"I went to a place to eat. It said 'breakfast at any time.' So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance". --Steven Wright ... If you are a devotee of time travel, check out this song...

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Californians Who Voted to Ban Gay Marriage Need to Examine Their Reasons - Obama Needs to Speak Out On This

Amidst the celebration of Tuesday's revolutionary election, the enemies of freedom snuck around the back when no one was looking and voted to ban gay marriage in California. Obama carried California by a massive 61% to 37% - but Proposition 8 and its ban on gay marriage also passed by a narrow margin, too.

It's not clear if Proposition 8 is even legal. As attorney Lisa Bloom explained to Anderson Cooper on CNN last night, such changes in the law have to be enacted by the legislature, not voted upon by the people.

But even more disturbing is the reason generally given against allowing gays to marry. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, put it forth again on CNN last night - gay marriage threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage, or marriage between a man and woman.

Now I'm wondering how exactly would that work? I've been a devoted heterosexual ever since I can remember, and happily married to my wife for more than thirty years. So what would happen if my wife and I lived in California prior to Tuesday's vote? I take my wife to dinner one night, and over a soft glass of wine, I take her hand, and say, "sorry, baby, it's been grand, but we can't be married any longer because we live in a state where gays can marry"?

Or maybe it's supposed to affect people in their formative years, before they get married. And that would work, how? A man and woman are madly in love, or wanting to get married because they're great together in bed, or they know they're soul mates, and they decide not to marry because gays can marry? B just doesn't follow A, by any stretch, in that scenario.

And the reason these hypothetical examples seem so absurd is that, in fact, gay marriage will have no ill effect on heterosexual marriage at all, and the people who are crusading to ban gay marriage - such as Tony Perkins - don't really believe that gay marriage poses any threat to heterosexual marriage. Their reason for wanting to ban marriage is that they just don't like it - it offends their sensibilities.

Now, in a free society, we are free to like or dislike anything we please. But we are not free to impose our dislikes on others, as long they are not forcing or obliging us to do something against our will. Consenting adults who are gay are nobody else's business, plain and simple. If you don't like it, don't watch The L Word, speak out against it all you like. But you have no right to tell other people whether or not they can marry.

The people of California need to reconsider their reasons for voting for Proposition 8.

But there is something else that must be said. During the election, I was frequently asked by Republicans if I agreed with every single position that Obama presented. I said, of course not, and usually cited Obama's dissing of television and video games as an example of his not fully recognizing the value of these media.

But there's something else. Obama and every other major candidate for the Presidency this time around said they supported civil unions but not gay marriage - meaning, gays would be given all the rights of married couples, but they couldn't actually be married.

Enough is enough: Gays are entitled to be married just the same as any other human beings. Barack Obama has no control over what happens in California, but I call upon him to come out with a clear statement that gay people are entitled to be married.

Or, as Obama said in his victory speech on Tuesday night -

young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans who send a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states - we are and always will be the United States of America.


Mr. President-Elect, it's time to make good on this message and send it out not only to the world, but to the state of California.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Paul. Arizona also passed their Proposition 102, which bans gay marriage and puts it in our state constitution.

Unfortunately the Yes campaigns were well-organized. They made it an issue about marriage, which is why such high percentages of Latinos and African Americans voted for it. If it were made into the issue it really is about- losing a right to make a choice, I think the results would have been much different.

As for Obama speaking out, I doubt it's going to happen. At the VP debate Biden came right out and said they support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.

All we can do now is what you are doing, and what I have done. Speak out in our blogs and podcasts. Eventually the tides will change. They have to.

~Dani

Anonymous said...

Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?

Paul Levinson said...

Thanks for the (unfortunate) Arizona detail, Dani. It's consistent, alas and at least, with Obama not carrying Arizona ... but as President-elect, he should still speak out.

Amerineocon - the historical reasons for the institution of marriage are not very important, in my view. What counts is the role that marriage plays now. And, yes, I agree that marriage is an important component in the raising of children. But, surely you are aware that heterosexual couples adopt children, meaning that sexual reproduction is not central or crucial to the institution of marriage (my wife and I, by the way, are the proud biological parents of two fabulous kids).

And, if children and family need not be based on biology, gays should be allowed to get married, and raise children they either may adopt, or give birth to via artificial insemination.

ducky01 said...

Well said, Professor. I may not agree with homosexual marriage as a lifestyle choice, but that does not mean that I have the right to deny that choice to anyone else. As you so rightly stated, we no longer live in a world where "marriage" is performed purely for the purpose of reproduction within a moral boundary. Come to think of it, until the early form of humans became "organized" and some leader decided it had to be so, Grunty and Grumbilla Caveperson were probably not much bothered by the whole need to have a marriage ceremony, either. Perhaps instead of legalizing marriage for all people, we should abolish marriage, and establish cohabitation agreements instead.

Terri

gone said...

I agree with all of you. Even though I am Catholic Conservative Republican, I really do not care what other people do. And it certainly is not the government's place to tell people what to do. Let people do what they want,this is America.

Paul Levinson said...

Hey, Terri - good to have your comment. I think it would be fine to eliminate marriage as a state-sanctioned activity altogether, replace it with co-habitation agreements, and leave marriage for as a religious affair, for those who seek it.

Frank - Good man. I have a feeling we'll be agreeing a lot of things in the years ahead.

gone said...

I think so too... We certainly agree on rights, the media, and the government's place. I never have and will understand why people always want to impose on other people. People will maybe someday realize they will be alot happier if they live their life the way they want and hold the beliefs they want, and let others do the same.

Unknown said...

No problems with gay marriage, as long as supporters of gay marriage have no problem with polygamy. Many fundamentalist muslims and mormons believe this practice is legitimate and sanctioned by God, and who are we as a country to deny three, four, five consenting adults that love each other the right to form a triangular, quadrangular, etc. union? If we are redefining the word marriage, than let it work for everyone.

Paul Levinson said...

Frank wrote: "People will maybe someday realize they will be alot happier if they live their life the way they want and hold the beliefs they want, and let others do the same."

Absolutely. It's what Jefferson and his Democratic Republican principles called for. Our current Democrats and Republicans would both do better if they adhered to that live and let live approach.

c2: I have no problem at all with polygamy, gay marriage, any kind of marriage, as long as it's with consenting adults, as you say. The key is consenting adults. Governmental authority is needed to stop only situations in which one or more of the adults is not consenting.

badthing1 said...

Prof, you are SOOOO right!!!! our President-Elect needs to address this issue and the sooner the better.

I love how you worded your feelings about this during your evening out with your wife. Beautiful!

I am against discrimination and for the life of me do not understand those who feel that every human being who lives upon the face of the Earth must look, sound, dress and act exactly alike in order to be accepted by them.

If we conformed to these standards would we be TRULY satisfied?

Would we then live happily ever after in our All the Same world? My opinion is NO...this would be completely disastrous...it would leave us totally stripped of our uniqueness, which would be akin to life as a zombie.

I would rather not live than live a life such as that one.

Not allowing gays to be married is condoning an All the Same world.

Paul Levinson said...

Thanks, badthing. Your comment is a good thing :)

InfiniteRegress.tv