THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

We elected our first White/African-American President.

Wow! even Cali. passes to ban (or to have it stay banned)on gay marrige. 53% to 47%. I’m suprised about that.
They said they spent a lot of money and many resources in that state against banning same sex marriage. I wonder if the gap got slimmer in Cali. from last time this “issue” was voted on.

If you look at Florida, it was brutal there, 2- 1 on banning gay marriage. It probably won’t happen in your lifetime MGL, maybe in mine.

Has Prop 8 officially passed yet?  It’s ahead by 225,000 with 36% reporting, but many of those places that haven’t reported tend to be pretty liberal.  Ironically, many compare the ban on gay marriage with the civil right movement of the African-American community.  African Americans and Latinos are the ones who are heavily supporting Proposition 8.  Gays currently have many of the same rights that traditional married couples have, it’s just called something else.  If we allow gay marriages, shouldn’t we also allow polygamy?  And some of the other deviant practices?

I was shocked by the number of people who voted against same-sex marriage. California’s Prop 8 passed by 54% to 46% margin. Hearing this news definitely tempered my enthusiasm for Obama’s victory.

Why does a lot of this country still feel threatened by homosexuality. It is not evil, it is not a sin, it is not deviant. It has been and always will be a part of every culture. It is not a lifestyle choice, that somebody consciously makes. It can’t be cured, like the Catholic church likes to pretend.

I have the same sympathy towards transgendered persons as well. For some reason, society seems less threatened by transgendered persons than they do by homosexual persons.

Is there really any good reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage? Other than the increased possibility of contracting HIV or AIDS, I really can’t think of any other reasons.

terpsfan101:  I would think the possibility of contracting HIV/AIDS would be lessened if gays were allowed to marry, because they would presumably be practising monogamy.

And just for the record:  My marriage is strong enough that it is not threatened or weakened by the possibility that gays would have the same right.

And some of the other deviant practices?

That kind of ends the discussion, doesn’t it?  If you think it is deviant, that is.

I suppose they said exactly the same thing when they first tried to do away with bans on interracial marriage.

Although even if one thinks something is deviant (whatever that means - it can mean many things, such as “deviating from the norm” which would include virtually anything of course), that is hardly a reason to enact laws to prevent anyone from practicing it.  As far as I know, laws are meant to protect you from OVERTLY harming me, not to prevent you from practicing something that I don’t like, principally because of some supposed religious proscription.  Shouldn’t it be possible in a society like ours for something to be proscribed, outlawed, looked at in disfavor in one religion or another, or even all religions, but not legally proscribed by that country’s supposed secular or at least non-sectarian laws?  There are all kinds of proscriptions among the various religions.  Why do we pick out sexual orientation?  I’ll tell you why.  Because every single person who voted “yes” today is insecure about their own sexuality!

Other than the increased possibility of contracting HIV or AIDS, I really can’t think of any other reasons.

Can that possibly be a reason to allow or support a ban?  I don’t think so, any more than increased chance of sickle cell anemia would be a reason to ban Blacks from procreating or the same thing for Tay Sachs disease and Jews.

Steve,

You’re right. Marriage reduces the possibility of contracting HIV/AIDS, whether that be same-sex marriage or marriage betwen a man and a woman.

I don’t know if the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is higher amongst male homosexuals anymore. If we are looking at the persons in the same demographic group, with the only difference being sexual orientation, then the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is probably the same, regardless of sexual orientation.

I could never, ever, ever, ever, ever (to borrow a quote from Winston Churchill, via the movie, “The Martian Child") tell my children to, “Judge people by the content of their character and not by what gender with whom they choose to have a relationship” (to borrow another quote from another great statesman) and at the same time support a ban on same-sex marriage.  That would be unfathomable to me and I will proudly take and preach that perspective with me to the grave.

Someday those state constitutional bans will be repealed by the very people who enacted them or be made Unconstitutional by the U.S. Constitution, either through an Amendment to it, or by its existing Equal Protection Clause.  And someday our children or their children will ask their parents or their teachers, “Why was it that 20 years ago people could only marry individuals of the opposite gender, not simply whom they love?” And the response will be, “Sometimes it takes time for right to win over might.”

"Because every single person who voted “yes” today is insecure about their own sexuality!”

I would of voted “no”, and I’m very insecure about my own sexuality. I’ve never had a homo-sexual experience and never plan on having one, but I have had DREAMS where I was engaged in homosexual proclivities. Everyone is insecure about their sexuality to a certain degree. I’m not afraid to admit it.

Marriage is the union of two individuals who love each either.

Sounds like a great way to define marriage in my opinion.

Hey, I didn’t say that anyone who voted “no” is secure about that.  I just think it is a good bet that the “yes” voters are largely driven by that.  It is the “empty barrels make big noises” syndrome.

BTW, I should not have singled out CAL (and I don’t think the vote counting is nearly over, BTW).

Arizona and Florida passed the same thing, and Arkansas, even worse in my opinion, passed a ban on gays adopting children, much to the detriment of all the un-adopted and parent-less kids.  I’m supremely confident in the proclamation that any gay couple looking to adopt a child are going to be MUCH better parents than the average parent.

Not that that should be a criteria for adoption (that the prospective adoptive parents be any “better” than any particular group), only that they meet some minimum standard relating to their abilities as parents, not their sexual orientation.  I am also supremely confident that children of gay parents are emotionally healthier, more well-adjusted, give more back to society, and ultimately more successful than the average child.

Everything “anti-homosexual” boils down to one thing and one thing only:  To some religious people, it is “just wrong” and that is the end of the discussion. That is sad. I have a tremendous amount of respect for all religions.  When it comes to using religion to oppress people or deny them rights, that is where my respect and support ends.  Hey, next thing you know, the Jews will be clamoring for a constitutional amendment banning pork and shellfish!

Yes, it is ashame that foster-children and children in orphanages end up being the victims, when laws are passed that ban gay couples from adopting.

Most Religions plays a huge factor for these type of discriminations. Sara Palin believes it’s a choice that you make, to be gay. There is a cure she believes in and that of course her answer is Christianity. She is one of many, many, and many, of people that believe this non-sense.

My mom, a devoted Christian lady, was taught as a little girl to never associate yourself with gay people, because you might turn into gay as well. She was also taught by her parents and church that all gays are sinners, etc.. She tried teaching this SHIZ to me at one time. She has gotten a lot better over the years, after losing many arguments with me over this. Her turning point was when I asked her, why is she willing to spread so much hate? Of course, no reasonable answer.. 

I few minutes ago, I asked my mom about gay marriage. She is against gay marriage, but supports most of the gay rights. For example, hospital visits, employment, credit and lending, adoption. I have hard time believing she is for adoption by gays. Only she knows for sure on that one.

She is against gay marriage..

Did you ask her why?

I didn’t ask her why. She is at work right now, so I wont have a chance of asking her ‘till tommorow. Until then.

I need to move to Massachusetts! They just de-criminalized possesion of less than a half-ounce of marijuana.

“Massachusetts voters have approved Question 2, which eliminated criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis.

The new law, which will take effect in 30 days, calls for a $100 fine and confiscation of the substance for those caught with an ounce or less with no reporting against a person’s criminal record.”

An ounce is a lot of marijuana by the way. It would take me 6 months to smoke an ounce worth of grass.

One thing to keep in mind about marriage is that it is both civil and religious by law.  In California and Washington (I have not looked at other states) marriages can only be solemnized by religious officials or certain government officials.  This is a rather unique blurring of the line between Church and State, and gives the religious a greater stake in the definition of marriage.

Family Code, Sections 400-402 are the statutes pertaining to whom can solemnize a marriage in California:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=400-402

It is sort of unfortunate, but this debate could be avoided by allowing “civil unions” for homosexuals. In fact, we should just change all legal mention of marriage to “civil union”, and that way the only way you could get “married” would be in a religious sense.

mgl --

I agree 100%.  My joy at the outcome of the Presidential election has been tempered somewhat by the narrow (looks like 52-48) passage of this amendment.

I’m not 100% surprised.  I live south of San Francisco—pretty Democratic area—but there were a lot of pro-8 protestors and signs.  Out-of-state groups poured a lot of money into this.  (One mistake, I think, of the anti-8 campaign was that it should have played up the “out-of-staters trying to force their views on us” line).

In the long-run, the bigots should lose.  (As many have noted, precisely the same arguments against gay marriage were raised, not too long ago, against inter-racial marriage.) I bet if you looked at how, say, people under 40 voted, Prop 8 would have been defeated handily.

What is always interesting about changing laws is to try to figure out the implications of the changes. 

There are countries around the world that have allowed same-sex civil unions, most notably a country that shares a great deal with USA: Canada.  Other countries: Spain, Norway, South Africa, UK, among others.  So, we can learn a great deal by seeing what happened to other countries.

What exactly is the difference between being born in Buffalo or Hamilton, Ontario?  Toronto would fit in quite nicely as an American city, much like NYC or Boston.  There is no fundamental difference between a child between the ages of 0 and puberty, in Canada, USA, or any other industrialized country.

And yet, the distaste, disgust, or amount of hatred necessary to oppose what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes somehow takes on another life depending on how few miles apart you were born and raised. 

Left to your own devices, you would not even entertain a debate on same-sex civil unions, as it is completely irrelevant to your own lifestyle.  It has zero impact on your freedom, the one thing that all humans have a desire for.

And in the words of the great Howard Stern: “Of course I support gay marriage… why should only straight couples be miserable?”

Gay marriage will eventually be accepted ... it’ll just take a little more time, is all.  Would anyone have thought, 40 years ago, that enough people would vote for a black presidential candidate that he’d even have a chance?

These things tend to change very, very quickly.  In Ontario in 1986, there was a controversy over whether gays should be given human rights protection as individuals.  20 years later, they can marry with little controversy.

Eventually people will come around.

I think the anti-8 crowd really botched their campaign.  It seemed to be based more on a “like it or not, it’s coming” mindset than a “this is discriminatory” mindset.  People always like to see arrogance bounced - just look at the way people feel about the Yankees and Red Sox.

I find this to be interesting.  My observations, as a straight male with only a few (openly) gay friends:

Culturally, we are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians, not less.  There are more (stock and non-stock) gay and lesbian characters on television and in movies, not fewer.  Gay culture is mainstreaming with popular culture.  More gays and lesbians, from my experience, are comfortable coming out to their friends and relatives.  More organizations are adding sexual orientation/identity to their non-discrimination statements.

These are my observations, and I could be wrong.  My entire life has been spent in gay-friendly areas of the US.

Anyway, the passage of proposition 8, while troubling, is actually kind of quaint.  Considering that in all other arenas gays and lesbians are seeing monotonic progress, it seems inevitable that their rights will merge with the rest of the population.  This is a step back, to be sure, but hardly a crushing blow.

There’s another aspect of this that I find interesting.  I identify as conservative, although not religious, on many issues.  Marriage is one of them.  I believe that the government should be promoting and encouraging marriage, and that two people in a monogamous long-term relationship create very positive social benefits for each other and (if they choose) for their children - and those benefits are present regardless of whether the marriage is between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.  A marriage contract, while not inviolable, is a great way to encourage these benefits, for both gays and straights.

What exactly is the difference between being born in Buffalo or Hamilton, Ontario?

Discrimination based on birthplace will be one of the last allowable injustices.  If we’re lucky, my toddler son might see it fall late in his life.

The Immigration site for Canada explicitly deals with immigration of same-sex marriages and civil unions:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp

Half-way down the page…

I hadn’t even noticed that Prop 8 passed until now.  Like a lot of you, I’m pretty surprised and a bit dismayed.  But I guess social politics haven’t really changed--it’s really just the economy that has changed.

I think that the goal for those of us who think that homosexuals are deserving of decency should be securing specific rights for same-sex couples.  Hospital visitation, inheritance, custody, tax benefits, health insurance benefits, etc. 

The country clearly isn’t ready to condone the word “marriage.” And that sucks.  But at least we can work toward securing specific rights for same-sex couples to gain some measure of equality.  It may be “separate but equal,” and therefore not truly equal.  But it may serve as a stop-gap until, as Craig implied, the opposition either changes their minds or dies off.
-j

What rights inside of marriage does the homosexual community currently not have in the state of California?  Which ones are not covered by the domestic partnership etc… ?

Why do we pick out sexual orientation?  I’ll tell you why.  Because every single person who voted “yes” today is insecure about their own sexuality!

I guess the conversation ends here doesn’t it.  Each person has his own reason for voting Yes or No.  To each his or her own.  If it’s an illegal Constitutional Amendment, then take it to the Supreme Court for a ruling.  No longer will the activist SF State Supreme Court be able to act legally on this.

I would have voted for it, and I don’t consider myself prejudiced in any way.

Being gay and being a racial minority are not equivalent. One defined by one’s skin color, the other is defined by one’s behavior.

In the POW prisons in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese forced American prisoners to salute even the lowest ranking of soldiers. To counter this, the Americans began saluting everything--trees, bugs, latrines. This rendered the salute itself meaningless, and eventually the Vietnamese relented.

The traditional family is one of the pillars of society and is part of the very foundation of our civilization. It’s taken a beating lately (in part thanks to the same political elements now pushing for gay marriage), but we can all agree it has been a major part of what got civilization to the modern place it is today. By officially sanctioning other arrangements as “marriage” we would be devaluing true marriage, just like the Americans with their salutes.

We should be very, very careful about tinkering with the foundations of our society. I’m not saying that allowing gay marriage will ruin western civilization overnight, but it could be one of the straws on the camel’s back.

One other point in response to Phil--Don’t be so sure that it’s only a matter of time. The future is not a linear extrapolation of the present. Societal forces are often cyclical, unpredictable, and almost never completely understood.

And lastly, what’s more prejudiced, what I just wrote or assuming all the people don’t share your views on this subject are fearful biggots? Think about it.

Brian: your “society” is “American society”.  Canada is still standing, and it’s not on any kind of camel.  This is my point.  Canada has gone through what America will eventually go through.  You have a test case.  You have it in Spain and Norway.  Your objections are theoretical objections.  We have actual evidence in place.  One out of every 1000 Canadian citizen is in a same-sex marriage.  Remove all those under 18, and you are at, what, one out of every 500 Canadian adults.  Add in those in domestic unions (live together, but no contract), and you’ve got an enormous population that is in a same-sex live-in relationship.

And given all that, exactly what about Canada has changed that has broken some camel because of this?

Anyone who chooses to oppose the freedom of choice of someone else better be prepared to accept the status quo as the freedom of choice, and must argue with evidence that preventing freedom of choice will cause harm to society.  The status quo is not marriage and that the same-sex civil unionists need to make their case.

Brian, as to your last point, I’d say this message is easily more prejudiced than accusing people of bigotry.  Denying people fundamental rights is bigoted, plain and simple.  This isn’t a case of respecting other opinions - if your opinion is denying human rights, it is worhty of derision, not respect.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gay marriage would somehow destroy marriage as an institution.  Civilization seems to have held together fairly well over the past several months when gay marriage was allowed.

Brian, sorry to pile onto the attack, but don’t you think a lot of the same arguments you’re making were used against interracial marriage? A lot of people used to (and still do) define the “traditional family” as a man and woman of the same race (/religion) and their children. You (and the majority of people) now define it as man and woman and their children. Is it really that radical a step to once again expand the definition, to any two adults and their children.

I would have voted no because I just don’t care who gets married, but marriage has always been limited.  To say that gays’ rights are being violated is to say that family members who wish to marry also have their rights violated.  It’s the same as saying that people under a certain age cannot marry are having their rights violated.  Or that people who wish to marry animals are having their rights violated. 

As I already said, I support gay marriage.  Actually, i don’t support marriage at all and look forward to the day when it no longer exists though I know that won’t come in my lifetime.  I just don’t support it on the basis that gays have a right to marry.  Lots of people don’t have the right to marry.  All of us here have but one option if we wish to marry. 

There’s no human right to marriage.

I can’t speak for why others would support Prop 8 (I don’t live in California anyway) but I can tell you why I voted for the constitutional amendment defining marriage Biblically in my state and MGL is exactly right, it was fear.  Fear of Almighty God.

If all of “civilized” society (Canada included) banded together to define marriage apart from the Biblical mandate of one-man and one-woman, that wouldn’t mean a thing to God or his ordained institution.

Marriage is part of the covenant of creation and we are all bound by it whether we like it or not.  You can rebel against it and change it in your own sight, but you can never change it in the eyes of the one who created all things.

And yes, please pigeon hole my comments in any bigoted manner you see fit.

Also, these “marriage traditions” are traditions of what… humanity since inception?  What are the marriage traditions in China and India?  And Europe and Africa?  I really wish people would get away from the “America is the center of the universe” perspective.

I’m no scholar, but marriages among royalty was sometimes done in terms of the alliances of nations.  Marriages are pre-arranged by the families, again for alliance or monetary purposes.  I would bet that I could go to the history of 200 nations and find 200 “traditions”, each of which has not survived two hundred years, much less two thousand.

And the downfall of “marriage” is not the same-sex unions, but the opposite-sex divorces.  What at some point was a lifelong committment is now simply a term-based contract.  It may or may not involve love, it may or may not involve sex, it may or may not involve children, money, land, prestige. There is nothing really to the “sanctity” of marriage that will transcend nations or culture.

And certainly, there’s no reason that the XX/XY chromosome makeup be a requirement from now until eternity.

The only time we should ever take away someone else’s freedom is if they imperil our own, or oevr whomever we are guardians.  Preemptive strikes is a gray-area.  Same-sex marriages?  It’s what oppressors constantly do to the oppressees: flex their muscles to establish their utopia.

***

I commend Brian for being so honest, and be able to speak on an intelligent level about this.  Hopefully, he’ll see this discussion in the same vein.

Agree with David #31, Tango #33.

Our faith in democracy has led us to putting many decisions in the hands of the state which would be better left to the individual.  Why should marriage be a state-sanctioned institution, subject to the will of the majority? 

I ask the same question about scads of issues which are commonly accepted as being within the proper scope of government.

I just don’t support it on the basis that gays have a right to marry.  Lots of people don’t have the right to marry. 

Right, it’s discrimination.  The support of same-sex unions should be on that basis.  Not that they have a right to marry, but they have a right to have the same unions and partnerships of opposite-sex unions.

As for persons under the age of consent: those laws can also be repealed.  Maybe it should be 16 or 14.  (They used to get married, aka have sex, at that age.) For better or for worse, we’ve decided that persons under the age of 18 require guardianship (in USA anyway).

Same-family unions, or polygomous unions are taboo (again, in USA anyway).  If there was a movement of same-family unions, why stand in their way (genetic reasons, notwithstanding).  Similarly, as long as polygomous unions don’t discriminate based on gender and don’t require additional burdens on society (same in terms of social benefits), then again, why stand in their way?

As for animals: they are property, not persons.  While Blacks were once considered property by the small-minded before us, I have no doubt that animals will not be considered persons for the next few milleniums.

***

Wood: In Canada, churches have the right to refuse to perform marriages on religious grounds.  The word “marriage” is simply not owned by religion.  There are religious marriages and there are civil marriages.

Brian—

I will respectfully respond to two of your points.

First, you draw a distinction between skin color and behavior.  But the behavior in question is something that is, by all accounts, innate and cannot be changed as a practical matter.

I’ve performed this thought experiment on myself:  what if I lived in a community where the social norm was that I could only be physically intimate with a man, and would be ostracized if I was with a woman?  Could I simply adjust?  Or would I have to force myself to deny a pretty core element of myself in order to fit in?  Should anyone be put in that position?

Second is the notion that allowing gays to marry will somehow “diminish” straight marriage.  I must say, that completely baffles me.  My marriage is pretty much the same as it was before the California courts ruled.

Another example:  There are millions of (straight) Americans who are in a second (or third, fourth, etc.) marriage. I’m married to my college girlfriend (and I graduated a long time ago).  At some level, I do believe that there is a difference between being with the same partner for one’s entire life vs. being involved in more than one such relationship.  But, so what?  Their second marriages don’t threaten my first.

Carrying this theme a little further, I will also note that traditionally divorce in western socities was very rare, if not impossible, and condemned by most religions.  Yet, nobody would argue today that divorce and remarriage ought to be prohibited.  Is gay marriage that different?

Thanks for listening.

If it’s discrimination, and I’m not saying it is not, why aren’t the limitations of marriage being challenged rather than the limitations of a group of people?  If it’s discriminatory, you don’t fix it by discriminating against a few less people.  You fix it by challenging those limitations on marriage as a whole. 

As I already said, I don’t care who marries.  I don’t care what people do with their own lives as long as it doesn’t have an impact on my life.  Marriage has failed.  The institution itself should be done away with.  It’s time to come up with something new, preferably something that has as little government and religious involvement as possible.

It’s really too bad animals won’t be considered persons because I have no doubt they’d do a better job at governing than people do.

The traditional family is one of the pillars of society and is part of the very foundation of our civilization. It’s taken a beating lately (in part thanks to the same political elements now pushing for gay marriage), but we can all agree it has been a major part of what got civilization to the modern place it is today. By officially sanctioning other arrangements as “marriage” we would be devaluing true marriage, just like the Americans with their salutes.

I agree, traditional marriage is one of the pillars of our society, and we should be encouraging more people to marry, not fewer.  But at its core, traditional marriage is a commitment between two people two take care of each other, offer emotional and financial support, and (in some cases) to raise children.  It has little to do with the genders of the two people who enter that commitment.  As Tango said:

And the downfall of “marriage” is not the same-sex unions, but the opposite-sex divorces.

The downfall of marriage is divorce or folks otherwise not marrying at all.  Encouraging people to live together and take care of each other, as marriage does, has a lot of social benefits.  A marriage doesn’t guarantee it, nor is marriage the only way to get people to link up and take care of each other, but it is an effective way to do so.

Increasingly selfish behavior in our society and a lack of willingness to engage in sacrifice for even your loved ones is a threat to the foundations of our society.  Marriage encourages people to think seriously and enter into commitments that discourage selfish behavior.  That’s why I’m in favor of many measures that promote people to live together as families.  Discouraging marriage, as prop 8 does, is not something we should be doing.

Yet, nobody would argue today that divorce and remarriage ought to be prohibited

Not so sure about this.  There are plenty of objections to “no-fault” divorce laws, at least.

If it’s discriminatory, you don’t fix it by discriminating against a few less people.  You fix it by challenging those limitations on marriage as a whole.

Those with grievances, or their advocates, are the ones that file the challenges. 

And challenges are best-made when it is done one by one.  People seek immediate relief, a bit at a time, not necessarily a world-changer decades down the road.

While you can make a decent argument for same-family and polygomous unions, in addition to same-sex unions, the due process for such changes would simply slow debate and action.  There’s no reason for someone who advocates for same-sex unions, and is ambivalent with polygomous unions to be denied their rights, simply because the other advocates didn’t make their argument strong enough.

I have no doubt that animals will not be considered persons for the next few milleniums.

Movement’s already started, Tango - click the link on my name.

Just wanted to agree with David that there are no “fundamental rights” being denied here.  As Tango correctly points out, the issue is discrimination. 

Discrimination is not inherently evil if there is a good reason for the discrimination.  Blind people aren’t allowed to have drivers’ licenses. 

So the question is: why should society confer certain benefits upon a traditional marriage but deny them to a gay couple?  And the obvious answer is: Society has an interest in seeing future generations be born and grow up to fight wars and pay taxes, etc.  Male-female marriages can produce these future citizens.  Gay marriages can’t (at least with current technology, as far as I know).  Therefore, we subsidize the former.

I’m sure that’s not the only reason we subsidize marriages, and I certainly don’t think we should take benefits away from marriages that can’t/don’t want to have children.  But I did want to throw out a reason that hopefully won’t be accused of bigotry.

Right, procreation is not the only way to get children.  Adoption is also another way. 

In any case, allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t prevent the society from procreation.  So, society may wish to promote the family unit (via procreation) in order to propogate its culture (for wars, taxes or whatnot).  However, people who have no desire to propogate doesn’t mean they don’t get to participate in the culture.  Clearly, we allow it.  And, allowing them to be married also doesn’t stop those who wish to propogate to do so.

I must say that this is the most intelligent discussion on gay-marriage that I have read.

David brings up an excellent point about marriage in general:

“Actually, i don’t support marriage at all and look forward to the day when it no longer exists though I know that won’t come in my lifetime.”

I kind of agree with his point. Personally, I often find myself questioning the purpose behind marriage as well. Although my feelings on this are probably caused by some sort of unconscious jealousy and envy towards those who are married/engaged.

In Massachusetts, we’ve had gay marriage for years.

Can someone please, once and for all, tell me how their own heterosexual marriage has been negatively impacted by this?

I have many, many thoughts in my head regarding this and specifically, some of the comments above, but I’ll just share one, which I think is important.  Very important.

We don’t, in this, and in fact, most societies, legislate against everything that is deemed “bad” for society (and I am not suggesting that gay-marriage is - I don’t believe that for one second - I am only responding to those that argue that it is on some level).  If we did, 80 million things would be illegal and banned - alcohol and cigarette consumption, divorce, eating junk food, not exercising, yelling at your kids, calling in sick to work when you are not, ad infinitum.

And that is because, and especially in a democratic society, fundamental rights and freedom of choice, and the fredoom to do things that may hurt yourself and even society, and most of all, the freedom to do things that some or even most people disagree with TRUMPS societies interest in dissuading or prohibiting those things unless there is a REALLY COMPELLING reason to do so.  When in doubt, the government stays out!

So let’s at least start with that fundamental notion - that there must be a compelling reason to proscribe something that involves fundamental rights and freedom of choice.  Arguing that gay-marriage is somewhat “bad” for society is not nearly enough to justify legally prohibiting it.  Not even close.  As I said, if that were the case, one million other things would be legally banned as well, not the least of which would be cigarette and alcohol consumption and selling and eating junk food.  (And NASCAR of course.)

One other thing.  The argument that homosexuality is a behavior and one’s race is not is a weak argument, not that it should matter anyway.  Homosexuality obviously is a state of being.  Whether one chooses to “whatever” (sex, a hug, a kiss, a proclamation of love) as a homosexual is a completely different story.  Race is also a state of being, yet each race clearly has lots of behaviors that are either unique to that race or are practiced in quantities different from other races. 

OK, one more thing. To the people who simply say that is is frowned upon by G-d, therefore it must be legally proscribed, I don’t understand that argument, not that you can EVER engage in a logical argument with a devoutly religious person about things like this.  Actually I have a friendly 2 questions:

1) What makes you take the jump from, “The religion that I choose (and I realize that you think that is THE ONLY religion, which is unbelievably nuts to me - how can that possibly be?) says that people should not do X, therefore clearly it should be law that everyone should not do X, whether they ascribe to that religion or not, or no religion at all.” Just because you think something is dead wrong, is not a good argument for banning that for everyone regardless of their principles.  As I said, there has to be a provable, compelling reason that in inflicts actual and significant harm to society as a whole, and even then (as is clearly the case with junk food, cigarettes, and alcohol), you have to give great weight to our fundamental right to choose the lifestyles and behaviors we want.

2) “If you take that stand with gay marriage, while I am not familiar with all of the so-called proscriptions in the Bible (but I used to watch West Wing), do you want to live in a society that makes it illegal to do everything that the Bible says should not be done or should be done?  If no, please tell me why one thing (gay marriage) gets singled out as worthy of your attention. If yes, please list all the things that G-d (through the Bible of course) says that we should do and not do, and let’s see what kinds of other laws we need to pass and what that society will look like, and we’ll start to put together campaigns to pass a couple of hundred other initiatives I guess.”

I don’t presume to speak once and for all, but there is a cost to granting the rights of marriage to any couple.  The most obvious is they pay less taxes as a married couple than they would pay separately.  These costs get distributed to everyone else.  I (and my heterosexual marriage) am negatively impacted to the extent that I would pay higher taxes because we would be granting benefits to a new class of citizens. 

(the fact that my heterosexual marriage is also subsidized by others is irrelevant to the argument, though you are free to believe that heterosexual marriages aren’t worth subsidizing, either)

47, Hizouse:
I’m recently married and by no means an expert, so correct me if I’m wrong.  I thought that married couples generally pay MORE taxes because their combined income puts them into a higher tax bracket.  The so-called marriage penalty.

If not, then “woohoo!” Thanks, marriage!

Hiz: granting rights to the disenfranchised may mean that the rest have to take a hit.  But so what?  That’s the case for anything.  The point is if the group is being discriminated against.

As MGL said: “When in doubt, the government stays out! “

The equivalent in sports is the replay call: the ruling on the field stands, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the ruling is wrong.

The role of the government isn’t to grant freedom of choice to its citizens, but to limit it to those who aren’t worthy of it (like criminals) or capable of exercising it (like children).  Exactly why do we want the government to step in and limit same-sex couples from the choices opposite-sex couples have?

***

Perhaps the greatest single sentence in human history:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (enacted 1982):

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

...

Legal Rights

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

...

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This is what the government does: ensure everyone has freedom, and it limits it based on non-discriminatory circumstances.

To ban same-sex marriage is to go against the very idea of government, as laid out by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedom. 

Say it with me: When In Doubt, Government Out!

When in doubt, the government stays out

Oh, if it were so.  Cigarettes are taxed at what, 100%, on average?  Alcohol was, in fact, banned.  Marketing for these products has been widely restricted, and usage is banned in many public places.

Many cities have now banned trans fats.  Alabama(?) has taxed public employees based on BMI, and other states have at adopted a fat tax on junk foods.

Government will always increase its own power when the will of the minority is insufficient to curb the encroachment.  It will usually be cloaked in the morals, the greater good, or some such. The founders recognized this, and The Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to restrict this growth at the federal level.

I realize I am fairly cynical on the issue, but I think it is clear that government does not stay out, particularly when they see an opportunity to enlarge the tax base.

If Prop 8 is in fact discriminatory then let those proponents of homosexual marriages take it to the SCOTUS.  Somewhere down the road, that is where this issue is likely headed.  Or should we ask the Government (Courts) to stay out of it?
vr, Xei

Elbonte - There is no more marriage penalty, at least for federal income tax purposes.  There are separate brackets for married filers and individual filers.  The jumps in tax brackets occur at roughly double the income level for married filers than for individual filers. The elimination of the marriage penalty, however, is part of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010.  Feel free to try to work your way section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

It used to be (and will be again in 2011) that there will be a marriage penalty for couples who each earn around the same amount of income.  Married couples where one spouse earns significantly more than the other will still get a benefit. 

E.g., for married filers, the 31% bracket used to start at $89,150.  So a married couple making $89,150 stays in the 28% tax bracket, no matter what combination of husband and wife income results in that that $89,150.  And the next dollar gets taxed at 31%.

For individual filers the 31% bracket started at $53,500.  An unmarried couple filing individually can get up to $107,000 combined in the 28% bracket--if each makes $53,500.  But if one of them is making $80,000 and the other $9,150, then every dollar the first one makes above $53,500 is taxed at 31%.

Geez, that was longer and more tedious than I intended.  Most boring comment ever?

T, MGL - I can live with the principle of “When in doubt, government out.” But by recognizing marriage of any kind, the government is stepping in and requiring itself and the people to treat married persons in ways differently than they treat non-married persons.  This isn’t just a tax issue, it also affects pensions, insurance, inheritance, etc. 

The person above who doesn’t want to recognize any marriage--that’s the logical end of when in doubt, government out.

Yes, it is discrimination to grant benefits to one class of citizens while denying them to another class.  But if the reason we grant benefits to married couples is because we want to make it easier to produce future citizens/soldiers/taxpayers, then refusing those benefits to a class of citizens that is much less likely to produce future citizens/soldiers/taxpayers is entirely justified.

"At the same time, I am truly and monumentally saddened by the fact that the same voters who cast their ballots overwhelmingly (for a Presidential election) in favor of a Black candidate would pass Proposition 8.”

Sounds like it was the same voters. This article says black voters (who were obviously pro-Obama) supported the ban 70 to 30:

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Exit_Poll_Gay_Marriage_367560C.shtml

Hizouse, I still don’t see why you think same-sex marriages will produce less tax revenue.  You are correct that families with uneven income (one big earner and one small earner) pay less in taxes if they are married.  However, this is true of all marriages, gay or otherwise.  By that logic we should ban all marriages that have a stay-at-home spouse. 

Xeifrank, the burden should be on those trying to enact laws to restrict rights, not on those trying to protect existing rights. 

The problem with the movement against gay marriage is that there is no utilitarian explanation for why same sex marriage is harmful to society.  The only explanation that is ever given is that it is against God’s will.  Not only is it impossible to refute, it is impossible to prove as well.

The problem with the movement against gay marriage is that there is no utilitarian explanation for why same sex marriage is harmful to society.  The only explanation that is ever given is that it is against God’s will.  Not only is it impossible to refute, it is impossible to prove as well.

Well, the general argument posited by Brian above (the “fabric of society will be harmed” etc.), is another explanation, which, in my opinion, is no argument at all, just a lot of words and rhetoric.

I do agree 100% with Drew’s statement.

I think that all discussions about anything should be conducted with the religious component taken out of it. If an argument can stand on its own merits, without invoking the, “It is against G-d’s will” argument, then we can talk.

Again, I have nothing against religion at all, any more than I have anything against anything else that is flawed by virtue of the fact that it is comprised of human beings’ interpretations of and their recording of things.  However, if we take the religious component out of this discussion are we left with anything other than, “Well, I don’t really like it,” or “It’s not the greatest thing for society (like, for example, potato chips)?”

It will eventually go to the US Supreme Court, and whatever their eventual ruling will not make for right, one way or another.  While the SCOUS is charged with making sure that all laws comport with the C., they are merely a bunch of really smart (for the most part), well-informed, flawed human beings, seeing things through the prism of their own experiences and biology, as we all are.

I especially do not disagree with the notion that Government is in our business entirely too much (and I cannot overstate that) and that the Framers of the C. are continually rolling in our graves.  That certainly, however, is not an argument for them being even more-so into our lives and our personal choices.

I honestly cannot fathom what compels anyone to want to go our of their way to make sure that the government tells consenting adults what they can or can’t do unless there is a compelling reason why they should or should not do something.

As of yet, I have not read any of the smart people in this thread even attempt to give us a compelling reason.  I guess they think that one is not necessary.  I mean that sincerely. If something arouses their emotions (which this topic obviously does), then they apparently feel that that is enough fodder to try and get the government involved.  What a poor way to make decisions!  In fact, I am getting really upset that a lot of people are mixing their dairy and meat products. I think I’m going to start a drive for a constitutional amendment…

Compounding my disappointment in this measure is Obama’s statements about Prop 8 that he made to MTV just prior to the election:

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

Obama seems to be saying that he’s opposed to gay marriage, but also against the use of the constitution as a means by which to enact his opposition to gay marriage. So while he wasn’t pressed to phrase it this way, he’s for political discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he just has too much respect for the constitution to use it as an instrument of discrimination. I could be reading too much into his comments, but of course he was being deliberately vague. As James points out, his constituency and the “yes on Prop 8” constituency are hardly mutually exclusive.

We shouldn’t expect much different from a politician of course: I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if McCain chose his stance on this issue by considering what would maximize his chance of winning the election. Or maybe Obama really believes it; of course I don’t know, and can’t know a politician’s true intent independent of the incentives he or she faces. But it’s disappointing. One step at a time, I guess.

I should point out that my post above is not by the same David of posts 31 and 37. Sorry, I should have used a different name.

Drew, my utilitarian argument is that heterosexual marriages are better at producing future citizens than homosexual marriages.  Society needs future citizens.  Society should subsidize things it needs.  Ergo, society should subsidize heterosexual marriage.

MGL--I still don’t see how a ban on gay marriage amounts to the government telling people what they can and cannot do.  It’s not a ban on gay cohabitation or sex or public display of affection or whatever.

Re: MGL, #56

That certainly, however, is not an argument for them being even more-so into our lives and our personal choices.

This is the opposite of my position, I may not have been clear enough.

I honestly cannot fathom what compels anyone to want to go our of their way to make sure that the government tells consenting adults what they can or can’t do unless there is a compelling reason why they should or should not do something.

I think Bryan Caplan’s book “The Myth of the Rational Voter” provides some insight here.  Paraphrasing: the incentives of good legislation are so small and diffuse among voters that the costs of confronting and changing one’s deeply held beliefs are not worth it.  Yet voting makes them feel empowered, so they do it.

(Click name for interview.)

They are being discriminated against.  That’s it.  They don’t get to enjoy the same social services that a opposite-sex couple enjoys.  It’s discrimination based on sexual orientation.  And the government should be ought of the business of sexual orientation.  It is irrelevant to the government.

This is a question of freedom of choice and discrimination.  That’s how the Canadian courts ruled, and that’s how the US courts will rule as well.

Great point Tango. The issue here is discrimination, not the “utility” of heterosexual and same-sex marriages.

I agreed with Tango in my first post that the issue is discrimination, and my argument is that discrimination is justified because heterosexual marriages are better for society than homosexual marriages.

It doesn’t matter if discrimination is better for society or not.  That’s not the decision to be made.

Society might be better without “defective” people too.  Or perhaps what is better for society is to be compassionate to those disenfranchised, and enfranchise them.

The number one rule is for no one to be discriminated.  It is inviolate.  It’s part of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. 

This is not an eminent domain situation.  We are dealing with persons not property.

Regardless of how you want to construct utopia, you can’t discriminate.  That’s the constraint you have to deal with.

Drew, my utilitarian argument is that heterosexual marriages are better at producing future citizens than homosexual marriages.

Where is one shred of available evidence that actually suggests this? What studies? And don’t even say, “Throughout history this has been what’s worked!” because you already know how flawed that is. The fact of the matter is, investigations of this issue (here’s a report on one’s findings: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477 ) have concluded that being raised in a same-sex household “does not affect [children’s] self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health” in ways that are worse (or particularly different) than being raised by parents of two different genders.

This is a discrimination issue. There’s just not much more to it than it.

We “discriminate” all the time.  I don’t know about Canada, but in America, governments are allowed to discriminate if they have a good enough purpose.  Some types of discrimination (such as by race) are pretty much impossible to justify.  Other types are pretty easy. 

Any time the government creates a class of persons and affords different treatment to one of them, it discriminates.  Felons generally don’t have the right to vote, at least while in jail.  The U.S. tax code discriminates against renters by denying them a deduction for rent while homeowners get a mortgage interest deduction.  20-year olds can’t drink alcohol.  Millionaires don’t qualify for welfare.

What’s important is whether the state has a sufficient basis for the discrimination at issue.

The Canadian Charter Rights and Freedom:

“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. “

I agree that felons are discriminated when it comes to voting rights.  But, one can argue that violating the law gives them less rights.

18-20yr olds are definitely discriminated and definitely are justified to drink.  But the 18-20yr olds are going to eventually be 21yr old, and so, aren’t going to bother to challenge the law.  Not to mention, they are going to drink anyway, so they care even less about protecting their own rights.

Tax rates are progressive, whereby those with less than 20K pay no taxes, while the more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.  Again, millionaires and billionaires can complain to their lobbyists and take the matter to court if they like.  Or they bypass all that, and find loopholes in the tax code.

However, the charter does not particularly include the wealth as a parameter, and society operates with the idea that the wealthy subsidize the poor.  The idea of protection is to protect those who are subject to be powerless, and not the other way around.

I agree with Hizouse here in that almost every law passed involves some sort of discrimination.  The government’s entire business is discrimination.  The money comes in from the lobbyists and campaign contributors, privileges are doled out accordingly.  And its not just on the basis of wealth here.  Farmers and local businessmen get subsidies and tariff protection from foreign competitors (which is racial discrimination, unless you are optimistic).

Also, wealth is distributed in both directions. Income is redistributed from rich to poor.  Lottery and cigarette taxes are distributed from poor to rich.  Business regulations usually favor large companies (who can comply with the extra overhead), who tend to be richer.

It is my contention that none of these forms of discrimination is particularly useful, and that government’s main business (in practice) is making itself seem useful.

I agreed with Tango in my first post that the issue is discrimination, and my argument is that discrimination is justified because heterosexual marriages are better for society than homosexual marriages.

Wow!

I would love to require each and every person who is going to vote on a question like Prop 8 to sit in a room with 10, 20, or 100 gay persons in the front, and allow all of those gay persons to speak to the issue if they so choose.  Questions are allowed.

I guarantee that no ballot like that would EVER pass if that were a requirement to vote.

Hizouse and others:  So easy to calmly state your position when you don’t have to face those 5 or 10% of your fellow citizens, some of whom you probably know and care about, whose hearts and spirits are literally broken because of things like this.  For what?  Some vague idea that “society would be worse off if gays are allowed to marry?” I am sorry, but I have heard a lot of crap before in baseball circles, but that one takes the cake.

I also guarantee that if someone in your life that you adored, like one of your children, if you have any, were gay, you would NEVER support something like that and be able to look them in the eye.  The idea that an entire society would condone, and worse yet, go out of their way, to discriminate against someone on the basis of to whom they express their love and affection would rip my heart out if I were gay.  That should be the test.  Whether otherwise normal, ordinary, decent citizens would have their heat ripped out for no good reason, means that there is something seriously wrong.

And yes, I am deeply disappointed at Obama’s proclamation that he is “not in favor of gay marriage” although everything else he said is right on the money.  I guess if you are raised as deeply or even remotely religious, it is hard to rid oneself of those prejudices.  That is the only thing I can think of that explains his sentiments.  If he is not telling the truth, I think that is even worse. That he would malign an entire class of citizens so that he betters his chances of being elected.

And BTW, and I’ve said this before, a Constitution should NOT be allowed to change depending on which way the wind is blowing with regard to the people’s whims.  It demeans the document terribly.  It should be extremely hard to amend a Constitution, as it is with the Federal one.  Why states (not all) allow for it to be so easy to change a Constitution, I don’t know.

I think that as much as I admire Obama, he was b.s. on the issue.  He may not be in favor of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean he opposes it.  I would bet he’s as ambivalent to it as anyone else is, since, really, who cares.  It’s one of those theoretical exercises that once you see the real-world real-human implication, you back down.

Like MGL said, no one would be able to sit in a roomful of same-sex partners (preferably friends of theirs) and speak their mind on being against same-sex marriages.

***

As for the other forms of discrimination, those are not necessarily right.  But, it’s not like they tax at 100%.  It’s not like they are denied basic rights based strictly on something that is a private matter.

Those economical discriminations are based on money, and has impact on other parts of the economic lifecycle.

Same-sex unions is its own universe, completely localized.

MGL, T - I have nothing to add to the discussion that hasn’t already been said.  But I am very happy to see that you’re on the side of *not* discriminating. 

It can be very disheartening when someone whose non-political work you respect decides to talk politics and turns out to have bigoted or discriminatory views.  (I wish I’d never read the interview of Pete Palmer where he tells us what he thinks about the world outside sports.)

Thanks, Hawerchuck.  Although I am not sure I should be thanking someone for acknowledging me for having a similar or same position on a particular issue.  You might not like my position on some other issue!

But I know what you mean.

I have to continually remind myself not to think less of a person because of their political views, although I don’t consider this a “politcal” issue - in fact, it is not.

If I think something is right - like speaking out against this and similar ballot measures and the issue in general, it is my responsibility to do so.  That I happen to have a forum because of baseball, is a fortunate circumstance.

And I’m not very good at expressing my thoughts and opinions on these matters.  Tango and others are excellent at that.

I also think it is good to engage in intelligent discourse, not just to shout out my position and hope that someone cares what I think.

It is also nice to see lots of lurkers come out of the woodwork!

Can you link us to the Palmer interview you are speaking of?

Those economical discriminations are based on money

But so is same-sex marriage, strictly speaking, from the state’s perspective.  It’s a tax break, a clarification of inheritance, a name change, and...?  It’s not a right, but an economic privilege. (And not nearly as devastating to people’s lives as some other regulations can be)

I understand that the connotations are much larger than that, and I don’t mean to be insensitive, here.  I’m just making the point that discrimination is what government does best. 

When the majority is against it: “We are protecting you from them.” When the majority opinion shifts: “We reformed the state from those Neanderthals that used to be in office.” When the opinion is closely divided: “You voted for it.”

The appropriate question, imo, is what was said earlier: Why is the government sanctioning relationships at all?  Should we really afford that power over individuals to the whim of the majority?

I asked my mom about why she opposed gay marriage. She tells me that, she doesn’t care if gay marriage was legal. “They can do whatever they want. This issue doesn’t concern me. How’s long people are nice to each other that’s all that matters to me” So, I guess, she is not against gay marriege afterall, MGL.

Arthur, nice to hear.

But so is same-sex marriage, strictly speaking, from the state’s perspective.  It’s a tax break, a clarification of inheritance, a name change, and...?

Woah!  Are we forgetting that this was not a legislative act?  This was a popular vote by folks who likely had no idea whether or how what they were voting for or against would impact society economically.

Here’s the Palmer interview:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pete-palmer-interview/

It’s not inflammatory (compare to Todd Jones saying “I wouldn’t want a gay guy being around me") but it kind of reminds me of an old Simpsons episode:

Bill:  That was John Calhoun with “I’m gonna find me a genie with a magic bikini”.

Marty: [laugh] Of course...John’s next album was a spoken word album of his right-wing political views; it kinda killed his career.  If you can tell me the name of the album, call our contest line now!

Homer gasps (``Oh, I know that!’’ and runs to the stereo, selecting a record (`These Things I Believe’.

Yeah, I vaguely remember reading the interview.  It didn’t (and doesn’t now that I re-read it) make much if an impression on me one way or another.  It was a little curious that he would speak of McCarthy like that. (And a “comie-filled administration?") Who knows, maybe he is right, or at least partially right.  Of course, you can read a book that espouses just about any position you can fathom and if it is written well, it always seems to make prefect sense.  Visits by aliens.  The government hiding spaceships.  The holocaust never occurred.  We never landed on the Moon.  Flouride is killing our kids. No one should vaccinate themselves.  Just about everyone had a hand in the Kennedy assasination…

Here is a wonderful line I copied from an AP article, quoting a gay rights activist.  It sums up my feeling and my point about amending state constitutions by a simple majority vote.  It makes so much sense it is almost scary.

“There’s something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote...”

Consider this proposition if you put it up for a vote:

“All persons with red hair must turn over half their income to everyone else...”

Hence the problem with making policy, let alone a freakin’ constitutional amendment, by a “majority vote.”

Craig way back at #19 asked how people voted on Prop 8 by age:

Vote by Age
Yes No
18-29 (20%) 39 61
30-44 (28%) 55 45
45-64 (36%) 54 46
65+ (15%) 61 39

So in 20 years or so, maybe all the old folks will have died out and the younger ones will be able to change it back.  Or, just maybe, as people get older they get more conservative and it will take longer than that.

By the way, on these changes to laws or constitutions based on people voting, how often can you bring them up?  How soon until they can re-vote, if at all?  I ask because one of the local cities here passed a vote yesterday on allowing alcohol sales (something like 50-49), and it was the third time in two years they’d voted on it.  Can you just keep trying until it passes?  And then the other side can keep trying until it fails again?  I think I agree with MGL #77, voting for these changes doesn’t make sense.

Steve, I don’t know that there is any limitation as to how many times a particular issue can be voted on. Each state has its own procedures for constitutional amendments.  Most of them have a preliminary vote or petition, whereby it gets to be put up for a final vote.  The sensible states make it very difficult, as it should be.  For example, in some states a super-majority, such as 2/3, is required.  In some states, two votes, sometimes several years apart, are necessary.  In some cases both, I think.  And of course, the Supreme Court of the U.S. can invalidate any state law or amendment if it is deemed Unconstitutional, according to the US Constitution.

I think that both of those things are certainly true - that we get more conservative as we get older - some people think more sensible and rational, although I don’t know that I agree with that necessarily.  Perhaps more pragmatic.  And that our young people have grown up in a different cultural environment and hence have adopted, assimilated, and been exposed to different values.  That is one reason why change takes time and also is inevitable.  As I initially said, I think that it is certain that someday - as you say, when all the old people die - people will look back at this time in history and wonder how and why our country discriminated against people by virtue of their sexual orientation in exactly the same way that they (not everyone of course - just the “prevailing,” collective conscious of our society) now wonder how we ever sanctioned and tolerated slavery and bigotry and everything else that stains our legacy as a great democracy.  And I suppose after that, there will be something else.  The reason is that we are flawed human beings and always will be.

OK, so 30+ posts ago I asked for a way in which gay marriage has negatively impacted someone’s heterosexual marriage.  And I receive the response of: less tax money.  And: more subsidies going to something that doesn’t make babies.

I don’t know enough about the tax code to know if the former argument is even correct. But how much dollars are we talking about here, if 5% of the population goes from filing single to filing jointly?  That’s really your argument?  It’s really worth denying two dudes the same privileges you have with your spouse, to get the government that extra amount of money?

And if you want more babies, put your money where your mouth is.  Take that extra tax revenue that the government gets from not allowing gay couples to marry and file jointly, and provide free alcohol at high school dances.  More babies = good, right?!

Also, regarding the prop 8 vote by age… I’d love to believe that those numbers suggest a better future (from my perspective at least).  But the problem is that we know that propensity towards fiscal “conservatism” increases as people age.  So as long as people paying a few less bucks in taxes is tied to not allowing gay marriage (and my guess is that republicans will keep these things tied together as long as they can), my fear is that people will suspend the beliefs they once had in favor of their wallets.

Post 65 was marked for moderation and is now live.

Regarding the argument about Canada or Europe--Keep in mind societies do not devolve all at once, or due to a single cause.

Also keep in mind that these nations are buttressed by the more conservative society of the US. No offense to our Canadian friends!

“Canada has had policy X for a couple years now, and will collapse overnight” was not my argument.

Lastly, the traditional marriage is an ideal, a very valuable one that has served us well for ages. Ideals are goals, and because we fall short doesn’t mean we stop trying or abandon the principles behind the ideal.

To conservatives, and to a majority of even blue-state California, the bigger question is “should we abandon the ideal of the traditional family?” It’s not about bigotry or discrimination. Gays can still do what they want, but please don’t use the power of the government to force the rest of us to sanction or honor it.

As you can now see, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and I happen to believe the conservative point of view is the wisest. You are free to disagree. But to call anyone who disagrees with you as prejudiced is not helpful to the general debate.

One last response. (Sorry can’t help it!) I believe the distinction between race and sexual orientation remains valid. My argument was that one is skin color, the other is behavior. The counter-argument was that sexual orientation is intrinsic to a person and we cannot change it, therefore it deserves the same protections from discrimination. I’ll stipulate it’s intrinsic, but so are lots of other things.

Some people are born with strong tendencies to be selfish or generous, peaceful or violent, stupid or smart, etc. In some people these tendencies are overwhelming. That doesn’t mean we need to hold each of those qualities up as equally good. Society should (and must) choose some qualities as “good.”

Please don’t twist my words. I’m not saying gay people are the same as violent people. My real point is that just because someone is born a certain way does not mean society must sanction or promote it.

The question is whether we want to discriminate based on violence (we do) and sexual orientation (we don’t).  We don’t want the government in our bedrooms, but we do want them in our streets.

Once we’ve decided that we don’t want to discriminate based on gender, race, skin color, sexual orientation, and what not, then all those persons deserve the same social services.  There’s no reason to prevent same-sex partners from adopting, is there?

It’s not whether the government will “sanction” and “honor”.  It’s a question of whether the government will discriminate based on sexual orientation.  That is the sole question on the table: can the goverment go out of its way to target this specific group of people?

Brian - I’m curious what you think people who are intrinsically gay should do? Do you think they should deny their urges and force themselves into marriages with members of the opposite sex?

I’m not trying to be hostile by asking this question. I don’t think it’s a crazy opinion to have - this is what gay people have been doing throughout history.

“should we abandon the ideal of the traditional family?”

I still don’t get it.  You don’t have to abandon anything.  You don’t have to DO anything!  All you have to do is agree that it’s important to allow the guy in the waiting room to see his partner as though he were an immediate family member.

“Gays can still do what they want, but please don’t use the power of the government to force the rest of us to sanction or honor it.”

This, in my eyes, is the very basis of discrimination.  Is that really any different than people saying 100 years ago:

Women can vote for whoever they want, but please don’t use the power of the government to force the rest of us to sanction or honor it.

While it’s true that heterosexual couples are more likely to produce offspring than gay couples, I would argue that gay marriage has absolutely no effect on our birth rate.  Gay couples are going to be together whether there is legal gay marriage or not.  Outlawing gay marriage is not going to increase the number of citizens that we produce as a society.  I still maintain that there is no utilitarian reason to outlaw gay marriage.  The reduced tax revenue doesn’t really hold water with me, since single income straight couples reduce tax income as well.  There is nothing uniquely bad about gay marriage.

Drew above is spot on.  One, of course gay marriage is not going to reduce the number of babies produced.  Those same people are not having babies whether they marry or not.  Why did someone even bring that up?  I suppose you can make the really weak argument that if gays are not allowed to marry, some of them might eventually find an opposite-sex partner.  That is really weak.

As far as the tax thing, the issue is whether gays should rightfully be treated the same or differently than everyone else.  If allowing gay marriage decreases tax revenue then either the tax code should change or no marriages should be allowed.  Again, the tax argument makes no sense.

Take anything in society that is officially sanctioned yet causes a decrease in tax revenue.  I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.  OK, now you can justify enacting a law that says that some class of citizens can’t do that and the justification is that that will save us tax money?  Wow!  Again, that is no argument whatsoever.

To take a discrimination issue and argue that there are benefits to the discrimination that have no relationship to the discrimination whatsoever is no argument at all.  None.  You have to at least start with the premise that the class of people you are discriminating against are the only class that causes whatever negative effect you are identifying.  If everyone causes that negative effect (as in the marriage thing), then you cannot simply arbitrarily single out a certain class of people in order to “fix” or at least ameliorate the problem.

And I say, “start” because even if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that that class and only that class is causing that negative effect, because you are dealing with personal choice, there HAS to be a compelling reason, not just a “reason” to discriminate.  At least in this country.

One last response. (Sorry can’t help it!) I believe the distinction between race and sexual orientation remains valid. My argument was that one is skin color, the other is behavior. The counter-argument was that sexual orientation is intrinsic to a person and we cannot change it, therefore it deserves the same protections from discrimination. I’ll stipulate it’s intrinsic, but so are lots of other things.

Please don’t twist my words. I’m not saying gay people are the same as violent people. My real point is that just because someone is born a certain way does not mean society must sanction or promote it.

No one is going to twist your words I don’t think.  There is a distinction.  You can make a distinction between just about any two similar things I suppose.  That does NOT mean that we cannot legitimately compare the two things.  Not at all.

The distinction, however, between the behavior of the homosexual and that of the violent, or even generous or selfish person, should be obvious.  The ONLY behaviors that we proscribe in this country are the ones that have an articulable, obvious, direct, and significant effect on someone else! If you take out the religious argument as well as the vague “fabric of society (as I have said several times, those vague arguments apply to just about everything - selling and eating junk food, etc.), where is the argument that how and to whom I express my affection in the privacy of my home, and whom I elect to marry, has any of those properties?

Bottom line, as Tango keeps expressing quite eloquently, is that if you are going to discriminate against a class of persons, and a rather large one in this case (20 million?), you better have a damn good reason.  Again, take out the religious component which is the same thing, in my mind, as the “it’s just not right” component, and again, I ask, what are we left with?

A thought experiment that everyone should engage in with these types of issues, is, “If you didn’t think that G-d told you something was wrong and should be proscribed, would you be able to figure it out for yourself?”

Today in my local paper, there was an op ed piece by some “senior fellow” with some think tank.  I do not remember his name.

He is opposed to legalizing same-sex marriages. His three (more or less) theses are the following:

One, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Two, it is not discrimination, it is simply a “definition of marriage” - one that has traditional historical roots.

Three, it is in fact, steeped in history and tradition, or “experience” as he puts it.

Here are my responses:

Of course it is a privilege and not a right.  No one has a “right” to a government sponsored marriage, although they definitely have a right to a religious or any other kind of personal marriage or marriage ceremony.  So what? Once the government establishes a privilege, they still cannot discriminate with respect to that privilege unless that “discrimination” logically, affirmatively, and significantly relates to the public good.  And even then, as I have said many times, they are treading in dangerous waters.  For example, driving is a privilege.  They can obviously discriminate against blind persons, but not against blacks or gays (obviously), but also not against short people, women, or orientals, even if it can be proved that those classes of persons are worse drivers.

His second argument is that the government is not discriminating specifically against gay persons. They are merely defining marriage (and that definition is steeped in history and tradition - which I’ll get to in a minute).  He actually says that gay people can marry a person of the opposite sex if they so desire and that heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex, so where is the discrimination?

Wow, this guy is a “senior fellow” and throws that logic at us.  He also obviously has no background in law or has forgotten or chosen to ignore it.  The government is not allowed to disguise discrimination by using the logic that he is.  There are many, many cases where restrictions on behaviors are struck down because they are “proxies” for discrimination.  Some of them are even a little far-fetched.  Why is it that some states are not allowed to ask voters to present ID?  Because that is deemed to be discriminatory to black and poor voters (and senior citizens) who may not carry ID cards.  Why can some states not prevent felons from voting (BTW, it is a misconception that all felons are not allowed to vote)?  Because that improperly impacts minorities.

Those are examples where the distinction between discrimination and reasonable restrictions on behavior which serve the public good are NOT very clear.

On the other hand, if you don’t think that banning same-sex marriage is EXACTLY the same thing as banning marriage for gay persons, but not for heterosexual person, well…

Finally, and I have heard this argument before, he talks about the fact that most laws are based on long-held traditions.  I have only one response to that.  I an pretty sure that lots of blatant discrimination, or even worse (like slavery) is steeped in tradition.  In fact, I am positive that at one time it was deeply traditional for marriage to only be between two persons of the same race.

There is definitely a time and place to invoke the, “deference to tradition” legal argument.  In this case, it is an insult to our intelligence and an affront to every fair-minded person.

As usual, I am speaking for myself.  I do not intend to speculate on why others oppose homosexual marriage.

In brief, I cannot take the “religious component” out of it.  Everything I think and do is informed by my Weltanschauung (world view, and this is true for everyone).  My world view is historic, orthodox Christian.  And yes, I do vote for and speak out in favor of any law that is commanded by God and vote against and speak out against any law that is condemned by God.  Yes I am in favor of having every commandment of God be the law of this and every land.  Again, this is because I believe that the God who is there is not silent and has revealed his character for our instruction and benefit. 

I completely and utterly agree that apart from it being the command of God, there is absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage.  If there is no God or if God is ambivalent towards or in favor of gay marriage, then of course it is fine.  In fact, as Dostoevsky pointed out, If there is no God, then all things are permissible (this includes rape, murder, pedophilia and so on).  If there is no God then Jean-Paul Sartre was correct in saying that “man is a useless passion”.  “Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident.” Truly, the logical conclusion of no God, or even a distant, impersonal God is that life IS meaningless so what does it matter who sits at the back of the bus? 

If all we can know is this existential hour glass then Albert Camus was correct in stating “the only philosophical question that matters is whether or not to commit suicide”.  Ernest Hemingway believed the only thing we have control of in this world is how we die (if we choose to take that control), which is exactly what he demonstrated.

Of course I fully expect the majority of people in the world to disagree with what I believe (in either the documents informing my views or the interpretation thereof) but this does nothing to dispel the conviction or the necessity to follow it.  Just as Luther concluded at the Diet of Worms:
“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Sacred Scripture or (for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is captive to word of God, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither right nor safe.

Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

As far as I know, I don’t have any friends who oppose gay marriage, so I’m asking this in an earnest attempt to understand the origins of the opposing point of view…

Those of you who oppose gay marriage - do you have any gay friends?  Relatives?  Co-workers, even? 

If you knew a gay person who had been with their partner for a decade and had adopted a child, how would you explain to them your opposition to them marrying their partner?

Of course I fully expect the majority of people in the world to disagree with what I believe (in either the documents informing my views or the interpretation thereof) but this does nothing to dispel the conviction or the necessity to follow it.

Why would you think that, when an overwhelming majority of the people in the world consider themselves to be theistic? 

Nothing wrong with believing in a particular God or religion.  The problem is in believing that that God has in fact commanded you to oppose everything he says is wrong and to inflict on other people that which he thinks is right?  Or that your God and His commandments is the only God and the only set of rules. You have no idea whether God would want you to vote in favor of Proposition 8.  No idea.

There are so many other things wrong with invoking God or religion to justify bigotry, hatred, and discrimination (although we are not necessarily talking about bigotry or hatred here, although I tire of religious zealots telling me that they love all people, just not necessarily their behaviors, and then they blow up an abortion clinic and shoot their doctors), I could fill this entire web site.

For one thing, why aren’t you and your brethren drumming up laws against everything that is prohibited in the Bible.  Aren’t there hundreds?  Aren’t you supposed to be slaying all kinds of people for various transgressions?  Why would you not take those literally or seriously, but you do some kind of commandment against same-sex marriage or homosexuality.  Is there even anything in the Bible pertaining to marriage?  Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to religion or the Bible.

The notion that “nothing can be wrong” or “anything goes” or that secular people can’t figure out what is right or wrong, without God or the Bible, is ludicrous.  There are societies that function perfectly well without your idea of God and without ever having read or even heard of the Bible.

Once again, if you or anyone else has some idea in your head that God commanded something, the discussion is over.  Obviously if he commands that the first born son of every “whatever” person is to be tossed into the river, you would do that because He dictates what is right or wrong, because that IS the definition of right or wrong.  How can that be argued?  If he tells you that gays or blacks are to be persecuted, then you do that with no hesitation because it must be right.  So on and so forth.

I’ll even grant that that might be true - that the word of the Lord is the only basis for right or wrong.  The “hitch” is that you have not left open the possibility that what you THINK is the word of God (such as what is written in the Bible) is not - that it is stuff, either partially or completely, made up by human beings, and that God is testing you to figure out the “truth” for yourself rather than blindly following what other people have told you all your life.

The discussion of god is purely an “end justifies the means”.  It’s creating some utopian world.

There is one issue, and one issue only: is it discriminatory to enact a law that targets same-sex couples to deny them social benefits?  That is the question.  So, while I quite enjoyed Wood’s post and intend to read it a couple of times, this question must be answered.  It is THE question that Canada ruled on, and it is THE question that Roberts et al will rule on.

This country is governed by the Constitution and not the bible.  And so, what people need to do is read the preamble.  And read Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom (both in post 49).  It is those documents to which we pledge allegiance, and to which we’ve agreed to govern ourselves.

While our lives may be ultimately pointless without a leap of faith, it also happens to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

To clarify.  When I said the majority of people in the world do not agree with me, I was not simply meaning belief in theism.  I meant a very particular theism based on very particular writings interpreted very particularly.

If you recall, your first rhetorical question expressed exasperation that anyone could justify “discriminating against homosexuals”.  As it has been pointed out, we all accept our government’s discrimination against rapists and thieves and so on.  So the real question is an ethical one.  Is homosexual behavior (let alone marriage) unethical?  You say no (and have little patience to imagine that someone could rationally argue otherwise).  It is important at this point to notice that I have not argued that homosexual behavior is unconstitutional.  I completely agree that it is not (as laws stand currently).  However, I would support a constitutional amendment or any other law (as they existed in this country before and after the constitution) making it illegal. 

Again, because in my Weltanschauung, it is unethical behavior.  To that end, I would also support any law that makes adultery illegal, pornography and so on.  Indeed, I believe everyone who shares my beliefs would as well.  Why is homosexuality picked on out of all of these other lifestyles that are condemned Biblically?  I would bet anything that it IS because of bigotry, disgust, xenophobia and jingoism.  But that’s not from me.  Because homosexual behavior is a minority position, it is a less acceptable violation of Biblical standards and norms than adultery even though both are equally condemned.  It’s certainly true how some issues make strange bedfellows.  I obviously oppose bigotry (those who oppose homosexuality for reasons other than an informed world view and those who oppose orthodox Christianity because of its informed world view). 

That is to say that there is bigotry on both sides of these issues and there is genuine concern for ethics on both sides.  Just as I am sure there are some people who voted for McCain because they hate blacks and there are some who voted for Obama because they hate whites.  Does it invalidate all arguments against an issue because some use irrational and bigoted reasons for opposing it?  I should hope not.

Again, I don’t blame you for disagreeing with me.  If you do not share my epistemology (which I am convinced of to my core) I would never expect you to or pretend to.  Please rest assured that I am not cherry picking this issue.  It happens to be on the ballot so I can apply my ethics to it.  If a ban on adultery was on the ballot, feel confident that I would vote to pass that as well.

As for Utopia.  I vote in accordance with my beliefs.  This means that I would vote for an issue if I believe it is right even if it would cause worldwide strife and conflict (quite the opposite of Utopia).  Indeed, it is generally secular systems of thought like existentialism, logical positivism and pragmatism which believe it is possible to immanentize the eschaton.  Historic Christianity views the world as fallen and does not try to create the beatific vision here on earth.  The sermon on the mount is not a blueprint for world peace.

As for the Biblical institution of marriage.  Well, it predates pretty much everything except creation itself (although it was obviously the plan of creation).  Just after the particular account of the creation of one man and one woman, it says this in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The therefore denotes a conclusion.  The premise being that God created one male and one female for the purpose of complementariness.  This theme is echoed and celebrated throughout scripture seeing its ultimate purpose when Paul explains in Ephesians 5:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

And yes, this was one of the readings at my wedding.

I suspect you may be an internet troll, but maybe not.  To each his own.  I appreciate you explaining and clarifying your beliefs.

I apoligize for trolling in post #16. It was obviously an inappropriate post and irrelavant to the disucssion.

Again, there are two constraints here:
1. Is it discrimination under the law?  We all seem to agree that it is.  It is irrelevant if we want to make homosexuality, adultery, or other “perversions” illegal.  It is a separate issue.  So, we all agree that it is discriminatory.

2. Is there a law that supercedes the Constitution?  We all agree there is not.  It is again irrelevant if you hold the bible as your book of faith, since american society is governed by some other document.

Now, you can vote your conscience in terms of changing the Constitution (through Amendments), but it has to be done WITHOUT an end-justifies-the-means approach.  You can’t say that you see homosexuality as some perversion, and rather than making that illegal, you will simply discriminate against them by denying social benefits.

The question is not what does each of the thousand or whatever readers here see as immoral, unethical, or illegal.  It’s those two questions above.

And to that end, god has no role in this particular issue.

If the issue was “is homosexuality immoral”, then you can cite god.  That however, was not on the ballot.  And neither should it be up for discussion in this thread.  That discussion should be saved, by going back in time a few decades, or by going to a discussion forum hosted by the Iranian president.  I’m not trying to insult Wood or anyone.  It’s just tangential and not forward-moving for this thread.

If the principle of equal protection applies to hanging chads but can not be extended to disparate error rates in voting machines, why should we assume the same principle would be applied to usurp a state’s right to define marriage?

I still maintain that there is no utilitarian reason to outlaw gay marriage.

I agree, and in fact there are lots of utilitarian reasons to encourage marriage (as I stated above).  Apart from considering a ban on gay marriage to be unethical, the utilitarian arguments in favor help tip the balance even further.

Terry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you expand?  Are you trying to say that discrimination is a state and not federal issue?  That a state can define a marriage any way it wants, even mandating, say, same-race?  And if the implication that it targets same-sex (or even opposite-race) couples to be denied social services, then so be it?

I don’t know anything about the nuances of the Equal Protection Clause, but Canada’s seems to be pretty clear:

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Equal protection in the US is equally clear until one sees it’s application which was the point of my comment. I was referring to the US supreme court’s argument that essentially settled the 2000 presidential election (i.e. chad counting was an equal protection issue even though there were voting machines in poorer districts that had an error rate almost twice that of machines used in more affluent districts).

It’s no lock that equal protection would be a viable argument for same sex marriage though intuitively it’s difficult to see how same sex bans could stand in the face of an equal protection argument.

I don’t know that anything we do or say is a “lock” when it comes down to nine humans, who are certainly biased based on their voting records.

The MA court:

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

CT:

Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice.

NJ:

The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

Canada, closing text:

There are good traditions and bad traditions. Marriage is a good tradition. The exclusion of same sex couples from marriage is a bad tradition. This common law restriction should be rejected by this Honourable Court in keeping with its own tradition of protecting the equality interests of gays and lesbians.

That Canada verdict also cited a US case (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 1967), where they say:

The so-called evidence cited at paragraph 73 of the AGC Response Factum consists of nothing more than rank speculation and is deeply offensive to MCCT. It is not grounded in the experience of the only jurisdiction to embrace same sex marriage to date, and ignores the substantial impact of the extensive legal recognition of same sex relationships in Canada that has already taken place. It is reminiscent of the remarks of the U.S. courts prior to Loving who supported the right to protect traditional discriminatory rules about marriage when they said:

The institution of marriage has from time immemorial been considered a proper subject for State regulation. In the interest of the public health, morals and welfare, to the end that family life, a relation basic and vital to the permanence of the State, may be maintained in accordance with established tradition and culture, and in furtherance of the physical, moral and spiritual well-being of its citizens. We are unable to read in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, or in any other provision of that great document, any words or any intendment which prohibit the State from enacting legislation to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, or which denies the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it may not have a mongrel breed of citizens. We find there no requirement that the State shall not legislate to prevent the obliteration of racial pride, but must permit the corruption of blood even though it weaken or destroy the quality of its citizenship. Both sacred and secular history teach that nations and races have better advanced in human progress when they cultivated their own distinctive characteristics and culture and developed their own particular genius.

The Loving case in 1967 ended all race-based restrictions on marriages.

Fascinating article about the same-sex law in NY:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20080206.html

I don’t think that a same-sex marriage ban, such as in California (and 20-something other states), will be overturned by the Supreme Court.  At least not by this Supreme Court.  In fact, I am pretty sure they won’t even hear the case (grant certiorari), if one comes up.

The “equal protection clause” has many exceptions and interpretations, like everything else in the C.  In fact, that particular clause is not one of the particularly inviolate ones.

When using the EP clause to interpret a law or an item in a state C of course (determine whether it passes C muster or not), the SC uses a 3-tier classification system - strict scrutiny, rational-basis, and everything else.

Race and religion, and some other fundamental rights are in the first class, I think (I am doing this from memory), and gender, among other things, are in the the second class.

Unfortunately, sexual orientation is in the last class, or at least it has not been officially determined in what class it belongs.

Basically, if the State claims any interest at all, and that interest is not 100% spurious (and even, in some case, if it is), then the law stands.  Basically, in almost all cases, other than race, religion, and some other fundamental rights, and occasionally gender, the EP clause has very few teeth, I am afraid.

Tango, I really don’t understand what you are saying in #98.

I don’t think we are having a legal discussion - i.e. whether such a ban is going to or should pass constitutional muster.  Certainly, not too many people on this forum would have the capacity to argue in that context, not being legal scholars.

I thought we were arguing which way we would vote on a question like this, and why.  In such a case, anyone is free to invoke any argument they want, including the moral one. If they think that it is “immoral” for same-sex marriages to take place, then they might vote for such a ban.  I have no problem with that, other than the “morality” argument sort of ends any discussion unless one is willing to argue and discuss “why” something is immoral, other than, “Because G-d says to” (which REALLY ends the discussion).

I hate to say it, because it seems bigoted against religious zealots and advocates, but trying to argue a point with a religious person is like trying to argue with someone who is certain that they were abducted by aliens, when in fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that they are delusional (but otherwise a normal, sane person).

(If I ever think that I was abducted by aliens, or something like that, all anyone has to do is to go into the bottom right drawer of my desk, and under my old Sprint address book, there is a piece of paper signed by me and addressed to me that says, “Dear Mitchel, you were NOT abducted by aliens.  You had a delusional experience. Trust me.” Signed, Mitchel.

The first question I would have is: are you intolerant of homosexual activity?  If a person is intolerant of that, then the discussion ends.  Most of these people will cite god or whatever other insecurity, ignorance, or fear they have.  They will of course not be for same-sex marriages, so what’s the point of talking about B, if you can’t agree on A.

Now, of those who do tolerate homosexual activity, are they for or against same-sex civil unions, upon which are conferred the identicial social benefits of opposite-sex civil unions?  So, I’d like to hear from those who are not opposed to homosexual activity, but are opposed to discrimination.

Finally, of those who tolerate homosexual activity, and are for same-sex civil unions, are they for or against calling it a marriage for same-sex unions?

I will add that even if a same-sex “union” conferred exactly the same legal and social rights and privileges as a “marriage” I would still consider that discrimination, until and unless the people it affects tell me otherwise.

That is something like the “separate versus equal” doctrine.  Or if a legal document or ruling said, “Blacks are NOT considered persons, but we’ll still grant them all the rights of whites - just to be nice.” Not good enough, in my opinion.

Now, of those who do tolerate homosexual activity, are they for or against same-sex civil unions, upon which are conferred the identicial social benefits of opposite-sex civil unions?  So, I’d like to hear from those who are not opposed to homosexual activity, but are opposed to discrimination.

That is fair enough, and goes along with my statements that if you think that H behavior or marriage is immoral, then the discussion pretty much ends (although you can discuss why you think that, I suppose). But that is only one aspect of what were discussing…