Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Californians vote to amend their state constitution to exclude gay marriage?
Results so far:
| Yes | 35% | 29 votes | Total: 83 votes | |
| No | 65% | 54 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe day is drawing near and I will, frankly, be elated when this election which has gone on far too long, even for my liking, finally comes to an end. As it stands, McCain has an impossible hole to climb out of. I am intrigued for what comes next with President Obama and his no doubt dynamic cabinet. But since he has no bearing on the all important Proposition 8 (yet), I move on.
I will argue here that the rights of individuals and minorities end where they begin to infringe on the rights of the majority; in other words, granting homosexuals the right to marry was unconstitutional in the first place and must be nullified by passing Prop 8. Schenk vs. United States was the original inspiration for this though, as I recalled from my Political Science courses. Note: the overall premise of this case has largely been discredited.
I bring up a specific comment from the case only as a contextual reference, not to substantiate my claim.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion for the case, making this hallmark claim:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Since the Prop 8 debate revolves largely around weighty issues pertaining to the first amendment that is where I will turn to substantiate my claim:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, here is where the two relate. Holmes' statement, while no longer the basis for sound restriction of first amendment freedoms, highlights a common misinterpretation about our most controversial bill of right. And that is that it does not in fact grant anything, but rather prohibits Congress from encroaching on liberties that already fundamentally exist. Ultimately and inevitably, our so called inalienable rights come into conflict with one another in ways that neither the Constitution nor hundreds of Supreme Court cases can viably or consistently answer.
When this happens, as in the current clash over Prop 8, it is not the government's job to guarantee rights to any group, as opponents of Prop 8 erroneously assert. It is the job of government to prevent infringement upon rights as little as possible.
As there is no tangible difference in the State Constitution of California between a civil union and a homosexual marriage, the defining of marriage between only man and woman would do nothing to take rights away from homosexuals; however, it does everything to protect churches and parents from having their rights infringed uponIf Prop 8 does not pass, the rights of churches and individuals to maintain a moral stance against homosexuality is threatened. So, I hate to be the bad guy here and assert that the Constitution just can't provide rights to everyone, but I'm sorry. That is not its job. In this case, where two groups conflict with one another, the Constitutional test of encroaching as little as possible should default to the majority because the minority's rights are not affected. That is what I meant when I said that the rights of minorities and individuals end where the rights of the majority are infringed: since the Constitution cannot grant individuals' rights, the most imperative role of the first amendment is to encroach on the rights of as few people as possible.
Passing Prop 8 does not encroach on anyone's rights because the right for homosexuals to marry has never existed in the first place, and they have all the same rights as a married couple in a domestic partnership anyway. If it doesn't pass, the fact that the ACLU exists all but guarantees that churches and individuals wanting to maintain a moral stance against homosexuality will have their rights challenged by the government. It would take one teeny tiny little massive lawsuit going to the federal Supreme Court to eradicate the so-called religious protection granted by the California Supreme Court. If you don't believe the ACLU has plans for that very thing, read here for a long list of court cases where such has already occurred around the country. It was done by NPR.
It has been suggested that, "ideally, we should grant the equality to same-sex couples now, and then, if circumstances necessitate, similarly fight for groups, religious and otherwise, who have their own rights challenged" Right.
I feel really great about that with the ACLU at the helm. I am about as confident that they will fight against homosexuals to protect religious and parental freedoms as I am that John McCain will be our next president.
The real problem between these two factions is that of criterion. When I was on the debate team in high school, every case I argued began with a criterion value. People don't understand much less begin to agree, until they at least start from the same basic premise. Even within our own ranks we are arguing from different vantage points and that has been the real stimulus for contention. I guess that some of us are operating from the same value stance of rights, but ultimately it comes back to moral paradigms. And too few of us are operating from the same one: we each think that protecting the rights of our own group is more morally sound or important, which ultimately proves my point that the Constitution simply cannot, nor should it try, to give rights to a group which threatens the rights of another.
I can make plenty of good arguments as to why Prop 8 should pass on legal and logical grounds. Frankly, after I have spent so much time reading and researching those reasons, I actually think the very best one, and most simple, is that 47 out of 50 states agree that homosexual marriage should not be allowed, as do both of our presidential candidates. But that doesn't help convince any of the 10% of undecided people who will ultimately make this decision. I hope that you fence sitters have done your research. Hopefully you will conclude that giving rights of marriage to homosexuals is not only not the responsibility of the Constitution, but the implications thereof are far too threatening to the rights of parents and churches for the Constitution to feasibly protect.
Learn more about this author, Ashley Burr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Less than a week from today, Californians will vote on Proposition 8, which seeks to recriminalize gay marriage after months of it being legal. Although this is a highly charged topic on both sides, it's important to have a calm, reasoned discussion on gay marriage.
Gay marriage needs to remain legal in California. To begin with, let's look at the arguments against gay marriage and Prop 8 and discover why they're all wrong.
1. Marriage is meant to foster families, specifically children. Since homosexuals can't produce offspring, they can't get married.
It's true that marriage provides a stable framework upon which to start a family, but having children has never been a requirement or requisite for marriage. If marriage were conditioned on bearing children, then we wouldn't allow infertile couples to marry, nor those who did not wish for children. Children are often a component of marriage, but they are not, and never have been, a requirement for it.
2. Homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural: it's a sickness and disorder, not something to be celebrated.
This argument is based more upon bigotry and ignorance than anything else. Humans often fear or frown upon those who are different, but it doesn't make this point valid.
As far as being unnatural goes, we are often told that only humans exhibit this type of behavior; this is not true. Many animal species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. However, regardless of whether animals behave homosexually or not, since when do we evaluate human behavior based upon our animal counterparts? Chimpanzees masturbate and throw feces in public; needless to say, that would not be accepted with humans.
It is also often assumed that homosexuality is unhealthy as well. This is equally inaccurate. The vast majority of studies demonstrate that homosexuality is not any more or less healthy than heterosexuality.
3. Homosexuals are nothing more than malcontents choosing to rebel against our values: why should they be rewarded?
Homosexuali ty is not a choice. What motive would someone have for wanting to be discriminated against and hated by some? Although it is less so than it used to be, gays are still often looked down upon by others. Does it really make sense that a person would want to be treated like a second-class citizen for pretending to be something s/he's not? This point becomes even more valid in highly intolerant societies, where gays are regularly downtrodden, threatened, and even killed. Take Iran, for example, where homosexuality is illegal and a punishable offense? Why would anyone choose to act gay in a place like that if s/he really wasn't?
Another problem with the argument that homosexuality is a choice which is not often considered involves the difficulty and discomfort of trying to act contrary to one's sexual orientation. If you're a heterosexual, and you honestly think your sexual orientation is a choice, imagine trying to act gay and acting attracted to the same sex for a moment. It's probably a disgusting thought to you, just as the thought of being attracted to the opposite sex would be horrifying to a homosexual. Who we are attracted to is an integral part of who we are, and trying to override our natural feelings is not a simple act of rebellion.
4. Marriage is a long standing tradition that has always been between a man and a woman.
This is perhaps the most common argument against gay marriage, but there are two problems here.
Contrary to popular belief, marriage as we think of it today is not such a deep-rooted institution. Historically speaking, marriage is a relatively new concept. It also used to be more broadly defined, with some people (usually, but not always, men) having multiple spouses. The salient point here is marriage has not remained constant over the years: it has changed before, and will change again.
However, the larger problem here is the contention that tradition should dictate our laws at all. If it were true that tradition were infallible, then political change would be impossible. Should we still enslave Africans? Why are women allowed to vote? Why bother with our Constitution? Originally, the United States were British colonies; why did we go against that tradition? As should be clear by now, tradition is not a virtue in and of itself, and blind adherence to it is certainly not a reason to avoid legal change.
5. Gay marriage violates my religious freedom.
Actually, not allowing it would interfere with religious beliefs, not the opposite. There are plenty of churches and denominations who wish to keep gay marriage legal who have only recently been granted their legal rights to exercise what they believe in. Keeping gay marriage legal simply guarantees that civil gay marriages will be granted, and that any church that wishes to can grant them as well. As long as the First Amendment still exists, no law can ever force churches to celebrate a ceremony they don't believe in.
If gay marriage is made illegal again, we will be depriving churches of making their own decisions on this issue. However, if gay marriage continues to be legal, it doesn't force churches to do anything; on the contrary, it facilitates churches' freedom of choice, a quintessential American value.
6. Homosexuality and homosexual parents are bad for children.
As previously discussed, homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, as has been argued throughout this article, homosexuality is not a negative thing. However, the main point here is that the adopted children of homosexual parents are neither more nor less likely to be homosexual. Additionally, there has also been no conclusive evidence that the adopted children of homosexual parents are less well-adjusted than children with heterosexual parents.
7. If gay marriage remains legal, we will have more gays in public.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, and civil unions in Vermont since 2000, with no noticeable results. Indeed, gay marriage makes little difference to the general public, yet it does a world of good by giving committed homosexuals the same rights granted to their homosexual counterparts. Have you noticed any changes to your everyday life in California since May, when the state supreme court finally recognized the right to gay marriage? Probably not. Gay marriage hurts nobody, and helps many.
8. Gay marriage will destroy the moral fabric of society.
Leaving aside the fact that nobody has ever even defined what they mean by the destruction of society and its moral fabric, this charge is answered above. To reiterate: Gay marriage has very little impact on the world at large. It's worth noting that this same argument (and some others that have been discussed) was made against interracial marriages. California was the first state in America to legalize marriage between two people of different racial backgrounds, and look what happened? Nothing. Our state survived and prospered, just as it will with gay marriage.
9. If gay marriage remains legal, what's to stop people from demanding the right to marry an animal? Where will we draw the line?
This slippery slope argument preys upon people's fears and does not hold up when examined critically. Marriage (straight or gay) is about strengthening and recognizing committed, loving, mutual relationships. Humans are unique as a species because we have highly developed reasoning and communication skills due to well-developed brains. It is simply not possible for a person and an animal to share the same kind of mutual love and understanding with each other that two humans can. Even if a person wanted to marry an animal (a highly doubtful scenario), an animal could never express any kind of intent or consent to the proceeding. This is not so with gay marriage.
10. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.
First of all, the First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state, so making laws enshrining a religious belief without any separate legal reason is unconstitutional. However, since people often vote according to their religious beliefs anyway, look at some of the other things the bible says. If you work on the sabbath, you must be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Exodus 35:2). If two people commit adultery together, they must both be put to death (Leviticus 20:10). Also, if you're ever being sued, don't do anything to defend yourself (Matthew 5:40). Clearly, not everything in the Bible should be taken at face value (or made into law).
11. If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, my children will be taught about homosexuality and gay marriage, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
This idea has been advanced as a scare tactic by supporters of Proposition 8. It is not true at all. In the state of California, parents have the right to refuse to allow their children to participate in sexual or health education which goes against the morals or religious beliefs of the parents. This will not change in any way regardless of Proposition 8. A vote for Proposition 8 doesn't do anything to protect your children, and it hurts others.
California, like America, is a free society, and freedom of choice has always been a bedrock principle of free, democratic societies. Although you may disagree with homosexuality, it's not right to disenfranchise a group of people for being different from you. Gay marriage will not harm you or your family. It harms none, and is beneficial to many.
It's simply inappropriate for us to define love. Society and government have no place telling us who we are and aren't allowed to love.
If you don't agree with homosexuality, and if you oppose gay marriage, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs. However, Proposition 8 won't make everyone heterosexual, and it won't make this issue disappear. You are free to have your disagreements with homosexuals, but it is wrong and unjust to limit the behavior of others when it doesn't affect you at all. Stop and ask yourself if your life, or that of your family, has been negatively affected in any way since June, when homosexual couples began wedding each other in California.
Please don't make discrimination a part of our state. Homosexuals are leaving you and your family alone; they aren't telling you how to live your life. Do you honestly think you have the right to tell them how to live theirs?
Learn more about this author, Drew Moore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Do human rights exist in the US?
- Should members of Congress be required to identify all their earmark requests, not just the earmarks they obtain?
- America's culture wars: Do self-identifying Christians face prejudice in US elections?
- Should tax cuts and spending increases be offset by an equal amount of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget?
- Should the financial disclosure statements of US political appointees be available online?
- Should the US continue to honor Columbus Day?
