Prop 8 Talking Points
For anyone who has not been paying attention, Proposition 8 is the initiative that will be on California's ballots in November which, if passed, would change California's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm starting to see many of the same "reasons" to vote in favor of the marriage ban (under the guise of "protect marriage") cropping up, so I figured you could all use a few simple responses to the major pro-hatred talking points.
- Same-sex marriage defies the traditional definition of marriage.
Well, so does choosing your own spouse, treating women as something more than a man's property, and agreeing that it's not OK to rape the maid.
The truth is, the "definition" of marriage has always evolved with time. Give the book of Genesis a good, thorough read and ask those who decry the loss of "traditional" marriage if that's really the view of marriage they endorse. (There will be a certain number who will say yes, and I suggest you inform them that Saudi Arabia would be happy to have them.) Even in our own lifetimes, the definition of marriage has changed to where it's now quite normal for a woman to work outside the home. This evolution is normal, it's healthy, and it should be encouraged, not discouraged. - If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, children will be taught about gay sex in kindergarten.
So, what kind of kindergarten sex-ed would you prefer?
This has to be the most absurd claim thrown around by the pro-hatred campaign. Any sex education taught to our children requires parental consent. If your concern is that children will be taught that a marriage can include members of the same sex instead of only members of the opposite sex, well, can we also pretend that the things I wish weren't so just aren't? Maybe lying to kids is a good idea. Maybe we can tell kindergarteners that their parents aren't hateful and ignorant... Wouldn't that be nice? - Allowing same-sex marriage will cause confusion in other countries.
Ah, so we're obligated to enforce Saudi Arabia's marriage laws in the U.S. now?
Every nation has different laws. Every nation decides on its own what aspects of another nation's marriage laws it will and will not honor. Belgium, The Netherlands, and Spain allow same-sex marriage, and yet the rest of the world isn't wandering around in a confused daze as a result. I'd be curious how many of the people who espouse this view think we need the world's permission to pursue our other foreign and domestic policies. - Activist judges overrode the will of the people.
So if I get a majority of Californians to vote that you should shut up and go away, will you?
Anyone who believes the "activist judges" argument obviously believes that it's not proper for the courts to protect the rights of individuals. That means they don't believe in the system of checks and balances. That means they're un-American, and would rather live in a dictatorship. If that's the case, I say that's a great plan. By the way, I'm the dictator, and I say same-sex marriage is allowed. Gee, sucks when you're on the short end of that dictatorship, doesn't it? Too bad the courts shouldn't intervene on your behalf... - The California Supreme Court redefined marriage for our entire society.
Really? I should tell my parents that their marriage has been redefined. They seem to be unaware.
Either we have a lot more influence than I think we do, or the person who believes this has got a pretty narrow definition of "our entire society." Every marriage is defined individually, by those involved in the marriage. Expanding a definition does not invalidate the definitions that have been previously agreed upon. - But I don't like same-sex marriage.
Then don't marry a member of your own sex.
If we want to live in a free country, then we have to put up with the fact that it will be a diverse country. You don't have to like it, but the law does need to treat everyone as an equal. If you don't want to live in a free country, there are many totalitarian regimes where you'd be welcome. If you want America to not be a free country, then I agree to your terms, as long as I get to make the rules! - This opens the door to pedophilia, bestiality, and all sorts of other deviant marriages.
And if we allow idiots like you to keep talking, pretty soon we'll have copy machines dropping from airplanes.
This claim is basically a huge (and sensationalistic) non-sequitur. There's just no reason to think this ruling does anything other than what it does, opens marriage up to all consenting adults, regardless of gender.
I'll grant you, this ruling may open the door to polygamous marriage in California, provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult. (Remember that polygamy was outlawed to prevent the sort of child molestation that's been alleged in the Warren Jeffs case. It was about consent, not number of partners.) Frankly, I'd welcome that change. It's not society's place to tell other consenting adults what they may and may not do.
But as to pedophilia, bestiality, and the other sensational charges, consent laws remain in effect. Period. There's no way this opens the door to a man marrying a goat. A goat can't consent. Period. There's no way this opens the door to a man marrying a five-year-old. A five-year-old can't consent. Period.
In fact, this ruling might help prevent bestiality, pedophila, and all those other non-consensual sexual relationships. By establishing that consenting adults may marry, it takes away the societal acceptance of long-standing sexual relationships between those who aren't married, and makes it harder for those sorts of relationships to exist unobserved. - Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
I know you're trying to undo the separation of church and state, but you still haven't managed to legislate what churches may believe.
This claim is, frankly, absurd. No church is required to perform a marriage it doesn't believe in. Never have been, and as long as we have separation of church and state, never will be. Any church may say to anyone, for any reason, "I'm sorry, we don't believe this marriage is acceptable in the eyes of God, and we will not sanctify it." Like it or not, churches are still allowed to be hateful if they believe it's good. - What was wrong with domestic partnership?
Nothing. Let's ban marriage for everyone.
Separate but equal does not work. Ever. Segregation is wrong. Period. We know that. We learned it the hard way in this country. Those who don't want gays and lesbians to marry certainly have the option of also not being allowed to legally marry.
The California Supreme Court actually left the door open to banning marriage for everyone. The ruling explicitly says that the state need not use the word "marriage," but that the rules must be the same for heterosexuals as homosexuals.
And, for those who are wondering, no, the rules were not the same, despite the legislature's best intentions. The best example of this I can give is that if my husband did not have an academic-year job, we would not have been allowed to get domestic partnered. California requires domestic partners to cohabitate before they may register. Well, we work in different cities. If he wasn't coming "home" every summer, we would not have met the cohabitation requirement. Couples are not required by law to shack up before marriage. Domestic partnership was legally supposed to be identical to marriage, but it wasn't. That, by the way, is why the California Supreme Court ruled the way it did.