We Shall Overcome

What does it mean when the "California High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban" while "preserv[ing] the 18,000 same-sex marriages" on the books?

The gay marriage ban is Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It appears that the court is saying that Prop 8 is a valid amendment to the constitution, regardless of the fact that it requires discrimination, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno.

Because Prop 8 did not retroactively invalidate existing gay marriages, the court is allowing them to stand.

What all of this means to me is that the court will accept the will of the voters on gay marriage, but has no stomach for standing on principles, such as equality under the law.

OK fine. The trend of California voting shows increasing support for defining marriage as between two people, regardless of their sex. If we show up and vote, we will win this, no matter how much cash the Mormons pump into the campaign against us.

Miss Boo-S-A

Miss USA 2009, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina, AP


1st runner up, Carrie Prejean of California, AP

Yes, you are looking at two different women, not even twins, who sport equally fetching boob jobs. I did not actually watch the 2009 Miss USA pageant in its entirety, but tuned in for the last few minutes during the interview portion, where things got... interesting. How does one decide between two such obviously qualified Miss-USA-wannabees? Ask them a question?

Unfortunately for Carrie Prejean, Miss California, she was given the most difficult task. Her judge questioner, Prop 8 opponent Perez Hilton, asked "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Will Miss California show brains and poise to match her beauty? Here is what she said.

I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.

A few moments later, Miss North Carolina, Kirsten Dalton, got the tiara upgrade. She had been lobbed a softball during her interview and only had to say that taxpayers need not bail out failing companies.

Did Miss California shed loser tears because of her anti-same-sex marriage stance and/or the way she stated it? I am inclined to say yes, as her answer is poorly constructed and was the opposite of what Perez Hilton wanted to hear. One can imagine a more tactful response, where she doesn't say "I think that I believe" and offers up civil unions as a compromise, reserving marriage as a religious institution. Mr. Hilton would not have liked that answer either, but she might have scored for being a worthy opponent.

Update: Perez Hilton posted a video blog following the pageant where he called Miss California a "dumb bitch." According to ABC, he later apologized for the remark.

Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Towleroad has a post about the National Organization for Marriage's 'pro-family' fear-mongering zombies release gay marriage scare ad. I checked out the NOM and found this FAQ on their marriage talking points page, which attempts to give same-sex marriage opponents the answers to some awkward questions.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

They have equated "believing mothers and fathers matter" to being against same-sex marriage, which it is not. They introduce African-American opposition, which is a red herring. Pointing out that marriage is not new and asserting their conclusion (not taking away rights) does not address the question of bigotry.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Prohibiting same-sex marriage continues the stigmitization of gay couples and continues their oppression. In this way, it is similar to bans on interracial marriage. The argument about marriage being for the purpose of male/female parenting assumes that marriage is always about having children and that alternatives to male/female parenting are inferior, both invalid assumptions.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The fact that same-sex marriage opponents desire an amendment to the constitution which codifies discrimination against gay people demonstrates that they understand that such discrimination is currently unconstitutional, confirming that judicial activism in states such as California and Iowa is correct.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples does not remove any rights from anyone, as there is no right to define a word the way you wish. People who have beliefs that others find bigoted are not treated as bigots unless they act on those beliefs. Religious organizations who are acting as agents of the government by running public programs are obligated to follow public policy. If this is in conflict with their dogma, they may decline public funding and limit their bigotry to purely religious expression. The education issue is a red herring, however, if children are being taught that people may be who they are, that is a good thing. Same-sex marriage does not hold that children should not have both a mom and a dad, only that there are valid alternatives. There may be an assumption among same-sex opponents that exposing children to the idea of homosexuality may make them gay, which is of course, absurd. Finally, asserting that something is "not right" is not an argument.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Actually, marriage is a legal contract and, for some, a sacrament.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Many decades ago, we decided that "separate but equal" did not work with respect to race relations. The same is case with respect to gay people and same-sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that everyone has the same rights is to say that everyone has the same rights.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

An excellent point. The same-sex marriage opponents should be spending their time trying to make divorce illegal. I'm kidding, but hope I made a point that our legal system should not be used to enforce religious views.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

There is an assumption in this argument concerning fitness to be a parent. Who is to decide this? Are two people, who together possess male and female parts, always the best parents? Are there not other factors, such as how these people participate in the lives of their children? There was one episode of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood that I cherish where he suggests that what a child really needs is one adult who really cares about them.

9. What about older or infertile couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Again, there is the assumption of the ideal parents, which is invalid. If you accept this assumption, then it seems reasonable to deny male/female marriage to a couple who intends to neither procreate nor adopt.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Domestic Partnership Initiative

Two straight southern California college students now have an initiative in circulation which, if passed, would turn all married Californians into "domestic partners" and put government out of the marriage business. To get on the ballot, the backers must obtain 700,000 signatures by early August. Their proposed text states...

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8. (09-0003.)

This initiative appears to address the objection of gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would "redefine" marriage.

I predict that the initiative will either fail to qualify for the ballot or, if on the ballot, will fail to pass, as just about everyone has reason to not like it. Consider these objections:

1. The initiative redefines marriage by removing government support. If you are against any redefinition of marriage, you will be against this initiative.
   
2. Some fundamentalists who are against homosexuality based on their interpretation of scripture will want to maintain the status quo, which denies same-sex marriage or civil unions.
   
3. Some gay marriage supporters will not be willing to settle for a "domestic partnership" solution. They feel that they have a right to be "married", just like straight couples.
   
4. Some married straight couples will be annoyed that they will be "domestic partnered" rather than "married." If they want to regain their "married" status, will they have to have another ceremony?
   
5. Some fundamentalists will be annoyed that gay domestic partners will be able to obtain marriage from a church which is accepting of gays and lesbians.
   
6. Some who are indifferent or hostile to religion will object on the basis that the initiative is kowtowing to religion.
   
7. Not really an objection, but some married people will claim that the state has nullified their marriage and they are now divorced. I doubt their claim will stand up, but am fairly certain someone will try.

A simpler version of this initiative is to repeal Prop 8 and reinstate gay marriage. Non-governmental institutions (i.e. churches) can then issue or deny "the sacrament of man-woman matrimony" to whoever they wish.

Big Love Too?

HBO's Big Love (not actual polygamists but play them on TV)

On March 6, the California Supreme court heard oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8, which took away the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Regardless of their decision, the right to gay marriage will eventually be guaranteed to all Americans, as suggested by our progress in extending to the few those civil rights which are enjoyed by the many.

One question that occurred to me is... if we legalize gay marriage, why not do the same with polygamy?

There are two differences between gay marriage and polygamy that persuade me to allow the former while denying the latter. First, people are born gay and culture can only suppress that fact, not change it. The trend in our society is to not deny civil rights based on who we are at birth (e.g. sex, ancestry, disability). One might argue that men are hardwired for polygamy in that they seek out multiple sexual partners, however, being born with a desire to have sex with multiple women is not the same as a desire to be in concurrent marriage with the same.

Second, there is no benefit to society in denying gay marriage; in fact, there are costs, such as complicating the legal and financial situation of committed couples. Simply put, it's bad for business. On the other hand, there is benefit in denying polygamy. In past cultures where a minority of men commanded all the wealth, women may have benefited from being one of many rather than the sole wife of a pauper, however, that is not the world of today. Society suffers if men are unable to find wives. Their chances improve if other men can only marry one woman at a time.

I write about this topic because it adds to the debunking of the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then the door to the marriage tent is open to anything, including fruit salad.