Balkinization: California lying

Comments:

We donated the other day. I encourage all of good conscience, compassion, and integrity to do the same.

It would suck to amend a Constitution (by simple majority vote of just those that bother to vote; what say you to that, Prof. Levinson?) to add a "Bill of No Right", based on the fraudulent, deceptive lies of the bigots.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:12 PM

1) The ad arguing that CA will teach same sex marriage is based on a statutory provision requiring marriage be taught to school students. If the "gay marriage" is considered marriage, then it will be taught. The rebuttal ad changes the subject to the differences between parental opt out laws in MA and CA.

2) The ad arguing that four judges invented a right to gay marriage out of whole cloth and ignored the last vote of the People is completely factual. The rebuttal ad that the CA constitution required the court to overrule the People is a complete lie.

3) Prop 8 does not "abolish[] wholesale an entire category of existing marriages." Same sex marriage was a legal fiction created by four lawyers in robes and not established by the People.

4) Mr. McCain is no longer raising money because he accepted campaign financing. He is doing quite well financially and the Prop 8 money has nothing to do with his campaign.

5) The reason the polls are shifting is that folks are beginning to pay attention to the issues as they decide to vote. BTW, the Obama/McCain race is similarly sifting in the likely voter tracking polls. Gallup is now within 2 points.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:20 PM

I should note that a large portion of the money for the "Yes on Prop. 8" smears is coming from the LDS (the Mormons), which, needless to say, are mostly from out of state.

It's also rather ironic that the very church that was horribly mistreated for their own views on marriage (and forced to knuckle under to the majority view) should be at the forefront now of trying to impose on others their own views on marriage. Maybe they learned their lesson: "Do unto others what others have been shown to be able to do unto you...."

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:26 PM

Recently, though, opponents have saturated the airwaves

You mean proponents of Proposition 8.

I agree with the triage analysis: your donations will make a difference for causes like equality; they won't change a single California Presidential electoral vote.

The evidence shows: the more Californians know about Proposition 8, the less they support it.

# posted by

jpk : 3:40 PM

"Bart" DePrive:

The ad arguing that CA will teach same sex marriage is based on a statutory provision requiring marriage be taught to school students.

The state law requires that students be taught about the "legal and financial responsibilities" of marriage. The RW foamers are claiming that kindergartners are going to be taught about gay marriage. Well, if they're going to teach them the "legal and financial responsibilities" of marriage in kindergarten, I'm all for it, and look forward to the ConLaw classes in first grade as well.

The rebuttal ad changes the subject to the differences between parental opt out laws in MA and CA.

No. It shows that students don't have to be taught about this ... if the parents object.

I'd note that no part of CA law requires that students be taught about gay marriage. Period.

The rebuttal ad that the CA constitution required the court to overrule the People is a complete lie.

Nope. If you read the opinion, that is. "Bart" disagrees with the CA Supreme Court (as he does the SCOTUS as well) but he doesn't sit on either, so WTF cares?

Prop 8 does not "abolish[] wholesale an entire category of existing marriages."

Yes, it does. "Bart" can't argue that California doesn't currently permit gay marriages (as does MA, and soon to be CT as well).

Same sex marriage was a legal fiction created by four lawyers in robes and not established by the People....

... duly appointed and re-elected by the people of California for the very purpose of making such decisions.

4) Mr. McCain is no longer raising money because he accepted campaign financing. He is doing quite well financially and the Prop 8 money has nothing to do with his campaign.

This ignores the $23,000 loopho... -- umm, sorry, "contributions" -- to the RNC for "party-building activities", and the many 527 groups....

Obama/McCain race is similarly sifting in the likely voter tracking polls. Gallup is now within 2 points.

"Bart" bought high, and will sell low ... if anyone even wants to buy his worthless paper Nov. 5th as a historical memento.

You'd think "Bart" would be more concerned with the ignomity of his state going for Obama than with his persiflage here. Can we hope not to see him wasting his time here these last three weeks?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:42 PM

I thought gay marriage sounded like a good idea with a good parallel in the struggle for black equality. Then I thought this may mean there will be national gay history month. and a Gavin Newsom national holiday? If there's to be equality, will gay sex be taught in sex ed? Will we end up with a bisexual society like ancient Greece? Will my boy be fooling around with other boys? Will I have to hear about gay sex all the time? paraphilias? Then I thought, well maybe I'm being paranoid. Marriage does teach people to not be promiscuous. but then gay marriage teaches that homosexuality is good. and maybe society is so promiscuous that the first message will be lost since most people don't save sex for marriage. I checked out the no on 8 website but found little comfort in their refutations. I'll admit. I'm scared to death of same sex marriage and can't stop thinking about it. Maybe I need help. I'll be glad when the elections over.

# posted by

Potter Stewart : 5:15 PM

Potter Stewart:

Will my boy be fooling around with other boys?

Not if you listen to the good and devout Dr. James Dobson, and teach him correctly:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

That oughtta do the trick.

But I'm sure you never had that issue. "I know it when I see it." ;-)

But you do seem to need to brush up on your satire a bit. Really.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:28 PM

5) The reason the polls are shifting is that folks are beginning to pay attention to the issues as they decide to vote. BTW, the Obama/McCain race is similarly sifting in the likely voter tracking polls. Gallup is now within 2 points. Bart DePalma.

No, that isn't it at all. The Religious Right has declared California the "Armageddon of the culture wars". Money is pouring into the state. This is a clear case of one side lopsidedly out gunning the other with vastly more money and resources.

As for the tracking polls, be aware that the term "likely voter" is susceptible to infinite manipulation.

And no, Bart, it wasn't a right made up by 4 judges out of whole cloth. The fairly conservative court decided that this was a pure civil rights issue having to do with equal rights under the law. The proposed amendment doesn't even attempt to be fair, just ban something somebody doesn't like. In essence, it pollutes the state constitution with language that carves out an exception to fair and equal rights and states no justification whatsoever.

This proposition is going to win in California unless contributions to Vote No on 8 increase dramatically. I urge Bart, who seems to favor it, to do nothing, your side is set. For those others who don't wish to see a travesty of civil rights perpetrated in California, I urge you to contribute what you can. Even for those who are not gay, those supporting this amendment make the constant argument that the purpose of marriage is solely child bearing, and the debate has cheapened all marriages in the state by such malarkey. The governor (Republican) does not support the amendment.

But, Armageddon is a hard battle to fight without cash.

# posted by

ondelette : 5:47 PM

Here's hoping Bart's kids grow up to be happy, healthy, and homosexual. My cousin's views on equality for gays did a one-eighty when both of his adult sons turned out to like guys. Turns out gays are people, with rights like him and me, just like I'd been telling him.

# posted by

Mr.Poindexter : 6:54 PM

I would like to hear more about the Pepperdine Law School professor (Richard Peterson) who states the outright falsehoods in the Yes on 8 ad.

He appears to run a clinic at Pepperdine and is listed as an Assistant Professor. Is he an actual tenure-track professor?

Pepperdine Law School has attempted to get its name removed from the ad, but as far as I can tell, to no effect.

# posted by

JR : 7:07 PM

California Education Code §51890:

[1] Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: ...

[D] Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

This statute states that school children will receive instruction on the health, legal, financial and child rearing aspects of the family.

The traditional marriage and family is a man, wife and children. The four lawyers in robes who found an equal protection right to same sex marriage claimed that a homosexual couple and presumably any children from outside the union in their care are similarly situated to a traditional marriage and family. Thus, this same equal protection theory will require schools to instruct school children on the health, legal, financial and child rearing aspects of the same sex marriages and families.

If you have any doubt about the desire in the government schools to engage in this instruction, I give you the San Francisco school who sent a first grade class to their teacher's same sex wedding ceremony, claiming it was a "teachable moment" to indoctrinate the little tykes.

Is the Prop 8 commercial offering a scenario where a school girl comes home to mom and gushes that her teacher said that she could grow up to marry a princess really all that far fetched?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:51 PM

It is tedious, unpersuasive, and corrupting of our civil discourse to be perpetually accusing one's political opponents of "lying." If you disagree with someone, say so and explain why, without the insults.

# posted by

sean : 7:54 PM

"Bart":

The "Yes on 8" liars are claiming that kindergartners are going to be taught about gay marriage. As I pointed out, when they teach kindergartners about "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage", I'll stand up and applaud ... and look forward to the ConLaw classes in first grade.

But that doesn't refute my point: That there is no statutory requirement that students of any age be taught about gay marriage. Period. Although it wouldn't be a bad thing, IMNSHO. But to the eedjits, atavists, and Neanderthals out there that think their kids will be "protected" from finding out about gay marriage, I can only say this: "The world is not 6000 years old, you morons!"

This statute [Ca. Ed. Code §51890] states that school children will receive instruction on the health, legal, financial and child rearing aspects of the family.

Yes. And?!?!?

The traditional marriage and family is a man, wife and children. The four lawyers in robes who found an equal protection right to same sex marriage claimed that a homosexual couple and presumably any children from outside the union in their care are similarly situated to a traditional marriage and family.

No. This is a lie. In fact, the CA Supreme Court left an opening; they said that marriage could be completely removed from the books. All they said is that if California is to have marriage, they may not discriminate as to who gets married. This would have applied to any attempt to limits contracts to heterosexuals as well.

... Thus, this same equal protection theory will require schools to instruct school children on the health, legal, financial and child rearing aspects of the same sex marriages and families.

Not explicitly. If they do go into who can get married (such as non-consanguinous couples above the age of consent), they should (if they're doing their jobs right) mention that gays may fall into this category. But there's no statutory requirement as to the specifics of such instruction.

And then, there's the exemption where parents that object to this (or to certain other "hot-button" topics) may excuse their kids, and parental consent is required for some such instruction. That's also in the education code.

If you have any doubt about the desire in the government schools to engage in this instruction, I give you the San Francisco school who sent a first grade class to their teacher's same sex wedding ceremony, claiming it was a "teachable moment" to indoctrinate the little tykes.

That is in the the "What Were They Thinking?" category. It was a Very Bad Idea from a purely political standpoint. There were a number of letters to that effect in the papers about it. But all of the students needed to get parental permission, and two of the students (or their parents) opted out. Sounds like things worked fine.

Is the Prop 8 commercial offering a scenario where a school girl comes home to mom and gushes that her teacher said that she could grow up to marry a princess really all that far fetched?

No. About as believable as saying that Obama is a Terra-ist and a Moooossslimmmm. Which is what the RW foamer tykes are being taught by their wise and moral parents.

As I said (twice) already: I'm looking forward to ConLaw in first grade, which is also believable. Maybe in a generation or so, we won't have such eedjits as the Prop. 8 supporters any more.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:27 PM

Sean:

It is tedious, unpersuasive, and corrupting of our civil discourse to be perpetually accusing one's political opponents of "lying." If you disagree with someone, say so and explain why, without the insults.

Click the links.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:28 PM

Why should we give any credibility to the claim that gay marriage won’t put us on a slippery slope to x or y? It wasn’t very long ago that gay rights activists were denying, in the same indignant tones, that their agenda would ever lead to gay marriage.

Arne’s observation about polygamy is worthy of note. How long will it be before the “enlightened” class notes the injustice of prohibiting religious minorities from engaging in a type of marriage that is approved by long-standing religious traditions, while legalizing gay marriage, which is anathema to those (and virtually all other) traditions? How can we be so unfair to our “Moooossslimmmm” friends?

# posted by

mls : 7:51 AM

Arne’s observation about polygamy is worthy of note. How long will it be before the “enlightened” class notes the injustice of prohibiting religious minorities from engaging in a type of marriage that is approved by long-standing religious traditions, while legalizing gay marriage, which is anathema to those (and virtually all other) traditions? How can we be so unfair to our “Moooossslimmmm” friends?

How 'bout we adopt the good Biblical advice that "sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof" and let future generations decide for themselves what they want to do. Instead of us deciding for them, we could, you know, let them decide for themselves. Radical, I know.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:31 AM

How 'bout we adopt the good Biblical advice that "sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof" and let future generations decide for themselves what they want to do. Instead of us deciding for them, we could, you know, let them decide for themselves. Radical, I know.

Thats kind of ironic, given that gay marriage is being imposed on the current generation on the (spurious) theory that past generations have, through constitutional enactments, already made the decision for us.

# posted by

mls : 10:45 AM

mls said:

Thats kind of ironic, given that gay marriage is being imposed on the current generation on the (spurious) theory that past generations have, through constitutional enactments, already made the decision for us.

If I move to California, I'd have to enter into a gay marriage unless Prop 8 passes? That's the only meaning I can ascribe to “gay marriage being imposed”.

As James Carville said, “I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one.”

It’s sad that in the 21st century in America, that there are still people who think they should have the right to dictate how other people live their lives.

# posted by

Hank Gillette : 11:08 AM

mark field said...

How 'bout we adopt the good Biblical advice that "sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof" and let future generations decide for themselves what they want to do. Instead of us deciding for them, we could, you know, let them decide for themselves. Radical, I know.

I agree.

Prop 8 is based upon allowing this generation to decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than having four judges do it for them by fiat.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:12 AM

Bart DePalma said:

Prop 8 is based upon allowing this generation to decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than having four judges do it for them by fiat.

Fiat? Isn’t it the job of the California Supreme Court to interpret the California Constitution? Or are they only supposed to interpret it to your liking?

Are you really comfortable with the concept of the majority determining what rights the minority has? Well, you probably are, but I would hope that thinking people are not.

# posted by

Hank Gillette : 11:18 AM

hank gillette said...

Bart DePalma said: Prop 8 is based upon allowing this generation to decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than having four judges do it for them by fiat.

Fiat? Isn’t it the job of the California Supreme Court to interpret the California Constitution? Or are they only supposed to interpret it to your liking?

Interpretation means following the law, which the four justices in the majority plainly did not.

Equal protection means applying the law the same to similarly situated citizens. This majority had to remove nearly all meaning and purpose out of marriage and reduce it to a contractual right to government benefits to invent the legal fiction that marriage and homosexual unions are similarly situated.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:37 AM

As for the intent of the CA educational establishment to teach same sex marriage in the government schools, please note the following Mercury News report:

California's largest teacher's union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

Union spokeswoman Sandra Jackson says CTA's 800-member policy body voted overwhelmingly to oppose the gay marriage ban. Jackson says the issue concerns educators because "teachers teach the importance of equal rights for all."

She says CTA leaders made the second contribution this week because the No campaign seems to be struggling.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:40 AM

It takes quite a leap of logic to equate the bolded area of teaching equal rights to California teachers wanting 'to teach same sex marriage in the government schools.'

# posted by

Unknown : 11:59 AM

Thats kind of ironic, given that gay marriage is being imposed on the current generation on the (spurious) theory that past generations have, through constitutional enactments, already made the decision for us.

If you don't think that equal protection should be a rule for our society, then I suggest you start a movement to eliminate it. Until then, it's not "ironic" to follow that rule.

What's ironic is that a political group which screams about letting the majority rule wants to write a rule which says that "people in the future can't vote by majority rule". Nice.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:08 PM

I'm a teacher in California, and I'll be voting No on 8.

As for teaching same-sex marriage in my classes, well, I already do that, so regardless of the vote, it won't matter one whit. :)

Why people think they need to legislate the bedrooms and altars of other people will never make sense to me. No one who claims to value "liberty" should ever be involved in such ridiculous endeavors.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 12:12 PM

# posted by

mls : 12:56 PM

Mark- the same logic that says “equal protection” requires gay marriage could equally say that it requires polygamy. Or teaching gay marriage in schools. Or forcing churches to perform gay marriages.

It doesn't say any of those things to me or to any court that I know of or any majority of voters I know of. But if it does say those things to people in the future, why should you get to preclude them from acting on that understanding?

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:25 PM

"No civilized country has ever abolished wholesale an entire category of existing marriages. The only precedent for such invalidation of which I am aware is the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany, which nullified some existing marriages between Aryans and Jews."

The Francoist government abolished all civil marriages contracted in Spain under the civil marriage act passed by the Republic.

# posted by

zarevitz : 2:04 PM

Professor, what effect would a Missouri-style anti-cloning law, that would restrict conceiving children to a man and a woman's unmodified genes, and would prohibit a same-sex couple from attempting some future method of conceiving children together, have on things? Currently I have the same right to conceive with a woman that I do with a man, but after an "ethical conception" law, I would have a right with a woman that I was prohibited from having with a man.

We don't need to look at the science involved, all we need to know is that such a law would make a distinction in the rights of couples depending on whether they contained both a man and a woman or not. Could we still have same-sex marriage, and call it equal to a man and a woman's marriage, without it changing marriage? It would be the first time in history a marriage has been prohibited from conceiving together.

Another question I'm hoping you'll answer is, what effect will same-sex marriages have on whether or not we can prohibit same-sex conception technologies from being developed? Will it make it impossible to prohibit same-sex conception? Again, I'm not asking about how it would be done or if it would be ethical or not, I'm wondering if same-sex marriage impacts society's ability to regulate or prohibit same-sex conception.

# posted by

John Howard : 2:37 PM

MLS:

Why should we give any credibility to the claim that gay marriage won’t put us on a slippery slope to x or y? It wasn’t very long ago that gay rights activists were denying, in the same indignant tones, that their agenda would ever lead to gay marriage.

The problem with "slippery slope" arguments is that you need a negative delta to start with. I am personally of the opinion that what we did to the Mormons was one of the biggest violations of church/state separation ever, and I have no objection to multi-racial marriages, gay marriages, polygamous marriages, or polyandrous ones (between consenting adults) ... despite having no particular inclination (so to speak) towards any of these personally myself. I am of the opinion that such things are NOTG'sFB ... and I am a bit surprised that the RWers who claim to be the staunchest opponents of gummint intrusion in people's lives have the biggest noses in town when it comes to looking at people's most intimate parts.

But that's just me. Don't attribute my views to anyone else; if you want to now what they say, you'll have to ask them yourself.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:50 PM

"Bart" DeOmitsWords:

Prop 8 is based upon allowing this generation to decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than having four judges do it for them by fiat.

Typo there. You left a word out. Should be:

"Prop 8 is based upon allowing this generation to decide for themselves what they want others to do, rather than having four judges do it for them by fiat."

FWIW, "Bart" would be quite upset if others told him how to conduct his family affairs ... and if such restrictions were enacted through constitutional amendment, he'd be throwing a real hissy fit....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:55 PM

"Bart" DeDeaf:

Interpretation means following the law, which the four justices in the majority plainly did not.

Says "Bart" ... because he disagrees. But as I've pointed out, it is the California Supreme Court that is appointed, elected, and entrusted with making such binding decisions of California law (a state where "Bart" doesn't even have residence, much less relevance).

But I wonder, "Bart": Will you ever address the other problem I pointed out with your claim: That the California Supreme Court never said what it is that marriage should be? As I said -- but you ignore -- they very explicitly said that California was free to choose other remedies, such as removing "marriage" from the civil realm entirely, if they wanted ... but that they were required, if they were to offer civil marriage, to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion?

I await your thoughtful and considered response ... but needless to say will not hold my breath.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:03 PM

"Bart" quotes the Mercury-News:

Jackson says the issue concerns educators because "teachers teach the importance of equal rights for all."

Shocking. Absolutely shocking. Of course, "Bart" is no fan of "equal rights for all", so this obviously buts a bug up his butt. What would you expect from a person that seems to disapprove of Brown II (based, being perhaps generous, on his ignerrence of the holding there)?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:08 PM

MLS:

Mark- the same logic that says “equal protection” requires gay marriage could equally say that it requires [] forcing churches to perform gay marriages.

What "logic" is that? Sophistry?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:11 PM

pms_chicago said...

I'm a teacher in California, and I'll be voting No on 8. As for teaching same-sex marriage in my classes, well, I already do that, so regardless of the vote, it won't matter one whit. :)

Thank you for your honesty.

Why people think they need to legislate the bedrooms and altars of other people will never make sense to me. No one who claims to value "liberty" should ever be involved in such ridiculous endeavors.

Prop 8 has nothing whatsoever to do with the "need to legislate the bedrooms and altars of other people." California law (and myself) could care less whether a same sex couple decide to engage in sodomy or have a Universalist pastor "marry" them.

The only issue of liberty here is whether the citizenry should be compelled to recognize and subsidize same sex marriage through their government.

Instead of whining about discrimination, the opponents of Prop 8 would be far better advised to sell the benefits of same sex marriage to justify the societal recognition and subsidy they seek.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:27 PM

but that they were required, if they were to offer civil marriage, to do so in a non-discriminatory fashion?

And the reason it is non-discriminatory to not offer civil marriage to a brother and sister, or to people already married, or to children, is because it would be unethical to create children to that sort of relationship. The reasons it would be unethical vary, but withholding marriage, and saying that those people will each have to find someone else to marry (or wait until they're old enough) so that they can exercise their procreation right ethically, not unethically. Giving a couple marriage rights says that it is OK and ethical for a baby to be born that is the biological offspring of that couple. In every culture, throughout history. And in every culture, throughout history, when a couple is prohibited from creating a baby together because it would be unethical, they are never allowed to marry.

It would be unethical to attempt create a baby that is the biological offspring of two people of the same sex. The reasons are many (I will be happy to lay some out, but really the burden of proof should be on people who want to claim it would be ethical to do something so radical as to change the way people are created from sexual reproduction to being made by geneticists).

Same-sex couples should not be given the right to conceive, and that right should remain inherent and essential to marriage.

# posted by

John Howard : 4:18 PM

It would be unethical to attempt create a baby that is the biological offspring of two people of the same sex. The reasons are many (I will be happy to lay some out, but really the burden of proof should be on people who want to claim it would be ethical to do something so radical as to change the way people are created from sexual reproduction to being made by geneticists).

I think in general the ethical burden should be on those who wish to disallow an activity rather than the activity... so. Let's presume that our geneticists are able to reliably ensure that male-male children are not of the YY variety, which probably would not be viable, and the facility to use that genetic material in something sufficiently egg-like that it can be carried to term. Given cloning successes in other mammals. I think these are not too far-fetched possibilities. Then I do not really see the difference between such children and children (of a male-female pair) fertilized through IVF, being carried by a surrogate mother (the latter not being relevant for female-female pairings, of course). Why do you see them as different?

The only thing that I would think would be unethical would be to deliberately remove the ability to reproduce except through the intervention of geneticists. So in the case of female-female reproduction, I think it would be ethically right for society to take measures to ensure that males remained in the population. Fortunately, the ease and popularity of the traditional reproductive method for most couples suggests that such concerns are distant from reality.

# posted by

George H : 4:57 PM

Continuing silence on my question noted.

"Bart" DeFramer:

The only issue of liberty here is whether the citizenry should be compelled to recognize and subsidize same sex marriage through their government.

Typo there:

The only issue of liberty here is whether the citizenry should be compelled to recognize and subsidize interracial marriage through their government.

Fixed. No charge.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:10 PM

George H:

Please ignore John Howard. He's an OCD, complete froot-loop, "one-trick pony". He does eventually go away if you just studiously ignore him (unlike others here). Thanks.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:13 PM

I think in general the ethical burden should be on those who wish to disallow an activity rather than the activity... so.

Maybe in general, but not in this case (though certainly since it is currently legal and research is progressing and it's probably going to happen, the burden certainly IS on the people that want to stop it, whether that is the way it should be or not). This activity isn't something done in private that doesn't affect other people; allowing this will have a profound effect on everyone around the globe, not just the people being created in radical creations. It will create a huge government entitlement and introduce an unnecessary burden on everyone to pay for and regulate and deal with, only the most radical laissez-faire transhumanist thinks that it should be unregulated and only available to the rich. You mention how two females will only have daughters, but that's more than just a question of whether there will still be enough males in the world, it's also a question of whether it is ethical to allow couples to have children when both sexes are not an equal possibility, and where the couple will only be having one sex or the other. And allowing it will make it practically impossible to stop other less risky germline interventions that are also unethical for various reasons, as most groups like The Center For Responsible Genetics have concluded.

Also, there'd be lots of benefits to prohibiting genetic engineering that could never be reaped if we continue to leave genetic engineering and same-sex conception legal. It would allow us to reprioritize our research, and provide fertility clinics with consistent clear guidelines and help people plan families, and allow schools to teach kids firm facts about their reproductive futures, affirming their right to use their own genes to reproduce with someone of the other sex. The international ramifications would be huge too, as we would no longer be antagonizing the world with eugenic imperialism and threatening to intervene on deficient ethnic genomes. And it'd allow us to make a clear distinction between marriage and civil unions that preserved marriage in principle and allowed us to break the impasse that keeps civil unions from getting federal recognition.

I've given just a few of the costs of allowing it and benefits of prohibiting it. Do you dispute any of those costs or benefits? I'm sure there's more too.

Now, explain why it is more important to keep it legal and spend the money to develop it and make it available. Why is it something that ought to be allowed?

# posted by

John Howard : 5:56 PM

Prop 8 has nothing whatsoever to do with the "need to legislate the bedrooms and altars of other people."....The only issue of liberty here is whether the citizenry should be compelled to recognize and subsidize same sex marriage through their government.

Baloney. If Prop 8 has nothing to do with the bedroom and the altar, there's simply no basis for an objection for "subsidizing" the practice. Either you're against subsidies to couples in general (and therefore should be trying to remove all privileges gained by marriage of any kind) or you're discriminating against one class of people on some other criteria.

So, unless you have some real economic reason to object to same-sex marriage, I stand by the snarky comment about legislating bedrooms and altars.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 6:35 PM

PMS_Chicago:

[to "Bart"]: So, unless you have some real economic reason to object to same-sex marriage, I stand by the snarky comment about legislating bedrooms and altars.

Why, yes, he does. Equal privileges for all means he can't pile the pie higher ... umm, I mean, fool me once ... umm, I mean, a smaller piece of the pie for him. Well, that in addition to his homophobia and bigotry. When everyone gets equal treatment, than means that those that have privileges already are no longer "privileged". And "Bart" wants to keep his "privileges". Anything less would make him just a common man.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:42 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:45 PM

[cont'd]

... but of course, my response to his nonsense above puts things in the appropriate context. If such an 'argument' is sound against allowing gay marriages, surely it does the same for interracial ones. Fortunately, California was out in front of the curve there as well, striking down its own miscegenation laws long before the U.S. Supreme Court did so in Loving.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:28 PM

pms_chicago said...

BD: Prop 8 has nothing whatsoever to do with the "need to legislate the bedrooms and altars of other people."....The only issue of liberty here is whether the citizenry should be compelled to recognize and subsidize same sex marriage through their government.

Baloney. If Prop 8 has nothing to do with the bedroom and the altar, there's simply no basis for an objection for "subsidizing" the practice.

1) Its the tax payers' money and recognition to give as they wish through their representative democracy.

2) As I have posted at length and no one has rebutted, unlike marriage, homosexual unions do not provide any benefit to society to merit subsidy and recognition.

Either you're against subsidies to couples in general (and therefore should be trying to remove all privileges gained by marriage of any kind) or you're discriminating against one class of people on some other criteria.

Government is all about setting priorities and supporting some forms of behavior over others. So long as the government is not treating similarly situated groups differently without (in the case of nearly everything apart from race and gender) a rational reason to do so, there is no equal protection claim.

I am in fact advocating discrimination against all other forms of human relationship apart from marriage because marriage is a foundation of civilization and the others are not. This is perfectly permissible under equal protection because no other human relationship is similarly situated to marriage.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:22 AM

"Bart" DePalma:

2) As I have posted at length and no one has rebutted, unlike marriage, homosexual unions do not provide any benefit to society to merit subsidy and recognition.

This pretty much sums up Virginia's argument in Loving v. Virginia.

It's hard to "rebut" an opinion held by "Bart"; he certainly seems to hold that opinion. But that doesn't preclude us from expressing our own view that such an opinions is hateful and odious.

Government is all about setting priorities and supporting some forms of behavior over others. So long as the government is not treating similarly situated groups differently without (in the case of nearly everything apart from race and gender) a rational reason to do so, there is no equal protection claim.

So "Bart" has no problem with religious discrimination, discrimination on basis of national origin, marital status, physical handicap, service record, political affiliation, native language ... and sexual orientation.

Just a FYI to "Bart": California's constitution and laws are not the same as the Fourteenth Amendment.

I am in fact advocating discrimination against all other forms of human relationship apart from marriage because marriage is a foundation of civilization and the others are not. This is perfectly permissible under equal protection because no other human relationship is similarly situated to marriage.

No. You 're discriminating against homosexuals, "Bart". That's obvious. We know it, you know it, and the whole world knows it. You just think that's fine ... but then again you think the same for torture....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:29 PM

If such an 'argument' against allowing gay marriages, surely it doers the same for interracial ones.

Indeed, it's the same as the interracial argument, they wanted to keep mixed-race couples from conceiving children. Good one, Arne.

But that was a racist law, intended, as the court said, to preserve white supremacy by keeping the races separate, not only socially separate but forever genetically distinct and identifiable. The whole point of racism is not to discriminate against people randomly, but to discriminate against people based on who their parents were, and their parents, etc, because they are of a different so-called "race" which has genetic differences, and it is those are supposed genetic differences that call for inferior status compared to the White genes, which eugenicists insisted made "betterhumans" (to use the Transhumanist term). Prohibiting interracial marriage maintained the system of White supremacy by literally keeping people from mixing the genes - aka "miscegenating".

Racial classifications are odious, so it was not a supportable basis to prohibit marriage. Black people and white people indeed make very healthy children, despite the contentions of racists at the time of the Loving trial (see Tiger Woods and Barack Obama and Derek Jeter etc). The only problem the presented was that they were unclassifiable racially.

Interracial conception didn't require millions of dollars of experiments on mice to prove that it was safe. And more important, it removed an artificial classification that the eugenicists insisted on preserving, while same-sex conception for "gay" people puts in place a new artificial classification so that the eugenicists can manipulate the genome directly. That is odious. But it is really happening, you can see the gay eugenicists like Arne here and Musclehippy on my blog pine for same-sex conception as part of a transcending of biological human imperfections and limitations, and want to move to postgendered, posthuman world, and you can see they are still old racists, still convinced that blacks and whites are significantly different and yet we let them marry anyway! It's ugly, really.

# posted by

John Howard : 3:21 PM

homosexual unions do not provide any benefit to society to merit subsidy and recognition

These unions benefit society in the same way that oppoiste-sex unions between infertile and elderly couples do: they make for happier, more stable citizens.

So long as the government is not treating similarly situated groups differently without (in the case of nearly everything apart from race and gender) a rational reason to do so, there is no equal protection claim

In California and Connecticut more than a rational basis is needed for sexuality. And how do you argue that rational basis applies to marriage in light of Zablocki?

# posted by

just_looking : 3:40 PM

Loving v. Virginia is utterly inapposite. Indeed, it is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise.

Anti-miscegenation statutes criminalized an interracial combination of traditional marriage. Loving did not deal with the issue of redefining marriage to include something other than one man and one woman.

A man and a woman of different races are similarly situated to a man and a woman of the same race. The only difference is the melanin content of one's skin.

In contrast, even an elementary school child can see that the combination of a man and a woman is plainly not similarly situated with either the combination of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Indeed, the latter two combinations are not similarly situated.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:47 PM

even an elementary school child can see that the combination of a man and a woman is plainly not similarly situated with either the combination of a man and a man or a woman and a woman

I must not be as smart as a 5th grader then. For when it comes to one of the purposes of civil marriage, encouraging people to settle down with a lifemate, they are similarly situated.

# posted by

just_looking : 8:42 AM

Just looking asserts that recognition of gay marriage will benefit society by promoting stable relationships. If the gay marriage movement were based on empirical predictions of that sort, there would be no reason why the issue could not be the subject of legislative hearings and debate, culminating in a decision by our elected representatives.

That is not really the point of gay marriage. As many of the comments here demonstrate, the point of gay marriage is to stigmatize traditional beliefs about homosexuality as “bigotry.” The idea is to make it as socially unacceptable to suggest a moral distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality as it is to suggest a moral distinction between different racial groups. Hence the repeated attempts to analogize this issue to prohibition of miscegenation.

Now if you don’t see the difference between restricting marriage to people of the same race, on the one hand, and restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex, on the other, it is difficult to see how one can have a rational discussion of the topic. As the court said in Loving, “marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.” But this can only be true of traditional marriage, which is directly tied to the procreative and child-rearing function. Interracial marriage in no way changes this fundamental nature of traditional marriage, gay marriage does. If marriage is simply an agreement between two (or more) people to live together until they decide otherwise, then it would seem that contract law could handle the issues quite well, with no need for a special legal category called marriage.

If you believe that traditional marriage unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples, then you should favor the abolition of marriage entirely. Even if gay marriage is allowed, marriage will still discriminate against bisexuals, polygamists, and anyone else who prefers arrangements other than those recognized by the definition of marriage at that time. Of course, as Mark notes, the next generation may change the definition of marriage again to eliminate more perceived “unfairness,” but what’s the point? Once the concept of marriage is unmoored from historical, cultural and religious tradition, it no longer serves any purpose in the legal sphere, other than as a weapon against those who believe in the traditional definition. Less radical than legalizing gay marriage would be simply to eliminate all legal recognition of marriage, and leave the issue of marriage to the religious and private spheres.

# posted by

mls : 10:38 AM

Calling Andy Koppelman, come in please. Calling Professor Balkin, etc...

I asked some questions up thread that are very important and you should answer them.

The debate comes down to allowing same-sex conception and genetic engineering and the brave new world, or preserving sexual reproduction and human equality.

I think al the SSMers just implicitly assume that of course we will allow all forms of genetic engineering when they're available, and that assumption isn't at all true. It's unfair to hide such an world-changing albatross in the closet and pretend it's about hospital visitation, when it is truly about preserving equal rights or entering a brave new world of genetic intervention.

# posted by

John Howard : 1:12 PM

Just looking asserts that recognition of gay marriage will benefit society by promoting stable relationships. If the gay marriage movement were based on empirical predictions of that sort, there would be no reason why the issue could not be the subject of legislative hearings and debate, culminating in a decision by our elected representatives.

This confuses policy and law. Yes, gay marriage is good policy, but that's not why bans on it are unconstitutional. They're unconstitutional because we can't trust the majority to make these decisions on a rational basis due to bigotry.

As many of the comments here demonstrate, the point of gay marriage is to stigmatize traditional beliefs about homosexuality as “bigotry.”

No, it's bigotry whether gay marriage is approved or not. Just like it was bigotry which prevented the Lovings from marrying. The point is to change the practical impact of that bigotry. People can always be bigots, they just can't act on that prejudice.

Now if you don’t see the difference between restricting marriage to people of the same race, on the one hand, and restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex, on the other, it is difficult to see how one can have a rational discussion of the topic.

I'd have to agree with the irrational part. Bigotry does blind people.

But this can only be true of traditional marriage, which is directly tied to the procreative and child-rearing function.

And that's why we don't let infertile couples marry (or stay married). Nor do we allow sex acts other than vaginal intercourse.

If marriage is simply an agreement between two (or more) people to live together until they decide otherwise, then it would seem that contract law could handle the issues quite well, with no need for a special legal category called marriage.

I'd agree with this. What the state should NOT be in the business of doing is judging someone's relationship. It should limit itself to establishing the legal effects.

# posted by

Mark Field : 2:14 PM

Mark Field's response to mls is excellent. Let me just add a couple of points.

the point of gay marriage is to stigmatize traditional beliefs about homosexuality as “bigotry.”

Firstly, it would be a consequence, not a purpose, just like inter-racial marriage had the consequence of further stigmatizing racial bigotry. Secondly, it depends on what you mean by the "traditional beliefs about homosexuality".

If marriage is simply an agreement between two (or more) people to live together until they decide otherwise, then it would seem that contract law could handle the issues quite well, with no need for a special legal category called marriage.

True, and therefore civil marriage isn't simply a private agreement. It is the state encouraging people to get married for the purpose of (among other things) getting single people to settle down with a lifemate. That purpose applies equally to couples of any racial or gender combination.

# posted by

just_looking : 4:20 PM

"Bart" alludes to the plumbing:

In contrast, even an elementary school child can see that the combination of a man and a woman is plainly not similarly situated with either the combination of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Indeed, the latter two combinations are not similarly situated.

By that token, there's no doubt that women shouldn't be allowed to be firefighters, because they need to take their pants down to take a piss....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:18 PM

They're unconstitutional because we can't trust the majority to make these decisions on a rational basis due to bigotry.

Hi Mark. Are you saying that not we can't trust Congress with the question of whether or not to allow same-sex conception, because not allowing it could only be bigotry? Maybe some bigotry is entirely appropriate, then. Surely there are legitimate state interests in preserving equal conception origins and opportunities, and preventing the brave new world that would be ushered in by allowing same-sex couples to conceive together, by any method.

Or are you saying that issue can be addressed separately from marriage? I don't think there any legitimate state interests in prohibiting any married male and female from conceiving together, but that are legitimate state interests in prohibiting some unmarriable relationships from both conceiving and marrying together. I don't think the issues have ever been considered separately at any time in history: every time the state said a couple could conceive together, they said they could marry, and every time the state said a couple could not concieve together, they said they could not marry. And, vice versa, every time the state said a couple could not marry, they have officially been withholding legitimacy of them creating offspring to some degree, equal protection rights of the child conceived to legitimacy do not remove state interest in preventing unethical conceptions, and marriage has always been the way every society has approved of a couple conceiving together.

# posted by

John Howard : 5:48 PM

John Howard said (3:21 PM) --
>>>>> Racial classifications are odious, so it was not a supportable basis to prohibit marriage. Black people and white people indeed make very healthy children, despite the contentions of racists at the time of the Loving trial (see Tiger Woods and Barack Obama and Derek Jeter etc). The only problem the presented was that they were unclassifiable racially. <<<<<<

"Unclassifiable racially"? LOL. Homer Plessy, the plaintiff in the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) racial segregation case, was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, but Louisiana had no difficulty in racially classifying him.

mls said (10:38 AM) --
>>>>>> As many of the comments here demonstrate, the point of gay marriage is to stigmatize traditional beliefs about homosexuality as “bigotry.” <<<<<<<

IMO there is some truth to that statement. That statement helps explain the following: (1) why there is a big push for gay marriage but no big push for other forms of non-traditional marriage, e.g., polygamy; and (2) why there is a big push for gay marriage in California when the state already offers domestic partnerships, which under state law are roughly equivalent to marriage. Many gays see legalization of gay marriage as a symbolic sign of recognition that they are "normal" -- that is a big reason why they are not satisfied with civil unions and domestic partnerships. Also, I don't understand why gays are risking a backlash by pushing this gay marriage thing in California when the state already offers domestic partnerships.

Because widespread homophobia has persisted into a time when intolerance in general is widely perceived as wrong, I question the idea that homophobia will someday largely disappear as racial intolerance has. Ironically, some white Anglicans in Virginia, where racial segregation was once practiced, have joined a black Anglican church in Africa because of the American Anglican church's tolerance of gays. IMO part of the difference in attitudes towards gays and racial minorities is due to the belief that gays have control over what they are whereas racial minorities do not. However, I was not "taught" to be heterosexual -- that's just the way I am. I think that homosexuals are the same way. Homosexuals can pretend to not be homosexual, but I wonder if their basic nature can be changed.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 9:23 AM

Many gays see legalization of gay marriage as a symbolic sign of recognition that they are "normal"

If that is true, then isn't it also true the support for Prop 8 is based on the symbolism that gays aren't normal?

# posted by

just_looking : 9:53 AM

Well, yes, Larry, they would classify people according to the one drop rule, but they much preferred to keep people from creating mixed-race people in the first place because they could see that rule was going to be challenged someday. Indeed, it was Plessy's mixed race that led to him being the plaintiff trying to overturn segregation: "When the conductor came to collect his ticket, Plessy told him that he was 7/8 white and that he refused to sit in the "blacks-only" car."

Anyhow, surely you get the point I'm making, since you didn't comment on it beyond that quibble. Do you think it's bigotry to think same-sex conception should be prohibited?

# posted by

John Howard : 10:15 AM

just_looking said,
>>>>>> Many gays see legalization of gay marriage as a symbolic sign of recognition that they are "normal"

If that is true, then isn't it also true the support for Prop 8 is based on the symbolism that gays aren't normal? <<<<<<<

Of course -- at least partly. But IMO gays in the USA should recognize that they are treated pretty well in the USA in comparison to the way gays are treated in many foreign countries and should not try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by pushing this gay marriage thing. Though gay marriage is legal in some foreign countries, there are also some foreign countries where gays can be imprisoned just for being gay.

I myself lost a lot of sympathy for gays when they campaigned (successfully) to have Cobb County removed as a venue in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics because of an anti-gay resolution passed by the Cobb County council. If politics was kept out (mostly) of the Olympics in Beijing, then politics should certainly have been kept out of the Olympics in Cobb County.

John Howard said,
>>>>>> Do you think it's bigotry to think same-sex conception should be prohibited? <<<<<<<

No -- some people just have some strange ideas, like opposing stem-cell research. Is opposing stem-cell research bigotry?

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 1:59 PM

But IMO gays in the USA should recognize that they are treated pretty well in the USA in comparison to the way gays are treated in many foreign countries and should not try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by pushing this gay marriage thing

That sounds dangerously close to an "uppity blacks" argument.

# posted by

just_looking : 3:54 PM

>>>>>> But IMO gays in the USA should recognize that they are treated pretty well in the USA in comparison to the way gays are treated in many foreign countries and should not try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by pushing this gay marriage thing

That sounds dangerously close to an "uppity blacks" argument. <<<<<<<

Bans on gay marriage cannot be compared to Jim Crowism. Under Jim Crowism, blacks were told, "you can't go to school here, you can't work here, you can't eat here, you can't sleep here, you can't play here, you can't ride here, you can't live here, etc.."

As I said, widespread homophobia has persisted into a time when intolerance in general -- including intolerance based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex -- has largely disappeared, so I don't see much hope of homophobia largely disappearing in the near future. Gays should be realistic and settle for less than full equality. Instead of pushing for gay marriage, gays should be pushing for civil union (or domestic partnership) laws in more states.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 7:11 PM

Equal protection means applying the law the same to similarly situated citizens. This majority had to remove nearly all meaning and purpose out of marriage and reduce it to a contractual right to government benefits to invent the legal fiction that marriage and homosexual unions are similarly situated.

But this objection is patently absurd! Marriage, as far as the state is concerned is already a contractual right to government benefits (and associated legal rights and obligations) and nothing more. The "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage are cultural constructions which are absent from our law and are, accordingly, without relevance.

Questioning the "situation" of gay and straight couples is dependent on exactly this cultural construction: to claim that straight couples deserve additional consideration mean to claim that it must be a moral imperative for a married couple to naturally produce one or more children sharing the DNA of both parties. Such an assertion is laughable, leaving us with one situational difference... that being the selection of genitals, hardly a firm basis for policy.

# posted by

Ace : 3:19 AM

Gays should be realistic and settle for less than full equality. Instead of pushing for gay marriage, gays should be pushing for civil union (or domestic partnership) laws in more states

Should blacks have settled for inter-racial civil unions instead of marriage?

# posted by

just_looking : 8:24 AM

Akio said,
>>>>>> Marriage, as far as the state is concerned is already a contractual right to government benefits (and associated legal rights and obligations) and nothing more. The "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage are cultural constructions which are absent from our law and are, accordingly, without relevance. <<<<<<

Wrong -- the cultural constructions of the "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage are not absent from our law. For one thing, marriage is not just about the relationship between the marriage partners and the government (i.e., government benefits and "associated legal rights and obligations"). Marriage also establishes legal relationships not involving the government -- i.e., legal relationships involving only the marriage partners, their children (natural and adopted), and extended families. These non-governmental legal relationships concern shared property, child support, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.. And both the governmental and non-governmental legal relationships serve or are supposed to serve the "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage.

>>>>>>> Questioning the "situation" of gay and straight couples is dependent on exactly this cultural construction: to claim that straight couples deserve additional consideration mean to claim that it must be a moral imperative for a married couple to naturally produce one or more children sharing the DNA of both parties. <<<<<<<

As I said, IMO the gay marriage controversy is mostly just a fight over gays' right to use the term "marriage" instead of just "civil union" or "domestic partnership."

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 12:27 PM

1) Its the tax payers' money and recognition to give as they wish through their representative democracy.

2) As I have posted at length and no one has rebutted, unlike marriage, homosexual unions do not provide any benefit to society to merit subsidy and recognition.

Actually, I know I've rebutted this point before. Let me do it from a structural-functionalist position this time.

One of the primary functions of marriage is to provide a stable economic unit--in our society, such nuclear units form the backbone of our economy. Reproduction of the unit is not as important, given the numbers we're talking about here, as the stability of the union. Like any such union between people, the strength of the bond is increased by a feeling of connectedness with the rest of society--this goes back to Durkheim's notion of anomie. Support from one's extended family is critical to success, as is support from one's community.

The power of the word "marriage" is critical here, especially among a community known for its serial relationships. The gravity of marriage--as opposed to "partnership"--can change the way people behave vis-a-vis one another. Partnerships are temporary and fleeting, but marriage is supposed to be forever. We know well that it's not, but that doesn't remove the baggage that the term carries.

Flipping the equation, we see that same-sex unions that are NOT fully supported by society are more likely to be dysfunctional. These dysfunctions have real costs in the economy at large, whether it be due to lack of productivity, unemployment, health concerns, etc.

The question for one who argues from an economic standpoint becomes: why deny a practice that positively affects the economy? The only answer can be that there is no community support for such a practice.

Whence the lack of support? It surely isn't based on economy, so it's coming from somewhere else. Prop 8 ads say that we shouldn't allow gay marriage because then it'll be taught in schools. So what? What's wrong with that?

What's wrong, the supporters say, is that the school system shouldn't be telling our children what's right and what's wrong. But then we come around full circle: if it isn't economic effect that makes it wrong, why doesn't the community support gay marriage?

Again, I think it has a lot more to do with steeples and bedposts than it does any economic benefit. The community's values would be compromised if they permitted the current situation to stand, and so they must fight to defend their values, just as the anti-miscegenation movement fought to defend theirs. Likewise, the communities who want to end discrimination against homosexuals are fighting to defend their own values.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 12:38 PM

Should blacks have settled for inter-racial civil unions instead of marriage?

That was never considered, because everyone knew the issue was whether to allow or prohibit them conceiving together. No one was suggesting that they continue to be prohibited from conceiving together, but they only wanted to visit each other in the hospital and pass on inheritance and things like that, that gay couples are claiming is all they want to do. With gay marriage, people only want things that could be given in Civil Unions that are defined to be just like marriage but do not grant the right to conceive together. It is not a basic civil right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same sex. It is with a person of the other sex.

# posted by

John Howard : 1:25 PM

Larry Farafman:

Bans on gay marriage cannot be compared to Jim Crowism. Under Jim Crowism, blacks were told, "you can't go to school here, you can't work here, you can't eat here, you can't sleep here, you can't play here, you can't ride here, you can't live here, etc.."

But bans on inter-racial marriages compare quite well. They said in Loving: "You can't get married here."

As I said, widespread homophobia has persisted into a time when intolerance in general -- including intolerance based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex -- has largely disappeared, so I don't see much hope of homophobia largely disappearing in the near future. Gays should be realistic and settle for less than full equality. Instead of pushing for gay marriage, gays should be pushing for civil union (or domestic partnership) laws in more states.

:1,$s/Gay/Black/g

Racism is still live and well (see the ugly things some Rethuglicans have been saying about Obama).

I guess Larry thinks that blacks too should just be happy with what we give 'em.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:32 PM

Larry Farafman:

For one thing, marriage is not just about the relationship between the marriage partners and the government (i.e., government benefits and "associated legal rights and obligations"). Marriage also establishes legal relationships not involving the government -- i.e., legal relationships involving only the marriage partners, their children (natural and adopted), and extended families. These non-governmental legal relationships concern shared property, child support, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.. And both the governmental and non-governmental legal relationships serve or are supposed to serve the "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage.

If we assume this arguendo, then prohibiting gays from marriage is obviously discriminatory.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:36 PM

>>>>> If we assume this arguendo, then prohibiting gays from marriage is obviously discriminatory. <<<<<<

Wrong -- civil unions and domestic partnerships provide most of the same benefits.

Opponents of gay marriage have heard all of the arguments about why allowing gay marriage is only fair. They don't care whether gay marriage is fair or not.

Proponents of gay marriage are just plain stupid -- they should be saying, "let's forget about this gay marriage thing and push for civil unions in more states." I have no sympathy for them.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 3:00 PM

Proponents of gay marriage are just plain stupid -- they should be saying, "let's forget about this gay marriage thing and push for civil unions in more states." I have no sympathy for them

I again ask, would proponents of inter-racial marriage deserve no sympathy, and been plain stupid, if they had been offered inter-racial civil unions?

# posted by

just_looking : 5:07 PM

I again ask, would proponents of inter-racial marriage deserve no sympathy, and been plain stupid, if they had been offered inter-racial civil unions?

Have you seen my comments answering this question, just_looking? Inter-racial couples wanted all the rights of marriage, most essentially the right to conceive children together. Same-sex couples generally do not want that right. Some do, but most certainly do not. So Larry's right, it is ridiculous to be demanding equal conception rights to a man and a woman instead of accepting Civil Unions that are exactly like marriage except for not protecting the right to attempt to conceive children together, and should accept not having the equal right to conceive children together that either of them would with someone of the other sex. The right to have children with your own unmodified gametes should not be equated with the right of a lab to create children from modified gametes, which is what a right to attempt same-sex conception implies.

# posted by

John Howard : 7:52 PM

Larry Fafarman wrote: And both the governmental and non-governmental legal relationships serve or are supposed to serve the "meaning" and "purpose" of marriage.

This is rather backwards. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a collection of privileges, rights and obligations, which can be applied with equal relevance to any couple regardless of its gender makeup. To claim otherwise is to set an assumption about the law over the law itself.

# posted by

Ace : 12:05 AM

>>>>>> Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a collection of privileges, rights and obligations, which can be applied with equal relevance to any couple regardless of its gender makeup. <<<<<<

Or the name "marriage" can be changed to "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when this "collection of privileges, rights, and obligations" is applied to same-sex couples. This is just a fight over the right to use the name "marriage." It is a tempest in a teapot.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 12:25 AM

The obvious rebuttal is "separate but equal is no longer considered equal," but there's a more substantive case to be made in favor of the term "marriage," which is to say that there are going to be a hell of a lot of contracts and agreements and policies floating around with "married couple" and "spouse" on them, and there isn't a convenient way to force them to change short of extended legal wrangling which will eventually have to end with justices declaring a civil union equivalent in every way to a marriage.

# posted by

Ace : 3:09 AM

Or the name "marriage" can be changed to "civil union" or "domestic partnership" when this "collection of privileges, rights, and obligations" is applied to same-sex couples. This is just a fight over the right to use the name "marriage." It is a tempest in a teapot.

Using a different name for a public legal status is obvious animus, Larry, the courts have been right about that. And it's not just a tempest in a teapot, giving same-sex couples the same rights as a man and a woman is a serious mistake, whatever we call the union. People should not have conception rights with someone of the same sex, it's too expensive and dangerous and would cause too many other bad things, like prevent us from being able to regulate genetic engineering. Thus, conception rights should be the distinction between marriage and civil unions. Same-sex couples should not be demanding conception rights, they should accept that those are something they can't have.

Akio, if the state civil union laws are written right (and the federal government could set an abstract class for state's to follow for their civil union legislation by saying what definition it would recognize as if marriage at the federal level), then all the laws wouldn't have to be re-written, there'd just be one law that said everywhere marriage or spouse is used, it shall apply to civil union partners also. If CU's are defined as marriage minus conception rights, then it becomes easy.

# posted by

John Howard : 1:23 PM

John Howard said,
>>>>>> Using a different name for a public legal status is obvious animus, Larry <<<<<<<

I never said otherwise. What I said was that opponents of same-sex marriage have not been swayed by comparisons of same-sex marriage bans and interracial marriage bans.

>>>>>> People should not have conception rights with someone of the same sex, it's too expensive and dangerous and would cause too many other bad things, like prevent us from being able to regulate genetic engineering. Thus, conception rights should be the distinction between marriage and civil unions. <<<<<<<

So far as I know, the issue of same-sex conception rights has not been a big part of the debate over same-sex marriage. Also, same-sex reproduction is still in the experimental stages. Anyway, I don't see why the issue of same-sex conception should be part of the debate over same-sex marriage -- there can be same-sex conception outside of same-sex marriage.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 3:31 PM

I never said otherwise.

I though you were saying that civil unions that give all the rights of marriage ought to be a perfectly fine solution. Not only is it obvious unconstitutional animus, but more importantly, same-sex couples shouldn't have all the rights of marriage.

So far as I know, the issue of same-sex conception rights has not been a big part of the debate over same-sex marriage.

Right, well, I'm trying to change that by pushing the Egg And Sperm Civil Union Compromise. It should be a big part of the debate, it is a major game-changing argument that renders all other parts of the debate moot.

Also, same-sex reproduction is still in the experimental stages.

But it's not too soon to address whether there should be a right to do it, now and in the future.

Anyway, I don't see why the issue of same-sex conception should be part of the debate over same-sex marriage -- there can be same-sex conception outside of same-sex marriage.

Not if we prohibit it, as we should because it is bad public policy and would move us to a brave new world of genetic engineering and eugenics and unequal procreation rights. Once it is prohibited, then same-sex couples won't have the same rights as both-sex couples, and the right they would no longer have is the essential right of marriage. Of course it's part of the marriage debate.

# posted by

John Howard : 10:27 PM

I should make clear that the main goal of the Compromise is to prevent genetic engineering of designer children and preserve natural conception rights and equal rights, not to stop gay marriage. I want to get Congress to enact a strong anti-cloning law that limits conception to a man and woman using their natural unmodified genes, and prohibits everything else. If that isn't done, if we continue to allow same-sex conception and genetic engineering, then we should certainly allow same-sex couples to marry. It's pointless to prohibit them from marrying but allow them to conceive children together, that's much more harmful to marriage than gay marriage. The two questions should be answered the same way, and preferably at the same time, with the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

# posted by

John Howard : 1:26 PM

Where'd everyone go? just_looking, akio, larry, arne, bart? Professor Koppelman?

# posted by

John Howard : 3:01 PM

>>>>>> Where'd everyone go? just_looking, akio, larry, arne, bart? Professor Koppelman? <<<<<<<

I'm still here -- I just felt that I already said my peace and had nothing more that I wanted to say. However, if you insist, I will continue commenting.

>>>>>>> I though you were saying that civil unions that give all the rights of marriage ought to be a perfectly fine solution. <<<<<<

I never said that it is a "perfectly fine" solution -- IMO it is the solution that is acceptable to the most people.

>>>>>> Not only is it obvious unconstitutional animus <<<<<<

Animus can be constitutional.

If gay marriage is allowed, it is hard to justify denying other kinds of non-traditional marriage. People now complain that bans on gay marriage are unfair because interracial marriage is allowed. If gay marriage is allowed, then people are going to complain that bans on polygamous marriage are unfair because gay marriage is allowed.

I still disagree that the issue of same-sex conception has anything to do with the issue of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage can be allowed while prohibiting same-sex conception. Still, though, a prohibition on same-sex conception might be difficult to enforce -- people could obtain same-sex conception abroad if it is prohibited in the USA.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 3:39 PM

Same-sex marriage can be allowed while prohibiting same-sex conception.

That could happen, but if it did, same-sex couples would not have equal rights, and their marriages would not protect the right to conceive children together, using their own genes. That right needs to be protected. The eugenicists win if same-sex marriage is allowed no matter what we do with same-sex conception, because SSM either gives the right to create children using modified gametes, and therefore allows all manner of genetic modification and experimentation, or, if that is prohibited, it denies male-female marriages the right to use their own genes, making it right to coerce couples to use substitute gametes instead of their own.

A prohibition on same-sex conception might be difficult to enforce -- people could obtain same-sex conception abroad if it is prohibited in the USA.

We'd use diplomatic pressure to keep genetic engineering from proliferating, and we could even arrest and charge Americans when they return to the States, and take their baby away. If they somehow did it secretly, and lied about the parentage to everyone, I guess they'd get away with it, but they wouldn't be able to keep such a secret for too long.

And within the states, it'd be pretty easy to monitor labs and clinics and shut down labs that offer same-sex conception services, and fine and imprison people that offer to try it. It would be just like the proposal in Congress to ban reproductive cloning, with its million dollar fine. It's certainly worth doing, because the benefits of establishing the permanency and rightness of natural conception would be profound.

I was hoping you'd agree that it would make a good distinction to justify civil unions for same-sex couples, and help get past the impasse that prevents us from reaching consensus right now. Why is it hard to say that it's a good idea, and help achieve it? What part of it is bad? Do you think it is wrong to prohibit same-sex conception?

# posted by

John Howard : 5:05 PM

>>>>>> I was hoping you'd agree that it would make a good distinction to justify civil unions for same-sex couples, and help get past the impasse that prevents us from reaching consensus right now. <<<<<

I don't see it as an "impasse" because most people do not consider same-sex reproduction to be an important issue in the gay-marriage debate. IMO the biggest issue is that allowing gay marriage implies that gays are regarded as "normal." IMO that is the biggest reason why gays want to use the term "marriage" and why others don't want them to use that term.

>>>>> Do you think it is wrong to prohibit same-sex conception? <<<<<<

I have no opinion about that.

# posted by

Larry Fafarman : 1:26 AM

The impasse was that even though most people favor civil unions and most people oppose same-sex marriage, we are stuck here in this unresolved state, without equal protections and without marriage being protected. This is because merely giving the equal rights a different name doesn't work constitutionally nor does either side like it. So, what is needed is a distinction, and conception rights provides that distinction. It doesn't matter that it hasn't been in the debate already, that's exactly what we need: something new to break the impasse. It should be easy to take a look at it now and realize that it makes a great distinction. Everyone agrees we shouldn't allow same-sex conception today, even if they think it might be OK when it is safe. If we ever re-legalize it, then we'd change all civil unions to marriages, and marriage would stay intact with conception rights. But hopefully we would never do that, we would keep procreation natural and personal.

I am troubled by how blase people are about entering the brave new world of genetic engineering. How could people have deadened themselves to not have an opinion on what is the most important issue that any lifeform in the known universe has ever faced? Maybe it is the hugeness of the issue that makes it hard to think about. I suppose it is such a dignity destroying prospect that people are afraid to think about it, and people are desensitized by movies and just want to watch the world to see what happens; the more interesting, the better. Merely sticking with sexual reproduction like the last few million years doesn't offer much entertainment. People need to stand up and stop same-sex conception and genetic engineering and keep procreation natural, so we can use fewer resources and use them on helping existing people instead of designing better people that serve the system better. This is the most important time in human history, no life form has ever designed its children in a lab before, and if we start doing that, we'd lose our claim to human dignity and equality. It's a big deal.

# posted by

John Howard : 1:00 PM