Same Sex Marriage, Equality, and California Mormons: A Response to Jeffrey S. Nielsen
by Lance Starr on June 27th, 2008As almost anyone not living in a cave is aware, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the statute which limited “marriage” to a man and a woman was in violation of the state’s constitution, thus opening the door for thousands of gay people to enter into legally sanctioned marriages.
Even more recently, a voter petition to amend the California constitution was approved in California and will be on the ballot this fall. If approved, the constitution will be amended to state that marriage in California is between a man and woman. It would effectively override the ruling of the California Supreme Court.
The LDS Church has issued a letter to the Saints in California, seeking their active participation in getting the amendment approved by the voters. The letter represents a real threat to supporters of same sex marriage in California because, as was the case a few years back when a similar voter initiative was on the ballot, LDS members in California are numerous, organized, and have to the potential to swing the vote in favor of the amendment.
Enter Mr. Jeffrey S. Nielsen. I do not know Mr. Nielson except that he was a professor of some sort at BYU a year or two ago. I know that he published some remarks in the local paper which essentially took LDS leadership to task for their stance on the issue of gay marriage. He then feigned shock and surprise when his superiors at BYU informed him that his services were no longer needed or desired.
Now, Mr. Nielsen has returned, issuing an “Open Letter to California Mormons” which he hopes will be published in California papers on the same Sunday the letter from the First Presidency is scheduled to be read. Quite frankly, the sum of his letter doesn’t really interest me. It represents nothing more than familiar, emotion-based arguments that I’ve seen many times before. Long on feelings, short on facts. However, as I read the letter, one sentence caught my eye. Mr. Nielsen states: “If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.”
I find this assertion highly interesting on several levels. First, it seems to me to exhibit an exceptional arrogance, as if the arguments which he espouses are unassailable. I am lawyer by profession, and I learned early on that few, if any, positions are unassailable. Second, I am concerned at the way Mr. Nielsen simply rejects certain argumentative foundations out of hand. “Fallacious appeals to tradition?” I’m not sure what that means. Certainly, an argument cannot be won on the basis of an appeal to tradition. However, it should be recognized that traditions usually become ensconced as “traditions” because they have passed the test of time and we humans, by trial and error, have learned that certain traditions serve a valuable protective role for society.
Be that as it may, I will indulge Mr. Nielsen and refrain from such appeals.
Before I begin, it is probably best that I state my personal stance on the issue of same sex marriage. I am a “TBM,” and as such I obviously have several deeply held moral objections to homosexual conduct. That being said, I do not believe that homosexuality represents a “choice,” rather, I believe that homosexuality is caused by a complex interaction of genes and environment which we, at this point, do not understand. I do not favor same sex marriage. However, it is my stated belief that if the citizens of a certain state feel that they wish to extend the benefits and privileges to same sex partners, that is their legal right, and while I think it makes for poor public policy, the right to enact bad public policy rests with us all. I do, however, vehemently object to imposition of same sex marriage on a populace via judicial fiat.
On to the argument then. The fundamental question, as I see it, is this: Does a state have the right to favor one type of relationship over another? I believe the answer is unequivocally “yes” and I shall explain why. I believe that there does exist a valid and legally defensible argument that refusing to grant public/governmental sanction to same-sex marriages is in the public interest. My argument is based on principles of law and sound public policy and makes no reference to “morals,” “tradition” or “religious authority.”
The argument essentially goes like this:
There is no question that the state (meaning a democratically elected government) has the right to try to encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the state while simultaneously trying to discourage behaviors that are not. This fact is so ingrained into our governmental fabric that no one even notices it any longer. However, some concrete examples are called for.
It is an established fact that home ownership is good for the community. It has been shown that home ownership (versus renting) provides benefits to the family, children and the community, such as increased education for children, lower teen pregnancy rates, a higher lifetime annual income for children, lower crime rates, etc. [See several studies located at http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg302. Also see William M. Rohe, Shannon Van Zandt and George McCarthy, The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, October 2001 (stating that "Strong and consistent evidence indicates that homeowners are more likely to: a) be satisfied with their homes and neighborhoods; participate in voluntary and political activities; and c) stay in their homes longer, contributing to neighborhood stability).]
However, the state cannot force people to buy homes rather than rent. Therefore, in order to encourage this type of behavior, the state has granted to home owners a whole series of financial “benefits” designed to encourage people to buy and own homes. For example, there is the mortgage write-off on your taxes and there is also the fact that the sale of your first home is exempt from capital gains taxes up to half a million dollars.
Of course, this raises the question: is this fair? I did not own a home for the first 13 years of my marriage. I was unable to claim to the same tax and financial benefits as others who owned homes. This was due mostly to my financial situation: I was simply unable to claim those benefits. Nevertheless, there is no question that the state had every right to encourage home ownership in the form that they did, despite the fact that it appears to discriminate against large section of the society.
Another example: Military service. The state long ago learned that conscripted military service is simply not very efficient and the soldiers it creates are not nearly as reliable or dedicated as those whose service is gained via voluntary sign ups. So, in order to encourage voluntary enlistment, the state began to offer a whole series of benefits to those willing to join. Thus, veterans get free life-time health care at VA hospitals, access to low-rate loans for college, subsidized housing, vehicles, etc.
None of this is available to the public at large. In fact, in my case, even if I wanted to access it, I could not since my poor eyesight alone would disqualify me from military service. Thus, the government is again granting benefits to a certain segment of the population which are not available to the vast majority.
So, the question is, does the government have a vested interest in “promoting” heterosexual marriage over “same sex” marriage. The answer is, clearly, yes.
Why? What does heterosexual marriage provide the state that same-sex marriage does not? Well, that question is easy to answer. In fact, heterosexual marriage provides a full range of primary and secondary benefits to the state that same sex marriage does not.
The most obvious benefit is that heterosexual marriages provide the state with a steady supply of new citizens. This may sound odd, but it is not. In fact, recently commentators have noted that several European countries are now facing severe societal problems due to the fact that their citizens simply aren’t reproducing at sustainable rates. (See Robert Samuelson, “The End of Europe,” The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A25.)
This fact alone would justify the state in favoring heterosexual marriages over same-sex marriages. Not because same sex marriages are inherently “bad” or “evil” but simply because same sex marriages do not provide the same benefit to society and the community that heterosexual marriages do.
The obvious objection is that some heterosexuals who cannot reproduce are still allowed to marry (young couples who chose not to have children, infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc). My response is that in the case of a couple who simply choose not to have children, they can (and almost invariably do) change their minds. In the case of infertility, science is advancing so rapidly in this area that women who only 5 or 10 years ago couldn’t dream of bearing children now have a very realistic hope of doing so. Science is also pushing back the age of menopause, making it possible for women to bear children well into their 40’s, and in some cases even into their fifties and sixties. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13801920/).
Furthermore, the “exceptions” to the general procreational rule cited above represent what in legal parlance is termed an “argument from the margins.” Such an argument occurs when a general rule is stated (the state sanctions marriage because it wants people to procreate). Those who oppose this view then seek to find any “exceptions” to this general rule (infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc.) and then claim that since such people are also allowed to “marry” the general rule is invalid. However, this “argument from the margins” assumes a sort of argumentational purity and consistency which are simply foreign to public policy arguments and which are not required by Equal Protection jurisprudence. In short, the “exceptions” do not swallow the rule.
Second, this objection doesn’t recognize that heterosexual marriage itself, apart from its procreational aspects, offers other benefits to the state which same-sex marriages, especially male/male marriages, do not. It has long been recognized that “marriage” has a domesticating effect on heterosexual men that makes them less “wild” (for lack of a better word, perhaps “undisciplined” would be better) and more responsible. Men are, by nature, programmed toward promiscuity. Heterosexual marriage tends to greatly lessen the tendency (and it is only a tendency) for promiscuity in heterosexual men, a great benefit to the state. However, same-sex marriage (especially male/male relationships) do not receive this same benefit. As has already been noted, male homosexuals are known, as a general rule, to be highly promiscuous. [See, for example, H. Meyer-Balburg et. al., "Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men," Journal of Sex Research 28, 1 (1991): 3-27; G. Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Dutton, 1997).]
Moreover, the data from countries where gay marriage has been sanctioned for some time shows that marriage has no appreciable effect on this. A recent study from the Netherlands (where gay-marriage has been the norm for several years now) showed that in the first year of “marriage” alone, both partners had, as an average, eight extramarital “affairs.” Indeed, many gay-activists groups have freely admitted that promiscuity is simply part and parcel of the “gay” lifestyle. [See Maria Xiridou, et. al. "The Contribution of Steady
and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984).]
Of course, part of the argument in favor of same sex marriage is constitutional, i.e., that the state is required to give gays access to marriage under both the “Equal Protection” clause and also under the “Due Process” clause. These arguments are highly flawed, however. Legally, the state is under no obligation whatsoever to offer sanctioned marriages to anyone. In other words, if the state decided tomorrow that state-sanctioned marriage had simply become too much of a burden and was draining too many resources, it could, theoretically, discontinue ALL civil marriages and simply state that, “The state will no longer sanction marriages of any sort. Period.”
The state could do this, and some states (notably Wyoming) have even toyed with the idea of doing so.
What prior federal court cases (notably the Loving decision) have stated is that If the State is going to offer sanctioned marriages, it cannot deny that privilege on the basis of color since such a demarcation is irrational.
This is exactly analogous to current welfare programs. The state is not required in any way to offer such “safety net” programs as food stamps, WIC, and Welfare, and, if they wished, they could completely dismantle the whole system tomorrow. However, the courts have held that, if the state is going to offer such programs, then they cannot discriminate on who benefits from them on the basis of irrational criteria (such as race). This does not mean, however, that the state is not allowed to “discriminate” in other ways. For example, in order to receive food stamps there is usually a requirement that the person be working at least 20 hours a week. Thus, someone working 15 hours a week, or someone not working at all, are discriminated against. Nevertheless, it is allowed because the line drawn is rationally related to the goals of the program.
The rationale for discriminating between a same-sex couple and heterosexual couple is based on the potential for procreation, which is not irrational in any sense. Thus, the limiting of the “program” to only heterosexual couples is a rational distinction that the state is allowed to draw. The lynch pin of equal protection jurisprudence is the notion that the two parties must be “similarly situated.” In the case of same sex couples vs. heterosexual couples, they are not similarly situated because one can procreate and the other cannot. In Loving, the mixed race couple was indeed “similarly situated” to the same-race couples because they could still procreate just as the others could, thus the limiting of marriage on a racial distinciton was irrational. That is not the case here, therefore drawing the line on marriage at that point is “rational” and thus not a violation of Equal Protection.
The due process (substantive due process) argument is even weaker. There are essentially two tests which the Supreme Court has laid out to determine if a newly claimed “right” is actually a right protected under the constitution. The first, is the newly claimed right “implicit to the concept of ordered liberty?” The second, is the newly claimed right “deeply embedded in our nation’s history and traditions?”
Is same-sex marriage “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?” The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over two hundred years now and same-sex unions have played absolutely no role in it. Heterosexual marriages, on the other hand, have played a pivotal role, providing new citizens to the republic and providing a stable environment for the rearing of those children. It has also played a significant factor in stabilizing and creating responsible men to govern that republic. Same-sex marriage has not and, indeed, cannot provide any of these.
Next, is same-sex marriage deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No, it is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions. On the other hand, heterosexual marriage has been a part of our history and tradition since the dawn of civilization.
Thus, a brief due process analysis to determine whether or not same-sex marriage is a “right” shows that it obviously is not. For a much longer treatment of this subject see the decision in Standhardt v. Arizona here: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/SA/SA030150.pdf.
Mr. Nielsen’s premise is plainly false. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that rational reasons exist for limiting marriage to men and women. If the state chooses to ignore those reasons and extend marriage to same sex couples, the state has that right, but it is simply wrong to assert that same sex marriage is a “right” and to have it foisted upon us by judicial fiat as occurred in California.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
So, assuming your theory is correct, would you, in time, encourage the idea that all couples MUST have children? Or perhaps in time their marriage could be deemed invalid because they’re not doing their part to continue the species.
As for extramarital affairs, how can we assume the nature of marriage in the US will be considered the same as in The Netherlands and produce the same number extra marital affairs?
There are a lot of deeply embedded traditions in our history that ought to be done away with. I haven’t been persuaded by your argument that this is one of them.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I think that the state could, if it really, really, really wanted to, restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples willing to procreate. But I sincerely doubt that will ever happen. The state cannot force or coerce anyone to have children, it can only cajole and entice by offering benefits to those who do, so not, I would not encourage the idea that all couples “must” have children.
As for your question regarding extramarital affairs, I’ve never seen any evidence that “marriage” in the Netherlands is viewed differently than in the U.S. That seems a stretch to me.
As to your last comment, I’m not sure what you mean because it is confusing. I don’t recall arguing that any tradition should be done away with.
lcs
June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Lance,
You provided an interesting analysis and a plausible reason for the tradition of only allowing heterosexual couples to marry.
I just don’t think it’s rational. I agree that heterosexuals do bring new citizens to a state and homosexuals do not. But that is a rational basis for banning homosexuality rather than homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage won’t provide incentives to any homosexuals to become homosexual. Homosexuality, not homosexual marriage, decreases the new-citizen input.
And I’m not even sure that is true. If homosexuals can marry, they can contribute to new-citizen input through adoption. Providing loving homes to children who would otherwise be in foster care/unwanted/aborted helps to increase the number of productive citizens in the state.
So I understand your reasoning that the state has a right to prevent some people from marrying to promote creation of citizens, I just don’t agree that preventing homosexuals from marrying is a rational implementation of the goal.
And another thing…
Whether the right in California is “implicit to the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply embedded in our nation’s history and traditions” depends on how you define the right.
If you define the right narrowly as “homosexual marriage,” than your analysis is correct. But if you define the right as “marriage between two consenting adults,” and argue that the State is forbidding two consenting adults from marrying, then your analysis is incorrect. Gay-marriage proponents argue that the latter right was always there, it has just been impermissibly restricted in the past.
In any event, thanks for the thoughtful post.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Some good ideas in there, but overall not a very convincing argument for me. I see the pursuit of gay marriage rights as a sad consequence of equating moral duty with permissiveness.
What I do see in all this is a string of moral questions: If gay marriage is OK, then why not polygamy? By what defensible moral code could you permit one and forbid the other? If polygamy is OK, why not underage marriage…who is to say a two year-old girl isn’t capable of making her own decisions as to whether she gets married or owns property? And who are we to tell her what she can’t do in her own house?
Mr. Nielsen’s argument is disingenuous precisely because it postulates that 1)tradition (or history), 2)moral leadership, and 3)fear are not to be trusted, and implies that ridicule is an appropriate response to their rebuttals. In my opinion, Mormons who respond to his argument by “obeying” his rules are simply helping Mr. Nielsen prove that his hubris is justified.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
An invitation to show up or walk out on June 29th
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484
June 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Is same-sex marriage “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?” The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over two hundred years now and same-sex unions have played absolutely no role in it.”
100 years ago, it would have been “Is (suffrage for women) implicit in the concept of ordered liberty? The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over (one hundred) years now and women voters have played absolutely no role in it”.
“Next, Is same sex marriage deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No. It is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions.”
Again, you could have said prior to the 1860’s “is (emancipation of slaves) deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No it is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions.”
June 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Jeffrey Nielsen was a part time adjunct instructor at the BYU Philosophy Department, who last surfaced in defense of the media made martyrs, the Danzig’s. His 15 minutes was up long ago. Thanks for this write up.
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/peter-and-mary-danzig-more-media-made-martyrs/#more-332
June 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Guy,
Nothing like a blogger dismissing somebody else as irrelavant.
Lance
You said “It represents nothing more than familiar, emotionally-based arguments that I’ve seen many time before. Long on feelings, short on facts.”
Does not this represent both side of this issue?
“We’ve had ordered liberty for well over two hundred years now and same-sex unions have played absolutely no role in it.” This is true if you ignore slavery, lynchings, and the denial of suffrage to women and blacks. We have had a somewhat well ordered liberty for about 40 years. The American version is still pathetic. I do no care about the marriage argument, but do not act as though all is and has been dandy when it come to liberty and equality in the United States.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I agree with you about the negative effects of a court imposing so called “gay marriages” on society. However, as some of those who have commented already seem to think, your argument needs a little work. The California Supreme Court used your very arguments against the religious right. Stating that (I paraphrase) in previous cases and statutes the stability of marriage is important to child rearing, the court says that denying this stability based on “sexual-orientation” (whatever that euphemism is supposed to mean), is a violation of one’s civil rights.
The real issue is that marriage is marriage. It is a gender positive institution. The Court in California in “expanding” the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples has actually limited marriage to a gender neutral institution. Marriage licenses in California now no longer say husband and wife. Instead they say Party A and Party B. In reducing the definition of marriage to something that is not marriage, this court has denied everyone in California the right to marry. If the stat will not acknowledge that a man and a woman are husband and wife, then it has denied those citizens the ‘right of marriage.’ Check out: http://thetowncirer.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I agree with you about the negative effects of a court imposing so called “gay marriages” on society. However, as some of those who have commented already seem to think, your argument needs a little work. The California Supreme Court used your very arguments against the religious right. Stating that (I paraphrase) in previous cases and statutes, the stability of marriage was found to be important to child rearing, the court said that denying this stability based on “sexual-orientation” (whatever that euphemism is supposed to mean), is a violation of one’s civil rights.
The real issue is that marriage is marriage. It is a gender positive institution. The Court in California, in “expanding” the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, has actually limited marriage to a gender neutral institution. Marriage licenses in California now no longer say ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ Instead they say ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’. In reducing the definition of marriage to something that is not marriage, this court has denied everyone in California the right to marry. If the state will not acknowledge that a man and a woman are husband and wife, then it has denied those citizens the ‘right of marriage.’ Check out: http://thetowncirer.blogspot.com/
June 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I know that several respondents have stated that my argument is weak, but I have yet to see anyone state why. How is the procreation/non-procreation line not a rational line to draw?
Moreover, the arguments I’ve used above have won the day in courts from Washington State, to New York state to Florida and Arizona. That would seem to indicate that they are not as weak as some wish they were.
lcs
June 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Alexander said: ” 100 years ago, it would have been “Is (suffrage for women) implicit in the concept of ordered liberty? The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over (one hundred) years now and women voters have played absolutely no role in it”.
“Next, Is same sex marriage deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No. It is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions.”
Again, you could have said prior to the 1860’s “is (emancipation of slaves) deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No it is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions.””
Lance: You are correct, but that still doesn’t make your point. All you’ve shown is that women’s suffrage and black emancipation would not have passed the current substantive due process tests and on that basis they would not have won the respective rights you refer to. However, in both of the cases you mention, they would have won under the Equal Protection clause since they would have been considered as being “similarly situated” because in both instances the line was drawn based on benign physical traits. There is no rational reason why a woman should be prevented from voting or why a black person should not have all the rights of a white person. As I have shown, however, there is a good, rational reason why there is a demarcation between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
LCS
June 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“There is no rational reason why a woman should be prevented from voting or why a black person should not have all the rights of a white person. As I have shown, however, there is a good, rational reason why there is a demarcation between heterosexual and homosexual couples.”
Proving only that “rationality” is a slippery and elusive thing, and the what seems completely rational in one age, does not hold up to scrutiny in another.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“Proving only that “rationality” is a slippery and elusive thing, and the what seems completely rational in one age, does not hold up to scrutiny in another.”
Really? I’d say the line between procreation/non procreation has been pretty steady for several thousand years at this point.
lcs
June 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
You are deliberately missing my point, since my comment came after your quote about women not voting, and blacks having fewer rights. Both these conditions were vehemently supported by “rational” voices for years.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m not an attorney, so forgive me if I fail to see how allowing gay marriage equates to the government discouraging or, at a minimum, not encouraging heterosexual marriage. If it were a choice between either gay marriage or heterosexual marriage, I could see how the procreation/non-procreation argument would have validity. However, since marriage itself is being encouraged in California (setting aside the “definition of marriage” argument for the moment), and since the government continues to incent couples to marry through tax benefits and certain rights given to married couples only (inheritance, critical care decision-making, etc.), how exactly does one come to the conclusion that if homosexual marriage is allowed in California, the government will no longer be encouraging heterosexual couples to marry and procreate? I seriously doubt that any couple who desires to have children will change their minds because homosexual couples are also allowed to marry. It simply doesn’t follow.
Furthermore, if the rationale is based on the ability of couples to procreate in order to produce new citizens, one has to deal with the fact that marriage is not necessary for procreation. Therefore, to fully encourage procreation as a means of replenishing the citizenry, shouldn’t the government extend the same rights married couples enjoy to couples who procreate outside the bonds of marriage? And doesn’t that lead to a situation in which the government is no longer encouraging couples to marry?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Others have pointed out issues with your above reasoning, but I think we also need to look at the so-called “facts” which you’re using to bolster your argument.
Moreover, the data from countries where gay marriage has been sanctioned for some time shows that marriage has no appreciable effect on this. A recent study from the Netherlands (where gay-marriage has been the norm for several years now) showed that in the first year of “marriage” alone, both partners had, as an average, 8 extramarital “affairs.”
This claim stems from the so-called “Dutch Study,” centered in Amsterdam. When the study began, it recruited heavily from STD clinics in the city. You need to know that the study was explicitly limited to men who had engaged in sexual activity with two or more partners during the previous six months—in other words, monogamous gay men were completely excluded from the data. For part of the study’s duration, only HIV positive men were allowed to become part of the study. Later, all men over the age of thirty were dropped from the study, and their data was removed from any subsequent analysis.
So, this alleged “average 8 partners” is only an “average” among predominately-urban gay men, most of whom were treated for STDs, absolutely none of whom were monogamous. To make matters worse, since absolutely none of the study participants were over the age of 30, they simply weren’t old enough to have been involved in relationships longer than 8 to 10 years. In short, you’re working from very heavily skewed data, which is by no means representative of gay men in general.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’ve always said that government ought to simply pack it in and get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether, then pass neutral laws that encourage committed sharing relationships without reference to the notion of marriage.
Basically make a designation like, “domestic partnership” and allow anyone to apply for it - regardless of the gender makeup. Let marriage be a private designation. If some gay episcopalian priest in San Francisco wants to “marry” two men, bully for him. It’s a free country. If the LDS Church wants to refuse to “marry” the same two men, bully for them too.
The only way to nip the fairness issue in the bud is take the government out of the business of approving marriage altogether - a place it had no business being in the first place. You want to reward behavior? Fine. But government needs to do it without reference to religious mechanisms. Otherwise, we’re just postponing the inevitable day when the homosexual community’s appeals to basic fairness win the day.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
In epidemiology this is known as the ecological fallacy–equating correlation with causation. The fact is there is no evidence that gay marriage has anything to do with lower rates of population increase. There are far more well understood processes in Europe, such as less interest in children, more women working, changes in society. You have tried to make arguments where there is good demographic evidence that directly undercuts everything you’ve argued. Give me some empirical evidence that anything you said holds. The data speaks against you. Another good theory goes down in the face of the facts.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Jimbo says: “how exactly does one come to the conclusion that if homosexual marriage is allowed in California, the government will no longer be encouraging heterosexual couples to marry and procreate? I seriously doubt that any couple who desires to have children will change their minds because homosexual couples are also allowed to marry. It simply doesn’t follow.”
Lance: Sorry Jimbo, but you’ve made up something that wasn’t part of my argument. I never claimed that California is no longer “encouraging heterosexual couples to marry and procreate.” What I’ve said is that they are essentially wasting resources on couples who provide no corresponding benefit. If California chooses to do that, hey, that’s fabulous. I’ve no problem w/ that. But don’t make up arguments that I haven’t made.
Jimbo: “Therefore, to fully encourage procreation as a means of replenishing the citizenry, shouldn’t the government extend the same rights married couples enjoy to couples who procreate outside the bonds of marriage? And doesn’t that lead to a situation in which the government is no longer encouraging couples to marry?”
No, because such relationships are inherently unstable for both the female and the child. A woman who simply lives w/ a man is more likely to be abused at a much higher percentage than a married woman. Procreation is not the “only” benefit the state gets. Married heterosexual couples also represent the single best environment for the raising of children. That’s not saying that other models might not be good also, but the state has no interest in incentivizing behavior that is less than optimal (again, unless the citizenry wishes to, of course.)
Nick: I am aware of the limitations of the Amsterdam study and I thought I had included a line in my essay stating that the study had some flaws. I must’ve deleted it by mistake. Nevertheless, the evidence of promiscuous behavior among gay is rather well documented. Even Andrew Sullivan has theorized that same sex marriage might effect a change in heterosexual marriages wherein additional partners might be welcomed.
Apricot says: “there is no evidence that gay marriage has anything to do with lower rates of population increase.”
Lance replies: Okay apricot, take a deep breath and go back and re-read what I wrote. I never said the low birthrate problems in Europe are caused by, or even related to, same sex marriage. In fact, I have no idea why European birthrates are so low, but the reasons you state are likely candidates. My only point was that the state has a vested interest in a higher birth rate and thus has the right to incentivize couples to procreate. If they choose to waste resources by incentivzing same sex relationships at the same time, more power to them, but do not assert that it is a “right” because it clearly is not.
To all, please make sure actually read what I’ve written rather than reacting so emotionally as apricot and other have, reading into my words arguments which I have not made.
lcs
June 28th, 2008 at 7:04 am
How can you possibly dismiss Apricot’s reply as emotional? Did you read it?
What really stands out in all of this is how, for believing Mormons, the only position that has integrity is “I am fighting same sex marriage because the prophet asked me to.” The well-intentioned members of the church have a long history of getting into murky territory when they scramble to justify difficult church policy.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Lance:
There… fixed it for ya.
If Andrew Sullivan is now the representative of all gay people, can I start choosing people who represent straight people? David Vitter, maybe?
June 28th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Stupid HTML code–
Lance:
There… fixed it for ya.
If Andrew Sullivan is now the representative of all gay people, can I start choosing people who represent straight people? David Vitter, maybe?
June 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
First off, in response to Alexander’s comment that the emancipation of slavery prior to the 1860s was not “deeply embedded in our history and traditions”:
It just ain’t so. Slavery in the American south drew upon two legal traditions. One was Northwestern European tradition, where slavery was abolished in during the high middle ages. The mediterranean tradition always (even through the peak of African slavery in the 1700s) recognized and allowed for relatively easy personal emancipation. Contradiction between English and French domestic tradition and colonial policy led to a series of landmark rulings against slavery in the 1700s, France’s first shot at general emancipation (1794), and the abolition of the slave trade (1808). See David Brion Davis, the Problem of Slavery in Western Culture; Sue Peabody, There Are No Slaves in France; and Laurent Dubois, A Colony of Citizens, for the best research and writing on this subject. Lincoln had ample precedent for the Emancipation Proclamation.
And in response to Carrie’s comment that “the only position that has integrity (for believing Mormons)” is “because the prophet asked me to” I think Lance’s post lays out another position of integrity. I’m personally part of the camp that thinks the government will get out of the marriage business and only recognize civil unions, but I also feel that granting incentives for marriage between a man and a woman and offering them reasonable incentives to have and raise children isn’t a bad thing. There are public policies easier to pass than this amendment that would do far more to strengthen the family, like tougher laws against deadbeats, making it so dependents don’t have to drop their parents’ health insurance when they get married (reducing strategic delays of marriage), and a greater national discourse on the benefits of being raised by two loving parents.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Lance says:
“My only point was that the state has a vested interest in a higher birth rate and thus has the right to incentivize couples to procreate.”
And why would governments be interested in suppressing gay marriage if there is not relationship between population reproductive rates and gay marriage? I did read what you wrote and your tying government incentives for population increase and restricting non-child bearing behavior is exactly the fallacy I’m talking about. Can you show me just one study, anywhere, in any peer reviewed, sociological, anthropological, or biological journal that shows that gay marriage has any effect anywhere on population growth? Any at all? I keep hearing that gay marriage is somehow going to effect my marriage, or cause lower populations, or a lot of silly ideas, the trouble never, ever have I seen any evidence for these claims. I see a lot of smoke, but no fire.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
What really stands out in all of this is how, for believing Mormons, the only position that has integrity is “I am fighting same sex marriage because the prophet asked me to.”
I disagree. There are also many believing LDS members who have strong feelings on this issue, to the point that supporting the initiative with their “means and time” would violate their integrity, despite the fact that the president of their church has requested it.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Wooops.I stated that in a really sloppy manner. What I meant was that for believing Mormons *who support the ban* the position of integrity is bla bla bla.
(And even that was an overstatement, I know.)
When I read all the *reasons* for going with the church’s position (which I don’t agree with, btw) I can’t help but think of all the effort that was put into building up polygamy and disparaging monogamy, and all that was written about fence-sitting blacks, etc. If you believe in following the prophet, great. Do it. But don’t make up reasons that don’t exist.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
apricot said: “Can you show me just one study, anywhere, in any peer reviewed, sociological, anthropological, or biological journal that shows that gay marriage has any effect anywhere on population growth? Any at all? I keep hearing that gay marriage is somehow going to effect my marriage, or cause lower populations, or a lot of silly ideas, the trouble never, ever have I seen any evidence for these claims. I see a lot of smoke, but no fire.”
Lance replies: Apricot, why do you insist on reading into my words an argument which I have not made? I have no need to cite to any “peer reviewed, sociological, anthropological, or biological journal” because I am not arguing what you seem to think I am. Let me be as clear as I can: I have not argued that same sex marriage lowers population rates. My position is that same sex marriage, by its very nature, CANNOT affect population growth because same sex couple CANNOT procreate. Thus, it is poor public policy to expend resources to incentivize relationships which have no possibility of producing the desired results.
As for the effect of same sex marriage on current marriages, I doubt it will have much impact at all. That argument is a complete straw man if ever I saw one. However, does it have the potential for effecting heterosexual marriage as an institution? It may. If the only people arguing that same sex marriage could undermine heterosexual marriage were anti same sex folks, you might have a point. But when respected thinkers on both sides of the aisle essentially come out say that it will transform heterosexual marriage, then I think the arguments are worth listening to. Some very smart gay rights advocates seem to think that it will. Try reading Michael Bronski who theorizes that it will result it he end of all marriages. Andrew Sullivan has said it will result more “open marriages.” You can’t simply dismiss the argument when folks on both sides agree that the potentiality exists.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Carrie:
In you read my blog,you’ll note that at no point have I made any reference to faith, dogma, doctrine, religion, or morality at all. So why are you insisting that it be brought into the conversation?
lcs
June 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Carrie,
Making marriage genderless means that the concepts of husband, wife, father, mother don’t really mean anything anymore. This isn’t just a matter of semantics, either. It does affect the way marriage is viewed, rewarded, talked about, taught about, and lived. This can also affect how my children are taught in schools, and how they grow up understanding what marriage and family mean. A change like this won’t happen in a vacuum — it will affect much on many levels, some of them subtle, yes, but important nonetheless.
Part of what I think Lance is trying to say is that there is simply no compelling reason that a state should support gay marriage. What does doing so do for the state? How does it benefit the state? I have yet to hear advocates of gay marriage give a reason besides ‘it’s not fair not to’ to change the definition of marriage as it has always been.
There is no need to change anything in California. Gays already have rights under the law. I see no compelling reason to change the definition of marriage to accomplish that goal; it’s simply unnecessary and inappropriate. It’s a push toward social and emotional change and seeking for legitimacy, not a practical, legal one that is really about rights. These are not compelling reasons to make a change to constitutional definitions in California or anywhere else. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual relationship.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I realize, BTW, that the change in definition is not the main issue, but I still think it’s worth thinking about. I also think that few people consider the potential ripple effect and how that can affect other rights along the way.
for example, see this lawyer’s letter to the editor:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0,5628051.story
June 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Lance, I think you have to expect that many will assume that the officially-stated position is determinative for many/most active LDS who argue against marriage equality. If you’ve reached your opinions on strictly legal reasoning, and that your opinions only coincidentally match those of the leadership of the LDS church, then it’s fair to say you’re a very rare LDS member. (Just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that “TBMs” are wrong take the statements of the FP into account, when forming their opinions. That would be a rather ridiculous, not to mention grossly inconsiderate, position to take.) It’s to be expected that many will see your arguments as a rationalization of your religiously-determined position, rather than a completely dispassionate process of reasoning. Hence Carrie’s observation.
Chances are good that you see me the same way. Seeing that I’m an openly gay man, you will likely assume that my opinions on marriage equality are largely formed by that fact, rather than a completely dispassionate process of reason. It’s also likely that you don’t think that’s an unfair assumption. Therefore, why is it unfair for Carrie to suggest that your proposed legal arguments may be secondary to your religious views?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
m&m:
Making marriage genderless means that the concepts of husband, wife, father, mother don’t really mean anything anymore.
I’ve heard this suggested by a few (the “meaning” part, not the silly “genderless” claim), and I honestly don’t get it. If you lived in California right now (I’ve no idea where you actually live), would you be less of a wife and/or mother than you were before May 15, 2008? Surely not.
This isn’t just a matter of semantics, either. It does affect the way marriage is viewed, rewarded, talked about, taught about, and lived. This can also affect how my children are taught in schools, and how they grow up understanding what marriage and family mean.
As a devoted LDS parent, aren’t you quite capable of teaching your own values to your children, in spite of what they hear from other sources? On the other hand, maybe it can be a good thing for society to re-examine what “marriage and family” mean. Does “marriage and family” mean Brittney Spears getting hitched for 55 hours in Las Vegas? Of course not! Those words mean so much more in the sense of committment, sacrifice, srevice and love! If marriage equality forces society to reconsider the meaning of “marriage and family,” maybe society will begin to focus more on those things, rather than the latest gossip rag stories about celebrity mergers.
Part of what I think Lance is trying to say is that there is simply no compelling reason that a state should support gay marriage. What does doing so do for the state? How does it benefit the state? I have yet to hear advocates of gay marriage give a reason besides ‘it’s not fair not to’
I know that you’re a thoughtful person, m&m, even when I disagree with you strongly. Surely there’s some small part of you that feels just a tiny bit guilty in putting the question that way? Surely you realize that southern plantation owners in the mid-1800s could have asked the same questions about ending African slavery. There was “no compelling reason” other than “it’s not fair not to,” for the government to end slavery. In fact, it was detrimental to the economy to do so, in a whole variety of ways. Heck, even prior to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, even the idea of ending slavery was a significant factor in causing a horribly bloody civil war. Aside from “it’s not fair not to,” the only “positive” reason for Lincoln to issue his proclamation was to recruit African American soldiers in an effort to preserve the Union. Should Lincoln have reduced it all to “What have you done for me lately?” (to borrow from Janet Jackson).
There is no need to change anything in California.
I absolutely agree with you there! Can you please convince Thomas Monson of this? Right now, he clearly thinks there is a need to change something in California, hence his calling for a crusade against the status quo of marriage equality.
I appreciated your link to the Marc D. Stern article. The issues he raises are important ones. We need to find a way to support everyone’s civil rights (though I can’t agree with a few religious extremists, who seem to think it’s their “civil right” to live in a world where homosexuals are executed). As much as I want to see discrimination prevented, it makes me squeamish to hear of a wedding photographer losing her court case, after declining to provide her services at a lesbian commitment ceremony, based on her religious beliefs. A private citizen or business ought to be able to make those kinds of decisions with the least possible interference. I’d be on the side of the San Diego fertility doctor who Stern mentions, as well as the Lutheran school he described, assuming the facts were as Stern reports.
I would, however, note that Stern is not telling the entire story on the Catholic Charities case. It was never a question of whether Catholic Charities had to provide adoption services to same-sex couples. Rather, it was a question of whether Catholic Charities could use government funding to provide those services, while at the same time violating the government’s anti-discrimination statutes. Catholic Charities had every right to limit their services to opposite-sex couples, until they relied on government funding. Once they agreed to accept government funding, they became agents of the government, and they were subject to the same legal requirements that the government had to obey, including non-discrimination requirements. The solution in that case should have been for Catholic Charities to discontinue government funding, in much the same way that BYU declines government grants (individual student financial aid, like Pell Grants, are a different matter) in order to avoid being subject to the requirements of a government agent. Instead, Catholic Charities decided to play the martyr by ending their adoptions services in the state, and blaming gays. That’s not only unfair, it’s deceptive.
As for the Poway public schools case regarding anti-gay t-shirts, the Supreme Court has supported school administrations in such limitations, where there is a legitimate concern that the learning environment will be disrupted. Do we really want school children to be wearing anti-anyone t-shirts at school, especially where the “target” represents part of the student body? I’d be very upset if high school students were allowed to wear anti-LDS t-shirts at school, even if their religion did teach that the LDS church is evil. Wouldn’t you??
June 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Here is the problem with gay marriage in California — It promotes gay marriage as a basic right that ain’t a basic right, and constitutes not merely State approval but State promotion of relationships that the State doesn’t have an interest to promote. Marriage is a religious institution in origin. States can perform civil ceremonies that grant legal rights.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: California already had a very strong civil union law that granted gays everything that they needed legally except social approval. The government has no business entering the arena of social and moral approval of gay relationships in my view. Yet that is all that the addition of “marriage” to the strong civil unions law could add. So the gay community is now demanding not equal rights or merely state protection of their relationships; they are now demanding that the State condone and promote their relationships and grant social acceptance and approval.
Also, Jeff Nielsen is essentially writing from a merely secular perspective that rejects any spiritual or religious views as a legitimate basis of political action. Only secular reason count in his view. He essentially rejects faith as a basis for political decisions. Why is he writing to LDS to urge then to disregard any spiritual or communal motivation for their decisions? He has abandoned every sense of loyalty to faith in so doing.
When Nick Literski suggests that religious organizations must forego government funding but gay relationships should be protected by government actions, then what is really being promoted is a system where the belief that gay relationships are immoral and ought not be promoted is now governmentally enforced. Further, persons who accept the direction of the Church and its prophet can be subject to having their government grants made unavailable because they have a religious belief system. It follows that the Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination against those who hold certain religious beliefs is violated because it becomes a reason for denying benefits.
The demise of Catholic charities in Mass. is message enough about the consequences of adopting a law that recognizes gay marriage as a basic constitutional right. Literski and others downplay the seriousness of such denial of ability for those who believe that homosexual relations are sinful and immoral to engage in adoption and placement of children. Now gays can have adoptive children through the state but religious believers are denied the right to participate in adoption because they reject gay marriage. Such a result is not merely backwards, it is destructive to the need for sound families with competent male and female role models to raise adoptive children. In my view, such results will now be repeated in CA. That is reason enough for LDS and others who accept the view that gay sexual relations are immoral and gay marriage is not really marriage to fund and participate in a campaign against gay marriage.
Why should I have to accept Nielsen’s anti-religious criteria that religious considerations must be ruled out before the discussion begins? I cannot be an equal dialog partner with him because I have religious beliefs that often guide or give content to my decisions. That is as anti-democratic and anti-good-faith-dialog as anything I know.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
he clearly thinks there is a need to change something in California, hence his calling for a crusade against the status quo of marriage equality.
Marriage equality as you state it is not the status quo. It it seeking to change the status quo in a significant way. It is a change to the long-held definition of marriage in the California constitution. Marriage has always been understood to be a heterosexual relationship. Marriage is not a right to be protected or offered to anyone and everyone. As has been illustrated in this post, there are plenty of benefits and rights that are limited to a certain group of people who follow certain requirements or meet certain specifications. Fairness is not the acid test of what should or shouldn’t be.
Gays can love and be with whomever they want (provided they are adults). They already had rights under the law (see Blake’s comment). It really is that simple. The law in CA was “fair” enough before gay marriage was on the table. There is no compelling reason to extend the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
It promotes gay marriage as a basic right that ain’t a basic right,
Blake, can you share with us your scholarly background, with regard to interpreting the state constitution of California? In particular, I’m interested in hearing how your education and experience exceeds that of the justices of the Supreme Court of California, who obviously disagreed with you.
Marriage is a religious institution in origin. States can perform civil ceremonies that grant legal rights.
Part of the problem here, Blake, is the distinction between the religious ceremony/concept of “marriage,” vs. the civil, secular institution of “marriage.” As I’m sure you’re well aware, the California Supreme Court has not ruled, in any manner whatsoever, on the religious concept of “marriage.” Some religions will accept marriage equality, and some will not. That is entirely the province of each religious group. As far as the California Supreme Court is concerned, the LDS church could choose to call a legally-recognized same-sex marriage “phlebotomy.” The religious recognition of marriage is entirely irrelevant to the court’s decision.
Rather, the court ruled that insofar as the civil government uses that term, it is unconstitutional for the civil government to descriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in its use of terminology. Particularly in light of the fact that California “civil unions” gave “virtually all” the legal rights of “marriage” to same-sex couples, the civil government of California has no constitutionally-supported basis on which to use different terminology. It’s not about “social approval.” It’s about the civil government’s responsibility, under the constitution of the State of California, to provide equal treatment under the law.
So the gay community is now demanding…that the State…grant social acceptance and approval.
As part of “the gay community,” I can attest that you’re making an abundantly overbroad characterization of what “the gay community” demands. Most members of “the gay community” that I know frankly aren’t concerned about “social acceptance and approval.” Further, most of them are intelligent enough to know that it’s not possible for a government entity to grant “social acceptance and approval.” We don’t particularly care whether you, as a member of “society,” accept or approve of our marriages. We care about equal treatment under the civil law.
When Nick Literski suggests that religious organizations must forego government funding but gay relationships should be protected by government actions…
That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said, Blake. I think you know it’s a gross mischaracterization of what I said. Any honest, literate person, can read what I wrote above, and see that I indicated that any organization (not just religious) which chooses to accept government funding for its activities becomes an agent of that government, and is subject to the same anti-discrimination responsibilities that the government is subject to. End of story.
Further, persons who accept the direction of the Church and its prophet can be subject to having their government grants made unavailable because they have a religious belief system. It follows that the Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination against those who hold certain religious beliefs is violated because it becomes a reason for denying benefits.
Such sophistry, Blake! Nobody has suggested that individuals be denied government benefits (such as educational grants, welfare, etc.) based on their religious beliefs. You are not only misrepresenting my words and opinions, you are creating “scary monsters” out of thin air, in an attempt to frighten people into embracing your personal political views. In short, you are engaging in deceit.
Literski and others downplay the seriousness of such denial of ability for those who believe that homosexual relations are sinful and immoral to engage in adoption and placement of children.
Yet another boldface lie, Blake. I thought one of the admirable teachings of your faith was to be honest with your fellow man. Unless you are illiterate, you are well aware that I only indicated that those who accept and use government funds to provide adoption services become agents of the government, and are thus subject to the same anti-discrimination responsibilities that the government must obey.
Now gays can have adoptive children through the state but religious believers are denied the right to participate in adoption because they reject gay marriage.
Yet another boldface lie, Blake. For example, LDS Family Services does not accept government funding to support their provision of adoption services. Therefore, LDS Family Services can refuse to place children for adoption with gay couples, or even with non-temple-sealed LDS couples. This example clearly disproves your rabid scare tactic.
I strongly support your right, Blake, to disagree with me and express your thoughts. In the future, however, I hope you’ll do so with enough integrity to refrain from bearing false witness against me.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
would you be less of a wife and/or mother than you were before May 15, 2008?
My point with this is that being a wife and a mother is about being female. Being a spouse is about a heterosexual relationship. Being a mother is about being female.
Consider the recent Heinz ad, with two men, one called ‘Mum’ and the other I assume is Dad. I cherish being a woman, and wife and mother are roles that are uniquely female roles. As much as I think men can be good spouses and parents, I don’t want to have to clarify that I am a FEMALE wife and mother. Gender is tied to these roles and labels. Gender is important to the definition and understanding of what it means to be married, to be a father or a mother, a spouse, a grandmother or grandfather. It is essential to the meaning of the concept of a ‘nuclear family.’ Just thumbing through my dictionary reinforces that this is more extensive than some want to consider. You don’t just go through and republish dictionaries and eliminate and significantly alter definitions that have had meaning from the beginning of time just because you want to be more ‘fair’ in calling marriage something besides what it has always been.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
m&m,
Marriage equality as you state it is not the status quo.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but do you actually know what status quo means, m&m? It means the way things are right now. Therefore, marriage equality most certainly is the status quo in California, as of the May 15, 2008, ruling of the California Supreme Court, which became effective on June 15, 2008. There was certainly a different status quo prior to that ruling. The initiative which will appear on the November ballot is an attempt to change the status quo.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’m interested in hearing how your education and experience exceeds that of the justices of the Supreme Court of California, who obviously disagreed with you.
Just remember that even the justices didn’t all agree. A 4 to 3 vote is hardly an overwhelming evidence of absolute wisdom and knowledge! FOUR PEOPLE, no matter how smart they they may be, should not be able to make a decision of this kind of significance.
For example, LDS Family Services does not accept government funding to support their provision of adoption services.
Actually, if the Church is tax-exempt, are you sure this is true? Or do you know for certain that LDS Family Services has no tie to the tax-exempt part of the Church?
June 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
My point with this is that being a wife and a mother is about being female. Being a spouse is about a heterosexual relationship. Being a mother is about being female.
So far as I know, m&m, no males are asking to be called “wife” or “mother.” As far as “spouse,” I just did a little research on that term at dictionary.com (not perfect, but a good starting place). The history of that term is rather interesting, to say the least! At one time, it appears to only have referred to females. At another time, it referred only to males, with a female being called a “spousess.” Fun stuff!
I don’t want to have to clarify that I am a FEMALE wife and mother.
Even in the unlikely event that some man wanted to be called a “wife” or “mother,” I’m quite certain it would be him making clarifications, and not you. Those two terms are, as you point out, quite gender-specific (unlike “spouse” or “parent”).
June 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Nick, I know what status quo means, and I was referring to the status quo of millenia. (As to CA, since this issue is on the ballot, I won’t call it the full status quo for that state until it is decided one way or the other later on.) The judges and the gay rights people are those trying to change the status quo. We are trying to protect it.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So far as I know, m&m, no males are asking to be called “wife” or “mother.”
I guess you missed that recent Heinz ad, then, eh?
June 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Just remember that even the justices didn’t all agree. A 4 to 3 vote is hardly an overwhelming evidence of absolute wisdom and knowledge!
Duly noted, though I’m sure you’ll agree I never said that the justices of the California Supreme Court have “absolute wisdom and knowledge.” I wonder, do you think Thomas Monson has “absolute wisdom and knowledge?” I think you’re wiser than to think that, too.
FOUR PEOPLE, no matter how smart they they may be, should not be able to make a decision of this kind of significance.
The same could have been said, of course, for almost every civil rights decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If this is your viewpoint, m&m, it must also bother you that ONE PERSON, who was not even a natural-born citizen of this country, TWICE made a decision on marriage equality in California, by vetoing marriage equality laws passed by a democratically-elected state legislature. Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled on the subject, however, that same individual has made it abundantly clear that he opposes the proposed constitutional amendment.
Actually, if the Church is tax-exempt, are you sure this is true? Or do you know for certain that LDS Family Services has no tie to the tax-exempt part of the Church?
It’s my understanding that the tax-exempt status of a religious group is not considered the same way that “government funding” is, m&m. In any case, I can absolutely state that it is the policy of LDS Family Services only to place children for adoption with opposite-sex couples who have already been sealed in an LDS temple. This point has been repeatedly made in presentations I’ve attended from their representatives in local congregations. Their whole rationale is that children should be part of an “eternal family,” thus they don’t provide adoption services to any other families, let alone singles. So far as they do this without using government funding, I wholeheartedly support them in that decision.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Nick, I know what status quo means, and I was referring to the status quo of millenia. (As to CA, since this issue is on the ballot, I won’t call it the full status quo for that state until it is decided one way or the other later on.) The judges and the gay rights people are those trying to change the status quo. We are trying to protect it.
Wow. Not only do you want to define marriage, but now you want to redefine “status quo”. That’s just really “out there,” m&m.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Wow. Not only do you want to define marriage, but now you want to redefine “status quo”.
HUH? I made it really clear which status quo I am concerned about defending. C’mon, Nick. If you want to have a discussion, you have to stop picking at nits.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
As to the courts, I feel that the voice of the people should be a significant force in these things. I am no more happy about the Supreme Court or a governmental head making sweeping decisions that violate the voice of the people than I am about what the CA judges have done.
And my point is that you can’t hold up the judges’ decision as a reason to dismiss others’ valid points about this issue. Clearly it isn’t a clear-cut legal thing, let alone something that everyone will line up with in terms of what is moral or right or fair. Suggesting that someone can’t have an opinion that goes against what a slim majority of seven people (hardly significant at all) is a weak way to try to support your position. I feel like rather than support your decision, you seek to cut down others’. It doesn’t really help me understand why you think it’s so essential for gays to be able to marry, and I really want to understand why it matters so much. If the CA law already provided fair rights to domestic partnerships, what isn’t fair about not being able to marry?
June 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Actually, m&m, you completely subverted the meaning of the term, by pretending there’s such a thing as “the status quo of millenia” and a “full status quo,” in order to rationalize your unsupportable position that “the judges and the gay rights people are those trying to change the status quo,” and that you are trying to “protect” the “status quo.”
There is no “status quo of millenia,” since the term refers to what is present, right now. There is no “full status quo,” or “partial status quo.” It’s clear that you refuse to accept the status quo, but your refusal to accept the status quo doesn’t make it not the status quo.
The simple truth, m&m, is that supporters of the proposed amendment are trying to change the status quo in California. You don’t need to be ashamed of that, let alone make tortured denials of it. If you want the constitution of the State of California changed by means of the proposed amendment, then stand with integrity and say so! If supporters of the amendment are successful in getting it passed, then there will be a new status quo in California, even if it looks much like the status quo that existed prior to the court’s ruling.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Sigh. OK. To me, the status quo that I am talking about is bigger than the issue in CA, but I can see your point. I want to protect the status quo of marriage in a general sense. The status quo in CA does not represent something permanent to me, nor is it all that I am concerned about. What happens in CA will likely affect the status quo in other places. I am concerned about the status quo in our nation as a whole that goes beyond whatever is the current situation in CA.
At some point, this is quibbling, though. You know what I’m trying to say, and I feel you are trying to make me an offender for a word. I won’t continue the conversation if that is the way you want to carry on. I think there are valid issues to discuss, and ways that people on each side can express their thoughts and point of view. Let’s stick with the issues and discuss them.
Can I ask my question again? Why do you think that the legal rights of domestic partnerships are not sufficient to be ‘fair’ to gays? The argument I hear for gay marriage is based on legal rights. If those legal rights were already present, that argument seems to not hold much water. So why does marriage have to be on the table in your mind?
June 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
As to the courts, I feel that the voice of the people should be a significant force in these things.
So in your perfect world, the only real function of a supreme court justice would be to calculate the public votes on a case. Why even have them, then? Remember that your faith believes the Constitution, which established a judicial system, is inspired.
Suggesting that someone can’t have an opinion that goes against what a slim majority of seven people (hardly significant at all) is a weak way to try to support your position.
I agree, m&m, which is why I never said any such thing.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
To me, the status quo that I am talking about is bigger than the issue in CA, but I can see your point. I want to protect the status quo of marriage in a general sense.
Ahhh, okay. That’s a very different statement than what I was understanding from you. I thought you were referring to California in particular, thus my frustration with what you appeared to be saying.
The argument I hear for gay marriage is based on legal rights. If those legal rights were already present, that argument seems to not hold much water. So why does marriage have to be on the table in your mind?
In California, the “civil unions” law provided (in the court’s words) “virtually all” of the same legal rights as marriage. That was not the norm for other states, of course, and as I’m sure you know, there are many who vigorously oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, no matter what they’re called.
The California Supreme Court ruled that insofar as the civil government uses the term, “marriage,” it is unconstitutional for the civil government to descriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in its use of terminology. The civil government of California has no constitutionally-supported basis on which to use different terminology, thus they have a responsibility, under the constitution of the State of California, to provide equal treatment under the law. If the civil government calls a legally-recognized same-sex partnership something different than what it calls a legally-recognized opposite-sex partnership, that is different treatment under the law, which the California Supreme Court found unconstitutional.
Mind you, that has nothing at all to do with what any religious group, or any individual, chooses to recognize as “marriage.” No religious group is going to be forced to ecclesiastically accept marriage equality, let alone to perform same-sex marriages. A church could put up a giant billboard in front of their house of worship, declaring that they refuse to refer to legal same-sex marriages as “marriages,” if they choose to. It’s a matter of their ecclesiastical belief, not a matter of constitutional law.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The civil government of California has no constitutionally-supported basis on which to use different terminology,
I don’t understand how this can be, since the constitution itself is what defined marriage and has always been understood as doing so.
From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman. Article XI, section 14 of the California Constitution of 1849 — California’s first Constitution provided explicit constitutional protection for a “wife’s separate property and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex . . .
Although the California statutes governing marriage and family relations have undergone very significant changes in a host of areas since the late 19th century, the statutory designation of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has remained unchanged.
So this is what I am opposed to. A group of justices, by slim majority, takes the CA constitution and even while recognizing that the constitution itself has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman, now somehow decides that the constitutional definition that has existed from the constitution’s inception, and also the definition as upheld by the people, is somehow dismissable. I don’t understand how a constitution’s own definition could be called unconstitutional.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The difference there would be between “assumption” vs. “definition,” m&m. As I read the decision, the court acknowledges that the California constitution “clearly assumed” a certain tradition of marriage, not that it “defined” it.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Nick,
You continue to perpetuate this canard that marriage has not been redefined by the CA supreme court decision. Both m&m and I have quoted the relevant passage to you from the majority decision. From day one, marriage in California has always been between a man and woman. It’s a fact–not an assumption. You read and see what you want to read and what you want to see. And, no matter how many times you claim the contrary, will not make it so:
June 28th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Marriage has no direct connection to procreation. Many have been married for the sheer joy of another’s company, or because they “burn” (I Corinthians 7). Companionship and a full sharing of all this life has to offer is the original reason for marriage (Genesis).
Terms such as “husband,” “wife,” “father,” “mother,” “son,” and “daughter” have taken on rich and powerful meanings to us over the years as the effects of marriage, but they are not, in sum and total, marriage.
The Californian court has attempted to use this definition of marriage as an institution of reproduction, and the best institution we know of, to support extending some abomination it calls marriage to same sex couples. (Of course this is like saying since walking is good for people, walking will be extended to everyone, even if they can’t walk. Hence, from now on all citizens will ride wheelchairs in every public place.) Nonetheless, marriage is a gender positive institution in that a single gender specific act is enshrined in commitment. To remove that core gender positive activity from the definition of marriage is to so limit the definition of marriage, that in the laws of the state of California it no longer exists! Think of those golden anniversaries, “Dearest Party A” I, “Party B” recommit myself to our union… So sweet. What will birth certificates look like? Wake up America. Wake up!
You didn’t know this? Here is the California government website: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/CertifiedCopiesofMarriageandDivorceRecrds.aspx
June 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Nice selective quoting, Guy! At least m&m had the integrity to include the court’s language, which specifically says “clearly assumed.”
June 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Looks like the same quote to me Nick. As I said, you read and see what you want to read and see.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Of course, you read everything, and carefully consider legal reasoning when it doesn’t happen to pass LDS correlation, right Guy?
June 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Nick, I do think you are glossing over some pretty significant things. I doubt you would be so casual were the tables turned. I understand, though. This is an emotional issue and it’s hard to really address the realities of what is happening, on ‘both sides’ — the realities of what kinds of issues are really on the table. I believe it is not anywhere near as simple and innocuous as pro-gay folks want to make it out to be. It may not be as immediately cataclysmic as others who are against gay marriage can make it out to be. I think there is often too much emotion on both sides. I wish we could all get past the emotion more and really talk about what makes sense. These kinds of decisions should not be made only because of clamoring about what is fair. We need to carefully take a step back and think about what a major decision like this could mean. I don’t feel like the judges have done this. I definitely don’t feel that gay rights activists do this. But I should say that I don’t always agree with what those against gay marriage will say, either.
I don’t think it makes sense to redefine marriage. I think there are way too many unknowns, and way too much emotion driving the change. I think there will be fallout that will have an effect on many facets of our lives, from education to business to personal (and possibly organizational) religious rights. It will make parenting for those of us with religious beliefs on this front much harder. (I realize that the current situation makes teaching children in a pro-gay way to be difficult, so I’m not glossing over that).
I have yet to really hear anyone pro-gay-marriage honestly consider and address the concerns people have about this. I think this is one thing this post draws out. Rather than talking about the issues and the logical reasons, people often resort to attack and broad sweeping generalizations that really accomplish nothing but stirring up more emotion. That kind of emotion shuts off our brains, people.
I want to say that, believe it or not, I do not act out of lack of compassion for those who want this legitimization of their relationships. I honestly do understand how difficult this is. There is no solution that will keep everyone happy. That is part of what makes this hard. No matter where the line is drawn, it is a divisive issue. If the Church were to not support this effort to reverse the court’s decision, it would offend other Christian groups who expect our support. In the end, we each have to act according to the dictates of our consciences. And I think try to talk about it more with more decency and respect.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens in November.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Stick w/ the quote Nick (since you brought it up) and don’t change the subject. Show me how it’s different and how I selectively quoted anything.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
And, BTW, Nick, I pulled that quote FROM Guy’s blog. He quoted the whole thing (and directed his comment at you) before. I didn’t do anything that Guy hadn’t already done.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Nick: Your antics here are really beneath contempt. My basis for interpreting the CA Const. is based on 20+ years as an attorney involved in Constitutional litigation. I’m sure your training is much better than mine.
You have called me a bold faced liar — but you fail to read carefully. The effect of the decision and the demand for SSM is that civil unions granting all relevant legal rights is not enough — rather, you demand that we now recognize SSM as something condoned, promoted and protected by the State. The only rational reason for such demands is that you want the State to sanction your relationships which I regard as immoral.
Far from persuading me of the righteousness of your cause, you only demonstrate to me that you cannot reason but must engage in name calling and outright failure to grasp the arguments being given. Knock it off.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Nick: In reference to the CA domestic partner law, I keep seeing the words, “virtually all” of the same rights as marriage. That makes it sound as though there are some—however small—rights in a marriage that the civil union lacks. If so, what are they?
Blake: “Marriage is a religious institution in origin. States can perform civil ceremonies that grant legal rights.” If marriage is religious in origin only, then the state can redefine it any way it sees fit. If however, marriage is religious in essence, then I don’t see how the state can recognize it at all. The relevant quote from EC Stanton:
michelle: would you mind sending me an email? zim9baim@ya9hoo.c9om (w/o the 9s)
June 29th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Blake, thank you for explaining your professional background. I certainly hope that your work in constitutional law involved protecting the rights of others, and not just trying to deny rights to others.
I must say, however, that misrepresenting what points I called you a “boldfaced liar” about doesn’t do much to demonstrate your honesty. In your 1:54 p.m. post, you blatantly mischaracterized what I had said, in your effort to demonize me. Now, in your 10:27 p.m. post, you correctly point out that I called you a “boldfaced liar,” but you attempt to fool people with regard to what I accused you of lying about.
First, I accused you of lying when you falsely claimed that I had said “that religious organizations must forego government funding.”
Second, I accused you of lying when you falsely claimed that I had said that “those who believe that homosexual relations are sinful and immoral” should be denied the ability “to engage in adoption and placement of children.”
Third, I accused you of lying when you falsely claimed that “religious believers are denied the right to participate in adoption because they reject gay marriage.”
Apparently you lack the integrity to admit that you made these false claims, and resort instead to characterizing my behavior of pointing your falsehoods out as “really beneath contempt.” Is this one of those “lying for the lord” situations, where some feel justified in dishonesty, so long as it’s intended to supporting their religious faith?
June 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
In reference to the CA domestic partner law, I keep seeing the words, “virtually all” of the same rights as marriage. That makes it sound as though there are some—however small—rights in a marriage that the civil union lacks. If so, what are they?
That’s a really good question, BrianJ. I can’t say that I know the entirety of rights granted to married couples under California law. The words, “virtually all,” were those used by the California Supreme Court in their written opinion. It’s possible that they were recognizing that the state “civil unions” law couldn’t provide rights under federal law (though naturally, neither can a California same-sex marriage). In any case, the California Supreme Court found at least one right which they found was not provided in a California civil union—the right to equal treatment under the law. The court found (whether everyone else agrees or not) that by using different nomenclature, the state was not, in fact, providing equal treatment under the law.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Nick: Go back and read: carefully this time. I didn’t say that you said anything but only that your position entailed a view by implication that no one in their right mind would accept — it is called a reductio ad absurdum. I assumed that you would get that I was stating that your view entailed that gays get to adopt but religious believers don’t — not that you expressly advocated such a position (precisely since no one in their right mind would ever promote such a view). You still don’t get that the only reason for pressing for gay marriage in addition to civil unions is State sanctioned and condoned relationships. What business does the government have condoning and promoting homosexual marriage beyond what it provides in civil unions? You haven’t given any rationale and to avoid the question you have engaged in name calling and all kinds of antics that are beneath contempt.
You suggest that gay marriage provides equal treatment under the law that was not provided by civil unions. But the CA court only did that by creating ex nihilo a reading of its state constitution that is entirely absent from the CA constitution in overriding a democratic process of the people and in addition created a fundamental right that had never existed before — the right to marriage (of any stripe). It is not a denial of equal protection to promote certain relationships and not others because the state doesn’t have an equal interest in protecting them all as the New York Supreme Court found and at least 8 other state courts have found. CA stands alone in finding gay marriage to be a fundamental right. That is the most troubling aspect of the ruling that engages in judicial legislation at its most extreme. The court overruled a state referendum to create rights not addressed in the language of the document it interprets and created out of nothing more that political wishful thinking a fundamental right.
No religious organization would wisely ignore the implication that gays get to have state sanctioned adoptions but Christians who believe in heterosexual marriage because it has the capacity to produce offspring don’t. The Mormon church would out of its mind to accept such consequences. Yet if the equal protection argument of the CA is extended as it will be, then the Church doesn’t get to adoptions because it won’t sanction homosexual marriage and adoptions. The effect is bassackwards. For these reasons, I believe that it is advisable for the Church to promote the passage of a state constitutional amendment to avoid such absurd results.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Nick: It is difficult to engage in a dialog with a person so hell bent on protecting a position that you refuse to consider what is actually being said. You engage in distortion and misrepresentation without a second thought. What kind of person does that?
First, I claim that there is no legitimate reason to grant the right of marriage when civil unions have given all that any State has the right to give.
Second, I claim that a legal implication of the SSM marriage as a fundamental right is that if the Church refuses to engage in allowing adoptions by SS couples that it will likely be denied the right to provide adoptive services by the State — just as happened in Mass. with Catholic adoptive services. In addition, I claim that Christian students will likely be denied grants who attend institutions that teach that SSM is unacceptable. So those who promote SSM get to have state adoptions and get grants that those who reject SSM don’t — and that is just absurd.
Third, I claim that the real function of SSM is to seek State sanction and social acceptance for homosexual relationships. I also claim that it isn’t the role or purpose of government to sanction such relationships beyond granting what had already been provided by civil unions.
Finally, I claim that a referendum of the people is a peaceful and just way to resolve the issue and that justices shouldn’t create ex nihilo fundamental rights that have no basis in the document they are interpreting as happened in the CA case.
So deal with the real arguments and knock of your contemptible behavior of calling people liars when it is clear that you just don’t understand the legal arguments. I personally find your antics here unacceptable and way beyond the pale. They do nothing to convince me that you are interested in engaging in a dialog in good faith–which is the same problem I have with Jeff Nielsen.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Blake:
An apostate Mormon who has lost the spirit will do those things.
“It is difficult to engage in a dialog with a person so hell bent on protecting a position that you refuse to consider what is actually being said. You engage in distortion and misrepresentation without a second thought. What kind of person does that?”
But I’ve been saying that for months now…
Those who do not follow the Prophet lose the spirit of the Lord. We can always hope they’ll repent, but there’s no reason to excuse their stupidity.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
First, I claim that there is no legitimate reason to grant the right of marriage when civil unions have given all that any State has the right to give.
I see. So, you think it’s a complete “non-issue” that the state treats same-sex couples differently, by calling their relationships “civil unions,” since “virtually all” the rights are the same, correct? I wonder, Blake, whether you’d feel the same, if the California legislature suddenly decided that from henceforth, any sealing relationship formed in LDS temples will be called a “civil union” in California, rather than a “marriage.” By your argument, you should have no problem with that at all.
Second, I claim that a legal implication of the SSM marriage as a fundamental right is that if the Church refuses to engage in allowing adoptions by SS couples that it will likely be denied the right to provide adoptive services by the State — just as happened in Mass. with Catholic adoptive services.
Blake, this is not an accurate representation of what happened with Catholic Charities on the adoption issue. Catholic Charities specifically received government funding for the purpose of providing adoption services. As such, they became agents of the state, and were subject to the same non-discrimination requirements that the state was subject to. They were faced a choice to either (a) stop receiving government funding, so that they could still choose to deny services to gay couples, or (b) fulfill the requirements that come with accepting government funding. Unfortunately, Catholic Charities chose to stop providing adoption services altogether. As much as some desperately want to blame gays for this choice, it was an entirely avoidable choice of Catholic Charities. As I’ve pointed out before, LDS Family Services picks choice “(a)” above. They choose not to receive government funding, and thus are able to restrict their services as their theology dictates.
In addition, I claim that Christian students will likely be denied grants who attend institutions that teach that SSM is unacceptable.
While I agree that direct government grants to those institutions may well be denied, I must disagree with regard to individual student grants. BYU is instructive here, in that they decline institutional funds from the government, in order to avoid what they consider undesireable requirements associated with those funds. Individual students, however, are fully able to obtain Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.
Third, I claim that the real function of SSM is to seek State sanction and social acceptance for homosexual relationships. I also claim that it isn’t the role or purpose of government to sanction such relationships beyond granting what had already been provided by civil unions.
May I suggest, Blake, that I see this claim in much the same way that you would see some anti-Mormon Baptist declaring to others “what Mormons believe.” In my experience, it is inaccurate for you to make such blanket claims about the goals of marriage equality. In fact, I agree with you that it is not the role of government (or even possible for government) to provide “social acceptance.” Since government can’t possibly do this, it’s silly for anyone to make it their goal. I understand, of course, that you have strong negative feelings about homosexuals, to the point that you may wish to believe homosexuals are precisely that foolish. In making that declaration, however, you are making an unsupported claim that requires mind-reading. Further, you are doing exactly what would upset you from “anti-LDS,” in that you are pretending to declare what someone else believes.
Finally, I claim that a referendum of the people is a peaceful and just way to resolve the issue…
The problem with this, of course, is that if the civil rights of a minority are decided by a majority vote, that minority is very likely to be oppressed. If the Supreme Court would have refused to decide Loving, and instead directed a pubilc vote on the issue, it would surely have been at least another twenty to thirty years before the majority would have allowed interracial marriage. The same could be said for many other civil rights decisions in this country.
Surely, in your long career as an attorney practicing constitutional law, you’ve fought for the rights of others that would not be successfully won in a public referendum. When you were on the side of those minorities, I honestly can’t imagine you thought that a public vote was the proper solution.
You suggest that a public referendum is the “peaceful” way to decide this matter. I wonder, does that mean you think that if the California initiative fails, opponents of marriage equality will “peacefully” acquiese on the matter, or do you think they’ll continue to seek ways to fight marriage equality, thinking they’re “doing god’s work?”
They do nothing to convince me that you are interested in engaging in a dialog in good faith…
Blake, I honestly get the feeling that you are so very hostile on this issue, that you won’t see anyone who disagrees with you as having “a dialog[ue] in good faith.” You’ve explained that it was not your intention earlier to misrepresent my comments, and I appreciate your clarification. Still, however, you continue to resort to all sorts of insults, and then pretend that because I disagree with you, I “just don’t understand the legal arguments.” I’m not sure your approach represents “a dialog[ue] in good faith,” either.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
NOTE: In my earlier comments, I accused Guy of selectively quoting from the California Supreme Court’s decision, in an effort to avoid acknowledging that the court stated that the law “clearly assumed” that marriage was a heterosexual relationship. Guy, as he notes, protested this. I’ve gone back to re-read, and I see that I was absolutely wrong in my original reading of Guy’s comment. While he denied what I see as the effect of that language, he absolutely did include the wording in his quoted excerpt.
Guy, as much as we may disagree, it was not my intention to misrepresent you. I was wrong in this case, and I hope you can accept my apology for falsely accusing you.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Nick,
Accepted and Thank you.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Stunning. You accept that the State will deny any funding to the Church social services and that the Church students must be denied funding, and you see it as a non-issue. Just turn down the money that those who accept SSM get from my and your tax dollars. That is and absurd result in my view. I suggest that it is why the Church has a legitimate political interest and is totally justified in asking for its members to engage in political action.
However, it goes beyond what you suggest. The right to do an adoption is a State function and if it is held that SSM is a fundamental right, then those who reject it will likely be denied the right to engage in adoption services at all. You see, it isn’t merely the fact state funding that makes an adoption service an arm of the State, but also the fact that it must be recognized by the State to perform the functions it does. Thus, the result is that those who will approve only heterosexual adoptions can and will be denied the right to engage in adoption services. What happened with Catholic Social Services will happen in CA with others in a cascading avalanche of denial of being granted to the right to practice their views in this sense. That is a very serious downside that the Church ought to oppose.
As for referenda — of course they do not trump constitutional considerations unless they are referenda to change the constitution. But that is what is at issue so your argument just misses the point entirely.
Nick — you called me a bald face liar and then you recoil in feigned surprise when I suggest that you have engaged in unacceptable conduct. Perhaps you could learn from my response to you. Maybe not.
I also reject your suggestion that adding the monicker “marriage” to SSM gives any additional rights. So what does it give? It means that gay marriages are socially accepted and declared to be on par with heterosexual messages.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
As for referenda — of course they do not trump constitutional considerations unless they are referenda to change the constitution. But that is what is at issue so your argument just misses the point entirely.
Blake, this is a complete non sequitor from my comments at 7:18 p.m. above. I made no argument whatsoever that the referendum was unconstitutional. Now, I get that you’ve chosen to think I’m stupid (primarily because I dare to disagree with you), but I’d have to be a complete moron to argue, as you seem to claim I’m arguing, that a constitutional amendment by referendum is somehow unconstitutional.
I think it’s pretty clear that you and I simply aren’t going to communicate with one another clearly. I think it’s best we stop trying, since all we seem to be