Election 08: Californianing: Why I Will Be Voting Yes on California's Proposition 8
** UPDATED ** YOU HAVE TO READ THE COMMENTS APPENDED FOR GENTEEL "COUNTER-POINT" and RESPONSE... **
Hatemongers Unite!
Earlier, I posted the text of the proposition in its entirety.
Some are arguing that one should vote “yes” on Prop. 8 to slap the judiciary in California upside the head, in effect saying, “pay attention to legislative history and legalized public input, instead of deciding amongst yourselves what is good for the people of the state.”I don’t want to make that argument the foundation of my vote, even though – in so deciding – the judiciary effectively let San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom* dictate state policy (and by obvious, disturbing "me too" extension, National policy) by personal fiat. In deciding to let the state offer the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples prior to election day, the judiciary in turn opened the barn doors wide, shooed the horses out and away, and then turned to the people of the state with shoulders up and hands out, shrugging: “well now – shouldn’t we let well enough alone?”
They compelled the law-respecting citizenry to take the only avenue left open, as if on a dare: Will you dare propose a constitutional amendment? And so, they did.
And the supporters of marriage as a familial bond between the sexes were left looking like the bad guys: “you want to BAN GAY MARRIAGE?! You animals!” But they only wanted, I think, to hold the ancient definition of “marriage” constant.
Some argue that one should vote “no” on Prop. 8 because it BANS GAY MARRIAGE and – this is the crux of the argument – makes homosexuals feel bad because they can’t be “married.”
I can’t make any legislative argument based on feelings, though. I admit that as a possible weakness of mine. And the argument itself reveals, poignantly, a telling weakness in the lives of those who choose to define themselves primarily by their sexuality (this applies to hetero- and homosexuals, by the way).
So what shall I base my vote upon?
The value of the concept of definition, for one thing. The distinction between the sexes, for another. The absolute “otherness” of a mating – mating – between the sexes (The “mating” aspect utterly confounds the concept of homosexual unions).
This leads to: The natural value of children having the possibility of being raised by the same people that are their (genetic) parents.
Yes, my arguments favor intersexual marriage for life over “blended” families – what a telling choice of vocabulary that is! – divorced families and even couples that have trouble conceiving by natural means. But even in a practical world, I value the ideal of having – and upholding, and looking up to – Ideals.
So I am voting “Yes,” not to punish the courts, nor from some denominational religious angle. Indeed, one could argue that my decision is based mostly upon the cold logic of Darwinism.
No matter.
I hold that a family, composed of parents and children, is inherently, naturally ideal. I intend to uphold that reasoning.
What then, of homosexuals wishing to pledge their troths, and live together 'til death do them part? I say — let them have at it. Let's call it a "civil union," give it every legal consideration and tax break — and legal responsibility — that intersexual civil unions have — you know, those Las Vegas ceremonies some people are so fond of.
But let's let a "marriage" be a marriage. The concept of "family" has already been battered almost into an unrecognizable form. Let's not make the ideal concept any fuzzier than its already gotten.
- Despite playing jazz saxophone, and having ancestors from Africa, I do not qualify to be a Black person.
- Despite worshipping the Jewish G-d, I do not qualify to be a Jew.
For some internal reason, I am alright with that. I do not aspire to "break down the definition" of African American, nor Jew.
And those are genetic differences, at most. Mating a female and a male is a chromosomal matter.
* city population: about 770,000 – about the same as Alaska, making Newsom, I suppose, a rude hick who has no business contributing to national policy?
Pretty compelling work there, wrymouth.
...and the crux of the argument lies in your acceptance of the 'civil union' for single-gender couples.
I don't think that churches should be forced by the state to perform sacraments or ceremonies that are against their dogma and liturgy. This is plainly a violation of the first amendment. If the tenets of the church state that a marriage is between a man and woman, so be it.
Likewise I don't see anything objectionable to two adults committing themselves to an exclusive relationship each other. This contributes to the stability of the society as a whole.
I submit that a 'civil union' is a secular construct, performed by or registered by the state for tax, civil rights and financial purposes. Every hetero- and homosexual couple seeking state recognition of their committed status should file with the state as a 'civil union'. Much akin to the 'wedding license' already in existence lo these many years.
A marriage, however, is a rite, ceremony or sacrament wholly within a religious context. These ceremonies are performed within this sacred context and therefore, should convey NO legal standing at all for ANYONE, just as Communion, while bringing the recipient closer to God, confers no legal standing of any kind with regards to civil authorities.
This would take what is essentially a semantic argument regarding the rights of single-gender couple to form a family unit out of play; and save millions of dollars, thousands of hours and untold amounts of righteous energy on both sides for more productive pursuits - like going after divorcees, the TRUE threat to the family. ;-)
And so, I have rendered your Prop 8 moot. Enjoy the rest of the day!
Reply to this
(updated)
[1] (serious)
I know; and I've never called myself anything but a "dinosaur" on such matters. Old; out of time and out of step.
For me, It kinda gets back to that tangled web society wove how many years ago? Why oh why did the ancients cause us these moral dilemmas by choosing to name as "family" a mating pair and their progeny? A curse upon them and all those who value not tinkering continually with the foundations of things!
Did society emerge from religion, or religious institutions emerge from society? Our Bible relates a history more in line with the latter view, as does (as I understand it) an evolutionary model of human development.
So, which came first? The family of a given faith, or the family of a given tribe (society)? I'd say it's a "chicken and egg" argument, but I'm afraid the modern rejoinder would be that such an old saw as "chicken and egg" implies that there's a rooster somewhere and that it is, therefore, a homophobic, close-minded, bigoted and discriminatory statement -- er, hate-speak.
;o/ !
Under either model -- either one, take your pick -- "family" = mating pair and children. I don't think that's me or my allies in this matter making that up.
So, let them be "married," and let "marriage" have a special, ideal, definition.
I would feel the same way if I were homosexual. An old dinosaur of a homosexual.
[2] (serious)
Under either the evolutionary or religious model, the possibility of breeding -- famously denigrated by the homosexual slur "breeders" when referring to heterosexual couples -- is taken as an advantage to a given family. Therefore, let us not be timid; rather, let us be bold to grant couples likely to be capable of breeding without extraordinary measures (such as, say, parthenogenesis) a special status: "marriage."
How do we tell the breeders from those who can't? Is there a simple litmus test, that won't consume massive amounts of paper, time and energy? Why, yes -- luckily for us, under either model, there is a simple metric, as simple as putting a plug in a socket.
[3] (wry)
Under either the evolutionary or religious model, the ritual ordeal of living with a member of the opposite sex is fraught with tribulations and peril and just plain irritation. I make no claims that it is worse for one sex over the other. Rather, I actually believe (this is not scientifically nor religiously based) it's about equal both ways. In contrast, living with a person of the same gender who is merely pretending or imitating the other gender is -- not the same thing. There it is. I posit here and now that homosexual couples are, in the main, happier and less irked with each other on average than heterosexual couples.
So, let us reward the bold adventuredom of heterosexual couples with a special status: "marriage."
Reply to this
1) It bothers me when 'children' are made part of the definition of marriage, for reasons that I'm sure must be clear to you. Yet if you remove that requirement, what dangerous possibilities open up! And yes, I saw your 'capable of breeding' qualifier, but still - what of late-in-life, post-menopausal marriages? These are not capable (or inclined, I'd suspect) of producing childen. What of those who marry, yet choose to remain childless? If the societal and evolutionary imperative is to be capable of or willing to produce children, these couples fail the test and should likewise be prohibited from marrying. Better to leave children out of it and go with the proposition as written in No 8.
2) This leads to my proposal to de-link the term 'marriage' from the legal relationship. If you want to live together with full legal benefits, and you want/don't want/can't have/can't NOT have children, register your civil union at the county courthouse and have at it! Those who DO pass the more stringent gender and procreation requirements - go to your church/ synagogue/ mosque/ shrine/ whatever and get married! And have at it!
3) I've never seen an actual description of the irreparable harm that is supposed to befall our so-far utopian society if two men or two women commit to each other and form a legally-recognized (if not sacredly recognized) family unit. What are these dangers, and how are they different from those that result from say, divorce, which by the way, is also a civil construct separate from a religious context.
Reply to this
" I've never seen an actual description of the irreparable harm that is supposed to befall our so-far utopian society if two men or two women commit to each other and form a legally-recognized (if not sacredly recognized) family unit"
Indeed, what harm befalls our society if I lead a movement to call all gentiles "Jews," or all citizens "African-Americans" (as I have been told we are)? None. That sort of argument misses the mark.
To the point, let me throw this out:
I so firmly believe in the value of conservation of ancient wisdoms that have proven valuable over EONS that I am willing to *give up* my claim to the institution of "marriage," as mine is not in the idyllic mold, as determined not by me, but by century-upon-century of accumulated human wisdom, and -- some would argue, not I -- even animal wisdom.
I would rather the special designation be given to FEWER couples, rather than MORE, and I would have so voted, had I been in a position to be asked my opinion, in the days when such things were decided upon.
So, excluding the divorced? Not a problem, so much. And I think that those of us, among whom I count myself, who try to meet the Ideal, but fall short, whether through divorce, or any other means, don't necessarily need to be assuaged by being conferred special "Honorary" status as "married." But that's just MY opinion.
Enter (cf. Abram and Sara, e.g.) the tradition -- not mine! -- of awarding "married" status to those willing, but not able, to breed. And even awarding it to those who outwardly represent the model, even if they do not meet the standards set by the model.
It seems you ignored a bit the mention I made of a quick assessment of the POSSIBILITY of mating that needs to be made in the context of a very large society with a very large population. Society came up with such:
Enter the "plug and socket" test.
Just because a connection can be made, the electrician will tell you, does not guarantee current will flow. But not making a connection does guarantee the current will not flow.
And I just think -- call me out-of-touch; I admit it -- that the distinction between the two states is an important one to preserve.
I may not even truly *know why.* Maybe. But then, my "hypothesis testing" error has always tended to be sticking to the Null state where there is evidence one should switch to the Alternative state. I call it the "stick-in-the-mud" error, and it is -- surprise, surprise -- the conservative error.
Naturally, there is a second error one can make: rejecting the Null in favor of switching to an Alternative, on insufficient evidence. The "progressive" error, called "jumping to a false conclusion" in my courses.
We all have our biases, I suppose.
I freely admit mine here, and indeed, note that in such cases my bias is high-lit like a scorpion under black light.
;o/
Reply to this
Re: "What are these dangers, and how are they different from those that result from say, divorce, which by the way, is also a civil construct separate from a religious context."
I don't know other holy books as well as my own, but the Bible (both Old and New) mentions divorce as a far-less-than-ideal, indeed "sinful" state of affairs. A product, if you will, of society-on-Earth. We are in agreement on that score.
So we allow there are societal dangers in divorce, and I would be surprised if you couldn't enumerate three or four of them off of the top of your head. Well -- not entirely surprised, as we are both fortunate enough to be products of a real, live by-the-book "marriage."
But I deal with children of divorce quite a bit, and a society that -- now led by such in droves -- thinks that all manner of behavior(s) are normative, and, in so teaching to future generations, INSURES that all manner of behavior(s) BECOME normative.
I don't think allowing homosexual unions to be equated to heterosexual marriages can add very much more to the bonfire, honestly, but... you know... my conservative error bias says "where one is not sure, one should hold the line."
I tell everyone: me <--- dinosaur.
Reply to this