It's absolutely fair. I guaranty the anti-Prop 8 people spent just as much. And, again, 80% of the electorate in California came out to vote. John McCain lost California by wide margin. Turnout was huge on the side that would typically be ANTI-Prop 8. The LDS spending thing is a red herring. Seven million people voted for; six million voted against. Why would you automatically assume that the seven million were mind-altered and the six million were not? A majority of voting voters spoke.
I think there is inadequate data on what the effect has been, but it is also true that the birth rate in such states is lower than here. Is there any connection? The fact is you don't know.
I'd agree with that bold part. Just to clarify - there are 17.3 million total registered voters; 7 million voted in favor (52% of the votes cast, and 40% of the all registered voters), 6.4 million against, and the remaining 4 million or so didn't vote. NOT voting is absolutely a democratic choice also. Some fools even try to make not voting out to be some sort of cutting edge political statement. But even if it's just sloth, it's a democratic choice. So, I'd flip it around and say that 11 million voters didn't want gay marriage in California. Popular vote isn't lily-white and pristine. I'm not saying that. The trick isn't to find out the true will of the majority. The trick is to get more people to the polls to cast a legal vote for your own cause. Imperfect as it is, it's still the fairest process available.
I actually stated that I didn't think a heavy proportion either side was actually being rational about it: Being 'cool', 'trendy', and 'progressive' were absolutely terrible reasons that were given by people on the other side. Even more reason why it never should have been a public vote. Forgive me for thinking that both sides need a damned good reason to determine what is and isn't a right for a minority group. As far as the effect of changing 'the basic social construct', I'd like to hear what you think it is. If you mean the family, gays are already free to adopt or use surrogates in order to have children. The fact is, I don't know very many gays who are actually interested in HAVING children. That includes a couple that's been committed to each other for 17 years now. If it's the state of marriage, I'd argue marriage is already in shambles. 50% divorce rates on first marriages attest to that. I'd suggest the highest rates of successful marriages may be found when looking within the context of church communities, most of whom wouldn't be performing or recognizing gay marriages anyway. I'm not sure that marriage would change at all for them. And yet that's precisely what the California Legislature DID propose, and pass. It WAS made a rights issue, and that determination was then given to the people. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the voters were allowed to decide whether marriage is a right that gays are entitled to. Last I checked, that deprivation of minority rights is precisely why our founding fathers placed restrictions on voting and instituted a republic instead of a democracy. Which they were allowed to do under a voter backed measure. I'm not sure how this applies to the passed legislation legalizing gay marriage which surely didn't have the same personal benefit for most of California's state legislators. Now, granted the people were lied to about the implications of that measure. So were voters of Prop 8. My parents belong to one of the largest churches in Southern California. They, and other members of that church, received calls from a Mormon call center in Utah (call centers which were subsequently shut down after their impropriety was pointed out, but not until after they had done months of damage). My father was appalled by the things said in the conversation. He was told that, if Prop 8 were denied, his pastors would be thrown in prison for refusing to perform gay marriage. His schools would be forced to include lessons on gay marriage in the state curriculum in elementary school (my mother, a 4th grade teacher, laughed at this given that marriage in ANY form isn't found in the curriculum). And the kicker? That studies have shown that his children would have a 200% greater chance of being gay. Here, BTW, everyone mismanages the budget. Voters, legislators...It's why we're dying. We voted for a governor in the recall election who smashed cars and promised to "surround himself with people who know how to govern" rather than the smart conservative candidate who could have made an impact.
By that token, the fairest thing to do would have been to leave anti-miscegenation laws on the books in states where they were popular, yes?
No, because race enjoys special treatment under the Constitution. That's one choice that government almost never gets to make.
But homosexuals aren't a legally recognized minority, and that's the whole point. If we want to make them a protected minority class, then fine; but the sensibilities of ONE judge over the sensibilities of an entire community is just about the LEAST fair way to do that. This is what happens when we treat concepts like “equal protection” like they rode down from the land of rainbows on the backs of unicorns. Equal protection is a legal concept. It doesn’t mean fairness for everyone, because the law ISN’T fair to everyone. Nor do we want to be. We want the law to make choices, and we ask that they not make them at the expense of any constituency (e.g. gays) without some rational reason. You can’t say that there’s NO rational reason for wanting to maintain M-W marriages (althought that’s the leap that Judge Walker took). There is. I can give you several. Government mismanages whatever it touches. That's what happens when you put idiots - but popular idiots - in charge of making policy for society. I hate it. But since we'll never have any perfect way to do things, the best we can hope for is an evenly spread bunch of bad.
And most divorced people remarry, and gays want to marry (although imo for a different reason, but...) and most people still get married. That we fall short of the ideal does not mean we should stop trying. Life in general is a sisyphean enterprise, anyway, isn't it? The fact that homosexuals can adopt or have children through surrogates is beside the point. It is not irrational for society to prefer that children born to their natural parents have in place a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. Marriage is the setting within which this can and, with the effect of what subsidiesand other forms of encouragement exist, tend hopefully to lead to more children than not being born into and raised within such arrangement. That btw is an entirely sufficient rational basis for restricting marriage to one between a man and a woman. Although there are others.
Are you still stuck on this ridiculous idea that gay marriage would encourage homosexuality, and that not permitting gay marriage will somehow encourage more heterosexual marriage? Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of children growing up in heterosexual homes.
Because then you Brits will lose any pretense at heterosexuality and become completely untethered from tradition......
I absolutely agree that society should prefer that children born to their natural parents have a recognized social arrangement available and encouraged. I'm not sure how gay marriage threatens that. Gays obviously aren't capable of reproduction all on their lonesome, and I doubt you'll see mainstream society start pushing for children to be raised by gay parents simply because they're allowed to marry. I know I sure as hell wouldn't. Of course, the only gay people I personally know who want children are the ones who had children in straight marriages. Personally, I consider gay parent households an exception, just like the poor heterosexual parents to which IATA referred. They're not a threat to the system, nor would they ever become the norm. Unless you're planning to give said incentives only to people with an intention and ability to conceive, I'm not sure why the exception of gay marriage is so threatening.
And when it was first awarded special treatment under the Constitution, it was a decision that overruled popular opinion in many states which were forced to accept it in order to return to the Union. It certainly wasn't left up to popular decision to make that determination, nor should it have been. That's why I have a problem with the antiquated law that allows Californian voters to change the state Constitution in such a way.
ultimately, the issue is whether society has a right to determine whether a certain behavior is acceptable in the society and whether it should be promoted or endorsed, and the civilians of that society certainly should be permitted to participate in that decision unless their decision is such an egregious violation of standing law. the motive becomes irrelevant as long as it doesn't violate established law. in this case it doesn't because the federal government does not recognize sexual orientation worthy of being protected against such discrimination. let's not forget that this is not an absolute, the rules permitted to citizens of the U.S. are artificially constructed by man to create the society man prefers to live in. thus, discrimination is not a violation of any absolute rights, and the U.S. has already set forth conditions that allow or disallow discrimination to certain groups. sexual orientation is not seen as warranting protection. that's where the change needs to occur if there is to be any.
I have no problem with gay marriage myself, I just don't understand how one unelected judge can overturn something that was voted on by 10 million or so people. Why have the vote at all?
I never said that. Perhaps someone else did, but it was not me. Gay marriage may reduce the percentage of children who grow up in a heterosexual household, but that's a different assessment.
