I don’t usually blog about political issues but I felt I had to say something in this case.
Being a regular reader of Daring Fireball I am well aware that John Gruber’s politics are quite a bit different than my own. I really don’t see that as a problem. I am fine with different views since they often help me clarify my own. But last week he posted a note about Google coming out against Prop 8 in California with this commentary:
Good for Google. I hope they put some money behind it too; anti-gay bigots are putting a ton of money into a campaign to pass this initiative.
I have no issue with Google stating their position or with John Gruber stating his. But it seems to imply that anyone who supports Prop 8 must be an “anti-gay bigot”. It is possible that Gruber didn’t mean to lump everyone together on this but it sure seems this way. I support Prop 8 in California and do not consider myself an anti-gay bigot so I thought it might be useful to make a few points about what is going on in California from my perspective.
What is Prop 8? Prop 8 is a proposed amendment to the California State Constitution that would establish that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. Basically it means that same-sex couples cannot get married.
Erroneous Fact - Gary Marriage in California is to Establish Equal Rights
Many are saying that gay marriage in California is necessary so that same-sex couples have equal rights. The California Supreme Court has specifically stated that this is not the case:
We note that although much of the academic literature discussing the legal recognition of same-sex relationships frequently uses the term “domestic partnership” to describe a legal status that accords only comparatively few legal rights or obligations to same-sex couples, the current California statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law . . .
In light of the comprehensive nature of the rights afforded by California’s domestic partnership legislation, the status of such partnership in California is comparable to the status designated as a “civil union” in statutes enacted in recent years in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont.
This is not about equal legal rights. The court that supported gay marriage stated so clearly.
A Question of Religious Freedom
So what is it about? I will not pretend to know all the factors at play here. But I can tell you that a key component of this debate is religious freedom.
Many people say that allowing two people that love each other to get married doesn’t harm anyone else. Therefore, if you are opposed to gay marriage you must be a bigot. What is a bigot? Here is a definition from WordNet.
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
The idea goes that since same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else, if you are opposed to gay marriage it must be because you are intolerant of same-sex marriages because they differ from the type of marriage you believe in. Basically, you don’t like same-sex marriages simply because they are different.
This is far too simplistic a notion.
Legally recognizing same-sex marriages has far reaching effects that go beyond the two people getting married. Many religions believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong. This is true of most Christian religions. You may agree or disagree with that belief, but one of principles this country was founded upon was that of religious freedom. Thus the question arises - should a priest be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple? I think that most people would say no. In that case the same-sex couple’s right to marry would be taking away the priest’s right to practice his religion.
But, you say, that wouldn’t happen. The government would not force its standards on a religion. The same-sex couple could just find a priest who wasn’t opposed to same-sex marriage to perform the ceremony. But that isn’t what has been happening.
In Boston, where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, Catholic Charities have ceased to offer adoption services. Why? Because if they denied adoption to a married same-sex couple then they would be practicing discrimination and would therefore be punished.
This is not the only case. Doctors in California have been forced to provide fertility treatment despite the fact that they claimed it was against their religious beliefs.
So, you have to ask yourself a very important question - how important is religious freedom? When does the state have the right to force you to do something that is against your religion?
This is the real question revolving around Prop 8. I have not spoken to anyone in California that is against homosexuals having all the rights that would accompany a civil union. As I stated previously, those already exist. The gay marriage initiative is much more a push to tell religions that they do not have a right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Whether or not you support gay marriage you must ask yourself if government should be making this declaration.
Why a Constitutional Amendment?
A constitutional amendment seems pretty heavy handed. So why is this approach being taken in California? Because there are no other options left on the table for those who oppose gay marriage. In 2002, Prop 22 was passed which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This was passed via ballot initiative where the people of California actually voted on the measure.
So, what happened?
By a 1 vote majority a split California court decided that the definition of marriage being between a man and woman was unconstitutional. By one vote a court decided that gay marriage was constitutionally protected. This despite a popular vote that clearly said the opposite.
Opponents to gay marriage were left with no other option than a constitutional amendment.
Think about this. Five judges were able to declare that they knew better than the majority of voters in California and totally disregard the voice of the voters. Ask yourself how American that sounds.
Is Everyone a Bigot?
So, the question still remains, if you support Prop 8 are you an “ant-gay bigot”? Maybe. If you support Prop 8 are you an anti-religious bigot. Maybe. I am sure that there are supporters on both side of the issue that could easily fall into the bigot category. But there are many who are not. There are many supporting Prop 8 who just want the right to believe and practice their religion. There are many who believe that if the redefinition of the word “marriage” is going to come about after thousands of years, it should happen because the people of California or the United States, or their legislatures have voted to make it so. It should not happen because 5 judges decided that was what they believed. I am also confident that there are many who oppose Prop 8 who sincerely believe that gay marriage should be a right and who may not have even thought about the religious freedom component of this.
Believe what you want to on this issue but don’t throw around the bigot charge. All it does is prevent people from dealing with the real issues.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Except there is no no “religious freedom” component here. It’s a canard, a lie being perpetrated by the anti-gay forces pushing to perpetrate Prop 8.
The fact is that people refuse to perform marriages all the time for people who are getting legally married but fall outside of their guidelines. They refuse to perform intermarriage, refuse to marry divorced folks, whatever. And there is no record of a successful lawsuit to force a church to perform such a marriage. That sort of protection of the church’s rights is a well-understood part of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which trumps anything which might be done at the state level.
Besides, the “religious freedom” argument falls apart when one realizes that not every church/religious organizations have the same guidelines for marriage. Why should the churches that are against gay marriage get to trump those which support it?
Voting No on 8 is a vote not just for religious freedom, but for freedom in general.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Nat G. - If there is not religious freedom component then how do you explain the Catholic Charities situation in Boston? As you correctly state, I don’t know of anyone being forced to perform a same-sex marriage. I simply put that as an example of something that most people would agree on. But the Boston example is a real event. Does the Catholic Charities’ freedom of religion end when they participate in adoption services?
The question is, if Prop 8 passes what freedoms would be taken away from same-sex couples? According to the California Supreme Court the only freedom that would be taken is the right to call their union a “marriage”. All other legal rights would be the same.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The Catholic Charities situation: 1) The legal concerns did not arise from same-sex marriage; the law they were concerned about predates the legalization of sames-eex marriage in MA, laws which Catholic Charities was willing to work within for years. 2) The law was solely an issue -because they were taking government money for their adoption services, to deal with children that ended up in state care-. In effect, they were acting as an agent of the state. The religious group is free to discriminate, but if they’re being paid by the government to work in a non-discriminatory way, then that’s what they should be doing. (In contrast, LDS Family Services - a Mormon group - continues to operate without problem in MA.) 3) It was the Church’s choice to end the service; it was not the result of any suit. (And for that matter, they lost a lot of board members from the Catholic Charities organization when the Church decided to force this stance.)
Massachusetts makes a clear case study of what happens when gay marriage gets legalized. It’s been legal there for years; have you heard of any church’s being sued into performing gay weddings? Of course not.
The right to call their union marriage carries with it other rights — the right to have their marriage recognized when traveling other places where gay marriage is legal, for example. But at base, we’re talking about the enforcement of a second-class status. The concept of “separate but equal” has quite understandably gotten a bad reputation.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Nat G.,
Thank you so much for correcting Greg DeVore’s misconceptions.
By way of addressing Greg’s final remaining case of religious freedom’s assault at the hands of the same-sex marriage hordes: (”Doctors in California have been forced to provide fertility treatment despite the fact that they claimed it was against their religious beliefs.”), Greg should note two things:
1) The case Greg mentions is completely unrelated to same-sex marriage. The same-sex couple that was denied fertility treatment (and sued to get it) was unmarried at the time the case was filed (back in 2001) and their marriage status was immaterial to the case. The judge simply ruled that, irregardless of the couple’s marriage status, the clinic, as a business establishment, violated our state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which imposes certain anti-discrimination requirements upon business establishments. Passage of Prop 8 will make no impact whatsoever upon such anti-discrimination statutes to which California businesses must legally adhere (statutes that, again, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of same-sex marriage). 2) California’s medical clinics (which are classified by the state as business establishments) do not enjoy the same 1st Amendment protections as California’s churches (which are not classified by the state as business establishments). That’s why the Catholic Church in California can legally refuse to marry divorcees, despite the fact that divorcees have every legal right to marry in California. That’s also why the Catholic Church in California can refuse to hire women as priests, despite the fact that California has a whole raft of anti-discrimination statutes on the books dealing with gender-based discrimination in the workplace. In short, the 1st Amendment protects your preacher/priest/rabbi/minister/imam, Greg, and your temple/synagogue/church/mosque as well. If they don’t wanna marry the gays, they won’t have to. Heck, gay marriage is already perfectly legal in California, at this very second, and–as you’ve already admitted–there are no known cases of churches being forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Why, precisely, would it be any different were Prop 8 to fail (thus retaining the status quo)?
So Greg, if the defense of your church’s religious freedoms was your purpose for opposing legal same-sex marriage, and given the fact that those religious freedoms are, in fact, in no jeopardy as a result of legal same-sex marriage (and thus in no need of defense), then the natural conclusion would be the dissolution of your support for Prop 8. If, however, your support for Prop 8 persists, Greg, it clearly must be driven by something other than the need to defend religious freedom. But what? Who knows what that other thing could possibly be? Not bigotry, of course. It could certainly not be that. So then, what?
“The gay marriage initiative is much more a push to tell religions that they do not have a right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.”
Incorrect. You (and/or your church) have every right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, or that miscegenation is morally wrong, or that allowing two divorcees to get married is morally wrong, or that the hiring of female clergy is morally wrong. I’d fight for your right to believe any or all of that, and for the right of your church to follow church policies in accord with said beliefs. But I would oppose (and do oppose) your efforts to impose those religious beliefs upon this state’s highest secular document, codifying them into enduring law so that every other person and every other faith (including mine: Unitarian Universalism) in this state will be legally required to adhere to your code of ethics.
I’m sure you understand my lack of enthusiasm for that.
“Think about this. Five judges were able to declare that they knew better than the majority of voters in California and totally disregard the voice of the voters. Ask yourself how American that sounds.”
It sounds exactly as American as nine judges declaring, in 1968, that they knew better than the majority of voters in Virginia and totally disregarding the voice of the voters. That case was called Loving v. Virginia, and is widely hailed, today, as an example of our judicial system working to defend the rights of an unpopular minority (in that case, of course, it was mixed-race couples seeking marriage) against a tyrannical majority (white voters seeking to bar mixed-race couples from marrying).
Our American system is a constitutional democracy, Greg. Courts defending the rights of unpopular minorities is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Patrick Meighan Culver City, CA
September 30th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Patrick and Nat- Thank you for your comments. Though I disagree with the premise of some of the points you bring up I can very much understand your positions. I hope that you can understand mine as well.
Comparing gay marriage to miscegenation is an apples to oranges comparison and once again attempts to group anyone who opposes gay marriage in with racists. Our differences arise out of what we define marriage as. I believe that you would define marriage as “a union between two people that love each other”. Under your definition any person should have the right to marry any other person. Under that definition prohibiting gay marriage would be discrimination.
But the definition I have always held of marriage (and I believe that most of the world has for several thousand years) is that of a union between a man and a woman. Under that definition any man should have the right to marry any woman. With that definition, prohibiting miscegenation would be discrimination, but prohibiting gay marriage would not.
Think of it this way. We have a man and a woman. There are things that they have in common but there are things that are very different about them. To describe the things they have in common we use the term “human” or “person”. To denote how they are different we use the terms “man” and “woman”. The same can be applied to traditional marriage and whatever term you want to use to define gay unions. They can both be legally binding “unions” recognized by the state. But they can also be called different things. I simply don’t believe that the definition of marriage should be altered.
You both state that Prop 8 would have little affect on the actual rights of gay couples and so I shouldn’t be concerned anyways. I agree that the actual legal rights for gay couples would not change much and that is my point exactly. The debate over gay marriage (from my perspective) is not about granting legal rights to a minority class (rights that you both agree already exist). It is about redefining a word.
Is it possible that someone such as me can be against redefining the term marriage and believe that redefining that term could be damaging to our society and at the same time not be a bigot? That is the question I am really asking. Can I be against gay marriage and not be lumped in with racists from the 1960’s?
@Patrick - You say that we should not codify one religion’s beliefs. At the end of the day all beliefs, be they religious, political or otherwise, are at their essence, beliefs. There is no way to empirically prove that gay marriage would be beneficial or detrimental to society because some of the things that you would see is benefits I would see as detriments and vice versa. At the end of the day somebody’s beliefs get codified. That is what Prop 8 is about - letting people vote on what they believe should be the definition of marriage. Like I said, whoever wins or loses, someone’s beliefs will be codified into law.
Once again Patrick -
I agree. I just don’t see this as courts defending the rights of an unpopular minority. If gay couples were denied any legal rights then I would agree. But the California Supreme Court specifically stated that they were not. This is the Court saying that a union between two people of the same sex is exactly the same as a union between a man and woman and should therefore carry the exact same definition. My point is that people should be able to disagree with that premise without being labeled a bigot
September 30th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Then you believe incorrectly. I’m not so historically naive as to believe that love is a prerequisite for entering into a marriage; indeed, the expectation of that is a modern development, in the grand scheme of things. However, what “marriage” is in this case is a specific legal status, one that has had differing legal definitions over the years. It wasn’t that long ago that in this state, a couple like my father and his wife could not be legally married.
So are you saying that all those who opposed miscegenation were racists? Because some would’ve taken strong opposition to that. Some held forth that they were truly just concerned about the children, who wouldn’t have an appropriate cultural heritage to look back on, who would be treated unkindly by society as not being one or the other. That they weren’t denying any race rights, that they all had the same right to marry members of their own race, just as we all have the right to marry someone of a different gender.
You may wish to look back at their statement; the word you’re skipping is “virtually”. Its nearest synonyms are “almost” or “nearly”, not “totally” or “absolutely”.
And yet, there are plenty of cases where any man can’t marry any woman. I cannot marry my sister, nor my otherwise-married next door neighbor.
Now, if the definition of the term requires gender-based discrimination, and redefining it under the law (as we define so many things for the purposes of law) is not appropriate, then does the question become whether the term is appropriate to use in the law at all? Do we have laws regarding shylocks and other lenders? On the raising of pickaninnies and other children?
If your main concern is how the law applies the term, would you be satisfied by simply eliminating “marriage” as a legal term, and making them all “civil unions”?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Nat and Patrick say that this redefining marriage would have no affect on those who are supporting Prop 8 and point to Massachusetts as an example of how redefining marriage has had not negative effects. I guess that would depend on your point of view. Here is a video of a father who was placed in jail because he was opposed to his kindergartner being taught about homosexual marriages in his school. All he was requesting was parental notification and the option of having his son opt out of such education. Apparently that was deemed intolerable by those who demand tolerance.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
No, he was put in jail not for requesting anything, but for refusing to leave school grounds after a meeting. The existence of same-sex marriage did not cause the laws of trespass to exist.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi Nat -
Greg’s brother here. I’ve been reading this blog post and the ensuing comments with interest. I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind.
The first concerns the rights of domestic partners in California. You highlighted the fact that the word “virtually” is used in the current California law when comparing the rights of domestic partners to those of married couples. Could you elaborate on what differences there are currently and how Proposition 8 helps remove these differences?
I also have a question for you concerning the account given in the video. Given that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts was the father within his rights when he requested that the parents be notified and given the chance to opt out of this type of curriculum? If so then do you know why the school denied him the request?
October 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
There are a number of small differences between the domestic partnership and marriage (and some of those are arguably more taking the harshest reading of the law than anything of real impact.) However, to me the big, obvious one is -portability-. “Marriage” is a legal state recognized throughout the world, and a couple that is legally married in one jurisdiction is likely to be recognized as married when they travel elsewhere, and are presumed to have certain rights arising from the marital relationship. This is true at times (but not always) even in cases where the same couple could not be legally married in this other jurisdiction - this other state, this other country. “Domestic partnerships” don’t have that same degree of portability, even in places where there’s a similar concept under the law (which may even have a separate name, such as “civil unions”.) Prop 8 would not remove these differences, it would instill them (although believe me, it’s easy in the prop 8 discussion to get the negatives mixed up, with yes-on-8 being a no-one-same-sex-marriage, and no being a yes; every once in a while I seem someone described as being “anti the no on 8 folks” and I have to stop and make sure I’m correctly flipping the negatives to know which side I’m on.) Now, failure to pass prop 8 does not overcome the limitations in the federal law, which insist that the federal government will not recognize the same-sex marriage (just as they don’t recognize the domestic partnership or civil union) and which creates an exception for the full-faith-and-credit clause so that states can easily choose not to recognize same=sex marriages from other jurisdictions. But even with that in place, there’s a huge portability difference between marriage and domestic partnership.
The rights of the father in this regard are not, in any way I see, dependent on same-sex marriage being in place in MA. The legal rights in question really come down to the meaning of “primary” and “sexuality” in a certain statute. The book that started the ruckus merely had a picture of a family with two adult males, among pictures of various families. If that’s considered “sexuality”, then so is any picture of a family with a male and female adult. But I don’t have the specifics of David Parker’s request.
Is it possible that the school misinterpreted the rules in addressing the request? Yes, just as any law can be misinterpreted. But the school also presented the father with the appeals process, and more than one level of appeal was available to him. Rather than work with the system to address the error, David Parker chose to stay there even when told to leave, to violate the law rather than exercise the options of appeal.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thanks for your response Nat.
Based on the above would it be safe to say that the civil liberties of those involved in domestic partnerships (and not the marriages that the court recently legalized) in the state of California are not being threatened or infringed upon under current California law?
I can see how this would be desirable for those involved in domestic partnerships if they were to end up in a state where their rights were not protected. But seeing as in California that is not the case should the California Supreme Court be deciding how marriage is defined? If the big reason is so that couples can be recognized in locations outside of California it seems like the California court is the wrong place to decide this. Shouldn’t this be taken up with the courts in the other states?
As far as I can tell the California Supreme Court is trying to replace the belief system of the majority with the belief system of the minority when the minorities civil liberties are not in fact at risk. I don’t believe that is the role of the court. The people of California have expressed their desire for marriage to be defined as being between a man and a woman (Prop 22) and, based on what I’ve read elsewhere and your response, California domestic partner law protects the rights of domestic partnerships. It seems to me that each party’s needs are being met which is often tricky in a society made up of such diverse opinions and ideas.
One of the other issues at play here is that marriage is much more than a legal term to many people. For example my personal belief is that marriage between a man and woman is an institution ordained of God that plays a central role in our life on earth as well as in the hereafter. So it is not a term that I feel can be treated lightly and maintaining the integrity of the institution now and in generations to come is important to me. This can be done without infringing on others rights.
Do you view marriage as being between man and a woman combined with the California domestic partner laws as infringing on rights or do you mainly want the marriage definition to be more open in order for same-sex couples to obtain rights outside of California?
Yes, I realized I had reversed the position of Prop 8 after I wrote the comment.
True. Though standing and sitting where you are not wanted when you don’t believe something is right does get noticed and can do a lot for your cause as it can build support.
I don’t know the specifics of how or if the kindergarten curriculum changed after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts but I think cases such as this one still provide insight when looking at the issues surrounding Prop 8. Let me explain why.
In a society there are often those who seek to push the existing laws as far as they can in order to get what they want. As we expand or contract the limits of what the law allows the outer limits change as well. By allowing the courts to define what marriage is the door is then opened for legally imposing this view on people within the state. Some have explained this as the pebble you drop in a pond that ripples far beyond the initial contact point. As I’ve explained I don’t think this is the courts job since no civil liberties are at stake.
While people such as yourself have no intention of using this to further some agenda there are inevitably those who will. That concern, combined with the fact that marriage is much more than a legal term to people such as myself, is why I see Prop 8 as important. If a court steps over the line the majority have the right to act accordingly.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
And thank you for your interest and taking a thoughtful tone on this, Trevor.
They needed to make a ruling one way or the other in this case. It is hard to see how they would’ve done so without formulating some working definition of “marriage”.
But in California, questions of portability are also the case, as it’s not just a question of people going from this jurisdiction, but also people entering into this jurisdiction.
As far as I can tell, the Court is trying to do something much trickier: understand the law. That is always tricky, because lawmakers are never prescient enough (and can never be prescient enough) to make the law precise enough to cover every circumstances that come up. In this case, they were dealing with both the words of the state constitution and the history of precedent in rulings. If it conflicts with prop 22, prop 22 loses not because the court thinks thus-and-so about the majority versus the minority, but because constitutional law trumps lower law; that’s the nature of a constitutional system. Rulings are tricky, and its understandable that this one was split.
The marriage-and-domestic-partnerships-are-equal claim comes across as being a “separate but equal” stance, and that’s a phrase whose historical use should at least give one pause. Let’s consider it in the light of something that is not a marriage license — let’s say that any adult in the state could qualify for a driver’s license, except for folks in same-sex relationships, who could get something with the same California rights, only it was called a Steering Wheel Twister’s Certificate. And, well, they really couldn’t drive out of the state because the Certificate isn’t something recognized by any other state. Would we say that they are being treated equally, or even as equally as the law could achieve? It seems clear to me that they would be being given something clearly second class.
Which is always inherently tricky, because the law needs to have some specific meanings for specific terms just as a function, and it can come in conflict with common usage of the terms (particularly when the common usage may not be as standardized as people assume.) To a biologist, a tomato is a fruit; under the law, in certain circumstances, it’s a vegetable.
There is a strong argument to be made that the correct response is simply to remove “marriage” as a legal term. If we can have “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” in the law, and if they want to call themselves married, or if the church wants to consider them married, or whatever, that would be clearly a separate issue (it’s already a separate issue; plenty of folks are married legally in marriages that are not recognized by a given church, it’s merely the clarity of the separation of issue which is being created here.)
The problem with that is, of course, portability again. Unless we make a mass simultaneous cultural movement across jurisdictions, it would be suddenly giving everybody the Steering Wheel Twister’s Certificate.
Understood - which is why it is awkward that civil authorities are in the business of policing that institution. (As someone once noted: name aside, Sacramento really has no basis for doling out sacraments.)
To paint that a little further: many believe that Adam and Eve were the definitive example of marriage (even though the Bible doesn’t use that term for their relationship.) And yet, if the current laws of California were in place in the Garden of Eden at the time, they would not have been granted a marriage license, for multiple reasons!
Absolutely, and there is some legitimacy to painting the person willing to take on jail time to call attention to their cause as the hero. However, it seems to me that the anti-same-sex marriage organizations aren’t trying to paint him as a hero, but as a victim, and that’s much harder to support.
Yes, and that’s true for the other side as well. The ads supporting prop 22 argued that it wouldn’t keep any rights from gay people, it was just protecting the use of the term “marriage”. And then, after it’s passage, there were attempts to use prop 22 against domestic partnerships and other partner benefits, saying that the law should be interpreted as stopping things that -seemed- like marriage.
Yes, and I can certainly understand wanting this question definitively in the hands of the voters. And of course, voting Yes on prop 8 does mean you as a voter are taking it into your own hands… but the important thing to remember is, voting No is also taking it into your hands! If the people vote No on this proposition, that will be them stating that they want marriage to remain available to same-sex couples in California. The only way to not take it into your hands is to not vote.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Nat- The question isn’t really definitively in the hands of the voters. We all know that a constitutional amendment is a much higher hurdle to clear than a ballot initiative simply because an amendment seems like something you only do in drastic situations and people are loathe to go down the road. I know that many who are opposed to gay marriage wish they didn’t have to propose an amendment but feel that they have been left with no other options.
But just to be clear - I have no problem with anyone voting however they feel they should vote on this issue. My issue is with those who would seek to intimidate instead of influence and that is the real reason for my original post. Most people in California don’t really know what Prop 8 is about. Many believe that it is an attempt to deny significant rights to gay couples. If everyone understood what you explained above I really don’t think that Prop 8 would have much of a chance of being defeated.
But people don’t understand what is really involved hear and anyone who supports Prop 8 is instantly labeled a bigot. I have family members in California who have been very outspoken in their support of Prop 8. For doing so they have received hate mail literally comparing them to Nazis.
That isn’t an attempt to persuade someone to your point of view. It is an attempt make someone afraid to stand up for what they believe in.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
To the extent that anything can be, it is. If the voters vote one way, same-sex marriage is against the law in California; the other way, it’s the law of the land. Could that possibly be changed by further laws? Yes, but that’s always the case.
And people should be cautious going down that road, and should consider it carefully. But nonetheless is is an option that is available to them, and traditionally changing the California Constitution isn’t a drastic thing (during the 20th century, the constitution averaged more than 5 amendments per year.)
Seems to me that they do.
And it is. If you believe that marriage is an insignificant right, try taking away the right of straight people to get married and see how they feel about it. Previous rulings not around same-sex marriage have called it a “fundamental right”.
(If marriage wasn’t significant, would the Yes-on-8ers be campaigning this hard?)
So those at the top of the Yes-on-8 effort have tried desperately to cast this as being about religious freedom, despite the fact that the religious freedom is already guaranteed by the US Constitution, by the state constitution, and by the very state supreme court ruling that they are railing against. Their falsehoods are being carried along by well-intentioned folks who are deceived by them.
Nor is proposition 8 an attempt to persuade anyone not to marry someone of the same sex. Rather, it is an attempt to have those who prefer special rights for straight couples to have their beliefs enshrined in law.
Are there people who overstate things and use harsh language on both sides of the debate? Yes, and they should be discouraged.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
[...] a previous post I talked about Proposition 8 in California and how many people view Prop 8 as a freedom of religion [...]
October 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Alright, I’ve recovered from the planning, execution and cleanup of a 5 year old’s birthday party.
It is always nice to have an insightful discussion with someone who has an opposing viewpoint.
But didn’t they already have a working definition? As Justices Baxter and Chin point out in their dissent a precedent had already been set:
Link to full text: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=b2c5f7ab264c2a0aeea447296c067fd6&csvc=fo&cform=searchForm&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAB&_md5=38b890fa918e485f0d28de802bb5cb73
Rather than use the existing definition established by the people the majority decided to replace it with a new one based on current legislation. The minority did not agree with this approach and I side with them on this one.
For me it doesn’t come across that way since I see marriage and domestic partnerships as being different types of relationships. In and of themselves a man and a woman have the ability to procreate (generally speaking). Same-sex couples do not. I see this as a significant difference as it perpetuates the society.
I think another point made by Justices Baxter and Chin is worth mentioning here as well:
Everyone has the option of being married under California law. Whether or not a person wants to take advantage of that opportunity is up to them. I bring this up to point out that the state is not witholding any rights by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. I realize this is of little comfort to people who want to enter into a same-sex marriage but these people are looking to enter a relationship other than marriage in my mind.
Since I don’t consider the two relationships as being equal, but rather different, I don’t see the example you provide as being applicable so I’ll move to the next points.
I think it is important to keep it. Traditional families have been shown to be incredibly important to our society and the government is interested in encouraging types of behavior that sustains and benefits the society.
The Bible may not use that exact term for their relationship but Jesus Christ quotes Genesis and states that they were man and wife in Matthew 19:4-6 (King James Version cited though other versions have similar wording):
So according to Bible writings Adam and Eve were in a husband/wife relationship and the word we have use to designate that relationship is “marriage”.
Ah, but California laws are enacted for the benefit of the people of California today. We can’t assume that all California laws should apply to Adam and Eve in their time and circumstances. Each society decides what their values are and creates laws accordingly.
Before I finish this comment I have one other issue I would appreciate your comments on Nat.
On one side of the isle I read that there will be legal issues stemming from the redefinition of marriage. On the other I read that no such issues will exist. You have mentioned in this thread that there is no religious freedom component surrounding Prop 8, and thus the definition of marriage as being between two persons rather than a man and a woman. I have no formal legal training and so I have to rely heavily upon the informed opinions of others when it comes to interpreting law. While researching the issues involved I came across an interesting article discussing the legal implications of same-sex marriage:
http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1
The beginning of the article discusses the legal issues surrounding the case involving Massachusetts and Catholic Charities. The article states that the agency was unable to obtain a license from the state because it would not place children with same-sex couples.
We have a situation where an agency had been working under state contracts and as an agent of the state previous to the law being enacted. The Vatican had stated that the agency was not to place children with same-sex couples due to religious beliefs. Once the marriage laws were changed the agency was required to place children with same-sex couples in order to become licensed and maintain government contracts. Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage this would not have been an issue.
Regarding the previous Massachusetts law you mentioned, the article states the following (Goodridge is the case in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage):
So while the legalization of same-sex marriage was not the only factor at play in this case, it appears that same-sex marriage did in fact play a part. Yes, the agency could have switched to operating without government funds but the fact remains that the change in law affected how the agency had operated for however many years. Given these facts I think this is a relevant example of how a change in the definition of marriage in Massachusetts changed the game for a religious organization. Do you disagree?
The rest of the article (page 2 in your browser) contains quotes from various experts in the religious rights legal field. Some are for same-sex marriage, some against and some are undecided. Each of the experts thinks there will be a number of issues between same-sex marriage and religious liberties. If you get a moment to read the article I would be interested as to why you think opinions such as theirs are incorrect.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Congratulations on surviving that (he says, facing his own about-to-be-4-year-old’s impending birthday with some dread.)
The opinion references the original 1849 state Constitution, which no longer applies , and acts by the legislature and prop 22, neither of which rise to the level of the constitution. Even trying to extract from the 1849 constitution a definition which is not explicit there would be the act of creating a working definition.
And yet, the mixed-sex marriage covers many people who do not become parents, or who become parents through the same means used by same-sex couples: through artificial insemination, third-party insemination, mutual adoption, or through one party taking on the other party’s existing child.
And yet, that same logic was tested decades ago, when the state supreme court knocked down restrictions on marriage between the races. Prior to that, people had the option of marrying under the marriage laws, but the court found that the state did not have a compelling interest in that particular restriction on -who- they could marry.
And yet, the ability for the legal concept of marriage to remain strong may rest on its not being an exclusionary group. There is a clear trend toward societal acceptance of legal recognition of homosexual commitment, and there are already starting to be some cases of heterosexual couples avoiding legal marriage because they see it being used as a form of discrimination and don’t wish to endorse it, just as even a white person might avoid joining a whites-only country club.
And just to be clear, neither have I.
Yes, which argues against the acceptance of something simply because it’s “traditional” or “biblical”.
Except that it wasn’t “once the marriage laws were changed”; they had been required not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation since 1993, and had indeed been placing children with same-sex couples before the marriage ruling.
This is not a conflict that arises because of gay marriage; it’s a general sort of conflict that one will face whenever a church is acting as an agent of the government, because the church has its own commands which are separate from those of the law. As such, if you wish to address it, its best done so not by addressing the immediate case, but by addressing the larger question of legal relationships between churches and government. For example…
Yes, but then you run into the conflict of “married according to whom?” There are plenty of civil marriages that are not recognized by the Catholic church, such as the remarriage of Catholics who have gotten civil divorces but not annulments.
(On top of that: I believe that even that distinction would not be available to them under California law, which includes restrictions on discrimination based on marital status.)
Let us be clear: these are not random quotes from random persons or chosen by someone striving for an evenhanded coverage, but carefully selected quotes for an article in the Weekly Standard, which is a conservative opinion magazine, quotes chosen to bolster the stance. And even within that, there is recognition that people outside of this group do not concur.
Having said that, looking at the quotes, they are not all talking about gay marriage issues, but often simply about larger gay anti-discrimination issues (which are not unrelated, but are also not interchangeable; even passing gay marriage laws across the nation would not be an end to legal discrimination against homosexuals.) And within that, the article repeatedly tries to draw concerns that discrimination against homosexuality would be treated like another form of discrimination - racism. Which just reflects that the gay rights issues are not some new issue, but merely an inclusion of a new category of discrimination to a set of questions and conflicts which have long existed. Doug Kmiec may view that as comparing the “irrational and morally repugnant” anti-miscegenation laws with the “rational and morally debatable” anti-gay-marriage laws, but let us remember that when the conflict was going down, there was plenty of public support for anti-miscegenation laws, often with moral and religious stances as their basis.
Having said that, I don’t think I’ve been making the larger statement that you seem to want me to address, but have rather been making more specific statements about the specific proposition at hand, and specific other points raised.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The majority opinion (I was referencing the minority opinion) also starts from the original state Constitution and moves forward from there showing how marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. There probably was no need to be more specific than marriage because marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.
You are correct that they did have to come up with a working definition for this case. It just seems to me that they would start from the currently accepted definition and let the people make any changes from there. I don’t agree with the assumption that because additional rights have been explicitly laid out for same-sex couples that the state as a whole wants to have an updated definition of marriage. I guess we will see.
I don’t think it makes an argument one way or the other. There are many things that are traditional or biblical that have served our country well for many years. There have been some traditions that have had to be thrown out along the way and our society is better because of it. But the benefit of these “old” values is that we have seen what their effect is on society over the generations.
The issue arose after the marriage laws were changed and there was never a court case that defined why exactly the agency could not get a license so we can’t know for sure if the 1993 law or the marriage law would have affected them. The agency had in fact been placing children (probably to get around dealing with the 1993 law) but it seems to have been without the Vatican knowing. Once the Vatican said that this was a “no-no” then the agency had to face existing laws square in the face. They might have been able to work around the 1993 discrimination laws. Maybe not. But there was no way for them to work around the same-sex marriage law.
I’m not aware of whether or not the Vatican had rules regarding the types of marriages the agency could place children into so I can’t comment. Perhaps the Vatican is more lenient in this area.
Agreed. I didn’t mention the article to emphatically prove a point however. Rather it shows that there are a fair number of respected experts in this particular area of law who feel there are going to be significant legal issues. I don’t think one can dismiss this concern as pure nonsense.
The article had interviews with people attending a conference that looked at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. So I think all of the people quoted were commenting within that context. I can’t confirm that though. I thought Anthony Picarello had an interesting insight though:
“But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”
If you are interested in reading the various articles from the conference they can be viewed here:
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/494.html
In any case, the majority have made their decision that “the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage—cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”
Now Californians will decide if they think maintaining the traditional institution of marriage is still beneficial to the people of the state (I’m no longer one by the way. I left Los Angeles for northern Virginia a little over a year ago).
I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you Nat. It has pushed me to do some more reading and to more deeply reflect upon differing viewpoints. While I will gladly respond as best I can to any other questions you may bring up, I think it is time to sum up my beliefs on the subject of marriage as this is why I think the traditional institution is one worth fostering in legal form and in practice.
Marriage is an institution that exists between a man and a woman with the ultimate goal of raising and caring for children. When entered into and executed by a husband and a wife, whose shared goals focus on maintaining a strong family, the foundation of the society of which they are a part is strengthened.
When communicating it is important to have an unambiguous means of referring to things that differ in their nature. It allows us to concretely define what that thing stands for and what it represents. The relationship that exists between two men or two women is different than that of a man and a woman. Neither the complimentary strengths inherent in males and females by virtue of their gender or the natural ability to procreate can be present. These are fundamental differences defining the marriage relationship.
While it is true that not every marriage involves two people that are physically able to have children or two people intending to rear a family, that does not necessitate redefining the institution as a whole. Redefining marriage to remove the fundamental distinction of being between a man and a woman dilutes the meaning of an established building block of society when there is no need to. Necessary rights can be maintained while the beneficial distinctions remain in place.
The reasons cited above flow from my belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a divine institution that is ordained of God. I fully subscribe to the beliefs laid out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (of which I am a member) in the proclamation entitled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” published in 1995. The full proclamation can be viewed here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
Take care and good luck with the impending herd of 4-year-olds.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I have seen arguments from folks who have looked closer at the relevant Massachusetts law than I have stating that Catholic Charities had avenues that they could have availed themselves of but chose not to; I cannot speak to how viable these avenues were.
No, because the traditional institution is still in place after the ruling and is not effected by Proposition 8. The mixed-sex couples who were married before the ruling remain married now. Mixed-sex couples have been married since the ruling, and the only impact I’ve seen is competition for wedding locations and services with the rush of same-sex couples looking to get married. And whichever way the vote falls, mixed-sex couples will still be eligible for marriage in this state.
Those who feel that the value of their marriage is dependent upon the scarcity of marriage would seem to have a weak marriage anyway.
That tendencies that can be (accurately or not) ascribed to a population is not a reason for eliminating rights for individuals (or in this case pairs) who may not match those tendencies. In fact, it is that sort of argument based upon tendencies that has been used as the justification for vile sorts of discrimination under the law over the years. Luckily, our tendency as a nation has been to recognize the flaws in such arguments, and to strip away such discrimination. It’s not been an unwavering path, but the trend of history is clear.
Yes, and that ia a religious belief, and I certainly support you following your religion and choosing to enter into a heterosexual marriage. (Believe me, if there’s ever a drive to make same-sex marriage mandatory, I’ll come out loudly against it!) However, it is hard to take a stance that others should be limited by LDS dictates (or the dictates of any religion) as a stance of freedom of religion.
I have a lot of reasons to be passionate against such discrimination under the law. Part of it is a strong belief in freedom and liberty. Part of it comes from having friends and relatives who are in long-term, stable relationships, including one couple who has already taken advantage of this change in California law to get married, and did so at significant effort and expense knowing full well that this marriage is not likely to be recognized soon where they live. (And other couples in this group are raising children, who could have teh additional protections that legally married parents would afford them.) Part of it comes from realizing that the “traditional” aspect of “traditional marriage” is actually a very small part of the marriage tradition, that marriage has actually changed vastly over the years, and that there are many people living in “traditional” marriages by the one-man-one-woman descriptor whose marriages are far from what people consider the default (such as open marriages and marriages of convenience.)
But if there is one thing that fills me most with the feelings that marriage equality is important, it’s the marriage of my father and his wife (let me make this clear that this is not my mother, but a more recent relationship.) It is a beautiful marriage, she is a wonderful person and they are good for each other. And yet, because of the contrast in their skin tones, this is a marriage that would have been illegal in my lifetime within many states, and a few years before I was born, would have been illegal in the very state where they now live. These laws were supported by some of the very sorts of arguments we’re hearing in favor of Prop 8, that this is not the sort of relationship that God would want, that this is not the sort of relationship that leads to good families, and that we must have this higher standard for marriage. And yet these laws were struck down, at times by logic very much like that of the California supreme court ruling. The country would be a lesser place if those laws were still in place.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Religious freedoms aren’t in danger? Daily Kos is asking users to specifically target Mormons who support Prop 8 and publicly smear them: Read more in this blog post.
Also, Mormon worshippers were harassed by anti-Prop 8 supporters as they tried to attend a church service. Nice.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
[...] Recent Comments Greg DeVore on Prop 8 - Will All the Bigots Please Leave the RoomNat Gertler on Prop 8 - Will All the Bigots Please Leave the RoomTrevor DeVore on Prop 8 - Will All [...]
October 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I miss how other people being allowed to criticize you is a danger to your religious freedoms. Not that singling out the Mormon donors is particularly classy — but this was just one guy calling for it.
It’s not like the official Yes-on-8 campaign, which has been sending out blackmail letters in an attempt to raise funds.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
@Nat - I don’t get what you’re missing. Did you not read the part about protesters trying to stop Mormons from attending their temple?
Yes on 8 didn’t send a black mail letter. They are saying “We are going to let people know where you company stands on this issue.”
Here is a little comparison. If Yes on 8 had only targeted businesses with Jewish executives then that would be equivalent to what the Daily Kos is calling for. The Daily Kos didn’t ask their readers to dig up dirt on all donors. They asked them to specifically target the Mormons.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“Did you not read the part about protesters trying to stop Mormons from attending their temple?”
I see the article citing -one person- jumping in front of a car. Other than that, folks were protesting — exercising their freedom of speech. I’m facing sign-waving pro-8-ers on the street corners here as I take my daughter to preschool.
“Yes on 8 didn’t send a black mail letter. “
Yes, they did. They specifically addressed those who had donated to the no-on-8 campaigns with the statement that “The names and companies that do not donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.” That’s practically the definition of blackmail (”in law, exaction of money from another by threat of exposure of criminal action or of disreputable conduct.” –Columbia Encyclopedia. Clearly, ProtectMarriage.com thinks the donations to the other side are disreputable conduct.)
October 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Nat - “Yes on 8″ would not be revealing anything that was not already public knowledge (donations above a certain amount are public knowledge) so I don’t think the blackmail label would apply from a legal standpoint. If “Yes on 8″ were to find unknown information about these donors that was not public knowledge and then use that as leverage to get donations that would be different.
Whether or not one agrees with the tactic (I don’t know all of the details) is another question but it is not blackmail.
Were you there to confirm that this was the only person? One person was cited since the author received an email from that person. I would be interested to find out why the police were called and if there were other similar incidents. But I don’t think you can fall back to “other than that” unless you know more about what happened there. The fact that women driving alone in their cars were crying by the time they arrived at the temple leads me to believe there was more than sign waving going on. Wouldn’t you agree?
Are they cussing, screaming and running in front of your car or just sign-waving? I’m all for the later. I have issues with the former.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
““Yes on 8″ would not be revealing anything that was not already public knowledge”
The concept of blackmail does not require that the information being revealed be secret; in California, it’s enough that the information be harmful even if it’s not secret. Yes On 8 was clearly trying to get money with the threat of releasing that information in a manner that they were spinning as harmful. That’s blackmail.
If you’d like more of the details of what was done, go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7506721/Proposition-8-Blackmail-Letter The vital stuff is on page 2 of the embedded document.
“Were you there to confirm that this was the only person?”
I wasn’t there to confirm there was any such incident at all. The only accusation I’ve seen is at the link. Only one person is described taking such action. I see no reason to assume that the actions of one person are the actions of the whole group.
“Are they cussing, screaming and running in front of your car or just sign-waving? I’m all for the later. I have issues with the former.”
Some of the local ones are screaming; generally, in my car, I cannot hear them clearly enough to tell if they are cussing.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Apparently the companies have no problem with people knowing they support Prop 8 so how could them being listed be such a terrible thing for them? It is an interesting way of going about getting additional funds but it isn’t blackmail.
A quick google search shows that people want to paint this as a blackmail letter because it gives them something to rally around but that is really stretching things.
Apparently the folks at ProtectMarriage.com are a little frustrated with how the other side is going about things (taken from one of the news articles on the letter):
My parents are very involved in the campaigning for Prop 8 so I know the above has been an big issue.
In any case, I have a hard time understanding how you can see this letter as being worse than Dante Atkins (an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention and the vice president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats) and his Daily Kos campaign.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Apparently the companies have no problem with people knowing they support Prop 8 so how could them being listed be such a terrible thing for them?”
ProtectMarriage.com clearly thinks it would be a bad thing; that’s their whole leverage here. Furthermore, from the wording in their letter they seem willing to paint people who are against prop 8 as “opposing traditional marriage”, which is a lie and an ugly one to boot. Allowing other couples to get married does nothing to eliminate traditional marriage. Plenty of mixed-sex couples are still getting married.
“Apparently the folks at ProtectMarriage.com are a little frustrated with how the other side is going about thing”
Yes, I saw where they laid responsibility on others, rather than taking it on themselves. And yes, YesOn8 signs have been stolen… and so have No On 8 signs. That’s been going on on both sides.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
It just amazes me the lengths to which people will go to justify their bigotry. You can consider yourself to be anything you like but it’s still bigotry.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Using something as leverage is not the same as blackmail. Anyway, if it is blackmail then I imagine a court case will ensue and a judge will decide the legality of it all.
A lie is an intentional false statement, which this isn’t. It is based on how we see the ultimate consequences of a shift in society from recognizing the marriage institution as being between a man and woman to a gender-neutral relationship.
I see two problems with changing the definition of marriage. One relates to the legal issues with regards to religion (I know you don’t agree that there will be any). The other relates to the long term affects on society which we probably don’t agree on either. So while the traditional family isn’t going to disintegrate overnight, or over the next few years, we believe it will slowly erode over time.
To us, supporting gender-neutral marriage has a negative effect on traditional marriage; so whether these people realize it or not they are making a decision that opposes traditional marriage.
The concept of same-sex marriage is still very new in relation to how long civilizations have been around. The shift to a gender-neutral marriage is fairly recent (2001 I believe) so I don’t think we can get an accurate picture on what the overall societal effects will be quite yet.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Hi Duncan, thanks for joining in on the discussion. Since you see us as bigots would you care to elaborate as to why? Since we have never met I will provide a few potentially pertinent details:
I’m all for same-sex couples having legal rights through civil unions.
I’ve never been against inter-racial marriage so please don’t bring that up.
I don’t think we should redefine marriage based on behavior rather than gender which you have probably already read about in these comments.
I would also be interested in knowing if you consider yourself a bigot? Are you obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of your opinion and prejudiced against mine?
October 29th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Using the threat of publicizing damaging information to leverage getting money out of people is the same as blackmail. That’s basically what blackmail is.
There is a difference between believing that what someone is doing will do harm and that what someone is doing is intended to do harm. By claiming that opponents of prop 8 oppose traditional marriage, you’re conflating the former with the latter. There is nothing about opposing proposition 8 that means that those having that stance want to tear apart or prevent mixed-sex marriages.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Nat - it has to be damaging IF released. That the companies have provided significant amounts of money to a particular group is already released under California law. You can’t ignore the fact that we are dealing with information that is already public.
Do you think the General Counsel for Yes on 8 would have signed the letter and that the letter would have been sent through the mail if they were attempting to blackmail? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to talk directly to the companies rather than sending an official letter that they had to assume would be sent to the press since blackmail is illegal?
To “be in opposition” to something can mean you argue OR act against it. While these people may not argue against traditional marriage they are acting against it in our view. Just because someone doesn’t understand their actions does not mean that their actions do not counteract something. Intentions are nice, but actions have impact.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Information used for blackmail in California does not need to be secret.
I do not presume wisdom on the part of the ProtectMarriage folks. If they were wise, would they have sent the letter at all? Has it gained them any money? Has it done anything for them except garner negative publicity?
Supporting proposition 8 neither argues against traditional marriage nor acts against it. That you perceive some possibly harm to traditional marriage down the road does not make the description of what those people or groups are doing accurate.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I haven’t been able to find any legal analysis on this written by someone with any law training in California so I can’t really comment further. If you can point me to some I will take a look.
You mean from the people who are already spreading negative publicity about them? The same people who refer to them as bigots and haters? I’m not sure that adding “blackmailers” to the list hurts them much at all unless they lose in a lawsuit. I don’t know if it has helped them financially or otherwise.
Of course it acts against it. You don’t have to act directly on something to act against it. Shifting to a new paradigm of marriage has an effect on the generation that grows up with that paradigm. Changing laws affects how court cases are handled. If Prop 8 doesn’t pass or the courts make another ruling that somehow negates the constitutional change then at some point in the future we will be able to look back and see what those effects are. You think it will have a positive effect, I don’t but let’s not pretend that it will have no effect.
If we are accurate in our assessment of what the future will bring then people are in fact acting in opposition to traditional marriage. Just because a person does not realize what they are doing doesn’t change what they are doing. Granted, acting in ignorance isn’t the same as acting with full knowledge.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Here’s a quick piece of extortion and blackmail in California (obviously, a commercial site, but still trying to be clear on the basics): http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Extortion.html
This got news media coverage. Their techniques are being seen - as is the fact that their spokesperson first tried to put it off as a hoax, before verifying it.
We changed marriage in this state about half a century back to allow whites to marry other races… and yet marrying your own race is still here not just as an option, but as the most exercised one. And that’s with a real opening of options. I doubt that at this point, there are many gay folks who want to be in gay relationships, but are choosing straight ones instead because of the marriage opportunities. (I also doubt that we want that to be the case, if we want stable marriages.)
October 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I read that site earlier but it doesn’t appear that the letter meets the requirements of extortion:
Doesn’t seem to apply.
Doesn’t seem to apply.
Nothing new is being released so this doesn’t seem to apply.
No secrets here.
In referring to blackmail the site says:
But since the information has been released this is nothing new. This is why I hoped to read some legal opinions on the letter.
I don’t think this strengthens your case at all. Race does not change anything in relation to nature’s design. You still have the male and female qualities as well as the ability to procreate. I’ve already talked about this from a sociological as well as a religious perspective in a previous comment.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Just to show there is screamin’ and cussin’, as well as other forms of impoliteness, on both sides, here’s a story from the next town over: http://friendlyatheist.com/5368/a-personal-story-about-proposition-8/
(And just to give context, this is a very red-leaning area in a predominantly blue state.)
October 30th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Nat- Thanks for posting a link to that story. How disappointing. I have never understood how people who believe themselves to be Christians can believe that that type of behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately it happens all too often. I am a Mormon and at many public Mormon events such as Mormon temple open houses, the semi annual conferences they have in Salt Lake and pageants that they put on over the summer in Illinois and upstate New York, anti-Mormon protesters will often line up outside, holding posters with vile images on them and say awful, vulgar things to people trying to participate in a religious event. Without exception these people are self-proclaimed Christians acting in a very un-Christlike manner.
I am currently teaching an early morning religious course to high school seniors. We are studying the New Testament. How anyone can read that book and think that verbally abusing anyone, regardless of how you feel about their beliefs or actions, is appropriate is completely beyond me.
Does that mean that we should not oppose things that we believe would be damaging to society or to our children? No. But it does mean that we need to do it in a way that does not seek to berate, demean or intimidate individuals.
What people don’t realize is not only does this make sense from a “how a Christian should act” standpoint but also from a simply pragmatic point of view. I have spoken to many of my friends in California who have been supporting Prop 8 by going out and holding up signs and such. They are not like what was described in your story above and would never verbally abuse anyone no matter how much they might disagree with them. But, like the atheist family who sent in the post, they have received a lot of vulgar and vicious attacks as they have stood on street corners holding up their signs.
Do you think that it made them rethink their position on Prop 8 for a moment? Do you think that so-called Christians yelling obscenities at anti-Prop-8 demonstrators brought any votes over to support Prop 8? No. All it does is further entrench people on both sides of the issue and makes compromise and rational discussion all but impossible. If the anti-Prop 8 person thinks that I must be a bigot simply because I support Prop 8 and I, as a Prop 8 supporter think that anyone who opposes Prop 8 is an amoral, evil being then it will be quite impossible to have any sort of discussion.
There is room for compromise on this issue. Sonja Brown, a representative from the Protect Marriage campaign was on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week and said, “We are willing to accommodate gay couples in every legal right they desire up to the point of redefining the meaning of the word marriage as being between one man and one woman.” (That quote may not be exactly correct, but that is the general gist of what she said.)
Would all supporters of Prop 8 agree with that statement? Probably not. But I believe the vast majority would. I guess what many of my friends and myself feel is that the other side is not interested in any sort of compromise. They don’t seem interested in finding a way to protect the rights gay couples while at the same time maintaining the definition of marriage that has prevailed for hundreds of years. We feel that we are being told, “Either you accept our demands that gay unions be called marriage or you are a bigot.” It is like a gun is being held to our heads with someone saying, “Agree with us or else.”
To say that it is impossible to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples without defining both unions with the same term is like saying that we must call a Woman a Man for her to have the same legal rights as her male counterpart. It simply isn’t true. Middle ground can be found in this debate if the debate really is about the legal rights of gay couples.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Here is a very well written post that points out exactly how a defeat of Prop 8 will have directly affect what is taught in public schools and how parents will be powerless to oppose it:
http://www.article6blog.com/2008/10/29/proposition-8-and-californias-schoolchildren-a-primer-on-falsehoods/
October 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
For any sort of identity, there will be people who wear that costume whether it fits them or not, and will make no real attempt to fill it out. What’s important that we don’t be confused that anyone who waves a banner speaks for everyone who lives under that banner. The man clearly does not represent all Christians (”true” Christians or not, however one might define that), any more than one quote from one homosexual explains the “homosexual agenda”. (A friend of mine has a line I like to steal about this: “It’s like the guy who thinks that all Indians walk single-file because the one he saw did.”)
But it is in the nature of a rich work that people can bring different things from it. I could certainly understand someone feeling that it was not through quiet charm that Jesus got the money changers to leave the temple.
Of course not, and that’s something that both sides face on a topic that hits hard emotionally. I have a very sweet friend who is very envious of her daughter’s ability to maintain calm in discussions with Yes-on-8 folks; for all her own sweetness, it is a control she lacks.
I would hardly equate holding a gun to your head with someone feeling you’re a bigot. Folks have a right to form an opinion about you based on your actions. The right to have an opinion is the most fundamental of rights.