I’ve been working for the better part of the last week on a series of arguments against California Proposition 8. More exactly, arguments that counter those of ProtectMarriage.com — the primary backer of the proposition.
I’m relatively new to California and don’t have a wide circle of friends to share my work with yet, and so I thought I would at least share it with the folks on the Dope (knowing full well that if anyone can poke my arguments full of holes, it would be this place) — in an effort to bring some cogent arguments to the table.
I’d like to request that if you think my arguments hold water, share them with others… especially those who may not have thought through the matter entirely. It’s in the form of a PDF and you can find it here. Again, if you think it has merit, feel free to download it, use it, share it, whatever.
Being pro-civil-union/anti-gay-marriage, I immediately saw a big one you left out- Institutionalizing gay marriage will make religious individuals & organizations more vulnerable to anti-discrimination laws for staying faithful to their religious convictions.
Only one tiny tiny suggestion: As a volunteer with the official No on 8 campaign, I can tell you that there has been some worry about “wrong way voting” – there are people out there who are totally in favor of same-sex marriage, but don’t realize that they should therefore vote NO on 8, because it actually takes away that right. The staff on the campaign are now even avoiding saying the ‘y’ word. So if the words “NO on 8” somehow showed up in the introduction or something, that would be cool.
Hi FriarTed! I used to hold the exact same views, so I know where you’re coming from.
I didn’t address the religious vulnerability aspect in my document because I chose to limit it to ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments, which didn’t raise this point. (Believe me, I could have easily spent months on the multitude of arguments raised, but I just didn’t have the time).
But since you asked, religious protections are not affected by gay marriage. You can find the actual language regarding this on page 117 of In Re Marriage:
I think I can expand on B. Serum’s response by pointing out the courts are ALREADY doing what you don’t want them to, and I don’t think Prop 8 will change that–that is, do you (FriarTed) think that gays getting civil unions will make courts LESS inclined to come down hard on anti-gay discrimination on whatever grounds? I don’t think the name will matter one iota, personally, and you’d be better served by lobbying for statutory definitions of what religious groups are and are not allowed to do in terms of freedom of conscience vs. discrimination cases–I don’t think that should be in the hands of the courts per se anyway. (I favor a position of “refusal of service on religious grounds is okay provided there are reasonable alternative service providers” but that’s hard to enforce–I’m trying to avoid “all the pharmacists for 100 miles refuse to dispense birth control” problem–but this is a hijack.)
If this fails we could see a very credible challenge to federal DOMA in the near future and give same sex families (like mine) the same rights under the federal government that every married couple has. That is all I want out of this, for my relationship to have the same standing before every government entity in this country that my brother and his wife have.
I’m never sure whether to laugh or cry when people say these amendments are there to ‘protect marriage’ and ‘protect families’. I just want to scream at them, THAT IS WHAT WE WANT! We want to protect our marriages and protect our families.
I had the same experience the other day. I ended up being a complete failure at counter protest. I saw a bunch of people holding up signs with the standard Yes ON 8 colors and got ready to give them a thumbs down gesture, but when I saw their signs I got confused. They said something like 8=free speech. I could not figure it out and thought am I supposed to be for or against free speech… I ended up not giving a thumbs up or thumbs down I couldn’t figure how a vote for 8 equals free speech. Bare in mind I am not terribly stupid and was driving by fairly quickly but still I failed…I made up for it by going to get a No on 8 and putting it on my car.
It is tricky, I mean you would think a yes vote would mean to allow gay marriage…
I can’t believe how close this issue is going to be in California aren’t we supposed to be a bunch of hippies?
As for the OP I don’t think this is an issue that can be affected by reasoned argument. People react on a gut level.
I totally agree that people react on a gut level. But I think those gut level feelings are borne out of ignorance. I hope* — maybe naively so — that once informed, that an honest person will feel lousy (there’s that gut again)‚ about voting against something they know is false.
Now our signs are safely taped to the insides of our kitchen and garage windows (please disregard the green waste bin – that’s not where it belongs). . .
Didn’t have time to read everything, but what I read looks good. I have one thing to add in the domestic partnerships section. If they were actually the equivalent of marriage, there would be no desire for gay people to be married. Since those most affected see the difference, we should believe them.
There is no “will”. Same-sex marriage (not “gay marriage”) is already legal in California and Proposition 8 would do nothing to protect the freedom of faithful bigots to practice their bigoted religious views. Churches, for example, already have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason (or no reason at all), and that will not change. Private schools are, and shall remain, free to teach that some people should not have the right to marry the people they love. California public schools currently have no curriculum regarding marriage of any sort and will not be required to adopt any, nor will Proposition 8 stop them from doing so.
The official wording of Proposition 8 is (I’m paraphrasing here): “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be recognized as valid in California.” The text of this amendment to the California constitution does nothing to protect the freedom of any religious group–it only takes away the freedom of a portion of our population to marry the person they love. By the way, plenty of religions (Tao Buddhism, for example) are in favor of same-sex marriage; why should your religion’s view be established as the official one, and theirs disregarded? Is that not an establishment of official religion by the government? Should religious freedom really only cut one way?
That’s the insane part of all this–the very group that claims to “protect marriage” is the only mainstream political movement in California which is actually actively campaigning to directly destroy marriages and families.
Same-sex marriage (not “gay marriage”) is already legal in California.
I can’t find the picture now, but I saw a wonderful report of a woman who spray painted the obama logo into her lawn after her sign got stolen. A bit harder to steal :).
I wonder how many sign thieves are stupid teenagers v politically motivated vandals.
