Comments on: What’s in a name? Marriage vs. Domestic Partners

By: bill

bill — Tue, 11 May 2010 05:27:22 +0000

Neva,

Good luck with whatever report you are working on. I think you’ll need it. A couple of responses:

1) If you agree that the current legal definition of marriage was and is between one man and one woman, then why do you oppose codifying that which has always been understood under common law? If you think the definition should be changed, then the proper mechanism for that is legislative or via the Proposition process, NOT the ruling of one judge.

2) The rate of concordance has nothing to do with the % of the population that are gay. Concordance in genetics is the presence of a trait in both members of a pair of identical twins. Genetic traits generally show a high level of concordance, because both twins have them, such as hair color and eye color. Several twin studies have been done to try to determine if sexual preference is genetic or behavioral. In studies where one twin was gay, less than 50% of the time was the other twin found to also be gay. This tends to suggest something other than genetics is involved in sexual preference.

3) There is no actual discrimination involved in Prop 8. All citizens in the state may marry a member of the opposite sex, regardless of race, creed, or sexual preference. All citizens in the state may form a domestic partnership with a member of the same sex, regardless of race, creed, or sexual preference.

Just because I disagree with the leftist notion that we need to change the traditional definition of marriage in this state does not make me anti-gay… it only makes me anti-gay marriage. I fully support gay domestic partnerships, and in California those partnerships have all the rights of married couples.

By: neva

neva — Tue, 11 May 2010 04:15:58 +0000

I didnt read all the comments but a couple of the points that were brought up I strongly feel the need to adress.

Ok so first off, the very act of voting on prop 8 makes you someone who “has something against gays”. You’re holding the opinion that gays should not have the right to marry…sooo…you’re going to have to give me a better explanation than the fact that you have friends and family who are gay to convince me that you’re accepting of them.

Yes, the defitnition of a marriage is a union between a man and woman. That is not an argument. Legalizing marriage for gay couples would essentially CHANGE the definition of marriage and that is exactly the equality we we are fighting for. Cheryl said it perfectly: would those of you who are married give it up for a civil union? I only wish the law as stated by Bill would allow heterosexual domestic partnership, so that those who claim it is equal could demonstrate their point for us by giving up their marriages.

And for those of you who say prop 8 protected their rights….REALLY?
rights denied to straights by the dismissal of prop 8: ZERO
rights denied to gays by the passing of prop 8: one HUGE right denied directly by the nature of the proposition (marriage) as well as all the indirect effects of the injustice of it all (social, economic, personal, and uhm….how about not being considered an EQUAL?)

And the the fact that Plessy vs. Ferguson was on a basis of race does not counteract the fact that it was a matter of DISCRIMINATION…such as…oh the current status of gay rights. And to say that it doesnt apply to this because homosexuality is a matter of behavior is ridiculous. Homosexuality makes a person who they are, they do not make themselves homosexual. Even if the studies that Bill brought up DID show a less than 50% rate of concordance in identical twins, did anyone compare that to the 10% of humans who are gay?

I really wish I could write more but I have a fairly long report concerning same sex marriage to write up before class. Thank you though, the prejudiced and discrminating opinions that many of you expressed (an especially warm thanks to you, Bill) enraged me just enough for the motivation I was looing for.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:25:55 +0000

One question, for those who are married, would you swap your marriage for a civil union?

By: Yarik

Yarik — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:32:42 +0000

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.

By: DSR

DSR — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:00:33 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:52:53 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:20:11 +0000

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.

By: bill

bill — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:33:28 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:13:49 +0000

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.

By: bill

bill — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:15:42 +0000

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.