A bad day for gay rights.

[TheEgoist]

People might be so blinded by the Obama victory and the historical significance of an African American becoming leader of the U.S and chief executive basically of the whole world, that they missed a slam on civil rights.

Arizona and Florida have both passed measures banning gay marriage, and last I checked California was rejecting the former decision that legalized gay marriage in that state. Not all the ballots have been officially counted yet, but the anti-gay marriage advocates seemed to have won by a large enough margin that a few votes not counted isn't going to matter.

It's indeed a sad day for true civil rights.

[Maximus]

The government shouldn't be in the buisiness of marriage, pro or con.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Maximus

[Zip]

The government shouldn't be in the buisiness of marriage, pro or con.

Absolutely.

In the words mouthed (though not followed) by a previous Canadian Prime Minister "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

[TheEgoist]

If the government is going to treat marriage the way it does, it has no legal right to impose any religious meaning to the contract. Men and women, men and men and women and women cannot be discriminated against.

Much like a public school, just because the institution is illegitimate and ought to be handled privately, as a public institution it is restricted from any kind of religious discrimination. Anything else is an attack on the separation between church and state and is a trampling of American founding beliefs.

I would like to see marriage taken down to a simple contract that goes on a church-by-church, institution-by-institution basis, but we don't have that now.

[Jake]

The votes are officially counted, and unfortunately, 52.2% of Californians who voted on Prop 8 voted to define marriage as 'man-woman' only. I'm not a native Californian, but I was surprised by this. I thought California was more left-leaning than that (e.g. ~63% voted for an animal rights related measure - Prop 2).

As my wife and I were driving yesterday, I saw the most appalling sign in support of Prop 8. It said: "Proposition 8 = Religious Freedom". How tangled is a person's mind that he thinks imposing Judeo-Christian standards on a government institution is an example of religious freedom?

edit: stray comma

Edited November 5, 2008 by Jake

[KevinDW78]

There are already two lawsuits filed today challenging validitidy and constitutionality of Prop 8 so let's hope for that. Also, I can't seem to find out if Prop 8 still allows for gay civil unions.

This is again, my main reason for voting for Obama, it purely came down to SCOTUS appointments for me on this one issue.

Edited November 5, 2008 by KevinDW78

[MissMal]

Voting on these types of amendments was my main reason for heading to the polls yesterday. I am ashamed to live in Florida. Based on the results it is clear that Floridians did not vote in favor of individual rights. The signs promoting the marriage amendment were especially onerous, bearing the slogan "protect the children" as if homosexuals are somehow innately dangerous. People are applauding America for overcoming racism, yet clearly tribalism is still in practice. Also, amendent 1 failed which would have repealed the state's current ability to seize all property held by illegal aliens.

[Jake_Ellison]

It is a sad day for gay people who are affected by this, that's true. As far as gay rights go, I would love to help out the people behind the gay rights movement, I really would: in fact as soon as they start fighting the government sponsored looting and the gun bans, which affect me personally, and also all the other things that don't affect me directly (abortion, drug-laws etc.), I'll be the first one to march down the street with them, even though I'm not gay.

Until then however I'll call the gay marriage ban what it is, a government abuse motivated by religion, but I won't support the political movements which are against that ban in any way: they are immoral, just like the people they are fighting against.

So here's my message to gay people:

If you want to be free to marry your partner, fight for freedom and individual rights, not gay rights. This is the result of the failure to be principled, of the people who represent you on the political stage.

By rule, as long as the country is moving away from individualism, your rights, as well as the rights of any minority, will continue to be at the whim of public opinion. Only in a free society will your rights be absolute.

[softwareNerd]

I don't know much about the gay marriage issue, except that I'm happy to vote for it. It is completely irrelevant that the government has no place laying down who gets married. The bottom line is that two people of the same sex ought to be allowed to enter into a legal contract that has all the features of current-day marriage contracts.

I've heard that the gay community is against the notion of "civil unions". I really don't understand why that's so. I've heard "separate but equal" being used, but I don't see that metaphor applying at all. That metaphor implies that we'll call something the same (lunch counter = lunch counter) but there will be real difference. On the other hand, a "civil union" would be the opposite: all the same, except a different name.

While, I can understand wanting to use the same word (i.e. "marriage") , I see that as more of a social issue, not a government one.

To my mind, even the miscegenation analogy does not apply. Suppose miscegenation laws had been changed to allow marriages across "race", but insisted they be called "civil unions". Surely that would not have been ideal, but in terms of legality and contract, that would have the law going 99.9% of the way. It would still imply a social stigma, but the government is not in the business of removing social stigma. Yes, the government is not in the business of freezing such stigma into law, but I think that is a minor factor compared to the actual existence/non-existence of such a stigma --- which is something the government cannot do anything about.

Perhaps that's not the issue. Perhaps people in the gay rights movement are concerned that a "civil union" would not actually have the same rights...for instance any contract containing the term "marriage" may be construed as not applying to civil unions. Is that the bigger issue?

As an "outsider", I'm curious about the objections to civil-unions, because it seems to me that a majority in most states would vote for civil union, but want the term marriage "reserved".

[KevinDW78]

Personally, I don't have objections to civil unions in place of marriage so long as it is just a matter of title. So long as whenever there is a law that applies to one, it applies to the other. (ex: immigration law is a large part of the gay marriage/civil-union debate)

I won't support the political movements which are against that ban in any way: they are immoral, just like the people they are fighting against.

This was such an absolutely disgusting, reprehensible, and offensive thing to say. I seriously suggest you reconsider the implication of that statement.

Edited November 5, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Steve D'Ippolito]

OHMIGOD!!! Gay ILLEGAL ALIENS getting in now because of marriage/civil unions?!?!?! :o

... Man that one hits two right-wing hotbuttons at the same time!!

[MichaelH]

I don't know much about the gay marriage issue, except that I'm happy to vote for it. It is completely irrelevant that the government has no place laying down who gets married. The bottom line is that two people of the same sex ought to be allowed to enter into a legal contract that has all the features of current-day marriage contracts.

I've heard that the gay community is against the notion of "civil unions". I really don't understand why that's so. I've heard "separate but equal" being used, but I don't see that metaphor applying at all. That metaphor implies that we'll call something the same (lunch counter = lunch counter) but there will be real difference. On the other hand, a "civil union" would be the opposite: all the same, except a different name.

<snip>

Perhaps that's not the issue. Perhaps people in the gay rights movement are concerned that a "civil union" would not actually have the same rights...for instance any contract containing the term "marriage" may be construed as not applying to civil unions. Is that the bigger issue?

As an "outsider", I'm curious about the objections to civil-unions, because it seems to me that a majority in most states would vote for civil union, but want the term marriage "reserved".

You've done a good job sorting out the issue here. Let's continue the analysis.

Words refer to concepts. If a civil union is legally identical to a marriage - and referring to the same concept - why reserve a separate term for it? The only reason for creating a separate term is because it's not the same thing. This is where the "separate but equal" phrase comes in.

"Separate but equal" is never equal. I have a domestic partnership in California. The legislature did everything they could to make it marriage-equivalent, but I very much have second-class-citizen status. I have to pay for two sets of tax preparation - one federal as single, one state as married. My spouse was denied some of my work benefits because we're domestic partners instead of married. We have to pay taxes on shared medical benefits; straight couples don't have to. We had to do our own legal research and fight with our mortgage broker to get listed correctly on the title for our house so we could own it jointly and have inheritance rights that married couples get automatically. Because we are relegated to a separate, special type of relationship, we simply do not get treated equal.

I am currently married, but that's now in legal jeopardy. To say I'm offended that my rights are up to a vote is an understatement. It's not over until all the votes are counted, but it looks like a slim majority of Californians don't want me to be married. Ugh is all I can say.

[RationalBiker]

If you want to be free to marry your partner, fight for freedom and individual rights, not gay rights.

I agree that this is an important distinction. The classification 'gay rights' somehow implies rights that are distinct from individual rights. They are not. That classification clouds the issue and in many cases invokes an emotional response.

[ers]

You've done a good job sorting out the issue here. Let's continue the analysis.

Words refer to concepts. If a civil union is legally identical to a marriage - and referring to the same concept - why reserve a separate term for it? The only reason for creating a separate term is because it's not the same thing. This is where the "separate but equal" phrase comes in.

"Separate but equal" is never equal. I have a domestic partnership in California. The legislature did everything they could to make it marriage-equivalent, but I very much have second-class-citizen status. I have to pay for two sets of tax preparation - one federal as single, one state as married. My spouse was denied some of my work benefits because we're domestic partners instead of married. We have to pay taxes on shared medical benefits; straight couples don't have to. We had to do our own legal research and fight with our mortgage broker to get listed correctly on the title for our house so we could own it jointly and have inheritance rights that married couples get automatically. Because we are relegated to a separate, special type of relationship, we simply do not get treated equal.

I am currently married, but that's now in legal jeopardy. To say I'm offended that my rights are up to a vote is an understatement. It's not over until all the votes are counted, but it looks like a slim majority of Californians don't want me to be married. Ugh is all I can say.

To play devil's advocate a bit:

Most Christians I know or have talked to do not have a problem with the concept of a civil union with the exact same legal benefits/ramifications as a marriage. Religionists seem to have a problem calling it marriage because to them, marriage has throughout history been a traditionally religious institution, and I can honestly see where they are coming from. They see it as an attack on their value system.

*If* a civil union bestows the same rights as a marriage, then it IS equal, despite what you call it. It also placates religionists who get riled up about homosexuals using the word marriage.

But as far as the argument of same rights, I don't think there should be any question about it.

[Zip]

To play devil's advocate a bit:

Most Christians I know or have talked to do not have a problem with the concept of a civil union with the exact same legal benefits/ramifications as a marriage. Religionists seem to have a problem calling it marriage because to them, marriage has throughout history been a traditionally religious institution, and I can honestly see where they are coming from. They see it as an attack on their value system.

*If* a civil union bestows the same rights as a marriage, then it IS equal, despite what you call it. It also placates religionists who get riled up about homosexuals using the word marriage.

But as far as the argument of same rights, I don't think there should be any question about it.

Ask them if polyandry or polygyny can be called marriage then since only man + women or woman + men are by definition involved.

I dare say that the response will put the lie to their tale that they really only care because homosexuals want the same rights.

They don't give a damn about rights. They only care about shoving their god given impossible morality down the throats of any minority that dares ask for real rights.

[softwareNerd]

I have to pay for two sets of tax preparation - one federal as single, one state as married. ... ... do our own legal research and fight with our mortgage broker to get listed correctly on the title for our house so we could own it jointly and have inheritance rights that married couples get automatically.

Okay, I understand... so it does go far beyond the question of terminology and stigma in that there are actual and substantial differences in the two types of contracts. Thanks for clarifying.

[Jake_Ellison]

To play devil's advocate a bit:

Most Christians I know or have talked to do not have a problem with the concept of a civil union with the exact same legal benefits/ramifications as a marriage. Religionists seem to have a problem calling it marriage because to them, marriage has throughout history been a traditionally religious institution, and I can honestly see where they are coming from. They see it as an attack on their value system.

*If* a civil union bestows the same rights as a marriage, then it IS equal, despite what you call it. It also placates religionists who get riled up about homosexuals using the word marriage.

If it is a negotiation, that means it is up to the majority whether someone can marry, and then it's not a right, it's just a nice gesture on their part gays should somehow be grateful for.

Rights should not be up for vote, or even political debate. They should be settled in a court of law: that's why the californian attempts to legalize same-sex marriage are hopeless: instead of making it a rule or a procedure, prove that it is a right, and set a Supreme Court precedent, like Roe v. Wade.

I understand that's not going to happen in the near future, because of the makeup of the Court, but those judges are going to be dead soon, and if they really want to, the democrats could appoint a few gay-friendly judges.( I would of course suggest pro-individualism judges, if you want to make it stick, by having strong principles and similar rulings on other issues, to back up the decision, with more than just their political colour or background)--For instance the justices that ruled on Roe v. Wade did so in the name of both science (which held that embrios are not human) and individual rights(in this case mostly feminist ideas, I think, but still valid principles). Had they done it because they had friends with pregnant daughters or abortion doctor relatives, the ruling would've been overturned in a few years.

I realise it's a longshot, for one it's going to be quite a catch if they find a couple of left leaning judges-one of them black or hispanic of course to keep it PC---plus the right justices would have to die to make it possible, but it's the only way.

I doubt we would have aborion-rights in too many states without Roe v Wade, and I doubt we'll have gay marriage in too many if this movement continues to rely on popular opinion and begging for sympathy rather than a wider concept of individual rights.

Just to address gay objectivists on this forum: I feel your pain, in fact we all do, because our rights are violated too by the government, every day.

However, I think even suggesting that your's are violated more is going too far: What if somebody here is a straight billionaire? Isn't he loosing more than you do, even though you're not allowed to marry? What if someone's a patient who is hoping for embrionic stem cell research to find a cure in time?

I don't think you should feel more opressed because you are gay: we are all part of some minority which is being treated unfairly, whether we are businessmen or cab drivers (who's fees are capped by the cities).

If you were not allowed to be gay period, that would be a different story entirely, of course.(I'll just say that to prevent anyone arguing in that direction)

Edited November 5, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[tps_fan]

The more fundamental issue is licensing _in general_. ...and aside from _possible_ weapons-oriented issues or the like, I can't see how any gov't agency has any business getting involved with any licensing at all, period.

Again, if someone wants to take issue with how weapons are sold or otherwise handled, then I'm fine with that being discussed (and that discussion being taken seriously). At least, that involves and invokes actual governmental purpose.

If you want to stop idiocy such as Prop. 8, then (also) go to the root source of the problem. It goes back to the whole "thinking in essentials" business once again.... (By the way, I voted against the proposition, naturally.)

[IchorFigure]

By the way, you can partly thank Michigan's benevolent philanthropist overlords for funding the ban proposals in CA and FL.

http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ss...ay_marriag.html

Holland resident Elsa Prince Broekhuizen has pumped $450,000 into a Nov. 4 California ballot issue to ban gay marriage. It is one of the largest private donations to that cause.

In Florida, protesters gathered last month at Amway Arena to decry $100,000 given by Amway Corp. co-founder Rich DeVos to Florida4Marriage, a group that supports a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

As if buying crap from Amway isn't already stupid enough, there's one more reason.

[softwareNerd]

If it is a negotiation, that means it is up to the majority ...

By this token, wouldn't you make the argument that almost all ballot proposals we see must be rejected? i.e. don't vote for or against some restriction on abortion; don't vote for or against some marijuana law; etc. Are you objecting to any proposal that seeks to establish any right? By the same token, are you against any law that does so -- wishing to fall back upon the constitution in each case?

[EC]

The government shouldn't be in the buisiness of marriage, pro or con.

Marriage is a legal contract. And as such the government MUST be involved in it for it to be legally binding. The protection of contracts is one of the few legitimate functions of our government. Not only that but the government must only allow rational and objectively defined contracts. For instance, a person couldn't legally make a contract with another man such that that man has a right to murder him. Since the objective definition of marriage is a legal and common law contract between a man and woman it is entirely proper for the government to only allow a man and women to marry. This is in now way a violation of "gay rights" as if such an anti-concept existed in the first place. If gays want a contract that is similar to marriage then that is their right (maybe "civil unions"?) but they can't steal a concept that doesn't apply to their type of relationship by definition. To do so would be to destroy what the concept of marriage actually is.

[Craig24]

People might be so blinded by the Obama victory and the historical significance of an African American becoming leader of the U.S and chief executive basically of the whole world, that they missed a slam on civil rights.

Arizona and Florida have both passed measures banning gay marriage, and last I checked California was rejecting the former decision that legalized gay marriage in that state. Not all the ballots have been officially counted yet, but the anti-gay marriage advocates seemed to have won by a large enough margin that a few votes not counted isn't going to matter.

It's indeed a sad day for true civil rights.

Why must any right be qualified with the adjective "civil".., Or "gay" for that matter?

A right is something that exists and the government is supposed to RECOGNIZE and PROTECT it. A right is not something granted to you only if you meet some arbitrary standard. Why must anyone get married in order to have ANY actually existing right recognized? What about us single folk?? Discrimination indeed!

[TheEgoist]

Of course it is all individual rights. We are simply talking about certain individual rights.

[softwareNerd]

Marriage is a legal contract. And as such the government MUST be involved in it for it to be legally binding. etc.

The government must be involved in the contract qua contract, and must get to the essence of the legal aspect. Regardless of whether male/female is of essence to marriage as a general concept, it is not of essence to the bare legal aspects which are a set of legal obligations, assume agency, etc. If any two people make a similar "shared life" commitment as in a marriage, with all the similar implied legal obligations, assumed agency, etc., then the government ought to recognize that as valid. Calling it marriage or not calling it marriage is of no importance as far as the law is concerned.

An analogy is a parent-child relationship. This is fundamentally a biological relationship. However, not so under law.

[Old Toad]

The government shouldn't be in the buisiness of marriage, pro or con.

The government usually has little or no involvement at the beginning of relationships. But relationships often become the government’s business at their ends.

When people have any type of relationship, from accidental to intentional, matters often come up that need to be resolved objectively. For example, two strangers may have a dispute regarding a car accident. Or a man in a partnership borrows money in the name of a partnership without the knowledge of his partner and the creditor demands repayment from both partners. Or a man and a woman with three children may want to separate (“divorce”), but they have disputes regarding property and child custody. Or one of the persons in a relationship may die without a will. Should his wife get all the property, or should a portion go to his children? What should the portions be? What about his business partners? Or 17 people may enter into a polygamist relationship and then have disputes over property and custody of "their" 29 children. The issues can be seemingly infinite.

The proper role of the courts is to objectively resolve disputes, inheritance issues, etc.

The proper role of the legislature is to determine norms and standards that the courts should use for resolving disputes and other matters arising from various types of relationships. The legislature has broader resources for investigating what the norms and standards should be, and it is should be more responsive to the prevailing customs and optional values of the people within its jurisdiction. It should go without saying here that these should be according to principles of individual rights, but still many optional choices can be made according to norms and customary practice. For example, the legislature could establish a law that if a man dies without a will, and if he has a wife and children, then his wife gets 1/2 his property and his children divide the other half. Or it could establish that his wife gets 1/3 his property, and his children get the other 2/3. Or it could establish that his wife gets all of it and his children get nothing. The legislature could investigate what the average or most common practice is in this regard, and establish the law accordingly.

Generally, the parties should be free to provide for different terms of their relationship than provided by the law, if they wish and if they bother to do so. That's called making a partnership agreement, a pre-nuptial agreement, a will, etc.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Old Toad