SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[martha]

I can disagree with whatever conclusions I like, then as now.

You really didn't answer my question. It was the holy will of the majority back then to vote on an aspect of marriage, something you seem to think is a good idea.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?

Protecting liberties from mob rule is a fundamental element of a liberal democracy, in the case of gay marriage it seems that there is an issue of a right (namely state recognition of marriage contracts) which is not being recognised equally. The discrimination between straight and gay relationships is rooted in religious opposition as well as bigotry and not in evidence based arguments about the harm of gay marriage, mainly because the evidence from where it has been enacted is that it doesn't harm society.

Gays pay taxes just like the rest of us, they deserve equal treatment. I don't think that churches should be forced to marry gays (but then again, they do enjoy tax-free perks), but the government should recognise gay marriage. Yes, it may be offensive to a decent segment of the population, but in my mind the principle of equality under the law trumps those objections.

Opposition to gay marriage is a loosing argument; they're here, they're queer, and they want joint bank accounts, established mechanisms of inheritance, mortgages and a settled middle age - you really should get used to it, it shouldn't impact you that much.

 

[nathan1977]

Two, I was indeed referring to women as property. When did you vote against that? Or did you.

You know, after thinking about this some more, I'm surprised we disagree with each other. You seem to imply that there are some things that become apparent over time: the value of women in society. That any progressive society will recognize the value of women as more than mere property. That recognizing a woman's value should be obvious to all.

Isn't that exactly what Prop 8 defends? That women are crucial to marriage, family and society -- since family is the cornerstone institution of society, as the Declaration of Human Rights reminds us. Opponents of Prop 8 however want to put forward the notion that gender doesn't matter, at least in any significant way (if Irvine's comments are representative of mainstream opposition at all), in the constitution of family, and by extension society. Doesn't this seem to be a huge backwards step to you?

 

[A_Wanderer]

How does gay marriage effect the status of straight women?

Allowing gay marriage doesn't change the proportion of gays wandering about, it won't create an explosion of faggotry or a dyke swarm (geology joke).

All it does is guarantee certain rights to gays in line with what are afforded straight couples, no polygamy or bestiality, just equal treatment under the law.

 

[nathan1977]

The discrimination between straight and gay relationships is rooted in religious opposition

Has the Bible been brought up once in this long discussion? Certainly not by me.

you really should get used to it, it shouldn't impact you that much.

Have you not read this board? On the contrary. The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here. Not to mention the methods by which this issue has been pushed, which directly undermines the very values of democracy and self-governance in the first place.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That sentence didn't finish on religion, and the value judgement of gay relationships that is implied by most opposition, if not driven by religious ideas, can definitely fall into that category.

Some areas such as free speech, equal rights and religious freedom should be protected from democratic subversion. Reconciling the treatment of citizens with the law is important, I don't think that democracy should allow majorities to extinguish minorities rights.

 

[dazzlingamy]

The value of gender? my gawd. I don't even know where that comes from.
I just don't understand why people are against gay marriage. I seriously, cannot understand why. Even if you think its an abomination or some shit, what does it matter if they can get married? Does is really change how marriage is viewed, because sadly, the "sanctity" of marriage is not as sacred and pure as it used to be (see me last post! )

 

[anitram]

The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here.

I'll ask this question again since nobody ever seems to answer it - how have the societies which have legalized gay marriage on a national basis fundamentally changed?

What is the night and day difference between Canada and the US in this respect? What are the negative consequences we are experiencing?

 

[BVS]

You know, after thinking about this some more, I'm surprised we disagree with each other. You seem to imply that there are some things that become apparent over time: the value of women in society. That any progressive society will recognize the value of women as more than mere property. That recognizing a woman's value should be obvious to all.

Isn't that exactly what Prop 8 defends? That women are crucial to marriage, family and society -- since family is the cornerstone institution of society, as the Declaration of Human Rights reminds us. Opponents of Prop 8 however want to put forward the notion that gender doesn't matter, at least in any significant way (if Irvine's comments are representative of mainstream opposition at all), in the constitution of family, and by extension society. Doesn't this seem to be a huge backwards step to you?

I've seen some big stretches in your arguments on this subject(but then again they would have to be) but this is definately your biggest stretch yet. Congratulations!

 

[indra]

I'll ask this question again since nobody ever seems to answer it - how have the societies which have legalized gay marriage on a national basis fundamentally changed?

What is the night and day difference between Canada and the US in this respect? What are the negative consequences we are experiencing?

But, but, don't you see, it's not the same? You're Canadian -- you all are weird right from the beginning.

 

[martha]

Isn't that exactly what Prop 8 defends? That women are crucial to marriage, family and society -- since family is the cornerstone institution of society, as the Declaration of Human Rights reminds us. Opponents of Prop 8 however want to put forward the notion that gender doesn't matter, at least in any significant way (if Irvine's comments are representative of mainstream opposition at all), in the constitution of family, and by extension society. Doesn't this seem to be a huge backwards step to you?

No. It isn't a bcakwards step. On the contrary, it's a huge leap towards a future where people are valued for who they are rather than any inherent gender-defined value.

Any time people start to want to "protect and defend" me simply because I'm a woman, I start to worry. That kind of thinking relegates me to lesser stature. I'm not a weak and defenseless creature needing protection because of my gender.


eta: And, as usual, you didn't answer my question at all.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'll ask this question again since nobody ever seems to answer it - how have the societies which have legalized gay marriage on a national basis fundamentally changed?

Maybe no one ever answers it because the question is inconvenient

MA was the first state and there have been no fundamental changes. Unfortunately the winters are still hell and the cost of living is sky high. People are leaving for those reasons, not because they're outraged over gay marriage. Unbelievably day to day life goes on just as it did before. There are still plenty of straight marriages to assure that all is well in the universe. Believe it or not it is not a cesspool of moral decay (though some might beg to differ, of course).

Manny Ramirez is gone, but that had nothing to do with gay marriage either.

 

[Irvine511]

Besides the fact that you're taking my words out of context, I sure think that the ability to vote on a radical definition of a core social institution is one of the best ways to affirm a fair society.

could you enumerate the radical effects that have come about from such a radical redefintion of a core social institution in the places that recognize marriage equality -- Canada, Massachusetts, Denmark, the Netherlands.

or are you little more than just a Chicken Little and it's your own set of prejudices and convictions that there's something defective about gay people that are making you come off as very Y2K about the whole thing.

same sex marriage could happen everywhere tomorrow. and you'd just wake up and it would be Thursday.

 

[Irvine511]

The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here.

and this is really the issue here.

all the time i thought you were unconsciously homophobic. really, you're unconsciously sexist.

and, ultimately, homophobia is sexism in disguise. that's why straight men have such issues with it. gay men do upend "traditional" gender roles. they do subvert paradigms that put men on top and women on the bottom, and talking about treasuring and loving and cherishing your wife and all her wifely attributes sounds to me like she's less a person and more a role player in an idealistic construct that doesn't bear much reality to anyone's lived-in experience.

i know it's uncomfortable for some straight men. i know that, despite the advances of women, they like to think of themselves as having an irreducible worth on the basis of their gender alone, and that there are god-given manly roles in society and in families that they must fulfill. the whole point of the past 50 years has been to free people from precisely these gender roles. it's not that gender doesn't *matter* and that we're all androgynous, but that gender isn't a determinant of one's place in the world. the individual is. it's a simple as saying that if a woman wants to be an astronaut, she can be an astronaut. if she doesn't want to get married, there's nothing wrong with her.

gay people upset the apple cart. because they don't easily fall into such traditional, god-ordained roles. it starts with sex, of course, since a gay man can so easily be "the woman" as well as "the man" in intercourse. so perhaps this NYT article gets at the heart of it all:

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

my guess is that as same-sex couples become more visible, that's going to mean that opposite-sexed couples are going to have to become more egalitarian, and notions of specific duties assigned on the basis of gender -- whether doing the ironing or having to be the disciplinarian parent -- are going to disappear. soon, it could be just as likely to hear, "just WAIT until your mother gets home!"

the notion that mother is soft and father is hard, that mother is emotional and father is practical, that mother dotes and father disciplines ... all this is subverted by gay marriage and gay adoption. however, it's quite likely that most gay relationships will have one partner that is more emotional than practical, or more doting than disciplinarian. but that role will be determined on a far more egalitarian principle than gender.

so, yes, i can see how this is upsetting to some.

 

[Se7en]

my guess is that as same-sex couples become more visible, that's going to mean that opposite-sexed couples are going to have to become more egalitarian, and notions of specific duties assigned on the basis of gender -- whether doing the ironing or having to be the disciplinarian parent -- are going to disappear. soon, it could be just as likely to hear, "just WAIT until your mother gets home!"

the notion that mother is soft and father is hard, that mother is emotional and father is practical, that mother dotes and father disciplines ... all this is subverted by gay marriage and gay adoption. however, it's quite likely that most gay relationships will have one partner that is more emotional than practical, or more doting than disciplinarian. but that role will be determined on a far more egalitarian principle than gender.

so, yes, i can see how this is upsetting to some.

nice post, irvine.

you raise some interesting points here that are often overlooked or ignored.

 

[Moser]

The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here. Not to mention the methods by which this issue has been pushed, which directly undermines the very values of democracy and self-governance in the first place.

How? I'm not gonna read this board so can I get a quick summary of how gay marriage is going to redefine the value of gender?

Because I don't see how. How is it gonna change marriage for heterosexual couples?

 

[Irvine511]

How? I'm not gonna read this board so can I get a quick summary of how gay marriage is going to redefine the value of gender?

Because I don't see how. How is it gonna change marriage for heterosexual couples?

not that this was addressed to me, but i think it's safe to say that *nothing* is going to change much for heterosexuals. i think that, maybe, heterosexual couples will do less assuming about who does what or what one's "role" is in the marriage, but if you want a traditional marriage with traditional gender roles -- one that you think has existed for thousands of years -- then go ahead and go for it. no one will stop you. not at all.

but to presume that you speak for "society" when what happens in a liberal democracy is the preservation of the rights and liberties of the individual, to discriminate against people on something as involuntary and unchosen as sexual orientation is no different than discriminating on the basis of race and gender.

if i get married tomorrow, nathan's marriage isn't going to change. the only broader social changes we might see is that people might feel a little bit more free to define their own roles in society and in marriage as they themselves feel fit.

i call this progress. some might not.

 

[Irvine511]

YouTube - Love Poem

 

[Diemen]

Wow. That's a brilliant ad.

 

[martha]

That made me get all misty and choky.

 

[nathan1977]

all the time i thought you were unconsciously homophobic. really, you're unconsciously sexist.

Recognizing differences between genders, and valuing them, and saying that these differences -- however they might manifest themselves -- might be important for society, is sexist? Since when did promoting diversity become discriminatory?

and, ultimately, homophobia is sexism in disguise. that's why straight men have such issues with it.

Only straight men are homophobic?

treasuring and loving and cherishing your wife and all her wifely attributes sounds to me like she's less a person and more a role player in an idealistic construct that doesn't bear much reality to anyone's lived-in experience.

Said...a man.

it's not that gender doesn't *matter* and that we're all androgynous

Though what you're advocating is a complete removal of the recognition of gender as having any worth both for families and, by extension, society. Hence the "Party A" and "Party B" designations going into effect in CA which are replacing "bride" and "groom" as the wedding participants on wedding forms.

the notion that mother is soft and father is hard, that mother is emotional and father is practical, that mother dotes and father disciplines ... all this is subverted by gay marriage and gay adoption.

Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.

Wish I was able to be here more often.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But it comes back down the issue of what role the state has in mandating social attitudes, maintaining discrimination in the law, even as a reflection of popular attitudes, is a form of social control. It is the state making a value judgement about non-harmful behaviour and using that to justify discrimination against citizens.

You can't really stop gay parents from being around their children, or kids being raised in same-sex households, the "radical redefinition" of family will go on, the question is whether those citizens enjoy the same state recognition as their heterosexual equivalents.

You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition to minimise civil liberties. What is wrong with gay relationships? How do these make marriage wrong? Is this argument unique to gays, as opposed to childless couples.

The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed. The declaration of party on the state registration form shouldn't have any bearing on a couple. It doesn't nullify a husband and wife, merely ensures that other couples can be registered without extra printing costs.

Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution. Respecting gender doesn't start and finish with the question do your bits dangle? Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them, and isn't allowing family units to prosper about as far as the state should go. In the scheme of things two working taxpaying gays who have and raise children are doing the same thing as the equivalent straight couple, on the balance sheet it comes out the same.

I don't need the government to assert the gender dynamics within my relationships, I can do that perfectly well myself when playing off other people, as can most human beings. Even if the government attempted to intervene in private relationships it is impractical and oversteps the role of the state. I don't see why it is alright for the government to use soft discrimination on issues of marriage, benefits and inheritance to influence society.

Having the government recognise equal rights for gay couples doesn't impact straight relationships very much. It won't stop women doing more housework than men or men being the chief breadwinners in most households. Children with gay parents are no more likely to turn out gay than other kids, as if it is the states role to deem that being gay is a negative outcome.

Gay marriage won't stop boys playing with toy trucks and girls playing with dolls, state policy won't impact biology or the social conditioning of most people. There is a very stable stump of heterosexuals in society that keeps the population dynamic, hell if reproductive technologies are extended to the gays they could be generating the taxpayers of the future while we speak.

The evidence doesn't show that homosexuality is harmful, the argument that it is against nature is undercut by the evidence of gay animals and the fallacious irrelevance of nature to the question of liberties.

The catastrophism towards gay marriage being legalised, claims that it will have irrevocable impacts on society (which are invariably bad) just get annoying. Countries where it is legal have not fallen apart, children raised in gay households are no more damaged than the rest

Incidentally the arguments that gay parents harm children do sometimes come back to how those kids are treated by those around them, which isn't as much an indictment of gay couples as it is the social attitudes perpetuated by their opponents.

The principle of equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny. The guaranteed protections on liberty which preserve unpopular speech, freedom of belief and freedom from government persecution must be applied equally, that includes equal state recognition of relationships (or the abolishment of such recognition altogether).

 

[martha]

Eagerly awaiting the quote by quote refutation of the above.

 

[martha]

Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.

So all those families headed by single women?

 

[martha]

Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?

None of the "pro-marriage" folks have really answered this question yet at all.

 

[melon]

But it comes back down the issue of what role the state has in mandating social attitudes, maintaining discrimination in the law, even as a reflection of popular attitudes, is a form of social control. It is the state making a value judgement about non-harmful behaviour and using that to justify discrimination against citizens.

You can't really stop gay parents from being around their children, or kids being raised in same-sex households, the "radical redefinition" of family will go on, the question is whether those citizens enjoy the same state recognition as their heterosexual equivalents.

You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition to minimise civil liberties. What is wrong with gay relationships? How do these make marriage wrong? Is this argument unique to gays, as opposed to childless couples.

The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed. The declaration of party on the state registration form shouldn't have any bearing on a couple. It doesn't nullify a husband and wife, merely ensures that other couples can be registered without extra printing costs.

Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution. Respecting gender doesn't start and finish with the question do your bits dangle? Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them, and isn't allowing family units to prosper about as far as the state should go. In the scheme of things two working taxpaying gays who have and raise children are doing the same thing as the equivalent straight couple, on the balance sheet it comes out the same.

I don't need the government to assert the gender dynamics within my relationships, I can do that perfectly well myself when playing off other people, as can most human beings. Even if the government attempted to intervene in private relationships it is impractical and oversteps the role of the state. I don't see why it is alright for the government to use soft discrimination on issues of marriage, benefits and inheritance to influence society.

Having the government recognise equal rights for gay couples doesn't impact straight relationships very much. It won't stop women doing more housework than men or men being the chief breadwinners in most households. Children with gay parents are no more likely to turn out gay than other kids, as if it is the states role to deem that being gay is a negative outcome.

Gay marriage won't stop boys playing with toy trucks and girls playing with dolls, state policy won't impact biology or the social conditioning of most people. There is a very stable stump of heterosexuals in society that keeps the population dynamic, hell if reproductive technologies are extended to the gays they could be generating the taxpayers of the future while we speak.

The evidence doesn't show that homosexuality is harmful, the argument that it is against nature is undercut by the evidence of gay animals and the fallacious irrelevance of nature to the question of liberties.

The catastrophism towards gay marriage being legalised, claims that it will have irrevocable impacts on society (which are invariably bad) just get annoying. Countries where it is legal have not fallen apart, children raised in gay households are no more damaged than the rest

Incidentally the arguments that gay parents harm children do sometimes come back to how those kids are treated by those around them, which isn't as much an indictment of gay couples as it is the social attitudes perpetuated by their opponents.

The principle of equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny. The guaranteed protections on liberty which preserve unpopular speech, freedom of belief and freedom from government persecution must be applied equally, that includes equal state recognition of relationships (or the abolishment of such recognition altogether).

Ultimately, no matter how reasoned this argument is, don't you realize that no matter of reason or logic matters to the traditionalist? The underlying assumption to all of their arguments are...

Homosexuality is wrong.

...and everything else supposedly "reasoned" that they say in support of that statement is nothing but window dressing to make it appear that they're not really hateful bigots whose mind will never be swayed by any amount of hard facts. As such, it is irrelevant if their "arguments" are flimsy and easily deconstructed by even elementary logic and observation. That's because their prejudices aren't based on those arguments, and it is really nothing more than justification after the fact.

If there is an objective definition of bigotry and not some relativistic nonsense where bigotry is only self-assigned (which, frankly, it never is; I'm sure that even KKK members would never self-identify as "bigots," even if they clearly are), then this is what you're dealing with here. By all means, we need to keep on making the facts abundantly clear and be vocal. But we must not entertain such folly as to think that we can rationalize with everyone. At some point, we have to call a spade a spade and realize that some people in this world and here prefer to wallow in their own comfortable prejudices masquerading as "faith" or whatnot.

 

[melon]

So all those families headed by single women?

Like I implied with my previous post to A_Wanderer, you will never receive a logically sufficient answer to this question or similar, because we're dealing with individuals with irrationally-based prejudices. The answer to this question is irrelevant, because they live on the presumption that "homosexuality is wrong," and no amount of "reasoning" is relevant to why they feel this way.

Frankly, I'm tired of all of us dancing around this sheer fact. There are bigots in this world, and there are logically going to be bigots in this forum too. If someone made similarly illogical statements about Jews or blacks, we would not hesitate to call a spade a spade. So why our hesitance to do the same when it comes to anti-gay prejudice?

 

[phillyfan26]

Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.

That is a total bastardization of the viewpoints of those that are for gay marriage.

The point is that what's important is a parent. A loving, caring parent. What's wrong with it being a male and a female, two males, two females, one male, one female? One transsexual? As long as they provide for their children, all is well.

Frankly, melon is pretty much dead on.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Like I implied with my previous post to A_Wanderer, you will never receive a logically sufficient answer to this question or similar, because we're dealing with individuals with irrationally-based prejudices. The answer to this question is irrelevant, because they live on the presumption that "homosexuality is wrong," and no amount of "reasoning" is relevant to why they feel this way.

Frankly, I'm tired of all of us dancing around this sheer fact. There are bigots in this world, and there are logically going to be bigots in this forum too. If someone made similarly illogical statements about Jews or blacks, we would not hesitate to call a spade a spade. So why our hesitance to do the same when it comes to anti-gay prejudice?

Because you can pick racism out of a line up it's not alright, but with the gays it's alright because their preference is so obviously wrong, it's common sense to tell them as much.

The benefit of arguing with bigots is that their responses discredit them to the middle. It doesn't matter that practically all arguments against homosexuality are impractically authoritarian, it only matter of getting them to drop the mask. Of course when they become demagogic it can backfire, and they will rail against things such as court decisions and social change and garner some degree of sympathy, but I don't think passive disengagement is a better option.

I agree that most the posters who have argued against gay marriage are bigots, they aren't arguing the point out of a deep conviction for federalism but from socially conservative attitudes. I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is also a correlation with a style of religiousity.

 

[martha]

The point is that what's important is a parent. A loving, caring parent. What's wrong with it being a male and a female, two males, two females, one male, one female? One transsexual?

Or, from 40 years ago, one black, one white.

Or, from 100 years ago, one white, one Asian.