(RSS)
How to Solve the Prop 8 Problem
I have an idea: Let’s eradicate the institution of marriage. Not only will we all save a fortune on gifted bread machines that will never once be introduced to the miracle of yeast, but I can’t think of one political party or social movement that wouldn’t benefit from the dissolution of marriage.
The Prop 8 supporters will no longer have to toil long and hard to convince a nation rooted in freedom that restricting rights related to marriage is beneficial to a society made up of step-families.
The Prop 8 naysayers can devote their energy elsewhere. With all that free time, they can adopt the children abandoned or abused by the heterosexual couples once deemed socially acceptable enough to be worthy of a marriage license.
Speaking of that precious piece of paper, think of all the trees that will be saved by no longer having to print the marriage licenses made worthless by divorce certificates, not to mention the stacks of paperwork that go into dissolving a sanctimonious marriage.
Rather than one mother and one father (along with one or more step-mothers and step-fathers), how about we pool our money and put together a system where people who have been trained to educate take care of them exclusively?
Every adult will be free to love another without anyone’s rights being encroached upon.
Feminists will be thrilled that they no longer have to cackle against the antiquated institution rooted in owning women as one might cattle.
No more nagging wives! No more useless husbands! No more custody battles! Best of all: No more divorce!
Florists might have to seek other employment, but this is a small price to pay for the unity of an entire nation. Let’s make marriage as meaningless as Proposition 8 has made the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Morgan Balavage is a 24-year-old Redding native and University of California Santa Barbara graduate attempting to navigate her way through the “real” world as fearlessly as possible.
1,565 views
Yes. Let’s make it an exclusely religious exercise with absolutely no recognition from the the state whatsoever. We don’t provide tax breaks for people because they receive communion, so why should there be tax breaks for people who receive the sacrament of marriage?
Reply
I would absolutely love to see a television advertisement campaign that asks young people to protest this injustice by opting out of marriage until everyone has equal rights. Just to make the religious people squirm, the ads should also point out that with the right contraceptives, sex can be casual and worry-free.
Reply
One way to break down the religion barrier that continues to come up is to have the states remove the ability for clergy to perform ceremonys. People who get married in church seem to forget that before they can do that they have to apply for a Civil Marriage license. If the word “marriage” is the issue, then all states should move to a “wedded license” which should be issued to all “otherwise qualified citizens”. With computers, it would be easy to do a “copy/replace” of the word marriage with the word Wedded, then everyone will have access to the 1000+ Federal Rights and 200+ states rights and DOMA would no longer be necessary.
Reply
Let’s examine some statistics, shall we? According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, there are “over 100,000 same-sex couples in the state” of California. Also, UCLA estimated that 11,440 same-sex couples were married during the time that same-sex marriage was legalized in California. Based on these raw numbers, one can further estimate that around 11% of same-sex couples got married during the time that same-sex marriage was legalized in California. Here are some more statistics: according to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, divorce numbers for gay marriages in Sweden indicate that divorce among same-sex couples is significantly higher than among heterosexual couples. The study found that “gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.”
What these statistics indicate about the nature of same-sex marriage is two things: one is that though 11% is merely an estimation, this percentage demonstrates the urgency of same-sex couples to marry in California — that urgency being remarkably low; the other thing, as demonstrated in Sweden where same-sex marriage is legal, is that same-sex marriage is apparently much less stable than heterosexual marriages. Thus, one can surmise that same-sex marriage is neither very stable nor wanted with any level of urgency by the homosexual community.
So, Ms. Balavage, to your point about eliminating marriage, I suppose that it would be more beneficial to homosexual couples to eliminate marriage because it appears that they really don’t care that much about marriage and are more likely to divorce, anyway.
Oh, and regarding your point about step-families and homosexual couples adopting children from broken heterosexual households, considering how homosexual couples are less prone to staying marriage, I can imagine a dream scenario of two divorced homosexual men with children marrying two other divorced homosexual men with children. If that happened, those children would have two dads AND two step-dads. Holiday dinners would be like, “Hi, Dad. Hi, Dad. Hi, Dad. Hi, Dad.” Wouldn’t that be great?
Or, there can be NO marriage and everyone would be illegitimate children. That sounds wonderful to me. (That was sarcasm, by the way.)
Reply
Donovo,
I like that you are actually trying to use some sort of fact in your argument. You are definitely a rare one in the prop8 supporter bunch. I don’t know how much it helps your case though. If blacks demonstrated a higher divorce rate, would you argue to strip them of their rights? How about Christians, they divorce a lot? How about everybody except for the Amish… Actually, I kind of like where your argument is going here…
Regarding your “only 11% of gays got married” argument, another explanation for this is that 89% of gays simply had too much faith in the character of the California majority.
If you are genuine concerned over the stability of homosexual relationships, I can think of one way to actually reverse that trend… Lets give homosexuals the right to solidify their bond through a legal marriage. I wish I could give you numbers, but I would be willing to bet, that in the heterosexual community, married couples, on average, stay together longer than unmarried couples.
Reply
In my opinion the greatest benefactors of same sex marriages would be lawyers. I am surprised homosexuals aren’t talking about the negatives of this. If a couple are even going to live together long enough to be considered married legally then the partner with the most assets better have had a prenup written up and signed before this time. When there is a breakup it will be much more ugly with more violence and murders if a person will also be losing a large sum of money in association with the breakup. I am surprised that(apparently) so many homosexuals want this. Human nature is such that the grass looks greener on the other side. But usually isn’t. Marriage is tough. Heterosexual marriage is necessary for a healthy society but it isn’t easy. In the sixties marriage was portrayed as passe, overly restrictive, undesirable etc.. I don’t understand why homosexuals would want it when they now have the rights of civil unions for the positive legal needs. If same sex marrige is legalized how long before polygamy is legalized.
Regardind your quote of the Declaration of Independence you seem to indicate that the pursuit of happiness shouldn’t have boundaries. To a pedifile not being able to molest kids would be a violation of his rights. I know my example is to the extreme but I think you get my point. I haven’t studied the matter but I am pretty sure that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independance homosexuality was illegal, and the rights indicated by the Declaration of independance as they were originally intended would not have overthrown the law.
Reply
Mr. Katz,
Actually, (and sadly) Christians get divorced at about the same rate as non-Christians, which is around 50%. Yes, they divorce a lot.
Regarding your comment about 89% of gays having faith in the California majority (which did vote FOR Prop 8, by the way, however slim people felt a 500,000-person margin was), my original point was when same-sex marriage became legal, even after years of being denied the right to marry, only an estimated 11% of same-sex couples ran out and got married. That indicates to me a lack of urgency for marriage on the part of same-sex couples. Granted, the same can be said about heterosexual couples nowadays, but it is legal for them to marry, so the urgency is really not there.
In the face of prohibition, wouldn’t a sense of urgency arise? Wouldn’t same-sex couples literally fall over themselves to finally marry, if it were that important to them? In my opinion, marriage really isn’t that important to homosexuals. I would further contend that the homosexual lifestyle is not borne from a desire to marry. Instead, promiscuity and experimentation has largely characterized homosexual behavior for centuries, whether it be in the Roman Empire or in the San Francisco bathhouses of the 1970s and 1980s.
Regarding the stability of homosexual marriages, my original point was that homosexual marriage are more inherently unstable than heterosexual marriages, and this was in response to Ms. Balavage’s contention that homosexual marriages are more stable. The numbers (even if they are estimations) spell it out.
And, yes, married heterosexual couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried couples because marriage is both a legal commitment and (for many) a religious covenant. Without the commitment, it is easier to drift in and out of relationships because there is less at stake. In my opinion, though, if you put a heterosexual marriage alongside a homosexual marriage, the homosexual marriage will always be lacking in two ways: the inability to procreate in any way without technological assistance; and, the inherent incompatibility of physiology (if you understand my point). Oh, and a same-sex couple could never provide the balanced influence of a mother and a father; some may downplay this, but a heterosexual marriage is the only one that can provide such a balanced perspective on things.
Reply
Donovan, I refuse to allow my life to be governed by statistics. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it will or won’t. Every individual situation is different. That’s why it’s called “freedom:” the freedom to decide what an individual wants, regardless of the what-ifs, the most-likelys, the maybe-or-nots.
Furthermore, your point that only an estimated 11% of same sex couples were married when it was legal speaks perhaps to foresight before entering into binding legal contract. How many heterosexual couples aren’t married but live together, have children together, or love each other enough to provide for the other in sickness and in health?
Ultimately, there are bigger problems out there, and to spend the time, money, and energy fighting for and against equality is a sad statement of California’s priorities. Think of how California’s education system could have benefited from the $70 odd million that went into the respective Prop 8 campaigns.
Tim, can we agree that every individual is allowed the right to pursue happiness without restricting someone else’s? How does your neighbor’s marriage, regardless of the genders, affect your ability to live your life as you see fit?
Reply
A lot of good points here. Statistics are very confusing. The idea that prop. 8 passed because of hate is ridiculous! And I know some people think the words in the Bible don’t mean anything, but they do. And so much rationalization that makes same sex couples is OK because of an constitutional right just doesn’t make a whole of sense. I fail to umderstand why there are so many gay folks these days. But if they are happy, then fine, but don’t call those who voted for prop 8, “haters”. It is not true, at all.
Reply
Morgan,
I think that it’s excellent that you refuse to not let statistics govern your life, but I didn’t cite statistics to establish any kind of governance over your life or anyone’s life. I cited statistics for two reasons: to counter your point regarding the stability of homosexual marriage vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage; and, to illustrate, in a statistical way, how “important” marriage really is to homosexuals.
You mentioned that there are many heterosexual couples that live together and have children without getting married — I don’t dispute that. But, they have accepted that their being unmarried disallows them from receiving the tax and governmental benefits that marriage provides. That is their choice, so I don’t see your point. However, I should point out, as Mr. Katz did in a previous post, that heterosexual married couples tend to stay together longer than unmarried couples. Why? Because they made a legal commitment to do so. This commitment should be codified, especially if children come into the picture. How many unmarried couples struggle with custody issues when they split up? In that context, not being married would be a bad idea.
With that said, why don’t we just let homosexuals get married, so that they would be legally bound? For all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts, but let’s take another angle. You know, there is nothing out there to restrict or prohibit what homosexuals do in their private lives. They can conduct themselves as they see fit, especially now that people are more permissive of public displays of homosexual affection (I’m not talking about sex, of course). But, marriage has had, until this point, a clear definition: a legal and/or religious commitment between a man and a woman. Most, if not all cultures, reflect this.
Sadly, though, it’s not that simple. Western society has become so divorced (no pun intended) from common sense that now two men can entertain the notion of being married, and to stand against that is considered bigoted or parochial, or both. Throughout human history, the proliferation of humanity in any region has relied solely on the interactions of men and women; thus, opposite-sex marriage (barring extenuating medical circumstances) is the only productive means by which humanity persists. And, yet, anti-Prop 8 activitists and other like-minded individuals want all of us to embrace same-sex unions. Does that make sense?
Let me put it in another way: let’s say that I choose to not enlist in the military. As a non-veteran, I would not be eligible for veteran benefits, such as locking my mortgage interest rate at 6% while on active dute or certain tax breaks. Is that fair? Of course, it is. I chose to not enlist, so I don’t get veteran benefits. However, homosexual couples want to get married. Up until now, every world culture defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and certain tax and governmental benefits (at least in Western countries) are afforded to those couples. Is that fair? Of course, it is. Those homosexual couples chose not to pair up with opposite-sex partners, so they do not satisfy the widely-defined requirement of marriage.
To your point about there being bigger problems out there, I cannot agree with that because there are widespread ramifications to allowing same-sex marriages. Considering how homosexuals comprise a vast minority of California’s population, the allowance of same-sex marriage would pressure religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam to not only marry such couples, but also to not preach anything that speaks out against same-sex marriage and homosexuality (which, in all of those religions, is considered sin, forbidden, or both). Also, schools would be mandated to teach about marriage in an all-inclusive fashion. The “No on 8″ campaign would have you believe otherwise, but if you step back and examine the situation, you may see that we would see the beginning of the persecution of those religions and any that oppose homosexuality. So, yes, there are many problems we should also address, but the institution of marriage is still a very big deal.
Now, if it were so simple as to do away with marriage, things wouldn’t be as rosy as you think. Couples (homosexual or heterosexual) would be free to love each other, and then free to love other people because there’s no binding commitment. Kids could have dads, step-dads, step-step-dads, and so on, so that would be nice. Oh, and who gets custody when these unmarried couples decide to break things off? Can you imagine the legal mess that would cause? Do you really think that, without a binding legal commitment, a heterosexual couple would stay together?
Reply
Donovan, you said it. Without marriage to bind people in some sort of commitment, relationships have the potential for frivolity. What I can’t fathom is why you wish to deprive any people of the right to enter into a binding commitment that might decrease the possibility of such superficiality.
You are worried about the education of our children, but statistically speaking, the younger people are more tolerant than you. 60% of those under 30 approve of the right for homosexual couples to marry. Granted, those polled are over seventeen, but this statistic indicates a significant difference between spring and winter (60% of those over 65 disapprove). Call it speculation, but the young will be less affected by this change than those entrenched in tradition.
Though the information you draw from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy is somewhat compelling, I am left with a relevant question: Are there relevant differences between Sweden and California? Can you provide me with an answer to this question? I didn’t spend much time poking around, but the surfing I did indicated that gay marriage is not yet legal in Sweden (though “registered partnerships” have been legal since the mid 90’s.) I wonder if heterosexual couples would behave differently toward their commitments if they entered into a registered partnership instead of a marriage?
The IMPP information is only somewhat compelling however. You have provided evidence that indicates that a minority of gay couples want to marry and evidence that indicates that such marriages are prone to failure, but I still don’t understand why this means we must deprive the rest of the possibility of a deeply committed relationship. Why does it bother you? Are married gay couples somehow trouncing your freedoms? Are they an imposition?
Reply
Wow. I am going to make a brief comment, because if I don’t restrain myself, I might go on for hours. My rage at the shameful bigotry pro-h8ters have the gall to be SMUG, RIGHTEOUS and PROUD of, knows no bounds.
First off, many props to this website, for continuing the dialogue on this incredibly important issue of our times. For whatever negative feedback that you might receive for taking on this conversation, I commit to negate it by putting a link to donigreenberg.com on my myspace, facebook and share the website with my friends. And that’s just an idea to put out to everyone.
It’s pretty pointless to really respond to any of the faux-complicated bigot arguments, because you can phrase it however you want and present as many facetious arguments as you can, but it really comes down to your fear of…..The Homosexual!!!!!!!! And the fear of that within yourself. Well, guess what? THEY ARE EVERYWHERE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING AWAY. I guess this comment is not really even directed towards those people, because I am done giving them my energy, but to the people who are thinking beyond the stereotype of “normal” that has been fed to their brains. My advice: If a person is homophobic around me, I react the same way I’d react if someone said the n-word in front of me. That attitude deserves the exact same reaction of shock, horror and outrage because we cannot continue to excuse these racists/bigots. Don’t let it be ok to be homophobic. Don’t let it be “one of those things we just don’t talk about.’ Your gay friend, cousin, sister, neighbor, co-worker, etc. deserves you taking a stand for them. NO ON H8TE! Love Cannot Be Legislated!
Reply
To Jim,
You had some rather compelling comments that I would like to address.
First of all, I have nothing against same-sex couples forming some kind of legal union from which they can draw tax and government benefits; such unions do not affect me or society in general. However, when the specific institution of “marriage” is targeted for change, I feel it is cause for great alarm. As I have stated in my past responses, marriage is by and large how society grows; after all, human beings must matriculate from somewhere. That said, homosexual marriage does not satisfy this criterion. Thus, in my opinion, such a union is not a “marriage.”
Why is this important? Well (and this addresses your question about Sweden and California), almost all, if not all, recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. One may consider this conceptualization of marriage to be synchronic, but across time marriage has involved a man and a woman. So, on the basis of being human beings, I find Sweden and California comparable. Now, you rightfully pointed out that Sweden has not legalized gay “marriage,” but “registered partnerships,” and that’s where I erred — forgive me for that misstep. Nonetheless, the data is instructive insofar as gay unions are tracked in some way in Sweden, so one can get an indication of how such unions would progress elsewhere. Granted, Sweden and California may differ greatly on a cultural level, but I believe that human beings are humans beings wherever you go, especially when it comes to physiology, procreation, and formations of family units.
You asked if “heterosexual couples would behave differently toward their commitments if they entered into a registered partnership instead of a marriage.” I cannot say for certain, but I will say this: whether anyone believes it or not, marriage carries with it a blessing of a union between a man and a woman. Though marriage exists now as a legal commitment, in most cultures across the globe, the precepts of marriage are grounded in religion — in other words, a belief that a greater deity is blessing a male-female union to a lifetime commitment to care for each other and their offspring. Looking at marriages today, I would contend that most people view marriage as a codification of love into a binding agreement. Sadly, though, most people also view marriage as a contract: when one party does not satisfy the terms of the contract, he or she nullifies the contract. But, traditionally, marriage is not a “contract,” but a lifetime commitment.
However, for most people now, the religious element has been extracted from marriage and it is now considered a “legal contract.” This is where I come close to an answer to your question: is marriage really different from a “registered partnership” for most people? The answer to that is the answer to your question, and I only have to point at how marriage is viewed today to indicate this: divorce rates are increasing, fewer people are getting marriage, and more children are born out of wedlock. I believe this is because most people (homosexual or heterosexual) view marriage as simply a messy legal contract that is restrictive and costly. I also believe that it is because most traditional and spiritual elements have been stripped from marriage that homosexuals now have a stake in marriage as a legal institution. This is because the religions that often officiate marriage (in the U.S., Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, and the like) also oppose homosexuality. Excise these religious influences from marriage, and you open it up to anyone because anyone’s lifestyle is not longer subject to the precepts of those religions.
To address your questions about why homosexual marriage bothers me and if it is an imposition, I will start with this: marriage has always had a very specific meaning for most, if not all, cultures in the world. Of course, polygamy did exist in the past, and that cannot be denied, but marriage has always involved a man and a woman because it is only through this union that children are born and raised. This reminds me of the arguments many scientists pose regarding homosexual behavior in nature and how certain animals demonstrate that behavior, but here’s something to consider: they’re animals. They cannot reason on a higher level; they cannot communicate with complicated syntax; and, because we have never found this, they do not establish civilizations that mine and refine metals and raw materials to create structures that can withstand nature. Besides that, I would mention this: animals innately understand that offspring only comes when a male and a female mate.
That argument aside (and I won’t go further with it), why does it bother me? In all honesty, I must speak from faith. First of all, I don’t want my children to go to school and have some stranger (i.e. their teacher) bringing confusion to their nascent psyches by introducing social alternatives to marriage and sex; I want my boys to grow up without doubts about their masculinity or, shall we say, which union is more socially productive. I don’t want my church to lose its tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization because the Bible strictly prohibits homosexuality, and yet a same-sex couple sues my church because the pastor refuses to counsel and marry them. I don’t want to be persecuted for a faith grounded not in my personal feelings about homosexuals, but based on the Word of God (which you may or may not believe). And, I don’t want marriage, as a sacrament blessed by God, to be debased by a small group of activists who are angry and want to claim that institution for themselves, even though they do not satisfy the basic criterion of what marriage has been based on tradition and physiology: a union between a man and a woman recognized by society and/or by faith.
So, as it is in Sweden, if homosexual couples want to form registered partnerships, then so be it. In this regard, I have no opinion either way. Governments can argue about what benefits such unions should be afforded, and it would fall out of my purview.
Reply
Rowan,
Actually, I’m glad you restrained yourself, because if you were to submit me to your pedantic, over-stated argument “for hours,” I might be compelled to move to Sweden.
First of all, if anything, it has been anti-Prop 8 people that have demonstrated smugness, SELF-righteousness, and pride, not to mention ignorance with the targeting of their ire at Mormon wards, even though it was not the wards that donated money — it was the individuals in the wards that gave of their own accord. Even though Prop 8 (and, before it, Prop 22) was passed by popular vote (a hallmark of our republic, I must mention), anti-Prop 8 people are seeking every method to block the voters. Also, isn’t it sad that though the “No on Prop 8″ campaign actually received MORE monetary contributions that the “Yes on 8″ campaign, “No on 8″ still lost at the polls. This inability to effectively market their position, if anything, fully demonstrates the pride and smugness the “No on 8″ crowd had.
That said, Prop 8 is really not about love, just as homosexuality is borne from a tradition that was not really about love (as I implied in a previous post). So, let’s divorce (pun intended this time) love from Prop 8 and look at it this way: marriage is traditionally defined the world over as being between a man and a woman. This is no accident: it is only from a marriage between a man and a woman that society raises and produces future generations (barring medical assistance or adoption). It’s tragic, but this common sense definition needed to be codified into California’s constitution in order to protect what marriage represents to so many adherents to so many faith systems. Think of Prop 8 as this: it protects religions and their views of marriage. As many No on 8 people like to wrongfully refer to the U.S. Bill of Rights, let me correctly refer to the First Amendment and the freedom of religion. Prop 8, in many ways, upholds the First Amendment because it allows people to believe in God/Allah/whoever and what is taught by their religions about the marriage as being between a man and a woman. Beyond this, though, is the simple idea that Prop 8 is really about marriage and not homosexuality, though homosexuals who want to form unions that they call “marriage” would be affected.
So, let me address you, Rowan, in this way: you or anyone, especially in America, are legally protected to engage in whatever homosexual behavior you see fit in your private lives. No one disputes that. My faith views homosexuality as a sin that distances one from God, but what do you care about that? You are free to date and have sex with whomever you choose. I, and most other “religious” people, will not act “homophobic” around you and call you names. Don’t trumpet homosexuality like racism because you chose your lifestyle — African-Americans didn’t choose to be African-American, and Asian-Americans, like my wife and sons, did not choose to be Asian-American. You choose with whom you have sex, and I do the same; the difference is that homosexuals choose to enter sexual relations that are physiologically incompatible and procreatively non-productive. That’s your choice, and I don’t have to agree or disagree with it.
However, I do take issue with an alternative group of people who wish to claim and redefine a time-honored institution like marriage for their own use. Is it for tax or government benefits? You can get those (at least, on the state level) through domestic partnerships. Is it about “love?” As many posters have stated before me, many couples live unmarried and still “love” each other. Is it about the ceremony, the tuxedo, the other tuxedo, and the trappings of marriage? If it is, does it matter if what you call “marriage” is legal or not? Besides, why would homosexuals want to “marry” if marriage has long been associated with religions that consider homosexuality as a sin?
In my opinion, the institution of marriage is one of the final aspects of society that, to this point, homosexuals have been unable to appropriate for themselves, and it is a source of resentment and anger. This reminds me of a recent situation: in California, there was a legal case in which a man sued the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim because he was not given a tote bag during the Mother’s Day promotional event, during which only mothers that attended the game would receive a tote. He sued and lost. He appealed, and the appeal lost. He went to the California Supreme Court, and I believe he lost. Why? Because he was not a mother and the courts upheld that his not being given a tote bag on Mother’s Day was not discrimination because there was no discrimination against mothers in this situation. Let’s apply this to marriage: same-sex couples want to take part in a union that has been clearly defined as man-woman, and yet they feel entitled.
Anyone, Rowan, what’s the point? You are apparently mired in the rhetoric that has become so hackneyed that it is now overstated. Sure, homosexuals aren’t going aways; they haven’t gone away for centuries, and I’m sure that Prop 8 won’t scare them away. And, no, Prop 8 is not about racism or bigotry because Prop 8 is about protecting what all of us have grown up knowing marriage to be: between a man and a woman. Honestly, you can do whatever you want with your life because in America, you have that freedom. But, if you or anybody else is seeking to redefine a meaningful and sacramental institution like marriage, doesn’t it stand to reason that those who have any relationship with God would have something to say against that? Is such faith based in bigotry? If anything, homosexuals are the bigots — bigots against faith, bigots against tradition, and bigots against those who recognize that marriage has a specific meaning.
So, you’re right: “Love cannot be legislated.” You can engage in whatever you consider “love” with whomever you choose. Just remember that whatever same-sex union you enter is not “marriage” — it’s something else.
I hope you have a nice day.
Reply
I want a return to “traditional marriage” that involves the exchange of women and livestock….
Reply
Re: Passage of Prop 8:
So…there’s a problem?
Reply
Donovan,
I only made it a little way into your diatribe to Jim and Rowan but wanted to make a few quick comments.
If it is traditional marriage you want, then you should start by looking into the history books. Across time, marriage was defined as between a man and MANY women. Hopefully you will agree that since traditional marriage tends to victimize women, it is much worse than homosexual marriages, which doesn’t victimize anyone.
Regarding your concern that we need to ban homosexual marriages because we need to maximize our baby count, well I have a great series of videos you really should watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
You will like the math, it is even better than your statistics.
Reply
Mr. Katz,
Two things:
1) I never said that I wanted to “maximize the baby count.” I will not be baited with intentionally inflammatory inaccuracies like that. I take it, then, you’re on the “minimize the baby count” side of things?
2) I am well aware of the role of polygamy in history. As I told someone in another article, polygamy was prevalent in many cultures (and up to a certain time in the Old Testament), but even then the “optimal” male-female physiological interaction was recognized as productive for increasing population. Granted, Christianity has had great influence on the monogamous approach to marriage, but I can safely say that there never existed a socially productive polyandronous model with one man and a bunch of men. Tell if you find any instances of a man marrying many men, or a woman marrying many women — I don’t think you’ll find such examples.
Anyway, I can see this thread is going nowhere fast. By the way, didn’t you pitch for the Cardinals back in the day? Aren’t you in the Hall of Fame? If that’s you, then I respect you as a pitcher.
Reply
Mr. Katz,
Sorry, I realized two more things:
1) You’re John, not Jim. My mistake.
2) Actually, polygamy was not traditional marriage, but a practice that only the very wealthy or land-endowed could afford to support. For the most part, commoners engaged in monogamy because it was extremely expensive and impractical to maintain. Even in the Old Testament of the Bible, it was only those who could support multiple wives who could engage in polygamy.
Thus, polygamy cannot be put forth as “traditional” marriage, but a derivation. Even in Mormonism in the 19th century, only those who had a lot of money and land could afford an additional wives; most Mormons were only married monogamously.
Nice try.
Reply
I looked up the IMAPP document that Donovan cited. I can’t certify the accuracy of the data that they cited (they only had two) but I found this to be amusing:
For example, Swedish
partners with only a secondary education or
less were more than twice as likely to
separate as couples where both partners had
a university degree.
According to the paper, lack of a college degree creates an equal or greater risk of divorce than sexual orientation. I didn’t see anything on their website promoting education, though. huh.
Reply
Donovan,
You have asked several times what same-sex marriage is about. Undoubtedly, there are several answers to this question, and not all of them justify the legalization of such marriages, but I feel like you have ignored a compelling reason: for some, it is about the commitment. You bemoan the sad state of marriage as an institution today (”most people (homosexual or heterosexual) view marriage as simply a messy legal contract that is restrictive and costly”). In spite of the extreme difficulty of proving the generalization you delivered in your response, I am still fuzzy on why you would want to restrict anyone who views marriage as a spiritual commitment, especially if we accept the generalization that marriage is, for most, nothing more than a messy contract.
I am also unclear on another argument you have propounded several times. You claim that traditional marriage is somehow sanctified by the fact that procreation is a part of such unions. I have two questions. Many I know have married with no intention of procreation. Should they be prohibited from doing so? After all, their unions are not destined to produce children. Or could it be that marriage among heterosexuals is not simply about the ability to procreate? Perhaps more to the point, do you believe that somehow the human race will die out if same-sex marriages are allowed? I cannot say for sure, but I doubt this is the case. Were such marriages legal, gay people would marry, and heterosexual couples would continue to marry and keep the race alive. I know my wife and I would do our part regardless.
Last, you have introduced faith into the argument, and I have a few questions along those lines as well. I have to engage in a hypothetical at the moment, but I think you will agree that I have not transgressed the bounds of reason in my suppositions. Somewhere between 5 and 10% of those in North America are atheists. I am guessing that some of them, perhaps even a large number of them, are married and view marriage as more than a contract of tax and benefit convenience. Should these people be allowed to marry? Also, considering the words of the Constitution (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), if marriage is being defined legally as between a man and a woman, and that definition, as you have stated, finds its origin in a religious tradition, Prop 8 seems to contradict this Constitutional decree. Now, I realize that Prop 8 is a state issue, and the Constitution is a federal document, so there is some wiggle room for you here, but I can’t help but feel that you are trying to impose your faith on me and others. (I am not, by the way, an atheist; rather, I am someone who believes in the freedom for all.) I believe that you would feel imposed upon by legal gay marriages, but I have yet to understand specifically how. On one point, I agree with you. Churches should not be forced to marry against their beliefs, especially considering the fact that there are many alternatives, but that issue need not preclude gay marriage. That is something that can be hammered out without going so far as strict prohibition. Beyond that, you argue that the children will be adversely affected. In spite of the fact that little evidence supports this claim, it does not stand up to scrutiny. A civil union, with which you claim to have no problem, is no less difficult to explain to young people than a same-sex marriage. As a final argument, you and many who share your beliefs claim that these marriages would debase the institution of marriage, but the arguments I have heard might as well apply to heterosexual couples who treat the union frivolously. You might as well have said some people debase marriage, instead of directing that criticism against homosexuals. Perhaps there should be a test that bans some heterosexual couples from marrying, on the basis that they will eventually debase the institution?
I know that you have heard this before, but I think it still relevant. Let’s not forget that slavery was once a “time-honored institution,” one that had supporters quoting from the bible to uphold it. Some things need to change for the better.
Finally, I would like to thank you for engaging in honest and civil discourse. Discussions of this nature often turn vitriolic, and the vitriol poisons and hence spoils the efforts of all involved.
Reply
Seems Donovan has a love for self, so many words, so much space, me thinks he should be charged for taking up all this cyber space in the name of narcissim. Any chance of being a little more short and succinct in 2009 ? You may not be a Prop. 8 hater, but you have to admit you’re getting in the way of me, or anyone, who simply wants to have the same rights and benefits you have.
Reply
Jim,
You raised some great points. Admittedly, the argument I have presented in this thread is by no means complete because, frankly, I have been trying to avoid the common points that are raised by those who support Prop 8. However, I would like to address some of your points.
In your first paragraph, you commented on my generalization about marriage being viewed today as a messy contract, and then you seemed to surmise that it was my intention to restrict those who view marriage as a spiritual commitment. Well, I make the generalization because of the way people (heterosexual or homosexual) view marriage. Today, if you talk to most couples, you will find that they view marriage as a “give-and-take” proposition wherein if one spouse does their share of work, the other should do so, as well; if one party fails to do so, then divorce may be seen as a viable option. For example, I have personally witnessed friends divorce because one thought he was simply overworked and that his wife wasn’t doing her share to lighten his load. Whether that view is correct or not is not the issue; the issue is that the husband was upset with the wife’s poor performance, and thus felt compelled to divorce her. So, I tend to think that marriage is viewed by people as a quid-pro-quo arrangement when that was never really the intention for marriage. Now, this doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t do as much as they can to contribute in the home (for example) to take advantage of marriage, but I hope you understand my position.
Also, I don’t see how you could have surmised that I would “want to restrict anyone who views marriage as a spiritual commitment, especially if we accept the generalization that marriage is, for most, nothing more than a messy contract.” On the contrary, if a man and a woman view marriage as a spiritual commitment, then I believe that they are looking at marriage in the best way. However, if you are referring to homosexual couples who want to make that “spiritual commitment,” then it’s up to them to find a religion or faith system that will accommodate them. I know that religions with Judeo-Christian origins do not (and should not because the Bible and the Koran are clearly against homosexuality). But, it appears to me that homosexual couples wouldn’t really be interested in such a spiritual commitment because many of the major faith-systems that officiate weddings oppose homosexuality.
Next, you had two questions. One was this: “Many I know have married with no intention of procreation. Should they be prohibited from doing so?” This question I’ve addressed at length elsewhere, but I will do my best to address it briefly here. Here’s an excerpt of what I wrote at another site: “marriage is predicated on many notions (all of which are under dispute, like the religious nature of marriage and the intriguingly uniform tradition of heterosexual marriage in all cultures), but two that cannot be denied are the ability to procreate and contribute to the proliferation of people in a region; and, the physiological compatibility of both participants in a marriage to not only enable procreation, but provide sexual pleasure without outside chemical or technological assistance.” Now, I understand that there are couples who cannot or do not have children, but my point is this: they possess the physiology, in optimal physical conditions, to produce offspring. This means that the organs are in place, but for whatever reason children are not procreated. I think that the potential to produce offspring is key to one of the principal purposes of marriage; homosexual marriage does not present this potential, so I don’t consider it “marriage” as it once was defined before certain groups confused the issue. Anyway, the simplest way for me to explain my position (barring those who truly view marriage as a spiritual covenant, like me) is that you can satisfy one of two criteria for marriage: the potential to procreate under healthy (as in, reproductive) conditions; and physiological compatibility of one’s organs vis-a-vis the other’s organs.
Your second question was: “Perhaps more to the point, do you believe that somehow the human race will die out if same-sex marriages are allowed?” From a purely biological standpoint, no, the human race would never die out because a vast majority of the world’s population is heterosexual, thus will continue to produce offspring. Now, if you want my opinion from a moral and sociological standpoint, I would contend that no civilization has lasted where homosexuality was an accepted and somewhat integral part of its society. If you can point out one, then let me know and we’ll examine it. I will refrain from providing my faith-based perspective here.
Regarding your Constitution argument, you argued that: “Considering the words of the Constitution (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), if marriage is being defined legally as between a man and a woman, and that definition, as you have stated, finds its origin in a religious tradition, Prop 8 seems to contradict this Constitutional decree.” Actually, I see Prop 8 as upholding the First Amendment, which protects the freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech, because it protects the precepts of marriage as taught by religions in the United States. If Prop 8 had not passed, then religion becomes restricted insofar as most major religions take clear positions against homosexuality. Homosexual groups could then target churches, synogagues, mosques, and Mormon wards as being “bigoted” for preaching what has been preached for millenia. This has happened in Canada, where the preaching of Romans 1 may result in governmental sanctions. I see this as problematic.
You also stated: “…realize that Prop 8 is a state issue, and the Constitution is a federal document, so there is some wiggle room for you here, but I can’t help but feel that you are trying to impose your faith on me and others.” Jim, there is a difference between offering my opinion and compelling you to act a certain way. In the context of this forum, (if I can call it that), I am offering my opinion to provide a further explanation of my position. Anti-Prop 8 folks are perfectly free to bombard me with their diatribes and statements about my “bigotry,” and yet, when I speak from my personal faith, it is imposing my faith on others? If one cannot speakly freely and civilly about one’s own position without being accused of “imposing,” then what’s the point of offering an opinion? Besides, honestly, I could contend that you are imposing your opinion on me, if I employed such logic.
That aside, I should say this (and I believe I’ve stated this before in this forum): if a homosexual couple wants to unify in some legal way, then, putting aside my faith-based convictions against it, I do not oppose it from a legal standpoint. Already, California has domestic partnership as an option for homosexual couples who want to receive tax, insurance, and governmental benefits afforded to married couples. Plus, if a homosexual couple really wants to be “married,” then there is nothing stopping them from having the ceremony, buying the rings, and calling it a “marriage.” The sticky point is when their union is lumped together with “traditional” marriage. If this happened, then, as you contended, schools wouldn’t explain the difference between civil unions and marriages because they’d be considered one in the same. You also seemed to contend that children wouldn’t be adversely affected, but tell that to the kids who become unsure of their own sexuality and begin to observe alternative lifestyles like homosexual marriage. For the nascent sexuality of a teenager, such alternatives don’t provide more options, but simply provides confusion.
Regarding your point about the debasing of marriage, I agree with you: there are also many heterosexual couples that frivolously disregard marriage. So, I should level my criticism at them AND homosexual marriage, but the difference is that heterosexual couples still satisfy the criteria I mentioned regarding marriage, where homosexual couples do not. Anyway, your suggestion of a test would be intriguing, but I think that there should be a counseling system in place to counsel couples before marriage. Sadly, with modern marriage being stripped of any religious influence by most people, people who want to marry are not counseled as my wife and I were by our pastor with several meetings. Perhaps, we can agree on a marriage class?
Lastly, to be specifc, chattel slavery was not a “time-honored institution.” Consider that in the American colonies, not everyone accepted slavery, and many acknowledged it as an evil. Think about this: all Germans weren’t Nazis in the early 20th century, and not nearly all Americans were pro-slavery. Furthermore, to clarify, the kind of “slavery” so misquoted in the Bible refers to servant where in a person pledged service for 7 years to a master; after those 7 years, if that person chose to remain a slave, the owner would pierce the slave’s ear and he would be a lifetime servant. That servant would then be treated like a trusted worker in the family. “Slavery” in the Bible was very different from the chattel slavery of the American colonies and early United States. Also, consider that countries like Korea had a hereditary social class of slaves who were slaves only because they were born into it — there was no basis in racial discrimination or the like, but being a slave was simply based on one’s birth into the class. At least, that’s what I learned in my Korean Civilization class. I mention this because slavery has become a broad term in which many different approaches have been lumped, and I wouldn’t consider it “time-honored,” like many before you have argued vis-a-vis marriage.
Thank you for your comments. I must admit that I have slipped into vitriol from time to time, but I strive to improve. Without civil discourse, no one understands each other and society breaks down in a morass of confusion and self-centeredness.
Reply
Frank Treadway,
Oh, yes, I love myself so much that I enter lengthy comments into an obscure forum that almost no one out there is reading. That makes sense. Right, and I love myself so much that I take time out of my schedule to put my thoughts and opinions out there on an issue that is so crucial to me out of personal narcissism. I’m sure Tolstoy was a huge narcissist for writing “War and Peace.”
Honestly, I have never heard comment length equated to narcissism. If anything, Frank, it is you who is getting in the way of thoughtful discourse with your smug attempts at pithy brevity.
Here’s to meaningful “short” comments.
Reply
The title of this piece presupposes there is a “problem” with the passage of Prop 8. Unlike the issue of abortion, the people had an opportunity to vote on this visceral moral issue. And the majority has spoken. Emphatically. The only problem I see is that anti-Prop 8ers are unwilling accept the decision of that majority. No amount of reason, logic, facts or figures will convince anti-8ers that it is a good decision, nor will any amount of wheedling, crying, outraged tantrums, moral equivalency arguments, or gnashing of teeth sway pro-8ers. There is no middle ground, nor need there be. Prop 8 passed. This is a democracy. Rejoice in it or deal with it, and move on. The people have spoken.
Reply
Good point, Unabashed American. What added emphasis to the victory of Prop 8 was that it happened despite polls indicating it would lose 44% to 56% before the election. It makes me wonder who was polled…
Reply
Wow! For a tongue in cheek article this has really stirred up some response! I do like the point that there is a difference between a civil marriage and a religious one. Let those that wish have a civil marriage and let the religious community set up their own guidelines. Too simple?
Reply
Some readers may find this funny!!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Reply
Jon Katz……wow. That video is extraordinary. Why was information about population growth and convervation in the news when I was in High School an eon ago, but is never mentioned today? I made life choices based on the math, but lately I get the get the feeling that more people means more houses to build and more things to sell. The truth would be bad for profits.
Reply
This piece was dang near brilliant.
Y’know, as a straight married guy, I just don’t get it. If two people of the same sex want to get married, I just can’t see how it negatively impacts the integrity of my marriage. While I concede that there are many pro Prop 8 folks out there with genuinely honorable intent, I still suspect that plain ol’ homophobia is behind much of the anti gay marriage sentiment.
I’m no Bible scholar, but I’ve read the Four Gospels a time or two, and there isn’t one instance of Jesus condemning homosexuals. Not one.
I’ll admit that I was once one of those folks in favor of civil unions for gay people, but against allowing marriage. I changed my mind because of two gay men. You might remember them. Their names were Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder.
Reply
Hal Johnson - I have heard the phrase “how does this effect my marriage” so often by the anti-8 people that I think it finally needs to be addressed. That it is used as an argument to sway voters goes to the heart of the No on 8 campaigns failure to prevail. You assume that your worldview is shared by the majority. Your votes on social issues may very well be grounded in a philosophy of “what is in it for me”, in which case you don’t understand why the pro-8 side would not have focused on their own narrow self-interest. You have heard Prop 8 proponents speak of society, culture, tradition, children and grandchildren. Surely there are those who voted their prejudice and they may rightly be considered “haters”, but they cannot be the majority. I think that Prop 8 was decided correctly. When gay marriage can be shown to be beneficial or at least benign as it relates to the culture, society and the rearing and education of children then it will prevail - and not before. Given that the anti-8 arguments are still mired in invective and a righteous philosophy of self-interest, that day is not imminent.
The four gospels are not the entirety of Jesus’ teachings, unless you reject the rest of the New Testament. The fact that you limited your argument to these four books to the exclusion of the other 23 books (which would undermine your assertion) leads me to suspect that you intended to deceive. If this is the best that the anti-8 side can argue then I repeat: That day is not imminent. -Matt
Reply
Hal Johnson Reply:
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Matt, you wrote “You assume that your worldview is shared by the majority.” I assume no such thing. I know a good many people feel as I do, but I don’t know whether or not they’re the majority, and I did not state any such thing.
“Your votes on social issues may very well be grounded in a philosophy of ‘what is in it for me’, in which case you don’t understand why the pro-8 side would not have focused on their own narrow self-interest.” Huh? Wow, you certainly assume a lot about my character based on one post.
“Surely there are those who voted their prejudice and they may rightly be considered ‘haters’, but they cannot be the majority.” I didn’t state that I believed the majority of anti Prop 8 folks were “haters,” Matt. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
“When gay marriage can be shown to be beneficial or at least benign as it relates to the culture, society and the rearing and education of children then it will prevail - and not before.” Seems to me that folks offered much the same sort of argument against the abolition of slavery, Matt. Before slavery was ended in the U.S., was there any PROOF that giving slaves freedom would be “benign as it relates to culture, society and the rearing of children”? No, there wasn’t. If I were to adopt your apparently decided tendency to infer upon what wasn’t implied, I could come to the conclusion that you believe that slavery should still be in place.
“The four gospels are not the entirety of Jesus’ teachings, unless you reject the rest of the New Testament. The fact that you limited your argument to these four books to the exclusion of the other 23 books (which would undermine your assertion) leads me to suspect that you intended to deceive.” Matt, I believe that the Four Gospels are the most important books of the New Testament, in terms of the history of the ministry and teachings of Jesus. I’m aware that many folks disagree with that notion, and I respect their views. But for you to state that I “intended to deceive” is baffling.
While your post is tactful in tone, Matt, your intent seemed aimed more toward discrediting me as an individual than actually arguing the issue. I could infer that you’re more focused on WHO is right than WHAT is right. But hey, you can take comfort in knowing that you have lots of company.
Reply