Posted on 08/11/2010 8:12:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
The decision by federal judge Vaughan Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.
1. “Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage.”
TRUTH: Proposition 8 banned nothing. The ubiquitous headlines describing this voter-mandated change in the California constitution as a “gay marriage ban” amount to the worst example of journalistic malpractice in recent years. The entire proposition consisted of only fourteen words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This simple statement imposes no restrictions and issues no commands regarding the behavior of private citizens: it merely demands a change in the actions of government. Proposition 8 did nothing to interfere with gay couples in registering for state-recognized civil unions, participating in church or civil ceremonies consecrating their love, forming life-time commitments, raising children, or concluding comprehensive contractual arrangements to share all aspects of life and property. The proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private or public processes by calling such relationships a marriage.
2. “Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment.”
TRUTH: The proposition never mentioned gays, lesbians or any other individuals, whatever their sexual orientation. It didn’t discriminate among individuals; it drew distinctions among relationships. Under the proposition, a gay male and a straight male would face exactly the same options in marriage—free to choose any woman who is not already married or a blood relative. The fact that the gay man won’t want to marry any of the women available to him doesn’t change the fact that he and his straight neighbor face precisely the same opportunities and restrictions in their marital choices. .
3. ”Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that “same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples.” (This language appears verbatim in the judge’s decision).
TRUTH: Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn’t based on the notion that opposite sex couples are “better,” but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively. Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. This is based on the universal, common sense assumption that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father. Laws on divorce, child custody, adoption and foster-parenting all display this general preference for birth parents to involve themselves in a child’s life. Traditional opposite sex marriage generally produces a situation where both birth parents will participate in parenting – and this shared responsibility even survives divorce in most cases. There is no chance--none—that a same sex marriage can produce a child who will be raised by both birth parents. This doesn’t make that same sex marriage hateful or immoral, but it does make it somewhat less desirable and less significant for society.
4. “Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”
TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself. In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman—and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination. The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner. Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing, at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.
5. “Denying marriage rights to same sex couples is the equivalent of denying marriage rights to inter-racial couples before 1967.”
TRUTH: The old and hateful laws barring interracial marriage directly discriminated against individuals based on their race—a discrimination explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The language of the Constitution never mentions (or even hints at) similar protection for sexual orientation. Before Loving v. Virginia struck down the evil anti-miscegenation laws, such legislation treated a black man and a white man completely differently: the African-American couldn’t marry a white woman, but the white guy could. As noted above, under Proposition 8 a lesbian woman got exactly the same marriage options as a heterosexual woman; there was no potential mate that the straight woman could choose, but the gay woman couldn’t.
6. “Any gay marriage ban is an invasion of privacy.”
TRUTH: Actually, opposition to gay marriage involves the defense of privacy from governmental intrusion, not any sort of intimate assault. The drive to mandate gay marriage demands a vast expansion of governmental involvement into same sex relationships – relationships in which the right bureaucratic policy would be strict neutrality. Proposition 8 mandated no change in private relationships and only an alteration in public policy.
7. “Governmental recognition for gay marriage is necessary to end oppression of gay people.”
TRUTH: All Studies and surveys indicate that gay people in America hardly constitute an oppressed minority; on average, they enjoy higher levels of education and income than the heterosexual majority. Even in the federal trial just concluded, the plaintiffs’ attorneys presented abundant evidence of the remarkable success and eminence of homosexual couples in the United States. The undeniable fact that gay people have achieved these personal and communal victories even without gay marriage, is an indication that the traditionally privileged position for heterosexual marriage hasn’t blocked homosexuals from successful participation in every aspect of American life.
With Judge Walker’s decision, the debate about re-defining marriage will once again intensify as the case works its way through the system to the Supreme Court of the United States. No effort at logical argument can halt the hysterical distortions that erupt periodically on both sides but the integrity of public discourse requires at least an honest attempt to clear away mistakes, irrational claims and outright smears.
That sums it up nicely. In fact, those sections under “truth” should b repeated in “broken record” fashion whenever the same tired arguments are made from the other side.
Once this gets to the SCOTUS this judges ruling will be overturned. We still have at least five adults there.
The hysterical distortions come from those in favor of homosexual marriage.
Yes there are some anti-homosexual bigots out there, but predominantly, those opposed can discuss and make rational arguments and discussion points without histrionics. Whereas the gay activists and liberals tend to become histrionic, accuse people of “homophobia”, etc. when the debates get going.
Personally, I think that some liberals just don’t have reasoning ability and the ability to understand the nuances of issues. Too many have a “knee jerk” reaction on this issue. The judge’s absurb legal reasoning doesn’t matter to them. They don’t care that he didn’t apply the law in a reasonable manner to reach his conclusions. They just know that they want their homosexual marriage and they want it now.
bfl
Don’t know if I agree with this article. If the words of Proposition 8 had said...
“Only police officers are valid or recognized gun owners in California.”
...wouldn’t we say this was an attempt to ban guns from normal law abiding citizens?
I don’t agree with Proposition 8 being overturned, but some of the “logic” in this article is hypocritical and specious.
excellent post
bookmark
good bullet points.
The amazing things is that a federal judge could come up with such language. It is on the par with Dred Scot, which made the Constitution bend to fit a false anthropology. Sophistry always leads to mischief because it makes lies plausible.
But proposition 8 was not about gun owners in California
Excellent points.
The government has abandoned the field of regulating bastardy,sodomy, adult fornicatory sexual activity, cohabitation, and enforcing marriage contract provisions requiring death as a condition precedent to parting.
It should have stayed out of marriage in the new country under the First Amendment.
I don’t think the analogy fits. A gun owner actually owns a physical item. This law will not require anyone to be castrated. ;)
I have been harping on the second truth in the article since the last millennium and even articulated it similarly. Everyone has the exact same rights under proposition 8, but homosexuals just don’t want to exercise the right. That is true for many of us regarding many laws.
>>but some of the “logic” in this article is hypocritical and specious.<<
I agree with them, right down to the detail level, to the point that it is almost as if I wrote this article. But I didn’t. It is clear, however, that the author and I have thought about this and come up with the exact same “root cause” issues.
“Only police officers are valid or recognized gun owners in California.”
...wouldn’t we say this was an attempt to ban guns from normal law abiding citizens?
STRAW MAN.
If the proposition had said "Only men have penises and only women have vaginas" then it would have been an anatomy lesson rather than a statement affirming the institution of marriage.
You actually touch on the reason this AND the concept of illegal aliens are both in the forefront right now. Neither was an issue when the government was small and basically focused on simple services like protecting our borders and protecting us from each other.
But now that we are in an age of rights and entitlements, people need that “legal standing” to get rights and “stuff”.
Heck, back before WWII, my grandfather made part of his living in eastern Washington transporting Mexican workers to the field in the back of his flatbed truck. Ignoring the fact that that would be illegal now (a subject for another thread), it was completely acceptable and necessary to get the asparagus harvested. It worked for everyone because, for starters, there was really no such thing as entitlements. No medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.
We will probably be back in a similar situateion in the next few years:
http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/
The right to own firearms is protected by the constitution and the verbiage in your hypothetical proposition limits private ownership of an item, and not the government’s recognition of a government institution not mentioned in the constitution.
The Constitution guarantees individual gun ownership via the second amendment. No such amendment exist regarding marriage, in fact it isn’t even mentioned. Marriage not guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is.
IOW, no correlation.
Bookmark.
can you ping me when part II comes up.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.