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

[Irvine511]

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?

this is not what you're promoting. you're promoting gender-role essentialism, which is absolutely sexism.

Said...a man.

exactly. this is precisely my point.

 

[Irvine511]

Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them,

perfectly formulated, and i'm at a loss as to why some families are better than others.

 

[VintagePunk]

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.

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?

Thank you for cutting through the BS and getting to the crux of the issue.

 

[nathan1977]

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.

So you're saying that self-governed people have no right to live according to a particular set of values that they see fit? One would say that this is exactly what -- among other reasons -- governments exist for: to protect a particular way of life.

You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition...

And sociology, biology, human development, etc...

The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed.

Recognizing gender now counts as discrimination? Interesting, given that the protected status currently granted at many state and all Federal levels to gender, sexual orientation, race etc doesn't mandate that we eliminate such factors, just that they can't be deciding factors for why someone can't be hired.

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.

So you're willing to agree that this is a far cry from saying that same-sex marriage won't affect heteros, then?

Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution.

You mean "diversity should mean that people of the same genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships," right? (Which actually kind of is the definition of monotony, isn't it?) Regardless, people do indeed have that right. The government isn't allowed to bang down your door and prosecute you based on who you're sleeping with, and when the government has done so, those individual rights have been affirmed. But to take it to the next level, and argue that the Government must then affirm such relationships, is an entirely different matter altogether.

Gross reductionism of gender roles by those who don't even recognize gender importance aside, to say that the government should not recognize the value of gender within families -- against the will of the people -- is problematic at the democratic level, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny.

The tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority are constantly at odds, aren't they? This is why in a democratic system we put such matters to a vote. (And, incidentally, why we have both a popular system and an Electoral College.) To passionately advocate a particular position or worldview is a Constitutionally-protected right (as is the right to call me a bigot). To decry my ability to vote with my conscience is quite another, and to attempt to subvert that right flies against the very principles of democracy that we (say we) hold dear is troubling in the extreme.

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).

When I can have my apparently-Constitutionally-protected right to marry more than one wife, I'll agree with you.

ETA:

quoting Martha: Eagerly awaiting the quote by quote refutation of the above.

Can I have my cookie now, Martha?

 

[nathan1977]

this is not what you're promoting. you're promoting gender-role essentialism, which is absolutely sexism.

Biology is sexist? Geez, Irvine, even at the most fundamental level you need sperm and an egg -- "male and female." So you've got bigger fish to fry...

 

[A_Wanderer]

So you're saying that self-governed people have no right to live according to a particular set of values that they see fit? One would say that this is exactly what -- among other reasons -- governments exist for: to protect a particular way of life.

No, the government is there to guarantee things like property rights and public safety, not to tell people how they should be living their lives or which value system they should adhere to.

And sociology, biology, human development, etc...

No those angles don't bolster your argument, homosexuality occurs in other cultures, it occurs in other species and it is perfectly natural. But from my point of view it is irrelevant if homosexuality is a matter of choice or hard wired, it has no bearings on peoples right to do it or the equal recognition of those relationships under the law.

Recognizing gender now counts as discrimination? Interesting, given that the protected status currently granted at many state and all Federal levels to gender, sexual orientation, race etc doesn't mandate that we eliminate such factors, just that they can't be deciding factors for why someone can't be hired.

I disagree with those interventions into private businesses, I disagree with state discrimination because everybody deserves equal treatment from the government that they support with their taxes.

So you're willing to agree that this is a far cry from saying that same-sex marriage won't affect heteros, then?

It doesn't impact straight couples, it doesn't change their relationships or the legal recognition of their relationships because the terminology on the marriage contract is synonymous.

You mean "diversity should mean that people of the same genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships," right? (Which actually kind of is the definition of monotony, isn't it?) Regardless, people do indeed have that right. The government isn't allowed to bang down your door and prosecute you based on who you're sleeping with, and when the government has done so, those individual rights have been affirmed. But to take it to the next level, and argue that the Government must then affirm such relationships, is an entirely different matter altogether.

The existence of sodomy laws for such a long period demonstrates that this was not always the case. People were denied their sexual liberties. But now that those laws have been repealed (against the will of the majority and those who are still vocal today) and homosexuality has the same prohibitions as heterosexual sex the next stage is to bring the legal framework of marriage onto equal footing.

Gross reductionism of gender roles by those who don't even recognize gender importance aside, to say that the government should not recognize the value of gender within families -- against the will of the people -- is problematic at the democratic level, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

Those who don't even recognise gender importance? As in they don't grope the opposite gender?

The tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority are constantly at odds, aren't they? This is why in a democratic system we put such matters to a vote. (And, incidentally, why we have both a popular system and an Electoral College.) To passionately advocate a particular position or worldview is a Constitutionally-protected right (as is the right to call me a bigot). To decry my ability to vote with my conscience is quite another, and to attempt to subvert that right flies against the very principles of democracy that we (say we) hold dear is troubling in the extreme.

You keep producing this tyranny of the minority argument out and it benumbs me how this is meant to be effective. Protecting rights and liberties is not tyranny, the freedom to get married is not tyranny. This victimhood mentality whereby the bigots act oppressed whenever their suppression is pushed back is just tawdry.

The tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority are prevented by having a rigorous separation of the powers and a framework of protected rights which are applied equally.

Gay marriage is no more of a special right than straight marriage.

When I can have my apparently-Constitutionally-protected right to marry more than one wife, I'll agree with you.

A separate issue, if people were rallying for gay polygamy then it would be an issue, but their not so utterly irrelevant.

I agree that the state attack on polygamy is stepping on the religious freedom of the fundamentalist mormons and I think that polygamy should have a legal framework, but it is an entirely separate issue. You only confuse the two to obfuscate the lack of arguments for keeping gay marriage banned.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Biology is sexist? Geez, Irvine, even at the most fundamental level you need sperm and an egg -- "male and female." So you've got bigger fish to fry...

Gender-role is not the same as the biological reality of sex. Your arguing a POV which really seems to be a married male father and female mother who input different elements into the family unit, therefore gay marriage is lesser because they lack the input of one or another of the genders.

 

[INDY500]

Gender-role is not the same as the biological reality of sex. Your arguing a POV which really seems to be a married male father and female mother who input different elements into the family unit, therefore gay marriage is lesser because they lack the input of one or another of the genders.

I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.

 

[melon]

I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.

Frankly, who are you and why does your opinion deserve greater weight than that of the scientific and academic community?

Credible studies have repeatedly shown that same-sex families and parenting are statistically no different than that of opposite-sex families and parenting.

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this fact and stubbornly insist that your opinion is still absolute truth is what makes you a textbook-defined bigot--presuming, again, that there's an objective definition of bigotry and not a relativistic, self-assigned label.

 

[BVS]

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.

So we're back to marriage = baby making?

"Of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother."

Really? Of course? This is a given?

You state that same sex marriage ensures that it doesn't. NOTHING IS ENSURE BY PARENTHOOD. You don't know if a Grandfather, Aunt, Cousin, etc plays a big part... You can't ensure anything!!!

In fact you can't ensure these certain qualities that "of course" benefits a child occur in a heterosexual still married family. What if the mother doesn't have those "feminine" qualities that "of course" will enrich the child's life? What if the man has those qualities?

The only "of course" that I know is that love benefits a child.

 

[melon]

Really? Of course? This is a given?

Come on. We all know that all heterosexual families are like this:

...and all of "the gays" are like this:

Won't somebody please think of the children?

 

[martha]

Can I have my cookie now, Martha?

No. Boys who lord their majority status over other boys don't get cookies.

 

[martha]

Hugh Beaumont is hot.

Seriously.

 

[maycocksean]

I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.

But in many cases same-sex marriage might ensure that some children who might otherwise have neither mother or father do have parents. And it would seem parents of one gender is better than no parents at all.

To me this debate is really about control of society's norms. For the past thousand plus years or so Christians have had control of Western culture's norms. . .and now that grip seems to be slipping. Many Christians seem to think that this is a disaster. I don't. When I read the gospels, I don't get the sense that Jesus commissioned us to take over society or demand that the wider culture run according to our principles. While one might argue the benefits of the Christianization of Western culture, I'd suggest that Christians being the ones who decide what flies and what doesn't in society has sometimes harmed the society and has definitely damaged the church. This apart from whether or not opposition to gay marriage is the "proper Christian stance" (as I know there are Christians who are not opposed to gay marriage). Just saying that some of the opposition I'm reading in this thread might be the frustration of those who see their ability to decide what's normal and acceptable slipping away.

 

[melon]

Hugh Beaumont is hot.

Seriously.

No, Hugh Beaumont is not hot. He's a dad. And, as we know, every red-blooded 100% heterosexual father has been perfect. Just. Like. Him.

Not bigotry, just the truth!

 

[maycocksean]

No, Hugh Beaumont is not hot. He's a dad. And, as we know, every red-blooded 100% heterosexual father has been perfect. Just. Like. Him.

Not bigotry, just the truth!

I personally liked Ozzy and Harriet better.

Hey, did anyone ever see that show "My Three Sons" ? I don't think there were any women in that household but seems the guys turned out fine. . .I mean if we're using 1950's-60's TV shows as moral compasses. . .

 

[INDY500]

"Credible studies" What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?

 

[nathan1977]

For the past thousand plus years or so Christians have had control of Western culture's norms. . .and now that grip seems to be slipping.

No one's actually brought up Christianity thus far in this thread, maycocksean. And I didn't realize that one man/one woman was a strictly Christian construction. Or, for that matter, a 1960s one.

 

[nathan1977]

No, the government is there to guarantee things like property rights and public safety, not to tell people how they should be living their lives or which value system they should adhere to.

Really. So the American system of government has nothing to do at all with protecting democratic principles and values of, say, freedom of speech? Or separation of church and state? Or separation of the powers?

homosexuality occurs in other cultures, it occurs in other species and it is perfectly natural.

No one's saying it doesn't. But is it normative? Should it be equated as such?

You keep producing this tyranny of the minority argument out and it benumbs me how this is meant to be effective. Protecting rights and liberties is not tyranny, the freedom to get married is not tyranny.

And the freedom to marry anyone I would like and call it marriage isn't in the constitution. So I guess tyranny affects us all in different ways.

it is an entirely separate issue. You only confuse the two to obfuscate the lack of arguments for keeping gay marriage banned.

No, I merely point out that the freedom to marry anyone I want has limitations too.

 

[yolland]

So what are these essential parenting qualities that only a mother is capable of offering a child? What are the essential parenting qualities that only a father is capable of offering a child? And name the specific essential attributes provided and/or specific essential aptitudes imparted, please, not vague "You need a father to learn how to be a man" platitudes and the like.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Really. So the American system of government has nothing to do at all with protecting democratic principles and values of, say, freedom of speech? Or separation of church and state? Or separation of the powers?

Those are not inherently democratic values, that is the point that I have consistently made. Free speech and secularism would get wiped out at the ballot box, having it protected in the constitution it is out of reach, its really quite commendable.

No one's saying it doesn't. But is it normative? Should it be equated as such?

Homosexuality is normal, gays shouldn't experience discrimination in the law, the government shouldn't be intervening in peoples sex lives.

And the freedom to marry anyone I would like and call it marriage isn't in the constitution. So I guess tyranny affects us all in different ways.

I am not a constitutional scholar, although I have heard that the 14th Amendment has some relevance.

No, I merely point out that the freedom to marry anyone I want has limitations too.

Those limitations are hardly equivalent to those placed on gays, your making a statement not an argument and one which underscores the state sponsored discrimination that you advocate.

 

[phillyfan26]

I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.

God, do I hate willful ignorance.

Anyone remember the poster Varitek? She doesn't post much anymore because she's studying abroad in Europe, but she is the child of a lesbian couple. And she could come in here right now and point-by-point explain to you how her childhood was just as "beneficial" as any other one.

Defining that as an ideal, and saying that same-sex couples can never provide for their kids as well as heterosexuals, is not only blatantly false, it's pure, 100%, hateful bigotry. At this point you've heard way too many facts and opposing viewpoints from people who've actually lived it for it to be anything other than willfully ignorant bigotry.

My hope is that posts like this, in the near future, would get one suspended on a forum like this.

 

[BVS]

Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?

But they aren't always "complementary". And what is your experience with gay couples that say they don't compliment each other? Common sense tells me; very little.

 

[melon]

"Credible studies" What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?

Who needs things like facts, research and observation, when we can rely on good, old fashioned folksy wisdom?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." - Judge Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th century "folksy wisdom" on race, in the court decision that preceded Loving v. Virginia

"Where do you come up with this stuff?" They're called stereotypes, which are nearly always the foundation for bigotry.

 

[martha]

where do I come up with this stuff?

Apparently, you pull it out of your ass.

 

[martha]

Hey, did anyone ever see that show "My Three Sons" ? I don't think there were any women in that household but seems the guys turned out fine. . .I mean if we're using 1950's-60's TV shows as moral compasses. . .

My mom watched My Three Sons religiously.

Eventually the dad remarried and the oldest son married, bringing some chicks into the picture. Before that, though, it was just the dad, the boys, and that male housekeeper. What were his duties, anyway?

 

[martha]

And, as we know, every red-blooded 100% heterosexual father has been perfect. Just. Like. Him.

You're right. All those restraining orders against straight dads are all lies. LIES!















Art you sure he's not hot?

 

[nathan1977]

Those are not inherently democratic values, that is the point that I have consistently made. Free speech and secularism would get wiped out at the ballot box, having it protected in the constitution it is out of reach, its really quite commendable.

So....government DOES exist to protect certain values? Huh. So who gets to decide which values are protected? The voters? Or a minority?

the government shouldn't be intervening in peoples sex lives.

The government isn't intervening in people's sex lives. People can have sex with whomever they want. But it's a real stretch to go from that to say that the government should recognize and support people's sex lives. If anything, you're contradicting yourself.

I am not a constitutional scholar, although I have heard that the 14th Amendment has some relevance.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Lopez cites and rejects the Equal Protection Amendment when applied to same-sex marriage when it says, discussing the "Loving" case:

"Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations". Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."

 

[melon]

So....government DOES exist to protect certain values? Huh. So who gets to decide which values are protected? The voters? Or a minority?

A mature democracy protects the inalienable rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Those governments that don't experience sectarian violence and effectively do not function. Some rights are not up for a vote--hence, the concept of "inalienable rights."

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Lopez cites and rejects the Equal Protection Amendment when applied to same-sex marriage when it says, discussing the "Loving" case:

"Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations". Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."

No different, frankly, from the nonsensical reasoning behind Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation in light of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("separate but equal"). Plessy v. Ferguson was always wrong, even if it lasted for 58 years unchallenged until Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson deserves repeating:

"But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."

Amen.

Eventually, this nonsensical ruling--where, at all, did Loving v. Virginia reference procreation in ruling in favor of mixed-race marriages?--will get overturned, even if it takes another 58 years to do so.

 

[nathan1977]

A mature democracy protects the inalienable rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?

where, at all, did Loving v. Virginia reference procreation in ruling in favor of mixed-race marriages?

As Hernandez v. Lopez rightly pointed out, the implications of Loving should not be misapplied: "There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."

Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...