In early 2009, there was an entry on the Los Angeles Times blog [NOTE: The Pink Lady now has a paywall, that last I checked, kicked in after so many hits from you per month] about the LDS church contributions supporting the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the entry prompted a bunch of the usual comments. I'm picking out one to analyze here.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:
It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.
This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so. But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.
I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:
It would seem that the right wing conseravtive movement wants America to adopt a Middle easrten Style Government where religion dictates the thoughts and actions of people.Not all right wing conservatives are traditionally religious. But I think he means the "religious right", and no, major personalities in the religious right do NOT want a theocracy. Actually, they (the Christian ones, anyway) await a benevolent dictatorship with the return of Christ, but until then they champion the Constitution.
For 233 years we have fought aganst this all around the world.No, we haven't. We have fought tyranny in various ways, and that the California Supreme Court did by ordering the neutering of marriage licenses was tyrannical.
I know some are uncomfortable with same sex relationships. So what.That's not the issue here (although you think state-issued marriage licenses mean affirmation). The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry?
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:
We were even attacked on Septemeber 11, 2001 by right wing conservative religious types screaming glory to the god they say is suprior to the God these American Chistains rage for, and they say,makes them superior to gay persons. These poeple seek to devide, inspire violence, murder, hate and create evil.The hijackers were all male, too, so I guess all men are just like them.
They know all about all, just ask them.Well if you aren't confident that you know anything, then why should anyone else listen to your opinion?
It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.
This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so. But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.
I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.
Mr. Walrus writes: "The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry? "
ReplyDeleteNot quite. The issue has to do with the conflict(s) created between the state's constitution and the law that was passed (Prop 8). The constitution fo California does not permit voters to capriciously take away rights from others. If California's citizens wish to limit marriage to male+female couples, they should have started with a constitutional amendment rather than enacting a law in conflict with that constitution.
Mr Walrus writes: "when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. "
ReplyDeleteLets not forget that those people asking for a marriage license are ALSO taxpayers. They are the public that the public servant is there to serve.
And about those "requirements" you mention. Its not enough that they be clear and equally applied. In order to be legal, they ALSO may not be arbitrary, capricious, or without benefit to the state.
Prop 8 was ratified by the citizens of CA. It is part of the state's constitution. It wrote into the constitution what the citizens of CA affirmed earlier in a direct vote that enacted a state statute. And that statute had merely affirmed the continuous understanding of the citizens of CA -- from territory to state -- that marriage is the unique type of relationship that is procreative in kind and that unites the sexes.
ReplyDeleteTreating non-marriage generously does not negate this affirmation of the truth of marriage. No right to marry was taken from those who'd SSM. SSM is not marriage. It is non-marriage. Domestic Partnership is an unwise attempt to regulate a subset of non-marriage -- the supposed gay subset -- but it fails to distinguish the type of relationship for which it is enacted from the rest of non-marriage. So what is the justification for DP law? That is the real question. SSMers have no real answer.
On June 16, 2008, the state of California began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This was discontinued in November of that year du to Prop 8, which was itself overturned in 2010. So much for "the continuous understanding of the citizens of CA".
DeleteIt has been continuous. The interim created by the state high court was ended and the abuse of judicial review was corrected in short order. The CA marriage amendment has not been overturned. It stands as the law in that state and that is in accord with the continuous understanding of the citizens of CA.
ReplyDeleteFacts are facts.
-- Chairm
These are the facts.
DeleteProp 8 has been overturned (on 8/4/2010). Higher courts have upheld that ruling twice already. As it stands, the ruling(s) will go into effect once the appeals process has reached its conclusion.
Those courts are wrong, as they have been before.
Delete