Last week, voters in California passed Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. It was the second time in recent years that voters had passed such a measure. The first time, the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people and ruled same-sex marriage as legal in the state.
The reaction by the gay and lesbian lobby has been swift and ugly. Churches and Mormon temples in California have been targeted for noisy and disruptive demonstrations (the Mormon Church gave financial backing to the measure). In one Church in Palm Springs, a man grabbed a large styrofoam cross out of an old lady's arms and stomped on it. Demonstrations against churches have also been held in other states like New York and Colorado. People of faith are being insulted for their faith without any regard for who voted for or against the measure. Those who voted for Prop 8 are now labeled as "haters". Now that it has been revealed that some 75% of black voters also favored Prop 8, they are being targeted for insults. Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell, two of the most ignorant "celebrities" on the planet, have both come out and insulted black voters for their "ignorance" in voting in favor of the measure. Interesting however, that no demonstrations are being held in front of inner city black churches-only in white neighborhoods. I wonder why.
Here is my take, and I'm not going to parse words. I have previously written on gay marriage, and I won't repeat everything here. Suffice to say that while I believe in treating homosexuals as equal human beings, I oppose the idea of gay marriage (I voted yes on 8). I don't care who lives with whom, who has sex with whom or who loves whom, but I fail to see why an institution that has stood all over the world for thousands of years needs to be stood on its head because in the past decade or so, gays have decided that they have a constitutional right to marry.
I also feel that gays and lesbians are doing their cause no service by engaging in these tactics. We all know that Prop 8 will be challenged again in the courts and the liberal judges in California will probably once again overturn the will of the people, as is their wont. Disruption, intimidation and taking over of churches, however, will not win friends and influence people just as many of these "Gay Pride" parades in places like San Francisco, where people parade down the street in various forms of nudity and engage in public sex acts, offend a lot of people-and not just religious people.
Or "haters".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I agree with your basic thesis here, and I agree that tactics like the one with the styrofoam cross are inappropriate.
However, the Mormon church, and other churches in particular, are reaping the whirlwind here. You make an interesting point about why people aren't protesting the black churches, and it has some merit. However, these demonstrations are targeting where the money comes from. The Mormon Church was a large contributor to the Yes on 8 Campaign - a campaign that was full of some of the most egregious lies and fear-mongering. Children would not be "forced" to learn about gay marriage, and churches would not lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to marry gay couples.
So, acts of bullying and intimidation - that's wrong. But as for the demonstrations in general - they deserve it. They created this with their fear and discrimination, and they should have expected a reaction.
Lastly though, Gary, I must take you to task for stating: "I believe in treating homosexuals as equal human beings" and then following it with "I oppose the idea of gay marriage". These are two contradictory ideas, and parsing words is EXACTLY what you're doing. You either believe in equality or you don't.
Do I think that you're a raving homophobe? No. I know that you'd judge an individual based on his or her individual merits. But I know enough to know that history won't judge the "Yes on 8" crowd kindly.
Lance,
How can you talk about history when the history of this marriage movement is only a decade or two.
Sorry, I disagree that treating gays as equal human beings means we have to recognize their right to marry. Other human beings don't have the right to marry more than one person. That doesn't take away their humanity.
How can you talk about history when the history of this marriage movement is only a decade or two.
I'm saying "history" in the sense that when all of this is history, then those who opposed same-sex marriage will not be judged very kindly. You should listen to some of my students (completely unsolicited from me) talk about it - they're just dumbfounded as to how anybody could even be against it.
And as you know, polls show that the younger generations are more and more accepting of it. Do you think that's going to turn around? Of course not.
In time, people will find this to be as odd as the concept of "colored" drinking fountains, and they'll wonder why anybody even had a problem with it.
Sorry, I disagree that treating gays as equal human beings means we have to recognize their right to marry. Other human beings don't have the right to marry more than one person.
But that's not what we're talking about though, is it? You keep bringing up the polygamy thing, but that's a false analogy. This is an issue between TWO people.
And I'm sorry, but to say that they need to be treated equally and then say that they can't do what you and I can do is a self-contradictory idea. Come on, deep down inside, you have to see the conflict of these two ideas.
That doesn't take away their humanity.
Why don't you ask a gay person how human they're feeling ever since Prop 8 passed? I know that I'd feel a little bit less human if I was gay. "Liz Taylor can marry eight times, but you can't marry the person you've been with for forty years!" Oh yeah, that's some equality for ya there.
Lance,
How much sense of history do your students really have. Why do they think this issue didn't arise for how many thousands of years until now?
I don't compare this issue to segregation. Most blacks don't seem to compare it to segregation either.
I don't understand why you don't grasp the comparison to polygamy. You seem to be hung up on that number 2. Why should we stop at two? Don't you see that the polygamists will demand their constutional right to marry others once the gay marriage is established.
I agree with you in one thing. It's probably going to happen. That's why it's not my number one issue. I just don't agree with it. Like anyone else my age, I have lived the first 50 years of my life not even contemplating it. So why should I now be called a "hater"?
How much sense of history do your students really have. Why do they think this issue didn't arise for how many thousands of years until now?
Gary, do you realize that you could say the same thing about slavery right up before the Civil War? That was around for thousands of years (even condoned in The Bible). Their (and my) sense of history is founded on the fact that times change and often people are resistant to that change, but ultimately it turns out for the better.
No, I don't think that this is as bad as slavery, but my point is that arguments from tradition are illogical. Imagine what this world would be like if traditions would never change!
I don't compare this issue to segregation. Most blacks don't seem to compare it to segregation either.
Is it as bad as the segregation laws of Jim Crowe? Of course not, but the bottom line is, you're saying that one group of people can do something and the other group can't. It's the same idea - separate but equal.
I don't understand why you don't grasp the comparison to polygamy. You seem to be hung up on that number 2.
I'm not "hung up" on it, Gary. A marriage is between two people. Gay people want to make the same commitments - between two people. That's what we're talking about. Polygamy is an entirely separate issue, and to keep comparing it makes no sense.
Why should we stop at two? Don't you see that the polygamists will demand their constutional right to marry others once the gay marriage is established.
But marriage is between two people. Nobody has the right to marry more than one person - gay or straight. You're just confusing the issue by bringing this up. It's just as non-sequitor as the people who say that people will sue for their right to marry animals. (Hopefully I don't need to explain to you why that one is different.)
I agree with you in one thing. It's probably going to happen. That's why it's not my number one issue. I just don't agree with it. Like anyone else my age, I have lived the first 50 years of my life not even contemplating it. So why should I now be called a "hater"?
I never called you that, so why are you asking me? I will say though that the pro-8 campaign was unquestionably feeding on the hatred and fears of people.
But you know, you never answered my question from a while back. I'll try again:
According to you, marriage is for protecting the children. Whether you like it or not, there are already a lot of children out there who have same-sex parents. Do you think that those kids don't deserve the same protection? After all, it's not their fault now is it?
Oh, and while we're at it, if you think that gay couples deserve all the same rights as straight couples - then what do you care what they call it? How does it impact you one way or the other? Why would it matter to you so much that you'd vote against it?
Gary, I agree with Lance that you are not a homophobe, per se. However, I do think you have homophobic opinions. That doesn't necessarily make one a full blown bigot, though. I think if we're all honest, we can admit that we all have certain prejudiced tendencies or beliefs at times, as subtle as they may be. But that doesn't make us bigots. So no I don't think you're a "hater" Gary. I do think you're on the wrong side of history on this one, though. It's not a matter of if, it's simply a matter of when.
It's easy to pick out a few extreme examples and say, "Look at these people! You see?!" But for the most part, the anti prop 8 demonstrations have been peaceful. You're always gonna get a few trouble makers. But they're outliers. They're the fringe. Keep in mind though, that this is a very emotionally charged issue for a lot of people. While I don't condone tactics that border on violence, I can certainly understand why a man might grab a woman's cardboard cross and stomp on it. And let's not pretend like that woman was completely innocent, either. I saw the video. She took it upon herself to go into the proverbial lion's den and be the lone prop 8 supporter in a large crowd of anti prop 8 protestors. She was clearly antagonizing them and put herself at risk.
Our constitution is based on the idea that all people are equal and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Being gay shouldn't affect those rights. Again, the polygamy comparison does not stand. Homosexual couples are simply asking to be treated the same as heterosexual couples. If two consenting, straight adults are allowed to marry and receive all of the benefits that come along with it, it stands to reason that two consenting, gay adults ought to be allowed the same rights. And don't give me any bull about civil unions. That is "separate but equal" all over again. It has been shown throughout history that "separate" is inherently UNequal.
Your appeals to tradition are also logically unsound. These practices were also tradition:
-human slavery
-segregation
-child labor
-suffrage for males only
Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it "right."
I'm also tired of hearing about "activist judges" overturning the will of the people. What people don't understand is that one of the main purposes of the courts in our country is to prevent mob rule. It is the duty of the courts to protect groups that are in the minority.
Let's say we all voted and decided that gun ownership would no longer be legal here in California. Well, that would contradict the 2nd amendment of the United States constitution. Yet we voted on it. The will of the people is that private citizens in California can no longer own firearms. Should the courts (in this hypothetical situation) "overturn the will of the people?"
"But marriage is between two people. Nobody has the right to marry more than one person - gay or straight."
Why is it that you are so firm on this issue but criticize me for being firm on the man/woman issue?
"According to you, marriage is for protecting the children. Whether you like it or not, there are already a lot of children out there who have same-sex parents. Do you think that those kids don't deserve the same protection? After all, it's not their fault now is it?"
I did answer this before. Yes, they deserve all the protection in the world. Maybe that's why marriage was designed to be between tow people who can procreate. I still think that after another generation, stats will show that children of same sex parents have psychological issues.
Maybe that's why marriage was designed to be between tow people who can procreate.
Big mistake trotting this one out, because it begs the question: what about straight couples in which one or both of the people involved is infertile and they therefore cannot procreate? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry either?
"And let's not pretend like that woman was completely innocent, either. I saw the video. She took it upon herself to go into the proverbial lion's den and be the lone prop 8 supporter in a large crowd of anti prop 8 protestors. She was clearly antagonizing them and put herself at risk."
C'mon, Bryan, the woman was about 75 years old and the guy was 20s-
30s. Maybe she deserved a good ass-whuppin' too.
"Your appeals to tradition are also logically unsound. These practices were also tradition:
-human slavery
-segregation
-child labor
-suffrage for males only"
Did I ever defend those traditions? No.
Look, I agree, it's going to probabaly eventually happen because the things will never quiet down until it does happen. I just think it will be a mistake.
So let's agree to disagree on this one.
Geez. I knew I shoulda written a post about the Cubs or something else.
Why is it that you are so firm on this issue but criticize me for being firm on the man/woman issue?
I'm not giving my opinion on polygamy; I'm just saying that it's a separate issue. The fact that it involves more than two people makes it different. Apples and oranges, man.
I did answer this before. Yes, they deserve all the protection in the world. Maybe that's why marriage was designed to be between tow people who can procreate.
Okay, then if they deserve the same protection then why would you vote yes on 8? You contributed to destroying their protection.
I still think that after another generation, stats will show that children of same sex parents have psychological issues.
What do you base this on, Gary? Your feelings? Did you not look at that link that I sent you that shows actual data on this? It showed that children of same-sex couples aren't any more or less likely to have psychological issues than children of traditional couples. So, this assertion of yours is completely groundless and flies in the face of what we actually know. Sorry to confuse the issue with facts.
Geez. I knew I shoulda written a post about the Cubs or something else.
You've gotta realize that Bryan and I missed the Civil Rights movement (Bryan by even moreso than me). This is the Civil Rights issue of our lives. And you can hem and haw all you want - that's exactly what this is all about.
Oh, and Bryan wasn't accusing you of defending those traditions. The point is that your whole argument revolves around tradition. We're saying that tradition is a lousy reason to do something when that's all you have. It should also make sense - which this doesn't.
Bryan,
I think that's a wild stretch. Strawman, I think you guys call it.
Lance,
I really think that comparing this with the civil rights movement is off-base. Many blacks think it is insulting, but I won't go that far.
I would never advocate that gays had to go to separate schools, couldn't vote, coulndt eat in the same restaurants and all that, plus all the violence directed at them when they demonstrated. I don't want to see firefoses and police dogs turned on gay demonstrators.
If this is the civil rights issue of our time, it means America is in pretty good shape in that area.
Lance,
I have always said that we don't yet have empirical data on children of same sex couples. I don't see how we can at this point. It is too early. I think we need to wait until these kids are grown to tell.
I have always said that we don't yet have empirical data on children of same sex couples. I don't see how we can at this point. It is too early. I think we need to wait until these kids are grown to tell.
But there IS empirical evidence! I provided you with some! How can you say that there isn't any when there is some? You're engaging in a war on reality here.
I really think that comparing this with the civil rights movement is off-base. Many blacks think it is insulting, but I won't go that far.
If they're insulted it's because they see gay people as being less human than they are.
I don't think that it's EXACTLY the same, but there are similarities that cannot be denied.
If this is the civil rights issue of our time, it means America is in pretty good shape in that area.
That's a good point, but that doesn't mean that we should be complacent and say, "Hey, good enough!"
Gary is no homophobe, I can tell you. What he might have added is there is in fact no constitutional right to gay marriage. The left's trying to create one. In fact, the last few decades have seen the dramatic expanion of equal protection to gays and lesbians. As recently as 2003, the Supreme Court struck down laws restricting privacy rights for gay couples. Yet, marriage is unlike any other institution. Two business partners can't get married because they think that'd be a cool union. A child can't go to university because he thinks it's his right. Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman, simple.
Thank you, Donald for your defense and adding an important point.
"If they're insulted it's because they see gay people as being less human than they are."
Do you really believe that Lance?
Im sorry, Lance. I seem to have overlooked that link you mentioned. Could you repeat it?
there is in fact no constitutional right to gay marriage
It's amazing how you guys can keep parsing words and doing all of these logical backflips when this couldn't be more simple: The Constitution guarantees equal protection. When you say that one group can do something and the other can't, then that's not equal.
Two business partners can't get married because they think that'd be a cool union. A child can't go to university because he thinks it's his right. Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman, simple.
Business partners can't get married? What are you even talking about? What law says that business partners can't get married? And as for kids, they can go to the university if they've met all the requirements that everybody else has. Do you even know what you're talking about? It sure doesn't seem like it.
Oh, and if you read our responses, you'd see that both Bryan and I said that we don't think that Gary is a homophobe.
Gary, you said that he brought up an "important point." I missed it. Seems like the same doublethink that I keep reading again and again.
Here's that APA link. According to the American Psychological Association, "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."
Now, the question is this - is your opinion so rigid that no evidence will sway it?
Donald is correct, there is no specific constitutional right to marriage. For gays or straights. What he, and others who use the same argument, fail to realize is that the constitution is supposed to guarantee equal rights and protection for all. That means if the government is going to allow couples to marry, it has to let all couples marry. Judges have correctly affirmed this fact, which is why anti gay marriage activists had to actually amend the California constitution itself. Which reminds me: does anyone else think it's a little dangerous that we can amend our state constitution with a simple majority? We really ought to change it to a two-thirds majority.
Bryan,
Of course the Constitution does not address this issue. Interpretation comes from lawyers and judges who decide if this is an equal rights issue. As you know, lawyers and judges disagree all the time. Your comment about a 2/3 majority is valid one.
Lance,
Thanks for the link. I read it. Some of their conclusions are good news.
But did they research children currently growing up or did they also interview adults who were raised by gay parents? Do they even have a large field of adults to interview?
I don't disagree that a gay couple could be just as good a parent as a hetero couple. The only issue I raised was the long term effects of being raised by a gay couple in terms of sexual identity issues. The researchers addressesd that issue, but again, how many grown adults were interviewed.
OK, if you guys don't mind, I need to move to a breaking story on another issue which will occupy me the rest of the night (and I will appreciate your input on that). I do however, wish you get say more about my original point, which is the reaction of Prop 8 opponents against churches and people of faith.
Okay, okay - I'll let my original comments regarding the protests stand. Like I said, they're protesting where the money came from, and I still believe that the Mormons (and other groups) are reaping what they sewed.
And regarding children of same-sex couples, I'll just end it with this - The human race is pretty resiliant. I'm confident that this will hardly be the end of us.
Post a Comment