That, or some variation of that, was used by some protestors against California's marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and has been used ever since in the USA and around the world regarding disputes about neutering marriage. It is used by demonstrators in person and online and in print.
They are trying to stir sympathy, asking you to place yourself in their shoes. But what is the logical argument, if any, being made? It seems to be "You voted against licensing my relationship as marriage, and that hurts because I want my relationship to be licensed as marriage."
I'm sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
We've all wanted something, at sometime in our lives, that was wrong, or that wasn't ours to have, or wasn't even possible. That we want something doesn't mean we have a right to have it. It still isn't a right even if a bunch of us want it. It still isn't a right even if a court one day says it is. Wanting something doesn't mean it is right that you get it, or that any means used to get it are right.
Marriage has existed for all of human history. Our state, our current governments, did not create it. It recognizes it and has chosen to license it. There is a reason that the state is involved in marriage licensing, and it isn't because anyone has a right to a marriage license. It isn't so that the state can reward two people for finding love, mutual attraction, or good times together. There is a reason marriage throughout history has united the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage has reflected that.
And those reasons have nothing to do with stopping anyone from engaging in same-sex partnering or physical activity, or punishing people for having same-sex attractions, or trying to make such people feel bad. It does not prevent same-sex couples from living together, committing to each other, forming legal relationships, or considering themselves married or being treated by others as married.
As I've said many times, there is no right to a state-issued license against the demonstrated will of the state voters. True rights do not obligate others without their consent, unless a crime has been committed. When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no". We have the freedom of speech. It is even enumerated in the Constitution. But I do not have a right to force you to read this blog or listen to what I have to say – because that would obligate you without your consent.
Marriage defenders are not the people who took this matter to the courts. In doing so, same-sex partners were already subjecting their marriages to a vote – a vote by the judges. Since our government rules through the consent of the governed, marriage licensing stipulations fall under our authority. Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change. That I prefer to grow and eat vegetables instead of fish does not mean that something is wrong with fishing licenses, even if people will mount large catches on their wall and receive praise, while nobody cares as much that I grow tasty vegetables.
Now given that marriage licensing is up to the people of the state, what about that original question? What if people voted to change marriage licensing so that only same-sex couples could get them? I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't stop me from being married to my wife. I would still be happy with her, I would still live my life married to her, whether or not the state licensed it. That is because my marriage is based on biological fact and it is part of a historical tradition and is about our commitment to each other before God.
There is nothing stopping anyone from circulating a petition to change marriage licensing in such a way. So far, there has been ONE state where someone neutered marriage licensing by circulating a petition to get in on on the ballot, getting it on the ballot, and the voters approving it. So if they get enough signatures, it will get on the ballot. If the ballot measure gets enough votes, it will pass. So if you want to vote on my marriage, I say... go for it. My happiness does not depend on what you think of my marriage.
They are trying to stir sympathy, asking you to place yourself in their shoes. But what is the logical argument, if any, being made? It seems to be "You voted against licensing my relationship as marriage, and that hurts because I want my relationship to be licensed as marriage."
I'm sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
We've all wanted something, at sometime in our lives, that was wrong, or that wasn't ours to have, or wasn't even possible. That we want something doesn't mean we have a right to have it. It still isn't a right even if a bunch of us want it. It still isn't a right even if a court one day says it is. Wanting something doesn't mean it is right that you get it, or that any means used to get it are right.
Marriage has existed for all of human history. Our state, our current governments, did not create it. It recognizes it and has chosen to license it. There is a reason that the state is involved in marriage licensing, and it isn't because anyone has a right to a marriage license. It isn't so that the state can reward two people for finding love, mutual attraction, or good times together. There is a reason marriage throughout history has united the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage has reflected that.
And those reasons have nothing to do with stopping anyone from engaging in same-sex partnering or physical activity, or punishing people for having same-sex attractions, or trying to make such people feel bad. It does not prevent same-sex couples from living together, committing to each other, forming legal relationships, or considering themselves married or being treated by others as married.
As I've said many times, there is no right to a state-issued license against the demonstrated will of the state voters. True rights do not obligate others without their consent, unless a crime has been committed. When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no". We have the freedom of speech. It is even enumerated in the Constitution. But I do not have a right to force you to read this blog or listen to what I have to say – because that would obligate you without your consent.
Marriage defenders are not the people who took this matter to the courts. In doing so, same-sex partners were already subjecting their marriages to a vote – a vote by the judges. Since our government rules through the consent of the governed, marriage licensing stipulations fall under our authority. Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change. That I prefer to grow and eat vegetables instead of fish does not mean that something is wrong with fishing licenses, even if people will mount large catches on their wall and receive praise, while nobody cares as much that I grow tasty vegetables.
Now given that marriage licensing is up to the people of the state, what about that original question? What if people voted to change marriage licensing so that only same-sex couples could get them? I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't stop me from being married to my wife. I would still be happy with her, I would still live my life married to her, whether or not the state licensed it. That is because my marriage is based on biological fact and it is part of a historical tradition and is about our commitment to each other before God.
There is nothing stopping anyone from circulating a petition to change marriage licensing in such a way. So far, there has been ONE state where someone neutered marriage licensing by circulating a petition to get in on on the ballot, getting it on the ballot, and the voters approving it. So if they get enough signatures, it will get on the ballot. If the ballot measure gets enough votes, it will pass. So if you want to vote on my marriage, I say... go for it. My happiness does not depend on what you think of my marriage.
A question for Mr. Walrus. You write (emphasis added):
ReplyDelete"When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no".
[...]
Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change."
And elsewhere on your blog you've written:
"Whether a state has marriage licenses or neutered licenses, everyone, male or female, hetorosexual or not, has the same freedom to marry. That someone doesn't want to get a marriage licenses because of the sex-inclusive requirement (bride+groom) doesn't mean it isn't offered to them equally."
On the one hand, you're saying that homosexual couples being denied a marriage license is justified, because they choose not to comply with the requirements of that license. No change in the law is needed, because the individuals have access to the license they seek if they would just comply with the requirements and apply with a member of the opposite sex. ( Even though the two individuals are prepared to do everything the state requires married folks to do. )
But on the other hand, consider your article "Imaginary Rights", where you wrote:
"invidividuals and their private businesses should not be forced to participate in ceremonies they do not support."
But in reality, these businesses are only being asked to comply with the requirements of their state-issued licenses. They may not want to, but as you put it, wanting something does not make it a right. But you maintain that they should be able to remain in business without repercussions, even though they refuse to do the things that the state requires folks in their line of business (public accommodation) to do?
The people of California have a right to say "no" to same-sex couples because they don't meet a requirement on of the license. But the people of California have no right to enforce their legally established requirements on the businesses they license?
Can you reconcile the apparent inconsistency please?
There's no inconsistency. When one party ASKS another party for something, the party being asked as a right to say either "yes" or "no". So when a groomless couple asks a state for a marriage license, the people of that state have right to say "no". When a groomless couple asks a flower shop to participate in their ceremony, even if that ceremony will be legally recognized by the state, the flower shop should have the right to say "no". In both cases, freedom of association is maintained. There are other flower shops, and flowers aren't required for the ceremony anyway.
DeleteYou've already established that you agree there's a difference between bride+groom unions and others. You've also established that you want everyone to be be forced to accept the neutering of marriage nonetheless. Stop wasting my time, your time, and the time others, or I'm going to delete your comments.