Prop 8 Lawyers Have No Idea How Same-Sex Marriage Could Harm Anything

[tongodeon]

A while ago ianvass told me that he'd explain why California Prop 8 was a good idea, not religiously, but from a secular standpoint. How Prop 8 would mitigate a public health or safety issue. I'm still waiting, with occlupanid's wager of a tiny amount of foreign currency still unpaid

Comments

[optimsprm]

in re above:
Well put.

[silmaril]

But... but... but... people aren't getting married anymore in Netherlands! If you... but... wah.. allow civil unions... then what's my aunt going to do? She's run a bridal shop for 30 years, she wouldn't know what to do with herself if she lost all that business! Wah! Won't someone think of the bridal shops in Netherlands?

...sorry, I don't want to take this lightly, but I cannot help have thoughts like the above.

more business

[silmaril]

Very good, but the bridal shops will be even busier - now more people can get married! Your aunt should set up a special offer when you buy two dresses get 15% off or sth... she'll be rolling in the pink pound!... i liked your comment very much

[matrushkaka]

A lot of my religious friends believe that the word "marriage" means an union between man and woman under God. They feel that gay and domestic partnership unions should be called something else, not marriage.

[matrushkaka]

I meant to add that I wonder if some of this belief might be coming in play here. Does the religious majority want to claim the word "marriage" as their own word?

[tongodeon]

So what? What's the harm? The ERA redefined what the word "voter" meant. The Fair Labor Standards Act redefined the traditional definitions of what the word "employee" meant. These redefinitions were beneficial, not harmful. On the other hand lots of people objected when Ronald Reagan redefined the traditional meaning of the word "vegetable", not because they were traditionalists, but because this change caused harm to nutritional and health standards.

[cofax7]

But they shouldn't be able to take the word "marriage" away from opposite-sex couples who didn't get married in a church. That would give their religious interests power over civil relationships.

In a logical world, there would be a clear legal distinction between religious marriages and civil marriages, but there isn't one, and the churches do not get to insist that their definition (man and woman joined under God) trumps everyone else's. At least, they shouldn't be able to under a fair interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

if marrage..

[anonymous]

if the argument is that god said that marriage is a religious thing and the state shouldn't change the rule of god, then the state should get out of the marriage business and only have domestic partnerships, yes? if it is about procreation, then what about straight couples that can't/don't have kids? If the argument is that if gays can get married then straight non married people get more rights... I don't get that one. "If we ban handguns, drunken monkeys will have handguns" makes about as much sense.

There are plenty of things like this that I understand, don't agree with, but get. The gay marriage thing, I only would understand if they would come out and say "we hate gays". I would think they are bigoted idiots, but at least there is more to it than "I don't know", something to work with.

Re: if marrage..

[tongodeon]

A while ago I did a post about Haidt's Moral Dimensions of Politics that I think is a more fair and productive way to view the problem. The moral dimensions that conservatives value more highly - purity, authority, and in-groups - are the foundation for objecting to same-sex marriage. Liberals' valued dimensions - fairness and harm reduction - are the foundation for its support.

The court's "yeah but what's the harm" question misses the conservatives' point. They don't actually care as much about whether there's actually any demonstrable harm from same sex marriage, they just want to preserve their concept of "purity" and maintain their religious and moral authority over the out-groups.

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

I've been looking for a way to rationally engage conservatives and pro-Prop8 types on this. It seems to me their opposition probably isn't based on simple prejudice, because that doesn't really stand up to a rational analysis of one's own motivations. In other words, if someone were against same-sex marriage because of fear or loathing of gay people, then at some level asking them why they're opposed is going to make them do a little soul-searching and, even if they can't bring themselves to stop hating gay people, at least drop out of the political discourse

re_marriage

[anonymous]

I'm straight, and I'm engaged to be married to my partner of the opposite sex. We do not plan to procreate, ever. That is not the reason we are getting married. And under the law, we are allowed to do so (get married and not procreate). Also, if I were allowed to marry somebody of the same sex, my choice would still be for my current opposite-sex partner. So again, I too do not see how allowing same-sex marriages in any way has a detrimental effect on opposite-sex marriages. My case is a prime example.

Re: re_marriage

[xtingu]

Amen, Brother Anonymous!

Re: re_marriage

[danibannani]

If I were barren, the state would let me get married. just saying.

Re: re_marriage

[aghrivaine]

Ironically, even the Catholic church supports non-procreative marriages, as in infertile couples or elderly couples. Marriage is itself (in the church) a sacrament, which they wouldn't deny to someone just because they can't have kids. Except, of course, in the case that they want to marry someone same-sex. That, apparently, is completely different.