Proposition 8
I know a lot of people reading this will probably disagree with me. But I want to make a post about something I feel really passionate about: Voting NO on California's Proposition 8. Prop 8 proposes to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, ending the right of same-sex couples to marry.
I know this is a divisive issue, and so far I've heard a couple of different voices on the "pro" side:
1. Those who are morally opposed to same-sex relationships, seek to legislate against it, and do not believe in extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (e.g., health benefits, etc.)
2. Those who just don't like the idea of marriage including non-heterosexual couples. As best I can tell, these folks have more of a semantic issue with "marriage". These folks might not be opposed to extending all the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but they just don't want the term "marriage" to be interpreted as anything but a heterosexual relationship.
I've also heard the following arguments launched by folks in groups (1) and (2):
The Slippery Slope Argument: Once you start allowing gay relationships to be included in the definition of marriage, what's next? Human-animal relationships? This argument seems related to the argument that "marriage" between men and women is somehow "threatened" by the prospect of including same-sex couples and needs to be "protected."
Here is my response to these things. Hopefully, if you're on the fence, I can convince you to vote NO on Prop 8.
If you're in Group 1 (morally opposed to homosexuality), then I'm not going to kid myself that I can convince you. All I can do is appeal to your sense of compassion, which I hope is deeper than your sense of self-righteousness in legislating others' lives. Think of this as an individual-level issue. Think of your closest gay friend. Would you deny him/her the right to marry their long-term partner? What reasons would you give to tell them that they did not deserve the same happiness and legal protection afforded the rest of us, because of their sexuality? If your son or daughter were gay, or your sibling, what would you tell them? This is an issue that intimately affects the lives of millions of Americans. To me, this is an issue that should be independent of whether I agree with particular group's lifestyle. It's an issue of allowing others to enjoy the same dignity, rights, and happiness that I enjoy by virtue of my biology.
I honestly do not understand the folks in Group 2, so I'm not sure how to address this. Except to ask exactly how marriage is threatened unless we exclude same-sex couples from the definition. What does it mean to protect marriage by excluding same-sex couples from getting married? I have yet to hear a clear response to that question.
It's not like marriage is a pie, and that if more people have access to the pie, it means less access for others. As far as I can tell, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce! Pretty basic! And if we are concerned about protecting marriage - and feel that we need to legislate people's private lives - then we should be legislating against the causes of divorce, and maybe making it really hard to get divorced or something. I have yet to hear of a single case where a heterosexual couple's marriage was threatened by the fact that a same-sex couple got married, too. (Although, I will grant you that if my husband was bothered by same-sex marriage, it would threaten my marriage. Ha ha. Touche Prop 8 supporters. Touche).
I visited the Prop 8 website. It says Prop 8 is "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children." Again, how does gay marriage endanger California children? I fail to see the connection. Another headline from the website: "Opponents want gay marriage taught in schools!" Well, I should hope so...I mean, it's culturally relevant and it, like, happens. I don't understand why that is such a "gotcha!" accusation. Guess what, guys? We want SCIENCE taught in schools, too!
And for those arguing the slippery slope argument. All I can say is, yes, it is a slippery slope! I mean, two hundred years ago, African Americans and women did not have the franchise. First, African American men got the franchise. And it was all downhill from there until women got the vote too.
Same with equal protection: race, gender, and now sexual orientation. It's not hard to see that our values and morals change with time. Even those staunchly opposed on a moral basis to Prop 8 (many church leaders, etc.) would probably not argue that it is a sin for women to wear short-sleeved shirts, or use birth control, or for people to drive on the Sabbath. Yet these were considered sinful behaviors in recent history. Now, we think nothing of these things that used to be taboo. Say what you want about the deterioration of society. But the bottom line is that our laws will reflect our cultural norms. And if, at some point, human-animal relationships become de rigeur in our society, we may have another Proposition on the ballot. So what? If it comes to that, it will be because a large enough constituency thinks it's normal. Pedophilia was commonplace in ancient Greece, and aristocrats often viewed pederast relationships as status symbols. I find that morally reprehensible because I am a product of my culture, but would not have, if I grew up in ancient Greece. Even things that are extremely taboo in our culture have never been moral absolutes.
Voting No on Prop 8 also makes economic sense by increasing local revenues (through sales taxes) and by making it less difficult for same-sex couples to obtain benefits, thereby reducing reliance on government transfers.
Two final points:
1. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
2. I find it interesting that many Republicans who are against big government and have very libertarian approaches to their tax philosophy are so compelled to legislate others' private lives. Isn't the point of the Republican party to keep the government out of our homes? (OK, I know, I know, Dubya did not get that memo...but still...).
I know this is a divisive issue, and so far I've heard a couple of different voices on the "pro" side:
1. Those who are morally opposed to same-sex relationships, seek to legislate against it, and do not believe in extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (e.g., health benefits, etc.)
2. Those who just don't like the idea of marriage including non-heterosexual couples. As best I can tell, these folks have more of a semantic issue with "marriage". These folks might not be opposed to extending all the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but they just don't want the term "marriage" to be interpreted as anything but a heterosexual relationship.
I've also heard the following arguments launched by folks in groups (1) and (2):
The Slippery Slope Argument: Once you start allowing gay relationships to be included in the definition of marriage, what's next? Human-animal relationships? This argument seems related to the argument that "marriage" between men and women is somehow "threatened" by the prospect of including same-sex couples and needs to be "protected."
Here is my response to these things. Hopefully, if you're on the fence, I can convince you to vote NO on Prop 8.
If you're in Group 1 (morally opposed to homosexuality), then I'm not going to kid myself that I can convince you. All I can do is appeal to your sense of compassion, which I hope is deeper than your sense of self-righteousness in legislating others' lives. Think of this as an individual-level issue. Think of your closest gay friend. Would you deny him/her the right to marry their long-term partner? What reasons would you give to tell them that they did not deserve the same happiness and legal protection afforded the rest of us, because of their sexuality? If your son or daughter were gay, or your sibling, what would you tell them? This is an issue that intimately affects the lives of millions of Americans. To me, this is an issue that should be independent of whether I agree with particular group's lifestyle. It's an issue of allowing others to enjoy the same dignity, rights, and happiness that I enjoy by virtue of my biology.
I honestly do not understand the folks in Group 2, so I'm not sure how to address this. Except to ask exactly how marriage is threatened unless we exclude same-sex couples from the definition. What does it mean to protect marriage by excluding same-sex couples from getting married? I have yet to hear a clear response to that question.
It's not like marriage is a pie, and that if more people have access to the pie, it means less access for others. As far as I can tell, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce! Pretty basic! And if we are concerned about protecting marriage - and feel that we need to legislate people's private lives - then we should be legislating against the causes of divorce, and maybe making it really hard to get divorced or something. I have yet to hear of a single case where a heterosexual couple's marriage was threatened by the fact that a same-sex couple got married, too. (Although, I will grant you that if my husband was bothered by same-sex marriage, it would threaten my marriage. Ha ha. Touche Prop 8 supporters. Touche).
I visited the Prop 8 website. It says Prop 8 is "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children." Again, how does gay marriage endanger California children? I fail to see the connection. Another headline from the website: "Opponents want gay marriage taught in schools!" Well, I should hope so...I mean, it's culturally relevant and it, like, happens. I don't understand why that is such a "gotcha!" accusation. Guess what, guys? We want SCIENCE taught in schools, too!
And for those arguing the slippery slope argument. All I can say is, yes, it is a slippery slope! I mean, two hundred years ago, African Americans and women did not have the franchise. First, African American men got the franchise. And it was all downhill from there until women got the vote too.
Same with equal protection: race, gender, and now sexual orientation. It's not hard to see that our values and morals change with time. Even those staunchly opposed on a moral basis to Prop 8 (many church leaders, etc.) would probably not argue that it is a sin for women to wear short-sleeved shirts, or use birth control, or for people to drive on the Sabbath. Yet these were considered sinful behaviors in recent history. Now, we think nothing of these things that used to be taboo. Say what you want about the deterioration of society. But the bottom line is that our laws will reflect our cultural norms. And if, at some point, human-animal relationships become de rigeur in our society, we may have another Proposition on the ballot. So what? If it comes to that, it will be because a large enough constituency thinks it's normal. Pedophilia was commonplace in ancient Greece, and aristocrats often viewed pederast relationships as status symbols. I find that morally reprehensible because I am a product of my culture, but would not have, if I grew up in ancient Greece. Even things that are extremely taboo in our culture have never been moral absolutes.
Voting No on Prop 8 also makes economic sense by increasing local revenues (through sales taxes) and by making it less difficult for same-sex couples to obtain benefits, thereby reducing reliance on government transfers.
Two final points:
1. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
2. I find it interesting that many Republicans who are against big government and have very libertarian approaches to their tax philosophy are so compelled to legislate others' private lives. Isn't the point of the Republican party to keep the government out of our homes? (OK, I know, I know, Dubya did not get that memo...but still...).
Thanks for posting the blog! I do know that a persuasive point(I have to recognize it) is within the "slippery slope" argument: that it's more an issue with polygamy than animal love. See, if you allow marriage to be defined in any other means besides man-woman and do not explicitly then limit the new definition to include in addition woman-woman/man-man ONLY (which is the problem with this proposition), then it leaves a hole for people like polygamists (or others) to sneak in and argue their form of non-traditional marriage counts as well. And yes, there actually are enough polygamists advocating that if gays have the right, then so should they. We just don't get a lot of media coverage on it for some reason. I still don't know how I'm voting on it...
Posted by
Anonymous |
October 20, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I don't care if people want to be polygamous, either. Unless it's the Warren Jeffs breed of polygamy (underage and incestuous). If all parties are of consenting age and the relationship is consensual, I don't have a problem with it. It goes back to the idea that government should not play a role in legislating others' private lives unless there are issues of victimization...
Posted by
Ashlyn |
October 20, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I agree with you in principle about government legislation. For sure. It just gets complicated. How do you define victimization? Who falls under that bracket? Where does the line get drawn? Does a line even have to be drawn? It just gets so hairy because technically incest could fall under the same definition currently held. And I'm definitely against THAT kind of marriage! My opinion is that we are with no doubt in a time where social changes need to be acknowledged and then implemented. I just want to make sure things are worded as precisely as possible to produce the best possible outcome. (I guess I still have some lawyer in me yet!!) :P
Posted by
Anonymous |
October 20, 2008 at 7:34 PM
By the way, there's a federal statute prohibiting polygamy (a leftover from Utah's turbulent past). So the slippery slope argument wouldn't apply here unless the federal statute were overturned (not likely). There are also laws against incest.
I just don't see the need to define marriage at all. Why do we need a constitutional amendment to state man-woman or woman-woman or man-man or anything? What if someone is transgendered, has an ambiguous gender identity, etc.? Why can't we just leave the definition as is?
I also just want to clarify that the slippery slope to people-animal love has the additional hurdle of having to prove that this is a consensual relationship. Bestiality is currently illegal because animals do not have the capacity to consent...same with little kids in Warren Jeffs' community. So it's not just an issue of changing social norms...it's an issue of whether these relationships are consensual.
Same-sex marriages are the product of consensual relationships.
And if consenting adults want to be in polygamous relationships, I don't think that should be an issue, either. I don't think we should legislate others' private lives (although good luck to polygamists in overturning the federal statute)...
Posted by
Ashlyn |
October 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM