We are being told that it does not matter how we feel about marriage, but that it is wrong to take away someone else's rights--equality for all is more important. Is this really what is happening if Prop. 8 passes?
What right is being taken away and what do we mean by equality?
That every citizen should be able to marry who they love?
That sounds fair, but is it just and is it right? Should there be absolutely no limits to marriage, so long as you love the other person?
It is NOT a fundamental right to marry who you love.
It IS a fundamental right to marry who you choose IF your choice conforms to the legal limits placed on marriage.
These limits on marriage protect children and are for the good of society. The limit to opposite-sex couples is only one of those limits. Consider, for example,
the age limit -- you have to be 18 to get married
the limit to 2 persons--you can only marry one other person
the prohibition of incestuous relationships--you cannot marry a close relative
WHY are these limits in place? Are they unfairly discriminatory?
If you really believe in equality for all NO MATTER WHAT your personal beliefs about marriage are, then why should we not remove ALL the limits on marriage? Think about it.
Limiting marriage has nothing to do with equality, but it has EVERYTHING to do with what is considered right, moral, and permissible in society. That is why we have legal limits on marriage. It matters very much what your beliefs on marriage are.
This is NOT about equality, it’s about what is right.
What do YOU think is right? Please vote according to your conscience and your moral beliefs regarding marriage. It’s the right thing to do.
Comments are now closed.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Proposition 8 and the issue of rights
This is taken from an ongoing discussion with a couple of friends of mine regarding Proposition 8.
I would like to explain that by definition--the understanding of marriage to be between a man and a woman is not an infringement of anyone’s rights. Any citizen, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference may choose to marry as it is legally defined. So, by definition, people of homosexual preference are not discriminated against by the law--rather, it has a "disparate impact." In my effort to support this claim, however, I have focused on several reasons (the main one being the link between marriage and procreation) as to why the traditional definition of marriage should continue to be upheld by law. But there are other, perhaps more compelling reasons. Let me offer, then, the LEGAL reasons why reserving the term "marriage" to describe the union of heterosexual couples should not be considered unconstitutional. Now, by arguing this point, I am NOT stating that same-gender unions should not be respected and treated fairly by the law--I am simply saying that it is NOT unconstitutional or an infringement of fundamental rights to retain a separate definition for marriage and domestic partnerships.
Please allow me to explain. Until the very recent and controversial decision of the California Supreme Court to overturn two sections of the family code, the right to marry a person of the same gender has NEVER been declared by any court in CA. In order to do so, the court had to label “homosexual preference” as a suspect class--the same designation granted to “race” and “gender.” By labeling it as a suspect class, the court is then allowed to invoke “strict scrutiny” which basically allows judicial intervention when a suspect class has been shown to be discriminated against by law. (This is not to be confused with discrimination by individuals--which has been an unfortunate and despicable reality which I do not condone.) In order to qualify as a suspect class, certain qualifications need to be met. Without going into detail here (although I will be happy to post more on my blog) the court was severely divided over whether “homosexual preference” qualified as a suspect class and merited the use of strict scrutiny. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Corrigan (who opens by saying that he actually favors a change in marriage) explains that “the people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently.” (emphasis in original)
So what’s my point? The strongest argument against Prop. 8 is that it is an infringement of fundamental rights. If this is the case, it certainly should not pass and no decent person of integrity could vote for it. However, it is my claim, (and that of three dissenting California Supreme Court judges) that the slim 4-3 majority ruling overstepped the bounds of judicial prudence and has effectively legislated from the bench. Unlike other examples of fundamental rights being extended to all (like voting and interracial marriage), they didn’t just extend the benefits of marriage to gay couples, they ALTERED the current legal definition of marriage to do so. The people are the only ones with the right to amend the constitution. This ruling was unfair and unprecedented--homosexual preference has not ever met the qualifications of being a suspect class in ANY other case in California.
Until people are willing to see that these separate definitions for marriage and domestic partnerships are not unconstitutional, the argument of civil rights being violated will continue to obscure the issue of defining marriage. Now you may not agree with my definition of marriage, and I am fine with that--you are entitled to your opinion. But this change needs to come before the people through proper democratic channels. Although we are in essence voting on the definition of marriage now, because of the recent California Supreme Court decision, many people who share my opinion on how marriage should be defined are being misled and unfairly prejudiced by the idea that by doing so they are eliminating a fundamental right of another human being. It is my claim that this is not the case. I am NOT against the people deciding to change the definition of marriage if such an initiative comes through proper democratic channels--and although I will still hold my same opinions as to why it should be preserved, at least I will know that people are actually voting on the definition they espouse and not out of fear that they are infringing on someone else’s rights.
Comments are now closed.
I would like to explain that by definition--the understanding of marriage to be between a man and a woman is not an infringement of anyone’s rights. Any citizen, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference may choose to marry as it is legally defined. So, by definition, people of homosexual preference are not discriminated against by the law--rather, it has a "disparate impact." In my effort to support this claim, however, I have focused on several reasons (the main one being the link between marriage and procreation) as to why the traditional definition of marriage should continue to be upheld by law. But there are other, perhaps more compelling reasons. Let me offer, then, the LEGAL reasons why reserving the term "marriage" to describe the union of heterosexual couples should not be considered unconstitutional. Now, by arguing this point, I am NOT stating that same-gender unions should not be respected and treated fairly by the law--I am simply saying that it is NOT unconstitutional or an infringement of fundamental rights to retain a separate definition for marriage and domestic partnerships.
Please allow me to explain. Until the very recent and controversial decision of the California Supreme Court to overturn two sections of the family code, the right to marry a person of the same gender has NEVER been declared by any court in CA. In order to do so, the court had to label “homosexual preference” as a suspect class--the same designation granted to “race” and “gender.” By labeling it as a suspect class, the court is then allowed to invoke “strict scrutiny” which basically allows judicial intervention when a suspect class has been shown to be discriminated against by law. (This is not to be confused with discrimination by individuals--which has been an unfortunate and despicable reality which I do not condone.) In order to qualify as a suspect class, certain qualifications need to be met. Without going into detail here (although I will be happy to post more on my blog) the court was severely divided over whether “homosexual preference” qualified as a suspect class and merited the use of strict scrutiny. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Corrigan (who opens by saying that he actually favors a change in marriage) explains that “the people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently.” (emphasis in original)
So what’s my point? The strongest argument against Prop. 8 is that it is an infringement of fundamental rights. If this is the case, it certainly should not pass and no decent person of integrity could vote for it. However, it is my claim, (and that of three dissenting California Supreme Court judges) that the slim 4-3 majority ruling overstepped the bounds of judicial prudence and has effectively legislated from the bench. Unlike other examples of fundamental rights being extended to all (like voting and interracial marriage), they didn’t just extend the benefits of marriage to gay couples, they ALTERED the current legal definition of marriage to do so. The people are the only ones with the right to amend the constitution. This ruling was unfair and unprecedented--homosexual preference has not ever met the qualifications of being a suspect class in ANY other case in California.
Until people are willing to see that these separate definitions for marriage and domestic partnerships are not unconstitutional, the argument of civil rights being violated will continue to obscure the issue of defining marriage. Now you may not agree with my definition of marriage, and I am fine with that--you are entitled to your opinion. But this change needs to come before the people through proper democratic channels. Although we are in essence voting on the definition of marriage now, because of the recent California Supreme Court decision, many people who share my opinion on how marriage should be defined are being misled and unfairly prejudiced by the idea that by doing so they are eliminating a fundamental right of another human being. It is my claim that this is not the case. I am NOT against the people deciding to change the definition of marriage if such an initiative comes through proper democratic channels--and although I will still hold my same opinions as to why it should be preserved, at least I will know that people are actually voting on the definition they espouse and not out of fear that they are infringing on someone else’s rights.
Comments are now closed.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Why I say "Yes" to Prop 8
This is part of my concluding reply from a discussion about Proposition 8. I hope it will explain why someone who neither hates, nor is afraid of gay people or same-gender relationships, would still support such a proposition. Please consider it and know that I am sincere.
Thanks to everyone who has been a part of this discussion so far. I really appreciate being able to have a thoughtful, respectful exchange like this. I'm afraid everyone may be tired of hearing from me, but I would like to say how much I love and respect you all. I hope you don't mind if I shift the discussion here to clarify one important point and to share what defending this issue has meant for me personally.
I realize I've been pretty vocal about defending my constitutional right to have and legislate my views. And while I may be accused of discrimination, because of the sincere belief I hold about what marriage truly is, it cannot be claimed as unlawful discrimination. To be sure, in the purest meaning of the word "discriminate" (recognize or perceive the difference) I AM discriminating, but it is not based on
prejudice. It is based on my firm belief--which can be debated, but cannot be conclusively proven false--that marriage means, and has always meant, the joining of man and woman. The claim that it means, or should be changed to mean, anything other than that is a relatively new claim in the context of human history.
Now please, on a personal note, I would like you to consider something else that I consider significant and would like to make perfectly clear. I do not hate gay people. I do not think they should be prevented from loving and committing themselves to someone they love. Further, I do not think marriage should be reserved for me because I think I am better than another person. To the contrary, I believe marriage and family are the most important, most fulfilling, most noble things in this life, and yes, because of my religious beliefs, in all of eternity as well. And I sincerely desire for ALL to have it. I find it truly heartbreaking that good, loving, committed people, some of whom I know and love personally, should be denied this opportunity. But it is not because they are less of a person or less deserving, or even less righteous than I am. It is because they have chosen a pattern which is inconsistent with the true definition of marriage. (Also, I would like to reiterate that defining marriage as between a man and woman will not revoke any rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships currently allow and will not prevent same-gender couples from being committed to each other.) Furthermore, I am NOT asserting that homosexual desires are something a person can choose or control, but behavior is. I am not ignorant of the fact that someone who is attracted to the same sex would find it incredibly, even painfully, difficult to not act on those desires. To the contrary, it hurts me as well and I don't think I'm overstating it to say that I feel sincere anguish. But these points relate to the reason I define marriage the way I do and are beyond the scope of Proposition 8. Prop 8 does not pass judgment, prevent, or punish a person from acting on homosexual desires or from committing to any person they choose--it merely defines the term "marriage" as being between a woman and a man.
So if I'm not motivated by hate or fear, and I know that what I am defending is causing sincere, loving, capable people pain, why should I do it? Why don't I put my personal beliefs aside and allow for a change in marriage? Consider also, please, that by defending my view I will (and have been) be accused of bigotry and stupidity. Why go through all this unnecessary pain on both sides? Can you imagine, please, what it
might feel like to knock on a door, pick up the phone, or write out a message when you are certain to be reviled and persecuted? You may not think so from the way I have been so vocal in this forum, but I am not a confrontational person. I normally avoid it whenever possible. Those of you who know me personally can affirm this. I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought that something I do brings another pain. The only thing that could motivate me to defend my belief in marriage so fiercely is that it is true.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jennifer B.
Comments are now closed.
Thanks to everyone who has been a part of this discussion so far. I really appreciate being able to have a thoughtful, respectful exchange like this. I'm afraid everyone may be tired of hearing from me, but I would like to say how much I love and respect you all. I hope you don't mind if I shift the discussion here to clarify one important point and to share what defending this issue has meant for me personally.
I realize I've been pretty vocal about defending my constitutional right to have and legislate my views. And while I may be accused of discrimination, because of the sincere belief I hold about what marriage truly is, it cannot be claimed as unlawful discrimination. To be sure, in the purest meaning of the word "discriminate" (recognize or perceive the difference) I AM discriminating, but it is not based on
prejudice. It is based on my firm belief--which can be debated, but cannot be conclusively proven false--that marriage means, and has always meant, the joining of man and woman. The claim that it means, or should be changed to mean, anything other than that is a relatively new claim in the context of human history.
Now please, on a personal note, I would like you to consider something else that I consider significant and would like to make perfectly clear. I do not hate gay people. I do not think they should be prevented from loving and committing themselves to someone they love. Further, I do not think marriage should be reserved for me because I think I am better than another person. To the contrary, I believe marriage and family are the most important, most fulfilling, most noble things in this life, and yes, because of my religious beliefs, in all of eternity as well. And I sincerely desire for ALL to have it. I find it truly heartbreaking that good, loving, committed people, some of whom I know and love personally, should be denied this opportunity. But it is not because they are less of a person or less deserving, or even less righteous than I am. It is because they have chosen a pattern which is inconsistent with the true definition of marriage. (Also, I would like to reiterate that defining marriage as between a man and woman will not revoke any rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships currently allow and will not prevent same-gender couples from being committed to each other.) Furthermore, I am NOT asserting that homosexual desires are something a person can choose or control, but behavior is. I am not ignorant of the fact that someone who is attracted to the same sex would find it incredibly, even painfully, difficult to not act on those desires. To the contrary, it hurts me as well and I don't think I'm overstating it to say that I feel sincere anguish. But these points relate to the reason I define marriage the way I do and are beyond the scope of Proposition 8. Prop 8 does not pass judgment, prevent, or punish a person from acting on homosexual desires or from committing to any person they choose--it merely defines the term "marriage" as being between a woman and a man.
So if I'm not motivated by hate or fear, and I know that what I am defending is causing sincere, loving, capable people pain, why should I do it? Why don't I put my personal beliefs aside and allow for a change in marriage? Consider also, please, that by defending my view I will (and have been) be accused of bigotry and stupidity. Why go through all this unnecessary pain on both sides? Can you imagine, please, what it
might feel like to knock on a door, pick up the phone, or write out a message when you are certain to be reviled and persecuted? You may not think so from the way I have been so vocal in this forum, but I am not a confrontational person. I normally avoid it whenever possible. Those of you who know me personally can affirm this. I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought that something I do brings another pain. The only thing that could motivate me to defend my belief in marriage so fiercely is that it is true.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jennifer B.
Comments are now closed.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Yes on Prop 8-It's about definition, not discrimination
A friend of mine posed a few questions regarding marriage and Proposition 8. It made me really think about why marriage is important and why I support restoring the traditional definition of marriage in California. These reasons can stand outside of any particular religious creed. (I do however, hold strong religious beliefs which also support the importance of protecting marriage. You may read them here.) I'm posting my reply in hopes that it clarifies why people like me feel strongly about this issue.
The principal difference, as I see it, is how we view marriage. I believe marriage is much more than just the legal union of two consenting adults. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as the sanctioned union of a man and woman to be sexually intimate with the realization that this relationship has the potential to create children. In the interest of those children, and society as a whole, marriage has long been a heavily regulated institution.* These regulations, or limits, demonstrate the significance society places on marriage and the importance of the commitment between husband, wife, and child.
I reject the simpler and more recent definition of marriage for the following reasons. Viewing marriage as a mere arrangement of two consenting adults does not take into consideration the significance of procreation or the impact on children. A vital purpose behind limits on marriage is to honor the power to create life and to protect children by ensuring they are raised by both a father and a mother. While it is true that heterosexual couples do not have to prove fertility or even the desire to have children to be married, these exceptions do not nullify the biological truth that only a man and woman can produce a child and that this potential for family warrants special benefits and protections that marriage can provide. Legal marriage encourages the fidelity of couples and the responsibility of parents to care for and nurture the children they bring into the world. Furthermore, this union benefits society in several ways--a few of which include discouraging promiscuity, and increasing the likelihood that children will avoid crime, tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse. Genderless unions shift the focus of legal marriage from the bearing and rearing of children to the attempt to satisfy the desire for intimate adult relationships. It becomes merely a sanctioned social ordering of couples. In other words, the focus is not on creating and protecting families, but on adult relationships.
When defined traditionally, marriage between a man and a woman is not an infringement of rights. All citizens have the right, or choice, to participate in marriage as it is legally defined or not. Changing the definition of marriage is another matter, and not one based on fundamental rights, but the desire to alter a long-established understanding of it as an institution that encourages and protects the natural creation of families.
Finally, because of the way marriage is traditionally defined, the union of two same-gender adults is not a "separate, but equal" union, but an entirely distinct one. To call such a union marriage undervalues the significance of the procreative power and, to quote a brief to the California Supreme Court, "would necessarily alter the law's current emphasis on procreation and child welfare, refocusing it on affirming and facilitating adult relationship choices. A gender-neutral marriage definition would unavoidably change the message, meaning, and function of marriage by altering its underlying rationale and structure."
If you read this far, thanks for your patience/indulgence. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and hope I haven't offended (or bored to death) anyone who reads this.
Jen B.
*Current regulations of marriage include that marriage is limited to two people, cannot be incestuous, and--until age 18--one cannot marry without parental consent, a court order, and the possibility of requisite premarital counseling. Furthermore, a couple must obtain state permission (or license), be married by a statutorily authorized person, and cannot terminate a marriage without a judicial decree.
** (Added later) Limits on marriage like those above are not unconstitutional and are already in place. The people have the right to legally define and limit marriage. Citizens who oppose current definitions and limitations as stated in the law have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to initiate changes to the law and should do so using the democratic process. This proposition is misrepresented as an initiative that will take away people’s rights. The right for same-gender couples to marry has not been granted by the voice of the people. To say that Prop 8 takes away rights is misleading and deflects focus from the central issue of defining what marriage IS. A significant change like altering the traditional definition of marriage, should come before the people (and three California Supreme Court judges concur). This proposition does NOT prevent citizens from engaging in the democratic process and putting initiatives on the ballot that could ammend our state constitution to reflect their wishes and beliefs; it only seeks to clarify the legal definition of marriage.
Comments are now closed.
The principal difference, as I see it, is how we view marriage. I believe marriage is much more than just the legal union of two consenting adults. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as the sanctioned union of a man and woman to be sexually intimate with the realization that this relationship has the potential to create children. In the interest of those children, and society as a whole, marriage has long been a heavily regulated institution.* These regulations, or limits, demonstrate the significance society places on marriage and the importance of the commitment between husband, wife, and child.
I reject the simpler and more recent definition of marriage for the following reasons. Viewing marriage as a mere arrangement of two consenting adults does not take into consideration the significance of procreation or the impact on children. A vital purpose behind limits on marriage is to honor the power to create life and to protect children by ensuring they are raised by both a father and a mother. While it is true that heterosexual couples do not have to prove fertility or even the desire to have children to be married, these exceptions do not nullify the biological truth that only a man and woman can produce a child and that this potential for family warrants special benefits and protections that marriage can provide. Legal marriage encourages the fidelity of couples and the responsibility of parents to care for and nurture the children they bring into the world. Furthermore, this union benefits society in several ways--a few of which include discouraging promiscuity, and increasing the likelihood that children will avoid crime, tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse. Genderless unions shift the focus of legal marriage from the bearing and rearing of children to the attempt to satisfy the desire for intimate adult relationships. It becomes merely a sanctioned social ordering of couples. In other words, the focus is not on creating and protecting families, but on adult relationships.
When defined traditionally, marriage between a man and a woman is not an infringement of rights. All citizens have the right, or choice, to participate in marriage as it is legally defined or not. Changing the definition of marriage is another matter, and not one based on fundamental rights, but the desire to alter a long-established understanding of it as an institution that encourages and protects the natural creation of families.
Finally, because of the way marriage is traditionally defined, the union of two same-gender adults is not a "separate, but equal" union, but an entirely distinct one. To call such a union marriage undervalues the significance of the procreative power and, to quote a brief to the California Supreme Court, "would necessarily alter the law's current emphasis on procreation and child welfare, refocusing it on affirming and facilitating adult relationship choices. A gender-neutral marriage definition would unavoidably change the message, meaning, and function of marriage by altering its underlying rationale and structure."
If you read this far, thanks for your patience/indulgence. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and hope I haven't offended (or bored to death) anyone who reads this.
Jen B.
*Current regulations of marriage include that marriage is limited to two people, cannot be incestuous, and--until age 18--one cannot marry without parental consent, a court order, and the possibility of requisite premarital counseling. Furthermore, a couple must obtain state permission (or license), be married by a statutorily authorized person, and cannot terminate a marriage without a judicial decree.
** (Added later) Limits on marriage like those above are not unconstitutional and are already in place. The people have the right to legally define and limit marriage. Citizens who oppose current definitions and limitations as stated in the law have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to initiate changes to the law and should do so using the democratic process. This proposition is misrepresented as an initiative that will take away people’s rights. The right for same-gender couples to marry has not been granted by the voice of the people. To say that Prop 8 takes away rights is misleading and deflects focus from the central issue of defining what marriage IS. A significant change like altering the traditional definition of marriage, should come before the people (and three California Supreme Court judges concur). This proposition does NOT prevent citizens from engaging in the democratic process and putting initiatives on the ballot that could ammend our state constitution to reflect their wishes and beliefs; it only seeks to clarify the legal definition of marriage.
Comments are now closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)