Exactly how does Prop 8 PROTECT marriage?

[skyfire1228]

You can watch this video on www.livejournal.com

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

I'm not seeing a lot of protection going on from Prop 8. Threatening, invalidating, cheapening, limiting, preventing, those things Prop 8 has accomplished. But not protection. Not by a long shot.

Comments

[milescochran]

Depends upon your definition of marriage. If you believe in it as a heterosexual institution then this would be protection. I have very mixed feelings on Prop 8 (see my previous blog entries) but both sides need to realize that you're both right and both wrong. This issue is not as simple as either side makes it out to be.

[skyfire1228]

The people in the video were legally married. The term used on all the documentation was "marriage". Many of those couples were wed by their churches. With both civil and religious connotations, they were married. At this point, it's like closing the barn door after the horses have run out; these couples are married. Dissolving those unions would be destroying, threatening, and invalidating marriages. Using the state to label those marriages invalid cheapens both the institution and the experience of marriage. And defining marriage as between a man and a woman automatically limits marriage and prevents individuals from marrying.

If the people in favor of Prop 8 claimed specifically to want to protect heterosexual marriage, then that would be correct. However, they make blanket statements claiming to protect marriage in general. Since even the dictionary includes homosexual couples in its definition of the word "marriage", and since many (though clearly not a majority) don't see a difference between committed hetero couples and

[milescochran]

First off I agree with you in principle. I think the government should not abridge the rights of any grouping of consenting adults the right to join into whatever sort of relationship they desire. I also think the government shouldn't issue marriage licenses it should only issue civil unions. If marriage is a "sacred" institution then it should be entirely removed from state interference. If ten dudes in Berkley want to be in one big group marriage, I am fine with that. If Mormons really want polygamy I could not care less. Consenting adults should have the freedom to join in whatever manner suits them.

I think that the current push to dissolve same sex marriages is hurtful and cruel. I think that it does however protect marriage as the majority of Californians want it defined and as it is defined in the OED. Defending marriage by that definition may be reprehensible to some but it is a morally righteous crusade to others. Remember that Prop 8 passed in CA, that means that marriage is defined as a heterosexual union no

[skyfire1228]

Dude, I read late-career sex-crazy Heinlein on a regular basis. I couldn't bring myself to give a shit what consenting adults decide to do in their own lives, so long as they aren't doing serious, not-okay damage. So I'm with you on that.

Defending marriage by that definition may be reprehensible to some but it is a morally righteous crusade to others.

My point is that, when it comes to legislature, morally righteous crusades be damned. Equal rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of the Imaginary Friends in the Clouds; that's why we have the separation of church and state.

Remember that Prop 8 passed in CA, that means that marriage is defined as a heterosexual union no matter how unfair people believe that definition to be.Yes, and putting the rights of a minority to majority vote is appallingly wrong. From the US Department of State: "The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote." Homosexual couples had equal rights for half a year, until the majority voted

[milescochran]

You're right discrimination based on sexual preference WAS illegal long before this whole debate. However discrimination based on legal marriage standing was not illegal which is exactly where some of the groups are hanging their hats. Adoption services, marriage counseling, married dormitories, are all specific cases to marriage status that will (and in some cases have) brought a whole new set of legal woes. It is as you say a mixed bag but also a bag with cat still firmly inside

[skyfire1228]

And this is where we get into fuzzy territory about private versus public institutions. In my opinion, private religious institutions should be able to act according to their tenants. For example, the Christian-based adoption service - there are other options for adoption that *will* adopt to same-sex couples, and their rules on who they can adopt to are part of their contract agreement/charter/whatever. That's fine. That's a private institution, they can be unfair if they want to. Same thing with private school "married" dorms. However, I think that the recently-passed Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban in Arkansas is a piece of shit

[skyfire1228]

As for criminals, since we aren't an anarchist nation, we have rules. Most of those rules come back to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Breaking those rules is tantamount to breaking the contract our government has with us. At that rate, I don't see jailing criminals as discrimination per se, but as a consequence of violating the rules

[skyfire1228]

Also, not to be totally nit-picky or anything, but I think the compact OED has slightly different definitions than the full-size OED. Just sayin'. :P

[milescochran]

I have a whole series of articles on the way dictionaries and the politics there affect language and culture (comms people get nerdy about that shit) but even in that article same sex stuff is mentioned as a note, not as part of the definition, since we're all sittin' around with our tools for to be picking knits with.

[skyfire1228]

Really? 'Cause I kinda thought the quote, "'It's not so much a redefinition, because our definition did not specify marriage had to be between a man and woman in the first place,' said editor Jesse Sheidlower from OED's New York headquarters," was clear that the full OED didn't specify marriage the same as the concise version. The note specifies that it sometimes applies to same-sex unions, but the main definition doesn't mention gender.