Lesbians Are Cool, and Straights Are Fools
David Weigel | July 18, 2008, 5:41pm
California's
ballot measure to ban gay marriage is failing.
The Field Poll survey firm found 51 percent of voters oppose the measure, which proposes an amendment to the state's constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and woman, while 42 percent were in favor.
The biggest measure of how the marriage issue has faded is, I think, the lack of interest in this California measure. Go back and read media clips from this point in 2004: it was like firecrackers had been placed under every church pew in America. Yet California opposition to gay marriage has dropped 20 points in eight years (61 percent voted to define marriage as one-man-one-woman in 2000) and, eh, the
"Protect Marriage" folks seem lost. Initiative supporters have raised $2.3 milion in a state where the last serious contested statewide race (the 2004 Senate race) cost about $22 million.
Headline explained
here.
BG | July 21, 2008, 1:51am | #
You simply have to come up with a different argument than equal protection. Everyone has equal rights to enter into a "sham marriage" with any unmarried, non-close relative, opposite sex consenting adult of their choice. Or not.
Suppose a state passed a law holding that no marriage between adults of the same hair color may be married, or have their marriage recognized, in that state. Would you consider that a violation of equal protection? Or how about past laws that prohibited individuals of different races from marrying?
Or how about this: Would it violate equal protection if, for a state civil service exam, all candidates were required by law to write with only their right hand? Left-handed and right-handed candidates are equally allowed to take the test, as long as they fill in the scantron with their right hands.
Maybe you don't think so. If one construes "equal protection" very narrowly, it is possible for a state to have such laws on the books while technically not violating this principle (though one could still hold that such laws are unjust and irrational, but not unconstitutional). I would argue, however, that it is desireable (not sure whether it is constitutionally required) for public policy to adhere to a broader principle of equal rights. When the government creates a program or legal status, the criteria for benefiting that program or legal status should be based on a legitimate government purpose; and nobody should be excluded from benefiting on an equal basis for any other reason.
The legal status of "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever putatively exists to make benefits available of which many people in romantic relationships would likely want to avail themselves (examples: easier naturalization of a foreign spouse, and not having to fill seperate out paperwork for inheritence, property arrangements, medical visitation, etc.). Because this is putitively romantic in nature, adulterous behavior on the part of one spouse can affect the distribution of assets in a divorce case.
So we have this legal situation which benefits people in long-term romantic relationships (if they want). But same-sex relationships are excluded, to the detriment of some people whose preference is such relationships. The question I ask is "Is providing benefits to one type, but not the pther type, of relationship reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose?". My answer is "No", and therefore I oppose such a discrepentcy.
BG | July 21, 2008, 5:50pm | #
Your answer is "no." My answer is "yes." I think your answer is unreasonable. Can you think of any ways a marriage between two people of the same hair color is different from a marriage of two people of the same sex?
The only thing I could think of is the fact that the former can generally reproduce while the latter can not. I answered this argument in the "They Blamme Gay Marriage" thread, and I'll repost my answer here:
"The canard: "Nearly all heterosexual marriages produce children, which benefits society.", or some version of it, gets thrown around a lot.
1 - It must be asked: Doesn't reproduction only benefit society up to a certain point? In a country (and a world) where overpopulation looms as a potential problem on the horizon; don't we need to re-examine the idea that we should provide public rewards for producing offspring? After all, people are already inclined to engage to do so often enough, and too many offspring could be problematic. And if it is desirable to have a greater number of people in the country, (if not on the planet), couldn't that be largely taken care of by a more open immigration policy?
2 - Lets say it is desirable to reward increasing the population, and that is the reason for extending legal benefits to straight married couples. Why extend those benefits to infertile couples, or those that chose not to reproduce? And why not allow same-sex couples those benefits if they intend to adopt a child from a third-world country, or an overburdened state foster care system? These acts don't increase the number of people in the world. But the former increases the number of people in the country, and the latter reduces the obligations of the state. Also these acts of adoption are generally recognized laudable when performed by married straight couples. So why not allow gay couples to marry - and receive the same legal treatment for performing the same actions?
3 - If the reason for extending benefits to straight couples is not about bearing or raising children, but instead it is some other reason, why not allow gay couples to have access to the same benefits? As a matter of equal legal rights, they should be allowed to marry and be treated the same."
The logical extention of your reasoning is that laws with same-sex marriage are still to the detriment of some people whose preference is no such long-term relationships. Single people are not being equally protected. I don't think that is a problem, but it is a logical snag in your reasoning.
See my above comment regarding tax benefits and other benefits (12:13, July 20). As for the naturalization benefit; if you don't have a long term romantic parter from a foreign country, then you can hardly complain that this non-existent person is not being granted the opportunity to obtain a quick green card.
