At some point later today, the California Supreme Court will either uphold or strike down Proposition 8, in which voters decided that same-sex marriage in California should not be legal.
My guess is it's a tough call that could go either way, but just as my own views have evolved over the last decade or so, so has the consensus in California.
In 2000, there was a proposition on the ballot declaring marriage as being between a man and a woman. I voted for it.
In 2008, Prop 8 took the same stance. I voted against it.
The 2000 proposition passed with 61 percent of the vote; last year's passed with 52 percent. Give Californians another eight years and you'll see a solid vote in favor of allowing anyone to marry, gay or straight.
Nine years ago, I didn't see it as a civil rights issue. I still didn't know whether being gay was a choice or a genetic condition, and my own religious values got all tangled up with defining marriage. I figured civil unions were fair enough.
But even my friend Mitch, one of the last of the great homophobes, is evolving on this issue. (Even though he doesn't believe in evolution) Thirty years ago, Mitch told me that if he found out one of his friends was gay, that would be the end of the friendship.
A couple of soul kisses cured him of that.
Just kidding. He came to realize that just as most straight people don't see their sexuality as what defines them (sorry, Mr. Hefner), neither do most gay people. Sexuality is just a part of what makes us who we are.
The problem with banning gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is that civil marriage is not about religion. It's about property rights, and benefits, and visitation and all sorts of other things.
I think everybody ought to have the same rights when it comes to that stuff.
That's why I'm hoping the court rules against Prop 8 today. It isn't a matter of public opinion. When the court struck down laws against mixed-race marriages more than 60 years ago, 90 percent of Californians thought it was a bad decision.
The people aren't always right.
Posts
4 comments:
Let me "join".
Call it Civil Unions, call it Civil Bonds, but it's just NOT marriage.
Give them all the same protections, but there is a big difference between "marriage" which was never ordained by civil authorities but by religious authorities and civil unions.
Call it semantics, but it's a very important difference that need sto be retained and recognized.
If you give them all the rights and privileges, then what you have is a loud group of people complaining about special privileges -- and to that I say "no."
Ernie
Much the same way so many of your readers finally get an issue that either excites them or angers them so much they finally blog, I have my issue.
I just read Perez Hilton's latest hate blog (for someone who calls the Catholic Church and the Latter Days Saints hatemongers, Hilton and other activist gays do a pretty good job of hating and promoting hate.
Gay is NOT a civil rights issue.
Being an African-American is something I cannot hide.
Being gay -- or at least declaring and displaying it are decisions a person can make.
Frankly, it would probably make most Americans less queasy if all sexual conduct were practiced with discretion and in private.
It's strange but it appears that one percent of the population on any issue defines the issue by their loud and intrusive opinions.
Left alone, I think most Americans would clearly state that gays are certainly entitled to all rights every other citizen enjoys, but marriage is NOT a right.
Try asking all the lonely people.
Ernie is right: marriage is a religious-begotten institution that much later developed a purely civic companion. The interjection of gays into this issue display one thing for certain -- a sense of entitlement that is outrageous.
Yes, equal protection, but NO you don't get to use the label "marriage" just as people who haven't graduated from medical school may call themselves doctors, but they are recognized as such by society at large.
This is the worst kind of propaganda -- and I hope you will help delineate the discussion, Mike, so logic and compassion rule while emotional outbursts are seen for what they are.
Over the past year, I have seen gays, activists' groups, and even the media spew forth hate-mongering propaganda -- so either you go along with their agenda or you're a hater, a bigot, a stupid, misguided erson.
Listen and read their propaganda: they don't seek to persuade with facts and logic. They simply seek to silence others by yelling louder.
Ok, listen to know-nothings like Perez Hilton or actors like Drew Barrymore.
These are not intellectual giants; they are really fairly stupid.
The cult of celebrity has these lightweights gaining a spotlight.
Ernie is correct: gays are no different when it comes to the equal protections of the law, but marriage is NOT a law. It has only been politicized as gays have demanded that every validate their choices.
I will not.
That does not make me a bigot or hate-monger.
Gay is not merely a lifestyle: it involves far more choices than what orifice is used during sex or who sleeps with whom. Today, gay is a political, ethics, and moral agenda that erodes classic ideals.
Elevate civil unions, don't drag "marriage" down to new lows.
Sebastien G., Westwood, CA
STUPID, STUPID PEOPLE.
Not only are you all incredibly STUPID for not passing Propositions 1A-1G, but not you're parading your ignorance around under the banner that gays are hatemongers.
That's why everyone MUST be forced to go to public school and forced if necessary to give up these primitive viewpoints.
You disgust me -- Mike and your clan of miscreants.
If I had you in one of my classes, you'd learn to drop your stupid, "hatemongering" ways or I'd fail you.
It doesn't matter to me what your grades are -- it's time we concentrated on reprogramming you idiots with the right and proper viewpoint.
Proudly a TEACHER and proudly supportive of gay marriage
"The problem with banning gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is that civil marriage is not about religion. It's about property rights, and benefits, and visitation and all sorts of other things."
Civil marriage is just what it says: a civil ceremony.
The ste implemented civil marriages long after religious ones.
Your other bloggers are quite correct: religions invented marriage.
Without religions, people didn't get married.
There was no ceremony, there were no property rights or visitation rights.
They didn't exist.
Religious marriage ushered all of that in.
As much as it pains me to admit.
Yes, you and I could could commisserate how organized relion has done so much wrong, but it's also done good, and frankly the gays are just falt out wrong on this one.
They want something both ways -- pardon the pun.
They want choice, but they want no responsibility, either, to adhere to a set of rules.
Religious marriages fail as often as civil marriages, but they do have a set of rules. True, it changes from one group to another, but they have codified rules of behavior.
Modern gay rights movements for the most part -- not religious gays -- but rather the movement is anti-religious and irreligious (two different things.)
They want, as one of your bloggers observed, validation of their choices and lifestyle.
No one else gets that in our society, so why should they?
Strengthen the provisions of civil unions -- put them on the same footing as marriage, but don't fall for the flawed line of logic that suggests that gays only want what others have.
They don't: they want more. Ultimately, it may be validation. It may be special privileges. It may be compensation for eons of rejection.
Still, it is an argument without merit -- either morally, ethically, or logically. It is without historical precedent or intellectual merit.
It is, quite simply, an example of bad laws.
Popularity, as you have invoked with mixed marriages, is not the benchmark for this issue -- and I find it appalling that both ends of the spectrum have resorted to trying to win this in either the court or the court of public opinion.
In the end, neither has the authority to rule. render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's.
(You know, for an agnostic, I am amazed at how much biblical scripture I know.)
Henry J.
Post a Comment