Gay Marriage Ban Wins in Calif., Raising Doubts on 18,000 Weddings

No Name Given
Nov 5, 2008 12:01 PM CST

Marriage is Marriage, even in California.

Flag this comment

Ellen Barshevsky
Nov 5, 2008 3:48 PM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

Ellen Fan
Nov 7, 2008 9:41 AM CST

Now wait a minute, moderator, I specifically clicked on this story because I wanted to hear Ellen Barshevsky’s thoughtful analysis on the topic! Now I see it’s been removed? Censorship!

Flag this comment

Dan
Nov 7, 2008 9:49 AM CST

#4, when you’ve worked out the multiple issues of intestate succession, default medical and legal proxy when one spouse out of three is impaired and the other two disagree about a decision, and the easy loophole to the rule against perpetuities by “marrying” your child’s spouse, then having them “marry” their nephew- or neice-in-law, etc.
Your slippery slope argument is obvious and naive.

Flag this comment

TaxAtty
Nov 7, 2008 10:33 AM CST

CA isn’t the first state (nor is it likely the last) to make such an amendment to it’s the state constitution.  Also, it’s only RB review, I believe.  But then again I’m a tax person so what do I know. (RE comment 4)

Flag this comment

L.N. Barshevsky
Nov 7, 2008 11:07 AM CST

Free Ellen!  Don’t silence our FAVORITE poster.

Seriously, though, I’m a Californian (straight, married, two kids) and I’m utterly ashamed that Prop. 8 passed.  How extraordinary that we’ve amended our state constitution precisely to institutionalize discrimination against a class of our own citizens.  It is an absolute disgrace. 

Religious nuts may now commence flaming.

Flag this comment

Gracchus
Nov 7, 2008 12:38 PM CST

#12:  Let’s call it what it is:  when a person supports, either with her vote or with money, a proposition to deny a group of citizens their full civil rights, that is bigotry regardless of the rationalization you want to use.  Need i remind you that the bible was frequently used to justify preventing women from having full rights in this country, not to mention the religious arguments in favor of slavery that were dominant until the second half of the 20th century?  You can use religion to justify bigotry, but it is still bigotry.  Deal with it.

Flag this comment

TaxMan
Nov 7, 2008 1:05 PM CST

Re: 12. It is ok to call someone who adheres to their religious beliefs a bigot when they feel free to impose those beliefs on to, and to the detriment of, others. I’d say that those who voted yes on Prop 8 are obstinately convinced of the superiority of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions, but it is just so much easier to use the word bigot.

I wish those who claim to rely on their religious beliefs as the basis for taking away the rights of others would let people live their lives freely and let God sort out what’s right and wrong when we die. Silly me! That would be too easy. And if you can’t hurt gay people, where would that leave you? Invading Iran, no doubt.

Enjoy your bigotry and good luck on judgment day.

Flag this comment

Obummer
Nov 7, 2008 1:18 PM CST

Isn’t it time that the State got out of the business of marriage all together. The law should simply require individuals who want to share a relationship together to contract at the start of the relationship as to what will happen in the event of a breakup. Rather than trying to figure it out after the fact via litigation. The law should be designed to prevent litigation in the case of a dissolution of such relationships, not promote it. The regular contract rules or some variant would apply to any disputes that might arise. The legislation would simply specify the essential terms need for such relationship contracts. Thereby eliminating much of the litigation issues. While some issues may still need to be litigated, they would be significantly reduced in scope and number. All those who wanted to be “married” in the religious sense would still have the right to exercise their religous freedom to do so, seperate from the recognized shared relationship under the contract. The State would simply not get involved in the dissolution of the religous marriage.

Flag this comment

Dan
Nov 7, 2008 1:57 PM CST

“However, I do not agree that to change the definition of what “marriage” is, is a right. That is not fundamental. Fundamentally, it is between a man and a woman.”

MW, you *are* changing the definition of marriage to suit your own agenda.
Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults and the state.
*Weddings* are religious ceremonies performed by a church.
You can be married without ever setting foot in a church or having a wedding.
You can be wed without ever appearing before a clerk, but you sure aren’t married.
What you’re trying to do is redefine marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, and frankly, the multi-thousand year histories of the terms marriage *and* wedding would beg to disagree with your new interpretation.

Flag this comment

Minority Woman
Nov 7, 2008 2:13 PM CST

Dan: You’re right…I’m doing it to suit my OWN agenda….(sarcasm intended).

Actually, if you look historically at the definition of marriage, it wasn’t until recently the definition included any consenting adults.

So whose agenda changed the historical meaning?

Flag this comment

Minority Woman
Nov 7, 2008 2:30 PM CST

Quitter:

*chuckling*...I think you managed to offend everyone with that comment.

Flag this comment

Gracchus
Nov 7, 2008 2:41 PM CST

Minority Woman: I am sorry you feel it is unfair or unjust to call you a bigot, but the more you contribute to this discussion, the more apt the description appears to be. 

Our history is rife with examples of exclusion from and discrimination in marriage.  Miscegenation laws were only struck down a little more than 40 years ago.  Laws made wives inferior to their husbands as recently as the 1970s and 80s.  Until the 1940s and 50s, it was almost impossible for people to terminate a failed or abusive marriage through divorce.  It was even against the law for married and unmarried couples to make decisions about whether to use contraceptives or raise children.

In each case, proponents of these laws claimed the laws were essentially part of the traditional “definition of marriage” and “God’s will.”

So I have to wonder, which of these “traditional” definitions of marriage are you arguing for?  The one that says that a black person cannot marry a white person?  The one that says wives are merely the chattel property of their husbands?  The one that says a wife must stay in a marriage no matter how much her husband beats her?  Or just the one that says that a wife cannot decide for herself whether to have children or use contraceptives?

Then I have to wonder, what would you think if a more politically powerful group of citizens passed a constitutional amendment to enshrine any or all of these versions of “traditional family values” into the constitution?  Would you feel that this country betrayed the principles of equality and individual liberty to which it aspires?  Would you feel anger toward ignorant and bigoted voters who do not bother to think past trite sloganeering and expect you to just sit in your place at the back of the bus and be grateful you can still ride the bus?

Or maybe not…

Flag this comment

Craig
Nov 7, 2008 2:51 PM CST

I think the marriage equality voices have it.  Now to the more important business of un-doing what was just (illegally) done on Tuesday….

Flag this comment

Eleanor
Nov 7, 2008 4:02 PM CST

Gracchus (24) hit it on the head. I couldn’t agree more.
One point that no one appears to have addressed yet is Minority Woman’s statement about opposing a “lifestyle choice”. 
I doubt that Minority Woman chose to be a minority.  The truth is that she didn’t have any choice because being a minority is part of her biological (genetic) make-up.  Homosexuality is also biologically determined—it isn’t a lifestyle choice any more than race or ethnicity. If it were a choice, how would you explain homosexual behavior in non-human species such as other primates, birds and even insects? Evolutionary biologists have found evidence that genetic controls are involved in both homo- and bisexuality.  A gene was identified over 40 years ago that causes homosexual behavior in fruit flies. 
The way one choses to live with their biological make-up is another thing.  There are gay extremists and black extremists whose behavior may be offensive to others just like there are gays and blacks who choose to live in the mainstream.  Minority Woman is living in the mainstream but feels that homosexuals should be denied that same right, and that is unfair.

Flag this comment

Buster
Nov 7, 2008 7:05 PM CST

Does anyone have a comment on why African Americans in most parts of CA voted yes on Prop 8? Could it be because we African Americans are tired of hearing the same tired and innacurate equation of gay rights to the black civil rights struggle? Miscegenation laws prohibiting marriage between a man and a woman of different races are not the same as a law that says that a marriage is only between one man and one woman. The miscegenation laws were interfering with the right of a man and woman to marry and it is misleading to equate that to gay marriage. It was still an issue about marriage between a man and a woman and that is what the courts and the constitution found was unlawful. Gay people can obtain the same privileges through civil unions in CA.

Flag this comment

Gracchus
Nov 8, 2008 12:06 PM CST

Buster, I think there were several reasons why the African American community supported Prop 8.  First, it appears the No on 8 campaign may have done a poor job of voter education in minority communities generally.  This is a long-standing problem because the white GLBT community frequently fails to consider cultural differences between them and GLBT people of color, so it is probably not surprising that there was not a strong focus on outreach into minority communities, either African American or Hispanic.

Second, there appears to have been a concerted effort by Yes on 8 forces to reach out to church communities.  The church is a very strong influence in African American and Hispanic communities, and because there is generally weekly (if not more) access to these communities in churches, it is little wonder that the Yes on 8 forces, with their heavily church-financed resources, were very successful in persuading minority congregants to vote Yes.

Finally, in both the African American and Hispanic communities, there is still a very strong emphasis on machismo that causes greater levels of discomfort with homosexuality in those communities.

I believe Eleanor is on the right track, though.  “Separate but Equal” is a concept that resonates well particularly with African American communities, who know from their own experiences how unequal “Separate but Equal” actually is.

If we are to change minds in those communities, it is going to be necessary for us to be more proactive in finding ways to appeal to minority voters in ways that do not assume the white experience.

Flag this comment

John
Nov 10, 2008 1:36 PM CST

19 has this exactly correct.  The state needs to stay out of marriage altogether, however they do not for this reason: all states need people.  People to tax, to defend the country, and to invade other countries.  No, this is not a comment for or against gay marriage, war, or taxes, so step away from the keyboard.  The short argument against gay marriage is that there is little to no likelihood for them to have and raise children.  Children replace adults who can be taxed after the adults die from old age or war.  Any civilization without children will die.  The state does not care, or have a reason to care if you want to form a contractual relationship with a partner, unless you are going to be raising children.  If you are then the state wants to know they are being raised in the best environment, so they will pay the most taxes, and be mentally stable to fight in war. 
Marriage is a permit from the state to have children with the state’s blessing.  I am a religious nut, and I wish the state would not have required my wife and I to get a permit, but they did.  I would prefer the state to stay out of sanctioning marriage of one kind, but I see that their interest needs to be protected.  You must have warriors to fight and farmers to tax, otherwise how do the powerful stay in power.  They might have to do actual work, ich.
All this said I am becoming more and more of an Ayn Rander, so don’t call me a communist.  I love capitalism, except when the state tries to take so much of what I have worked so hard for, so spare me the rhetoric.  I am an ultralibertarian.

Flag this comment