A bunch of marriage news
It’s been weirdly under-reported, but Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that seeks to amend the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage, had its official language changed earlier this month. It used to read as follows:
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.
What’s going to appear on the ballots in November is much more accurate, and makes it clear that voting for it means actively taking away existing rights:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
I would have added, “Voting for this means you’re a dick.” But the new language is certainly an improvement.
As I noted earlier, the polling indicates that the initiative is struggling: just 42% are in favor, a huge drop from 2000’s similar initiative. So its backers are already falling back on FUD tactics, the most recent being kindergartners. They warn –
If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
In the words of Mrs. Lovejoy: “Think about the children!”
Nevermind that the statement is factually wrong. Also, when do public school teachers give lessons on marriage, period? And are there popsicle sticks and yarn involved?
It’s easy to be glib, but dangerous. The proponents of Prop. 8 — many of them out-of-state — have deep pockets and a long history of stirring shit up in their favor. That’s why in lieu of a traditional wedding registry, we signed up with Equality California, which is spearheading the opposition campaign. Frankly, we’d rather have justice than a toaster.1
But worst case scenario — what happens if it passes? That’s still up for debate.
The consensus is that existing marriages couldn’t be voided, since they were legal at the time they were enacted. And to paraphrase the late Charlton Heston: you can pry my ring off my cold, dead hand. But there are reasons to believe the amendment might still get considerable court scrutiny even if it passes. The legal lingo about “suspect classes” is a bit head-swirling, but can be summarized thusly: imagine an amendment that said African-Americans couldn’t marry. You’d have a guaranteed court battle.
. . .
In much happier news, my friend Andrew Lippa just wed his longtime squeeze David Bloch, and the New York Times has a great piece on it. I hadn’t realized that the Times now does video interviews, but wow, it’s great. You get a much better sense of the couple when you hear them tell their own story. You’d have to be pretty hard-hearted not to want them married.
Andrew is a genius composer and lyricist, and I’ve been fortunate to be working on a project with him for the past two years. Mazel Tov to them both.
- If you’re itching for some righteous equality but don’t have another couple to gift, the registry is still there. John and Michael August, under “J,” strangely enough. ↩
Articles
July 27th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Thank you for the update, John. God willing, there’s no majority in this state stupid enough to vote something like this into place. If there is, they may not be politically active enough to do it.
And I agree, the new bill just looks more hostile! The votes of those people who don’t really read the ballot and just go on “gut” were just won over, methinks.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
As a father of two very young children, I’m not sure exactly why the threat of children learning there isn’t any difference between a heterosexual marriage and a same-sex marriage would have any effect except for those who would vote for the proposition, anyway. I mean, other than the obvious physical differences that even a 3 year old can see, there ISN’T any difference.
And my oldest, who’s about to enter grade one, certainly hasn’t learned anything in school about marriage. My wife and I have been together 17 years. We’ve outlasted many, many marriages, some of who looked down upon our relationship because it wasn’t “real marriage”. We didn’t get married because neither of us are religious, our families don’t care and neither of us care. We didn’t see the point. It’s not a piece of paper that defines a relationship, but the commitment each one brings to the relationship. My children will learn that’s what is important. Not anything else, including the sexes of the people involved. I know gay and lesbian couples that seem to understand that more than some heterosexual couples. Why on earth would you restrict them from getting married if they want. There are plenty of heterosexual friends I would rather have prevented getting married than some same-sex couples. I’m glad I live in Canada, where the same sex marriage debate is (hopefully) long done.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Maybe not in public Kindergarten, but in preschool we already teach that families come in many different configurations. High quality preschools incorporate anti-bias teachings into their curriculum (see the NAEYC accreditation standards, for example).
Young children already know, anyway. When it comes to families, something that is central and essential to their young lives, they are highly perceptive. They can also be very accepting if you don’t teach them prejudice and hate.
So, news flash: teaching young children about nontraditional family makeup has been going on for quite a while and the world hasn’t ended and nobody suddenly went gay because of it (which I think is the underlying fear — if we teach children it’s okay to be gay, they’ll turn gay).
July 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Canada is better than America in every possible way.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
up until 8 weeks ago, i was a lifelong mass. resident. it’s a little fascinating watching this play out in california. the mass. legislature successfully defeated the ballot initiative before it could appear due to the 2-round rule (needs to be passed 2 years in a row before reaching voters) and i confess it never really felt like it would make it to the ballots at all. not after mitt skipped town (thankfully) and we got a decent human being back into the governor’s office.
i love the language, especially the financial argument. now why didn’t we think of that? i guess we ultimately didn’t have to. still. the best argument should always be that hundreds (thousands? how big IS this state?) of same-sex marriages are already in effect in california and gasp the world hasn’t come to an end!
looks at watch
yet.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Wait, here’s what I don’t understand–”over the next few years” there’s fiscal loss of tens of millions, whereas “in the long run” there’s little impact. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? Losing tens of millions a year, is in the long run, many tens of millions. (Not a huge amount for “state and local governments,” but still.) Why do they say the opportunity cost of not hosting gay marriage is suddenly going to dry up? Do they mean “in the broad scheme of things?”
July 28th, 2008 at 1:18 am
“Canada is better than America in every possible way.”
I like Canada.
But no.
One possible way that comes to mind is “Being able to defend Canada.” :)
I think the Dead Mrs. Lovejoy argument is particularly odd, given the way kindergartners think of marriage. My son, for instance, has told me on various occasions between the ages of 4 and 6 that he wanted to marry me, his friend Miles, his friend Genevieve, his Nintendo DS (no lie), and grandma.
Think of the children indeed. Far from being surprised by gay marriage, they’d start demanding the right to marry video games.
Having played GTA IV for a while now, I’d probably go for that.
I’m still against human-goat marriage.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Emily:
In 2005, California’s revenue, the bulk of which came from state taxes, totaled 250 BILLION dollars.
in that sense, forty or fifty million really is insignificant. Put it this way. $100 million is just .04% of the total state revenue.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Craig… you’re assuming that the only defence is a good offence. Whereas Canada seems to have chosen a much more superior defence. That of the “we just won’t piss anyone off and let everyone be, defence”. Unlike Americans, nobody seems to want to kill Canadians much :)
About gay marriage, I’m embarrassed for our generation that this topic is still being debated. I think future generations are going to look back and shake their heads at the the many stupidities of our time. Race, sex, beliefs and sexuality – all still battling for equality.
Embarrassing.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I’m a teacher. I don’t remember the last time anyone required me to discuss anything about marriage in my classroom.
Sometimes I explain about herpes, but that’s just my own crusade.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Looking at this topic from an unbiased viewpoint, I think there are a lot of people who are against same sex marriage not because they are for inequality but because they believe the actual definition of marriage means the bond between a MAN and a WOMAN. That can be debated as well – Dictionary.com has several definitions declaring that phrase and several others simply stating marriage as a close union (without regard to sex).
Don’t get me wrong – there will always be a group of people against anything that is different than tradition or different than their current standing, but I would be interested to see how large the percentage of current dissenters would change their mind if a law was enacted in which “marriage” was between a man and woman, but “larriage” was between a man and a man (or woman/woman) with the EXACT same rights. I believe more than a handful of people would suddenly be okay with it if two men were “larried” instead of “married.”
I shouldn’t be speaking for these hypothetical people, but I think it’s a matter of definition for a lot of these old timers. Just like a man wearing a dress doesn’t make him a woman (you need the appropriate organs), some people believe you can’t have a marriage without the “appropriate” genders involved – not because same sex couples aren’t worthy but because they feel the actual DEFINITION of marriage doesn’t include same sex options.
This is hardly a defense of the other side but rather a look into what might be some of the reasons that rattle their cage. The better you understand the opposition, the better to win your argument.
Personally, I believe the law should protect us in a general sense and offer us our basic human rights. For all the rest, the human race does a fairly good job policing ourselves. As for marriage and everything else along that vein, if it doesn’t affect me, I’m all for it. Eliminate any reference to sex and the marriage law becomes a much simpler (and equal) stance.
Same goes for laws like wearing seatbelts, helmets on motorcycles, etc. You can’t make a law to protect us from ourselves on everything. Yes, I wish everyone would be safer on the highway, etc., but if you want to whizz by a semi doing 80 without a helmet on your noggin’, that’s your problem, not mine. The more interesting laws are ones involving guns, smoking, drugs, etc., because the debate as to how it affects the non-user is always a hotly contested one. That’s for another site, another time, however.
Congratulations to John and people of all marriages who can honor their commitment – I’m almost at 10 years and going strong! A word of advice: like the post suggests, know how the other side is thinking and you will get along. You won’t always agree, but at least your partner will know selfishness is not involved in an argument if you are willing to see his/her side of things first.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
It’s a good thing Cali’s managed to get a handle on all that gang violence and crime so they can focus on the things that affect almost nobody.
Gay marriage has been legal here for a while (Canada) and, as a straight person, I have yet to have it effect me.
Isn’t your government supposed to protect minorities? I think democracy was twisted along the way somewhere. It is not majority rule — not when human rights are involved. When someone’s freedom is involved the government is supposed to protect them.
You’re allowed to do whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of other people. And two men getting married isn’t infringing on anyone’s rights.
I have yet to hear anyone present a good reason for them not to get married. My favorite excuse is “But gay parents will raise gay children.” Because, you know, straight people always raise straight children.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
John, the subtitle of your blog is “a ton of useful information about screenwriting” but it appears you’ve make a rookie mistake and lost your focus.
I subscribed to this blog because I wanted to learn more about the craft of screenwriting. If I wanted to hear a myopic diatribe on moral relativism, I would have visited Slate or the Huffington Post.
You are welcome to your opinion, however misguided it may be, but it would have been better if you reserved your comments for a more appropriate venue and kept this blog on focus. But since you have used this blog to draw a line the sand on gay marriage instead of write on screenwriting, I as your reader must now choose a side. So I must now say goodbye. Good luck in the future.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Memo to any people considering voting FOR Prop 8:
Going out and voting is a serious pain in the butt. The parking, the lines, the threat of ink on your finger… man, you really don’t need any of that.
Instead, why not just stay home and rock back and forth and plug your ears and pretend stuff like homosexuality doesn’t exist? It must have worked pretty well for you up to now.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
“Looking at this topic from an unbiased viewpoint, I think there are a lot of people who are against same sex marriage not because they are for inequality but because they believe the actual definition of marriage means the bond between a MAN and a WOMAN. That can be debated as well – Dictionary.com has several definitions declaring that phrase and several others simply stating marriage as a close union (without regard to sex).”
And yet, I constantly hear people say “anxious” when they mean “eager” or use “less” when they mean “fewer”.
Seems people are only interested in proper definitions when it suits their political interests.
Also, I thought we settled the separate but equal thing a long time ago. A marriage/larraige solution is inherently unequal.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I think its intriguing that folks ignore the obvious lie or deceit that exists in just the phrase “same-sex marriage” and then want to accuse others of “outrageous lies”!
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am
@Everyone:
No Canada bashing. It’s a lovely neighbor.
@Tim:
From “About” on every single page of this site:
“This site is run by screenwriter John August. Most of the time, he answers reader-submitted questions about the craft, but occasionally he goes on tangents that run far afield of writing and filmmaking.”
Considering this is the only comment you’ve ever left in the five years this site has been running, I think I’ll somehow get by without you.
But to your point: I did consider whether to put this article in the main feed or the Off-Topic. I use OT as mostly a link-blog for amusing and random finds, so it felt weird to put it there. Also, my efforts to get married have been an occasional (and much-discussed) topic on the site for years.
@Paul Benedict:
I’d say, “Get your own blog,” but man, you have. And you’ve stated your opinions at length. No one’s commented on your posts, which I’m sure is frustrating. (Maybe include a Mrs. Lovejoy graphic. People like that.)
You can argue your logic forever, and you’ll never be convinced otherwise, so forgive me if I don’t engage. For what it’s worth, I respect that you’re taking the time to present your opinion in a detailed way.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I’ve been reading your blog a long time John, and honestly 2 years ago I wasn’t sure what side I stood on for the Gay Marriage issue. I’m only 20 so politics weird me out in general. But after reading your stuff and hearing more about it from others I hope you guys can win this thing. Hopefully, strong people like you who are good role models can influence my generation to not make the same mistakes as the prior and to stop sitting on the fence when it comes to people’s rights.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Good debate (though a bit one sided) going on here. Personally I like to see posts about things going on in your life…It lets me know this blog isn’t run by a bunch of monkeys hacking away at typewriters in some secluded room. But I must ask, why is someone a “dick” if they vote differently than you would? As a conservative I’m a bit of a loaner when it comes to this issue as I don’t give a shit if a man marries a man or a woman marries a man…as long as it’s not me getting married. I believe the government should stay out of our personal lives altogether. But should I consider everyone who votes differently than me on an issue a “dick?” What if that person has had different life experiences that led them to believe differently on an issue that you? Does that preclude them from being a good person? Or make them a dick? In who’s opinion? Kinda a generalization isn’t it? Also, no one in this country has a constitutional right to marriage, same sex or otherwise. Look it up if you don’t believe me. I love your blog, movies, and your advice…I just don’t see how name calling will help the situation. I have a degree in political science and have been called every name in the book by fellow college students because I was labeled a conservative. Is that really the best way get your viewpoint across? I’m glad you’re passionate about this issue, but I’d be willing to bet you’d attract more people like me to your side if you dropped the name calling.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Gay marriage is clearly different than Heterosexual marriage in one way, procreation. But with adoption (and other means of having children) that argument doesn’t seem to hold much water in the sense that Marriage is a way for society to promote stable families. That’s why it was created and that is largely why society, in so much that it does, gives married people a preferred status (benefits, taxes, inheritance,etc). I would argue that married couples with children are all the same and all deserve the same treatment in the eyes of the government. To argue against that is to basically say that the child of a same-sex couple doesn’t have the right to the stability that having married parents affords.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Banning same-sex marriages is asking for a lot of trouble that people aren’t even thinking about, ugh. For example, what happens if you ignore homosexuality for a moment and simply consider “what on earth defines a man and a woman?” Genetics? Organs? Brain structure? Facial hair??? All of these measurements are inherently faulty. Most females have the genetic karyotype XX and males are XY, but about 1 in a 1000 infants are XXX, 1 in 2500 are just X, 1 in 1000 are XYY, and about 1 in 500 are XXY. Its rare, but its even possible to have bizarre combinations like XXXXY. Many genetic variations are prone to problems, but some are not. Most XYY males and XXX females are unaware of the abnormality, so much so that some scientists consider this a “normal” phenotype.
Even when there are no chromosomal abnormalities, some XY infants with hormonal defects develop female organs; this is known as Swyer syndrome. Likewise, a small percentage of XX infants develop male genetalia. The technical term for this class of disorders is gonadal dysgenesis, and there are many varieties. Again, not all persons who experience this are even aware of the defect.
A reliable definition of “male” and “female” is an intractable problem. Genetics isn’t the answer as 1 in 1000 is far too high a percentage to ignore… that’s about 36,500 “heterosexual” people in California alone who could be denied marriage by this law. Besides what are they going to do, test everyone? What is the cost of that? Or if you say you are a manwoman, is that good enough?
This is stupid beyond all reason.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“I believe the government should stay out of our personal lives altogether. But should I consider everyone who votes differently than me on an issue a “dick?” What if that person has had different life experiences that led them to believe differently on an issue that you? Does that preclude them from being a good person?”
As a conservative, I say that anyone who would vote to deny basic civil rights to any group of people is, by definition, a dick.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
@Gk:
“Why is someone a dick if they vote differently than you?”
Because this is kind of a special case. Voting for Prop 8 is specifically voting to discriminate against a large group of people, in a way that has the potential to negatively impact their lives forever. That’s it. There’s no flipside; it’s not like the schools get more money or the traffic lights stay green longer or you pay less money in taxes. It is a vote at many people’s expense, but at no one’s gain. So the only reason for someone to vote for it is if they harbor ill will toward people they’ve never met and know nothing about.
Which, to me, is a pretty good definition of a dick.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
It’s a mystery to me why people get so upset about this issue. I find the ones who go on about the “sanctity of marriage” particularly funny. Do they actually know many straight married folks? There’s all kinds of twisted marriages out there between men and women.
I don’t think we have legalised same-sex marriages in Australia yet. But as I told one of my best mates, who is gay, I’d vote for it for sure. I don’t see why he and his team shouldn’t have the opportunity to suffer along with the rest of us. Or not. Bottom line is – it isn’t going to hurt anybody and might make a lot of people feel good. Who wouldn’t vote for that?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Ugh, apparently the name Tim doesn’t necessarily prevent one from being a complete prick. Tim, it’s John’s blog, and so that means he can pretty much write what he wants.
I do think the whole procreation thing is interesting. Both my sister and I have chosen not to get married, yet have at least one child (on purpose) and are in a life-long relationship with the other parent. My brother chose to get married, yet never had any kids.
A fair number of married people seem, to me, to think that married is some sort of exclusive club that elevates them above others. Allowing gays and lesbians into it makes it feel less special, somehow. We knew a couple that, despite being married less time than we had been living together, didn’t really feel our relationship mattered as much as theirs. They are now divorced and the woman confided in my `wife’ that she wished her relationship was more like ours. Again, it’s not whether it’s a man or a woman, or whether there’s a marriage certificate, or a ceremony. It’s how you approach the relationship and how much you’re willing to work at it.
By the way, John, why did your husband decide to take your name? Odd, I think considering that it’s not even your real last name. I’ve never really believed in the woman automatically taking the man’s name. It always seemed quite sexist. Although it’s a perfect opportunity to weed out the horrible last names. I say, if your last name is something like Dickout (yes, I knew one), then you take the other’s name, no matter if you are a man or a woman. Of course that didn’t work for this girl I knew when she ended up hyphenating her name when she got married to Bob Stickyer. Okay, I made up the last part.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:57 am
While I think this bill should not pass, I do have a few opinions on the matter:
1) I think this is a legislative not a judicial issue. I wish there were a bill affirming same sex marriage that got universal support.
2) To say affirming SS marriage costs nothing is erroneous; for example if a SS couple owned a house and one died the other would have to pay taxes on any inheritance; same couple but married pays no taxes (for logical reasons). So the loss of those taxes is a cost to society. Likewise, there are other financial benefits to marriage that come at the expense of the IRS and employers…giving these benefits are a cost to society.
3)While I am in favor of SS marriage; I don’t see those in opposition as ‘dicks’, well some of them are, but some have objections based on lingering stereotypes and a more traditional view of marriage. In the thousands of years of marriage this is a relatively new (in western view of marriage)concept. People will come along but calling them dicks is not a great way to help move that evolution along.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“if a SS couple owned a house and one died the other would have to pay taxes on any inheritance; same couple but married pays no taxes (for logical reasons). So the loss of those taxes is a cost to society.”
Obviously society thinks not having the taxes for the married couple is a good thing, otherwise the exception wouldn’t be made. I assume the reasoning is helping families remain stable. And that reasoning would apply to gay couples as well, especially if they have kids.
If the only thing that mattered was maximum payment of taxes, society would make spouses pay those taxes. Obviously, society values other things as well and is willing to sometimes give up some potential tax money.
And I have to say that people who vote based on “lingering stereotypes” sure seem like dicks to me. Sure, that doesn’t elevate the conversation or make an argument, but those who will be offended are the ones who likely have made up their minds and won’t be convinced by anything anyway.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Mike #27: The point you make about society creating incentives for stable families is exactly what I said above (#20). My point is that there is a ‘cost’ associated with extending marriage…I think it makes sense to extend the rights of marriage but it is a legit debate to be having; and to call people names is pretty unproductive.
On the concept of lingering stereotypes…to deny they inform your actions is to be a ‘dick’, because then you can’t transcend the deep-seated biases you have. If you believe you don’t have any negative stereotypes I defy you to take this harvard studies test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html
July 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
A person is a dick if they vote to oppress any class. Needlessly or otherwise.
GK-
The “different life experiences” you speak of are inherently apathy toward repression.
“But what if the person grew up on a cotton plantation and had a that southern value system instilled – does that make them a uncool for still owning slaves?”
…essentially what you’re asking, is for people to sympathize with their ignorance.
Sorry man… they’re dicks. And we’re not all going to read at a lower grade level for them.
Even a corporation, as a legal person has clear tax advantages that (without gay marriage) gays can’t have! How inhumane is that? You’ll treat pretend people with equality but not the fags?
But corporations can MERGE. (Which is why I’m moving to incorporate two men in another less liberal state in order to hold the first gay merger for tax purposes.) and I can tell you from personal experience that when you’re growing up within the juvenile foster care system with four million other kids that don’t have parents, and answering form questions with the phrase “I don’t have a mother” — given the opportunity, almost every single child in that system would IMMEDIATELY hold up a sign saying: “I certainly wouldn’t mind having two”.
It seems like a one sided debate… because in terms of intelligent conversation… it IS one sided.
You’re going to check one of these boxes: A) – Lets treat people equally, and open up the worlds largest untapped reservoir of potential parents for orphaned and adoptable children. - or – B) – Lets yell, “Hey, the dirty fags wanna be treated like everyone else! Equality!??? Not on my watch.”
July 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Lippy, RE: “People will come along but calling them dicks is not a great way to help move that evolution along.”
This is not an evolution. The revolution has come, and has been accepted. Hand-holding was 30 years ago. The dicks are those who have failed to evolve. They are the net-loss. They are the “special people”… they are “thinning the herd”… they are “not coming along”.
…Really. If you SERIOUSLY know someone, who is looking at an EQUAL RIGHTS issue… and figuring the dollar-to-soul cost of tax loss per person effected as a suitable judgement as to whether or not its the RIGHT THING to do… that person has bigger problems than the marriages of strangers. (Especially if they’re calculating “gay-revenue-loss” while spending 3 billion a week to bomb foreigners.)
July 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“My point is that there is a ‘cost’ associated with extending marriage…I think it makes sense to extend the rights of marriage but it is a legit debate to be having”
Sure, there is a cost, but is it more than the alternative cost of that same couple getting married outside the state, or even leaving the state and not getting tax from them at all?
And having deep seated biases doesn’t excuse being a bigot or wanting to oppress people who are different than you. It doesn’t mean a person isn’t a dick, it just explains their motive, WHY they are a dick. (and for the record, I’m not saying I don’t have biases or stereotypes…but if I did try to repress other people, I certainly would be a dick as well)
Some people opposed giving equal rights to black people and women based on lingering stereotypes and “traditional” views. Are you going to tell me those people weren’t dicks for doing that?
July 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Sythnian/Mike: I appreciate how you feel about the issue, in fact I agree with you on what the ultimate law should look like, but I couldn’t disagree with how you make it so binary….and that you would choose to label 42% of California as being ‘dicks’. We’ll never agree on that point so lets just consider the subject closed.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
You either think minorities should have the same rights as the majority, or you don’t. If that’s binary, then so be it. Either you favor treating gays as equals, or you favor treating them as inferior.
And if that means 42% of them are dicks, then 42% are dicks. 150 years ago, many people favored slavery. I would say they were all dicks as well, and I don’t see how large numbers make a difference at all.
Unfortunately, there may be a lot of dicks out there. Maybe that’s a consequence of majority populations abusing their advantage. But “lots of other people are dicks too” doesn’t excuse being a dick.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Small answers to various questions:
Mike took my name three years ago, so the whole family would have the same name. We’re the Augusts.
The procreation argument collapses under almost any scrutiny: old people, infertile people, folks who simply don’t want kids.
The California legislature has twice voted yes on same-sex marriage. It would already be the law if Schwartzenegger had signed it.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Mike: Like I said, we’ll never agree on this.
John: The procreation argument doesn’t collapse because it explains the reason marriage exists as a social construct not the condition of every marriage.
But you make a good point about the Governor vetoing the bill.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
If anything the procreation argument does more to support the notion of gay marriage than it does to oppose it.
Gay couples adopt kids. For that matter, single parents adopt kids. In some cases, they may find a mate whether it’s some one of the opposite sex or the same sex. Kids generally benefit from having two parents, and particularly when both of those parents have the rights and benefits that help keep the family stable.
But I have to agree with John, while legal protections of marriage have some basis in helping the situation of kids, there are still plenty of people who get married who either can’t have kids or don’t want to. It’s pretty insulting to them to say that marriage only exists as a social contract for the sake of kids.
It certainly does collapse as an excuse for opposing gay marriage – by that logic, why let infertile people get married? Or why not grant the rights of benefits of marriage when the first kid is born instead of when the couple gets married?
Marriage can help provide a stable family situation for any kids. But it also can help provide a stable family situation for the couple.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Mike…I think we have common ground here. I was trying to say that married parents are more alike than married non-parents…but I was also pointing out that marriage is an institution created by society to promote stable families and that the definition of marriage remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years and now it is just beginning to shift to be more inclusive. We agree that this inclusion is appropriate, I just disagree that folks who aren’t quite so far along in seeing the light are all, by definition, dicks :-)
July 31st, 2008 at 4:13 am
LippyOne, marriage as an institution wasn’t “created” to promote stable families, at least not across the board. Depending on which society you look at and at which point in time, marriage was a way of: controlling property; creating socio-political alliances; determining bloodlines and inheritance; controlling sexuality with imposed religious morality; and many other completely unromantic motivations. Our (western) culture’s idealization of children is actually a relatively new development that took root only a little over a hundred years ago. Before that, in many (western) societies children were just free (and necessary) labor for their families. Similarly, romance and marriage were separate ideas until recently. The modern idea of marriage would be completely foreign to someone living in England 200 years ago, and their idea of marriage would be unrecognizable to someone living in Japan 500 years ago. Etc. Societies have been “redefining” marriage all along.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Heather…I think there is a distinction here…marriage was created for the purpose of domesticating man, not too much doubt about that. Subsequent to that marriage was used as a means to many ends other than the original intent. When I say the definition has remained unchanged for thousands of years I mean the XX+XY definition has been a constant (in Western culture). Sure there were greek and roman examples of XY+XY marriage, but they never widely permeated the constant definition. However, it appears we are reaching a tipping point which will result in an expansion of the definition.
Other than that I agree (or don’t contest) anything you have to say.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Has “but we’ve always done it that way” or “but it’s that way by definition” EVER been a good reason to keep doing something?
You could argue that “woman” was long defined as “a female person who serves male people”.
Heck, the constitution defines slaves as being three fifths of a person.
The argument that people favoring gay marriage “are trying to redefine marriage!” holds no water.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hey LippyOne, I don’t mean to pick, really I don’t, especially as it seems that we agree that gay marriage should be legal. But what do you mean when you say marriage was “created” and for the purpose of “domesticating man?” Nobody created marriage. It evolved as a societal institution very gradually and in different ways in different cultures for a variety of reasons over a very very very long time. “Not too much doubt about that” is similarly vague — you mean you don’t have doubt or that everyone else doesn’t? I respectfully suggest you do some reading on the subject. Anthropologists and historians are almost unanimous on this point. Politicians and religious authorities would have you believe otherwise, but the evidence speaks for itself.
I get your point about male-male or female-female marriage being a recent development, though. I just don’t see what the big deal is, especially given how many times the institution has been redefined in other significant ways.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mike–Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population. The north wanted them to count as 0 persons for that purpose which would have hastened the abolition of slavery. So if slaves were counted as 1 ‘person’ as the south would have preferred then slavery might have continued longer than it did…lincoln might have never been president…but I guess that would make the constitution a more pure document in your eyes!
Heather….I think I concede :-) yes, a group of lords didn’t look down and say how do we control those crazy men…they keep making babies and running off…but I do believe that marriage was born/evolved out of various societies’ need to create stable environments for the pro-creation of the species. Further I believe that has been a common part of the reason that society, religion, etc have embraced and subsidized the institution over the years.
Mike….just because I say that’s how it has been for a long time doesn’t mean I think it should remain as such. It just means I can appreciate that some people haven’t come along to that point of view just yet. And to call them names is not a very nice thing at all (except for those who are evil about it).
August 1st, 2008 at 5:11 am
I’m going to skip most of the argument here and jump straight to the video. John you are so right – they are lovely and so charming in how they speak about each other. I love how David raises his hand to show his ring when he says “my husband,” and Andrew’s ‘angels/harps/glitter’ comment had me all teary-eyed and giggly.
I think things like this video interview help to chip away at prejudice. It’s easy to deny rights to “them” but much harder when “they” are not a nameless, faceless group but are made manifest in “this one right here” and you see, as we do on this video, their beautiful hearts.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Mr. Stead: The majority already voted for this in 2000, sans sticking it in the Constitution. A few judges reversed the will of the people.
Mr. August:
You’re a brilliant, gifted man. I am a fan. And I genuinely appreciate you as a person. But respectfully, I believe this issue for you is ultimately not about liberty, but legitimacy. An attempt at acceptance by society as a whole to recognize your relationship. Unfortunately, there is the nagging issue of morality that society still contends with.
I say I don’t believe this is about liberty because you, as a man, are perfectly free to marry 1 unmarried woman, just the same as me. As two male citizens, we enjoy exactly the same rights. Now, if I were able to marry 1 unmarried woman, and you were not, say because of your ethnicity, then there would be a problem. Thus there isn’t an inequality of the law, but of desire.
Now, as an exercise make a list of all the criteria that convinces you this relationship entitles it to be recognized by the law. Criteria like “we love each other”, “no one’s being hurt”, “consenting adults”, etc… My question of course is this.
What standard can we all agree on that says, two men/women could marry, but 5 women/1 man, brothers/sisters, or parents/adult children cannot? If you take all of the possible human coupling possibilities, what source of morality do we use to determine what is acceptable?
Why do we believe some human couplings are right and others are wrong? What is there inside us that looks at the facts of what we can do, reflects on the situation, and compels us to that which we ought to do?
Whether we wish it were so or not, there are conditions in which we can share the experience of sex with other human beings. I believe this is because it not only affects both people involved and any children, but also society as a whole.
It sounds as though you are in a monogomous relationship, which is to be applauded in itself. However, evidence suggests this is the exception rather than the rule.
Here are excerpts from an article that may provide food for thought.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/040510a.aspx
In the Netherlands, where gay marriage is already legal, the average “committed” gay relationship is lasting just 1.5 years.
So, many homosexuals insist on having it both ways. They want marriage, but without monogamy; or all the benefits of marriage, but without the permanent commitment. And that will surely have ripple effects in the heterosexual world.
You can already see it in France and other European countries that recently created civil unions to give gays something that better fits their lifestyle, something like “marriage lite,” easy to get into and out of.
But it is heterosexuals, by the tens of thousands, who are signing up for these civil unions, preferring to get the benefits of marriage without the marital vows.
And in Scandinavia, the first place where gay marriage was formally legalized, it appears it is actually helping to kill off the traditional form of marriage: a man and a woman committing for life and making babies.
Secular social scientist Stanely Kurtz said, “What we see in Scandinavia is marriage, quite literally, is dying.” He points out gay couples can’t make babies. So their Scandinavian marriages are erasing the idea that making babies and being married are all wrapped up together and inseparable.
“The result,” says Kurtz, “is that 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark are born out of wedlock, and there are some parts of Scandinavia, believe it or not, where as many as 80 percent of first-born children are born out of wedlock. And these are the most liberal districts where the acceptance of gay marriage is the highest.”
Already, many Scandinavians weren’t marrying until after their first child. Now, since gay marriage there is furthering the idea children and marriage are separate subjects, more couples are waiting to wed until after their second child.
Soon, they may just skip wedlock altogether.
Kurtz remarked, “In Scandinavia, same-sex marriage is part of a collection of factors, which first break marriage apart from the idea of parenthood and second, lead to the elimination eventually of marriage itself.”
Social historian Allan Carlson, author of “The American Way,” said, “Homosexuality, by definition, cannot create children, so it’s a trivialization of the institution.”
The U.S. is ripe to have the same thing to happen here. Already the marriage rate is down almost half from a high in the 1950s.
Five-and-a-half million American couples are deciding to just shack up rather than wed. And American women are having more than 1.3 million babies out of wedlock in the average year.
Wilson said, “When 30 to 70 percent of all children born in the United States this year will grow up with a single parent, you realize this is not a trivial matter.”
Wilson said, “No human society has ever made homosexual marriage its norm.”
But once that begins, it could snowball into legalization of just about any relationship someone wants to claim is marriage, like bigamy and polygamy. Because, if it is no longer fair to restrict marriage to one man, one woman, then how can you set any limits on it whatsoever?
For instance, Kurtz warns that advocates of polyandry, which is group marriage, have begun to use the same arguments that gay marriage advocates use.
Kurtz said, “They have all sorts of arrangements, you know, two women and three men, any kind of a combination, a kind of group marriage. And polyamorists (individuals who support multi-partner relationships and families) have already had a law case arguing that their marriages should be recognized.”
Carlson says history shows the pairing up of men and women to form families is the very cornerstone of civilization, and it is fatal for a society to weaken that bedrock of marriage by encouraging alternatives.
“It’s a way of committing societal suicide,” said Carlson, “because it winds up taking the one institution that is vital to the community’s future, and reducing it to simply another relationship.”
Wilson said, “Every human society has depended crucially on the bonding of males and females.”
In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived.
Strong families headed by faithful spouses made for bold, prosperous societies. But not one culture survived more than three generations after turning sexually permissive.
Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.
Historians say it is not surprising that societies fall at such times. As citizens fail to re-populate, as they concentrate on their own pleasures, their society weakens. The aged are left with few to defend them.
Carlson said, “When all these things happen, societies begin to shrivel and die. And it’s happened many, many times. This is how civilizations disappear.”
August 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
@A Californian:
Knock yourself out. Pull out some anecdotes and statistics you can’t document. If you’re pulling in Pitrim Sorokin, a controversial Russian sociologist who retired in 1955, to bolster your case about why Californians in 2008 can’t handle two dudes getting married, there’s not a lot I can say to convince you. Except, maybe move to the 21st Century.
Also, I don’t think you know any gay people personally. You’re writing a long response to a gay screenwriter that you don’t actually know because you have no one in your life you can have this discussion with face-to-face. If you did know any gay people, I think you’d have a hard time telling them that you don’t think they deserve the same rights you do — oh wait, they do — as long as they lie. Lies are a good basis for society.
You are in fact arguing that Britney Spears’ 24-hour marriage in Vegas has more “legitimacy” than my eight-year relationship. Which is both idiotic and insulting.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“And to call them names is not a very nice thing at all”
Funny, in the grand scheme of things, I’d think that name calling would be a relatively trivial thing compared to trying to impede the rights of others.
Or to put it more bluntly, it’s worse to act like a dick than to point out that someone is acting like a dick.
“So, many homosexuals insist on having it both ways. They want marriage, but without monogamy; or all the benefits of marriage, but without the permanent commitment. And that will surely have ripple effects in the heterosexual world.”
Homosexuals want those things? Really? From what I’ve seen the heterosexuals seem to be pretty good at wanting those things already on their own.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Mike: I couldn’t agree more. As every new generation grows more permissive toward moral boundaries with respect to sexuality, more and more heterosexuals seem to feel more obligated to keep the vows of their cell phone contract before their marriage. Britney Spears is a prime example of the ultimate end game when boundaries are tossed aside.
John: Sorry some of the stats in that article are old. Everything below the link was excerpted from it. I’ll have to do some more serious research to find recent data. I’ve also heard that domestic abuse is much higher in homosexual relationships from someone I know personally who is up on all the latest stats and research. He’s also done a lot of counseling, including in this area.
Be that as it may, this single issue doesn’t define you. You are a father, a son, a friend to many, and an extraordinary artist to all. Your work inspires me. You have so much to offer this world, and I am grateful for what you have given thus far. Thank you, for being you.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“As every new generation grows more permissive toward moral boundaries with respect to sexuality, more and more heterosexuals seem to feel more obligated to keep the vows of their cell phone contract before their marriage.”
There’s no question that people generally seem to not take marriage as seriously as a lifetime commitment as they did 50 years ago. But since that started decades before gay marriage was even discussed, much less allowed, it’s ridiculous to blame that change on gay marriage.
Gay marriage isn’t a threat to marriage. It doesn’t undermine marriage. Straight people have overwhelmingly shown that they are tearing down marriage on their own, and they’d be doing so even if gay people didn’t even exist.
Your beef isn’t with gay marriage, it’s with anyone who doesn’t take marriage as seriously as you do, regardless of their sexual orientation. And what do you care if two unmarried people living together have a kid and raise the kid together? As long as the kid has two parents, what’s the difference if those parents are married or not?
I also take issue with the odd notion that a gay man has the same rights as you since he can marry a woman.
That would be like if all religions were outlawed except for Christianity – by your logic, Jews wouldn’t have their rights infringed on because while they couldn’t practice Judaism, they could practice Christianity like everyone else.
That’s not freedom by any stretch of the imagination, it’s just insisting that everyone else behave the same as you.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Obviously, your analogy assumes gay marriage is an alternative form of marriage which I do not believe it is, hence the support to affirm the traditional understanding as the definition.
My analogy would be this. We are both American citizens with the right to vote in America for president of the United States. One of us falls in love with the culture of another country, say France, and this patriotic person decides they want to start voting in the French election. Let’s say hypothetically since the law only allows the traditional definition of a French citizen to vote for the French President, that American can’t vote in France and is only allowed to vote in America just like every other American. Should the French change their definition of a “French citizen” because an American learns to speak french and wears a funny hat?
Prop 8 isn’t outlawing your right to vote in America, it only affirms what the law already recognizes the defintion of a French or American citizen to be. At least until a few activist judges forgot what country they were in.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mike: If you are saying you are less wrong than the person you are accusing of being a ‘dick’, then maybe you are onto something. But it’s still wrong and in no way serves the purpose of advancing your argument. But if it makes you feel better then by all means go ahead.
Californian: You cite CBN…which I think is Pat Robertson’s tv network…Christianity is a great and fine religion, but in the hands of folks like Robertson it has been twisted in ways far to numerous to recount here…we have a separation of church and state in this country and with guys like Pat Robertson running around it is obvious as to the reasons why. If churches don’t want to acknowledge a certain type of marriage that is there choice, but in matters of public policy they should but out.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“your analogy assumes gay marriage is an alternative form of marriage which I do not believe it is”
That’s where we differ. You are insisting on a definition that supports your personal biases. People have long done that in order to try and make an argument where there isn’t one.
And your analogy isn’t any more valid than mine, in fact you haven’t said anything to dispute mine at all.
I’m merely saying that people should have the right to do what they want particularly when it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
You’re saying that people should have the right to do what YOU want.
Anonymous – I realize that calling people names isn’t going to further this debate (although I’m not sure what about it is “wrong”). I just don’t get why the name calling is the offensive part, as opposed to the trampling on people’s rights part.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Mike: Just because you don’t perceive or can’t quantify an immediate impact to others doesn’t mean that 1) there isn’t any impact and 2) it escapes moral consequences.
Since we obviously don’t share the same moral worldview, I would ask you this one simple question then.
What is there inside you and I that compels us to agree that a parent should not marry his son or daughter, even if that consenting child is of adult age? Would that “hurt” anyone if it were allowed? Would marrying a goat really “hurt” anyone? If not, why is it still wrong?
I look forward to your explanation.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
You haven’t quantified an impact, much less even made an argument that there is one. You can’t expect everyone to agree that there’s an impact just because you insist there is one. You haven’t demonstrated “moral consequences” either. Just because you think something is immoral.
You get married to a woman you love. Your straight neighbors get married. Your other straight neighbors don’t get married but live together and have kids. Your gay neighbors adopt a kid together. Your other gay neighbors get married.
You insist that the last one will affect marriage, but how do ANY of those things affect what happens in your house between you and your wife?
Marriage between relatives is frowned upon because if they had kids there would be genetic issues. There’s also the issue of the parent being in a position of power, so it’s a situation where “consenting” can be warped.
The notion of marrying a goat doesn’t make any sense since the goat lacks the ability to make a commitment like that. Find me a goat that can say the vows and then we’ll talk.
The argument that if we allow gay marriage, we somehow have to allow any possibility of marriage falls apart because all those hypothetical “marriages” have actual reasons why they shouldn’t happen. That’s not the case with gay marriage, there doesn’t seem to be any real argument against it beyond that it’s something that bigots don’t like.