Should that nullify our marriage? Why or why not?
A man and a woman get married. After several years of trying to have children, their doctor tells them that they are infertile. Should their marriage be annulled? Why or why not?
A woman marries a man on Death Row. State law does not allow conjugal visits. Should their marriage be allowed? Why or why not?
A man and a woman in their 80s get married. There's no way they're ever going to have children. Should their marriage be invalid? Why or why not?
Lastly and most important, a gay couple is perfectly capable of having and raising children. They just have to go about it a different way - for example, like the infertile couple above, they can adopt.
Your blanket claim is that 'straight marriage done right works best'. You provided no support for that statement - and you can't, because gay marriage is still illegal in most places and you don't therefore have any data showing that 'gay marriage done right' doesn't produce the same results.
And your forecast of greater discrimination against 'traditional' families is just speculation, not the actuality you claim.
70 - Baronius
Tommy, first article? Very cool - things have been a little quiet on the boards since the election. I disagree with your article, but I'm glad to see it here.
What is "new" about opposition to gay marriage? For that matter, your definition of bigot, "one who is strongly partial to one's own...politics and is intolerant of those who differ" could be applied to either side at its worst, but not necessarily true of either. So I don't see Prop 8 as new or bigoted.
71 - zingzing
"So I don't see Prop 8 as new or bigoted."
a piece of legislation that denies rights to a group of people isn't bigoted? oh yeah, it's just a piece of legislation that takes away rights that people already had... that's different. ok. it's not bigoted. it's just... wait. it's bigoted.
and where else in history have we seen this type of legislation? oh yeah... i guess it isn't new. it's just hateful and wrong.
people are stupid.
72 - Baronius
Zing, that's not true. This is simple logic. Laws like age-of-consent prevent people from getting married. Laws such as those preventing polygamy narrow the definition of marriage. The gay marriage debate isn't about preventing anyone from getting married; it's about defining what marriage is.
If there's a rights issue in this debate, it's the right to self-governance. Every time a court expands its reading of a state or national constitution, it narrows the freedom to self-govern. The freedom to create laws is a dangerous one, but it's also dangerous to restrict it. Screaming "rights" when rights aren't involved is a good tactic for whittling away at self-governance, but don't for a minute think that you're really on the side of greater rights.
73 - zingzing
"The gay marriage debate isn't about preventing anyone from getting married; it's about defining what marriage is."
either you're talking about something other than proposition 8, or you must be kidding. if you aren't kidding, you've fallen for some argument which i'm frankly amazed anyone had the balls to actually suggest.
"If there's a rights issue in this debate, it's the right to self-governance."
what? self-governance? baronius, i am so gob-smacked by what you are saying here that i can't be understanding you. are you really saying that removing the rights of homosexuals to be married under california law--including marriages that had already taken place, i might add--is a good thing for... state's rights? or that making another law to remove a law (just because it is a law, which is somehow inherently dangerous) is a good thing? i thought you just didn't like laws... so why make another? you might be thinking that's one too many laws, but you're making two too many laws because you don't like the first one.
prop 8 is bigoted (and supported by bigots) and is just a continuation of the grand tradition of american bigotry against anything different. simple.
74 - Tommy Mack
By the way, today has a special place in history with respect to marriage. Jan 02, 1872, Brigham Young, the 71-year-old leader of the Mormon Church, was arrested on a charge of bigamy. He had 25 wives.
His definition: marriage is between a man and lots of women.
Tommy
75 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Yes, and so am I. What's your point?
Besides, you've got to agree that even if he was truly an idiot, Emerson was a pretty doggone successful idiot. As for myself, I think Tom Clancy was a class-A idiot - but I read most of his books, he's filthy rich, and there's quite a few who listen to him as if he, the former insurance agent, knows whereof he speaks.
So who's more of an idiot - Clancy? Or me?
You've probably noticed that I put myself down fairly regularly. I don't do so because I have a low self-esteem (I don't). I do so in order to keep myself from becoming an arrogant ass. Please note that I don't assign such to anyone else - just me.