November 1, 2008
What’s in a name? Marriage vs. Domestic Partners
Contrary to the assertions of the Prop 8 opponents, Gay Marriage has nothing to do with gay civil rights and everything to do with education, employee benefits, and religion. In the State of California, homosexual couples already have the right to legally join together. It is called Domestic Partnership.
Under California Family Code section 297.5, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
The law goes on to say that domestic partners have the same rights as married couples regarding separation, survivorship, child rearing and adoption. In addition, section h provides “No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses.” Gay couples already have all the civil rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. So, whose civil rights get affected by gay marriage or the lack thereof?
The goals of the far-left Gay Marriage lobby are to force private organizations including churches, mosques and synagogues to accept and support gay couples, and to force discussion of Gay Marriage into the public education curriculum. They want private companies and religious organizations to support Gay Marriages even if it goes against their moral principals. They want schools to teach a homosexual agenda even if it goes against the wishes of the parents.
Their sexual preference does not, and should not, have any impact on our friendship, or on whether I hire or promote them. I wish them nothing but wealth, health, and happiness. Supporters of Prop 8 who spew hatred of gays are not my allies. I support Prop 8 because I reject the notion that marriage should be redefined by 4 judges, and that a new definition of marriage should be rammed down the throats of those who disagree.So what is in a name? Why do we care if we call it marriage or domestic partnership? Benefits and education. Today, a private organization that offers benefits to its employees can choose to offer benefits to individuals, married spouses, domestic partners, children, extended family, etc. My employer provides benefits to both spouses and domestic partners, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING, because it makes us more competitive in the hiring marketplace.
Some private organizations, however, do not offer benefits to domestic partners. As an example, take a church that considers homosexuality a sin, and therefore chooses not to support that lifestyle by offering benefits to partners. You may think that view is ignorant, offensive, or stupid, but the church has the right to its view under the 1st amendment. If the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual couples, the church will be forced to either 1) stop providing benefits to all spouses, harming the majority of its employees; or 2) provide support to gay married couples violating its moral principals.
Benefits provided by private organizations are the result of an employment contract between employer and employee, and do not constitute a civil right for anyone. Religious beliefs and not being forced by the government to support activities that violate those beliefs are a civil right. Prop 8 protects the rights of private employers, but has no impact on the civil rights of gay couples.
The second goal of the opponents of Prop 8 is to force the teaching of gay marriage into the public school system. As I’ve written previously, the definition of marriage has an impact on the curriculum in the public schools. California education code, section 51933 specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, the curriculum must include instruction and materials that teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
Section 51933 provides that health education including marriage can begin as early as kindergarten. Section 51890 further provides that education on health matters will include “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools in California provide this education.
By changing the definition of the term marriage, all state curriculum regarding the definition and discussion of marriage must change to include both tradition and homosexual marriages. Although section 51933 includes provisions to teach respect for “committed relationships,” there is no specific requirement in the code to teach the definition of domestic partnerships.
Changing the definition of marriage affects the civil rights of parents. Parents who object to homosexuality or gay marriage for moral reasons, which is their right, will have their children instructed in gay marriage whether they like it or not. The counter argument to this is that parents can “opt-out” of the instruction, but they shouldn’t have to. Personally, I’d prefer all discussion of marriage and sexuality be removed from the curriculum, but as long as it is there, Prop 8 protects the rights of parents to decide for their children what is taught.
What’s in a name? A lot apparently. Prop 8 protects rights, rather than denying rights.
Robert said,
November 1, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
This article puts you squarely in line with the segregationists of the south. Separate but equal was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 60’s.
If in your opinion marriage and domestic partnership are equal under the law, why do they need to be separate?
If domestic partnership is good the the ‘gays’ than why isn’t it good for the ’straits’? Why is the government in the business of recognizing marriages at all?
Your argument that gay-marriage somehow infringes on the rights of business owners and ‘churches’ that do not feel homosexuals should be provided benefits also reeks of discrimination based on sexual preference and relationship status – two protected traits that cannot me used, under law – to determine eligibility for such services.
Your argument on education continues to be factually inaccurate, you can twist the meaning of the educational code, but it still remains unchanged with or without prop-8.
I could go on and on with your material, but I understand that this is just more extreme-right republican and religious FUD.
bill said,
November 1, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Robert,
You made this argument before, trying to peg a racism charge on those who support Prop 8, saying we are the same as segregationists. Your argument is spurious for two reasons. First, separate but equal does not apply, because the law treats all citizens the same. The laws governing marriage and domestic partners do not discriminate based on sexual preference. California Family Code Section 300-310 says that marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman who are consenting adults. It does not specify that they must have sex. Section 297 of the code says that domestic partners must be of the same sex. It does not say then need to have sex. Every man in the state has the right to marry a woman or form a domestic partnership with a man, regardless of sexual preference.
The second reason your argument is spurious is because Separate But Equal as defined in Plessy v. Ferguson referred to services provided to individuals based on race, not behavior. Sexuality is a behavior. Even if you assume a genetic predisposition to sexual behavior, the individual is still free to act. Most studies of identical twins show less than a 50% rate of concordance, suggesting something other than genetics is involved. I can choose whom I have sex with, but not what my race is. Either way, the point is moot because all individuals in the state have the same right to marry and the same right to form partnerships, regardless of sexual behavior, so Separate But Equal does not apply.
Tim said,
November 4, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Just read your article while Googling for information, wanted to let you know I agree and, as a Christian, feel my rights are being protected by Prop 8.
Amanda Fishinghawk said,
November 5, 2008 @ 6:44 am
I absolutely loved your article. I am very much for prop 8. I think certain aspects such as homosexuality and religion should be taken out of school, and left to the house hold of the child. I have nothing against gay people, as well as you i have friends and even family who are gay. I have the upmost respect for them, but they’re already garuanteed the same rights as a married couples through the California State code 297.5, so it really makes you reevaluate what exactly they are fighting for, if it really isn’t about rights after all.
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 11:23 am
You want to see what the difference is between marriage and domestic partnerships? Read this article:
http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/05/BU061139DK.DTL&type=printable
And by the way, all of you who said you have “nothing against gay people” but still voted for Prop. 8 ARE LYING TO YOURSELVES! Shame on all of you for trying to disguise your bigotry as something noble and good for society!
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Matt,
I read the article you referenced. As the article states: “What legal and financial changes will same-sex couples face if they get married in California? For couples who have registered as domestic partners with the secretary of state, almost none.”
The article seems to imply that there are federal tax benefits of gays can file as married, but the author rightly points out “Gay couples who marry in California will be in the same boat because the federal government does not recognize domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages.”
This means that the gay couples who filed married returns listed in the article did so illegally.
Like Prop 22 before it, Prop 8 has now passed. Obviously, I think this is a good thing. If you want to propose a national domestic partnership law giving gays equal protection under federal law like they already enjoy in California, I’d support it. You don’t need to redefine marriage to acomplish your goals.
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
OK Bill, let me ask you something which I’ve been dying to ask a proponent of Prop. 8 – why are you so afraid of giving gays the right to marry? Make all the arguments you want and dance around the issue to your heart’s content, but both of us know the truth – that you and everyone else who voted for Prop. 8 have a problem with homosexuality, and any move society makes towards creating a more tolerant, accepting atmosphere for gays and lesbians scares the hell out of you. Just look at all those Yes on 8 commercials – all they did was cater to peoples’ darkest fears about how homosexuality is becoming “OK”, and provided them with the convenient though utterly absurd (and nauseating) excuse of “protecting the children” to disguise this irrational fear as something noble.
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Matt,
I’d like to think I’ve fully and completely answered your question above. I do not see the need to redefine the definition of marriage. As a matter of public policy, I do not think we should force individuals or businesses to support an institution that they morally oppose. I do not think we should push a homosexual agenda on our kids in school. I’d be happy to have the entire subject of sexuality removed from our schools, and let kids learn to read and write instead, but that was not on the table here.
As I’ve said above, I do not have a problem with gays, or with gays creating legal relationships on par with marriage. Be gay. Live your life. Be happy. Don’t push your agenda on my kid and I won’t deny you any rights under the law.
Now that I’ve answered your question, I have one of my own: Given that 1) domestic partnerships already exist in California; 2) those partnerships are equal to marriage under state law; 3) neither domestic partnerships nor gay marriage if it existed would be recognized on the federal level: What rights do you believe you are being denied by calling your civil contract something other than marriage? If I am wrong in my contention that it is about education and benefits, then please show me what other differences there would be under the law.
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
OK Bill, just to get one thing clear from the outset – I”m not gay so MY rights aren’t being denied, I just happen to feel very strongly that ALL segments of our society should be accorded equal treatment. I find it very amusing that you assume I’m gay, as if there were no other way that this issue would matter so much to me. In answer to your question: let’s not kid ourselves that domestic partnership amounts to the exact same thing as actual marriage, no matter what the law may say. By maintaining a separate category for gay partnerships, treatment will always be unequal in practice to some degree, no matter how even-handed the law purports to be. Equal treatment under the law means equal in ALL ways, not simply the creation of some supposedly equivalent right.
By the way, you proved by point about your intolerance with your ridiculous “don’t push youragenda on my kid” comment – believe me, gays are not the least bit interested in trying to “convert” your kid or anyone else’s to homosexuality, as if that were even possible. All they’re interested in is in FINALLY being accepted as on par with the rest of society, and not being subjected to your and your fellow Prop. 8 proponent’s bigotry.
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Matt,
Didn’t mean to presume you were gay. I was speaking in the abstract to all gays. They should go live their lives and be happy, and keep their agenda out of the schools. As to my supposed intolerance, I have already stated at the outset that one of the goals of gay marriage is to push a gay agenda into the schools, which I think is a bad idea. Since you have failed to name a single right UNDER THE LAW that would change relative to gay marriage in California, I will assume you concede the point that there aren’t any. The law does treat all individuals equally. Every adult in the state has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex or form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex, REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation.
Thanks for reading and voicing your opinion. I’m sorry you are upset, but the people have spoken again, and in my opinion have spoken correctly.
Derek said,
November 5, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
In the interest of taking this debate into a different direction: why are 8 supporters so concerned with educating children on the tenants of same-sex marriage? It’s very similar to the restriction of teaching both Intelligent Design and Evolution. Give children the information and let them editorialize for themselves. If we feel that children of a certain age aren’t capable of doing this, then lets shift the curriculum to a more-appropriate grade level.
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Just one more thing Bill – imagine (as difficult as that may be) that you were gay, and wanted to marry someone you were deeply in love with. How would you feel if several million people told you that they felt so strongly that you shouldn’t be allowed to call your union a marriage that they actually voted to change California’s constitution (the basis of our entire legal system) so that you would never have that right? Wouldn’t you feel discriminated against, even though you already supposedly have equal rights under another name?
By the way – if I were one of those gay “friends” you mentioned earlier, I would never speak to you again.
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Derek,
You ask a good question. My response is why do we need to teach sexuality in the schools at all? I think parents, not schools should decide what is appropriate and at what age we teach these issues.
Your comparison to Creationism, ID, and Evolution is an interesting one. The difference being that all three of these are theories, that can and should be taught as such. It is hard to teach history, biology and physics without some discussions about how the world and the species may have come to be.
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Matt,
None of my friends, gay or straight, base the strength of their relationship nor the measure of their love on the name on a government certificate. I think most of my gay friends would say that I am honest and fair. If one of them disowned me because of my stance on this issue, then we weren’t good friends to begin with. I won’t sacrifice my principles for them, nor would I expect them to sacrifice theirs for me. I expect my principles to win in the marketplace of ideas, and on this issue, yesterday, I did.
If any of my friends leave me because of this, then so be it. We are all free to think and to act, but not to escape the consequences of our actions.
stephen said,
November 5, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
it’s unfortunate that the majority of californians felt it necessary to place bigotry within the text of our state constitution.
i grew up in a really strict christian environment. we were very clearly instructed to which road was the correct one to take in life, for the consequences were dire. fear was the dominant force. then we moved from GA to CA. thank fuck. little by little my parents allowed a freedom that i had not had up til that point. i am sure you really care about my formative years but i bring it up to mention the cognitive disequilibrium that was present as i began to think/see for myself. i needed it to see that policy written/placed in fear, and as a direct response to said fear, is nothing if not divisive.
i am getting married in may of next year. to a woman. she is who i love. and the world has set up cultural constructs that recognize our love as an official declaration. a civil union works, but if you look into the eyes of someone who wants for something somewhat different and say ‘your love does not hold gravity to the extent that a love given the almighty (read: arbitrary) stamp of approval holds’ you effectually say fuck off and have a nice day, oh and be grateful for your ‘one-off’.
i must say though, often times, i want for the easy road. it’d be simple to say let’s build walls to keep the ‘other’ at arms length instead of engaging with it/them/him/her. there are multitude of examples where building a wall to keep people out works well. for instance the gaza strip- oh well, maybe it’s just the thought that counts.
prop 8 fails our children the most of all of us. our children will learn that democracy is oppressive when used as a weapon of pure unadulterated fear and loathing.
so anybody up for ‘Milk’
Derek said,
November 5, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Forgive me for straying away from the scholarly (and valid) nature of these posts, but I think that banning marriage, all together, would be a noteworthy proposition.
stephen said,
November 5, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
touché
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Bill,
You completed avoided my question. I asked you how you would feel if you were gay and you and a mass of faceless, disapproving voters told you that they were permanently changing the laws of your homeland to ensure that you could never call the person you love your husband or wife? Maybe it’s impossible for you to feel this kind of empathy, but give it a try. And as for your argument belittling the importance of a “government certificate” in measuring the strength of your love and committment – if it’s so unimportant, then why are you and millions of others so vehemently opposed to granting gays the right to have that certificate? Obviously the significance of the institution of marriage means a lot to you, so shouldn’t it stand to reason that it means a lot to gay people as well, and that they would want to be afforded that same basic right?
Also, I would like to see one SHRED of evidence that gay marriage advocates have any intention of pushing an “agenda” on schools – that argument is so preposterous it’s really not even worth dignifying with a response. Exactly what kind of lesson are you imagining: “OK class, today we’re going to learn that men can marry men, and women can marry women…” Laughable!
Finally, with regard your statement about your friends not being real friends if they disowned you – again I ask you to imagine, how would you feel if you were gay and one of your “friends” voted to keep you from enjoying the same basic right he does? Wouldn’t feel too good now, would it?
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Matt,
1) Gay or straight, I do not let the opinions of the “faceless” masses establish my self worth. Quite frankly, the opinions of faceless masses are meaningless to me.
2) Prop 8 did not permanently change the law. It re-codified what existed for hundreds of years, was codified in Prop 22, and overturned by 4 judges who imposed their will on the electorate.
3) There is nothing preventing a gay person from refering to their partner as husband or wife. I know many who do.
4) I have provided the education code references above that would necessarily be effected if the judges’ ruling was left standing unchecked. You should read them.
5) Many of my friends, gay and straight, voted yesterday to support a Socialist whose stated objective is to deny me my basic rights to my property and the fruits of my labor. I have not disowned them for their foolishness. Instead, I have renewed my efforts to educate them on the error of their ways. The 2010 election has just started and it is another chance to let freedom reign.
We have a system of checks and balances. We elect people to represent our views and our values. Sometimes they fail to do so. We have judges who rule on the law. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they impose their judgement to decide what is or is not Constitutional in areas where the Constitution is silent. And sometimes we change the Constitution when either the electorate changes or the electorate disagrees with the Legislature or the Judiciary.
Whether you agree or disagree with Prop 8, the system worked as designed. The Legislature was too chicken to take up the issue so the people passed Prop 22. The Judiciary decided that that Prop 22 violated the Constitution. The people overruled the Judiciary and changed the Constitution. If you don’t like the system, you can always write your own amendment and try to get it past the electorate.
Matt said,
November 5, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Bill,
Once more you’ve completely avoided my question – how would you feel if you were gay in this situation? You say you don’t define your self-worth by the opinions of the masses, but that’s pretty easy for you to say when you’re not the one being targeted by hatred and discrimination – and let’s be honest here, even if you yourself are as truly accepting of gays as you profess to be, I’ll wager anything that the vast majority of your fellow Prop. 8 proponents out there were in fact motivated by sheer bigotry, whether you care to admit it or not. And that’s what’s truly appalling about this proposition, even if the system “worked” as it was intended to.
Anyway I’ve had enough of arguing with you about this, it’s pretty obvious that we’ll never understand the other’s point of view. Enjoy your gay marriage-less America.
bill said,
November 5, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Matt,
Ok. Last time. If I were gay, I would not care. I am a white heterosexual conservative male working in San Francisco. I have the audacity to support Prop 8 and oppose Obama. I am successful in my career, not ashamed of it, and feel I have the right to keep what I earn. I AM targeted daily by hatred and discrimination.
I am not responsible for what motivates the “vast majority of [my] fellow Prop 8 proponents.” I understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting. Feel free to visit anytime. Your opinion is always welcome, even when it is wrong!
Matt said,
November 6, 2008 @ 10:07 am
OK, this really is my final comment. Of course you’re not responsible for the bigotry motivating most of the people who voted for Prop. 8, I didn’t say you were – however, you were (I assume) aware that a great number of people voted for it SOLELY out of hatred for gays, and yet you still chose to give them your full support, despite the fact that you claim to be so tolerant and accepting of gays yourself. So, even if your motives were voting for it were loftier and more noble than theirs, the fact that you willingly and knowingly contributed to their hate-driven campaign makes you no better than them.
And as for you as a “white, heterosexual, conservative male” being targeted daily by “hatred and discrimination” in San Francisco, don’t make me laugh! I used to live in San Francisco too for a long time, I know what it’s like – maybe people are expressing their outrage and anger to you over your views on this very sensitive subject, and maybe some of them get carried away and say things they shouldn’t. But as far as suffering real hatred, like the type a gay teenager living in a town in rural California full of homophobic Yes on 8 voters has to experience on a daily basis – give me a break, you have no idea what that’s like.
bill said,
November 6, 2008 @ 11:08 am
“the fact that you willingly and knowingly contributed to their hate-driven campaign makes you no better than them.”
So Matt, your contention is I should have voted against my principles based on the motivation of others? I supported a Proposition, not a group. I gave no money to any group I’d consider hateful. I heard an awful lot of vile filth coming from No on 8ers too. I guess that makes you no better than the jackasses spitting on people in the streets, ripping down yard signs, beating up old people?
Matt said,
November 6, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
No, I obviously don’t condone that sort of awful behavior, nor would any other civilized person. However, you’re trying to compare two completely different things – the misguided rage and violence you’re talking about is a direct response TO THE PROPOSITION ITSELF, and is a showing of anger at the attempt by a huge homophobic segment of society to ensure that gays continue to be treated unequally. Thus, had there not been a Proposition 8 to begin with, there would not have been this terrible outpouring of anger and violence you’re talking about.
The hatred I’m talking about, however, is one which has long plagued our society along with many other forms of intolerance, and Prop. 8 gave people a way of expressing that hatred without having to feel guilty about it – that is, by packaging the hatred under the guise of “protecting the children/traditional family”. So, what I can’t understand is why you, as a supposedly tolerant person, would choose to vote for such a measure when you clearly must realize that it was primarily a vehicle for people to express their hatred, and a means to ensure that this hatred remains a part of our society by enshrining it in our state’s constitution.
bill said,
November 6, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Sorry, Matt but I disagree with your premise. Your outrage at Prop 8 is matched by the outrage of those whose vote on Prop 22 was overturned by 4 judges. I’m sure you were outraged at Prop 22, which was matched by the outrage of people who did not want to see the basic definition of the core family unit in our society changed.
I also disagree with the premise that gays are treated unequally. As stated above many times, gays have the same right as non-gays to marry someone of the opposite sex. The also have the same right as non-gays to form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex. The desire of gays to change the legal definition of a word does not equal an obligation of the other 95% of society to agree with them. Good or bad, the system worked. I’m sure they’ll keep trying. If they convince enough people of the rightness of their ideas, then they’ll be victorious.
You and I will never agree on this issue, but I appreciate your willingness to debate. Please check back often and read my other articles. I’m sure you’ll find many things upon which to comment.
By the way, if you ever want to sponsor a national domestic partnership amendment, ensuring that all other states recognize the California domestic partnership as a valid civil contract, let me know. I’ll write in support of it and donate money. If you try to push it through as marriage, I will probably oppose it.
Thanks again for the comments.
Tom Dibble said,
November 6, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
If Domestic Partnerships are “equivalent” to marriage in the eyes of the State of California, then they qualify fully as “committed relationship” and therefore still must be “taught in schools”.
The whole Prop 8 / school curriculum link is bogus. Prop 8 changes NOTHING about what is taught in schools about homosexuality (which is essentially nothing other than that there exist homosexuals and that they can live together, mentioned sometime before high school graduation).
The problem with Domestic Partnerships are:
1. No Federal protection. Any law which references “marriage” in the federal context does NOT apply to Domestic Partners. Social Security, Medicare, immigration, federal taxes, etc are all not covered. Just as “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”, so too are separate legal agreements.
2. No mobility. Domestic Partnerships begin and end within the State of California. Their legal standing does not hold up in other states.
3. Not binding to private institutions. While you see it as a feature that any company can choose to discriminate based on the sexual preference of a couple, that is a rather extreme position.
The main problem with Prop 8 is that it was NOT decided on the points you raise above; it was decided by people who were convinced that if it wasn’t passed their children would be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle and their marriages would be invalidated. All of this is demonstrably false, but not in the space of a campaign cycle. If the discussion had been on the issues you bring up above, I am quite certain Prop 8 would have failed.
bill said,
November 6, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Tom,
The first 2 problems you describe would not have been resolved by Prop 8 failing. Federal law would not have recognized a gay marriage from California any more than it recognizes domestic partnerships. #3 was my point about benefits. I think your desire to force PRIVATE institutions to behave against their moral conviction is the extreme position. Also, I believe you are misreading, misunderstanding, or intentionally misrepresenting the impact on eduction, but we can agree to disagree.
I’d be happy to support points 1 & 2 with respect to domestic partnerships.
Tom Dibble said,
November 7, 2008 @ 9:51 am
I believe that any “marriage”, be it between heterosexuals or homosexuals, as defined by local statute, is specifically honored throughout the US and in Federal law. In fact, that was the main reason for the big hub-bub when Massachusetts first allowed gay marriages, that that would mean that a conservative town in Utah would have to give all legal marriage benefits to a couple who had moved there from MA. I may be wrong there, but that’s certainly my understanding.
On point 3, you really feel it is a company’s business to care about the specifics of the partnership allowed under their group health insurance coverage? If the owner of the company doesn’t believe in divorce, should he exclude any second marriages from coverage? If he doesn’t believe in Mormons, should he exclude any LDS marriages from coverage? If he doesn’t believe in in-vitro fertilization, should he exclude any children not conceived completely “naturally” from coverage?
This is NONE OF THE COMPANY’S BUSINESS. I don’t see it as a feature to MAKE it their business (because their plans will default to NOT covering domestic partnerships unless someone specifically expands them to such).
bill said,
November 7, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Tom,
You are wrong about the Feds. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
“No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. ”
“The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”
As to your statements on point 3, you asked whether companies “should” discriminate based on homosexuality, divorce, religion, etc. in their benefits. My answer is of course not. I think it is short-sighted and makes them less competitive. Look at my original post regarding my opinion of my company’s activities in this area.
This issue under Prop 8 was not what companies should or should not do, it was what companies would be obligated to do. I do not think any private citizen or organization should be obligated by government force to act against their own interests. Forcing a church to provide benefits that support a lifestyle they oppose morally would be forcing them to act against their interests, even if you think they are wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I read your article as well. I disagree with your premise that homosexuality is not at least in part, a choice. All sexuality is a behavior, and you have the choice on whether to act. There may be a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, heterosexualtiy, or asexuality. I don’t know. Looking at studies of identical twins, there is a high level of concordance between the twins’ sexual preference. I’ve seen numbers as low a 7% and as high as 50%. It is never exact, meaning other factors such as pre-natal hormones, environment, brain structure, and individual experiences and choices play a part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Anyone interested in a religious view opposed to Prop 8 can check out Tom’s article here:
http://tomsissues.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/californias-proposition-8-from-a-mormon/
Tom Dibble said,
November 7, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Interesting. I’d forgotten entirely about DOMA. I stand corrected.
So, then, the whole effect of Prop 8 is to mean that corporations need to specifically include domestic partnerships in their rules to include homosexual marriages? It seems a very small point around which to base a constitutional amendment and for which to pay almost $80 million to pass.
Note that with or without Prop 8, companies can include or exclude domestic partnerships/gay marriages; it is just that after Prop 8 you have to ACTIVELY include whereas before you would have to actively EXCLUDE. In either case, that exclusion may cause a lawsuit charging discrimination, which may or may not succeed (I am not familiar with the case law here). I suppose that in the default-exclusion case at least you as a company might “defend” yourself with a statement of not having actively excluded anyone (but that type of defense is generally worthless in discrimination lawsuits, so it seems worthless).
“Forcing a church to provide benefits” … I don’t get where you are coming from here. Without Prop 8, no one was forcing any church to do anything. Just as a church could refuse to marry two people based on their age, mental fitness, eye color, or “worthiness”, they could likewise refuse to marry a couple based on them both having matching genitals. If you are talking about insurance benefits (do churches provide such to their employees in general?) I can’t see why that would be an issue at all. Can you explain there?
To the point: churches were specifically addressed in the Prop 22 ruling in May and deemed immune from any effects of gay marriage. Granted, that’s “just” a judicial statement, which might not mean as much outside California as a legislated law stating the same, but judicial statements collectively form case law, which means a lot in courts here in-state.
About nature vs nurture: the main thing I disagree with is that it is predominantly a choice of the homosexual. This leads to the “homosexuals recruiting our kids” meme as well. There’s just no evidence for that, and plenty of common sense against it (homosexuals throughout history and only slightly less so today have been ridiculed, attacked, and treated as dogs; this is not something you “choose” for yourself). The root may not be genetic, and it may indeed be something that occurs to the child at a young age. There is no evidence that exposure to homosexuality by children increases incidence of homosexuality as adults, so that’s unlikely to be a major component of any environmental “trigger”. All of which is to say: I really have no idea what makes a man love other men or a woman love other women, but I know quite strongly that it is not something they “choose” to feel, and that hiding those feelings leads to disastrous consequences.
Matt said,
November 8, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Tom,
Well put! Yes, anti-gay crusaders have never been able to explain why a homosexual would “choose” a lifestyle for which (until recently and still in many places) society openly persecutes him/her. Also, if homosexuality is a “choice”, then it only stands to reason that other forms of sexuality are a choice as well, and that straight people have actively “chosen” to be that way. So Bill, do you ever remember making a “choice” to be straight, or did you just start naturally feeling attracted to women at the usual age? Of course you didn’t make a choice – so why then would gays be any different? They’re simply responding to their natural desires, and sadly they’ve been condemned for having these desires throughout most of history.
gerry ensley said,
November 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Tom, my friend,
I sympathize with your benevolent statement, “I respectfully disagree on your [my] assertion that homosexuality (the ATTRACTION, not the act) is a choice. There is ample scientific evidence pointing to it being an involuntary state. Our disagreement hinges largely on this.”
Yes, it does, and so does the constitutional foundation of homosexual “invidious discrimination,” which CANNOT APPLY in the absence of such“involuntary state” (as e.g. race, skin color, national origin – ALL which attach INVOLUNTARILY at birth and remain unchanged throughout a person’s entire life without her personal choice nor her consent).
You appear to concede that homosexual “acts” ARE a matter of a person’s CHOICE, hence may be lawfully curtailed/regulated by society’s laws (exactly as also heterosexual acts may likewise be so curtailed/regulated). But you imply that homosexual ATTRACTION is INVOLUNTARY – - a kind of irresistible temptation/allurement unable to be withstood. How, may I ask, is that purported “INVOLUNTARY ATTRACTION” different from traditional heterosexual “involuntary attraction” for the opposite sex? Heterosexual “attraction” (sexual hatred/fear of the OPPOSITE sex?) is nothing more than a natural, God-given desire to procreate (children), not purely a non-generative act of sexual pleasure, as it is in homosexuality. Granting homosexuals a new and original “constitutional right” (special constitutional protection NOT legally accorded other VOLUNTARY associations) fraudulently allows incorrect constitutional application of LEGAL COERCION against “majority rights” (democratic foundations). We need not now “create” new legal/constitutional doctrines in order to allow minority sexual selection by FORCE OF LAW to COERCE majority compliance with THEIR minority sexual preferences.
It is truly unfortunate that some “minority” homosexuals have chosen their own much publicized suicides rather than chosen to discipline their own sexual desires. But that tragically self-chosen “minority suicide” is no warrant for allowing them LAWFUL COERCION of society’s natural, traditional heterosexual, children-producing rights. And especially is this so where state statutory law (not proper constitutional law) now allows them functional equality with heterosexuals in the private conduct of their own bedrooms. We cannot allow homosexual voluntary “minority” status (precisely “minority” because self-chosen against a “majority” which has voluntarily and properly, democratically, decided against them) to use faulty “constitutional” litigation to COERCE majority rights. This is, after all, a democracy.
The entire purpose of USING COURTS and constantly incessant litigation in order to assert their homosexual preference BY FORCE OF LAW is a strategy of easy accomplishment. It’s simply easier by blizzard of homosexual lawsuits to find ONE JUDGE (that’s all that was necessary in California’s In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, a 4-3 decision) which might agree with them, THEREBY FORCING MAJORITY COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR MINORITY VIEWS/PRACTICES, rather than to allow democratic persuasion (by vote, social sentiment, political conviction, etc.) which homosexuals have consistently lost (and properly so). San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was entirely correct in his joyous and FORCEFUL assessment of the California supreme court decision: “It’s [minority homosexual coercion of the majority] gonna happen, whether you like it, or not.” Yep, that’s precisely the force of law.
But even their incessant litigation, with its attendant publicity, vociferous partisanship, public demonstration, media coverage, etc. accomplishes a homosexual persuasive strategy for general public appeal. It’s not surprising that recent homosexual response to their “loss” in Prop 8 political “warfare” has accorded them “success” in seeking “more” popular approval for their deviant lifestyle. I’m sure it will continue. Asserting fraudulent constitutional principles–even successfully in some courts (Massachusetts, Connecticut, recently California)–has sufficiently confused Americans so to “blend” the latter’s natural charitable “tolerance” for private minority deviant behavior with false constitutional conclusions (wrongfully) transmuting that beneficial “tolerance” INTO constitutional COERCION which may thereafter become FORCE OF LAW against the “tolerant” majority which “tolerated” them in the first place. We may properly “tolerate” private homosexuality WITHOUT ACCORDING THEM CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO COERCE MAJORITY COMPLIANCE by force of law WITH THEIR DEVIANT LIFESTYLE.
Homosexual attraction is not “involuntary” in the constitutional sense, i.e, determined at birth, fully consistent throughout a person’s life, and leaving the individual without the ability to change it in any way (see race/national origin/etc. above, which clearly and properly DO have constitutional protection of minorities BORN into conditions they did not choose and cannot possibly change). The friendliest homosexual I’ve known officed next to mine in a Los Angeles prosecutor’s employment many years ago. He told me in confidence (hence I’ll not disclose his name) that he “enjoyed” a wild heterosexual life at Venice High School with many girls his age, until he acquired syphilis from one of his heterosexual dates. From that time onward he CHOSE to become homosexual, apparently in response to his unhappy heterosexual experience. He later became a Los Angeles judge and tragically died of AIDS when 43 years of age.
Homosexuality is NOT “involuntary.” It is a matter of choice. A person’s consistent and repeated choice to AVOID/DISTASTE/DETEST opposite genitalia in favor of one’s own similar genitalia (for whatever reason, or no reason at all- – freedom to choose requires no “reason”) is likewise a matter of personal choice undetermined by external (nor internal, biochemical) forces. I haven’t space here to discuss biochemical, genetic, mind/brain components of homosexuality. Maybe later.
Attorney Morris Thurston’s penchant rebuttal to the so-called (and largely correct) “Six Consequences” of the supreme court “marriages” decision was itself rebutted by Thurston’s law partner attorney Robert Crockett. You may “google” each for their respective LDS views. More later.
Must go. Hang in there, my brother.
bill said,
November 9, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Tom & Matt,
I define homosexuality (or heterosexuality) as an action, not a desire. If a man feels attracted to another man, but marries a woman, has kids, and never once has sex with a man, was he gay? Of course not. Whether the desire is genetic, chemical, hormonal, or conscious choice is immaterial to the argument. Why do we punish pedophiles? Why do we restrict polygamy and incest? If man’s desire is uncontrollable, then why would these actions be any different than homosexual or heterosexual behavior?
Back to the main point at hand; I have 2 questions for you both:
1) Is marriage a right or a privilege?
2) Given that domestic partnerships exist in California, and given that the federal DOMA restricts homosexual civil contracts outside of California, what effect would changing the definition of marriage in California have AS A MATTER OF LAW, other than what I posited in my original article? What new legal rights or privileges would gays get, or are they now being denied since Prop 8 passed?
Please note that I am asking for what legal changes would occur in your opinion. Changes such as increased “tolerance” or “acceptance” without specific legal changes are immaterial as a matter of law.
Tom Dibble said,
November 10, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
1. The state recognition of and benefits towards marriage are a “privilege” by the simple definition of it being able to be “revoked” at any time. HOWEVER, California defines civil marriage (note: not church marriage, *civil* marriage) as a right in the constitution, which designation led to the striking down of interracial marriage statutes in the 1940’s. In legal terms, as opposed to libertarian terms of common usage, marriage is explicitly a right.
2. Defeating Prop 8, as a matter of law, would have done nothing; Prop 8 was the change in the constitution, not the other way around. Let’s ask this the other way, then: what are the effects of Prop 8?
a. This reinforces on a state level the DOMA act on the federal level. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the Pro 8-style firewalls built at the state level still would have to be torn down one by one.
b. Any state “opting in” to recognizing domestic partnerships will likely have to specifically opt-in to recognize California’s DP law in addition to any other state. I’m somewhat guessing here, but it doesn’t seem that there is a proper blanket definition which would allow for the various flavors.
Turn this around: what did the stridently anti-homosexual forces FOR changing the Constitution hope to get out of their $80 million ad campaign? Just allowing the couple of companies who do not give educational benefits to domestic partners a (frail) legal cover? Is the ability to discriminate amongst your employees really so precious a right to justify the great expenses incurred?
If you’re asking us to just cede that it was all worthless anyway, surely you won’t mind that we just toss that useless amendment out and replace it with one that states employers need not cover educational expenses for any random subset of their employees, right?
Occam’s razor bites here. You’re not on the right side of it.
IMHO, ‘a’ up there is the key to the REAL motivation of Prop 8. The anti-homosexual forces of the nation are rapidly losing their political influence and support for legal discrimination of this sort is in the decline. It’s a war of attrition now, putting up as many dams and blockades as possible to hold off the inevitable as long as possible.
Hey, you asked
Amanda said,
November 13, 2008 @ 11:13 am
So heres the thing. Choice, not a choice. What difference does it make? If consenting adults same sex, opposite sex want to get MARRIED? No ones harmed. That MARRIAGE CONTRACT is a legal contract from the government-nothing at all to do with religion. It shouldn’t matter what sex, if any, they are having. And it obviously isn’t going against what’s been DEFINED for hundreds of years, because that’s what the ANTI-gays agenda folks are running out to do. RE-define marriage “between a man and a woman”. It obviously hasn’t been defined that way ifthe constitution didn’t say it before.
bill said,
November 13, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Amanda and Tom,
You are both mistaken. Tom, the Constitution does not define it as a right. It is silent on the issue. Amanda, the re-definition was on the part of the Supreme Court who tried to re-define marriage as being anything other than 1 man, 1 woman. Prior to Prop 22, there was no definition codified, because it was understood as Common Law. Prop 22 codified the definition, but did not change it. The Supremes made a mistake when they tried to re-define it. Prop 8 has corrected that mistake.
Civil marriage is a privilege under the law. You must meet certain conditions. You have to be an adult, not related to the other person, and of the opposite sex. You have to get a blood test, pay a fee, and obtain a license. You can’t be married to more than one person. Civil partnerships are also a privilege under the law, with similar requirements, except that the partner be of the same sex, instead of the opposite sex.
There is no discrimination here because all persons in the state are subject to the exact same requirements, regardless of sexual orientation.
Amanda said,
November 13, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
” The Supremes made a mistake when they tried to re-define it. Prop 8 has corrected that mistake.”
By redefining it the other way? That’s a very bias response. Just because Prop 8 raced in to fill a gap, does not mean the gap was filled correctly. Common Law changes over time. I’m sure at one time it was understood or argued that under Common Law marriage was only between a white man and a white woman, not one black one white. Common Law leaves room for growth and to weed out societal bigotry.
bill said,
November 13, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Amanda,
Yes, I am biased towards natural law, common law, federal law (DOMA), popular vote (Prop 22), and now Constitutional Law (Prop 8). I challenge you to find any time in U.S. history when marriage was the exclusive domain of Caucasians.
Tom Dibble said,
November 14, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
“Tom, the Constitution does not define it as a right. It is silent on the issue.”
Not according to Earl Warren (US Supreme Court) or John Shenk (CA Supreme Court), who both cited marriage as a fundamental right. While the Constitution itself doesn’t mention marriage by name, constitutional case law is very clear on how the US and CA’s Constitutional Equal Protection clauses are to be interpreted in the case of marriage.
Now, if Prop 8 stands, then the CA Constitution now has an explicit contradiction (equal protection explicitly does not extend to marriage). However, the US Constitution contains no such contradiction, and the pre-Prop 8 CA Constitution also contains no such contradiction.
“There is no discrimination here because all persons in the state are subject to the exact same requirements, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Equal application of the law does not ensure lack of discrimination.
As an example, if the law stated that no man or woman may marry someone of a different race than they are (anti-miscegenation laws), that law is discriminatory against couples of mixed race, even though the same (discriminatory) law is being applied equally to all individuals. This is precisely the case which led to the declaration of civil marriage as a “fundamental right” open to all couples in CA, in 1948 (Perez v Sharp).
“Yes, I am biased towards natural law, common law, federal law (DOMA), popular vote (Prop 22), and now Constitutional Law (Prop 8). I challenge you to find any time in U.S. history when marriage was the exclusive domain of Caucasians.”
Amanda said that “common law” was interpreted as not allowing for mixed-race marriages, which is absolutely true. “Common law” does NOT usurp “equal protection under the law”.
To go down the list:
“natural law” is subject to personal definition; which “natural law” do all people agree upon?
“common law” changes very often; just a few centuries back and “common law” stated that most people had no opportunity for civil marriage at all. From 1850-1948 California common law specifically stated that “no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.”
“Federal law” says nothing about how California defines marriage, just that California’s definition is not binding on Utah insofar as it allows for same-gender unions. While it has been untested so far, DOMA is very likely unconstitutional (the current hard-right lean of the USSC is delaying a challenge to DOMA on constitutional grounds).
“Popular vote” is correct and applies to both Prop 22 and Prop 8, but “popular vote” is generally held as insufficient to remove rights from a minority group (which is why it’s a VERY dangerous precedent if this is allowed to stand).
[California] “Constitutional Law” is under review at this point, but assuming Prop 8 goes forward you’ll have that one right (although a strong case can be made that the state constitution is incapable of usurping the protection given by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in the Equal Protection clause).
The problem with putting ultimate authority in ALL of these is that in 1948, every one of them aside from Constitutional Law stood AGAINST mixed-race marriages. While there are a few bigots around who still believe miscegenation is a sin in the eyes of God, they are rightfully ridiculed when they show themselves in public. In other words: above ALL of these stand the equal protection clauses at the federal and state levels, and the anti-discrimination interpretations of those clauses which are entrenched in constitutional case law.
Had the initiative process existed in 1948, there is no doubt at all that Californians would have voted to amend their constitution to outlaw miscegenation for once and for all. Public sentiment FOR anti-miscegenation laws stood in the 90% range at that point, and was still in the overwhelming majority until the 1960’s. But, the process did not exist to usurp the authority of the Constitution by simple majority, and so a radical change ensued across the country.
This national ripple effect from a California ruling is precisely what the Prop 8 proponents want to avoid, obviously. In the case of anti-miscegenation it took another 18.5 years before Loving v Virginia struck down similar laws throughout the country; given public support of gay marriage hovering a good 20-40% higher than mixed-race marriage support in 1948, I think the federal case for gay marriage recognition will take significantly less time to hit.
I’d suggest a perusal of the history of anti-miscegenation laws to understand just how absolutely similar the situation today with regards to gay marriage is to the 1948 situation with regards to mixed-race marriage. I know which side I’d have rather been on in 1948. I think you might want to reconsider the historical counterparts you are tossing your hat in with.
bill said,
November 14, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Tom,
2 things, and then I swear I am going to move on:
1) There is a difference between how a judge interprets the Constitution and what the Constitution actually says. Prior to Prop 8, the California Constitution and the US Constitution were both silent on the issue.
2) I reject the notion, as should all thinking adults, that race which is 100% out of the control of the individual is equal to behavior or preference.
The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
No person is denied equal protection under Prop 8 for 2 reasons:
1) All persons in California may marry someone of the opposite sex
2) All persons in California may form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex.
No adult in California is denied the right to form either type of civil contract with another qualifying adult.
Regardless of the 14th amendment, it is certainly valid for the State to place restrictions on what constitutes a valid civil marriage contract. For instance, does denying a brother and sister from marrying violate equal protection for them? Does preventing a man from marrying a 12-year old girl deny either equal protection?
By your logic, why wouldn’t the restrictions on polygamy and incest also constitute a violation of equal protection?
I appreciate your passion and your willingness to debate. Thanks!
-Bill
Tom Dibble said,
November 14, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
“No person is denied equal protection under Prop 8 for 2 reasons:
1) All persons in California may marry someone of the opposite sex
2) All persons in California may form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex.”
In 1948 California, no person was denied equal protection by your definition because all persons in California may marry someone of the same sex.
In 1954, black and white school children in Topeka, Kansas were not denied equal protection by your definition because the separate facilities were truly equal in quality and opportunity.
Again: is that the side of history you really intend to support?
“By your logic, why wouldn’t the restrictions on polygamy and incest also constitute a violation of equal protection?”
Polygamy: How? I don’t see the connection.
Incest and pedophilia are illegal because there are real victims of both activities (in the case of incest, real – not imagined – genetic effects of interbreeding; in pedophilia the child who is not able to consent).
Tom Dibble said,
November 14, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
(Obviously I meant “because all persons in California may marry someone of the same RACE.” not “sex.”
)
Denise said,
November 16, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Is there a mechanism for a heterosexual married couple to convert their relationship to a domestic partnership? I have been happily married for over 20 years and hope to stay in this relationship the rest of my life. But the involvement of the churches, etc in pushing Prop 8 into the constitution makes me feel that I’m involved in an oppressive, religious relationship when what I thought I had was a relationship based on a deep personal committment to my partner that was recognized that we had certain legal rights and responsibilities. I’d like to look into making this change as a protest. I’m curious if anyone knows about this.
bill said,
November 17, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Tom,
Again, your argument only holds water if you are willing to equate genetics with behavior. Race and sexual preference are not the same.
As far as polygamy, this is the next logical step in the argument of equal protection, if there are no standards for what constitutes a marriage. Why should an individual be denied the right to marry someone just because another got there first? If you have three (or 4, 5, 6, etc…) consenting adults, why shouldn’t they all form the civil contract (marriage) that they want?
Your case against incest rests on the assumption that an offspring will be the victim. This only is valid under the assumption that the purpose of marriage is procreation. If marriage is about procreation, then how can gays marry? If marriage is not about procreation, then why can’t brothers and sisters marry? Aren’t they being denied equal protection from being able to marry whomever they want.
Both of these are the “slippery slope” that occurs when you remove the standards for what constitutes a valid marriage.
Matt said,
November 19, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Bill,
Of course race and sexual preference aren’t the same, but does that mean that people should be granted equal rights on the basis of one but not the other? So you say homosexuality is a “behavior” – fine, call it whatever you like and attribute it to whatever causes you want (be it innate predilection or choice), but the basic truth you’re ignoring is that therefore heterosexuality is ALSO a behavior, the only difference being that many more people engage in it. Whatever way you slice it, heterosexuality and homosexuality are two different forms of the same thing, be it “behavior” or whatever else you want to call it. Thus, what you want is for people who engage in a far less common type of “behavior” to be denied the rights granted to those who participate in the usual kind of “behavior”, and that my friend is wrong. Moreover, it’s for situations EXACTLY like this that we have an independent judiciary – to prevent the mob rule of the majority from imposing its will on a minority. So, when these 4 “activist” judges “rammed their will down the throats of the people”, they were doing precisely what the Constitution intended for them to do.
bill said,
November 19, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Matt,
Yes, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are behaviors, therefor equal protection arguments do not apply. Prop 8 does not deny the minority any rights. All persons have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex or form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex. Homosexuals have the right to be homosexual, but their choice of behavior does not grant them special rights.
As far as the judiciary goes, the role of the supreme court is to enterpret the Constituion, not make it up. They overstepped their boundries. BUT, even if you say that they behavied correctly, the system has checks and balances. The people voted. The judges ruled that the people’s vote violated the Constituion. The people changed the Constituion. The system worked.
The only question left now is whether the court will try to declare that Prop 8 is actually a revision, rather than an amendment, to the Constitution. A revision is defined as a “substantial change to the entire constitution.” I think it would be tough to take something as narrow as Prop 8 and make that arguement, especially considering the history of other much broader amendments like Prop 13. If the court overreaches again, I’m sure we’ll be back in the Proposition game next election, and I suspect we’d get the 2/3rds, given the way the anti-8 crowd is behaving these days.
Matt said,
November 20, 2008 @ 1:20 am
One more thing Bill – that point I made above about gay and straight being two groups in the same category receiving different treatment is exactly what the concept of equal protection is all about ; a law shouldn’t give preferential treatment to one group over another group in the same category. Thus, for example, within the category of “expectant mothers”, married expectant mothers should not receive preferential treatment over unwed mothers, and within the category of race, whites should not be given preferential treatment over blacks and Asians. What I’m saying, then, is that it doesn’t matter how you define sexual orientation (”desire”, “behavior”, whatever), the fact is it’s a category within which gay and straight are two groups, and neither should be treated better than the other.
Matt said,
November 20, 2008 @ 1:52 am
And also Bill, I realize the category of sexual orientation is technically still only subject to rational basis review and hasn’t reached the level of intermediate scrutiny yet – however, in Lawrence v. Texas, Sandra Day O’Connor (a conservative justice appointed by Reagan) wrote the opinion overturning a law in Texas banning homosexual sodomy on the grounds that it violated equal protection, as the law didn’t ban heterosexual sodomy as well. Thus, a Supreme Court decision said that sexual behavior is a protectable category under the Equal Protection Clause, and most likely will continue to do so.
DSR said,
December 9, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Bill,
Thanks for your contribution. I have used it for my own research. It must be difficult to be so strong in San Francisco. I applaud you for it. You have opened my mind to what this all means.
Yarik said,
June 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Very interesting (albeit not very productive) discussion…
I am really curious: Are there any more or less reliable demographic data about opposers/supporters of the “gay marriage” concept, state-wide or country-wide? I think such data could explain why this discussion (and other similar discussions I witnessed) appears to be leading nowhere beyond “let’s agree to disagree” conclusion.
Cheryl said,
January 21, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
One question, for those who are married, would you swap your marriage for a civil union?