On that Proposition 8 Ruling

IN a ruling that surprised only that guy who recently woke up from a 20 year coma, the ultra-left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of a gay lower court judge (Whose orientation had no bearing on his ruling. None. Don’t even go there now) that Californians don’t have the right to define marriage in a way that offends the gay rights advocates.

Interestingly the ruling is predicated on the fact that Californians had previously extended civil unions to gays in such a way that gave gay couples marriages in every way but the official label.

So it seems the takeaway from this is if a state’s citizens want to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, they should avoid giving gay couples any official sanction at all.

Advertisements

6 Responses to On that Proposition 8 Ruling

  1. James says:

    So Walker should have recused himself? Is this because you believe all heterosexuals have no bias regarding gay marriage either way? That’s an interesting premise given the sense of urgency in banning gay marriage seen amongst Prop 8 supporters. If it’s no big deal either way, what’s all the fuss about in the first place?

    The problem with Prop 8, as I understand it, is that it would roll back some of the provisions already in place for gay couples, especially out-of-state couples whose marriage were recognized by their home state (among other things).

    Look, opponents of gay marriage are effectively saying “We are not providing a marriage license to you because we don’t think you should be raising children as a family together.” That’s the strongest argument they can muster. The problem is that these same people seem to not take issue with granting marriage licenses to any heterosexual couple, regardless of their history. So sure, the guy was once convicted of rape and grand theft and is a chronic drug abuser and his girlfriend is on welfare and is bipolar. Hey, at least they’ve got opposing sets of genitals, right? It’s not the place of government to determine parental capacity … at least as it concerns heterosexuals, I guess.

    We grant marriage licenses to all sorts of couples: many of whom would make miserable parents by any stretch of the imagination, some of whom can’t have children … others don’t want to. Why? It’s because we recognize the value of long-term committed relationships for both the couple in question and society at large.

    It’s not just about the children.

  2. Justin says:

    So because some marriage licenses are granted to people who should probably not be getting married, we should therefore extend the availability to even more people who should not be getting married? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.

    And not all homosexuals are great parents, either. There have been several cases where homosexual parents have talked a child, at unbelievably young ages, into being “gender confused”, even to the point of putting the child on hormone suppressing drugs until the child “can decide what sex it wants to be”. That’s child abuse.

    Again, I don’t see the logic behind your argument, James.

  3. James says:

    No, Justin, I’m just asking why no one’s suggested requiring background checks for heterosexual couples who apply for marriage licenses. You say you want to provide suitable homes for children and that the purpose of marriage is to do just that, then what’s wrong with requiring that marriage licenses have at least the same requirements as an employer seeking to hire someone: you can’t have any prior convictions for pedophilia, rape, sexual assault, spousal abuse, etc. You must take a drug test. Again … no one who “supports traditional marriage” has suggested that. Why?

    Further, while it’s true that some gay parents will be awful parents, many are not, statistically. You’re also getting your “LGBT” issues mixed up. As a gay man, I can assure you I LIKE being a male. There’s nothing effeminate about me. I don’t lisp or prance around in gold bikinis. I’m in the gym five days a week and look more like a hockey player than anything else. Apparently your only exposure to gays is on the news coverage of the pride parades? (Frankly … I don’t want the transgender issues lumped in with gay rights. It’s an entirely different subject matter.)

    This all comes down to letting people protect the relationships with those they care about. Granting a marriage license to a couple doesn’t imply they’ll will be great parents. It does, however, increase the likelihood that they’ll be better parents and even better people than they would have been as bachelors. Relationships are a stabilizing and strengthening influence in our lives, especially where there is commitment and fidelity. It benefits the individuals involved as well as society as a whole.

  4. Justin says:

    Asking why no one is suggesting background checks is simply a red herring.

    But to address it anyway, lots of people have children without getting married. So denying them a marriage certificate won’t necessarily prevent a man and a woman from producing offspring anyway.

    I don’t think I’m getting issues “mixed up”. Just relaying a disturbing incident that has actually happened more than once. Your initial post was to denegrate some heterosexual couples in order to argue for gay marriage, and I was just responding to that argument. It has nothing to do with my exposure to homosexuals.

    And nobody is arguing whether or not two homosexual people can be in a committed relationship as you argue is beneficial in your last paragraph. The argument is whether the state has to recognize it as such. Nothing is stopping you from having a ceremony or living with another man in a committed relationship. The issue is whether the rest of society should be forced to recognize it as “marriage”. So I’m not seeing how your last paragraph is relevant, either.

  5. Mike D says:

    The issue, Justin, is that “marriage” carries with it a litany of state and federal incentives which even “civil unions” do not have.

    Deny reality all you wish, but decades of research has proved that children raised by gay couples are not only every bit as emotionally well-adjusted as children raised by straight couples, but they are statistically no more likely to be gay either:

    http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.short

    http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

    In lesbian homes, a study out of UCLA found the rate of abuse to be 0%:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

    Face up to it: you’re only opposed to gay rights because your peculiar and particular interpretation of a book full of bronze-age myths tells you that gays are to be feared and marginalized. Your views have absolutely nothing to do with science or reason and are in fact antithetical to both.

  6. Justin says:

    I am not denying statistics, nor affirming the ones you cite. I’ve found that when these types of issues are subjected to “studies”, results are often too easily trumpeted without much examination of underlying methods or assumptions.

    My point was that the attack on heterosexual marriage as a logical argument to support allowing gay marriage was logically invalid.

    And yes, there are incentives, to a certain extent, for marriage. Some legal, some financial. There are also disincentives in certain instances.

    But that all boils down to the issue of “fairness”, if I understand your argument. Funny, but being a supporter of subjective moral values, you of all folks should see how ironic that is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: