Defense-less: Or How To Not Make a Valid Point
Jan/100
The proponents of Proposition 8 (@ProtectMarriage) linked an interesting article on Twitter today The article was published on Townhall.com, titled “Proposition 8 Trial: Loving the Sparkliest Person Vs. The Needs of Society” and attempts to make the case against marriage equality.
The first point the article makes is based on a quote from Kristin Perry, one of four plaintiffs named in the case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), is describing how she fell in love with her partner: “I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I’d ever met.” Now, I’ll admit to not really understanding what she means by this. How does a person achieve the quality of “sparkly”, but I assume it to be a term of endearment between the couple. The author of this piece, however, chooses this seemingly innocuous passage for her first salvo:
“I do not believe that those who find another to be the sparkliest—or the most wonderful, or the most attractive, or the most brilliant person ever—should necessarily qualify for state sanction in marriage.”
First, who is she to judge why it is that someone falls in love with another person. Second, the plaintiff didn’t say this was the only reason she’d fallen for her, just one.
We’re through two paragraphs and already we’ve determined that the author doesn’t have any truly credible points, but let’s keep going, because this will be fun.
Later, the author cedes a point that you’d think would void her argument: “I do think it’s true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples.” Game. Set. Match. Let the gays marry and move along. No? Oh, there’s more…
“Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes. That’s called ‘discrimination based on sex.’ Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change.”
There’s a kind of valid argument here, but not in the way the author thinks. She goes on to list one legitimate discrimination case that should be ended (women not required to register for the draft), but then lists two that aren’t viewed as discrimination (segregated bathrooms and prisons). I won’t get into my opinions on the draft (which extends to DADT), but on the later argument I see there being legitimate grounds for this separation, but also a not too hard to make case for ending the segregation. Regardless, both arguments have nothing to do with marriage and the gender discrimination imposed on gay Americans.
The fun really begins in the next paragraph, though, where we trot out the “slippery slope”:
“…[n]one of them are willing to insist on complete freedom, though they may seek it later on. They don’t plead for polygamy or polyandry; they don’t march for incest; they don’t claim that children, or any collection of in-love, committed people should gain state-approval as a ‘marriage.’”
There’s no real argument here, but I’ll go ahead and refute their points.
Incest is prohibited because the children of incestuous relationships are more likely to suffer birth defects. Want proof? European royalty has a history of anemia among other conditions. This is what’s called a legitimate government interest, because healthy citizens are more productive. This argument is only included because of the gross out factor, and it allows them to talk about pedophilia.
Children aren’t allowed to enter into any contract (which is what marriage is), based on their relative immaturity. There is an accepted tradition of growth from childhood into adulthood and when they reach the accepted maturity level. And this is only raised for the same reason as incest.
As for polygamy (and polyandry, which I give the author credit for including), there is no real rational reason to deny this, and not even the argument of “tradition” holds up to this. Throughout all of human history, a surprisingly large number of cultures have practiced this at some point in their development. But I digress…
We now get the best part of the article, wherein the author tells me that I’m fighting for something I already have:
“And as for ‘the freedom to marry.’ well, anyone is free to perform a non-state-recognized wedding.”
She presents examples of nuns being “married to the Church” and hippie communes. This is just nonsense. The point of fighting for marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with dressing up and walking down the aisle to a dais where someone witnesses us make vows of love and fidelity. It’s about the rights, responsibilities and protections that come with a marriage recognized by the state and country of our residence.
“Actually, though marriage laws may assume or specify the genders of participants, neither gender is treated differently, or suffers any discrimination. Any individuals able to legally marry one of the opposite sex. That includes everyone, and excludes or discriminates against no one.” [Emphasis as written.]
Well, gee. Thanks. You’re so generous.
And she wraps it up by laying out the red herring of the entire debate.
“I do think that for many on the left, the underlying aim is to dissolve the institution of marriage altogether.”
We’ve been found out. All along, the gay rights movement has been pushing marriage equality so we can destroy it from within. That’s also why we want to serve openly in the US Military, and not have to worry about being fired from our jobs just for being gay. The entire gay agenda is focused on destroying the very fabric of America from the inside.
Wow. What a load.
Adam Lambert AMA Performance: Move Along, Nothing to See
Nov/090
Adam Lambert kissed a guy on TV? Oh, quelle scandal! Did anyone not know he was gay? Is this going to change anyone’s mind? (Nevermind that it was a horrible kiss. People should be offended if, to quote Carrie “I’ve Been In Eight Sex Tapes” Prejean, an “opposite-sex” couple did that on TV.
But as for the “guy kissing another guy” aspect: It’s already ABC, and ABC/The Mouse (Disney) is rediculously gay-friendly. I mean, every Sunday at 10/9c “Brothers & Sisters” has the characters Kevin and Scotty. Gay. Married. Middle-aged. Planning on having a kid. This is nothing new, kids.
And middle-America shouldn’t be freaked out by this. It’s 2009. It’ll be a fake controversy made up because America has this odd “morality” fetish. But it’s hardly a “fuck you” to the middle of the country. Not all of us out here are right-of-center prudes. Just like not everyone on the east/west coast is liberal. If that was the case, Prop 8 and No One 1 wouldn’t have been losses for the gay marriage movement.
Sarah Palin: A Little Too Honest?
Nov/091
A hilarious re-edit of the audio from Citizen Palin’s Oprah interview, done by NBC’s “Tonight Show” and as featured in the #1 story on tonight’s “Countdown” on MSNBC.
I’m quite fond of the phrase “Todd and I love unprotected sex…we’ve always had, I guess, unconventional relationships, physically…Todd will plow through me for hours…and I’m pumped up, just over the top pumped up with energy…and porn, yes…after all that…wow”.
Communism, anyone?
Sep/090
This is just disturbing. Respect for the Office of the President of the United States is one thing. But this sounds like some over-zealous teacher who thought it’d be a real kick to teach these kids a song that sounds like a (bad) propaganda piece. It is (or shouldn’t be) no surprise that I’m pro-Obama. Voted for him, support him, support the DNC. And I find this appalling and inappropriate.
Of course, any viral video is going to have lots of comments from people spouting nonsense and their own idealogical beliefs. Like that somehow POTUS himself is behind this, or “I seem to recall that school children (das Kinder) sang songs praising their leader in Germany during the mid-late 1930’s.?” Here’s a comment that is so rooted in reason and education that it’s worth sharing with you all:
And to think, these kids aren’t allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance or pray to whatever they worship in that school.
Communism, anyone?
Yeah, sorry. Go back to high school civics and try again. They’re allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They just can’t be mandated to say it (or the words “under God” in it) by the school if they choose not to. And they may pray to and worship whatever and whomever they so choose so long as it is not school-sponsored and, again, mandatory. What ytaccount83 is suggesting is that they would much rather have a government where everyone is forced to say “under God” in the Pledge as well as have mandatory school/state-sponsored prayer. Well, unfortunately for them we do not live in a theocracy or a nation with a State religion, as much as it pains them because in their twisted mind Christians are still persecuted and the word of God must be forced upon everyone.
Social conservatism, “family values”, and the right-wing association with them is nothing new. It got Republicans lots of electoral victories in 2004, including President George W. Bush. But the lunatic fringe is becoming increasingly louder and increasingly “popular” among the party mainstays. (Not to mention the violence, racism, and anti-semitism that was so predominate with Glenn Beck, the tea parties and “9/12 Project” even in Washington, D.C. “We came unarmed… this time”? An armed revolt against the legitimately-elected government? Is that what they’re seriously threatening?) Polling indicates that the GOP is just a “party of the South”, considering that’s the only region where their favorability is higher than their unfavorability and even then by a comparatively thin margin. The GOP lost big in the 2008 election and are trying to find their footing. I don’t object to many ideas the fiscal conservatives have. And I think healthy debate is good for government. But I don’t think a major political party should play to a minority constituency that demonizes education, civil rights, and religious freedoms as hard and fast as the GOP has in recent years by using lies and distortions that harken back to the “red scare” of the mid 20th century.
In Memoriam: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
Aug/090
A year after his speech to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy passed away. For nearly 50 years he was a powerful force in the United States Senate and helped lead the fight on civil rights and health care, among many other issues. As has been said many times today: he was the great iconic Senator for our time, to be placed in history books with the likes of Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams. I am hopeful that in his memory we will pass real, comprehensive health care reform; a cause Sen. Kennedy championed above all others.
DADT Opinion Poll
Jun/090
Via the blog Daily Dose, a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell opinion poll, separated into three “sub-polls”: for self-identified conservatives, liberals, and independents.
In the Aftermath of a Murder, Thoughts on a Woman’s Right to Choose
May/090
Randal Terry, of the Pro-Life group Operation Rescue, released a statement today regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Mr. Terry’s comments are disgusting at best. Calling a man who was legally practicing medicine a “mass-murderer”, and who only grives because Tiller “did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God”. That’s his only reaction to Tiller’s murder. He’s more worried that Obama will use this to “intimidate” pro-life groups? Disgusting. The man did nothing wrong, and had been the target of hate from groups like Operation Rescue for years. A man was murdered in cold blood by what amounts to a form of domestic terrorism, inside his place of worship with his wife singing in the choir as it happened, and all you have to say is that you are upset that he didn’t have time to redeem himself in the eyes of whatever God you believe in who condones such vile hatred towards a fellow human?
A disturbing political cartoon from a Catholic political cartoon blog.
There is a disturbing disconnect in America. Abortion is currently legal, and is a right given by the Supreme Court more than 35 years ago and upheld since then. If you do not agree with it, that is your right just as it is the right of the woman making a choice to have one. But it is not your place to make medical decisions for another person because of your moral beliefs. The gay marriage debate suffers many of the same issues, though is a relatively recent development. The pro-life side likes to think of abortion as black and white: you’re either against it in every form, or you must like killing babies. Andrew Sullivan (of The Atlantic) links to a discussion board website where a thread overwhelming praises Dr. Tiller’s murder. (There is a heartfelt dissent my a poster with a personal story, though it does little to assuage the mob’s irrationality.) People there, seemingly believing every word they type, think that Dr. Tiller would have killed a child if the “mother had a headache”, even going so far as to post the cartoon (from a Catholic cartoon blog) at left. The pro-choice crowd doesn’t advocate that everyone should go out and get pregnant so they can have an abortion. Far from it. They advocate that women have a right to make medical decisions regarding their body and their reproductive health, and the health of their unborn child who is incapable of making decisions.
America is keen on individual liberties such as speech or privacy, and the political right wants to make government smaller and get it out of our lives. Yet at the same time they freely associate with radical groups that wish to impose their beliefs, through law, limiting one’s personal rights. If the pro-life crowd wants to eliminate abortion, making it illegal isn’t going to help. Abortion being legal means that it’s not being done in dark back offices without proper medical oversight for the safety of the mother. Making it illegal won’t reduce the number of abortions. What will, however, is making more alternative available to mothers who may be thinking of having an abortion. Adoption being a huge one, though we need to also overhaul the adoption system in the country. And as much as it will jab a thorn into the social conservative’s side, birth control and proper sexual education will help, too. Telling children to “no have sex until marriage” is inherently flawed. Put some cookies on the table and tell a kid not to eat one, and it makes the cookies that much more tempting. How about instead we teach our kids that yes, waiting to have sex until you are mature and ready is the best course of action. But if you do have sex, here is how to do it safely and responsibly. If you want to avoid abortion, avoid the unwanted pregnancy.
The pro-life side looks up to Gov. Palin and her daughter as beacons for women who chose life and carried their pregnancies to term (their situations being having a child with a disability and an unplanned pregnancy). And they both may believe “in life” with the full force of their convictions. But let us not ignore that, in doing so, they made a choice to keep their pregnancies.
Yes, They Are Bigots
Apr/090
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president Maggie Gallagher wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times last Friday, upset that Frank Rich titled his opinion column about NOM’s “Gathering Storm” commercial The Bigots’ Last Hurrah. (The word “bigot” only appears twice in the whole column: in the title, and the last sentence.)
Ms. Gallagher writes:
I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot. In a March CBS News poll, only a third of Americans said they supported gay marriage.
As with most polling and statistics, she’s right and wrong. The poll she’s referencing is this one (Adobe PDF), released April 3rd. The question was “Which comes closest to your view?”, and the options were as follows:
- “Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry”, OR
- “Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry”, OR
- “There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship”
The results are as follows, broken down by political party affiliation in the first table, and then with three previous samples in the second table:
Total
%Rep
%Dem
%Ind
%Allowed to marry 33 6 46 37 Allowed to form civil unions 27 34 23 26 No legal recognition 35 59 26 30 Don’t Know / Didn’t Answer 5 1 5 7 Table 1: Party Affiliation
Now Aug 2008 Mar 2007 Mar 2004 Legally marry 33% 34% 30% 22% Form civil unions 27% 22% 28% 33% No legal recognition 35% 39% 26% 40% Table 2: Historical Samples
So only 33% of the 1142 respondents in the poll are in favor of allowing legal same-sex marriages, but that number is 11 points higher than five years ago. And respondents selecting “no legal recognition” has gone down in the past five years as well, reaching a low of nearly only 25% in 2007. Clearly, it’s still a divided issue. But support for legal marriage has risen in the past several years. As Mr. Rich stated in his column:
[T]he majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”
Ms. Gallagher, in her brief letter, ends saying that she is “proud of the ‘Gathering Storm’ ad precisely because it lets the American people know the truth: Gay marriage has consequences”. Consequences, she says? Like the ones in the “Gathering Storm” ad? The Human Rights Campaign did a good job of giving some more background behind these “consequences”:
The examples they cite in the ad are:
- A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
- A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
- A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California [Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group], determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
Not really consequences. All of these things are as a result of failure to abide by state laws when involved in the public sphere. Doctors take an oath to do no harm and are supposed to provide care to anyone needing it, the second was more sexual orientation discrimination than anything else, and the third involved parents wanting to dictate what all children were taught. If they feel so strongly about their beliefs, they are free to teach that to their children. But a public school setting has the responsibility to be inclusive to all of the students, their families, and their backgrounds. We don’t teach in schools that single parents aren’t fit to raise a child, after all.
This assertion of “name-calling” is–much like the very act itself–childish. Does Ms. Gallagher not understand that her discrimination of gay and lesbian couples is equivalent to name-calling? She thinks that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and has “spent the last five years warning” that opponents of gay marriage would be called bigots. Well, by definition, aren’t they?
bigot
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (In the interest of fairness, it could also be said that the pro-gay-marriage side is bigoted towards those against it. Much like “special interests” and “pork barrel spending”, it’s all in how you look at it.) As for this mother and a father bit, plenty of children are raised by just one parent. And since when did marriage automatically bring raising children into the argument? Raising children either by birth or adoption is exclusive of marriage. There are plenty of gay and straight marriages and committed relationships where no children are involved. Most definitions of marriage are also exclusive of the child-rearing family structure.
If you’re going to make an argument, at least try not to come across like this is your first rodeo. Even in her appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball opposite HRC President Joe Solmonese, Ms. Gallagher came across as confrontational and standoffish, like an ill-prepared middle school debate student. Her need to write to the New York Times because someone referred to her beliefs for what they are just highlights the fact of how clueless the National Organization for Marriage is. They are a one-trick pony, with limited visibility since their “Gathering Storm” and failed 2M4M campaign (they failed to register the website 2M4M.org, now run by a gay marriage advocate). They issued a press release praising Stephen Colbert’s parody of the “Gathering Storm” ad, clearly missing the point. Her appearance with Joe Solmonese on Hardball appears below, from the HRC’s YouTube page.
What Are You Compromising?
Mar/090
The recent news on the Proposition Eight lawsuits in California have brought the issue of gay marriage back to the forefront (or at least closer than it has been the last couple of months) of the news. And while that decision can be up to 80-some-odd days away still, there was an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times from February 22 that just now caught my attention when it was featured as part of the AfterElton.com “Best. Gay. Week. Ever.” (Goes to the third page page.) for March 5. It talks of a “compromise” on the gay marriage issue.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Now while I support gay marriage and hope that one day it will be a reality in this country, I’m also a realist when it comes to the social/political landscape of America. I know that the Religious Right thinks that marriage is some 5,000-year-old sacrament that has always been about the love between a man and a woman and the procreation thereof. (Conveniently ignoring that not even 5,000 years ago marriages were often arranged, included large dowries, had age discrepancies of 25 or more years, and were ways for families to gain power. A legal contract, if you will.) I also know that religion did not found our country and that Americans have a freedom of religion that includes a freedom from religion. With these two truths in my mind, I’ve thought that the most practical interim solution is federally-recognized civil unions: conferring all of the benefits of “heterosexual” or “traditional” marriages to same-sex partners. For one reason or another, the word itself, marriage, seems to be a huge wedge issue. This effectively tables that idea for later debate or legal decision while not having tens of thousands of gay couples wait on the hopes that one day their love will be recognized by the government.
I agree with the Op-Ed in principal. I think it’s a huge step forward in advancing marriage equality, even if it creates a “second class” of marriage that doesn’t call itself marriage. Separate but equal can be hashed out later. (The May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court was, actually, on the basis that the same-sex wording of “civil unions” instead of marriage violated the same-sex couples’ constitutional rights.) What I have a hard time understanding is this provision for “religious-conscience” exemptions. Why is the government saying to religious groups/organizations that they don’t need to recognize these same-sex unions? Is there a federal law that requires these same groups to recognize any heterosexual marriage? From the AfterElton.com article (written by Brent Hartinger):
This makes some sense to me. Yes, it’s a compromise, and it’s outrageous that we’re having to “compromise” on any of [our] rights. But let’s face it: this is a country where every one of the thirty states that has voted on same-sex marriage, even “liberal” California, has voted to ban or overturn them.
The fact is, we’re already “compromising” by agreeing to live in a country with no federal GLBT marriage rights whatsoever. This proposal could be a better compromise. Better still, if federal marriage rights were widely available, I think there’d be much more pressure on states to pass these laws, and it would also create a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend their decisions.
Yes, the proposal outlined in the Op-Ed could be better. But compromise is a common-ground between two sides. No one is completely happy with it, but it helps to bridge a divisive gap. And yes, a federal civil union law would ultimately bring states to pass similar legislation or recognize other state’s civil unions in full, the same as any other marriage. (Federal recognition of same-sex civil unions would, I’d imagine, put state-level DOMA and constitutional amendments prohibiting civil unions up for review as it would directly interfere with federally-granted rights. That plus the Full Faith and Credit clause already applied to heterosexual marriages.) I take offense to “creating a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend” themselves. Is it wise for the gay rights movement to force a private religious group to recognize civil unions? Are we talking about employment discrimination? Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia (and 140 cities) have enacted some sort of sexual orientation anti-discrimination law (source, with map). All employees of the Federal government are also covered under a similar sexual orientation ban. Companies are also free to enact company policies that prohibit such discrimination and even confer benefits when state or federal law would not automatically do so. When hiring an employee, one can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. I’d imagine someone working for a religious-affiliated group would be subject to the same laws. Giving the same group a pass on discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong (especially in the aforementioned states). But that’s employment, and similar strife was encountered with all previous employment discrimination battles.
Getting back to the issue of civil unions and religion, no religion or church should be forced to recognize a same-sex union. My understanding is that you have to be a Catholic to be married in the Catholic church. Should we force Catholic churches to perform marriages between two protestants? Or when one of the parties has been divorced? Church and State have become strange bedfellows in recent years, but let us remember that there is an intended separation between the two. There are some religions or congregations that will perform same-sex unions. There are many more that will not. And that is their right in accordance with their beliefs. I am not one to judge how they choose to worship or how they practice their faith no matter what they may think of me, or my own faith. Church recognition of marriage is not essential for the validity of the marriage. A marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract between two parties. Each religion can give this same union a higher, spiritual meaning. Atheists, agnostics, and people of mixed or no faith marry every day. I’m sure there is religious opposition to some of those groups, but we haven’t legislated them down to second-class status. Why should same-sex couples be any different? I have never been given a reason why same-sex marriage (or civil unions) is bad, aside from ones rooted in religion or morality. I do not judge how you live your life, so who are you to judge how I live mine?
President Obama has stated that he is for giving same-sex civil unions the same federal rights as marriage. With this “compromise”, that statement can likely become a reality and provide hope to every couple who wants to be treated just like everyone else.
Press This: “Gay Marriage: Is California’s Supreme Court Shifting?” from TIME
Mar/090
“Press This” is the feature in WordPress that lets me share links from the internet to my blog. Think of it as the “Share Link” aspect of Facebook, but without those pesky character limits that inhibit my ranting.
The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year’s historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. “You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution,” said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. “You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California.”
The Court isn’t shifting, really. The arguments brought to the Court that what was Prop 8 (now it’s Section something or other since it’s part of the state’s Constitution) should be overturned really don’t hinge on any notion of equality or fairness. It’s about a legal technicality in the California Constitution that says “revisions” must be brought on by a constitutional convention or 2/3 of the legislature. Attorney-General Brown (who changed his position in favor of repeal) presented a different argument: that there is an inalienable right to marry.
Similarly, Kenneth Starr (yes, that Ken Starr of Whitewater and Lewinsky fame) aruged that the people of California have the sovereign right to change their constitution, even claiming they could repeal free speech if they wanted. ”While it is unthinkable, … the people do have the raw power,” he said. Starr also used the example of repealing anti-racial-discrimination statutes the same way. Obviously, and as Starr noted, changes that violate the United States Constitution would be struck down on the basis of the grounds that such statutes would be unconstitutional on a Federal level. (Of course, homosexuality isn’t a suspect class under the United States Constitution. And getting into that involves dealing with suspect classification. And I just don’t have that kind of time right now.)
It’s going to come down to whether the justices agree with the pro-repeal argument that an “inalienable” right was taken away and that it represented a revision to the Constitution rather than a simple amendment. And if they feel comfortable nullifying the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the months between their ruling allowing such marriages and the passage of Proposition 8. If they do uphold Prop 8 and don’t nullify the existing marriages, you’ll have a disparity between heterosexual marriages, the gay marriages performed after the Court ruling last year allowing gay marriage, and the gay couples that are not/cannot get married. And while I am not for nullifying the existing marriages (I personally know someone who is part of that number), I don’t like the prospect of what three separate groups would do.
Unfortunately, the anti-eight argument is based on the California constitution, and that makes the California Supreme Court the final word on the issue; there is no appealing to the SCOTUS. I don’t know enough about the legal intricacies involved to say if I think the Court will agree that it’s a revision, or if they’ll uphold that marriage is an inalienable right. But I do hope based on my own stance on this issue that they will at least recognize that they gave Californian’s the right to marry whomever they choose just as Massachusetts and Connecticut have done/since done. Democracy gets its power from the majority having their say (be it by legislative vote, legislative representation, or ballot initiative) as well as the rights of the minority held in check by the judiciary. Would these same justices uphold the revocation of free speech simply because the people so declared with their inalienable right to make a mockery of the state Constitution?
Flickr
