November 10th 2008
Gays Not Giving Up On Prop 8 – But They Should
T
he most e-mailed article in today’s LA Times concerns a lousy bit of governance from California’s increasingly lousy governor: Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don’t give up. Putting his faith in the courts, not the people, Schwarzenegger told CNN:
“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area. …
“I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”
Couldn’t the same be said of those of us who feel marriage needs to be protected from the onslaught of the gay agendists, that its 8,000-year history of securing the proper relationship between a man and a woman must not be nonchalantly disposed of in the name of a “feel good” whim?
Schwarzenegger’s comment will fuel a protest that’s smoldering throughout the state. Jon Fleishman’s Flash Report today links to these stories:
- SF Chronicle: Gay-Marriage Backers Form Huge Protests
- Sacramento Bee: Thousands at Capitol rally back continuing fight against Prop. 8
- Oakland Tribune: Anti-Prop 8 demonstrators protest near Oakland Mormon temple
- San Jose Mercury: Proposition 8: Historic turning point, or just another battle in the culture wars?
- Stockton Record: Prop. 8 protests continue
- Modesto Bee: Anti-Prop. 8 protests hit Sacramento to Pasadena
- Ventura Star: Proposition 8 opponents protest outside church
- LA Daily News: More protests over Prop. 8 gay-marriage ban
- OC Register: Prop. 8 protests continue in O.C.
- San Diego Union-Tribune: Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple
- San Diego Union-Tribune: Gay marriage’s supporters rally across the state
What kind of governor urges continued civil disobedience after the people of his state – the “civil” they’re being disobedient to – have spoken overwhelmingly twice?
Gay marriage supporters’ record is worse than 0-20. Twenty states have passed propositions limiting marriage to the union between a man and a woman; some, like California, have done so more than once. Isn’t this sign enough to gays that they are damaging their chances with other political initiatives of importance to them by banging their heads against this wall?
Schwarzenegger would have been much wiser to encourage the gay community to revisit its priorities in light of Prop 8′s defeat. If they want equal rights, and they should, they should forgo the marriage battle, which isn’t about rights but appearances, and pursue equitableness on the supposed (mythical?) 100 “rights” not extended to gays. (I’ve asked commenters for this list, but none has provided it, so I think the list may well be hype. Almost certainly, it includes many privileges, like the privilege to adopt, which are not rights.)
Gays could sit down tomorrow with most conservative religious leaders and co-author a proposition that, exclusive of marriage, would protect gays from all sorts of slights and inequalities that are mostly the result of long-existing statutory language, not deliberate discrimination. And the people of California would overwhelmingly pass such a proposition. I would vote for it in a heartbeat, even though I voted for Prop 8.
Is there any rationality in the gay community, or have emotions overcome them, so that will they continue to fight, like Serbs against Croats and Hutus against Tutsis? There’s a better alternative, and Schwarzenegger should be supporting it, not a encouraging further gay rebellion against the will of the people.
Posted in Gay agenda, Gay Marriage | 7 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
November 10th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Well spoken. As a moderate Californian from the bay area who voted Yes on Prop 8, I was anoyed that I had to vote a second time in traditional marriage. But I’ll be even more annoyed if I have to vote a 3rd time. And I’m sure if a same-sex marriage bill was ever passed that would be the nail in the coffin on the issue and we’d get teh opportunity to vote on it again. Funny the one way street of democracy and tolerance that we have in this country.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
WHY VOTE ?As I understand it, when one votes for anything and the populous decides on an issueit becomes law- Or does it ? Prop 8 is a perfect example of the total disregard thosewho oppose the peoples decision and incite civil disobedience with total disrespect forthe law of the land,I personally have only one problem with the gay movement. A single word – MARRIAGE.I believe that gays should have equal rights to everything that married couples haveexcept the word itself. They should decide on what word to describe their union and leavemarriage alone.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Here’s a summary of the difference between civil unions and marriage:
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, “He’s my husband,” you will immediately be taken to your spouse’s side.
Gay agenda? What the heck is the gay agenda?
November 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Everything you cited is something that could be easily resolved short of allowing gay marriage. Car titles can be tranfered in other states. Thousands of pages of tax code are written every year; ditto with benefits. This is something a Dem-dominated Congress could take care of in the next session. You’re right – it’s not something a lawyer can do; it’s something that a referendum or a Congress could do.
I concur that all those matters are unnecessary problems for gays, but there is no reason to trash 8,000 years of culture and social norms to affect the changes you want to make; it can all be done outside the institution everyone used to happily call “holy matrimony.”
November 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Laer, most of the 8,000 years of culture and social norms also entailed prohibitions on interracial or inter-tribal marriage, not to mention slavery, honor killings and the like. Let’s try to move past the it’s-always-been-done-that-way argument. The reason gays ask for marriage is because that is what civil unions in this country are, and to ensure that they receive all of the same rights this is the only certain path to take. We have seen during the pre-civil rights days that separate but equal was never equal. You can try to address the legal inequalities by setting up a separate system, but you will not end up with equal outcomes no matter how hard you try. I find it amusing as a lawyer to hear a non-lawyer describe blithely how “easy” it is to resolve these legal inequalities. As a student of the law and American history, I can tell you that the only sure solution is to make civil unions the only legal union sanctioned by the state and then “privatize” marriage by putting it back in the churches and giving it the only power it should have–the moral force of religious believers. This solution, by the way, will not “trash” the longstanding history of marriage but return it to its origins. And I defy you or anyone else to show the harm associated with allowing gays to marry in the first place, since such a showing has never been made. Niemsters and Super Sid, as you might know, we have a bill of rights and constitutionally protected rights that the majority cannot vote away from us no matter how large their numbers might be. The majority of Californians do not have the power to deny Jews the right of free speech or Blacks the right of free assembly; that these minorities enjoy these rights has nothing to do with the good sense or morality of the majority of Californians; rather, it is because the Constitution protects those rights even if the majority becomes stupid enough to try to revoke them. In the case of gays, they are arguably protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, which is mirrored by a similar defense in the CA State Constitution. It is irrelevant what popular opinion is, given the power of that constitutional right. Over time, more and more courts will reach the conclusion of the Supreme Courts of Hawaii, Massachussetts and elsewhere, namely that gays are a suspect class meriting constitutional protection regardless of what the viscissitudes of popular sentiment are on a given day. I look forward to the day when this is settled law and the money wasted on these silly prop campaigns can go toward more productive uses, like educating citizens of this great land on what the U.S. Constitution actually says…
November 12th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I’m 100% OK with your solution: civil unions for anyone via government, marriage via the church with no interference from government. Sorry to disappoint you.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Cool. That doesn’t disappoint me at all. Can we now just agree that one shouldn’t put a Prop 8 out there in the first place, much less defend it, since a privatized marriage institution originating in the churches and synagogues and mosques wouldn’t need a popular vote anyway? I mean, the right proposition would call for the removal of marriages from the state, in favor of secular civil unions. Can we agree on that?