After California let gays get married, the conservative wingnuts went crazy trying to find a way to overturn the ruling, going back to the old claim that when judges uphold a liberal ideal it’s legislation from the bench, but when they do it on, say, gun rights in DC it’s just protecting the Constitution.
Anyway, Proposition 8, as the proposed ban is known, has been worded so that it is said to “eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry”. Supporters, of course, are furious, claiming that they aren’t “trying to eliminate anyone’s rights.” But Attorney General Jerry Brown nails it:
“What has happened is the Supreme Court found that the right to marriage includes same-sex couples,” the attorney general said in an interview. “This happened after the original title was approved. … Now same-sex couples have a right that’s recognized and supporters of the proposition want to eliminate that right.”
Prop. 8 supporters, Brown said, “can’t say with a straight face that this isn’t about eliminating the right to gay marriage, so what’s their problem with this? This is a political lawsuit, not one about serious legal issues.”
This vote is intended solely to stop gays from marrying. It has no other purpose, and there is no way to justify it being on the ballot without confirming it. Any claims that they just want to “protect the institution of marriage” are just dishonest. Unless they feel that it needs protected from something, it doesn’t need protected. Ask ‘em about it sometime.
Some are making the analogy to abortion, that liberals would be equally angry if there was an anti-abortion proposition that said “protect the lives of unborn babies”. That’s not a fair comparison at all, in fact. That doescreate a false dichotomy, because even the most staunchly pro-choice liberals don’t want abortions to happen, but rather strongly want women to have the ability to have them when the circumstances are dire.
Prop-8 supporters, meanwhile, aren’t about choice or anything. They unequivocally want to stop gays from being allowed to marry. There is no wiggle room here. Pro-choice folks don’t revel in the idea of women having abortions, we’d rather none happen. Anti-gay-marriage folks absolutely revel in the idea of gays never ever ever being allowed to call themselves married.
The irony of right-wing bigots wanting a more “politically correct” treatment of their intolerance is so delicious I wish I could make a syrup out of it and pour it over ice cream.
You forgot to mention that they are SUING over this. SUING. Because
When gay couples can have “sexual intercourse,” then they’ll also meet the definition of the coupling regulated in the original intent of thousands of marriage laws already on the books: namely, one man and one woman.
Till then, I agree that there’s a valid equal protection argument in favor of civil unions for gays. And the honest people who would benefit from it are not served by the political agenda of those who insist on having those unions known as “marriages.”
“Civil union” or “marriage” – what’s the difference?
That’s a question you might pose to judges who say that “civil union” is not acceptable, and that gay unions must be permitted in “marriage” statutes.
Well let me ask you this: if a law was passed declaring that, from a legal standpoint, ALL unions are “civil unions”, and that “marriage” was a term doled out by churches at their discretion with no laws saying anyone is forced into, or stopped from, marrying a given couple?
Would the “civil unions and marriages are the same” crowd like it if their marriages were now civil unions? After all, according to many, they’re the same thing, and now everyone’s equal both in legal standing and in symbolism.
Excellent, Hanlon, as usual.
My question to the anti-gay-marriage folk is, what difference does it make to you if gays marry? Does that somehow threaten you? Does it lessen or negate your own relationship with your spouse? Why is it even any of your business? What are you afraid of?
Two people love each other and publicly declare their commitment to each other. That’s a marriage. Doesn’t make a damn bit of difference whether there’s a one-to-one ratio of penis to vagina or not.
Rick seems to imply up there that sexual (and by which I assume he means penis-vagina) intercourse must occur for a marriage to be valid. This is a specious argument: some people are physically incapable of performing the sex act. Does this prevent them from being married? Does this nullify a marriage?
Would the “civil unions and marriages are the same” crowd like it if their marriages were now civil unions? After all, according to many, they’re the same thing, and now everyone’s equal both in legal standing and in symbolism.
Absolutely. As a libertarian, I think that’s exactly what’s wrong with the system. I know some homophobes would still object, but I agree that they’d be wrong.
Rick seems to imply up there that sexual (and by which I assume he means penis-vagina) intercourse must occur for a marriage to be valid.
Not so fast. I’m simply stating that both sexual intercourse and marriage require a heterosexual couple by definition.
Do you hear a lot of gays referring to their sexual activity as “sexual intercourse?” Would a gay guy describe the behavior as such to his urologist (or his proctologist, as the case may be)?
The marriage argument tends to boil down to two words: “religion” and “tradition”.
As the 1st amendment states Congress shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion, it clearly means that there can be no laws on the books that are not justified beyond religion (hence we’re allowed to work on the Sabbath, despite that being part of the 10 commandments).
That leaves tradition, but that doesn’t make any sense either since there are tons of traditions, for example slavery, that we threw by the wayside because rational people realized that simply saying that’s how it always has been isn’t a good reason for much of anything.
That leaves utility, and unless someone can tell me what actual effect gay marriage has on anything, I remain unconvinced.
“Would a gay guy describe the behavior as such to his urologist (or his proctologist, as the case may be)?”
Wow, you’re hilarious.
I’m simply stating that both sexual intercourse and marriage require a heterosexual couple by definition.
Whose definition? Merriam-Webster says,
“Intercourse:
[P]hysical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person ; especially : sexual intercourse 1
Sexual intercourse:
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis.”
(So, if oral sex is not really sexual intercourse, then Bill Clinton really DIDN’T have sexual relations with that woman!)
Paul, feel free to substitute coitus if it makes you feel better. Is that still a heterosexual term?
BTW, you have to be careful with the word “intercourse.” Since dictionaries explain what words mean, “intercourse” must include a definition to explain its use in terms like “anal intercourse,” just as there is a definition under “marriage” to explain what “gay marriage” is.
Rick, you’re the one who used the word “intercourse”. I’m merely helping you with the definition, as you seem to be a bit confused.
Whether the dictionary definition includes the adjectival usages of the word is irrelevant. The definition remains. Now, if you want to further parse and refine your statement to read “coitus” rather than “intercourse”, my response is: so what?
Answer the question, where is it defined that “marriage” requires coitus, intercourse, fucking, whatever, as well as requiring a heterosexual couple, as you so boldly stated?
I didn’t say that marriage requires coitus. You should stop trying to slip those words into my mouth.
I say that coitus requires a heterosexual couple by definition. And I say that’s the same reason marriage requires a hetero couple: because that’s what the term means. When I look up “marriage” in the dictionary, the only reference to gays is a reference to explain what “gay marriage” means — something like “a relationship like a marriage, i.e. ‘gay marriage.’” But marriage itself is unambiguous where it applies to people as an institution: a man and a woman.
Perhaps you need to answer why you cannot be satisfied by civil unions that answer the question of equal protection under the law. Why must it be called marriage?
I didn’t say that marriage requires coitus. You should stop trying to slip those words into my mouth.
Dude, you SO did!!! Second comment from the top:
“When gay couples can have “sexual intercourse,” then they’ll also meet the definition of the coupling regulated in the original intent of thousands of marriage laws already on the books: namely, one man and one woman.”
My dictionary defines marriage similarly, but with a crucial difference:
“1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage). (Emphasis mine).
Just because it’s not traditional doesn’t mean squat. It’s still the state of being united to a person.
My question remains unanswered: Why SHOULDN’T it be called “marriage”? Why does calling it thus bother you so?
“When gay couples can have [coitus],” then they’ll also meet the definition of the coupling regulated in the original intent of thousands of marriage laws already on the books: namely, one man and one woman.”
Why can’t gay couples engage in coitus? Whatever your explanation is, that’s the reason they can’t be married: it’s a physical impossibility. As soon as you say “gay”, you’ve implied that the relationship is not a marriage.
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage).
Means nothing. It is the definition of marriage necessary to explain the term “same-sex marriage.” And it sure as hell is a recent addition.
Two more things. First, this:
“Perhaps you need to answer why you cannot be satisfied by civil unions that answer the question of equal protection under the law. Why must it be called marriage?”
…is not really rhetorical. Why must it be called marriage?
And finally, this thread is a perfect example of the problem. To the extent that rights are involved, I’m on your side. Civil unions — I’m all for ‘em. But you’re holding out for full-blown marriage. Sounds like I care more about actual rights than you do. What’s your agenda?
RIIIght… I’m the one with the problem. Okay.
My agenda is this: Gays are no different than anyone else. Why should they be subject to any difference in rights? Straights can marry, so can gays. If gays are relegated to “civil unions”, then marriage should be banned for all. Civil unions for everyone.
(Hey, if you really want gays to stop having sex, you should WANT them to get married. Worked for me!)
Gays can marry. When they “marry” each other, that’s not marriage. The question is why you think the wording needs to say “marriage.”
Is it really worth holding up the process, for the people with a genuine need, over the label? Sounds like the label is more important than the rights.
“Gays can marry. When they “marry” each other, that’s not marriage. ”
I hate this argument so much it gives me a nosebleed. The exact same logic states that all people would have equal rights if they were only allowed to marry within their own race. Would you also make that claim?
“Sounds like the label is more important than the rights.”
Because it’s a symbol. As long as gays cannot have a “marriage”, their status as citizens is not considered equal to that of others. It says they are a separate sect of the population from everyone else and don’t deserve the same treatment.
“Separate but equal” never really works.
You know… really, if marriages were sooooo sacred, divorce would be illegal.
Give ‘em a lil something like marriage… but don’t CALL it marriage. That’s mine. How ’bout give ‘em a lil something LIKE freedom & equality… but not really. That’s mine too.
Are you reading the words coming up on your monitor? If it’s a duck and YOU call it a rose… does that make it the same thing? *smh*
The exact same logic states that all people would have equal rights if they were only allowed to marry within their own race.
I suppose, if there was a definition of marriage that specified race.
Because it’s a symbol.
Hell, I already knew that. The question is whether the symbol is more important than the rights. And I believe it’s been made clear here who’s really interested in protecting rights and who’s interested in symbols.
And the significance of the symbol is that you seek to force it on society, with government, by using the judiciary to trump society’s control over the government.
Now you understand why referenda like Prop 8 succeed. And why gays will continue to go without survivorship. How symbolic.
Enjoy your nosebleed.
“I suppose, if there was a definition of marriage that specified race.”
Don’t change the point. You claimed gays had equal rights as straights because everyone can marry someone from the opposite sex. That’s NOT equality, that’s a false claim. Just like forcing everyone to stay within their own race. After all, that’s “equal”.
“And I believe it’s been made clear here who’s really interested in protecting rights and who’s interested in symbols.”
Just out of curiosity, whose “rights” are being trampled upon by letting gays marry? Seriously now. If you can give me one solid, honest reason that gays marrying means fuck all to anyone else’s marriage, I will 100% concede the point, say you win, and never bring the issue up again for the forseeable existence of Hanlon’s Razor.
You claimed gays had equal rights as straights because everyone can marry someone from the opposite sex.
And it’s true. What you’re seeking is equality for people who don’t actually want it — they want something different, and for some insane reason you won’t accept it until it is forced upon the public with the same name as the thing the “normals” want.
If we refused to allow gays to marry members of the opposite sex, then that would be like fobidding interracial marriage.
As for the protection of rights: I believe in civil unions, and I think gays who lack survivorship and legal kinship deserve equal protection under the law. And I’m not stupid enough to hold it hostage second to a social engineering agenda. It is those rights, held up while you demand nothing less than to have the word “marriage” redefined, that are being trampled. And it is you who will not allow them to have civil unions who is doing the trampling.
Tell you what, I had a long tirade written out, but explain to me, in plain English, what is wrong with this:
Legally speaking there is no “marriage”. Every union, gay or straight, is a “union”. The word “marriage” is given only by churches, who are free to allow whoever the hell they want to get married. Thus, no church is forced to marry gays, nor is any church barred from doing so.
From a legal protection standpoint, all are considered unions. That’s what is put on various federal forms and legal records. You can get married if you want, but it has no bearing on your life beyond the word.
After all, now we have equality AND true freedom. Everyone gets the same rights, and no one is prevented from or forced into marrying anyone they don’t want to. Remember there are lots of churches that want to marry gays. Aren’t you trampling upon their freedom of religion?
Now, tell me why THAT is in any way unfair.
Remember, it is you who noted that “marriage,” while not religious, is traditional. So that statute stays.
For those who want a civil union, but who do not seek a traditional marriage (whether homo- or hetero-) there should be a similar statute affording all the same rights.
In your pursuit of this civil union justice, why do you see the need to remove traditional marriage? Or do we add gays to marriage simply because two wrongs make a right?
I’m sorry, but it’s not the business of government to tinker with a free society just because some people’s alternate lifestyles are objectionable to others.
“I’m sorry, but it’s not the business of government to tinker with a free society just because some people’s alternate lifestyles are objectionable to others.”
Then why prevent those churches who want to marry gays from doing so? And if you can’t find the irony in saying it’s unfair to discriminate the bigoted, there’s no hope for you.
You’re not actually addressing anything any more, and your “two wrongs make a right” doesn’t even make sense because there are no “wrongs” happening here. I feel like I’ve wasted a heck of a lot of time by talking to someone who clearly has no justification for what boils down to “I don’t like gays”.
If the “Label” of marriage isn’t so important, than why is it being defended so hard?
If you think gays are fighting so hard to call it marriage, then why are you fighting so hard to not let them call it marriage?
I feel like I’ve wasted a heck of a lot of time by talking to someone who clearly has no justification for what boils down to “I don’t like gays”.
You’d have to know me to realize what a ridiculous statement that is. What’s more, I appear to be the only person around here who’s considering the actual needs of gays, instead of just pandering to a bogus notion of “equality.”
If the “Label” of marriage isn’t so important, than why is it being defended so hard?
Mainly because it’s being redefined in an effort to change the law into something that was never intended.
But, hey, you guys go ahead and keep forcing ballots on this stuff. I’m sure heterosexuals will all suddenly realize they want more exposure to homosexuality in their lives. For the children, no doubt.
Yes, gay is catching. Thank you for warning us.
Anyway, here’s the thing: You want gays to be able to get married, just not to each other, otherwise you don’t want it called “marriage”.
Wanting the same thing for all people regardless of their sexual preference, i.e., equality, is NOT a “bogus notion”.
And who are you to presume to know the needs of gays?
You’re right. I’m sure having their unions recognized and having rights of kinship and survivorship are not as important to gays as having the whole package be officially known as “marriage.” That’s the really important part, right?
No, Rick, that’s not the point and you know it. For one thing, I can’t understand why you so obstinately refuse to call a civil union between gays a marriage, even though the same civil union between straights DOES qualify, in your opinion. Why SHOULDN’T it be called “marriage”, AND have all the trappings and bells and whistles that go along with it? Why must gays be relegated to something different?
I don’t think you’ve yet to answer that.
Rick, do you even know any gay people? Be honest now. Because if you did, you’d know damn well that they want it to be called marriage and consider this “civil unions” business to be the 21st century “equal but different” whites tried to foist on the blacks.
Don’t try and play yourself to be the one looking out for their rights. It’s piss-poor misdirection and the only one you’re gonna fool is yourself.
For one thing, I can’t understand why you so obstinately refuse to call a civil union between gays a marriage, even though the same civil union between straights DOES qualify, in your opinion.
Here’s the bottom line, Paul:
It is not the government’s job to define words. And that’s doubly so when the agenda is about social engineering.
It’s government’s job to see to it that rights are protected. It’s up to free people to figure out for themselves how to get along (though I realize a full understanding of freedom is beyond the liberal mind).
Now, I don’t see gays being sent to the back of the bus, being barred at the school entrance, or being forced to drink from different water fountains. But if it happened somewhere, I also fully expect the law to step forward and intervene.
Along with all that, I don’t see gays being denied marriage licenses either — that entire concept requires someone to redefine marriage — and that someone is you. Under the traditional definition of marriage — the one in effect when all those laws were written — marriage is a hetero thing.
Regardless of what it’s called, I do see an injustice when people who care for each other cannot get the same legal successions that married couples enjoy, and I think they should be able to make those arrangements without having to get married, or in cases where the relationship is not, for whatever reason, a marriage.
And I sure as hell don’t see how that right ever became less important than the effort to have it called a marriage. Maybe one of you libs here would like to explain that.
Rick, do you even know any gay people? Be honest now. Because if you did, you’d know damn well that they want it to be called marriage and consider this “civil unions” business to be the 21st century “equal but different” whites tried to foist on the blacks.
Does anyone not know gay people, Hanlon? Be honest now.
The interesting part, Hanlon, is that we don’t talk about their “gayness.” Not even with one co-worker with whom I consider myself particularly close, someone with whom I have a lot in common and who I think of as a friend.
Now, I don’t know anyone at work who isn’t aware that this guy is gay. I guess they all magically figured it out for themselves. Well, I guess that can’t be true, because I usually don’t notice at all unless someone tells me — do you think that’s a bad thing?
But I also don’t know anybody who’d make a decision, or who’d be permitted to make a decision, about my friend’s future based on his sexual orientation. However, I can’t say that would be the case if his orientation became his identity.
Now I did have one friend who was a lesbian. You guys wouldn’t have liked her — she was extremely conservative. But the FMA absolutely tortured her. And I remember that what she really wanted was the assurance that her partner would be able to care for her daughter in the event of her death. Admittedly, she would have preferred to call it “marriage,” but the point is that where her actual rights were involved, it’s this hang-up over the wording that really stands in the way.
Finally, there’s the question of where this is all going. I think of it a little like left-handedness. Used to be, people were born left-handed, and considerable effort would be made to raise them as righties. You took the pencil from the child’s left hand and placed it in their right. I’m left-handed, but fortunately that nonsense all ended before my time.
But I do know what my writing looks like when I write with my right hand, and I’ve seen a few amputees who write like that with their left hands. And every now and then, I come across an old person who writes like that with their right hand, and I wonder how many times the pencil got moved before this person forgot they were born left-handed.
Today, though, society is more enlightened. Right-handed kids grow up right-handed as always, and left-handed kids are not required by society to change. Even though the words on the page are still written left to right. And even though government did not have to step in to “fix” anything.
Now, when a kid picks up his first toy, sometimes his parents look at each other and say, not exactly with shame, “Aw, look: he’s left-handed!”
Seriously, now: are you folks here all hoping for the day when a couple will first look at each other and say, “Aw, look: he’s gay“? Because I don’t mean to burst your bubble or anything, but that day ain’t coming.