May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upholds the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Proposition 8, approved by California voters, stands.

162 comments:

Treacle said...

Sonia will make sure this does not happen again.

Chase said...

A GREAT day for California!

Supporters of gay marriage can protest all they want today. Have at it! The more drastic and dramatic the protests, the longer it will take them to win people to their side. Heck, I may go out and join them!

Though I wish the 18,000 marriages were not "recognizable" in the state, I can live with it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sonia will make sure this does not happen again..

Does the wise Latina experience extend to the gay experience too?

Palladian said...

"Does the wise Latina experience extend to the gay experience too?"

Yes because as we all know, all "oppressed peoples" think alike and have the same goals. Just ask my angry friend Mohammed here! He's brown, he must love the gays!

AJ Lynch said...

This nomination will pose a dilemma for Titus whose paramount requirement is that a public figure be fabulous. And Sonia ain't.

michael farris said...

"Though I wish the 18,000 marriages were not "recognizable" in the state"

What a nasty thought. You really wish other people's families so much ill?

Aaron said...

Hoosier

"does the wise Latina experience extend to the gay experience too?"

Not if they are white males. Because apparently categorically none of them can relate, according to Sotomayer.

Jeremy said...

michael farris said..."What a nasty thought. You really wish other people's families so much ill?"

You're kidding, right?

Don't even think about asking Chase what he or she would really like to happen to all of the gays in America.

This was mild.

Aaron said...

on the decision, btw, i think this was pretty clearly a case where the people were sayign that the original case was wrongly decided, so those marriages should have been overturned. But given the options, the Cali Sup. Ct. didn't do anything crazy.

Chase said...

Chris Geidner (LawDork): All weekend, Twitter and the blogosphere have been abuzz with the Day of Decision rallies planned across California and the nation. Its organizers, who include Robin Tyler and Andy Thayer, state: “[I]f the court rules against us, make sure that our angry voices are heard around the nation. Anger at denying an entire group of people our civil rights is perfectly legitimate and appropriate.”

This reasoning is incomplete, misguided and horribly short-sighted, and it is my hope that marriage equality leaders like Evan Wolfson, Mary Bonauto and Andrew Sullivan would concur.

First, this is not a ruling about whether marriage equality is correct or just. This is a ruling about whether the California Constitution allows a measure like Proposition 8 to be voted into the Constitution by the people. Even if there is some overriding federal claim that marriage equality is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, it was not raised by the parties here....

Third, and most simply, this is not the righteous anger exhibited this past fall. This decision is likely to be a complex one turning one the intricacies of California constitutional law, as well as its common law history and principles of equity. That is not protest-worthy, however, so the decision will have to be simplified to the point of being unrecognizable in order to provide the tinder sought by the organizers to light the fire of protest in their attendees’ spirits....

Chase said...

Don't be a hater, Jeremy . . .

rhhardin said...

I take it that the news value is surprise at non-activism by the court.

Treacle said...

Short-term marriage. No kids. Baseball fan. Mami chula is one of us!

MadisonMan said...

the news value is surprise at non-activism by the court.

More like a data point in a long progression of data points.

Jeremy said...

Aaron said..."Not if they are white males. Because apparently categorically none of them can relate, according to Sotomayer."

And you base this assumption that she feels that "categorically none of them" (white males) can relate...to this one statement?

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

How about "old people?"

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

Jeremy said...

Chase - I'm afraid your previous statement negates any complaints you might have relating to "hate."

I'm in favor of people living their own personal lives without interference from government.

You apparently disagree.

DADvocate said...

All I can say is little old ladies with crosses better watch out!!

Quayle said...

Active Liberty as Breyer wants it, is to read the ancient document in its "modern" light, and account for the constantly changing and updated views of the citizens as to what it can mean.

But as the Iowa SC recently attempted to demonstrate, one must not look to the citizens to determine how and when they've changed their views.

Thank goodness the California Supreme Court didn't fall into that ditch.

Chase said...

I'm in favor of people living their own personal lives without interference from government.Which is exactly what Prop 8 was about. It told the "Government" - unelected judges - to let the people of California decide without interference from the government.

You implied that you know what I would really like to happen to all of the gays in America.

1) Please enlighten us.

2) You don't know me. Therefore, such a statement is an example of bigoted thinking.

So, slow down there J-man. Don't be a hater . . . .

Aaron said...

Jeremy,

"I'm in favor of people living their own personal lives without interference from government."

So if i want to sacrifice my neighbor to the god Cthulu (sp?), hey its my life, right?

How about if we are both consenting adults? is that kosher with you?

Anyway, that little bit of libertarianism wasn't on the docket today. Today was about whether the government would go out and put its stamp of approval on gay relationships. asking for approval is not exactly the same as saying "leave me alone!"

What i want is for one branch of the government not to engage in politics, to read the law as written and not as they want it to be, so that when, say, it is necessary for them to rule on a politically charged issue like say, Bush v. Gore, we can all feel confident that they gave the victory to one side or the other for the right reasons. i found it quite hypocritical that same people who advocated liberal activism for years, were so angry about Bush v. Gore. If activism is okay, what could possibly be their objection to that decision?

Anyway, today's decision was a victory for the rule of law, which is far more important than any specific issue. Its imperfect, as i mentioned before, but its a great sign of hope that this arrogant court might yet be humbled.

American Liberal Elite said...

I hate the way the left and right toss the "hater" grenade back and forth.

Lem said...

“The California Supreme Court upholds same sex marriage ban”

If this ban works its way to the Supremes… and If true that Sonia’s ‘proclivities’ do not ascribe to the missionary position.
Wouldn’t Sonia have to recuse herself?

tim maguire said...

Actually, this wasn't about getting the government stamp of approval on gay relationships, it was about getting the government stamp of "I don't care." Just like it does with straight relationships. The government has no right to an opinion one way or the other. And you know what, Aaron? If you're not in a gay relationship, then you don't either. It has nothing to do with you and is none of your business. Same for Chase, it's none of his business either.

Treacle said...

Right on, Tim Maguire. All of you straight people take a note: until you've packed fudge or had a taco supper, shut up!

Now, Tim, let's be sure we keep our opinions on having kids to ourselves.

Aaron said...

Tim

The government is not allowed to have an opinion? Since when?

So the government should equally fund communism worldwide as it funds the spread of democracy.

Nope, sorry, this is not a "leave me alone" request, this is a "do something for me" request. so that libertarian ideal has nothing to do with it.

and like i said, i am much more concerned about the rule of law than anything else.

Emily Carson said...

Keep your powder dry.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are already ginning up for a new Constituional Amendment which will if it passes supersede the old one.

And this was after the first time they took it to court to overturn a previous voter approved ban.

Like the stray dog you keep shooing away from your garbage can, they keep coming back no matter how many times you send the message that they're not welcome.

Xmas said...

The decision is 180 pages according to SCOTUSblog or How Appealing.

Eep!

I'm also hearing that invalidating Proposition 8 would have thrown the whole California Proposition system into a complete tizzy. I'm not if that sure that would have been a bad thing.

Chase said...

It has nothing to do with you and is none of your business. Same for Chase, it's none of his business either.I respect your feelings on this,tim, but the majority of Californians don't agree with you.

The government has no or limited authority over interpersonal relationships other than business, and that's the way it should be. But, the people have the right with the state acting as their agent, to determine which relationships to favor over others. And despite 60 + years of screwing up that favoring of man-woman-raising children marriage with "no-fault divorce" etc., the people still have a right to say that we all have an interest in favoring a particular social relationship above all others.

Now, the point is: do the feelings of society regarding which relationship(s) should be favored change? And should the aople have an opportunity to make that change by majority vote?

The answer is yes. I recognize that I may or will eventually lose on this proposition. I can live with that - as long as society doesn't violate my religious rights at the same time. If I run a Christian ministry - I don't, I'm just saying - then I want my right to not hire someone who's openly gay to not be forced upon me as an employee. And that is why judges such as Sonia Sotomayor are so dangerous - they will take their feelings in just such a future case and take away my rights while giving them to others.

Are you seeing my point?

TitusWantsEveryoneToBePresent said...

Thank God.

MadisonMan said...

The majority of voting Californians.

AJ Lynch said...

I apologize in advance for having an opinion but marriage refers to a man and a woman. My advice is come up with another name for gay unions.

I am OK with civil unions but better yet let's let give every individual the right to assign legal rights , etc to one otehr person regardless of sex or the nature of the relationship.

In point of fact, social security and other forms of work related benefit programs discriminate against single persons. Why should a company be allowed to give a higher value of fringe benefits to a married person than they do to a single person?

That IMO is the real human rights issue not gay marriage.

Palladian said...

"the people still have a right to say that we all have an interest in favoring a particular social relationship above all others."

And we still have the right to laugh in your fucking face for the ridiculous hypocrisy of your attitudes. We have no-fault divorce because straight people want no-fault divorce. Why don't you clean your own filthy house before you go poking your nose into ours?

I'll say it again: the government has no right and no business sanctioning, licensing or involving itself in any way with the institution of marriage between two (or more) consenting adults. Those matters should be left up to churches and civic leaders. The government should not be in the business of marriage PERIOD.

Palladian said...

"I am OK with civil unions but better yet let's let give every individual the right to assign legal rights , etc to one otehr person regardless of sex or the nature of the relationship.

In point of fact, social security and other forms of work related benefit programs discriminate against single persons. Why should a company be allowed to give a higher value of fringe benefits to a married person than they do to a single person?"

Again, it makes a mockery of rational thinking and just law for the government to concern itself with the religio-romantic institution of marriage.

If people are worried about property rights and inheritance, let them get a contract. That contract, however, should have nothing to do with their mystical romantic "union".

Palladian said...

Perhaps a better way to say it is: why should the State have the power to define marriage? Let your church define marriage! Take that power out of the hands of the supposedly non-establishment oriented State altogether.

That would cover everyone, gay, straight and otherwise.

Quayle said...

Perhaps a better way to say it is: why should the State have the power to define marriage? But Palladian, such statements, and others on each side of this debate regarding marriage, all presuppose that all forms of marriage are equally beneficial for individuals and for society, AND THIS JUST AINT SO.

Aaron said...

I finally read the whole thing, and the amazing part. not one person even acknowledges what is really going on: the Cali Sup. Ct. had engaged in rank judicial activism, and they were slapped back.

That is the real reason why this isn't a serious revision of the constitution: because gay marriage was never in it in the first place. And this is the reason why the amendment should lawfully have applied retroactively: because it was never really in the constitution ever. but now the Cali SC, having created this mess doesn't want to concern itself with cleaning it up themselves.

Amazing, the arrogance on display.

Chase said...

palladian,


I am not a hypocrite because I am straight and it was straight people who wanted no-fault divorce anymore than you would be a hypocrite for decrying priests who molest boys. Just because you are gay doesn't make you responsible for the faults of other gay people.


Caveat - spare us the bullshit about such priests not being gay - no one buys it anymore.

I decry no-fault divorce.

But - society has for thousands - yes with success and failure - THOUSANDS of years landed upon the man-woman-child mfamily arrangement as the building block of a healthy society. You and I didn't create that and you and I can't change the facts.

What you and I can do is calmly discuss why that may or may not continue to be a good thing, and the majority will win. Society changes - i can accept that. But the fact that I have an opinion about having a narrow definition of marriage that doesn't jibe with yours doesn't make me a bigot or wrong.

AJ Lynch said...

Marriage has been defined by history for years and years as a man and a woman.

If the states cease to offer marriage licenses, I am OK with that. I don't think it makes sense to call a gay union "marriage".

And I am OK with giving everyone the option of naming their estate beneficiary, their medical care designee, etc.

I oppose extra fringe benefits for families. I say give every employee (even fat smokers) the same dollar amount to spend for benefits.

Cedarford said...

tim maguire said...
Actually, this wasn't about getting the government stamp of approval on gay relationships, it was about getting the government stamp of "I don't care." Just like it does with straight relationships. The government has no right to an opinion one way or the other. And you know what, Aaron? If you're not in a gay relationship, then you don't either. It has nothing to do with you and is none of your business. Same for Chase, it's none of his business either.
.


As a society, we have a right to set social norms and customs. And codify part of that into law. We say no polygamous or polyandrous marriages. We say no inhumane treatment of animals - even if it occurs entirely on private property with animals owned by the offender because it simply BOTHERS the rest of us.

Since existing laws on marriage force others into the equation and be required to participate in honoring it or according special privileges in a way that many "moral and social norms" we have in law do not, society has an even greater right to a say in who is accepted in marriage than we do about, again, purely private animal cruelty...

It is hard to say "it is none of our business when:

1. We have to honor the right of a gay couple showing up at our bed and breakfast to a room like married heteros.

2. Equal rights to compete for child adoptions as a married normal couple. Or becoming foster parents of "troubled teens".

3. Extra health benefits mandated by employers.

4. Coercion for each of us to honor the moral imprematur that since Judeo-Christians, Hindus & Muslims believe sex within a marriage is morally acceptable and to be honored without question, we must honor gay mariage. As Good in our God's eyes if it occurs within marriage. And if we interpret our religion to say gay sex is still abnormal and undesirable - then we get exposed to various "discrimination lawsuits" that are decided on secular grounds:

1. American travel agency for Israel vacations and Holy Land pilgrimages will not book gay married couples because Orthodox rabbis in Israel object. Travel agency sued since they book other married couples.

2. NGO run by a black evangelical group that tries to encourage marriage in the black community and allocate limited housing to help young couples with kids or planning on kids - starting out - has to give equal consideration to two gay party guys who get married, or lose their state and Federal funding.

Synova said...

I'm glad that the courts upheld the will of the people... because they should do that unless it's a clear issue of constitutionality. That's what *democracy* means, after all.

And if someone is going to be *angry* about it all, maybe they should consider that they have failed to make their case and reconsider their arguments.

Is it all about "rights" when there are any number of people who do not have the "right" to marry the person they love?

Or is it about "marriage" and the interest of the State in regulating cooperative domestic partnerships?

"If people are worried about property rights and inheritance, let them get a contract. That contract, however, should have nothing to do with their mystical romantic "union"."

And "mystical romantic unions" are a modern concern and relatively recent development when it comes to marriage. The breakdown of marriage is probably due as much to the fetishization of that mystical romantic union as anything else. Don't feel "romantic" anymore? Go get a no-fault divorce and let society pick up the pieces supporting single mothers and children from broken homes. Because nothing else matters. You have a "right" to be with the person you love?

In point of fact, social security and other forms of work related benefit programs discriminate against single persons. Why should a company be allowed to give a higher value of fringe benefits to a married person than they do to a single person?Because people who take on the burden of financially supporting other people really do contribute to society. A "single" person hasn't done that.

Any support between the people in a family is support that doesn't involve government, welfare, or taxes.

It's not just supporting children to adulthood but also an incredible amount of unpaid volunteer labor, caretaking, and mutual support. Women sometimes make jokes that they need a "wife"... but the funny thing about that is that everyone really does need a "wife". We all need someone there to drive us to the doctor or pick up groceries or heat the chicken soup or help with rent or the mortgage or walk the dog or toss in a load of laundry or just simply *help out* with life.

Palladian said...

"But Palladian, such statements, and others on each side of this debate regarding marriage, all presuppose that all forms of marriage are equally beneficial for individuals and for society, AND THIS JUST AINT SO."

OH IT AINT IS IT?

Is heterosexual marriage beneficial for individuals and society? Maybe some. But it seems your society is falling apart without the nefarious influence of widespread gay marriage rights. How do you account for this?

"I say give every employee (even fat smokers) the same dollar amount to spend for benefits."

Hey I'm a fat smoker! Bacon is just not the same unless it's well smoked!

According to Cedarford, I'm a salami smoker as well.

J said...

"And this was after the first time they took it to court to overturn a previous voter approved ban"

Do you mean the appeal of Prop 8, or the effort to repeal 22? Prop 8 was a direct response to the court striking down a previous voter approved gay marriage ban (Prop 22).

I actually think an initiative permitting gay marriage could pass at some point, since I think a significant percentage of the Prop 8 yes vote was a giant middle finger to the state supreme court from people who couldn't care less about gay marriage. Californians intensely dislike judges who overturn initiatives, and I still wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of them get fired over the Prop 22 ruling, especially if the gay rights movement persists in trying to use the courts for this sort of thing.

Palladian said...

"1. American travel agency for Israel vacations and Holy Land pilgrimages will not book gay married couples because Orthodox rabbis in Israel object."

Wow, I'm surprised that you aren't friendlier to the Joos, C-fud! I guess the enemy of your enemy your friend.

What's worse, monogamously coupled faggots or filthy stinking Jews, Cedarford?

I'm sure you have a couple dozen more paragraphs in you on the subject.

Randy said...

Hearty congratulations to Chuck B., whose contract was upheld as legally valid this morning.

Revenant said...

Interestingly, it seems likely that a new proposition repealing Prop 8 will be possible as early as next year. Voters are currently split on the issue, but the state trend is in favor of gay marriage.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

"Interestingly, it seems likely that a new proposition repealing Prop 8 will be possible as early as next year. Voters are currently split on the issue, but the state trend is in favor of gay marriage."

And it may pass because there won't be nearly as many black and hispanic voters at the polls as there were when Obama was on the ticket with Prop 8.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Like the stray dog you keep shooing away from your garbage can, they keep coming back no matter how many times you send the message that they're not welcome.

Nice one, "Emily." By your analogy, you just called yourself a piece of garbage. And based on your overall comment, I'd say that's probably accurate.

That being said, the court did the right thing today. But not to worry, Prop 8. will be overturned...it's only a matter of time before the old bigots die off and the young voters (who favor gay marriage by over 60%) replace them.

AJ Lynch said...

Synova:

Your argument suggests single people are not already doing many of those things like supporting and helping others. I know you would agree that is not the case.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

And it may pass because there won't be nearly as many black and hispanic voters at the polls as there were when Obama was on the ticket with Prop 8.

Excellent point. I'm looking forward to November 2010.

AJ Lynch said...

Palladian is a fat smoker. Hah.
I put on some pounds after I quit smoking.

You can't win I tell you.

Roost on the Moon said...

Palladian is great on this issue.

From the 4:45 mark in this video, a good libertarian argument against prop 8:

"The Christian church is not unanimous on this. Some churches want the right to marry gays and lesbians, and that's an important point; what about their religious freedom? ...

So here is the anti-gay position:

Government dictating who churches can marry
= religious freedom

Churches deciding who they will marry
= violation of religious freedom

Does that seem right? Reverse it. Doesn't that make more sense? ...

If (you) believe that marriage is primarily a sacred institution, ask yourself whether you believe that government should be in the business of deciding what is sacred, or if that decision should be left to churches, their clergy, and their faith. Support Religious Freedom. Support Gay Marriage."

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Though I wish the 18,000 marriages were not "recognizable" in the state, I can live with it.

So glad you can "live" with it. I'd hate for you to, you know, fuck off and die.

Revenant said...

And it may pass because there won't be nearly as many black and hispanic voters at the polls as there were when Obama was on the ticket with Prop 8.

Yep, that should help a lot too.

Palladian said...

"it's only a matter of time before the old bigots die off and the young voters (who favor gay marriage by over 60%) replace them."

But it's not just them, as I said. It's also the Hispanic and black voters who are liberal on other policy issues but tend extremely conservative on social issues, especially this one. You've got a dilemma. All those voters are your peeps, Zach. They're completely reliable Democrats. The Democrat party is not going to alienate them, because if they did, they'd lose. Your President supports Prop 8 in essence as well. Who do you support?

I have this same problem when I vote.

Revenant said...

The Christian church is not unanimous on this. Some churches want the right to marry gays and lesbians, and that's an important point; what about their religious freedom?

They have complete freedom to marry gay couples. The state just won't recognize the marriages, that's all. Nobody is forbidding them from having the ceremony. They'll be married in the eyes of God, just not in the eyes of California.

The fear from religious conservatives is different. They fear that they will be FORCED to marry gay couples. Given the pre-existing legal trends they've got good reason to fear that.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Your President supports Prop 8 in essence as well. Who do you support?

Well, for all his flaws, Obama did come out publicly against Prop 8 last November, but it was too little too late.

I don't support any of these fucks right now. I am angry.

Palladian said...

"Palladian is a fat smoker. Hah. I put on some pounds after I quit smoking."

To clarify, I smoke meats not my lungs.

Synova said...

"Your argument suggests single people are not already doing many of those things like supporting and helping others. I know you would agree that is not the case."

On the one hand it's formalized, on the other hand it's not. There's value to the formalized sort of inter-personal support and formalized financial inter-dependencies.

I agree it's not always *fair*, but it's not true, either, that society in general doesn't benefit from families or have an interest in supporting families. And that is one thing that providing tax breaks and employee benefits does, is promote a financial benefit from forming those sorts of financial and legal dependencies between people in order to encourage people to enter into them.

It's sort of one of my pet peeves... now, I'd be happy enough if the government was out of it, but the arguments by single people, and particularly "child-free" people, that they do not benefit from the fact that *other* people have and support children is just wrong. If nothing else, a constant renewing of the work force makes society possible. And I figure that no one should feel like they have to have kids... but they should be glad rather than pouty that other people are willing to do it.

No-fault divorce sort of trashes the whole "build something together" and "someone to count on in bad times" element of the whole business and we've come all the way to a place where "stay together for the children" is seen as archaic and utterly misguided so maybe we *aren't* benefiting as a society to any meaningful degree any longer. I mean... I'd make the argument that the mutual support of a marriage (by whatever name) is beneficial to all of us even when children aren't involved (as with gay couples) but who can even argue that marriage is for the support of *children* anymore, when "staying together for the kids" is seen as something people should NOT do?

Chase said...

'd hate for you to, you know, fuck off and die.Why all the hate, Zach?

Palladian said...

"Why all the hate, Zach?"

As if you didn't know. Your flippant attitude toward people's real relationships, regardless of your position on the issue, is inflammatory and mean spirited.

Palladian said...

"They have complete freedom to marry gay couples. The state just won't recognize the marriages, that's all. Nobody is forbidding them from having the ceremony. They'll be married in the eyes of God, just not in the eyes of California.

The fear from religious conservatives is different. They fear that they will be FORCED to marry gay couples. Given the pre-existing legal trends they've got good reason to fear that."

The State should not be in the marriage business. It's completely obvious.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The majority of voting Californians.

Yes? You have a point here? If people can't be bothered to vote or are ineligible to vote (illegal aliens, under age) they don't get to complain.

AJ Lynch said...

Synova:

I stronly support and believe families should get a substantial tax credit for their minor children.

But I do believe businesses and social security discriminate against single people re benefit and retirement plans. IMO, it is curious that the gays have never pursued these avenues for civil rights or discrimination potential.

chickenlittle said...

...no one should feel like they have to have kids... but they should be glad rather than pouty that other people are willing to do it.

I'd like to second that Synova.

Excellent point. I'm looking forward to November 2010.

Don't count your chickens just yet Zach; November 2010 may turn out to be a really bad backlash election against Dems and their agenda. You're better off pushing hard and fast for next spring.

Revenant said...

I agree it's not always *fair*, but it's not true, either, that society in general doesn't benefit from families or have an interest in supporting families.

The statement "society has no interest in supporting families" is not provably true, certainly. But neither is the statement "society has an interest in supporting families". And it *certainly* hasn't been proven that the society benefits from having the *government* provide such support.

Maxine Weiss said...

I agree with Palladian: Government needs to get out of the marriage business.

However, the anti-Prop 8 people ran a bad campaign to begin with, and they aren't entitled to a do-over.

It's the little things, like bombing Mormon churches, and putting Sarah Palin in a noose which, no doubt, annoyed the Republican women judges who were nice enough to originally allow same-sex marriage last year.

Hey anti Prop 8 campaigners: Next time, don't bite the hand that feeds you !

Revenant said...

But I do believe businesses and social security discriminate against single people re benefit and retirement plans.

They discriminate against us in layoffs, too, although I've been fortunate in that respect. But I've had managers tell me "I need to let X go, but he's got a family to support". Implicit in that is "if X was single, his ass would be gone by now".

Revenant said...

The State should not be in the marriage business. It's completely obvious.

I certainly think it is obvious, but it is equally obvious that the vast majority of Americans who either are or expect to be party to a monogamous heterosexual marriage are not going to voluntarily surrender their status as first-class citizens. Name a special interest group that ever voted to end its benefits. :)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That being said, the court did the right thing today. But not to worry, Prop 8. will be overturned...it's only a matter of time before the old bigots die off and the young voters (who favor gay marriage by over 60%) replace them.

ZPS just hit on the crux of the matter. It was about the voters and activist Courts overturning the will of the voters.

As someone said it was a big middle finger to the court system.

If/when the voters (not the courts) make a decision in the opposite, legalizing same sex marriage, the voters will accept the verdict as adults. Unlike the whining tantrum throwing we see now from the losing gay activist groups.

AJ Lynch said...

Rev:

I agree and would add this. Employers are lees concerned with singles and/ or those who are married but without kids. I and some co-workers worked like a maniac on one project and they just assumed my wife would not mind as much since we had no kids. They were more accomodating to people with kids.

rcocean said...

So glad you can "live" with it. I'd hate for you to, you know, fuck off and die.Just the kind of attitude that will win votes in 2010.

I don't understand the opposition to Gay marriage, but I'm glad this end run around democracy was stopped.

AJ Lynch said...

So the next big question is which party will benefit more from a gay marriage ballot inititive in California in 2010?

Las Vegas set odds and take bets.

Jeremy said...

Chase - "The government has no or limited authority over interpersonal relationships other than business, and that's the way it should be. But, the people have the right with the state acting as their agent, to determine which relationships to favor over others."

So if a state's citizens decide they don't want blacks to marry whites, etc....that's okay with you?

AJ Lynch said...

Typo:

I meant to type "Las Vegas SHOULD set odds and take bets".

Chase said...

Your flippant attitude toward people's real relationships, regardless of your position on the issue, is inflammatory and mean spirited.Seriously, palladian - how so?

I am not asking this flippantly - here are 2 serious questions, and they're not "got ya's"

1) If someone can receive today all legal benefits of marriage - civil union - even federal government recognition of such unions with all benefits equivalent to current spousal benefits and yet not have the term married - why is that not acceptable?

2)Seriously - should we allow loving relationships of immediate family members? Say, a brother and his half sister get married? A mother who feels so deeply about her love relationship with her son? Is it insensitive to deny their love relationship and their desire to have the state recognize it as the equivalent of other marriages?

I know that you are a far better user of language than I am - I cannot match you for wit or clearness. But I really want to know what you think about these things.

Palladian said...

"I don't understand the opposition to Gay marriage, but I'm glad this end run around democracy was stopped."

I think it's possible for a supporter of gay marriage rights to come to the same conclusion. I don't support gay marriage rights because I don't support any marriage "rights". As I've said here several times, it's not in the power or purview of the State to grant or deny such institutions.

I await the day that gay marriage, if that's what the people of California want, is decided by ballot rather than by judicial fiat. But it will be a false victory, as the problems, contradictions and inanities will continue until marriage is left to the people and their churches rather than imposed and run as a revenue racket by the State.

Jeremy said...

DBQ - "Unlike the whining tantrum throwing we see now from the losing gay activist groups."

I think one of the real complaints relate to how the push toward Prop 8 was really via the millions of dollars spent on disingenuous TV and Radio ads, mostly paid for by the Mormon church in Utah, was the crux of what you describe as "whining."

And if you think 48% of the voters in California can be described as "gay activists" you're crazy.

Jeremy said...

Palladian - "I don't support gay marriage rights because I don't support any marriage "rights"."

Things like property rights, inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights?

Silly things like that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And if you think 48% of the voters in California can be described as "gay activists" you're crazy

I never said any such thing.

48% of the voters are not throwing temper tantrums, marching in the street, egging churches or anything else. Not all people who voted against Prop 8 were gay, of course. Just as not all people who voted for Prop 8 are homophobic.

Synova said...

"So if a state's citizens decide they don't want blacks to marry whites, etc....that's okay with you?"

So, if a state's citizens decide that they don't want brothers and sisters to marry... that's okay with you?

So, if a state's citizens decide that they don't want first cousins to marry... that's okay with you?

So, if a state's citizens decide that they don't want people to marry more than one person... that's okay with you?

The legal limitations on *who* one may marry are numerous and have varied over time. The degree of blood relation that disqualifies a potential mate has varied. At times a legal relation... say, step-sibling or mother-in-law or step-parent, disqualifies marriage.

Either the State, responsive to the will of its citizens, has a *right* to limit who may marry or it does not.

If it *does*... why the approval to limit the parties in a marriage to two, or not to allow cousins of various degrees to marry? It turns out that it's a medical/genetic fact that the more closely related people are the more likely they are to fall in love... or at least severe lust... with each other. (Which living together in childhood circumvents.)

Are you opposed to people marrying the person they *love*?

Synova said...

"I think one of the real complaints relate to how the push toward Prop 8 was really via the millions of dollars spent on disingenuous TV and Radio ads,"

If all it takes is millions of dollars spent on television ads...

Does that make Obama's election illegitimate? He only outspent McCain by 2 to 1.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."If all it takes is millions of dollars spent on television ads...Does that make Obama's election illegitimate? He only outspent McCain by 2 to 1."

It illustrates my point exactly. The people who donated money to Obama's campaign supported him for President of "their country."

If you think that's somehow comparable to a religious organization located in another state, sponsoring a Prop that has no bearing on their own citizens, but on those of another state... think you're just arguing for argument's sake.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."So, if a state's citizens decide that they don't want brothers and sisters to marry... that's okay with you?"

You connote incest and polygamy with interracial marriage?

That's rather bizarre.

Chase said...

So if a state's citizens decide they don't want blacks to marry whites, etc....that's okay with you?

This is by far the most tired argument of all - my wife is black and she HATES - like so many other blacks - when race is equated with sexual proclivities.

We have a family - we provide the next generation. It was before the surrogate farming system began. The basic building block of any healthy society - the providing for and raising of healthy active citizenry - has been stable, healthy families. That fact hasn't changed one bit though society itself has changed in how it chooses to form those families. While adoption has always had some form of availablility for couples who desire children, the advent of baby farming (surrogates, implatations, octoplusso drugs) has been both a boon and a bane to the purpose of raising that active citizenry.

Add to that the changes in opportunities for women outside the home - a recent development of just the last 60 years of modern history, and the removal of sexual stigmatization (adultery, divorce) and the "institution" of marriage has seen a few changes.

Add still more things - the loss of regular family connections - the nightly dinner table, the overwhelming variety of electronic (read minus physical touch) communications and the family that raises the healthy engaged citizenry is not what it was even a generation ago.

Now before you decry my as someone who looks back for the "good old days?", don't think for a minute that I don't see most of these things as advancements in some way or another. Society has also produced a living standard for the average American that was unthinkable just 35 years ago. That has it's good points.

And, relationships have changed, there's no denying that.

But the wrong lesson I believe is being applied here from the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. OUr distance from that time allows us to believe that progress was made because people then were either right or wrong - for equality or bigots. The truth is not like that at all - the movies give us way too many heroes who defeat every one else as if the KKK was 60 million strong. The reality is that people - good people - struggled with issues in ways that allowed them to think and come to what eventually were the right for society conclusions. Put this down for one example - Martin Luther King never considered John F Kennedy to be a friend of civil rights. But that isn't the way we tend to think of it today do we? How quickly we forget.

People can have honest questions and thoughts about the rightness or wrongness of even big issues and not be "bigotted" because they disagree with what seems so obvious to someone else. There is a place for disagreement and even protest. But the arrogance that thinks it can win at the ballot box by just getting enough of "us" against the bad people won't last. If you can win that way, it can be taken back from you again.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."I never said any such thing."

This is exactly what you said:

"Unlike the whining tantrum throwing we see now from the losing gay activist groups."

48% of the vote was cast by those against Prop 8.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you think that's somehow comparable to a religious organization located in another state, sponsoring a Prop that has no bearing on their own citizens

Surprise!! Mormons live in California.

In addition there is no relevance as to whether the money or support came from in the State of California or outside of it. The subject of the election pertained to the core principles of the religious group.

No one seemed to be too concerned about the foreign contributions to Obama's campaign when that itty bitty scandal reared its head.

Revenant said...

48% of the voters are not throwing temper tantrums, marching in the street, egging churches or anything else.

The ads against Prop 8 were so obnoxious that I'm personally convinced they caused its passage.

Even some of the ones that weren't obnoxious in content were obnoxious for other reasons. For example, I heard a radio ad against Prop 8 that was sponsored by the teachers' union. My immediate thought was "what the FUCK business is it of the teachers' union whether or not there's gay marriage in California?".

If I had been undecided, that sort of nonsense would have pushed me to support Prop 8, under the "any bill that offends this many assholes must be good" theory. :)

Michael McNeil said...

But not to worry, Prop 8. will be overturned… it's only a matter of time before the old bigots die off and the young voters (who favor gay marriage by over 60%) replace them.

It could be true, and no doubt thinking so is comforting to gay marriage supporters who lost this round — however, one should also keep in mind that much the same has been said for decades with regard to abortion “rights,” but (as another thread here noted quite recently) things have changed to the point where a majority of the population now opposes abortion in this country.

(I'm not among them, mind you — at least where early-term abortions, before an advanced brain [beyond the autonomic nervous system, which merely keeps the heart beating and the like] has developed in the fetus, are concerned. But I certainly do vehemently oppose that form of legalized infanticide known as “partial birth” abortion. If a baby is ready and able to survive out in the world, then let it be born — don't kill it.)

Such a socio-historical progression could also occur with gay marriage. History and time will tell the tale.

Quayle said...

Is heterosexual marriage beneficial for individuals and society? Maybe some. But it seems your society is falling apart without the nefarious influence of widespread gay marriage rights. How do you account for this?

With resepct, I just can not support your argument that since the most socially beneficial arrangement is being rejected that we should let everyone do any arrangement.

The evidence is indisputable. Single and marry-go-round parent homes significantly raise the children’s risk of being in poverty, poor school performance, higher levels of anxiety and depression, drug use, later drug addition, jail, and the list goes on.

While it is true that many of these effects appear to be mitigated by the wealth of the single parent, that fact is somewhat misleading because divorce and single parenthood themselves correlate with lower levels of wealth.

So, my response to your very correct analysis of heterosexual marriage is that we need to fix our two parent, mixed gender marriage.

Yet given the proven high degree of correlation between social ills and family stability and health, I struggle to understand how could one propose such an experiment as gay marriage and call it at all rational, particularly when history has no relatively substantial evidence of gay marriage ever producing or maintaining social benefits at all?

That's like saying that we have no experience and no data to suggest that compound Z is stable and can sustain weight, but we like Z so let's just start using it for building foundations, and we'll find out.

And how, exactly, would that grand experiment work in society’s best interests?

Chase said...

I think one of the real complaints relate to how the push toward Prop 8 was really via the millions of dollars spent on disingenuous TV and Radio ads, mostly paid for by the Mormon church in Utah, was the crux of what you describe as "whining."That canard is so old it stinks>

The lying side was the anti-8 side.

If you want to live that argument again, bring it on. Frankly, I'm tired of winning that argument every time.

I expect plenty of lying, misrepresentation and Machiavellian "by any means necessary" this next time since those who push this kind of activism are willing to make a court tell us what to do. It's going to be ugly. Real ugly.

Jeremy said...

Chase said..."This is by far the most tired argument of all - my wife is black and she HATES - like so many other blacks - when race is equated with sexual proclivities."

First of all I never "equated" race with sexual proclivities.

I merely asked a question relating to this posting from you:

"The government has no or limited authority over interpersonal relationships other than business, and that's the way it should be. But, the people have the right with the state acting as their agent, to determine which relationships to favor over others."

To which relationships are you referring in the context of this statement, and why couldn't it include interracial marriage?

And to "favor over others" are you referring?

Jeremy said...

Chase - "The lying side was the anti-8 side."

Bullshit and you know it.

The scare tactics implemented by the Prop 8 supporters has been well documented and any informed voter who lives in California knows it.

The real question is this: How does a married gay couple effect any heterosexual couple's lives in any way, shape or form?

The entire argument is based in religion.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Synova: You are truly a fucking idiot. Comparing a gay relationship to an incestuous relationship is offensive, not to mention completely ignorant. You're a piece of shit and I hope everyone here remembers that every time they see your ugly fat face posting comments. True trash, you are.

You probably think you're so smart, using the tired slippery slope argument that has been debunked, laughed out of modern, rational discussion, and altogether rejected by the majority of Americans. But in reality, you are a fucking knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing stain on this blog, and a stain on the human race.

I hope you end up with gay kids, and they hate your fucking guts.

Synova said...

"You connote incest and polygamy with interracial marriage?

That's rather bizarre.
"

It's not any more bizarre than comparing interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, which you did.

That you now recognize the comparison as "bizarre" I can only see as an improvement.

Besides which, marrying cousins is not "incest". Nor is it invitation to some genetic horror show. Also, unlike same sex marriage, it has a history of being legally and socially acceptable.

Also, polygamy is presently legal and Historically present in a large variety of cultures. How is polygamy so shocking and horrible?

(Even polyandry has more Historical precedence than same sex marriage, though in some cultures a person of one gender could take on the identity of the opposite gender and set up house-keeping that way.)

Race, compared to the reality of male/female difference, doesn't even exist except as a social construct. The obvious "proof" against those who want to view racial differences as significant rather than as incidental regional variations, is that all humans reproduce with each other.

Chase said...

I merely asked a question relating to this posting from you:

"The government has no or limited authority over interpersonal relationships other than business, and that's the way it should be. But, the people have the right with the state acting as their agent, to determine which relationships to favor over others."

To which relationships are you referring in the context of this statement, and why couldn't it include interracial marriage?

And to "favor over others" are you referring?
Fair enough.

Back after a dinner date.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."Surprise!! Mormons live in California."

No kidding?

I live in a city that has plenty, but they weren't the overwhelming financial supporters of Prop 8.

The money came in from Utah and anybody who takes the time to read knows it, too.

Jeremy said...

Chase - I knew you couldn't answer those questions.

Talk, talk, talk.

Palladian said...

"I hope you end up with gay kids, and they hate your fucking guts."

You might want to tone it down a little, honey.

You lost this because you though emotionalism would work. It doesn't. Stop whining, stop chanting, stop cursing people and get out there and do the gay marriage thing right next time (2010?): on the ballot, with legitimacy.

michael farris said...

"all humans reproduce with each other"

If marriage is supposed to be about reproduction you should be in favor of fertility testing ahead of marriage and not allowing infertile people to marry.

If you're a hypocrite you can find some rationalization why infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry and same sex couples shouldn't.

michael farris said...

"my wife is black and she HATES - like so many other blacks - when race is equated with sexual proclivities."

She - like so many other blacks - must really HATE Coretta Scott King.

michael farris said...

While here, those who say that marriage is all about children must certainly disapprove of our charming hostess's upcoming nuptials which will almost certainly not involve any new children coming into the world.

Revenant said...

Synova: You are truly a fucking idiot. Comparing a gay relationship to an incestuous relationship is offensive, not to mention completely ignorant.

Taking offense is not a counterargument.

Synova is correct that there is no argument that there is a RIGHT for gay people to marry that still allows for a ban on consensual incestuous marriage. Either adults have the right to (mutually consensual) marriage with the person they love... or they don't.

If they do, then you can't rationally bar brothers from marrying sisters. If they don't then voters are free to forbid men from marrying other men.

Revenant said...

The obvious "proof" against those who want to view racial differences as significant rather than as incidental regional variations, is that all humans reproduce with each other.

Um, Synova... that doesn't prove anything at all, other than that all humans are members of the same species. It certainly doesn't rule out certain sub-populations of humans being substantially different from each other in significant ways. Consider, by way of example, that a toy poodle can reproduce with a timber wolf -- but there are, to put it mildly, some inherent mental and physical differences.

Michael McNeil said...

While here those who say that marriage is all about children must certainly disapprove of our charming hostess's upcoming nuptials which will almost certainly not involve any new children coming into the world.

Didn't hear about the presently pregnant sixty-six year old, hm?

Synova said...

ZPS, stop thinking with your d*ck.

Seriously. Get a paper-bag and breathe into it for a while.

The *fact* is, that the argument that people in LOVE have the right to marry... I should say, "Right" to marry, is not supported in any way whatsoever by *anything*.

To argue, "I should be able to marry the man I love, *because* I love him!" is to make an utterly stupid argument.

Equating sexual orientation with *race* in relation to marriage is also a completely stupid argument, as though everyone has a *Right* to marry whoever they love. It's entirely bogus. People do not have a *Right* to marry whoever they love.

To get the vapours if someone mentions polygamy, as if polygamy were some scary boogie-man of horror is also stupid. The "one man, one woman" argument, as if that is some Historical standard, is entirely bogus. It's not even a Biblical standard. Polygamy is an Historical norm, for Pete's sake.

As for incest... yes, it's a huge taboo and major gross besides... but it turns out that it is TRUE that people closely related are attracted to each other UNLESS they've been raised together from babies. Why get emotional about that? I think it's rather tragic, actually. (Child sexual abuse being an entirely separate issue from adults meeting siblings or parents that they never knew.)

And while laws against marrying relatives may start with entirely gross and obvious icky-poo disgusting parents and siblings... they do, at some point, end entirely arbitrarily at some degree of cousin-relations.

And while we can pretend that our arbitrary rules have something to do with not wanting kids born with three arms and twelve toes... it just doesn't work that way.

The rules are, in fact, arbitrary and limiting.

And we can discuss what these arbitrary rules and limitations ought to be. Just so long as people don't have fainting spells any time someone refuses to pretend that all the limitations on marriage are entirely reasonable and could never possibly be changed *except* for the limit on same-sex marriage, which supposedly isn't like any of the other arbitrary limitations at all.

Michael McNeil said...

She — like so many other blacks — must really HATE Coretta Scott King.

One can hate it when a false argument is used, without hating the person who makes it.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Stop whining, stop chanting, stop cursing people...My disgust with Synova has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with her comparing gay relationships to brothers and sisters fucking. She may as well join the Westboro Baptists.

Revenant said...

My disgust with Synova has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with her comparing gay relationships to brothers and sisters fucking.

Yes, Zach, we all know it offends you. Every time it comes up, you throw a screaming temper tantrum about it. What you never, ever do is offer a rational argument why she's wrong.

Curious, that.

Synova said...

"If you're a hypocrite you can find some rationalization why infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry and same sex couples shouldn't."

Except that I'm not looking for a reason. I don't think that children are the only purpose of marriage or of creating a family.

I simply think that the arguments against interracial marriage hinge on the question "what is race" and that the answer is that race is an illusion (even if variation is not.) And the answer to that is that people are entirely fertile across races. Biology says "yes" even if some bigot somewhere bemoans the loss of racial purity or worries that children with one white parent might miss out on their racial heritage.

That says nothing at all about the need for any particular couple to reproduce to make a legitimate family. Marriage does have a purpose. Maybe when people figure out what that purpose *is* they'll be able to persuasively argue in favor of non-traditional marriages.

michael farris said...

Coretta Scott King: ""Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

A challenge for non homophobic opponents of same sex marriage. How many nice things can you say about gay people, individually and collectively?

michael farris said...

"Marriage does have a purpose."

Yes: that purpose is to create legally recongized family bonds. If you're against same sex marriage you're against gay people being able to create legalized family bonds.

Why?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Synova, you are officially the worst person on Althouse.

Anyone who takes the time to tie gay marriage to distant cousin marriages or incest (or whatever you stumbled over yourself trying to do) is clearly a desperate fool.

Your attempt to equate millions of gay Americans to being the same as horny siblings is off the charts insanity, and no one will ever take anything you say here seriously ever again, not that they did in the first place.

The Westboro Baptist Church is waiting for you...go join them.

Revenant said...

Yes: that purpose is to create legally recongized family bonds.

Do you actually know any married people? I can't think of a single married couple I know who would cite "creating a legally recognized bond" as the purpose of their marriage. It certainly isn't the answer any religious person would give, and I can't see my atheist friends offering it either.

Synova said...

"My disgust with Synova has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with her comparing gay relationships to brothers and sisters fucking."

Except that I wasn't.

I wasn't talking about SEX at all.

I was talking about limitations on who a person is legally allowed to marry which includes limitations we'd probably *all* agree with (such as bothers and sisters) as well as other limitations that might not seem so obvious to everyone.

I'm not even trying to make a "slippery-slope" argument. For all of that, I'm probably the only person who comments here who figures that if a Wiccan wants to have two husbands and a wife she ought to be able to do that.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Every time it comes up, you throw a screaming temper tantrum about it. What you never, ever do is offer a rational argument why she's wrong.

That's a lie. I've said many times why people like her are wrong, so I'll say it again.

She's wrong because incest and polygamy are illegal. Last time I checked, being gay is not.

She's also wrong because gays are born gay and do not choose to be attracted to the same sex. Incest and polygamy peeps are not born with an "incest" or a "polygamy" gene.

She's also wrong because gays are not considered "gross" by the majority of Americans. Incest and polygamy people are considered gross.

Revenant said...

no one will ever take anything you say here seriously ever again, not that they did in the first place.

Ponder the irony of a sex-obsessed hysteric warning OTHER people that they risk not being taken seriously. :)

michael farris said...

Okay Revenant, what explanation for getting married would the heterosexual couples (believeing and atheist alike) give for getting married and how does it differ from the motivations of same sex couples that wish to marry?

Synova said...

ZPS, Maybe you should figure out how to have a civil discussion without going into hysterics just because I mentioned something gross.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Ponder the irony of a sex-obsessed hysteric

Where the "sex obsessed" idea comes from is beyond me. It was Synova who brought up brothers and sisters marrying, which is obviously disgusting because no one wants to think about them having sex. Synova brought sex into this, not me.

And Revenant, until you've been criticized and humiliated and compared to pedophiles and had your love life voted on in a fucking election, don't talk to me about being hysterical.

And this is not hysterical. This is a simple rejection of Synova's lunacy.

Revenant said...

She's wrong because incest and polygamy are illegal. Last time I checked, being gay is not.

Heh! That's the reason you consider it disgusting to compare gay sex to incest? Because incest is illegal? Does it follow that there was nothing wrong with comparing gay sex to incest prior to the Lawrence decision? :)

Anyway, you're comparing gay relationships (which have been legal for several years) with polygamous *marriage*. The valid comparison is either between gay marriage and polygamous marriage (both illegal) or between gay relationships and polygamous relationships (both legal). So we see that you have no valid reason for thinking that polygamous deserves worse treatment than homosexual marriage.

As for incest -- yes, it is currently illegal. But it isn't clear that the laws against it are Constitutionally valid, since the exact same reasoning used to discover a right to gay sex (in Lawrence) applies to consensual, non-reproductive incest as well. The Lawrence decision ruled out both social standards and personal disgust as valid reasons for banning a sex act. The only remaining rational basis for banning incest is the risk of genetic defects, and that doesn't apply to sterile couples.

Incest and polygamy peeps are not born with an "incest" or a "polygamy" gene.

Prove it.

Synova said...

"She's wrong because incest and polygamy are illegal. Last time I checked, being gay is not."

And where sodomy is illegal... what? Are you suggesting that legality is relevant?

"She's also wrong because gays are born gay and do not choose to be attracted to the same sex. Incest and polygamy peeps are not born with an "incest" or a "polygamy" gene."

You're wrong about the "incest" part. In fact, Althouse linked to some stories about this. It's reasonably clear that people are genetically predisposed (born) to be highly attracted to those who share the most genes with them. This reality is mitigated by the process of growing up together and bonding to family members. Thus, those unrelated by blood but who grow up together get the "ick" reaction and those closely genetically related who grow up apart get a double whammy of not having the "ick" reaction combined with an extra strong *genetically determined* attraction.

BORN that way.

And I think we're *all* born polygamous. Monogamy is a choice counter to our natures.

"She's also wrong because gays are not considered "gross" by the majority of Americans. Incest and polygamy people are considered gross."

Now *this* is nearly hysterical. I've actually been told that the sure way to know that homosexuality is really wrong is exactly that strong, visceral, "gross" reaction.

Are we now supposed to judge what is right and wrong by our visceral reactions?

BTW, my pointing out that your arguments are entirely vacuous in no way means that I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry each other.

Revenant said...

and how does [the heterosexual reason for marriage] differ from the motivations of same sex couples that wish to marry?

I didn't say it did. But even assuming that the reasons were identical, it wouldn't follow that the government is obligated to recognize gay marriages.

Synova said...

Incidentally... I didn't bring sex into it.

All I brought into it was a discussion of arbitrary limitations on who a person may legally marry... which has nothing to do with what any of those people are doing behind doors.

I suspect that admitting that marriage is not a right that all non-gay people have ruins the whole "equal rights" argument.

michael farris said...

"I didn't say it did. But even assuming that the reasons were identical, it wouldn't follow that the government is obligated to recognize gay marriages"

Or that it shouldn't? I take it then that you fully support same sex marriage in those states/countries where it's legal?

Three cheers for the Netherlands and Canada????

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I'll prove that I was born gay when you prove that you were born straight.

Daryl said...

The sentence you use for your headline is incorrect.

The ban is a ban in name only. Gay couples still have access to ALL of the same legal rights/responsibilities associated with marriage, at least from the state government.

So the State Supreme Court said that it's okay to give gays all of the same rights as married couples, but to withhold the M-word.

And gay activists are furious with anger. What a crock.

Further, the entire claim that this was a "revision" and not an "amendment" was so facially fraudulent that I'm surprised none of the attorneys got sanctioned for making it.

Further, there is the ridiculousness of grandfathering in 18,000 "marriages" based on when and where they were performed (only within CA during a certain time period) even though the text of Prop 8 clearly says that these "marriages" may not be recognized, no matter where or when performed.

michael farris said...

"The ban is a ban in name only"

Separate but equal. A long tradition in the American legal tradition.

Revenant said...

I take it then that you fully support same sex marriage in those states/countries where it's legal?

Like I noted before, my preference is for the government to get out of the marriage business. But so long as it is in the marriage business, I think it should recognize any consensual marriage -- heterosexual/homosexual, monogamous/polygamous, incestuous, you name it.

What I can't respect is people who think that monogamous gay couples are entitled to some special right enjoyed *only* by them and by monogamous heterosexual couples. There's no coherent or rational argument for that.

Synova said...

"I'll prove that I was born gay when you prove that you were born straight."

It shouldn't matter.

Marriage is a good thing. People who want to cooperatively build a life together ought to be encouraged to do that.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Was this ruling a big win for Obama? He is against same-sex marriage after all; probably throwing a big party in the White House to celebrate.

chickenlittle said...

And this is not hysterical. This is a simple rejection of Synova's lunacy.

Zach,

Your comments at 5:25 were particularly childish. Man up!

Lawgiver said...

When ZPS calls you a mouth breather that's when you know his train is off the tracks. I'm still waiting for his proof that "gays are born gay" as he repeatedly states. Most thinking people know that "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

Quote is from your friendly APA.

Revenant said...

I'll prove that I was born gay when you prove that you were born straight.

Um, Zachary, *you're* the one basing your argument on the idea of sexual orientation being inborn. Even if I could prove I was born straight, why would I want to? If sexual orientation isn't inborn, YOUR argument is the one that falls (further) apart.

But as it so happens I was asking that you prove that polygamy and incest weren't genetic. Like Synova has noted, there's a wealth of evidence that they are. The evidence suggests that the natural heterosexual relationship is for the strong and successful men to have lots of mates, and the weak men to have none. That pattern's found throughout nature -- and both men and women gravitate towards it. That's why physically attractive rich men are neck-deep in poon and poor nerds can't even pay for sex. :)

Synova said...

"Like I noted before, my preference is for the government to get out of the marriage business."

I'm inclined to agree but also lean a bit toward a dual system where the government might have some role in formalizing domestic co-dependency contracts between people separate from any assumed romantic involvement (such that a mother and daughter or anyone else that agrees to legal and financial responsibility for another person and their children can enter into the contract) and private or religious ceremonies to celebrate and formalize the "marriage" bond in whatever way and with whatever limitations seem right to the people involved.

Revenant said...

Quote is from your friendly APA.

It would have been more honest to include the sentence that followed it, too:

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."The real issue isn't whether or not homosexuality is genetic, but whether it is a choice. While there is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, there is a consensus that it is in most cases not a choice, either.

michael farris said...

"my preference is for the government to get out of the marriage business"

So, are you unmarried by principled choice?

Eli Blake said...

Synova,

For all of that, I'm probably the only person who comments here who figures that if a Wiccan wants to have two husbands and a wife she ought to be able to do that.No, I'd agree to that as long as they are consenting adults. My problems with polygamists have to do with child abuse. Once you are a consenting adult you're welcome to marry a waffle iron for all I care (though I'm not sure you'd want to consummate that marriage, it might be rather painful.)

However, my own belief is that the 52-48% win that it had the first time around will translate to a loss the next time around. Opponents of prop 8 did a poor job of getting their message across (and I expect the next time they will raise at least as much money as supporters will), plus keep in mind that prop 8 passed by nearly 3-1 among voters over 65 and failed nearly as heavily among voters under 25. As more and more young people enter the electorate with more liberal social attitudes I suspect that you will see gay marriage become legal in many states.

In fact, when anti-gay marriage initiatives started appearing on ballots about a decade ago, it was a slam-dunk, 'turn out the conservative base' for it to pass with 75 or 80% of the vote. There is no way that it would get that kind of percentage now anyplace. People are starting to realize that it's not up to them to restrict the rights of others.

Palladian said...

"So, are you unmarried by principled choice?"

I'm a playah'! My boyfriend and I have no inclinations towards marriage. But if we did, we'd go to a church and get married.

Revenant said...

So, are you unmarried by principled choice?

That's not the reason I'm unmarried, no.

Lawgiver said...

Rev said,

The real issue isn't whether or not homosexuality is genetic, but whether it is a choice. While there is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, there is a consensus that it is in most cases not a choice, either.

My issue is that ZPS consistently frames his arguments in a "gays are born gay" manner which is simply not supported by the facts. But while we're on the subject, are bisexuals born predisposed for sexual attraction to both sexes?

I agree with most of what Synova posted here. "She done a good job," Lawgiver breathes through his piehole.

Revenant said...

As more and more young people enter the electorate with more liberal social attitudes I suspect that you will see gay marriage become legal in many states.

If the state were otherwise staying the same I would definitely agree. But you also need to consider that the ethnic makeup of the state is also shifting, with majority anti-gay ethnicities (e.g., Hispanics and blacks) gaining ground rapidly and pro-gay ethnicities (e.g., white) shrinking).

In short -- sure, there's a fresh crop of young kids who want gay marriage. But they're moving to Arizona and being replaced by devout Catholics from south of the border. So both the short-term and long-term future of gay marriage in California remain uncertain.

Revenant said...

My issue is that ZPS consistently frames his arguments in a "gays are born gay" manner which is simply not supported by the facts.

It IS supported by the facts, it is just that there are alternative theories that haven't been completely ruled out. Also, you're confusing "genetic" with "inborn"; a person's state at birth is not determined solely by his genes. It is entirely possible for a condition to be both inborn and non-genetic in origin.

But while we're on the subject, are bisexuals born predisposed for sexual attraction to both sexes?

It is certainly possible, but the research there is even less conclusive than the research on homosexuality and heterosexuality (in part because bisexuals are so rare).

Penny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lawgiver said...

Rev,

You are playing word games. The APA doesn't talk about inborn versus genetic. Inborn and genetic essentially mean the same thing.

Inborn isn't a scientific term. Shame on you Rev!

mcg said...

Prop. 8 Challenge Filed In Federal Court

Ted Olson and David Boies filed.

Revenant said...

The APA doesn't talk about inborn versus genetic.

In their FAQ, you mean? No, they don't. They also don't say there is no factual support for homosexuality being inborn, although that didn't stop you from claiming they had.

If you read a little more than just a FAQ, you would know that while it remains uncertain if sexual orientation is entirely inborn, it is known to be at least mostly inborn. For example, studies of identical twins raised apart from one another have found that the twins are very likely to share the same sexual orientation.

Inborn and genetic essentially mean the same thing.

They don't even remotely mean the same thing. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"Genetic" means "determined by your genes". "Inborn" means "present at birth". During the nine months of pregnancy *preceding* birth the developing organism is subjected to a host of environmental influences, primarily from the mother's body but to a lesser extent from outside stimuli. In addition to that, errors or inconsistencies in the development process can also yield outcomes that aren't pre-determined by the person's genes.

Daryl said...

"Genetic" means "determined by your genes". "Inborn" means "present at birth". During the nine months of pregnancy *preceding* birth the developing organism is subjected to a host of environmental influences, primarily from the mother's body but to a lesser extent from outside stimuli. In addition to that, errors or inconsistencies in the development process can also yield outcomes that aren't pre-determined by the person's genes.I was going to say that, but not in such a succinct and clear fashion. I was going to be long-winded and miss some nuances. There are plenty of birth defects that are NOT genetic in origin.

Further, there are studies showing that women who were under a lot of stress while pregnant were more likely for their male babies to be gay. The stress in question: WWII and its aftermath. That's not at all genetic.

Palladian said...

"Inborn and genetic essentially mean the same thing."

Not necessarily. The developing fetus can be affected in myriad ways by conditions inside the womb that have nothing to do with its genetics.

Palladian said...

"Further, there are studies showing that women who were under a lot of stress while pregnant were more likely for their male babies to be gay. The stress in question: WWII and its aftermath. That's not at all genetic."

Thank God for Hitler and the Imperial Japs then, I suppose!

Except I wasn't born until '75. What was my mother stressed out about, the Ford administration? Three Dog Night?

Palladian said...

Maybe it was David Bowie's Station To Station that did it.

Lawgiver said...

From Merriam Webster;

inborn
One entry found.

Main Entry:

adjective
Date:
1513

1 : present from or as if from birth
2 : hereditary, inherited
synonyms see innate

genetics
2 entries found.

1. genetics
2. molecular genetics

Main Entry:

Function:
noun plural but singular in construction
Date:
1905

1 : a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms 2 : the genetic makeup and phenomena of an organism, type, group, or condition
.

Notice the use of the word heredity in both definitions. Which scientific dictionary do you use? Word games.

So we have scientific proof that stress in the womb causes homosexuality? Heh, sounds like a study that doesn't lend itself to the scientific method does it?

Lawgiver said...

Palladian,

Not necessarily. The developing fetus can be affected in myriad ways by conditions inside the womb that have nothing to do with its genetics.I can agree with your statement but in the politcal argument of "I was born gay." the two terms essentially mean the same thing. DTS and his ilk never differentiate between the two. Rev brought up the terms genetic and inborn, and Rev is one smart arrogant bastard(in the nicest possible way) who I thinked stepped on himself here.

Personally, I can't determine what causes homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. I am extremely skeptical of "studies" proving or strongly suggesting the reasons for sexual orientation are genetic or inborn. The whole arguement is more emotional and political than scientific.

Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...

I am going to call Sonia Sotamayer Sonia CuminmyEar.

Thank you,

Daryl said...

It's not just "word games" and if you understood the first thing about DNA you'd know that it's not the only thing that affects a developing fetus.

If you want to rely on some scientifically illiterate dictionary author, in the face of a clear and simple explanation of why you're wrong, then you've got no credibility.

Ralph said...

The State should not be in the marriage business. It's completely obvious.
It's a contract. Men would probably be happy if the state couldn't enforce alimony and child support (or they [and divorce] had to be negotiated in a pre-nup), but do you think you can get women to agree? That would destoy the romance!

chickenlittle said...

I am going to call Sonia Sotamayer Sonia CuminmyEar.

Aural sex prevert!

Revenant said...

It's a contract.

That's funny, because oddly enough the government doesn't actually regulate who I can enter into contracts with, provided they're all consenting adults. If I want to form a partnership with five Spanish lesbians, two dwarfs and a bodybuilder, why, that's perfectly legal and the government will enforce the contract if one of us should break it.

What we mean when we say the government should get out of the marriage business is that the government should stop meddling in the details of the contract. Just let people form legally binding arrangements of their choice and be done with it. Leave it up to THEM whether they want to call it "marriage"; they'll do it anyway.

Revenant said...

This is the applicable use of "inborn":
1 : present from or as if from birth.

This is the applicable use of "genetic":
2 : the genetic makeup and phenomena of an organism, type, group, or condition.

Note that they mean completely different things. Thank you. This concludes today's lesson of "Prenatal Biology for Dummies".

If you want to say that inborn and genetic mean the same thing, that's fine. We can add "child development" to the list of things you know nothing about, next to "astrophysics" and "evolutionary biology". But regardless, the point remains that people can have conditions or traits which are inborn but not genetic -- fetal alcohol syndrome, for example.

Revenant said...

Except I wasn't born until '75. What was my mother stressed out about, the Ford administration? Three Dog Night?

Actually, the mid-70s were some of the worst years in America since the Great Depression. Unemployment was high, inflation was rampant, crime was rampant, etc.

Aaron said...

Wow, you go away from a thread for a night and see what it descends into.

Let's try to keep this somewhere close to constitutional principles.

As far as whether it is genetic, or caused by stress of the mother, um, what difference does it make? the real issue is whether you can control it or not. Although I find the argument that it is genetic oddly reminiscent of that line in Hot Shots! Part Deaux! (sp?): "These men are celebate, like their fathers and grandfathers before them." The fact is the science is not really well settled, and indeed for a supposedly genetic irresistable impulse, there is a surprisingly large number of gay people around.

That being said, while i don't approve of the lifestyle, i don't want anyone beat up over it, or arrested. but i am not in favor of profaning the institution of marriage, either.

I will add that it is better for gay marriage to be advanced using legislation rather than the courts. After all, the people can make distinctions the courts would have trouble doing, and keep it from extending to the parade of horrors often trotted out.

But all that has nothing to do with the issue of the case. the real issue is that original gay marriage decision was unconstitutional itself and the people slapped them back on that on prop 8. Then we call on those same judges to decide just how badly they got it wrong the first time. There is an inherent conflict of interest, there. But even as generally they ran off with their tails between their legs, they got off one last little nip. They pretended that the original decision was right and the new amendment changed things, instead of slapping back an unconstitutional power grab.

Frankly, an honest court would have come clean about the above.

Lawgiver said...

Rev said,

This is the applicable use of "inborn":
1 : present from or as if from birth.

This is the applicable use of "genetic":
2 : the genetic makeup and phenomena of an organism, type, group, or condition.

Note that they mean completely different things. Thank you. This concludes today's lesson of "Prenatal Biology for Dummies"
.

I'm glad you understand the definitions in the context of this discussion. Now, show me where the APA talks about inborn (other than hormonal)causes of homosexuality.

This concludes today's lesson on "Reading for Dummies." Thank you for participating.