California Gay Marriage Bill
By Montag | Related entries in General Politics, Legislation, ReligionAs reported in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The [California] state Assembly, in a stunning victory for the gay rights movement, approved a landmark bill allowing same-sex marriage Tuesday night and sent it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger has “hinted” at a veto.
“The governor believes the people spoke with Prop. 22, and that is now in the courts,” said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson. “The governor believes that is where it belongs and will uphold any decisions the courts make.”
Proposition 22 says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It was passed as a ballot initiative in 2000. The language was added to California law to define what out of state marriages would be recognized. This is different from banning same-sex marriage. However, if same sex marriage is allowed in the future, it seems that such an allowance would be in tension with the language of Proposition 22.
So, is gay marriage in California to be decided by the courts (”activist judges”?), the state legislature, or by “tyranny of the majority”? The process there is unfolding as a combination of the three. Hey — checks and balances in action!
How will it be decided at the national level? (Should it be?) An amendment to the US Constitution, to which the President pays lip-service, would be “tyranny of the majority” on a national scale. But there are no checks and balances on a constitutional amendment.
San Francisco Chronicle: Gay marriage up to governor now
Some more thoughts on this subject:
To my mind, this isn’t about the “sanctity of marriage” (government should not be involved in the sanctity of anything.) It’s not about homosexuals getting married in a church, or having their marriages recognized by a church. It’s about same-sex families getting the same legal protection as different-sex families in financial matters, child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. And, doing so in a way that they don’t have to go to the expense of drawing up legal contracts to establish the same basic rights, or to have to produce such documents in every situation where these issues arise.
There is, of course, the question of whether government should be involved in marriage at all. I don’t really know; but legally recognized marriage certainly provides a convenient vehicle to address the issues mentioned above. If we choose to continue providing this vehicle, doesn’t it seem unfair to exclude same-sex couples?
I not sure I fully understand the opposition to gay marriage. When boiled down, it seems like the conflict becomes a question of the semantics of the word “marriage.” Is this so? Why are same-sex “unions” ok to some while “marriage” is not? I mean to understand the opposition in the mind of Donklephanters. The movement on the far right seems to be fueled by outright bigotry, which cannot be reasoned with. Why is a more reasoned argument against gay marriage?
What is this “threat” to straight marriage?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 7th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, Legislation, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 7th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
The threat is giving those, who some see as unrepentant sinners and deviants, the same rights as everybody else. That appears as if the government is sanctioning that lifestyle. And because we’re talking about something that can be seen as a “choice”, the waters get even murkier.
True, there are many gays and lesbians who didn’t choose to be that way, but there are definitely some who did, otherwise you wouldn’t have bisexuality. No sexual preference really fits into a nice little box. I’m much more inclined to go with the Kinsey model of a sliding scale of sexual preference. That makes a lot more sense when you look at the diversity we have in our world.
However, I don’t really care about sexuality and I don’t care about choice. I care about equal rights. And since gay and lesbian relationships are not illegal, than those groups deserve the same protections and rights that everybody else has.
Also, we must remember this: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Most of you know that’s the 14th Amendment and everybody reading this can be sure that, in the not-so-distant future, gays and lesbians will be recognized as a “suspect class” (in 14th amendment-speak) and afforded the same rights as everybody else.
It is inevitable, necessary and just.
September 7th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
I don’t recall where it was, but about three weeks ago I read a good argument – not one that I necessarily agree with, as I’ll explain farther below, but still a good argument – against legal same-sex marriage. The argument is basically that marriage is a contract between a couple and society: Society provides certain benefits to married couples, and in return the couple provides society with a measure of insurance of its continued survival and prosperity: children.
Whether or not same-sex couples can adequately raise kids has been hotly debated for years, but obviously they cannot actually procreate, at least not without a third party involved (and even then, the child would carry only one of his/her parents’ DNA, and at least in the case of two gay men, render the surrogate mother unavailable for procreation for at least nine months). Therefore, unlike traditional marriage where the benefits supposedly flow both ways, same-sex marriage is a one-way street – benefits flow from society to the couple but not the other way.
Of course, this argument carries with it three underlying assumptions: (1) that all straight married couples will have, or even intend to have, kids, (2) that all families are of the traditional, married, “nuclear” variety, and (3) that all children, given these traditional families to grow up in, will eventually mature into fit and upstanding citizens as opposed to, say, violent felons. (Two particular products of traditional families, namely Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, come to mind.) Both assumptions are, to say the least, dicey at best.
September 7th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
D’oh! I meant all three assumptions. (I originally had only two; I added in the “upstanding citizens” assumption later.)
September 7th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
I’m actually one of the people who is much more comfortable with homosexual civil unions than with homosexual marriage. Personally, what someone else does doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, so whatever living arrangements someone wants to have are their business.
However, I think that this is a new concept, and as such it’s intellectually honest to use a new name for it rather than changing the meaning of an old name.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I think that the people pushing for “marriage” and rejecting “civil unions” are fighting a battle which they will lose, and lose badly. By asking for more than much of the country is willing to give, and refusing the half-loaf, they’re likely to end up with no bread at all, and I don’t think this is the outcome which they seek.
September 7th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
When you think about it, it’s no wonder God advised us to have nothing to do with it… ;)
.oO(Oh, s**t, now I’ve gone and done it – mentioning the Big G on a political blog…)
September 7th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
In response to the argument:
I’d diagree, and assert that same-sex marriages would provide benefits back to society. I’d also ask “what exactly are the benefits that flow from society to married couples?” (Aside from the legal protections I listed in the post.) I’d argue that these legal protections are not ‘benefits’ afforded couples, but rather protections of natural rights and property rights.
So it is a question of semantics. I think if we call them ‘unions’ and they are made legal, it will just be a matter of time before the language will catch up and everyone will be calling them ‘marriages’ whether that is the legal term or not.
Also, I am not sure that this is such a “new concept” homosexual people desire to be married for many of the same reasons as heterosexual people. A new concept would be same-sex unions of heterosexuals joining together only for the benefits, whatever they are.
September 8th, 2005 at 1:52 am
To the extent possible government should get out of the business of treating married couples differently. An exception would concern children. The state has an interest in parents, biological or adoptive, who raise their children well. So the breaks that now go to married couples should instead go to parents, biological or adoptive.
The process issue is important. At first I was inclined to think that the MA SJC’s decision was a bad move because it smacked of judicial activism ala Roe v Wade. After some thought, though, I’ve changed my mind. It is a question of equal protection and there can only be one answer – same sex couples ought to enjoy all the rights of other couples, including the right to state recognition of their marriage. Equal rights for gay people is of a piece with equal rights for African Americans. The constitution mandates it and the courts must step in when public policy is bigoted.
The difference with Roe was that the court had stepped into a situation whereby the right to abortion was being recognized in many states through legislative action. Roe had no readily discernable constitutional basis and precluded all further public involvement in the decision. The Roe decision was a clear case of overreaching judicial activism that ultimately empowered the Christian Taliban.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Lord Macaulay said (approvingly) that the Toleration Act of 1689 ‘removed a vast mass of injustice without shocking a vast mass of prejudice’. That seems like a reasonable goal for public policy, and very applicable in this case.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
“By asking for more than much of the country is willing to give, and refusing the half-loaf, ”
Wow, Steve K, you came up ith THE most apposite answer for this one. How soon people forget – you start treating religious deviants decently and they get delusional and start thinking they are respectable. This is what has happened with Evangelicals, people of a social origin that in former times would never have been received at the front door in most of the “better” houses.