I have other things to say, but I will reserve those for the privacy of the ridiculously expensive dinner we have planned for tonight :)
Image Credit to Hugh MacLeod at http://gapingvoid.com/
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Happy Valentines Day
I love you Tori.
I have other things to say, but I will reserve those for the privacy of the ridiculously expensive dinner we have planned for tonight :)
Image Credit to Hugh MacLeod at http://gapingvoid.com/
I have other things to say, but I will reserve those for the privacy of the ridiculously expensive dinner we have planned for tonight :)
Image Credit to Hugh MacLeod at http://gapingvoid.com/
Monday, February 13, 2012
Dr. Strangelove, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the gay
Disclaimer: This post is long, and you need to read it all the way through to get the full point. The title is also a bit deceptive. Again, read the full thing.
So today Washington state joined Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Washington, DC, in allowing same sex couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses.
As someone who has gone on record in support of California's Prop 8, and against the various legal proceedings to overturn it, I felt like making a long rambling post about exactly how I feel about gay marriage. TL;DR version? I don't actually care all that much.
First off, a quick summary of the conservative opposition to gay marriage. There are basically three groups who are opposed to gay marriage.
The first group are the religious conservatives. This group believes that homosexuality is a choice, is wrong, and should not be officially sanctioned by the state. They also believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, sanctioned by God and is one of the holy sacraments. This is also the group that contains the fringe element that believes homosexuality should be a criminal offense. That last part is an extreme fringe, sort of like NAMBLA is an extreme fringe of the gay lobby.
The second group are the social conservatives (the lack of "religious" is an important distinction). This group is less about the inherent right or wrong of gay marriage and more about the needs of society as a whole. This group holds that marriage and the traditional family is less a holy sacrament, and more the basic foundation of society. Husband and wife raise multiple children to be productive law-abiding citizens, who get married and have children, rinse and repeat for a few thousand years. This group looks at men and women as uniquely different, bringing different emotional and psychological qualities into the relationship, and holds that both parts are necessary to raise stable, productive children. There is a fair amount of overlap between the religious cons and the social cons.
The last group is the libertarian conservatives. (There is a difference between libertarians and lib conservatives, don't get them confused). This group doesn't really care who lives with, has sex with, or marries whom. As long as your talking about two consenting adults conforming to basic social norms in public (mostly naked men with cock-rings wandering down a public street in butt-less chaps is a fairly big no-no), they don't really care what you do. The one big quirk with this group is that they care about HOW something is changed, rather than IF it is changed.
I want to make one thing very clear here. With some basic fringe exceptions, none of these groups "hate" gay people. Before you pull out your Westboro Baptist pictures, read that last sentence again, especially the part where I said "fringe exceptions." You can find fringe exceptions to any position. I can show you people that believe you should be able to "abort" your child for one month after birth, or explain how genocide in Africa is the only way to save the planet if you want to argue whose fringe is more crazy.
In case you don't know, I fall into the third category. I really don't care who wants to have sex with whom, modern marriage is a civil agreement regulated by the state for the purpose of taxation anyway. The concept of civil marriage as a union sanctioned by God has been dead for a long time.
Here's an image of a cute kitty to break up this wall of text.
But why did I support Prop 8, you ask? Because I also dislike bullies, and gay marriage supporters have acted like bullies in California. For better or for worse, the people of California have consistently and overwhelmingly said they do not want to be a state that allows gay marriage.
In 1977, California's democratic controlled state legislature easily passed a law banning gay marriage. This bill was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (yes, THAT Gov Jerry Brown). In the late '90's, gay marriage advocates made significant inroads in the CA legislature, and a legislative repeal of the earlier law looked likely.
In 2000, as the marriage wars were getting hot, Prop 22 was placed on the ballot to reaffirm California's opposition to becoming a state that allowed gay marriage. With about 54 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, Prop 22 passed by about a 62-48 margin.
Gay marriage advocates, after being rebuffed at the ballot box, turned to the California Supreme Court, and in March of 2008, the justices ruled on In re Marriage Cases. In Marriage Cases the Supreme Court found a right of marriage in Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. They instructed the State Registrar of Vital Statistics to require that all County Clerks begin to comply with this new law immediately. They also denied a petition for rehearing and a petition for a stay.
In November of 2008, Proposition 8, an amendment to the California constitution was passed by voters. This prop placed an explicit ban on gay marriage into the California constitution, circumventing the state Supreme Court's ruling. This controversial amendment was campaigned on viciously by both sides, with a final result of 52-48 in support in an election that saw anearly 80 percent voter turn out.
Because they couldn't very well argue that a clause in the state constitution violated the state constitution, gay marriage advocates this time turned to the federal judiciary. In August of 2008, federal district court judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Perry v Schwarzenegger (later Perry v. Brown) that Prop 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. The ruling was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on February 7, 2012. A petition for Certiorari to the US Supreme court has already been filed, and both sides are waiting to see if the High Court will grant Cert.
I traced the history of gay marriage in California for a reason. There is a 30+ year history of voters and legislatures voting against gay marriage, and a 10 year history of gay marriage advocates circumventing the will of the voters through legal machinations.
Which brings us back to New York and Washington. How you change the laws, especially a law as fundamental to society as how you define marriage and family, is important. It is not hyperbole to say that this is a transformational change of society, and such change should not be made quickly or lightly.
The last time a change this significant, with this much vitriol on both sides was made was Roe v. Wade, and judicial meddling in what should have been an issue of state law guaranteed that the issue would never be settled, but would be fought on in legislatures, courtrooms and bars across the country for almost 40 years now.
New York and Washington did it the right way, by building a coalition of lawmakers who supported their views, and assuming Washington's law survives an electoral challenge in November, both sides will settle down and begin to live and work with the new laws. California did it the wrong way, attempting to ram an unpopular law down an unwilling public's throat, virtually ensuring that the issue will not be settled for a very long time.
It has often been said that democracy is much like making sausage, messy and ugly to watch. That's true, but it also gives closure to both sides and legitimacy to the winning side. (If you haven't figured it out yet, I do think legalized gay marriage in inevitable, it's just a matter of socially liberal teens making it to voting age). That legitimacy is important, because without it, you have the abortion wars, splitting the country down the middle for generations.
The irony, is that by doing this, gay marriage advocates have done their cause enormous harm. The truth is, in 10 years a solid majority of Californians would probably vote to enact gay marriage, and in 20 no one will care about gay marriage (or only an insignificant percentage of the population will). By having used strong-arm and bullying tactics, gay couples will be scarred by the illegitimacy that comes from winning on a technicality. If the US Supreme Court grants Cert to Perry v Brown and reverses the 9th Circuit's ruling, then precedent will have been set that states can ban gay marriage under the federal constitution.
Either way, by taking the quick and easy route, over the slow and patient route, gay marriage advocates have guaranteed that no matter what the Supreme Court rules, this issue will not be settled for at least a decade.
So today Washington state joined Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Washington, DC, in allowing same sex couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses.
As someone who has gone on record in support of California's Prop 8, and against the various legal proceedings to overturn it, I felt like making a long rambling post about exactly how I feel about gay marriage. TL;DR version? I don't actually care all that much.
First off, a quick summary of the conservative opposition to gay marriage. There are basically three groups who are opposed to gay marriage.
The first group are the religious conservatives. This group believes that homosexuality is a choice, is wrong, and should not be officially sanctioned by the state. They also believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, sanctioned by God and is one of the holy sacraments. This is also the group that contains the fringe element that believes homosexuality should be a criminal offense. That last part is an extreme fringe, sort of like NAMBLA is an extreme fringe of the gay lobby.
The second group are the social conservatives (the lack of "religious" is an important distinction). This group is less about the inherent right or wrong of gay marriage and more about the needs of society as a whole. This group holds that marriage and the traditional family is less a holy sacrament, and more the basic foundation of society. Husband and wife raise multiple children to be productive law-abiding citizens, who get married and have children, rinse and repeat for a few thousand years. This group looks at men and women as uniquely different, bringing different emotional and psychological qualities into the relationship, and holds that both parts are necessary to raise stable, productive children. There is a fair amount of overlap between the religious cons and the social cons.
The last group is the libertarian conservatives. (There is a difference between libertarians and lib conservatives, don't get them confused). This group doesn't really care who lives with, has sex with, or marries whom. As long as your talking about two consenting adults conforming to basic social norms in public (mostly naked men with cock-rings wandering down a public street in butt-less chaps is a fairly big no-no), they don't really care what you do. The one big quirk with this group is that they care about HOW something is changed, rather than IF it is changed.
I want to make one thing very clear here. With some basic fringe exceptions, none of these groups "hate" gay people. Before you pull out your Westboro Baptist pictures, read that last sentence again, especially the part where I said "fringe exceptions." You can find fringe exceptions to any position. I can show you people that believe you should be able to "abort" your child for one month after birth, or explain how genocide in Africa is the only way to save the planet if you want to argue whose fringe is more crazy.
In case you don't know, I fall into the third category. I really don't care who wants to have sex with whom, modern marriage is a civil agreement regulated by the state for the purpose of taxation anyway. The concept of civil marriage as a union sanctioned by God has been dead for a long time.
Here's an image of a cute kitty to break up this wall of text.
But why did I support Prop 8, you ask? Because I also dislike bullies, and gay marriage supporters have acted like bullies in California. For better or for worse, the people of California have consistently and overwhelmingly said they do not want to be a state that allows gay marriage.
In 1977, California's democratic controlled state legislature easily passed a law banning gay marriage. This bill was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (yes, THAT Gov Jerry Brown). In the late '90's, gay marriage advocates made significant inroads in the CA legislature, and a legislative repeal of the earlier law looked likely.
In 2000, as the marriage wars were getting hot, Prop 22 was placed on the ballot to reaffirm California's opposition to becoming a state that allowed gay marriage. With about 54 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, Prop 22 passed by about a 62-48 margin.
Gay marriage advocates, after being rebuffed at the ballot box, turned to the California Supreme Court, and in March of 2008, the justices ruled on In re Marriage Cases. In Marriage Cases the Supreme Court found a right of marriage in Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. They instructed the State Registrar of Vital Statistics to require that all County Clerks begin to comply with this new law immediately. They also denied a petition for rehearing and a petition for a stay.
In November of 2008, Proposition 8, an amendment to the California constitution was passed by voters. This prop placed an explicit ban on gay marriage into the California constitution, circumventing the state Supreme Court's ruling. This controversial amendment was campaigned on viciously by both sides, with a final result of 52-48 in support in an election that saw anearly 80 percent voter turn out.
Because they couldn't very well argue that a clause in the state constitution violated the state constitution, gay marriage advocates this time turned to the federal judiciary. In August of 2008, federal district court judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Perry v Schwarzenegger (later Perry v. Brown) that Prop 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. The ruling was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on February 7, 2012. A petition for Certiorari to the US Supreme court has already been filed, and both sides are waiting to see if the High Court will grant Cert.
I traced the history of gay marriage in California for a reason. There is a 30+ year history of voters and legislatures voting against gay marriage, and a 10 year history of gay marriage advocates circumventing the will of the voters through legal machinations.
Which brings us back to New York and Washington. How you change the laws, especially a law as fundamental to society as how you define marriage and family, is important. It is not hyperbole to say that this is a transformational change of society, and such change should not be made quickly or lightly.
The last time a change this significant, with this much vitriol on both sides was made was Roe v. Wade, and judicial meddling in what should have been an issue of state law guaranteed that the issue would never be settled, but would be fought on in legislatures, courtrooms and bars across the country for almost 40 years now.
New York and Washington did it the right way, by building a coalition of lawmakers who supported their views, and assuming Washington's law survives an electoral challenge in November, both sides will settle down and begin to live and work with the new laws. California did it the wrong way, attempting to ram an unpopular law down an unwilling public's throat, virtually ensuring that the issue will not be settled for a very long time.
It has often been said that democracy is much like making sausage, messy and ugly to watch. That's true, but it also gives closure to both sides and legitimacy to the winning side. (If you haven't figured it out yet, I do think legalized gay marriage in inevitable, it's just a matter of socially liberal teens making it to voting age). That legitimacy is important, because without it, you have the abortion wars, splitting the country down the middle for generations.
The irony, is that by doing this, gay marriage advocates have done their cause enormous harm. The truth is, in 10 years a solid majority of Californians would probably vote to enact gay marriage, and in 20 no one will care about gay marriage (or only an insignificant percentage of the population will). By having used strong-arm and bullying tactics, gay couples will be scarred by the illegitimacy that comes from winning on a technicality. If the US Supreme Court grants Cert to Perry v Brown and reverses the 9th Circuit's ruling, then precedent will have been set that states can ban gay marriage under the federal constitution.
Either way, by taking the quick and easy route, over the slow and patient route, gay marriage advocates have guaranteed that no matter what the Supreme Court rules, this issue will not be settled for at least a decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)