What Are the Chances? California's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment
It's difficult and downright painful for many of us to fathom how Californians could, by vote, repeal the hard-won right of gay couples to marry. The anti-gay marriage amendment is obviously a reality on the November ballot. And in a recent blog, Tom Head (About.com: Civil Liberties) discusses some poll results on this issue -- and also what Arizona's vote on its own amendment might mean for our Constitutional future.Tom also compiled a set of cogent rebuttals to the conservative AFA's Ten Arguments Against Gay Marriage. Lists like the AFA's speak to such a dramatically different world view than the one to which I ascribe, I have to re-read passages to make sure I'm seeing them clearly. It's difficult to address morality-based assertions when the issue, as I see it, belongs in the realm of civil rights.
But see for yourself some of the prevalent arguments of anti-gay-marriage groups -- and the counterpoints Tom provides in response.
Daily Kos has also posted frequently on this issue, clueing readers in to some AFA action alerts and dishing on the "marriage is between one man and one woman" refrain.
And, if you want to do some work on behalf of the "vote no" contingent, check out the FAQs and information at Equality for All -- an org devoted to defeating this amendment and preserving equality in marriage in California.
- Explanation of California's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - (About.com: Civil Liberties)
- First Day of Same Sex Unions at San Francisco City Hall - (June 17, 2008)
Comments
I am 19 and live in Massachusetts and I oppose same-sex marriage. I don’t see it as a civil rights issue at all, and yes, there have been many negative effects of same-sex marriage here in my home state. Those rebuttals are one’s opinion and not at all conclusive or factual (let’s start with “only one third of Americans support a federal marriage amendment”, which is just plain false. The actual number in every single poll is much higher). I hope Californians, many of whom are my family members and friends, will vote to restore marriage between a man and a woman in November. Some young people may support “gay” marriage, but they don’t speak for me or the majority of Americans.
Please share with us what the many negative effects have been on Massachusetts.
The California Supreme Court has accepted the suit to determine if the Marriage Amendment should be removed from the ballot because it is a constitutional revision, not an amendment. (A constitutional revision cannot be put on the ballot by initiative but only by 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature.) I would be greatly surprised if Prop 8 is still on the ballot in November. When I first read the May 15th opinion I kept telling my husband that the Justices were setting up a situation which would allow them to invalidate the “amendment.” A decision should come before August 11th when the ballots must go to the printer.
Leland — Thanks for addressing the ‘revision’ versus ‘amend’ aspect of this issue. For readers who aren’t aware, in brief: Papers were filed arguing that the initiative amounts to a revision of the state Constitution (as opposed to an amendment) — which could alter our Constitution in such a way as to deprive any group of fundamental rights by way of popular vote.
Silly teenager. If you conservative/homophobic nuts would spend a little more time in school (learn some SCIENCE and LOGIC) and less time sticking your noses into other people’s personal lives (which don’t affect you one bit), you might earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.
Truth is: the vast majority of the educated people in this society (from legal scholars to social scientists) SUPPORT gay marriage. Perhaps this is because…these are people with brains who can think LOGICALLY? Hmmm.
Good for the CA Supreme Court for taking CA into the 21st Century.
Wow! Somebody who is 19 and who is opposed to gay marriage and lives in MA of all places! Surely not reflective of my generation at all, or… just another Internet troll!
I’m 24. I lived in both California and Georgia, and I can tell you that even when I lived in the Deep South, the overwhelming majority of people in my generation supported equal rights for gay couples, including the right to marry. That number was a bit lower in Georgia than it was in California (for obvious reasons), but it was still very much in the majority. As those old-time racist, homophobic fundamentalist fogies like Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms die off, a new more accepting generation shall replace them in greater numbers.
In the same way my parent’s generation was the one to stomp out racism in the 1990’s, we shall give the death knell to homophobia in the 2010’s. It took a little time to get here, but us 1980’s babies are all grown up and ready to inherit the world you guys have left us, no matter how terribly ruined some in the White House have left it to us.
I am 29 years old, a resident of California, highly educated, and firmly against gay marriage. I fail to see how increasing one’s education in “SCIENCE and LOGIC” will change one’s opinion. This is not a logical argument, it is an emotional one. In California, the domestic occupancy and partnership laws afforded homosexuals with all privileges of marriage, except for the name. Of course, this is where the pro-gay marriage advocate would state that “separate is inherently inequal” (Brown v BOE overturning Plessy v Ferguson).
So this really comes down to respect. Homosexuals demand respect from society at large and to regard their unions with the same title as heterosexuals unions. That is something California’s strongly opposed (> 60% margin) several years ago. This margin is not sufficient however to pass the 2/3 required for a constitutional amendment proposition (as opposed to statute proposition of 1/2).
Regarding my own personal opinion, I have no opposition to homosexuals cohabitating. My opposition is to the title marriage and what that may cause. The majority of science indicates that some people are genetically predisposed to express homosexual behavior. However, not all express it and environmental development conditions play a big role in whether the homosexual genotype is expressed in behavior (the so-called penetrance of a phenotype).
In the literature, the most glaring correlation between heterosexual and homosexual behavior is parental divorce/disunion. Children raised in non-biparental household are more likely to become homosexual. No causal link has been established, these are just correlative epidemiological studies mind you. Yet it is unknown whether what other conditions may increase the expression of homosexual behavior. It is possible that increased acceptance of homosexual unions may have some causal link to increased expression of homosexual behavior.
Homosexuals would remark: “What is wrong with more gays?” The problem is that as more and more individuals in a population are unable to procreate, the vitality and future of that population become compromised. This is already happening in countries such as Japan which is already experiencing zero population growth and may soon see a shrinking population. Japan’s population problems aren’t caused by gay marriage, but they show that human populations are fragile and can decline. Therefore, our government should make every effort to support the population’s long term survival. Public health and immunizations are examples and so should supporting live births. Gay marriage may increase the penetrance of homosexual genes and lead to increased expression of homosexual behavior, compromising the survival of mankind.
Well, if you are educated, then you must know as John Rawls would say, “self respect” is the beginning of justice. We at least owe it to all members of society to not cement our preexisting prejudices into the legal framework. I disagree with your limitations to the definition of the word “marriage”. The libertarian in me says that the state should have no say as to how the word is defined. We should either allow all to have ownership over the word “marriage” or just grant everyone civil unions, allowing only churches and/or private groups to accord the word.
But, this is more than just respect. Civil unions are something only granted on the state-level. If this were a federal civil union, then I might agree with you, but it is not. Someone who leaves Vermont with a civil union will be recognized as single in Georgia. Someone who leaves California for Nevada will experience the same problem with domestic partnership.
“The problem is that as more and more individuals in a population are unable to procreate, the vitality and future of that population become compromised.”
This is a fallacy, as it assumes that homosexuals are incapable of the same procreative ability as heterosexuals. Just because someone is attracted to a members of the same sex does not mean they are therefore incapable of supplying or fertilizing an egg. There are many gay couples who choose alternative family arrangements in which they decide to make use of their gametes. So, to say that homosexual is therefore equal to infertile is fallacious and untrue.
“Gay marriage may increase the penetrance of homosexual genes and lead to increased expression of homosexual behavior, compromising the survival of mankind.”
Please do prove this. Genes are more complicated than this and what may be perceived to be a negative trait may in fact be a positive one. Take the case of the recessive gene of sickle cell anemia. An undesirable effect of getting a pair of alleles from both parents is that you will someday die early of the congenital sickle cell blood disease. If you do not get any of the gene from either parent, you will most likely die early of malaria. But, if you were to get the allele from only one parent and inherit a normal set of genes from the other and be in a hybrid state, then your blood cells would be shaped in such an oblong way that you would die of neither sickle cell or malaria. So, what seemed a negative trait actually turned out positive. Studies have also been shown that as the rate of population sharply increases in animal species the percentage of expressed animal homosexuality also increases.
Also, in the case of a wolf pack, homosexuality between male wolves has been shown to increase bonding and preservation of the wolf pack in the event that there are an insufficient number of females available to mount.
There are also mitochondrial studies being done on mothers who have gay sons after giving birth to many sons, and there seems to be a link between high fertility among women and gay sons. So, a gene that may cause men to become homosexual may when received by women cause them to be more fertile and thus more procreative. Their sons who turned out gay, in an evolutionary perspective, would not marry and remain a part of the family so as to protect the females from males in other tribes. So, if one really wanted to expand the human population, one would see to it that as many heterosexual women inherit this gene, which would have the incidental effect of producing more gay men in the long-run after several heterosexual sons were born.
I have many gay friends, and I oppose same-sex marriage. This decision should be a county-by-county one, since some community populations are heterosexually populated, while others are homosexually populated. Just because San Fransisco and LA are more liberal on this issue, that shouldn’t affect other areas of California that people like myself purposefully moved to to have a family in a conservative town. That being said, Is redefining the definition of marriage really “equality” when it infringes upon the rights of another? I think not.
The preconceived notion that all who want to preserve the institution of marriage are intolerant and bigotted is, in itself a proclamation of the same.
I am fully supportive of people to live whatever lifestyle they choose, without persecution for their choice; and since gay partnerships already reap the same rewards legally, financially and otherwise, why must the definition of marriage be changed? Also, many gay couples wish to raise children.Those children must be conceived by a man and a woman or nobody will have children in the future! So why all the animosity towards “breeders” when they are precisely who are needed to fulfill posterity? It is a sad argument to be emotionally driven on any political matter. And all the spin that’s out there is very twisted and deceiving. Everyone in our country is needed for the rich cultural diversity found no other place on earth, with tolerance found no other place on earth so fully. Say I choose to be a catholic, and I want my children to be educated only by catholics; Is that discrimination against other faiths prevelant in our society? Or perhaps a matter of choice for MY family? Where will we draw the line? The bigot card is called way too much, just because those of us CHOOSE not to be entrenched in alternative lifestyles, and CHOOSE to raise our children the way we see fit. It seems that it is not enough anymore to not judge others’ differing lifestyles while not agreeing with it; Now it seems we MUST agree and support law changes and allow it to be forced on us-or else we are intolerant bigots. That in itself is a form of terrorism and extreme intolerance.
Goodness is love choosing and faithfulness is love keeping His word. Just the fact that you are opposing same sex marriages, will not say that you are intolerant. Sometimes you have to make decisions which are very sorrowful for certain groups, but at the end it turned to be a wise decision for the good of many.
I’m not a homophobic or a religious person or whatever you could name it.
But it was said that marriage didn’t believe to man on the first place. Marriage was written in the Bible as a commitment between male and female. Everyone is speaking about legal rights and a free country.
But we can’t afford to use marriage on a way to please certain groups. It is originated as an institution and commitment between husband and wife. Who have their sexual intercourse within their marriage. I’m glad that the Californians choose with their hearts and made a wise decision. I hope that this outcome will also flow to Europe, because I know that many gay people are delivered from their homosexuality by the mighty hand of God.
An acquaintance of mine seems to be born as a homosexual and had a lover for 12 years.
Came to repentance, he converted himself from his sexual behaviour and turned to God. Jesus delivered him and saved him by His precious blood. There are two more gay people who gave their lives to Jesus Christ. Being gay didn’t come by nature. It’s bondage and in the name of Jesus they can be delivered and they can all change their life styles. If they submit themselves to God and pray for a healing, they will receive an answer from heaven.
I don’t judge gays but I reject the action itself, which is sin. Just as adultery or stealing from other people is wrong thing to do also.
Don’t get me wrong here, but I know that we have to draw a line somewhere. They can be domestic partners and live on a partnership with each other. To conceive children is also only possible for a man and a woman. And that people remarry all the time should also be limited. The marital agreement is a lifetime commitment and there are some demands that you must fulfil before you can marry. If everybody turned to be gay, the human race would be gone in a little while.
“I have many gay friends, and I oppose same-sex marriage.”
Sounds like:
“I have many black friends, and I oppose integration.”