On Gay Marriage

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in California, Constitution, Law, Sexuality, Video

Jon Meacham and Ashton Kutcher discuss Prop 8…



I agree with both of them, but Ashton more so. The idea that people voted on somebody else’s rights and relationships is crazy.

In the end, I wish the government would get out of the business of marriage and set up a separate civil union system so people could have all the legal rights of marriage without the religious ties. And then people can go get a marriage in a church if they so choose.


This entry was posted on Sunday, November 16th, 2008 and is filed under California, Constitution, Law, Sexuality, Video. 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.

13 Responses to “On Gay Marriage”

  1. Brainster Says:

    You wish that “the government would get out of the business of marriage and set up a separate civil union system so people could have all the legal rights of marriage…”?

    Did you read that twice before posting? Because it makes no sense at all. That would not be getting the government out of the business of marriage at all. And of course, that is the real problem; you can’t get the government out of the issue unless you want to get rid of alimony and child support, inheritance taxes, etc.

  2. Americaneocnon Says:

    Kutcher sounds like a Stalinist henchman in the video.

    Sorry, but this wasn’t the best case that could be made for the gay marriage cause.

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    Brainster, it’s obvious I’m talking about “religious” marriage. Setting up a legal framework where two people can create a legal bond that shares property, custody, etc. makes a lot of sense. That’s the business that government should be in. And then marriage is a spiritual bond you’re announcing to god and the rest of the world, which is all it should be in the first place.

    And, by the way, I am SO enjoying the crazy comparisons coming out of the right wing these days. Stalinist henchman? Love it. Keep em flying.

  4. grognard Says:

    I don’t know if this has been thought through. If government gets out of marriage then is multiple marriage OK? For example one man and several women like the Muslims and off shoot Mormons believe. If gay marriage is OK then multiple men or women could get married, but what if one of them wants to divorce the others how do you separate the commonly held property? What about the children of multiple marriages in a divorce? Does everybody get visitation? Considering these possibilities there will still have to be some definition of what marriage entails.

  5. Justin Gardner Says:

    grognard..if we were given a certain reality where people were clamoring for multiple marriage, I’m sure we could create rules and regulations to fit those situations. Basically, if more than two people can form a business together and share legal, ownership and other responsibilities equally, then why can’t more than two people do the same with their property and custody?

    Still, this discussion is about two people being allowed to create a legal bond. So let’s stick to that for the time being.

  6. grognard Says:

    I would prefer that the definition of marriage would be between any two people, I was just pointing out where this could lead. There are no people clamoring for multiple marriage because it is illegal and they would be subject to arrest, hence the secretive compounds the Mormons have. Muslims might feel the same way but there is no way in today’s political climate they would even consider putting something like this forward, they have enough problems as it is.

  7. Justin Gardner Says:

    History is littered with “where will this lead?” worries. But what we should be worried about right now is our government is treating gay men and women as if they’re worth less than straight men and women. Why? Because of religious tradition. That’s all we should be concerned with right now. It’s shameful and it needs to change.

  8. J. Harden Says:

    But what we should be worried about right now is our government is treating gay men and women as if they’re worth less than straight men and women. Why? Because of religious tradition.

    Well, in terms of biological economy, gays are worth less because they don’t reproduce. Not saying that has anything to with whether or not they should be allowed to marry, but the whole man/woman thing has been around longer than government.

    Some of us believe that our “rights” were derived from a higher natural law. Others believe in positivism, that our rights are solely derived from human beings and that no moral code connects is inherent our necessary for the legitimacy of laws.

    The right of a man/woman to marry and reproduce is a right derived not from the quill of the Founders, but is an inherently moral right of nature. They (the Founders) believed the same thing by the way. I don’t believe a homosexual’s right to marry comes with the same moral and legal imperative that comes with the union that propagates the species.

    This idea that because the Founder’s guarded against religous institutions direct involvement with government power, that they were creating a government in a secular vacuum is total hogwash.

    What is dangerous is a world view that says all of my rights as a human being are derived from other human beings. I would be open to a good natural law argument supporting gay marriage. I’m assuming it would be based on “love” – not a word or concept known for its clarity.

  9. john Says:

    Actual, Dan Savage made a much more compelling case.

  10. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    .if we were given a certain reality where people were clamoring for multiple marriage, I’m sure we could create rules and regulations to fit those situations.

    We did in the late 19th century with the Mormon Church. The rules and regulations were that if you didn’t disband your plural marraiges, you would be kicked out of the union. To this day the rules and regulations for the FDLS church (and its subsidiaries) which has 10s of thousands of members, and are clamoring for multiple marriages, is that of “No Deal.” So because there are fewer FDLS members than gays, they don’t get a court-ordered recognition of their desire to marry who they want? They are not a big enough minority? What gives?

    But wait a few more years when Muslims demand polygamy, as they are already beginning to do in Europe. They will cry “racism” and things will change. I’d like to see homosexual activists protest in front of mosques, the way they have done in front of churches, since California Muslim organizations did the same things as the Christians did regarding prop 8. I love to see “most oppressed minority” contests.

  11. Justin Gardner Says:

    I don’t believe a homosexual’s right to marry comes with the same moral and legal imperative that comes with the union that propagates the species.

    And yet that viewpoint ignores the idea that gay women can have children via artificial insemination (which straight couples do) and gay men can artificially inseminate a surrogate (which straight couples do). And then there’s the idea that there are straight couples who can’t or don’t want to procreate. Any way you look at it, that argument completely falls apart.

    Are far as hogwash goes, if our founders weren’t creating a document that was mean to be purposefully secular, then why did they say Creator instead of God? Sure, they were religious men, but it’s not a religious document…especially considering that Jefferson was an avowed Deist, not a Christian. What’s more, they made it very specific that we are all created equal, so there’s no other way to derive our laws but from one another.

    Last note, the genius of the constitution was not its exclusiveness, but it’s inclusiveness…and the ability to make it more and more inclusive. So for people to be voting about the exclusivity of something under the guise that it’s constitutional is sickening to me as an American.

    @Jimmy,

    Personally, I don’t think it’s any of my business what kind of bonds people want to create…just that they are able to create them when they want to and then are able to severe those bonds if they have just cause. And the legalities will be figured out because we’re smart people can set appropriate frameworks.

  12. john Says:

    Jimmy brings up a valid point. What about plural marriages. Right now all across this country (and not just in muslim and mormon homes), people make decisions to cohabitate in any number of fashions. So long as they do not try to marry, this is completely legal. They can even refer to themselves as husband and wife, it’s legal. I’m a firm believer that should you choose to live with two wives or two husbands, that’s entirely up to you. And there should be some kind of legal civil means to enforce those agreements. The problem that arises would be in closed communities, like we see in the mormon community where bride’s age’s get younger, and forced marriages occur. This is part of the problem of not sanctioning this. Since they do not have to file for a license to marry, they can marry off a 15yo girl, and they can trade off their children for marriage. Ultimately, I don’t care, so long as the individuals are 18, of sound mind, and they choose to live in that community. I don’t think it could hurt, in those communities to offer case workers to help people who want to get out, but feel trapped.

    But this is neither here nor there. The fact is, the gay and lesbian community want more than a symbolic means to express their commitment to one and other. The want to have the right to make decisions for the person, legally, that they have been with for 20 and 30 years. They should be able to protect and cover their significant others should they get sick or have an accident. And someone else’s God or god or gods should not affect that (which by the way Christians, polygamy is all over the bible, old and new testament).

    Lastly regarding protests and boycotts. I agree whole heartedly. I’m straight, but if I found out a business in my community that I frequent actively donated or participated in promoting Prop 8, I would stop going there. This was a very close vote. How would any business survive with only 55% of of it’s business. If Christians want to draw the line in the sand, I’ll be happy not to cross it.

  13. rob Says:

    If a relationship is not illegal, then the government cannot deny participants in a relationship any rights it affords to other relationships.

    As a born in Orange County, church goin, card carryin’, firin’ range attendin’, border protectin’ Republican it is unconstitutional for homosexuals couples to be denied any rights afforded to heterosexual couples.

    The socons dragging my party under need to get the balls to put to ballot an amendment making homosexuality illegal and a punishable offense, if they want to deny homosexuals rights. This back door bullshit is pathetic.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: