Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it. …

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love.”

Then you have to agree that it would be acceptable to say Blacks and Whites can not inter marry. The other limitations have to do with consent. Multiple wives is another story. You cannot have a contract with someone who is 14 either. A Marriage is a contract. Animals obviously can not have consent either. Multiple marriages, well I’m for it as well. I think people, so long as they are consenting adults, should be permitted to live as they please. The problem there generally has to do with forced marriages and underage marriages. There are very few convictions on polygamy.

The supporters of prop 8 believe exactly opposite of what you argue. Allowing society to accept such a blatant sin (in their eyes) and rewarding the behavior with the sacrament of marriage shakes the very foundation of their religion, beliefs, and the way they are raising their children. The tolerance argument doesn’t persuade when you are asking people to tolerate what they believe is wrong.

To illustrate, lets imagine that next election there is a prop to legalize something we can all see as obviously wrong like rape. You wouldn’t convince me to vote for such legislation by reminding me that I should let others do as they please and I should accept them and their actions.

Now I concede this is a very imperfect analogy and we can all find its flaws, but the point is this- Until we get past the moral judgment of homosexuality, there well be a large population that will not accept it. As one prop 8 supporter said to me “I just can’t vote against the bible.” For these voters the “wrong and unfair” argument will not persuade them.

I support your earlier suggestion that we need to work to make civil union or domestic partnerships the states’ agreements, and allow churches to perform marriages. I understand Alan’s difficulty argument, but that is the only way that we’ll be able to move forward on the issue that doesn’t threat the meaning of marriage in the Christian belief system.

This is madness. Get off all your damn high horses and accept that there are people that are not like you. They don’t want to be like you, and by them being the way they are, they don’t hurt you, your religion, your beliefs, or your children.

So when Leapsecond provides their list:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

How are these not covered by civil union statutes? If they dont cover these (at least as far as they touch legal questions) then what DO they cover? And the complaint that you would have to pass these tpes of provisions in all 50 states as being somehow unreasonable wont cut it. There are lots of differences between states on legal questions. There is no Constitutional mandate that they have to be the same. (For example, their are different “age of consent” laws in different states. No ones “civil rights” are being violated if one states’ AoC is 18 and another’s is 17. If it is real important to someone that it be one and not the other..well then they can get working. Welcome to Democracy.) In this context all DOMA does it make it an issue for our Democratic institutions. The horror.

So once again we are left with a “civil right” complaint without there being an actual civil right being violated. Unless, we want to say the existence of anti-gay bigots is a “civil rights” question. But that is nonsense. There are plenty of anti-Catholic bigots in this country and you dont see Catholics marching for the “right not to be offened” by those yahoos.

This Proposition to redefine Marriage wasn’t ever about withholding or achieving any legal rights for gays. Gay partners already had this (for the most part) through civil unions.

This is mostly a political strategy that we set up.

Religions in this country have long had too much power-from the Constitution and foolish traditions. Progressive thinking people know government needs more power and resources if we are ever to move forward and solve the worlds problems. Christianity in this country has to go before that can happen.

The weakness of Christian religions here is that they focus a lot on the New Testament and something called Charity.

That is complete unconditional love and acceptance of a person even when you don’t agree with the things they do. Kind of like a parent for a child.
Their big weakness in trying to have this charity is that they are just people and that kind of love isn’t easy. To make matters worse they also believe in right and wrong. Many look for universal truth in seeking things that are right and wrong for everyone. It has something to do with what Jesus said, “The Truth will Make you Free”. Actually double blind studies show that it is the government that makes you free.

We progressives realize that Political Correctness is a lot more effective than charity when it comes to getting things done. PC as we call it is basically outwardly accepting and loving the things that someone does (it doesn’t matter if you like them don’t know them, or despise them). It isn’t about them. They are temporary and will be gone someday. It is about relating to them in a positive way to accomplish the greater good. People like to hear that others agree with what they do and that is where the religious whack jobs open themselves up for a royal spanking from us.

We generally agree that strong organized Religions for progress to be made.

Our main objective was to use differences between Religious people and others to stir up contentions and divide and minimize mainstream people from Religions. Luckily for us there were gay people to help demonstrate that government is the source of freedom and equality.
There were a few problems to overcome…
Gay people made up such a small portion of our society ~2-7%. They had already achieved significant progress in the country vs. some other countries (where they can be legally killed and often are)so that was a tough obstacle. With the help of Media we overcame obstacles and incited both sides. Even Gay people who were just fine with the things they were accomplishing with their own lives. We focused on Rights and Acceptance of Their Gayness. Our polls showed that was their main issue. Marriage was the perfect tool would strike right at the heart of what religions considered sacred. It was perfect. The media helped maximize atypical situations where where the only obstacle was gayness preventing adopting a child. They carefully left out that many other groups like singe men or women or people without money. Media was able to roll all rights into a huge issue. They also brought up all past issues where Gays were killed or beaten It was brilliant. We redefined the word disagree before they could Define Marriage and Morphed it into more than 20 synonyms like Hatemonger, Fearmonger, bigot, homophobe. Religious nuts work so hard on being good that setting all the misery suffered by Gays over decades squarely on not having marriage just eats em up. In a few years after this has festered. We will pass a new definition of marriage. We have carefully laid the legal ground work and now have achieved much more public incitement with the backlash from this debacle that we orchestrated. We are now poised to sue religions if they refuse to conform. Many religious organizations tie up a lot of money by qualifying for Tax Free Status. We can simply use a new definition of Marriage to include Gay couples. They will resist and we will sue. With the help of the media even their own members will think they had it coming. If they do finally conform we move the final plan we side with the Man Boy marriage proponents. After several attempts this will pass and religion will no longer exist here. We will then move on to eliminate any other organization with any influence over the hearts and minds of the American People.

It created a civil alternative, for those not religious, or who could or would not partake in the religious ceremony. Heterosexuals have been wed via civil unions for a long time, and just as heterosexual’s civil unions provide all the rights of marriage, so do homosexual’s civil unions. My late husband and I were wed by a civil union, we considered ourselves married, but the church did not as was within their right. We never considered ourselves discriminated against, because we were not.

The only difference has been federal recognition. That is achievable.. but what the CA Supreme Court did was in violation of the US Constitution, the separation of powers an separation of church and state. The state of CA, can NOT violate the US Constitution, an the federal government can not do so either. They can not define marriage, a religious rite, the constitution forbids them that power. The government can not interfere in the beliefs of the religious or their churches. Those four judges violated their duties to uphold the constitution, they did not have the right to appropriate a religious sacrement.

There is no discrimination, because gays have access to the same, civil unions that heterosexuals do. Federal recognition should be pursued, that’s understood. So what is it that is going on by the demand that a civil union, be redefined using the term of a religious ceremony? It’s plain that it’s based on the desire to establish a precedent, by which real civil rights are violated. When that happens with one right, as in te separation of church and state, or separation of powers, it’s going to happen to all other rights and freedoms.

No one who is only interested in a committed, loving relationship, needs to violate religious liberties. What that tells me is either this isn’t about civil rights, but a desire to persecute the religious, which is a hate crime, or gays and lesbians are so unstable and insecure, that they are incapable of defining and being contented in themselves.. which means they aren’t capable of any kind of relationship.

Take that for what it’s worth.

As for the courts mandating gay marriage, you can intellectually develop a constitutional reasoning but it does require interpreting the Constitution in a way the framers and the writers of the 14th amendment hardly meant. Just because it’s morally right doesn’t mean our Constitution requires it. Sometimes, fights take more work than a court case. And equating gay marriage to the racial integration of schools is not apples to apples. The post civil-war era amendments were clearly put in place to create racial equality. It’s not radical to overrule laws that seek to subvert the very words of those amendments. It is rather radical to find a right to gay marriage in amendments that clearly never intended to be so broad.

But that’s my personal quirk. I know it must seem odd to support gay marriage but to be hesitant about using one of the most direct remedies. Just as some see it odd that I would choose to treat opponents not as bigots but as people worthy of addressing in civil, respectful ways. I just don’t want to see a replay of the abortion issue where the matter, by being taken out of the hands of the people, becomes a divisive issue that remains a flash point 35 years later. That’s not healthy for a culture. I believe we have to do the hard work of changing minds, so that’s my focus. That doesn’t make me any less committed to the ideal.

To answer Rich’s question, “marriage” is a civil rights issue because the law uses the term to mandate a large number fo rights and responsibilities. Domestic partnerships, etc. get some, but not all, of the rights. And entail very few of the responsibilities — which is why the vast majority of them are heterosexual couples who could legally marry, but choose not to.

Seriously, though, there are a lot of us who have your back, Mike.

And this law along with DOMA is clearly unconstitutional! How DOMA hasn’t been struck down for having the audacity to say that it is better than Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is beyond me (that’s the Full Faith and Credit clause). How can any law can be passed that clearly goes against the 14th Amendment?

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It says it all right there to me.

This isn’t a religious question. The churches do not have to sanctify anything here. I can’t find the date that marriage certificates/licenses were first required for the government to recognize it, but as far as I know it has been around as long as the country has. Those were required for straight couples. It would be one thing if priviledges weren’t given to those who obtain these licenses, but since they are the government should not be able to deny them to a group of people.

Let’s try the argument this way:

1. Marriage is a religious institution.

2. For the purpose of administrative convenience, our civil governments have constructed a framework in which to deal with society in the context of the domestic partnerships that people tend to enter into anyway. Because the term was already commonly used for such partnerships, “marriage” became the legal term as well.

3. The First Amendment prohibits Congress (and state legislatures, through the Fourteenth) from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. This means that the religious institution of marriage cannot be established by any of our governments. Thus, no restrictions or regulations may be placed on civil marriage exclusively for religious reasons.

4. This “framework” mentioned in #2 has resulted in the bestowal of a system of rights applicable to domestic partnerships that are granted to partners in a civil marriage.

5. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all American citizens equal protection under the law. This means that any rights granted to some must be granted to all. Because same-sex domestic partnerships do exist alongside heterosexual ones, these partnerships must be treated equally and afforded the same rights. It helps to put a reminder right here that religious arguments are not permitted due to #3, which includes any claims that homosexuality is “unnatural” or “contrary to normal human behavior” or “icky.” Lots of people said (still say) that about interracial marriage too, but it doesn’t mean they’re right, and it doesn’t mean they have the right to ban it, even if “they” are 99% of the population.

If you were talking about a business partnership, the government would not be allowed to refuse to recognize a partnership between, say, two women. But state governments regularly do so when you’re talking about a domestic one and enshrine such restrictions in their constitutions. I don’t get it. I mean, I do, but I don’t get how our courts are overlooking this.

And thanks a lot Alan for that RealClearPolitics link. That was really interesting and I agree with the author wholeheartedly. Now I just have to be careful not to mention any of it to my girlfriend who’s currently completely engrossed in that same Thomas Frank book.