"You don’t have the right to get married . . . not even under California law. You cannot, for example, marry a plant, a comic book character, or your mother. We (rightly) discriminate regarding the privilege of marriage."
See here for a good explanation of why proposition 8 does not discriminate.
The existing laws regarding marriage (one man, one woman) do not discriminate against gays. As the law stands gays are free to marry, they must marry someone of the opposite sex. But they are nevertheless free to marry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The hidden assumption of the Feinstein case is that marriage is a right and not a privilege. We should not discriminate in cases of human rights, but marriage is not one of those rare and precious things.
I suggest both you, and Reynolds re-read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which categorically states that marriage is a human right. Whether gay marriage is included in this is arguable, but marriage is internationally agreed upon as a right, not a privilege.
First, it could be (as most people in the West have believed) that homosexual behavior is wrong. There can be no right to a privilege based on a vice.
We also believed in slavery and the inequality of the sexes. Would the author suggest it was wrong to remove these forms of discrimination?
Second, there is no vested civic interest in homosexual behavior, whether it is a vice or not. Homosexual behavior by nature will not produce citizens.
Population control is not a vested civic interest? I wonder what that one-child-per-family law is about in China then.
Third, children are better off in homes with both male and female role models.
That's a personal opinion of the author and is unsupported by both research and common sense.
Homosexual marriage becomes a “gateway” to allow for the destruction of marriage as a meaningful category.
Marriage is a commitment for life. What undermines this commitment the most? The ability to get out of it - divorce. Which state has the lowest divorce rate in the US? Massachusetts, the gay rights capital. Which states have the highest divorce rates? Right-wing states which traditionally are opposed to gay marriage.
Where have you been in the last five years, you Conservative fool?
The arguments against equal marriage have all been advanced and discredited, as least for public policy and law, in Canada. Have you not been paying attention?
Shut up, take care of your own marriage and mind your own damn business.
"You sir have just disenfranchised a conservative voter. Congratulations"
Gosh, I'll lose a lot of sleep over that.
Phil, feel free to share your views and opinions but please do so with intelligent comments and not vulgar trash.
As a conservative, I fully support same-sex marriage rights as an individualistic freedom inherent to every human on this planet. One person of consenting age should be allowed to marry any other human being of consenting age and sound mind.
All other excuses to the contrary are clearly, unequivocally, and entirely against that fundamental human right. To say homosexuals are free to marry, just not to homosexuals is a contradiction of your own statement. Freedom implies a totality. You cannot apply such caveats.
Raphael...marriage is not a human right. It is a privilege given to those that qualify. If two males can marry why not one man and two women or one man and his son? Shouldn't pedophiles have their human rights upheld to marry whom they please, even a six year old boy?
I am sure you will say that I am scare mongering but by redefining marriage on the basis of human rights then you open a Pandora's box of issues.
Biebs,
Your examples are non sequitur. It doesn't follow that allowing one person to marry one person should lead to pedophilia and polygamy. That doesn't make sense. And I qualified the reason:
One person of sound mind and legal age can marry one person of the same.
It's beautiful in it's simplicity. All else is religious and cultural dogma based on little more than superstition.
No dogs, no children, no Islamic wives. One person to one person. Simple.
Raphael...why do you discriminate against and hate those that love more than one woman or those that love little kids? If that is who they love then who are you to say they can't marry. Don't be such a bigoted hater.
Besides, it is only "cultural dogma" that has decided a 12 year old is too young to decide whom they want to marry.
Pedophilia is universally rejected [underage means no consent], and polygamy is only accepted in the most backwards third world nations and in Islam. To a certain extent polygamy makes sense under barbaric cultures struggling to survive, although it's extremely primitive.
If you believe in the concept of universal rights at all, you'll realize the untenable stance of your position.
Raphael...who decides what the age of consent is? Is it not decided by the courts who are influenced by "cultural dogma". How dare you and the majority inflict your bigoted discrimination on the minority of pedophiles.
"Polygamy is only accepted in the backwards third world nations". - I guess much of Europe is a backwards third world nation as polygamy is recognized in much of the EU.
Who are you to judge and call polygamy "primitive"? How dare you project your bigoted hatred on those who love multiple partners. If that is the choice of consenting adults who are you to judge and deny them their basic "human rights"?
Do you not see the flaw in your argument? I am using the exact same logic and rationale given to support gay marriage to support polygamy and pedophilia. There is not difference except that you think one is right and the others are wrong. But who are you to judge?
The fact is the majority of the population supports the traditional definition of marriage. There is no need to change the definition of marriage. Gays have all the same rights and privilege afforded those that are married. You can't argue for changing he definition to include same sex couples but discriminate against other groups if marriage truly is a basic "human right".
Biebs,
Modern western civilization, the most powerful and advanced in the world, has long decided 18 years of age is old enough, more or less, to warrant decisions of an adult nature. It varies, of course, but universally throughout the world, pedophilia is rejected outright. Universally.
Who am I to call polygamy primitive? Because it is. There are many notions and ideas that are primitive, as are many hold overs from our bygone days. Polygamy has only the advantage of population increase in cultures that require many working age men. It has no place in a modern western civilization based on classical liberal values.
No, I don't see any flaw in my argument. All people are destined to seek out partnership with another human being in a meaningful and harmonious way. Whether that person is one man and one woman, or one man and one man hardly matters one whit. What is important is the importance of the union and the respect they ask of society to acknowledge it.
The majority of people still support the traditional definition because mentalities are not changed easily.
But as surely as emancipation gave rise to the slave, and as surely as suffrage gave rise to the woman, there will come a day when men look back in shame upon the day they rejected gay marriage.
Raphael, with respect:
Your argument against polygamy is a mere assertion, that it is "primitive", as if past examples preclude other, more rational, variants. Have there really been *no* successful or reasonable and mutually respectful polyamorist relationships?
You write: "All people are destined to seek out partnership with another human being in a meaningful and harmonious way. Whether that person is one man and one woman, or one man and one man hardly matters one whit. What is important is the importance of the union", all the while using the purely arbitrary limit of "one".
Is there any other type of human relationship besides the romantic/sexual that is typically *only* between two people?
Once people are "of age" and capable of making rational choices for their own lives, the romantic and sexual particulars of their consensual relationships are no business of the government.
Or: what would make this next statement (a paraphrase) wrong?
"All other excuses to the contrary are clearly, unequivocally, and entirely against that fundamental human right. To say polyamorists are free to marry, just not to more than one person is a contradiction of your own statement. Freedom implies a totality. You cannot apply such caveats."
Ron,
We are required to usually argue within the construct of our own civilization's "civics" I suppose, and in the western world polygamy has been largely written off. To quote from my blog so save time:
Polygamy is a base and animalistic instinct, that is not without certain benefits to more primitive civilizations.
Polygamy enables population growth and maintains the hierarchy dominance of a family. The "harem" treats women more as producers of to society than as equal participants. They are the factories for the next generations, and the man has his turn with every one. For many poor nations, this can be an essential part of prosperity and maintaining lineage.
But it has no part in modern western civilization. We have conceptualized the idea of "love" into the union of two people. The natural pinnacle to this union is the declaration within your social group as being in an unbreakable union. A contract between two citizens and society that mutually respects the union in form of legal and social consciousness.
Polygamy still has a place in Islam and parts of the third world. Some very wealthy countries maintain it as a link to their "heritage". But how many of us honestly believe such a relationship is healthy for the woman? It may be cultural chauvanism, but it's cultural chauvanism which puts the individual freedom ahead of the collective tradition.
I don't honestly believe a woman can feel a close and personal connection of deep love to their partner when there are other women involved. It may work from a procreational standpoint, but falls short in all other categories.
So I utterly reject polygamy as having any place in our civilization whatsoever. If we are to endow human rights universally, without bias to sexual preference, but we do discriminate that the union be between two individuals, it stands to logic that homosexuals should not be deprived of that same right, provided the union is limited to two consenting individuals.
To answer your question of whether there have been successful loving and respectful polygamist relationships, I would have to argue affirmatively on that. Surely there have been some relationships that survived the "harem", but ultimately love, or the truest form of it we know, exists between two individuals. It cannot be shared and divided among other people equally. There is always a tearing of the social fabric when that happens.
As for the freedom to marry more than one person without coming off hypocritically, you can read above. I wrote that homosexuals are merely asking for the same rights as heterosexuals in respect for their marriage. Polygamy is a subject entirely beyond the scope of the marriage contract between two individuals. A homosexual couple is far more compatible with our traditions and laws than a polygamist who may marry an unlimited amount of women.
raphael, thank you for the tone of your response.
I agree that western civilization has generally conceptualized "love" as being between two people, but I still find your overall position puzzling.
First, all your provided examples have a single male with multiple females. Even if that has been the common variant, why so as a matter of ethics? There have been women who wish multiple male (or female) life partners.
I happen to think that two works better than more myself, but that's a personal preference based on what I want for my life. I just don't see a need, or any logical ethical justification, for saying to other people that two is the maximum number of people where we will honor "the declaration within [our] social group as being...an unbreakable union". Are consensual contracts (and people's personal and sexual lives) not properly private?
You say that "I don't honestly believe a woman can feel a close and personal connection of deep love to their partner when there are other women involved" but (again leaving aside the assumption of gender), really, so what? What obligation does your belief rightly place upon anyone? I mean, I doubt that many such relationships will be successful as well, but many traditional marriages are also not successful--and that doesn't lead me to legally or ethically preclude the option for those among whom it *does* or even *could* work.
You write: "ultimately love, or the truest form of it we know, exists between two individuals. It cannot be shared and divided among other people equally."
So? What if some folks want and are happy with the differing forms of "love" they find in a poly relationship. I mean, I love all my kids, say, but that love is not "identical" in any meaningful sense because they're all different people, and yet the lack of sameness doesn't invalidate any of it.
"There is always a tearing of the social fabric when that happens just begs chicken and egg, doesn't it? How much of the "tearing" is due to social aspersion and not the actions of the polygamists. People used to say similar things of same-sex and bi-racial marriages.
From my blog: "The right of people (of any and every gender...and number) to marry, free of government preference or censure, free of state interference, is based on an ultimately individualist position: the individual right to choose the structure of one's own consensual relationships."
Ethics is not a numbers game. There is no magic number where something that is right (or wrong) when two people do it becomes the opposite simply based on the number of people involved.
Ron,
Let's not conflate sexual freedom with marriage. Polygamists are well within their right to have multiple partners, and though I think it's unhealthy, it's not objectively ethically so. Our concept of "love" is definitely formed by the cultural normative. Even so, I think we can rationally say that polygamous marriage has a detrimental effect on what we have cultivated in Western Civ.
Not only is the union of two people commensurate with the aims of our economic system, it is essential in matters of productivity. Disenfranchising homosexuals from the economic benefits that come with marriage has a wider ramification on our society as a whole. Whereas polygamists generally do not have the same form of productivity. One income provider and a "harem" does not benefit the economic health of a society, which is vastly different from two people of the same sex.
So while I think consensual polygamist relationships are fine, I think it's a far greater chasm to bridge in marriage than allowing same sex partnerships, which are inherently the same as heterosexual ones except they involve the same genitalia.
Raphael:
You wrote: Let's not conflate sexual freedom with marriage.
OK. Let's not. Let's state outright that sexual freedom falls under personal individual rights, and that "marriage" can only be one or both of two things: one, a religious sacrament (in which case the State properly has *no* position, neither as enforcer or as suppressor) and/or two, a civilly recognized union with inherent State proffered benefits.
Polygamists are well within their right to have multiple partners, and though I think it's unhealthy, it's not objectively ethically so.
Exactly.
Our concept of "love" is definitely formed by the cultural normative.
Even stipulating so, I'm still not about to state what love has to be for *other* people. Or to suggest that folks must "love" in some way I recognize for me before they obtain State preference.
Some folks marry for passion, some for companionship, some for "convenience" however they might describe it--and some of those marriages, whatever the motivation, are successful and some are not. They are all marriages equal under the law, and should be.
Now, the words "equality under the law" mean something--and they don't mean "different sets of rules for different folks based on societal approval". So, if straights and gays, why not polygamists?
I think we can rationally say that polygamous marriage has a detrimental effect on what we have cultivated in Western Civ.
I don't think that's anything more than an assertion. How was, for example, old-style Mormon polygamy detrimental in any way with cultivated western society? I mean, lots of folks didn't like it, but what actual harm was caused beyond those offended feelings?
Not only is the union of two people commensurate with the aims of our economic system, it is essential in matters of productivity.
Essential? How so? Anyways, name something societally imperative that a couple can do that three people or more can't.
What is the difference in principle (or even difference in aims) between advantages and benefits proffered upon State-sanctioned couples as compared with those proferred upon, say, corporations or disadvantaged social groups? I don't think it's any proper business of the State to provide advantages and protections to "socially-sanctioned" subsets of society that it does not provide to all.
Disenfranchising homosexuals from the economic benefits that come with marriage has a wider ramification on our society as a whole.
Wider than what? Wider than an equivalent disenfranchising of polygamists? So the "right or wrong" here is a matter of degree, of how many folks are disenfranchised?
Whereas polygamists generally do not have the same form of productivity.
Form, then, would be more important than quality? I mean, artisans don't have the same form of productivity as assembly-line workers...and so what?
One income provider and a "harem" does not benefit the economic health of a society, which is vastly different from two people of the same sex.
You don't know of any indolent, unskilled or parasitical couples?
In any case, what obligation do sovereign individuals have to "benefit the economic health of a society"? Are individuals not properly only responsible for their own support? How are the time, talent and aspirations of individuals properly at the behest of the State for "social purposes"? That's odd talk for a Tory ;-)
So while I think consensual polygamist relationships are fine, I think it's a far greater chasm to bridge in marriage than allowing same sex partnerships, which are inherently the same as heterosexual ones except they involve the same genitalia.
Oh, I think polygamy is a harder societal barrier to eliminate.
But, again, if right and wrong isn't a matter of gender, how is it still properly a matter of number?
It's not at all an odd position to take for a Tory, since western civ exists within the social contract. We protect individual rights as a means of protecting the whole, rather than the other way 'round, which is a flawed form of collectivism. Ultimately, in our hybrid socialist-capitalist economy, we provide social security to people to avoid the kind of poverty and crime-ridden violence that plagues the third world.
As such, we have an economy dependent entirely upon the model of two working citizens, an entirely separate reason for getting married, but also important. If we're to endow certain benefits to the survivor of a spouse, it should be limited to the conventional form of union between two individuals. To say homosexuality is not conventional is true; it's not the normative, but it's still comprised of two individuals. As I said, there is more in common between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual one than three heterosexuals in a polygamous relationship.
Furthermore, why would there be any more slippery a slope to granting homosexual marriage than heterosexual? Why would the fact that two individuals who want to marry have any relevance to whether or not they both have penises? Since the law does not distinguish between sexual orientation, it's clearly discriminatory to demand both have opposite genitalia.
With polygamous partners, however, there's a clear problem, not only economically or culturally, but even in convention. I mean, what is the essential point of forming a union between three or more people unless it is to state right of property, as in Islamic society. How ridiculous is it to say "I want to form an unbreakable union with this person, and also this one?"
So perhaps we could theorize on whether love can be divided 8 ways equally amongst all of a persons wives, but it's probably not relevant to compatibility within our own society. The beauty of homosexual marriage is that it is perfectly compatible in every way except the religious one.
As far as whether polygamy has detrimental effects on society, I think it certainly does. Not only does it turn women into cattle, consensual or not, there are few who are self-respecting enough who could share a man and continue to work a fulfilling career outside the home she shares with those other women. And even were she not a career woman, as many are not, our social security is not built to handle the burden of more than one dependent spouse.
We protect individual rights as a means of protecting the whole, rather than the other way 'round, which is a flawed form of collectivism.
But you're the one talking about protecting "society" by restricting the options of some individuals, not me. And I agree: doing that is a flawed form of collectivism.
As such, we have an economy dependent entirely upon the model of two working citizens...If we're to endow certain benefits to the survivor of a spouse, it should be limited to the conventional form of union between two individuals.
So the right and wrong of this *is* a numbers game, and the issue is primarily one of economics over all other possible ethical values? That's collectivism by definition.
I mean, what is the essential point of forming a union between three or more people unless it is to state right of property.
I don't know--and neither do you. There could be any number of reasons and private, legally binding contracts can subsume any of the financial and other facets of them. There's no need for State involvement.
How ridiculous is it to say "I want to form an unbreakable union with this person, and also this one?"
That would depend on those specific people involved in the union, wouldn't it? I fail to see how it's ridiculous on the face of it, any more than for a normal couple. And I've seen garden-variety couples I thought were ridiculous.
Not only does [polygamy] turn women into cattle, consensual or not...
We both know of standard-issue marriages where the spouse (of either gender) has been treated like cattle. And, again, you're assuming one male and multiple females.
there are few who are self-respecting enough who could share a [partner] and continue to work a fulfilling career outside the home [he/she] shares with those other [partners].
Now that I've stripped the comment of sexist assumptions, why not? Are you saying that some people might find it odd or offensive is reason enough?
our social security is not built to handle the burden of more than one dependent spouse.
Is *that* the ultimate objection? Maybe we ought to handle "social security" as applying to individuals and leave it at that. You know, "equal under the law" and all that.
No, Ron. Nobody is speaking about restricting any personal freedoms on an economic basis. But it's certainly a consideration, and one that definitely compelling. We make such considerations for the moral majority all the time. And that's not collectivism.
We have to balance the personal freedoms of individuals at time with what is commensurate with the aims of society. Usually, the best choices are the freedoms for the individual, and they're the strongest. But in a society like ours, where we have social security, allowing polygamous marriage would have extremely harsh repercussions for the rest of us. Perhaps in an entirely laissez-faire system it would be possible to have non-interference. It would still likely have a negative effect on GDP.
I'm afraid we're going in circles. Whether one is inclined to hand benefits to polygamists, it's simply not very feasible, nor compatible with our way of life. Not so for homosexuals. All we've changed is the definition of a word. Such a small concession for a net gain to individual freedoms and happiness. And it doesn't affect the collective one iota either.
Raphael:
Nobody is speaking about restricting any personal freedoms on an economic basis.
Well, except the personal freedom of polygamists to marry, on the grounds that it would hurt the GDP.
allowing polygamous marriage would have extremely harsh repercussions for the rest of us.
I won't belabor my points, except to note that your conclusion can't be demonstrated, and that exceptions have been.
And I've enjoyed this discussion. My thanks.
Mutually so.
I have read both arguments and I am highly unimpressed. For those that support prop 8, just saying that it is wrong because the bible says so is not good enough. And for those that are against it, just to say its okay to marry because two people "are in love" gives marriage no special meeting.
My question to this argument is this. Since the homosexual community can obtain domestic partnership which gives them the same rights as a married couple, why is marriage so important since they cannot create a family? I ask this question with the understanding that marriage is a designed for pro-creation. If two people of the same sex are in love why do they need marriage knowing that they cannot pro-create?
My other question is how are homosexuals suppose to raise a child of the opposite sex in the way that he/she should go? Meaning, how can two women teach a boy to be a man? and how can two men teach a girl how to be a women? Men cannot provide the motherly nurtring that a women can and a Woman cannot provide the authoritative discipline that a man does. Look up studies down in Denmark, a feminist country.
I believe that this is an issue of gender roles and the consequence of the lack of. becoming a netural/feminist culture is unfair to both sexes.
omegapoetik, you wrote: "why is marriage so important since they cannot create a family? I ask this question with the understanding that marriage is a designed for pro-creation.?
Really? Don't we both know childless couples? Heterosexuals get to *marry* for whatever reasons they wish, no matter what you or someone else claims it was "designed" for (some scholars make a pretty good case it was "designed" to cement the idea of female spouses as property) Gay folks are just asking for the same: the right to marry for their own reasons.
My other question is how are homosexuals suppose to raise a child of the opposite sex in the way that he/she should go? Meaning, how can two women teach a boy to be a man? and how can two men teach a girl how to be a women? Men cannot provide the motherly nurturing that a women can and a Woman cannot provide the authoritative discipline that a man does.
Single parents of either gender have the same issues to deal with. Life's like that.
Get back to me after you've watched this video. Y'see. I'm just not worried about that kid.
Post a Comment