(GUEST POST BY The CandyMan)
A few months ago, I stood on the steps of San Francisco City Hall and witnessed an extraordinary event: the first legal gay marriage in California. It was a scene of tremendous happiness, validation, and relief for thousands of loving same-sex couples. But now the religious-right wants to take this happiness away, by passing a November ballot initiative that would eliminate marriage equality. The California Supreme Court has already ruled that this kind of discrimination is unconstitutional. But Proposition 8 would amend the California State Constitution to specifically ban gay marriage, and its proponents have gathered over 30 million dollars to do it.
The scary thing is, PROP 8 JUST MIGHT PASS. The most recent polls show it leading - and yes, a majority of one vote is enough to pass a Constitutional Amendment in California. The lies our opponents are spreading in their media campaign are having an effect. They can do it because they have over $10 million more than we do. Out-of-state organizations are pouring millions of dollars into California to take away our freedoms. In a state where ballot measures are won or lost based on the amount of money spent on advertising, we are at a disadvantage.
The only way we can win if we all join together and work to defeat Prop 8. I've joined the NO on 8 campaign because I believe every human being deserves the freedom to marry the one they love. Fellow bloggers, PLEASE STAND WITH ME by making a generous donation to stop Prop 8.
This isn't a partisan issue - the Supreme Court of California is majority Republican, and even our Republican governator opposes Prop 8. It's not a religious issue, either. I danced at a Jewish wedding canopy on those City Hall steps, and No on 8 phonebanks are being held in churches all over the state. This is about the nature of democracy and individual freedom. This is about protecting the individual from the whims of the majority. United we stand. Together, we will honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., on the fortieth anniversary of his assassination. We will honor the democracy of the founding fathers, creating a more perfect union with justice for all. Join me, and join Equality California. Together, we will make November 4 a night for the history books.
52 comments:
"This is about the nature of democracy and individual freedom."
This is about believing in the Torah. And bear in mind that if you don't believe in the Torah, then everything is permissible including murder.
This totally sucks.
There's an LDS lawyer who put out a document rebutting some of the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt being spread about the legal consequences of same-sex marriage.
JP, at the risk of feeding you, I must ask: why do you like playing the troll so much? You spend so much time here that I'm sure you've absorbed some of the real viewpoints floating around even if you don't agree with them. It's like you're off in your own world fighting against straw-man enemies that don't actually exist. I'm guessing you don't really want to understand; you just want a fight. Am I right?
No, I just think in the midst of the totalitarian atheistic world of the Internet, someone should have the nerve to tell the truth. And please note that I have the guts to attach my name, address and photo to it.
While I agree with your general sentiments on this proposition, I have to disagree with you when you say it is not a religious issue. Anyone who adheres strictly to a religion that bans homosexual marriage really has a dilemma. Just because you saw a chupah at city hall for a jewish, lesbian marriage does not mean that there are no religious issues with this proposition.
JP - If the only thing keeping you from murder is the Torah, then you are an idiot. You are basically saying that people don't have enough common sense and basic morals to know that murdering another person is wrong.
Rich
http://frustratedorthojew.blogspot.com/
Oops, forgot to add that regardless of the propositions details, I just don't think this is something that the government should legislate.
I think you're a nice. good hearted guy, but you seem to be a bit misguided on this issue.
You have been sucked in by a movement which has focused for many decades on removing the moral opprobium tradionally attached to homosexuality for millenia. From the use of contraceptives to abortion, the homosexual agenda has been behind any case or legislation which would uphold the notion of a right to privacy first enunciated in the Griswald decision and eventually enshrined in Roe v. Wade. The notion of substantive due process is a creative one, and perhaps an important one, as well, but it is manufactured and provides a dangerously high level of power to the judiciary. The application of substantive due process was the basis of the Dred Scott decision which upheld slavery--it goes both ways!
The problem the homosexual agenda refuses to acknowledge (one, which they gloss over with words like racism and equality and the like) is that we as a civilazation recognize that laws CAN constrain liberty even in the privacy of our homes. We are not allowed to engage in prostition nor incest. We may not use drugs for recreational purposes. Seventeen year olds cannot have sex. An adult will be penalized if he has sex with a seventeen year old who claims to be 18. Even religion is contrained. WE cannot engage in polygamy. We cannot burn our spouse alive or kill them if they did something wrong (unlike some cultures). In a representative republic the people decide the laws which they intend to abide, the legislature enacts them into law, and if we don't like them, we try to elect politicans who embrace our views. If it is the overwhelming view of the people of California that homosexual marriage should not be recognized, then it is NOT democratic to thwart that.
If the people of the state of California believe that siblings cannot marry, or that polygamists are to be prosecuted, or that homosexuals should not be granted the rights that heterosexual couples have, they have to accept that California has not accepted certain untraditional views which their way of life represents. And if they don't like that, they are as intolerant and obtuse as the individuals they have painted as racist.
Write about something else, like the Lubavitcher Rebbe's profound antipathy for those who did not learn chassidus.
THAT'S racist.
"JP - If the only thing keeping you from murder is the Torah, then you are an idiot. You are basically saying that people don't have enough common sense and basic morals to know that murdering another person is wrong."
I know the atheistic spiel - "I don't need God to be good. My humanitarian instincts make me a good person."
News flash - there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that people possess such humanitarian instincts. Without the Torah, or some similar transcendent moral authority, we would eat each other.
Jonathan Blake,
There's an LDS lawyer who put out a document rebutting some of the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt being spread about the legal consequences of same-sex marriage.
Great link. It's sad that the opponents of gay marriage are spreading lies about the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling.
rich perkins,
While I agree with your general sentiments on this proposition, I have to disagree with you when you say it is not a religious issue. Anyone who adheres strictly to a religion that bans homosexual marriage really has a dilemma.
I disagree. This country has a firmly established separation of church and state. No one would (except maybe JP) would try to legislate Sukkot - they should not be legislating discrimination against homosexuals, either.
yonah,
The problem the homosexual agenda refuses to acknowledge (one, which they gloss over with words like racism and equality and the like) is that we as a civilazation recognize that laws CAN constrain liberty even in the privacy of our homes.
As a civilization, we have very strict precedents for when and where we are allowed to interfere with civil liberties. The guiding principle in these legal decisions is that rights can be taken away only to directly protect someone directly involved in the case (e.g. child abuse or rape).
Read the Supreme Court decision by the State of California, or just go read Lawrence v. Texas.
Comments are great, but DONATIONS ARE EVEN BETTER!
Candyman - I disagree. This country has a firmly established separation of church and state. No one would (except maybe JP) would try to legislate Sukkot - they should not be legislating discrimination against homosexuals, either.
I was referring more to the inner turmoil a religious person can have on issues like this. Sure we have separation of church and state, but someone who is deeply religious will have those beliefs ingrained in them. therefore, it makes it very tough to allow something to happen that is viewed as immoral according to their doctrine.
Rich
http://frustratedorthojew.blogspot.com/
"No one would (except maybe JP) would try to legislate Sukkot"
Well Bergen County New Jersey legislates to this day Sunday laws against opening a business.
>>As a civilization, we have very strict precedents for when and where we are allowed to interfere with civil liberties. The guiding principle in these legal decisions is that rights can be taken away only to directly protect someone directly involved in the case (e.g. child abuse or rape).
As an attorney, I am quite familiar with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. As it stands, polygamy remains illegal. The same applies to incestuous marriage between two consenting adults. Obviously, law can curtail private conduct that does not "directly protect someone directly involved in the case," whatever that means. Besides, you are working from an incorrect presumption: the right to homosexual marriage was never taken away--it was never granted. Not in the time the Constituion was drafted, and, with very few exceptions, not today.
The homosexual agenda is designed to do away with the moral opprobium traditionally attached to homosexuality. It makes as much legal sense to petition for polygamous or incestuous marriages or the legalization of prostituion or recreational drug use as it does to decry the fact that homosexuals are not "entitled" to be married. In fact, that's what democracy is about. But to be upset at the decision by the overwhelming majority of the state to decide its own laws is NOT democratic. There never was a fundamental right to homosexual marriage. And if the good people of California want to keep it that way, homosexuals should move to Boston, Connecticut or New Jersey.
Gays are entitled to civil unions. So the real question is, why does the entire world need to change its traditions and values just to validate them?
But to be upset at the decision by the overwhelming majority of the state to decide its own laws is NOT democratic.
We live in a constitutional democracy where minority rights are protected from the untamed will of the majority. Allowing individual rights to be infringed merely because of a majority vote is nothing more than mob rule.
There never was a fundamental right to homosexual marriage.
There's as much right to same-sex marriage as there ever was for heterosexual marriage. Aside from that, this isn't really about marital rights per se; it's about equal protection under the law. In Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court declared:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
>>We live in a constitutional democracy where minority rights are protected from the untamed will of the majority. Allowing individual rights to be infringed merely because of a majority vote is nothing more than mob rule.
There was never an individual right to homosexual marriage. It os the untamed will of the homosexual agenda which is the problem.
You are assuming that homosexuals are entited to the same benefits heterosexual couples are under the Equal Protection clause. For this reason, the dicta you cited in the Loving case, which found statutes prohibiting the marriage of black and white heterosexuals is irrelevant.
Male homosexuality is probably as unhealthy as heroin usage. Why are we oppressing people who want to use heroin?
yonah,
As an attorney, I am quite familiar with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. As it stands, polygamy remains illegal. The same applies to incestuous marriage between two consenting adults. Obviously, law can curtail private conduct...
Great! Since you are an attorney, please tell us exactly how the Supreme Court separates homosexuality, incest, and polygamy. Or does it leave those matters for a future court case to decide?
Gays are entitled to civil unions. So the real question is, why does the entire world need to change its traditions and values just to validate them?
Civil unions set up a "separate but equal" status. Separate but equal was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (twice, if memory serves). It has also been soundly rejected by the California Supreme Court in this matter (we already have civil unions).
In Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court declared:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Amen to that.
You see, gay marriage will be legalized eventually. Clarence Thomas said as much after Lawrence v. Texas. What I don't get is why right-wingers turn a blind eye to the past history of Civil Rights jurisdiction and insist on wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money and Congressional time on an issue which is a legal foregone conclusion.
Our country is always better off when people are free, happy, and at peace. Only then are people free to fully contribute to society. Discrimination of any kind is contrary to that agenda and only serves to divide us.
You are assuming that homosexuals are entited to the same benefits heterosexual couples are under the Equal Protection clause.
I am assuming that all citizens are entitled to equal protection. If the broad characteristics of individual sexual preference are largely innate (strong evidence supports this), then the difference between race and sexual preference loses meaningful distinction. The Loving case becomes directly relevant.
All these arguments against equal access to marriage are just a tired recycling of anti-miscegenation rhetoric.
>>Civil unions set up a "separate but equal" status. Separate but equal was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (twice, if memory serves). It has also been soundly rejected by the California Supreme Court in this matter (we already have civil unons).
I have not yet read the California Supreme Court dicision. However, I would beg to differ on your comparison between granting homosexuals the right to enjoy civil unions and the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. Couples who engage in incest and polygamy can make the same argument: that marriage is a fundamental right that they are entitled to as a matter of substantive due process. But they are not. Marriage is not automatically extended to anyone who wishes to have it.
Jonathan,
The only recourse pundits advancing the homosexual agenda have is to brand those who do share their untraditional values as racists. Frankly, its a bit juevnile.
The only recourse pundits advancing the homosexual agenda have is to brand those who do share their untraditional values as racists. Frankly, its a bit juevnile.
I never meant to say that you are racist; I said that your arguments are equivalent to the arguments of those who opposed interracial marriage. Make of that what you will, but it wasn't schoolyard name calling.
Couples who engage in incest and polygamy can make the same argument: that marriage is a fundamental right that they are entitled to as a matter of substantive due process. But they are not. Marriage is not automatically extended to anyone who wishes to have it.
One civil rights issue at a time, please. :) You're talking to someone whose polygamous ancestors were persecuted by a law that infringed the practice of their religion. If anything, they were practicing the real form of traditional marriage. ;)
So you see, raising the bugbear of polygamy and incest won't phase me.
I mean Abraham practiced both polygamous and incestuous marriage, right?
>then the difference between race and sexual preference loses meaningful distinction.
There is a difference. Letting interracial marriage did nothing towards what marriage is and what it was. A union between a male and female. The laws of against interracial marriage was an abrogation of something that had existed before.
>I mean Abraham practiced both polygamous and incestuous marriage, right?
Hmm..I wonder, does a concubine count as a marriage?
>>So you see, raising the bugbear of polygamy and incest won't phase me.
I was not attempting to phase you. I was merely pointing out that marriage is not a right granted to everyone demanding it, regardless of the names, intolerance, and hatred proponents of homosexual marriage continue to manifest toward more traditionally minded individuals.
Hagar was not Avraham's wife, by the way. And incestuous marriages were striclty prohibited to Jews since the Torah was given at Sinai. So, unless you are encouraging a pre-Sinai kind of Jewishness, I don't see where you are trying to go.
I was kidding with the Abraham thing. I don't want to get mired in legal questions about the status of a concubine, though it makes one wonder how traditional monogamous marriage really is. It's a rather recent innovation historically speaking.
I was merely pointing out that marriage is not a right granted to everyone demanding it,...
Like I said, one civil rights issue at a time. :)
regardless of the names, intolerance, and hatred proponents of homosexual marriage continue to manifest toward more traditionally minded individuals.
Let's compare and contrast. Which side uses fear and negativity in its commercials?
No on 8: Commerical 1, Commercial 2
Yes on 8: Commercial 2, Commercial 2
There were positive Yes on 8 commercials but I couldn't find any negatively toned No on 8 commercials. You have to forgive me if I get the impression that a lot of the opposition to equal access to marriage is motivated by fear of change and fear of the Other.
>by fear of change
Of course its a fear of change.
Some change is good. Some change is bad.
This isen't an all or nothing world.
We're not charedi chas v'shalom :P
Yonah,
I have not yet read the California Supreme Court dicision.
Read the decision here.
Couples who engage in incest and polygamy can make the same argument: that marriage is a fundamental right that they are entitled to as a matter of substantive due process. But they are not. Marriage is not automatically extended to anyone who wishes to have it.
We already had a long discussion in the comments on last post about this argument. I am no Justice, but personally I think brother/sister marriages and polygamy should be legalized. Such activities may still be criminal in some states, but they have not yet been challenged, so far as I know, in federal court.
Again, if you are familiar with Lawrence v. Texas, I would love to know whether the incest issue is addressed in that decision.
In any case, homosexuality has been federally decriminalized in Lawrence v. Texas and that is a non-issue. The only question is marriage equality. Since marriage is a "fundamental right" according to the Supreme Court, I think the Supreme Court will be forced to mandate a minimum of civil unions for gays. But then you've got a separate but equal situation, which is unsatisfactory. So the Supreme Court will ultimately legalize gay marriage. There are legal alternatives to this, but I do not think they are likely.
That's at the federal level. At the CA state level, gay marriage in CA is already mandated by the Constitution and I think a Constitutional Amendment will only delay the inevitable.
American law simply reflects whatever most Americans want. Once upon a time slavery was legal, women could not vote, Bible was taught in all public schools, alcohol was illegal for a while, etc. This is not Torah from Sinai, this is law based on whatever society wants.
Someone like Ann Coulter is now considered extreme, but a century a go she would have been a moderate.
Do most Americans consider gay couples to be just as acceptable socially as straight couples? If so, then law will reflect that.
I however believe in an eternal legal Authority.
JP said:
"I however believe in an eternal legal Authority."
Are you referring to the "eternal" authority that would restore animal sacrifice, a caste system, death penalties by burning of idol worshippers and wood collectors on the sabbath? Or perhaps the authority that would keep menstruating women in isolation lest they defile holy objects?
I wouldn't try to claim moral superiority on that basis.
The truth is, the abovementioned "eternal" authority reflects laws and traditions derived from ancient Hebrew's absorption of, or reaction to, the various cultures surrounding them.
In the case of homosexuality it is most likely a reaction and rejection of an excepted norm in surrounding cultures, like various forms of idol worship, soothsaying or self-mutilation.
Why would the Hebrews do something different from their neighbors? For the same reason every culture develops its distinct culture, symbols and taboos.
In the case of your modern "rabbinic" judaism, your "authority" is the man-made system of halachah and is not eternal at all.
JB,
"If the broad characteristics of individual sexual preference are largely innate (strong evidence supports this)"
Yes, in the same way pedophilia has been found to be largely innate. HOWEVER, sexuality is not binodal nor necessarily permanent throughout life. There is a spectrum of sexuality and there is only a small minority of people (if any) who are purely homosexual. This is true for virtually all paraphilias. I don't think anyone *chooses* to be a fetishist, but they do decide whether to act on those impulses. And at the same time, many otherwise straight people likely could get interested in various fetishisms if they experimented more.
It's the current political sensation of the time to push sexuality as genetic and fixed when the actual scientific picture shows multifocal and variable. The same special interest groups who push this also encourage people to question their sexual orientation and support homosexual experimentation. In many circles these things are now considered *normal* for adolescent development.
Honestly, what do you think would happen if there were political support and high school clubs and such for voyeurism or frotteurism or bestiality? Little doubt more people would start being interested and identifying as such.
OP, the issue is not whether sexual preference is a spectrum or genetic. It's about when and how society can legislate about people's basic civil rights. You'll find ultimately that we are all far better off when you simply live and let live.
Once upon a time slavery was legal, women could not vote, Bible was taught in all public schools, alcohol was illegal for a while, etc. This is not Torah from Sinai, this is law based on whatever society wants.
In twenty years, you can add "gays could not marry" to this list of dumb laws. Our democracy has a way of winnowing out this kind of chaff from the grain.
Orthoprax,
To what Candyman has said, I would add that it is important to draw the distinction between consensual sexuality among adults and every other kind of sexuality.
Further, this is about so much more than sexuality. People seem to want to reduce this to inserting Tab A into Slot B. This is about love. But its about who you feel chemistry for, who gives you butterflies when you first talk to them, who you daydream about all day until you can see them that night, who becomes your best friend, who you find yourself wanting to spend your life with, who you share your deepest self with, who you find by your side when your life draws to a close after years of shared sorrows and joys.
I don't see that it's any of my business or yours to sit in judgment of that and decide whose relationships should receive government's official seal of approval.
CM,
"the issue is not whether sexual preference is a spectrum or genetic. It's about when and how society can legislate about people's basic civil rights."
I think it's about the normalization of a lifestyle which encourages people towards one end of a sexual spectrum even while they could be just as content on the other end. It discourages people away from forming normal family units with a natural father and a natural mother which I believe to have all of human history proving its benefits.
I also believe it opens the door for the normalization of other sexual deviancy. The NAMBLA people are just waiting to swing down from the political rafters.
But we've just had this debate.
JB,
"I don't see that it's any of my business or yours to sit in judgment of that and decide whose relationships should receive government's official seal of approval."
If government approval cannot be used in a way that promotes a normal family then the government should not be in the business of approving anyone's relationships.
The truth is that the government is doing nothing at all to restrict gay people from engaging in whatever sexual or loving relationships they engage in. It is simply gay activists who are seeking government approval of same in an effort to change public perceptions of their actions.
And frankly, I do not believe it serves the public good for them to have public approval.
If government approval cannot be used in a way that promotes a normal family then the government should not be in the business of approving anyone's relationships.
Amen to that.
The truth is that the government is doing nothing at all to restrict gay people from engaging in whatever sexual or loving relationships they engage in. It is simply gay activists who are seeking government approval of same in an effort to change public perceptions of their actions.
It comes back to equal protection. If the government calls my relationship to my wife a "marriage" but withholds that designation from a same-sex relationship, then we've set up a separate-but-equal status. Do we all agree that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal?
And frankly, I do not believe it serves the public good for them to have public approval.
There's an important difference between public approval and equal protection. The KKK thankfully lacks approval from the general public, yet it thankfully enjoys equal protection.
By the way, I wonder if most children in history grew up in what you call "normal" families. That's not entirely clear.
JB,
"It comes back to equal protection. If the government calls my relationship to my wife a "marriage" but withholds that designation from a same-sex relationship, then we've set up a separate-but-equal status. Do we all agree that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal?"
I don't actually since that case is just a difference in terminology, not benefits or facilities as intended by Chief Justice Warren. But secondly, I'm not certain that such relationships should be granted equal treatment in the first place. There may very well be a legitimate social interest in maintaining special standing and protection for heterosexual unions and for the children which derive from them.
This isn't just a matter of fake legal categories. Heterosexual marriage predates national law and has been a foundation of human society for thousands of years. The laws we have were intended as a means of furthering those ideals. To extend such standing to non-critical and non-central relationships would be missing the point and possibly deleterious to the goals.
"By the way, I wonder if most children in history grew up in what you call "normal" families. That's not entirely clear."
Be that as it may, I think it is clear that children do better if they do grow up in households as I've described.
In humanistic/secular ethical and legal systems, there is a huge difference between the freedom granted to behavior in privacy, and freedom to engage in victimless albeit "offensive" behaviors.
The examples previously mentioned of incest, sex with a minor, and prostitution may be private and consensual, but are absolutely not victimless, for obvious reasons. Therefore any state, legal or ethical system has an interest and responsibility to intervene, to protect vulnerable individuals from harm.
Homosexuality, on the other, is consensual, does not infringe on the rights of others, and is not based on exploitation; it is among two equals (presumably). Even if one argues that their behavior is unhealthy (debatable), this is not sufficient for a society to discriminate, any more than it does with smoking or drinking alcohol. Any argument about "public harm" from homosexuality is complete speculation and without any scientific basis.
Therefore, logically and ethically, there can be no justification for discrimination against homosexuals. America recognizes the right of Muslims to practice their faith, no matter how ridiculous their faith seems to us, as long as they don't impose it on us; so should be our attitude about homosexuality.
Homosexuality makes us straight men feel uncomfortable. I think that women are not as obsessed with or threatened by it. I don't see too many ladies commenting on this post getting red faced about it.
That it makes us uncomfortable may have many reasons, but it is not enough to justify discrimination, any more than does our squeamishness with Islam or Scientology.
Not recognizing gay union is a form of discrimination, and its hard to see it any other way. However, a legal system to a great degree has to be in sync with societal attitudes, and its hard to know how much the public is "ready" for this kind of change.
Orthoprax,
So, for example, forced segregation between Jews and non-Jews wouldn't worry you? An amendment to recognize only Christian marriages wouldn't raise your hackles?
Also, research tends to show that two parent families (of any parental gender) are superior to single parent families. Same-sex couples aren't measurably worse at parenting than different-sex couples. If we're trying to protect children, the first thing we should do is work to reduce divorce and out-of-wedlock births, not eroding the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Some great points are being made here:
jonathan,
this is about so much more than sexuality. People seem to want to reduce this to inserting Tab A into Slot B. This is about love.
Tremendous point. Well spoken.
There's an important difference between public approval and equal protection. The KKK thankfully lacks approval from the general public, yet it thankfully enjoys equal protection.
L'havdil, but another excellent point. I think that basically proves what I've been saying.
OP,
It discourages people away from forming normal family units with a natural father and a natural mother which I believe to have all of human history proving its benefits.
History proves nothing because it's never been tried the other way. Anyways, history has had many failed policies.
Ultimately, the old Talmudic dictum applies here: hamotzi maychavayro, alav ha'r'aya. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want to take away somebody's civil rights, you'll really have to prove your case.
I think it is clear that children do better if they do grow up in households as I've described.
You are basing what you think on what you'd like to believe. This is not good science.
There is good reason to believe that the children of gay parents are actually better-adjusted, simply because they are all wanted children. By contrast, many heterosexual couples have children by accident. Indeed, anecdotal evidence from cruise ship workers suggest that the children of gay parents are better behaved.
drj,
Not recognizing gay union is a form of discrimination, and its hard to see it any other way. However, a legal system to a great degree has to be in sync with societal attitudes, and its hard to know how much the public is "ready" for this kind of change.
This is completely right. As usual, old-fashioned societal attitudes are holding us back. The courts will come to the rescue, possibly, but not after much harm has been done by the majority and millions of dollars have been wasted.
CM,
"By contrast, many heterosexual couples have children by accident."
Which is a big reason *why* society ought to protect heterosexual unions especially. Unlike homosexuals which cannot have children naturally in their normal relationships, straight people can and do - and it's much better for the kids inevitably so brought into the world to have a supportive, stable home.
There is no similar public interest for homosexual relationships.
"If you want to take away somebody's civil rights, you'll really have to prove your case."
They have all the same civil rights as I do, but the state has a legitimate interest in promoting certain relationships where it doesn't have an interest in others.
If the state has an interest in producing people with science degrees and so it makes government loans more easily available for people going into the sciences, it's simply not valid for the liberal art students to demand equal protection and then start calling their earned degrees science degrees. That's not promoting civil rights, it's interfering with the state's legitimate goals.
"You are basing what you think on what you'd like to believe. This is not good science."
Normal family units are the time tested gold standard. I suspect homosexual couples can likewise be also very good, but I think the promotion of sexual deviancy is bad for that gold standard.
>The examples previously mentioned of incest, sex with a minor, and prostitution may be private and consensual, but are absolutely not victimless, for obvious reasons.
I don't think proponents of gay marriage can use the line that incest causes genetical problems as backing that insest SHOULD be excluded. They have forfeited using children as backing since that is what they use against hetero marriages. (ie, that many many heteros prefer not to have kids, yet the gov't does not restrict them).
Similarly, there are plenty of insest couples that may not want to have kids. Science in the future may totally solve this problem. And since abortion is legal, they can easily abort the fetus. Also, if you are goign to start penalizing them for what they MAY cause a future child, perhaps you should not allow ashkenazi jews to marry each other since they have a higher rate of tay-sachs. Perhaps you should not allow pregnant women to drink alcohol either.
>and freedom to engage in victimless albeit "offensive" behaviors.
There is nothing victimless. The sexual revolution of the 60's was not victimless? You do not believe, that there were great consequences that society is dealing with do to that period?
JB: Do we all agree that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal?
OP: I don't actually since that case is just a difference in terminology, not benefits or facilities as intended by Chief Justice Warren.
JB: So, for example, forced segregation between Jews and non-Jews wouldn't worry you? [This statement can be easily misread if disconnected from what followed: "An amendment to recognize only Christian marriages wouldn't raise your hackles?"]
OP: Did you even read my comment? I swear, you guys have selective reading skills.
And it seems that my statement was misread by being overly selective. :)
I'm just trying out a thought experiment here: what if the state where you lived had a constitutional amendment that established that Christian marriages could be legally called "marriages" but every other kind of marriage would be legally referred to as a "domestic partnership"? All of the same benefits are available to both, except the name "marriage". Is that OK?
But if the state recognized all religious marriages as valid and merely categorized them separately then that wouldn't bother me. If they're treated equally then what difference does it make?
I'm not sure I understand. So if the religious groups that want to solemnize same-sex marriages were allowed to, you'd be OK with that because the First Amendment requires it? :)
The point is that, as explained above, gay marriage is a political stunt based on the goal of normalizing sexual deviancy.
That's not why I support same-sex marriage nor is it the driving force for any of the other supporters that I personally know. I don't plan on marrying another man. I'm therefore not trying to normalize my own sexuality. I'm disinterested in the sexual implications. Again, I have no reason to believe this is mostly about sex. I just want to see justice done.
I will delete comments that purposely distort my own positions. I spent a considerable part of the last few weeks helping get the word out about a child molester (a rabbi, mind you - a rabbi that the Orthodox rabbinate let go free), and I don't like it when someone suggests that I condone those kinds of relationships.
>Similarly, there are plenty of insest couples that may not want to have kids. Science in the future may totally solve this problem. And since abortion is legal, they can easily abort the fetus.
It is not only about the offspring. From my understanding, it is also that sexual relationships between first degree relatives (not all of those defined in the Torah) tend to involve dysfunctional families, abuse, exploitation. Incest between freely consenting adults, not in the context of a previously exploitative relationship, is extremely rare, and cannot be used as a proof or argument for anything.
The point is that these taboos are variable across cultures and traditions, and do not represent an absolute universal morality. The boundaries of incest will be defined differently depending on the religious tradition. But the basic distinction between incest and homosexuality remains valid.
How did it come to be that we developed the taboo regarding homosexuality? Did we learn something about it through experience? Is there a psychological or evolutionary explanation, that perhaps helped to survive at one time but now does not?
I would compare it to the taboo against walking around naked. Other than for keeping warm in the cold and perhaps decorative attraction, clothes are useless. Yet the taboo in most cultures is strong. Is it about morality? Although I'm not a nudist, I would argue that it is a moral issue only insofar that it might infringe upon others or if it harms children. Other than that, its just custom.
>tend to involve dysfunctional families, abuse, exploitation. Incest between freely consenting adults, not in the context of a previously exploitative relationship, is extremely rare, and cannot be used as a proof or argument for anything.
If you are going to start using dysfuntional and abuse and all that stuff, than why not start legistlating many other things as well..one of them perhaps ANY relationship. Alcohol drinking, poverty, etc etc etc. And if its rare, than I see no problem in people caring to legalize it.
>If you are going to start using dysfuntional and abuse and all that stuff, than why not start legistlating many other things as well..one of them perhaps ANY relationship. Alcohol drinking, poverty, etc etc etc. And if its rare, than I see no problem in people caring to legalize it.
So you tell me-- why is incest outlawed??
I don't understand your argument --are you arguing that incest should be legalized?
I've made a good distinction between legal recognition of homosexuality vs. incest, and you're arguing that the reasons I've given aren't sufficient for outlawing it. Are you saying BOTH homosexuality and incest should be recognized?
>There is nothing victimless. The sexual revolution of the 60's was not victimless? You do not believe, that there were great consequences that society is dealing with do to that period?
Like what? Who were the victims?
Once can always argue against change, because of the unknown dangers of leaving the status quo. That's the classic conservative approach towards everything.
The world marcheth on, for better or for worse, and you'd better get used to it.
JB,
"JB: So, for example, forced segregation between Jews and non-Jews wouldn't worry you? [This statement can be easily misread if disconnected from what followed: "An amendment to recognize only Christian marriages wouldn't raise your hackles?"]"
Don't BS me. Such an amendment would not enforce segregation. You offered two separate ideas which I responded to separately.
"I'm just trying out a thought experiment here: what if the state where you lived had a constitutional amendment that established that Christian marriages could be legally called "marriages" but every other kind of marriage would be legally referred to as a "domestic partnership"? All of the same benefits are available to both, except the name "marriage". Is that OK?"
I get your question but it's invalid because it, as I said, demonstrates state-led religious discrimination. That kind of discrimination is wrong, other kinds of discrimination is often perfectly acceptable and others still are morally mandated.
In my analogy that got erased, can liberal arts majors call their programs of study "science" for the sake of equal treatment in the form of government benefits and the end of discrimination?
"I'm not sure I understand. So if the religious groups that want to solemnize same-sex marriages were allowed to, you'd be OK with that because the First Amendment requires it?"
I think you actually understand very well.
"That's not why I support same-sex marriage nor is it the driving force for any of the other supporters that I personally know."
I know - you guys are tools. No offense.
"I will delete comments that purposely distort my own positions."
CandyMan said, "If two siblings love each other and want to have kids together, it's OK by me."
Ergo, CandyMan is pro-incest.
http://tinyurl.com/cmfaker
Or maybe CM can use this newfound policy of his to censor more material and delete even this post. Even if he thought I was maligning his anonymous reputation, it's telling that he deleted my whole post rather than just the half a sentence I used to describe his position.
OP,
CandyMan said, "If two siblings love each other and want to have kids together, it's OK by me."
Ergo, CandyMan is pro-incest.
As long as we're clear that this is a sibling-sibling adult consensual relationship, sure. But your previous comment was responding to a point about victimless relationships. In that context, you made it sound like I supported legalizing incest between an adult and a child. As someone who spent quite a bit of the last few weeks getting the word out about a particular child molester, I didn't like the insinuation and deleted it.
As for the rest of your comment, it's oy l'rasha, oy lischaino (woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor) I'm afraid. I don't know any way to delete part of a comment.
As for brother-sister type consensual adult relationships, cases like those are rare but do occasionally come up.
OK, so I've learned about a negative No on 8 commercial with the scare music and such, but I thought it was great because it targets the Mormon church's involvement. So the No on 8 crowd isn't running a purely positive campaign.
Post a Comment