California to Re-Redefine the Family
I’m not a huge fan of being able to amend a state constitution simply by a majority vote of citizens. However, when four people can single-handedly override a HUGE portion of the population, I believe it should be put up with. I do believe the Supreme Court of my state went WAY beyond their power. When an issue is this explosive and debatable, four people should not decide its outcome.
I call on my fellow Californians to reverse the decision handed down. A recent poll found that 54 percent of Californians back a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one woman and one man. With the diversity and sheer size of the state, it is hard to know how reliable that poll is. I think it is clear, though, that both sides of the issue feel they can win it.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, notwithstanding the argument of our Supreme Court. If they choose to marry within the definition of marriage, they can do so. And without argument, they have the same right to relate and cohabitate with one another. The better argument is that the classifications in the definition of marriage themselves could fall outside the state’s legitimate interests, as was the line of reasoning in Vermont. Admittedly, few secular reasons exist for preventing gays from marrying, but as I have said before, I see no reason to invoke religious motivations in secular subjects. In doing so, I do not feel that I have created or hindered an establishment of religion from existing, nor have I prohibited the free exercise of religion.
I genuinely feel that the destruction of our nation will proceed from our moral decadence. I believe God upholds and destroys nations and with that conviction, I cannot support the marriage of homosexuals. I believe we must be kind and loving to homosexuals. But there has to be a line somewhere. I call on my Californians to draw that line this November.
Do you think that the California Supreme Court “overstepped” their constitutional boundaries or just made a decision, based on California’s constitutional “right to marry,” that is “immoral” to you? Just because a majority of the population believes something contrary to the court doesn’t make the court “activist” or at fault for overstepping it’s constitutional boundaries.
S.C. Denney
27 May 08 at 7:33 pm
“I genuinely feel that the destruction of our nation will proceed from our moral decadence. I believe God upholds and destroys nations and with that conviction, I cannot support the marriage of homosexuals.”
Chris: Do you think that banning homosexual marriage will somehow eliminate the “immoral” act of homosexuality? Would it be a deterrence to homosexual activity?
Do you think that homosexuality will cease and desist in the US, or California, if the “ceremony” of gay marriage is outlawed?
Finally, with that being said, do you truly believe that a ban on homosexual marriage would be part of the recipe to save the US from God’s wrath?
gino
27 May 08 at 9:53 pm
It appears that Jesus Camp has broken out in the School of Athens.
jkkuwitzky
27 May 08 at 11:05 pm
You make a good point Steven in that there are times when a large portion of a population believe in something unconstitutional, such as was the case before Topeka. In this case, I feel that 60 years from now, we are not going to look back and think how foolish we were to forbid homosexuals to marry. I don’t think homosexual marriage is necessary to a free and democratic society and I do think that discriminating along racial lines is far different than discriminating based on sexual orientation. That being said, I think a legislative body answerable to the voters ought to bear the responsibility to make homosexual marriage legal or illegal.
Gino, again a good point. I don’t think God cares whether practicing homosexuals are married or not. I do, however, think that legalizing their marriage will bring more of them, for lack of a better term, “out of the closet.” Homosexual behavior will become, as it already is becoming, more acceptable. As it becomes more acceptable, it will surely become more widely practiced. I have not heard one good reason why this would be good for our country and I have one reason that I think is very good.
Chris McNeal
27 May 08 at 11:06 pm
jkkuwitzky, fine.
Chris McNeal
27 May 08 at 11:07 pm
If the tottering morals of our licentious nation threaten the retributive wrath of the Almighty, why stop with the connubial status of loving same sex couples? Too often it seems that rule by divine diktat extends only to those commands that do not impede on the comfort of the in group.
jkkuwitzky
27 May 08 at 11:40 pm
Within the context of my question and your answer, it’s not about what is necessary to a free and democratic society. It’s about whether or not the court overstepped its constitutional boundaries. If the people succeed in amending the California State Constitution, then so be it. But, according to Chief Justice Ronald George, the court was within its constitutional scope to declare a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
I read through most of the case (and all of the majority opinion). The court goes out of its way to ensure that it isn’t acting in an “activist” way. The court’s ruling is based on the interpretation of the State’s constitutional guarantee to every state citizen a “right to marry.”
S.C. Denney
27 May 08 at 11:42 pm
Kolby, The current connubial status of our great society is in such strife and divisiveness that no act by man or divine could salvage what has become of the traditional husband and wife. It is indeed a truism of our post-modern age that what is forthcoming is forthcoming and change is inevitable. That being the case, the relationship between one man and one woman will be defined by the coming of ages (our future generations); in that case, we’re destined for communal living and free love, free from legal ramifications, as such is found today in adultery litigation (it’s still in the books, ya know?).
S.C. Denney
27 May 08 at 11:51 pm
I almost feel compelled to oppose gay marriage on the basis that it could lead to more gay adoption and thus pollute my currently child-free and fabulous gayborhood with legions of demonic Burmese orphanage products.
jkkuwitzky
28 May 08 at 12:00 am
“I do think that discriminating along racial lines is far different than discriminating based on sexual orientation.”
Chris, you need to establish why these situations are not as analogous as they appear to be. Also you need to address the analogy that goes like this: the government only provides tax benefits to Christian churches (not mosques or temples or anything else), but people like you claim that everyone still has the “right to worship” as defined by the state, even though that right to worship only includes the practices that the majority accepts.
I think that you cannot oppose the scenario above and still hold the positions you espouse in this post. Religious affiliation is a choice, and there is a clear choice that is the one accepted by the vast majority in this country. If you are going to adopt a mindset that promotes doctrine over tolerance, then you have to at least be consistent.
I am curious to see your response to this.
David M. Manes
28 May 08 at 11:14 am
I have said this before and I will say it again. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, notwithstanding the argument of our Supreme Court. If they choose to marry within the definition of marriage, they can do so.
Don’t be a buffoon.
I genuinely feel that the destruction of our nation will proceed from our moral decadence.
Ok, now you’re being honest, though I wish you had just immediately come out and said why you really oppose gay marriage rather than wasting our time with the preceding three paragraphs of diddling undergraduate sophistry.
JH
28 May 08 at 2:01 pm
Like I stated on a previous post here, California is more conservative than we are willing to admit. I hope this poll is incorrect.
Edward Carson
28 May 08 at 5:03 pm
David: To begin, discriminating racially is sinful. People who claim otherwise don’t read their Bibles.
What right to worship is being taken away? Because an institution of marriage is being supported the way it has been supported for the history of the world has no relation to others being able to worship the way they want. Who’s right to worship the way they choose is being taken away? I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to have me address.
JH: I will try not be a buffoon.
Mr. Carson: California is much more conservative than most non-Californians realize. Currently, the three major urban centers mask the rest of the very large state.
To all: I am simpathetic to the fact that there are many other sinful acts that are not prohibited by our government. However, if you think about it logically, it makes sense. What I am advocating is that we not give a tax break to an act that I believe is sinful. I am not preventing that action to take place. If people want to choose a homosexual lifestyle, they can do that. I oppose any effort to restrict the free exercise of that lifestyle. However, I oppose any effort to positively support that lifestyle. That is the issue we are dealing with.
Chris McNeal
28 May 08 at 5:57 pm
And also to JH: Sorry for my undergraduate sophistry. In the future, I will try to trick you all into falling for my right-wing wacko beliefs more skillfully.
Chris McNeal
28 May 08 at 5:59 pm
Chris,
How can a secular society with secular laws define this construct based on religious/biblical rules not endorsed by all members of the polity? I guess we are more of a Christian/theocratic state than I thought.
I guess we should be more clear on this matter. I assumed most Americans were moving or have moved toward the left a’la civil rights.
Edward Carson
28 May 08 at 10:22 pm
I am an advocate of civil rights myself. Gays, women, and racial minorities should have the same rights to vote, work, and be active and influential in their communities, states, and nation. I also believe gays should have the right to be gay and form relationships the way they choose.
I feel that as long as people are not harming others, they have a right to actions that I would deem sinful. But I cannot support a government policy that not only allows but actually promotes action that I deem sinful. At that point, the government moves from passive to being active in an individual’s decision to living a sinful lifestyle.
I see no contradiction in my views on civil rights and my attitude towards homosexual marriage.
Chris McNeal
29 May 08 at 12:29 pm
So you seriously believe that if gay marriage is legalized in this country that more people will decide that they are, in fact, gay? Really?
And to be clear about the active/passive distinction you drew: right now the government has an active-negative approach to gays and gay marriage. DOMA, the UCMJ, and several state laws and constitutions actively discriminate against gays by denying them rights and protections that are provided and protected for everybody else. The California Supreme Court and the more liberal blog commenters here want a morally passive role for the government. It is not up to the government to promote or discourage homosexuality because, as you said, it does not harm anybody else. It should be the government’s role to provide equal protection under the law to all people, not just the majority.
David M. Manes
29 May 08 at 2:01 pm
I think the government has a legitimate and secular interest in promoting one man one woman marriages. And that there would be more gay people should the government legalize gay marriage is obviously absurd. However, I do believe it would give the message to gays that their behavior is okay and acceptable and in so doing would foster more homosexual relationships.
I don’t believe people are sinful for being more predisposed to homosexuality. Whether it is genetic or from particular circumstances of growing up and conditioning is irrelevant. Certain people are going to have feelings towards the same sex and not to the opposite sex. But we all have to resist feelings we have. Whether they are towards heterosexual adultery, violence, greed, whatever, this is not a phenomenon native to the homosexual world. By the government sanctioning this behavior, we are giving people with these feelings less reason to fight them.
Chris McNeal
29 May 08 at 11:27 pm
So obviously the next step is to let the government help us “resist” these unholy feelings by criminalizing adultery and getting rid of greed via a massive but swift transition to a command economy and social system.
In all seriousness, I would like to know what you think the government’s “legitimate and secular interest” is in prohibiting same sex marriages. There is merit to some arguments that the state should incentivize stable, long term child rearing relationships (tends toward better outcomes in education and social productivity), but that idea need not unnecessarily exclude stable and loving environments in a same sex household. You talk a lot about your secular reasoning here, but all I see is repeated references to all things “sinful”. There are no secular sins. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that homosexual feelings are something that should be resisted at great effort, and there isn’t much secular about that. What tangible outcomes are you afraid of (aside from the ick factor)?
jkkuwitzky
30 May 08 at 12:01 am
Once again, Chris, you assert that there are good secular reasons for your position, but the only supporting arguments you provide stem from your own personal religious doctrine.
Please, tell us what the secular interest is in opposing equal marriage rights.
Maybe it stems from your belief that the government doesn’t just exist to protect people (military, police, etc.) and to do the things that individuals cannot always do (education, roads, etc.). Do you think that the government exists to control and influence the private actions of people when those actions have no effect on anybody else? That is a type of totalitarianism I haven’t heard seriously argued in quite some time.
David M. Manes
30 May 08 at 6:31 am
I realize the court has been moving away from this, and maybe my understanding of this is incorrect, but it would seem that if the court used the Lemon Test, this would not be an issue.
According to political scientists Robert Lineberry: Church and State relations 1. must have a secular legislative purpose, 2. have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion and, 3. must not foster an excessive government “entanglement” with religion.
I realize gay marriage is a 10th amendment issue, but it would seem that the 9th amendment might be used a’la the supremacy clause and the incorporation doctrine to null and void the religious justification for rulings by states against gay marriage. The 1973 vcase of Roe v. Wade did this.
The major argument seems to be driven by a religious notion that does not define the United States; if so, that would make us a theocratic state. Now, if science were used to explain why this should not occur (being gay), that would make since with the secualr nature of the advancement of the U.S. Moreover, if it is a wrong and the argument is that it is a sin, why allow people to be gay? I think this is a matter of civil rights and gay marriage is protected under the 14th amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens.
Why can a non-military person have an affair under the law but gay people cannot make a commitment to each other through marriage under the law?
Edward Carson
30 May 08 at 8:56 am
To all: My secular argument was the government has a legitimate interest in promoting marriages. My religious argument is that the government should not promote actions of a sinful nature. Therefore, marriage should be defined heterosexually.
David: I argue quite explicitly in the main post that I do believe gay marriage will have an effect on others. I refer you back to the right-wing crazy religious last paragraph. And how can you argue that nobody has been advancing this idea? If nobody was advancing these ideas, you would have nothing to talk about.
Mr Carson: I believe many gay rights fall under the 9th amendment actually. And I’ve listed several of them in previous comments. I’m quite familiar with the Lemon Test. While it is true that the Lemon Test is fading out as you stated, I do believe that it is useful. However, I’m not going to hang what I feel is the fate of our country on something that came out of our judicial system. I’m sorry but there are more important things than right to marriage.
And I hate stating this over and over but I really have answered your question of why I believe we should allow gay people to remain gay. I believe there is a difference in allowing certain behaviors and promoting them.
Chris McNeal
30 May 08 at 11:35 pm
Chris, maybe I was being confusing. I wasn’t looking for you to repeat your statement that “the government has a legitimate interest in promoting marriages,” I wanted you to justify that statement that you have just repeated. What is that interest, exactly? What sort of a political philosophy involves the government in people’s private familial relationships? Also, do you realize that the policies with which you align yourself do not promote marriage in any way; they discourage or prohibit one certain type of marriage.
Mainly, please just answer the first question without repeating your position. It isn’t good enough to just say it over and over again.
As for your apocalyptic theology, I think I feel a separate blog post coming with that one…
David M. Manes
31 May 08 at 9:16 am
I liked Dave’s comment about the government’s “passive” or “active” role on this issue. By not giving same-sex marriage the same rights as heterosexual marriges, the government is actively discriminating against homosexuals. Treating both types of marriage equally is not actively promoting anything; it is ending government’s active role in this very personal issue.
It all comes down to this in my mind; unless there is an extremely important reason (one not based on religious docterine or personal beliefs), the government should not interfere with homosexuals’ right to marry. Chris has yet to provide that reason.
miniman
31 May 08 at 3:19 pm
and why should the state, as opposed to the church for instance, be involved in marriage anyway?
it wasn’t always this way. one of the most common excuses given is because of the strings that are attached…taxes, custody, etc. but this is besides the point and not the heart of the subject.
Frank Van Dunn
(teaches philosophy of law at the Universities of Ghent (B.) and Maastricht (Nl.))
“The issue of homosexual marriage (and, in its wake, homosexuals being granted the right to adopt children) has caused a lot of uproar precisely because many people actually believed, as Shaw said they would, that the laws of marriage with which they were acquainted were not just a bundle of legal rules but a reflection of the very nature of marriage. That belief, however, betrays a fundamental confusion about the nature of marriage.
It is an understandable confusion. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to expect many people to see through the pervasive propaganda that teaches them to look at the prevailing legal arrangement as if it defined the institution of marriage. To them, marriage is what the legal rules say it is, because the authorities, the media and the schools tell them that is how it is. However, that is not how it is. The legal rules define what we may call ‘the legal institution of marriage’, but they do not, and cannot, define the institution of marriage, which is not a legal institution at all.”
Jesse
2 Jun 08 at 9:31 am
Chris,
“Denying them a marriage license does not convert them into heterosexuals.”
Privatize marriage.
As Greenhut points out in his Get the State Out of Marriage article:
“Conservatives are most likely to oppose this idea, but they ought to consider this point: Given changing cultural attitudes, it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is approved by the government. Isn’t it better to embrace this private route than to let the Left use the state to transform another cultural institution? Then again, modern conservatives have become as accustomed as modern liberals to viewing the state as the arbiter of all things moral. And although privatization is the right idea, too many people have too much vested in continuing the culture war.”
Jesse
2 Jun 08 at 9:51 am
Were it a politically feasible position, I would be an ardent supporter of the comments and quotes above.
Once again, the state and the people, take the positivistic legal approach to marriage (as they do with many other things they consider to be within the realm of “morality”).
S.C. Denney
2 Jun 08 at 12:30 pm
Chris: “But I cannot support a government policy that not only allows but actually promotes action that I deem sinful. At that point, the government moves from passive to being active in an individual’s decision to living a sinful lifestyle.”
Can I assume you also oppose legal marriage between people with non-matching religious beliefs, particularly Christians and nonbelievers? Because the Bible is pretty clear on that whole “unequally yoked” thing, and if the government condones marriage between people of different faiths then surely it is promoting a sinful lifestyle, am I right?
I won’t even mention the ridiculous level of arrogance in your implication that our government should base laws on what *you* deem sinful.
I am on the edge of my seat waiting to hear what the state’s legitimate secular interest in opposing gay marriage might be.
relyingonintellect
5 Jun 08 at 4:39 pm
“I do believe the Supreme Court of my state went WAY beyond their power.”
My challenge to this statement has yet to be addressed.
S.C. Denney
7 Jun 08 at 6:04 pm
I was on the edge of my seat for a while, but my butt fell asleep.
David M. Manes
9 Jun 08 at 11:37 pm