By Josh Bradshaw
I believe all men and women are created equal and that all should have the same rights regardless of race, religion, gender, social status or any other categorization. I also believe the first marriage was performed by God between Adam and Eve and marriage originated as a religious ceremony. Two beliefs that are reported by many to be at odds when it comes to Proposition 8 on the ballot which would amend the constitution of the State of California to read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
How can I reconcile equality with religious belief? How can I decide with finality the correct course of action for the pen in my hand on this fall's ballot without fear of offending those living in monogamous homosexual relationships and at the same time not offend a loving God who created all of his children?
I reconcile the two beliefs by considering the following: Over time in national, state and local governments legal benefits have been associated with marriage, the union between a man and a woman. These benefits are significant enough that those who cannot obtain marital status feel they are, although created equal, not considered equal. Among those who feel this way are some of my friends, co-workers and family members, people who I respect and consider created equal to all of the other members of the human race.
I then consider the equality problem as not that same-sex couples cannot marry but that same-sex couples feel they cannot obtain the same government-granted legal benefits associated with marriage. In granting marriage to same-sex couples, the State of California effectively breaks marriage as established by God; mending domestic partnership, creating a legal union equivalent granting spousal benefits similar to those achieved through traditional marriage for same sex partners could possibly be solutions for equality. There are also possible alternatives that would instead of increasing benefits granted to homosexual couples, decrease benefits granted to heterosexual married couples.
While strongly believing equality belongs to all people in this state and nation and the entire Earth, I support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman because I believe there is a way for equality to exist, for equal rights for everyone, without same-sex marriage. I will vote YES on Proposition 8 in the election this November.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Camelia -
You have such a beautiful family. Congratulations on your good fortune.
You also write eloquently about the dichotomy between wanting to allow equality, yet still remain true to your faith.
However, I was terribly disappointed to read that you came down on the "yes" side of this debate.
You say, "I believe there is a way for equality to exist, for equal rights for everyone, without same-sex marriage."
The question is, how? Perhaps in the future, government should get out of the marriage business entirely and anyone who wants to obtain the state benefits of couplehood would get a domestic partnership or civil union. These would be required for ALL couples. Then those who wanted to be married would go to the church of their choice for that rite. Many churches would not marry same-sex couples, but some would.
Unfortunately, at this moment that exists only in the imagination.
The question before us now is whether to remove CIVIL rights from a group of Californians simply because an accident of birth causes them to be attracted to people of the same gender. Just as an accident of birth causes some people to be left-handed -- they do things the exact opposite of the vast majority of people, but their behavior harms no one else so we don't discriminate against them. At least, not any more.
If you vote to amend the Constitution, you will be taking rights away from hundreds of thousands of Californians. Domestic partnerships are important, but they are not the same. (Even if they were, "separate but equal" just isn't the American way.)
We all know there’s something profound about the relationship to which we give the name “marriage.” It’s special to gay people, too. If you can allow Britney Spears’ 50-hour union to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow gay people's commitment of mutual affection and caring to be called "marriage" as well. Your temple marriage is called "marriage" just as a union performed in a Methodist or Baptist or Unitarian church is. But don't you feel your marriage is on a higher plane than those? You can still believe that and allow for full CIVIL marriage equality.
I will close by telling you a true story about the impact marriage inequality has on real people.
I had an uncle-in-law, the descendant of handcart pioneers, who was an amazing man: the perfect child (according to his mother), a great student, organist at church, served his country in the military.
For the last 35 or so years of his life, he lived with his partner. They shared a modest home in San Francisco, paid their taxes, did lots of volunteer work. They were deeply involved in the lives of their nieces and nephews -- and very popular with us! They were committed to each other and to the rest of the family.
They also did all they could legally to formalize this commitment. But they could not marry.
When my uncle died, of lung cancer, his surviving partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits -- as he would have if they'd been able to marry.
In addition, his partner had to pay inheritance tax on what my uncle had bequeathed to him, including 50% of the house they shared. Spouses don't have to pay this tax. In fact, all they have to pay to gain this right is the cost of a marriage license.
On top of this, the property tax basis on the house they shared was readjusted upward -- significantly. Why? Because they couldn't marry and the transfer of title was considered a change in ownership. If they had a civil marriage license, the tax would have remained the same.
These three things combined meant my uncle's partner could no longer afford to stay in the home they had shared for more than three decades.
This is what Proposition 8 is about. Fairness. Equality. For all.
Thank you for reading, and for allowing comments on your blog.
Tom,
Your comment illustrates exactly why I have come to the opposite conclusion on Proposition 8. You explain that your uncle encountered three problems, not receiving Social Security survivor benefits, paying an inheritance tax and paying re-adjusted property taxes at a higher rate. I see no correlation between these three problems and marriage. The issue for you should not be that your uncle and his partner could not marry, but that benefits granted to heterosexual married couples were not granted for the surviving partner. You see, the point of ‘A Consideration on Proposition 8’ is that it is possible for marriage to remain as it has been from the beginning of time, an establishment by God for union between a man and a woman, and continue with equality. You ask how? I respond it won’t be easy.
Fighting for marriage and fighting for equal rights is not the same thing. Proponents of same-sex marriage are seeking an easy out, a simple solution to an issue far more complex than marriage vows before God and/or society. You must realize that Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance tax breaks, and exceptions for spouses on rules for property value re-adjustment upon the death of a spouse did not come about overnight for married couples; these benefits for married heterosexual couples are the compilation of hundreds of years of legislative action and case law, a process that started with the founding of our nation. Same-sex couples cannot expect to gain those rights so easily because married heterosexual couples also did not gain those rights easily; it has been along process with each right/benefit won a single step at a time. Domestic partnership is such a young social status in comparison to marriage fixing it, not re-defining marriage should be your focus; it won’t be easy, it will be equality.
@tom
I am sorry that your uncle's partner could not get the benefits of your uncles social security and had to pay extra taxes on the inheritance. I agree that with an issue like this these types of technicalities should accommodate documented domestic partnerships -- there is no excuse.
I think that one of the problems with a lot of this debate is that a minority of adults are thinking about their interests and not the interests of those that are most affected by this -- our children.
It's about the children, not the adults. Children are best served with a loving mother and a father, bottom line. This is not to say that a man or even two men couldn't be good uncles, cousins, sons, etc.
The premise of equality and fairness is a never ending challenge in all societies where the sustainability of a society takes backseat to the desire for all ideologies to be accepted by all.
Let me give you an example: Is it "fair" that other people might think that you are cool and that I am not? Should I pass a law that says that I am, or should I call you a bad name because I am hurt?
On a basic level that is how all of this is being conducted and at the end of the day none of this is about feelings of fairness, its about the traditional family and children being undermined by people who want to be accepted. I can accept anyone, but I can't accept everything.
My opinion on this issue is very simple: the government or the people have no right
to change an institution that has been around longer than its self and recorded history in such a way that effects everyone.
Marriage implies families, and families imply children, period.
Clearly there are some fundamental disagreements and perspectives and all I can say is thanks for your time and I wish you the best. I hope you and each of us find joy and happiness in what ever it is we peruse.
Tom,
The personal anecdote about your uncle is sad. The quality of some same-sex relationships is no doubt superior to Britney's 50 hour marriage. And I agree with you that the notion of "separate but equal" is not defensible.
But this is not an issue of granting marriage to people based on how "worthy" their particular relationship would be. And to limit the discussion of marriage to the two adults in the contract is missing the most important part.
Nor is this an issue of equal rights. A man and a woman have no more inherent right to get marriage recognition from the state than do a man and a man. However, the state chooses to grant special recognition of a marriage to a man and a woman as a statement of the generic value of that relationship. One of the most essential functions of today's adults is to raise the next generation.
The best setting for the raising of children is in a home with a mother and a father. No doubt there are plenty of settings where this does not exist, but this does not shake the ideal. There are children raised by single parents due to separation or death. There are children raised by same-sex couples. Individual cases of these may well be better than other individual cases of a mother/father home. But on the whole, on the average, NO environment is better for a child than a father and a mother. And in setting a public policy, the only thing the government can do is pick the policy which does the most good. It makes no sense for the government to claim (for equality's sake) that single mothers are just as effective at raising children. Likewise for homosexual couples.
Again this is not an issue of equal rights. Firstly, nobody has a right guaranteed them by the constitution to have government recognition of marriage. And secondly, there is no need for the government to endorse same-sex relationships as equal in societal desirability. I realize that full acceptance and endorsement of their relationships and lifestyle is at the heart of this debate for homosexuals, but ultimately those relationships are not equal. They are less than ideal frameworks upon which to raise a family.
I understand you feel strongly about this topic, as I have seen your comments on various friends websites.
Here are my 2 cents. Let’s not use the word "marriage" to define a monogamous union between same-sex relationships. A different name would be better suited. Since the beginning of time, the word “marriage” has been and should stay defined between a man and a woman.
Today, recognitions of same-sex monogamous relationships are new to our society, thus needing a new name with it's own definition. The word "union" could be that new name and the definition would be: the practice of being in a same-sex monogamous relationship. We cannot use the word marriage to define these new kinds of relationships. Also, the word "marriage" has too many religious ties to be used for same-sex unions. Once you use the word "marriage", religious freedoms are at stake.
Josh and Camelia,
Well structured and written post. I agree with everything you say. Traditional marriage must be protected. The institution that has been protected for thousands of years is now in our hands to protect and defend. I would encourage people as well t vote Yes on Proposition 8. The effects of allowing same sex marriage will impact children and society in a way that will be irreversible. Thanks for your message.
I, too, struggle with this proposition, Josh. For some it has been very easy to support. Not for me, though. I'm trying to understand it all. And I applaud you on how well you wrote this post. I have to be honest--I thought it was going to be another one-sided argument, but I believe that you truly have a struggle going on in your heart.
I want to pose a question to you. Not to say you are wrong, but just to get your thoughts on this. What you (and many others) are suggesting is that homosexual couples get the same benefits as married couples, but without the actual word "marriage." How does that not fall under 'separate but equal' logic that really just classifies one group as second class by not being good enough for the word "marriage?" How do you justify saying that homosexuals deserve all the respect of everyone else in the world and then tell them that they aren't good enough for the word "marriage?" We might claim that the words civil union and marriage are equal, but to them, it is not equal. It is a slap in the face.
How do you reconcile this in your struggle to understand things?
Hola Molly!
I'll give you my take.
Brown vs Board of Ed established that "separate but equal" is impossible. For example, it probably violates the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause to throw someone out of their apartment because they're gay.
But in fact, I am under the same restrictions as a straight man that a gay man is under. The government (assuming Prop 8 passes) will only recognize my marriage with an unrelated woman over 18. So we are equally protected. I can't marry a guy for the wedding registry presents, and a gay man can't marry a guy for love. Motive has little legal standing here.
Now that's little comfort to a gay man, since he doesn't WANT to marry a woman. But from the constitutional viewpoint of the EPC, there's not much room for argument.
Mr. gay man is free to work to change the public policy so that marriages require no particular gender combination. I encourage that public debate, as it's essential to a democracy. And if the people passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage that way, I would defend it on legal grounds from the judicial actions of 4 irate justices in Orange County.
But if the people come down in favor of the state endorsing traditional marriage only, that's not violating rights. It's just the expression of the majority.
That Josh said...
The way I have been able to reconcile ‘separate but equal’ logic is actually through a comparison that I came up with about two months ago while riding in BART. I’ve yet to see anyone describe it this way and it clicked with me.
I look out the window and saw the trees and the idea came to compare a pine tree to a quaking aspen tree. A quaking aspen has a smooth white colored trunk and it is quite easy to quickly carve a large heart with a pocket knife in the trunk and inscribe two lover’s initials and come back to the tree year after year and see the initials. It is a deciduous tree, meaning the silver dollar-sized leaves change colors and die each year and this time of year can blanket an entire mountainside in brilliant colors, my favorite being a bright yellow.
The pine tree has a rough trunk with many rough ridges and protrusions and it would be more difficult to carve a large heart with two lover’s initials in the bark and unless you used a large blade or spend a lot more time. The same amount of effort applied to a pine tree in carving as an aspen tree would be lost in a short amount of time. The pine tree is an evergreen and its needles remain green year round. In first or second grade we learn what a pine tree is and can distinguish it from any other tree quite simply by the needles. You and I, upon comparing two trees, cannot disagree because we know which is the pine and which is the aspen. They are two very different trees, yet they are both trees.
The same applies with heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They are most defiantly both relationships; they are most defiantly different. Just as it would not be fair to re-name all pine trees aspens and all aspen trees pines, we cannot re-name the relationship between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. One is heterosexual, the latter two are homosexual. To here, I would think we are both in agreement as I haven’t gotten to marriage just yet, only relationships.
So, on with the comparison. There are many pine trees and many aspen trees all over the world. Some are old, some are young, some are diseased and dying, some are healthy and thriving, some just grow like normal trees and do all the fun things that trees do. Same goes with relationships. Now, as the simplistic arborists we are what do we call these trees? Pine and aspen.
As simple citizens of our state and nation, what do we call these relationships? Hetero and homo? Nope, not as recognized by government. That is the trouble. We call them marriage and ??????. There is no word. We describe it as homosexual relationship, civil union, partnership, and lately, same-sex marriage but really, we don’t have a word in English to describe it because the government-recognized relationship used to gain equality and rights between homosexual couples hasn’t existed before in history. Domestic partnership is the closest and barring a few exceptions would draw the closest comparison. Granted, it is different from marriage but the pine and the aspen are also different and I’m going to take this a little further.
As I thought about this, I though we’ll say the aspens were the homosexual relationships, would it help if we carved in each aspen tree that wanted it the words ‘I am a pine tree’? Sounds silly and the aspen most certainly would not be equal to the pine. Remember, separate but equal. The trees would, in fact, remain the same tree only in a word attempt to be a pine.
Can we carve into the relationship between persons of the same gender the word marriage? If we did, would they still be separate but equal? I don’t think so with regards to homosexuality or heterosexuality, the problem still exists. The fundamental difference is still there.
The same goes for the trees, the aspen would still be an aspen and the pine would still be the pine. The homosexual relationship would still be between same gender couples and the heterosexual relationship would still be between opposite genders. Re-naming the relationship of the aspens will not change them to pines; they will still be two different types of trees.
Proposition 8 is not about telling a group of people that they are not good enough for marriage, it is clarifying the definition of marriage so that they no longer can confuse an aspen for a pine or a pine for an aspen. I heard someone say, “What’s the big deal, it’s just a word.” Well, not really because pine is a word and aspen is a word yet we cannot interchange them and gain the same meaning.
I’ve gone on a bit here with the comparison. I’ve thought about it a lot. Even some humorous points. For example, what happens if the schools have to now teach the pine tree’s children how to make their needles fall off every year and re-grow them in the spring? Can you imagine the trouble that would result in the forests? (I chuckle here, and say leaf the trees alone, let’s not needle further.)
Greetings, all!
First, may I say that the discussion here is some of the most well-thought-out, reasonable and respectful I have found in the blogosphere. So thank you for that.
I haven't responded individually since I've been a bit busy -- my partner of 10 years and I were married this morning in a quiet, family-only ceremony in a lovely garden at our county civic center, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. We had originally planned a larger event, but decided instead of spending money on a caterer, photographer, florist, etc., we would increase our donation to the No on 8 campaign. Instead of doing all the wedding planning, we instead are devoting that time to volunteering for the campaign.
Anyway, I have much to say, and I apologize in advance if this is too long.
I'll start with Camelia:
"it is possible for marriage to remain as it has been from the beginning of time, an establishment by God for union between a man and a woman, and continue with equality."
A lovely thought, and one I can generally agree with. Make civil unions required for ALL couples to get the benefits of civil marriage. Then any couple can go to whatever church they want (and will have them) for a marriage ceremony.
HOWEVER -- that is not in the works. There are literally THOUSANDS of laws on the books in city, county, state and federal law books that refer to "marriage." I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be nigh on impossible to change all those to reflect a new civil union law.
And why does this need to be done? It would be expensive and time-consuming and unduly delay the extension of equality for all Americans. So why do it when we have a simple solution at hand -- allow CIVIL marriage to include same-sex couples.
The word "marriage" is not owned by people of faith. Domestic partnerships are important, but they are not the same. (Even if they were, "separate but equal" just isn't the American way, as I, Devon and Molly all pointed out.)
We all know there’s something profound about the relationship to which we give the name “marriage.” It’s special to gay people, too. If you can allow Britney Spears’ 50-hour union to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow my rather more mundane (however special it is to ME) commitment of mutual affection and caring to be called "marriage" as well.
A temple marriage is called "marriage" just as Britney's nuptials were called "marriage", and surely those who are married in the temple still feel their marriage is on a rather higher plane than hers even though they share the same name, correct?
Now, on to Paul:
"It's about the children, not the adults. Children are best served with a loving mother and a father, bottom line."
What if, hypothetically, I conceded that was the case? How does denying marriage equality do anything to further that goal?
If Proposition 8 passes, gay people aren't suddenly going to look for opposite sex partners and start having children.
How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man who is as interested in my well-being and happiness as I am in his) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families? How does it increase the number of children growing up in homes with both a mom and a dad present?
"the government or the people have no right to change an institution that has been around longer than its self and recorded history in such a way that effects everyone."
The government did that the moment it first stepped into the marriage arena, hundreds and hundreds of years ago. What's been changing is not RELIGION's view of marriage -- though I suppose that has changed somewhat too: it wasn't considered an eternal bond until the LDS church was founded, was it?.
No, it is only the CIVIC aspect of marriage that has been changing. You can dislike or disagree with those changes. For example, no-fault divorce. (Or divorce at all, for that matter.) That I can understand as having an undermining effect on marriage. But how does MORE people falling in love and marrying undermine the institution of CIVIL marriage?
Devon's turn:
"However, the state chooses to grant special recognition of a marriage to a man and a woman as a statement of the generic value of that relationship. One of the most essential functions of today's adults is to raise the next generation."
Agreed. But the benefits of marriage aren't ENTIRELY about the next generation. If so, we wouldn't allow post-menopausal women (as just one example) to marry.
Marriage also brings societal benefits in other ways. When I signed my marriage license today, I agreed to be responsible for any debts incurred by my spouse. That gives me a motivation to keep him making wise decisions. That has a benefit to society, as well. If he gets sick or disabled, I have promised to care for him. That means it is less likely the state will have to.
That is a benefit of marriage that states ought to be taking advantage of.
"But on the whole, on the average, NO environment is better for a child than a father and a mother. And in setting a public policy, the only thing the government can do is pick the policy which does the most good."
I point you to my statement above as to how denying marriage equality furthers your goal of more kids growing up in mom/dad households.
The government policy is not weakened by allowing same-sex couples to marry because the encouragement toward marriage is still there for heterosexual couples. In fact, it also increases stability for the homes led by same-sex couples. In this way, the government policy IS doing the "most good." It is protecting more children.
April:
Most of your comments I think have already been addressed.
But when you say: "Once you use the word "marriage", religious freedoms are at stake."
Sorry, but it's just not true. Tell me how religious freedom has been constrained by same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (And you can't reference Catholic Charities and adoption because that was a problem not with marriage, but with anti-discrimination laws.)
Next is Molly:
Love you!
Now, on to Devon again:
"I am under the same restrictions as a straight man that a gay man is under."
This was the same argument used by Virginia in the US Supreme Court case brought against the Lovings, and interracial couple. Basically, the state said, "the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."
In other words, blacks can marry blacks and only blacks and whites can marry whites and only whites, so no discrimination exists. The Supreme Court didn't buy that argument (neither do I) and I doubt it will work when the first same-sex marriage case makes its way to the SCOTUS.
Another important point here is that marriage equality and religious freedom are actually tied together in case law. I suggest you read this.
Here's one quote from this legal brief that I found especially illuminating, referring to how freedom isn't the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: "Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man."
There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we're in this freedom thing together.
"if the people come down in favor of the state endorsing traditional marriage only, that's not violating rights. It's just the expression of the majority."
Except the Constitution is there, in part, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Would we have legal interracial marriage today if it was left to majority rule?
Finally, Camelia and your "pine/aspen" analogy. Sorry, but I'm not buying it as equivalent. For one thing, pines and aspens WOULD be treated the same in many aspects of law. For example, a law saying you can't cut a tree on public property doesn't define the variety of tree that can or can't be cut. It just refers to "trees." They are treated equally under the law.
Now, if God said the aspen is a holier or more blessed tree than the pine, would someone be able to argue that there should be no penalty for cutting a pine on public land because God said it was not as worthy a tree? Of course not. Yet you are saying because God says (or rather what a book written thousands of years ago and translated and interpreted many times over says) my relationship is less worthy than yours, that you deserve a whole set of rights and benefits that I don't.
Hey Tom,
I thought I'd respond to the various points you brought up. A couple are great, and a couple I disagree with. I'll try to be brief.
"If you vote to amend the Constitution, you will be taking rights away from hundreds of thousands of Californians. Domestic partnerships are important, but they are not the same."
Family Code § 297.5 -- (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
"Even if they were [the same], "separate but equal" just isn't the American way.
We agree that "separate but equal" is dead for individuals. And you may be right about "separate but equal" being a poor argument for marriages. After some more thought, I can see why this is shaky. For the sake of argument, I'll drop that for now and ask: Is equality demanded for entities composed of multiple individuals?
It is surely common practice for the state to declare inequalities between entities or institutions.
For example, the state makes quite a distinction between "small businesses" and "large businesses" in the laws afforded to each. And the state makes another distinction in not allowing marriage between siblings. On an individual basis, those siblings have every right all of us do, but the "union" they might propose forming is entirely different. The state, as represented by the people, is entirely able to declare various unions separate and INequal with regards to societal desirability.
If you can allow Britney Spears’ 50-hour union to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow gay people's commitment of mutual affection and caring to be called "marriage" as well.
We can't expect the state to address marriage on a case-by-case worthiness basis for the 10 million families in California. This is about broad sweeping policy. In general, traditional marriage is the best environment within which to raise a family, so California may choose to endorse only that arrangement above all others.
"How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man...) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?"
The state would effectively be saying that the gender identities of the parents are irrelevant. The state would be endorsing homosexuality as perfectly equal to heterosexuality. And the state could begin teaching these viewpoints to children in the public school system K-12, via Education Code § 51890.
There are examples of this already in MA 2nd grade classrooms with children being read stories about princes marrying princes. Furthermore, the MA courts ruled that parents do not have the right to advanced notice on such topics. Recently, a 1st grade class in San Francisco was taken to witness and celebrate the lesbian wedding of their teacher.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL
Parents on the fence on the issue will take the moral lead from the state and from concepts of "equality" and "progress". Children taught from a young age will feel more secure in experimenting. Marriage in a traditional family raising children of their own will be less assumed, and we will see a rise in people experimenting in your lifestyle, who otherwise might have formed traditional families. That is not to say that all children will be affected thusly, but some will.
You might not see these as negatives, but we can surely agree that this is harmful to the status of traditional families being the building block of society? Less future children will grow up in mother/father homes than otherwise would have.
"But the benefits of marriage aren't ENTIRELY about the next generation. If so, we wouldn't allow post-menopausal women (as just one example) to marry."
Post-menopausal women can still raise children, if not produce them. Gays can do the same. My point was not merely that mother/father homes are better able to produce children. They are also generally healthier environments for raising the children.
I'll concede that raising the next generation isn't the only societal benefit of marriage. But I'd argue that it is a lot more important than all others taken together.
"Except the Constitution is there, in part, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority..."
True. If this were about persecuting gay couples, sodomy laws, etc, I would be on your side. But I have a hard time believing that the majority is behaving tyrannically by giving domestic partners all the rights and privilege of marriage while declaring heterosexual marriage the societal ideal.
Wow Devon, that was enlightening. I don't know why I hadn't thought to read the actual code for domestic partnership. For those who've made it this far I'm posting the whole section 297.5. (retreived 10/15/2008 here)
Anyone with doubts as to whether or not domestic partnership guarantees equality needs to read this.
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part 3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from the other following the dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement's effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as of June 30, 2005.
I am not a citizen of California so I am not forced to bear the internal personal struggle you have to face. However, I feel it necessary to voice my opinions because pass or fail, this proposition will have a resounding effect that will extend beyond the residents of California.
I believe that there is an unwritten law that already defines marriage. Be it the Law of God, Nature, or whatever creative force you believe in-- Marriage is between male and female.
The change in the constitution is man's need to change things in order to keep up with current trends, tendencies, or social preferences. Changes in local, state, and federal constitutions have been made in the past to protect human rights. However, when dealing with amendments; there is a difference between the legal ownership of another human and a person's sexual preferences.
No matter the legalities of relationships, there will always be difficult and necessary changes after a loved one is gone. As a stay at home mother, I could no longer rely on my husband for support if anything were to happen to him. I would expect to change my habbits and lifestyles to survive. Financial concerns will always arise.
When all is said and done, when life has been taken away, no wealth can be dragged along for the ride. Build up what you can, save what you can for those you love, be prepared to stand up for the decisions you have made.
If the constitutions is changed or not, there will be those who do not accept the outcome and another bill will be presented to alter the decision. All I can advise is to be prepared.
Love you Camelia and Josh.
OK. This is actually Camelia writing. The other entries on Prop 8 were Josh. I guess I should change the blog to both our names since we both write in it now. I am so glad he likes to blog now and join the wonderful world of the bloggers =)
Anyways, Josh and I share pretty much the same views on prop 8. We talk about it all the time. However I thought I could share my two cents in this matter.
I moved back to the US about 13 years ago this December. (I was born here and lived here until I was 5). Coming from a country that does not exercise democracy, I LOVED (and still do) US for its freedom; freedom of speech, freedom of religion and etc. It's amazing how you can even disagree with the president of the county and not go to jail for that.
-However when it comes to prop 8, I feel kind of restrained to voice my opinion. I feel like if I publicly say YES on prop 8, I would be named intolerant against gays. I feel like the opponents to prop 8 are making people who vote yes look like haters and intolerants. That is simply not true. The same way that gay people exercise their rights, the pro marriage people are exercising their rights to preserve the marriage that has been around for centuries.
-I also think that it is wrong to say that gay marriage is their civil right. Civil right is when people are denied rights for things like color of their skin, age, etc. Things that are part of you that is unchangeable. For example, if you are born black, you are always black and you can not decide one day you are and another day you are not. However, homosexuality is a choice of living style. Gays are free to live the way they want, and should have all the rights that this country offers, but making it a civil right issue is not valid. (At least not in my opinion)
-I wish both sides could agree to disagree and see what the majority will vote at the poles. It is sad to see when we are divided one way or another. This land is our land and it is a beautiful land (in so many ways) and it is sad when it gets divided in various ways.
-I love simple things and this is what I found out about prop 8 in “plain English”.
Visit "Plain English"
OK, the blogger would not let me edit my comment so I am reposting the link. It is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA
It is a really nice simple way to explain what prop 8 advocates are about.
Good morning to all. Again, it's a pleasure to participate in a spirited discussion with passionate, bright people! Kudos to (almost) all.
I'd like to address some of the issues raised by Devon and Camelia/Josh.
Let's start with Devon:
You began by pointing out that domestic partnerships are designed to be legally equivalent to civil marriage. Although there are still some differences between the two (primarily in taxation and inheritance), the word "marriage" carries value in our society. Here's how the Connecticut put it in their recent decision:
"In view of the exalted status of marriage in our society," the justices wrote, "it is hardly surprising that civil unions are perceived to be inferior to marriage. ... Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means 'equal.' As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter most surely is not."
"Marriage" means something. It likely means something a little bit different to each couple. To an LDS person married in the temple, it means the promise of an eternal family. To me, it means an expression of constant love and a commitment of mutual caring and support. For whatever reason, domestic partnership just doesn't have the same gravitas.
Moving on...
"The state, as represented by the people, is entirely able to declare various unions separate and INequal with regards to societal desirability."
I agree. The question is, are same-sex unions less "desirable" enough to warrant unequal treatment?
I will grant that no same-sex union can produce members of the next generation of citizens solely on its own. I agree that stable unions producing and raising children is of value to society.
However, marriage -- as I believe I have stated -- delivers other societal benefits, as well. A legal agreement for joint care and responsibility for debt is also good for society. It encourages wise behavior and reduces the chance the state will have to step in and care for someone.
"I'll concede that raising the next generation isn't the only societal benefit of marriage. But I'd argue that it is a lot more important than all others taken together."
Let's say I admit that is the case -- that "raising the next generation" is more important than all other benefits to society. Thing is, we can have it all! We can have the societal benefit of supporting traditional families in the raising of children, we can have the societal benefit of supporting non-traditional families who are raising children (as my husband and I are), we can have the societal benefit of mutual support, the societal benefit of shared debt responsibility. More marriage means more good.
I said: How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man...) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?"
You said: "The state would effectively be saying that the gender identities of the parents are irrelevant. The state would be endorsing homosexuality as perfectly equal to heterosexuality."
No. They would be saying that civil marriage offers benefits even when the partners are of the same gender. Actually, that's what they are saying now.
Besides, I don't see how the state viewing a homosexual union as equal to a heterosexual union on a civil level translates into harm for the heterosexual union. If you can define a harm more specifically, I'm willing to listen.
"the state could begin teaching these viewpoints to children in the public school system K-12, via Education Code § 51890."
The only mention of "marriage" in that section of code is: "(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood."
For parenthood, you will have to discuss sex at some point. But the legal and financial aspects of civil marriage? No need at all to discuss sex or sexuality to teach those lessons.
Besides, though it may make you uncomfortable, kids ARE going to learn about same-sex couples at some point. From the media, from conversations on the playground, from knowing someone with a gay relative (or having a gay relative themselves). Schools don't have to (and shouldn't, probably) get into the specifics of those relationships, but to mention that it is legal for same-sex couples to marry? I truly don't see why that's a problem.
Here's one way of handling it: "Mommy and Daddy believe very strongly that only a man and a woman should be able to get married. That's the way it is in our church, too. But not everyone believes the same way we do. Some people don't get married in a church. Even people who DO get married in church have to have a civil marriage license. That's a piece of paper that is issued by the state that says it's OK to be married. Almost every man who marries, marries a woman. But some men fall in love with another man, and some women fall in love with another woman. We think that's wrong, but the law says it's OK for them to marry. There are lots of laws that your daddy and I disagree with, but because we are good citizens, we follow all the laws, even the ones we don't agree with."
"There are examples of this already in MA 2nd grade classrooms with children being read stories about princes marrying princes."
Again, I don't see a problem here. What about the 3-5% of kids in classes who ARE homosexual? Isn't it OK that ONE book among hundreds mirrors the way THEY will feel later in life?
"Recently, a 1st grade class in San Francisco was taken to witness and celebrate the lesbian wedding of their teacher."
And, as with any trip, parents were given the option to opt out. Two parents did so. So what's the problem here?
"I have a hard time believing that the majority is behaving tyrannically by giving domestic partners all the rights and privilege of marriage while declaring heterosexual marriage the societal ideal."
What is happening is society is creating a second-tier relationship status. As I said above, "marriage" is important -- and not just to straight couples.
Now to Camelia:
"I feel like if I publicly say YES on prop 8, I would be named intolerant against gays."
I'm sorry that's the case. Please understand that I do not feel that way.
"Civil right is when people are denied rights for things like color of their skin, age, etc."
Do we not also guarantee civil rights in terms of religion? And isn't THAT a choice?
"However, homosexuality is a choice of living style."
It's just as much a choice as being left-handed is.
People used to persecute and discriminate against the left-handed. In the Middle Ages, they were often executed because it was seen as a sign of demonic possession or witchcraft. The words "sinister" and "gauche" (both with negative connotations) derive from "of the left," just as "that's so gay" today doesn't really refer to sexuality, but just the general uncool, undesirable nature of a thing.
As recently as the last century, some teachers would tie a child's left hand in a vain attempt to make them right-handed. (A left-handed person CAN force himself to write right-handed, just as a gay person can force himself to live a heterosexual lifestyle -- but that doesn't make the leftie a rightie or the gay man straight.) Some people (the ambidextrous or the bisexual) would find it relatively easy to move from one behavior to the other, but for most of us, changing our sexuality would be as impossible as learning to write as precisely or throw a ball as accurately with our non-dominant hand as with our dominant hand.
Science doesn't have "proof" as to what causes left-handedness, either. Like sexuality, it is probably a combination of genetics and in utero environmental factors, reinforced in early childhood by societal norms. (Kids will likely be encouraged to use their right hands, boys will likely be given trucks and other male-oriented toys, girls will likely be given dolls.) But it's clear that both are fixed at birth or very soon after. So it's important we treat all people fairly.
In fact, I think that is what this all comes down to -- treating people fairly. Treating them equally under the law. Proposition 8 will enshrine inequity into our constitution. And no matter how you feel about same-sex marriage, it's wrong to take away someone else's fundamental rights.
For all of you who are sealed in the temple (or plan to be), don't you believe your marriage is (or will be) on a higher plane than the non-eternal marriage a Catholic or Baptist may enter into in their church? But you still respect their marriages, yes? And you respect even the marriages of people wed at the county courthouse, I'd imagine, even if you think yours is more sacred, correct?
That's all we are asking for -- tolerance and respect. And equal treatment under the law. Feel free to think my marriage is less than yours. Feel free to think I have a grave reckoning in store for me when I die. But here, on this Earth, in our legal system, allow me and my husband to be treated equally under the law. You don't have to accept my relationship as equal to yours in any sense -- except the legal one.
Thank you.
This has been a nice exchange. I have not really talked to anyone on the "no" side so it is very informative. While I don't feel that either side will change the mind of the other since both are protecting what they believe is best for their family and situation, I do want to understand, I don't want to be mean-spirited or appear hateful. I have a couple questions and hopefully they come out as inquisitive and not judgmental.
One of the arguments for Prop 8 is religion. It is said that if this does not pass people can get sued for treating same sex couples differently. For example if the LDS church believes same-gender attraction is a moral issue and do not believe it appropriate to marry such couples, if this clarification does not go through, the Bishop or Church can be sued for NOT performing the union/marriage or excluding them from temples. When there are alot of straight couples who can not enter the temple.
I agree there is not a simple fix to this and there are couples that treat marriage as something light, I can even say some same-gender couples could possibly value marriage more since it is a fairly new right or rite.
Also what about religious adoption agencies: Things happen and their are times when you may not be able to be suitable for parenting. The reason why you would choose such an agency is because it would share the same core beliefs as you do. If this is not clarified, these institutions will not be able to say this child can only go to a home with a mother and a father.
Another thought is this: Same-gender marriage is very new, since the courts overturned the vote in 2000 how has it affected California and it's people?
There are a lot of what if's surrounding it and a lot of fear as to what may happen if this is not clarified. Anytime there is change there is an adjustment period and people who will hang on to old ways/beliefs, etc. So with that said calling the two types of unions different names, while at first may have a feeling of "less than" as time goes by will that change? I think of racism since it is probably the most similar battle that has occured. While some still hold onto the views of other races being less than, for most we have never experienced such hatred and feel they are just people like anyone else.
One hard thing about the law is it typically takes power away from the majority to protect the minority. That is all good, except the majority ends up with no voice and the "few" rule all. That is not directed to specifically this issue, thinking of Blacks vs. whites, men in the work place vs. women, etc.
I hope this came out as intelligent and kind, if not I apologize for the tone or wording.
Post a Comment