- Beyoncé, Sasha Fierce, and the rise of the pop doppelgänger.
- Opportunities for Joy
- Thanksgiving: The Ultimate Survival Technique
- The word games of Prop 8 opponents
- Boy George's Trial Begins
- But of course.
- Is a California judge having second thoughts on Prop. 8?
November 25, 2008 – Very interesting article. Thanks for the tip Fay.
November 25, 2008 – YaY Brenna! Good article 
!
November 25, 2008 – Renee is awesome and very encouraging. Go check out her Thanksgiving post for wives who might be having a difficult thanksgiving.
November 25, 2008 – Money Quote: "That “right” only existed because the state Supreme Court said in May that it did. It was not part of the original meaning of the constitution nor could it have even been inferred given that, until about fifteen years ago (or so) no one ever thought of marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman.
The initiative is not changing the constitution to take away a right that was there. It is changing the state Constitution to prevent courts from finding things there that its framers never intended." <– written by "Gay"PatriotWest.
November 25, 2008 – … Oh Boy … George that is. Weirder things have happened but this is pretty weird.
November 25, 2008 – The only thing Obama has "changed" is …
November 25, 2008 – hmmm … vewy intewestink. But the truth is, it doesn't matter. It's all gossip until it happens anyway.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
A comment on the Gay Patriot link. Gay may he be, he's still off on this argument in my opinion.
I think we should also look at Prop 8 as eliminating the right to due process and equal protection, rather than the “right to marry”. The right to marry might be new, but those other rights are firmly written in the constitution, and this amendment certainly circumvents them.
The NAACP and other minority-based organizations that wrote in on this case on behalf of the “no on 9 crowd” have a very good point–if we establish that there is no “right to marry” (which in and of itself is a red herring–we don't have a “right” to do almost anything in our daily lives–driving, watching a movie, surfing the internet, etc.), then the minority become at mercy of the will of the people.
There is basically nothing from stopping the majority from writing in a ban on interracial marriage as an amendment to the constitution. Obviously it wouldn't pass now, but if supporters of the ban had thought of it back in the 1950's and 60's, they certainly would have been able to pass it from state to state, and then where would we be?
Sorry, but I have much more of a problem with tinkering with our constitutions than I do with tinkering with marriage, especially when tinkering with the consituttion has real, documentable risks, while tinkering with marriage only has theoretical “chicken little” risks.
Randy, as far as the racial comparison is involved, I wasn't comparing homosexuality to race–just a minority group to another. And, I'm not the one that brought that issue to the court, the racial groups (NAACP and others) did. It's not a strawman argument–it has real correlations that can't be 100% discounted just because racial groups are not exactly the same.
Regarding your point of gay marriage leading to the further decline of marriage–that's really the straw argument here. If you look at nearly any westernized country over the period you provide, all of them saw a decline in marriage rates and an increase in divorce, single parent families, etc., including the ones that do not have gay marriage or unions. In fact, comparing the US (before any type of gay marriage came about) over that period to the European countries shows almost the exact same decline of marriage, so blaming that on gay marriage simply isn't fair or topical.
That's my problem when we are talking about “chicken little” arguments–all of the evidence that comes forth “mom and dad are better off to raise kids,” “marriage is declining in Europe as a result of gay marriage, etc.” aren't the full story. Mom and dads are shown to be better in studies than one mom or one dad, but no study has shown them to be better than two dads or two moms. Marriage is declining where gay marriage came about, but also where it didn't too (and that kind of leads me to my last point–maybe we should spend the $72 million we spent on Prop 8 trying to actually help the failing state of marriage as it is–Ok, so that one is kind of a strawman, but seriously, can you imagine how many better things we could have spent $72 million on)?
Anyway, thanks for letting me always be a thorn in your side Randy. I honestly like the debates. I'll try to make sure I'm not always “that guy.”
A comment on the Gay Patriot link. Gay may he be, he's still off on this argument in my opinion.
I think we should also look at Prop 8 as eliminating the right to due process and equal protection, rather than the “right to marry”. The right to marry might be new, but those other rights are firmly written in the constitution, and this amendment certainly circumvents them.
The NAACP and other minority-based organizations that wrote in on this case on behalf of the “no on 9 crowd” have a very good point–if we establish that there is no “right to marry” (which in and of itself is a red herring–we don't have a “right” to do almost anything in our daily lives–driving, watching a movie, surfing the internet, etc.), then the minority become at mercy of the will of the people.
There is basically nothing from stopping the majority from writing in a ban on interracial marriage as an amendment to the constitution. Obviously it wouldn't pass now, but if supporters of the ban had thought of it back in the 1950's and 60's, they certainly would have been able to pass it from state to state, and then where would we be?
Sorry, but I have much more of a problem with tinkering with our constitutions than I do with tinkering with marriage, especially when tinkering with the consituttion has real, documentable risks, while tinkering with marriage only has theoretical “chicken little” risks.
No, I think he is right on to some degree. Marriage has a ton of scientific backing and thousands of years worth of history to learn from. Where it has been honored and recognized as a monogamous union of male and female, the society has prospered. Where it isn't recognized and protected the society denigrates.
Comparing it to interracial marriage is a straw man argument and not at all the same as what we are talking about here. It is not the same morally, involved a minority that has animmutable trait (skin color … being gay is not immutable) and really did combat institutionalized bigotry against African Americans.
Click here to read a summary of these so called “chicken little” arguments.
Gay “marriage” or unions recognized by the state only has 30 years worth of history (starting in Europe.) And the early studies show that redefining marriage and civil unions only served to undercut the already ailing institution of marriage (people have lost the honor and respect for marriage even before attempts to redefine it.)
To say that your critics are only proposing theoretical “chicken little” risks shows exactly what GayPatriot says all the time. Most in the gay community have no idea and completely lacks respect for their public policy opponents. They are creating a “right”, they are radically redefining marriage and family. They will not garner support by falsely framing the debate and personally attacking their opponents. He says that you should own the fact that you are redefining marriage and make the case for that with respect to the gender differences and complementarity that have *always” been understood in the context of marriage. He wants to accomplish what you do but his approach is much more civil than minimizing your opponents very deeply held beliefs and concerns.
Randy, as far as the racial comparison is involved, I wasn't comparing homosexuality to race–just a minority group to another. And, I'm not the one that brought that issue to the court, the racial groups (NAACP and others) did. It's not a strawman argument–it has real correlations that can't be 100% discounted just because racial groups are not exactly the same.
Regarding your point of gay marriage leading to the further decline of marriage–that's really the straw argument here. If you look at nearly any westernized country over the period you provide, all of them saw a decline in marriage rates and an increase in divorce, single parent families, etc., including the ones that do not have gay marriage or unions. In fact, comparing the US (before any type of gay marriage came about) over that period to the European countries shows almost the exact same decline of marriage, so blaming that on gay marriage simply isn't fair or topical.
That's my problem when we are talking about “chicken little” arguments–all of the evidence that comes forth “mom and dad are better off to raise kids,” “marriage is declining in Europe as a result of gay marriage, etc.” aren't the full story. Mom and dads are shown to be better in studies than one mom or one dad, but no study has shown them to be better than two dads or two moms. Marriage is declining where gay marriage came about, but also where it didn't too (and that kind of leads me to my last point–maybe we should spend the $72 million we spent on Prop 8 trying to actually help the failing state of marriage as it is–Ok, so that one is kind of a strawman, but seriously, can you imagine how many better things we could have spent $72 million on)?
Anyway, thanks for letting me always be a thorn in your side Randy. I honestly like the debates. I'll try to make sure I'm not always “that guy.”