The faulty logic behind Proposition 8
Supporters of amendment contradict themselves by saying marriage strengthens society, then seeking to deny right to same-sex couples
For all the moral outrage expressed by the defenders of Proposition 8, they fail to see the biggest contradiction.
Their main premise is that legalizing marriage between same-sex couples will somehow undermine the fabric of society.
I have yet to see an argument by these folks on exactly how this will happen, but let me take a shot at it.
It seems that in the eyes of these folks, marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. I would assume the logic follows that by codifying a relationship and giving it legal status, you affirm and strengthen the bond between the two partners, providing a legal contract that assures the welfare of children of the couple and thus assuring future generations’ stability. The moral underpinnings of this would be that a legally sanctioned coupling is preferable to promiscuous illicit sex.
That said, here comes the paradox. The act of sex between consenting adults of the same gender is affirmed by both the U.S. Supreme Court and California law. Hooray! Yet that same state’s law allows the very act it permits to be considered illicit and by nature immoral. So on one hand the law permits illicit sexual behavior and on the other hand it prevents those people engaged in it from entering into a contract where that activity would be moral and sanctioned.
Now before you get too outraged, I find the whole thing a bit strange. Personally, I do not think the government has any business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, married or otherwise. The other problem is that in my book, "marriage" is a religious sacrament and the government has no business, as per the Constitution, meddling in religion. If for legal reasons the government must sanction relationships, then the instrument of a civil union should suffice for everyone and "marriage" should be left in the church.
So what does this leave us with? Well, not surprisingly, the moral outrage of the right wing is once again based on faulty logic and a carefully "cherry-picked" reading of reality. If Prop 8 supporters were really concerned about society, they would applaud efforts to codify relationships for the benefit of the couple involved and their children.
Giving legal status to same-sex relationships strengthens society as a whole and benefits not just the couple but their families. It allows property to be passed down to children and gives rights to spouses regarding important life decisions. Without these rights and benefits, society as a whole is weaker and less stable.
Now, in reality, I know the supporters of Prop 8 would never consider any of these arguments. It is not in their nature to look beyond their own narrow field of view. But perhaps lawmakers might see the light and take steps to help level the playing field for all citizens.
I suggest starting with a revamping of the entire concept of governmentally sanctioned "marriage."
At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist, let’s put marriage back in the church where it belongs.
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can subscribe to Dallas Voice by e-mail address to receive news and upates directly in your inbox. Simply enter your e-mail below and click Sign Up!
MORE STORIES
News Archive
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Hmmmmmm, you have an intresting point here BUT lets take it a bit further.
You know that we have other kinds of churches besides christian churches and even within some branches of christianity, same sex marriage is seen as being ok SO why not allow each church to define what the word “marriage” means as according to their own spiritual and/or religious beliefs ?
We can take all of the legal benefits and costs associated with marriage and just move it over into the civil union arena thereby giving couples the option of either having a civil union and a marriage or just one or the other depending on what their individual needs are.
Reverend Boony….I think the whole concept here was to separate Church & State. State gives civil unions to any couple wishing to make the commitment. The church can do the marriage thing. Simple and clean. There are massive churches happy to perform same sex marriages and plenty of other churches that do not support same sex marriages. Would it be so wrong just to attend the church where you wish to be. Most people already do. It just seems that the religion really wants to take the tax exempt status…yet….put their arm into the running of the government based on their specific moral views. Can you say “double standard”.
The faulty logic of the Dallas Article – the primary reason for marriage is to provide for procreation and the family unit for raising children. Children do best with a mother and a father. Countless studies prove this fact. Few studies have ever been done on same-sex parenting…as you would expect. It makes perfect sense to extend marriage to heterosexual couples unable to conceive because when the questions is “what is best for the young,†it is proper to extend the general rule (heterosexual marriage) beyond the principle purpose (procreation).
Enough Now, I don’t know where you found your research. But obviously, you didn’t do a lot. More than a few studies have been done on same-sex parenting. The most conclusive study was done out of England (the Golombok study). Children, half raised by straighy parents and half raised by gay parents, were followed for an average of 14 years – from their infancy to their adulthood. The study concluded taht there was no variation in the children with regards to their intelligence, social skills, orientation, abilties, or anything else. In addition, Redbook magazine did a summary of over a hundred studies done on children raised by gay parents. Only one study found that there was a difference in these childred as compared to children raised by heterosexuals. This one study was interviews with teachers. The teachers said that children raised by gay parents tended to be more accepting of other children who were different. Also, the teachers said that children from gay families tended to play the protective role in the playground, standing up for those who were being bullied.
The problem I have with those who are against same-sex marriage is that they cannot provide a logical answer. If these zealots truly wanted to “strengthen society and save the sanctity of the sacred institution of marriage,” they would fight to outlaw divorce, make adultery a punishable crime, and ban all these shows that make a mockery of their “sacred instiution” (e.g., Wife Swap, The Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire). Also, there would have been an outrage when the article in the Dallas Morning News appeared about the 9-year old girl with leukemia who wanted to get married so her family gave her a wedding. Oh, that’s really sacred.
No matter how you spin it, it’s about discrimination.
I’m a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church which supports same-sex marriage. And I personally believe marriage, both heterosexual unions and same-sex ones, are a sacrament from God. That said, though, I do not believe that marriage “belongs to the church.†This is for a number of obvious reasons – first and foremost that such a statement quickly begs the question, “Which church?†Can only Protestants and Catholics get married? What about Buddhists, Muslims, or Mormons? Whose faith gets to govern American or California law? Moreover, obviously millions of non-religious folks enter into marriages, and for us or anyone to say that they cannot call their unions “marriages†(whether heterosexual or same-sex) is just ridiculous. For a very long time, marriage has been as secular a concept as it is a religious one. We might as well then make a law that says only Christians can celebrate Christmas. Everyone else, well, you’re not allowed to participate. As much as the Church would like to “own†certain concepts, it just can’t. Let religious folk celebrate sacraments the way they desire, and for God’s sake, allow everyone else to do so as well. Equality for all.
The first church was the Roman Catholic church. Christianity as we know it started in AD 325 in Rome, by the fall of the Roman empire they were so powerful they had their say in who was going to be king, the kings had to be converted to Catholicism, with ups and downs they remained in power till 1789 and the French revolution, then everything was turned over to a secular government, each newborn had to be reported to the town hall before been baptized, same for marriage. In France and Belgium one needs a marriage license delivered by the town hall before going to church and I believe it’s the same in California. One can also check out Ben Franklin’s role in the French revolution, or the role of the church in the marriage business in medieval times as most of the people couldn’t get married due to lack of money, most of the marriages were arranged affairs with business contracts also “sanctified” by the church.
The churches should be ashamed of spending so much money on a ridiculous subject as men marrying men when everyday God makes decent folks are thrown on the streets and forced to live in tents
Hello Sean….we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious value. That is exactly why I said that I feel that marriage should be strictly administered by the church of choice and get the government out of the marriage business completely. There is no reason to “govern” what the church does. Every denomination and belief his it’s own rules. They govern themselves as it should be..freedom of religion. Let everyone get a civil union/domestic partnership from the government. Then if they wish to marry…find a church of choice and marry. This would be the ultimate equality. No religion should rule the rights of the people through the government and no government should dictate to the church on how they run their church.
Jerry, I see your point of view completely, and I can’t say that I disagree with it. Your logic makes perfect sense to me. That said, good luck getting support for this idea from most Californians, let alone Texans or Americans at-large. The fact is, the word “marriage†is entrenched in our culture, both religious and secular. The initiative in the works to strip “marriage†from California law and governance and replace it with “domestic partnership†makes logical sense to me, but will likely face less support than was shown for the pitifully mismanaged No on Prop 8 campaign. I believe this is definitely the wrong way to go. Gays and lesbians are already being falsely accused of destroying or trying to destroy marriage. Taking “marriage†out of the realm of government will only give support to these accusations. To put it another way, if we say, “Since gays can’t have their marriages recognized by the law, then no one should – leave it to the churches,†then we’ve really given fodder for the argument that gays have ruined it for everybody. Politically, I just don’t think this the direction we need to go for mainstream acceptance.
Also, Jerry, in response to your statement that “we are in agreement in that marriage has a religious valueâ€: This is only partly true. It has a religious value to ME. To many people, both straight and gay, the word marriage has no religious value at all, yet still the word and concept carry with them a tremendous amount of meaning anyway. We should not impose a strict religious value on a word and concept that has inherent secular value as well.
OR…
We could stop all of this BULLSHIT and DEMAND equal rights NOW.
Enough is ENOUGH.
I don’t believe that the Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8.
Apparently their own political agendas are more important to them than the equality promised to EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN in our Constitution.
Watching the hearings only displayed that these judges don’t have anywhere NEAR the amount of courage it would take to stand up for JUSTICE.
They will uphold Prop 8. But I believe they will also keep the 18,000 marriage performed intact.
And so begins lawsuit after lawsuit in the state of California.
It only leaves me wondering…
The American Heterosexual. Such an odd creature. They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage. Yet most of their public schools can’t even afford books for the students.
They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage. And yet, our divorce rate, particualrly among the ‘religious’ continues to soar over 50%.
They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage.
And yet NEVER has ANY initiative been on a ballot restricting the way 50%+ of them abuse and degrade the institution of marriage.
They spent nearly 50 million ‘protecting’ marriage.
And yet, NO religious group is pouring money into Propositions that would remove rights of Heterosexuals to abuse each other, cheat on each other, marry each other at the Vegas drive-thru for 24 hours before divorcing.
So I ask the American Heterosexual this:
How do you expect to ‘protect marriage’ against ‘the gays’ when you don’t even protect it from YOURSELVES.
The American Heterosexual’s hypocrisy is PALPABLE across this nation.
To Sean, all good points…and we both seem to be looking for logic and at some point..understand. Unfortunately..don’t think it will happen from the other side. Chris pretty much says it all… Equal Rights Demand Now. I am over asking for tolerance.. I am an American Citizen, California Resident and former active Vet…so I’ve earned my right to Equality in state and federal…as we all have at birth! Good luck guys. Stay involved and fight the good fight…I’m on of the 18,000 married prior to Nov 4th…and still in the streets fighting for all of us. Courage Campaign is a great place to go to get involved.
Jerry and Chris, we have so much to agree upon. We are clearly on the same side of this issue, even if our tactical ideas may differ.
I do think, though, that time is on our side. I’m not quite saying that we should just wait it out and let patience be our guide; clearly, action is needed, and the time is now. But public opinion will be in our favor in a relatively short amount of time. Keep your eyes on the prize, all… We shall overcome, that is for sure.
And Jerry, in particular: Thank you for continuing to fight the good fight. Thank you for your service to this country. And thank you for continuing to fight for all of us even as you are one of the lucky 18,000 to attain marriage equality prior to Nov 4th. I pray that your marriage is upheld, as I’m sure it will be. Congratulations and many thanks from this fellow Californian.
Equality is nigh, y’all. Let’s continue to think critically, fight vehemently, and strategize wisely. God bless you.
Being gay is based on the decisions a person chooses to make in his or her life. The government should not make special laws for gays since these people choose their own actions. The world is facing bigger problems than to be caught up with a bunch of complaining gays. Gays don’t deserve any special rights simply because they choose to practice abominable sex acts.
Oh Sammy…. When did you choose to be straight? Get a clue! You have no idea how many young boys and girls never live to be young men and young women..because they discover that they are not straight and take their own lives rather than face their friends, family and hateful people. I guess “you” might say that they made two bad choices. Sammy….a little research can make a big difference. Don’t be stupid….that is a choice!
Once again, the religious right confuse sanctity with sanctimonious.
Apparently I am not the only one to espouse this solution:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
It gets even worse than that. As a gay person I’ve had to stock up on come-backs to the atrocious accusations made by religious zealots and hatemongers, including the “When did you choose to be straight?” mentioned by Jerry J. However I have found out that preachers in my area have been telling their congregations that they did indeed choose to be straight, since “God gave them free will.” I think my brain died a little when I heard about this. How the hell do you respond to this kind of brainwashing? I have no doubt this will turn out fine in the end. I mean there was a time when the Powers That Be wanted to ban interracial marriage, and even before that was a time when women and “persons of color” (that term doesn’t make much sense to me since white is a color too, but I digress) were also second-class citizens. Acceptance will come, it always does, but it’s gonna be a long hard road getting there. And guys, be careful of flamers or trolls, in reference to the Internet variation. They like to post volatile comments on things like this, not because it’s their real opinion but because they get a jolly when people get pissed off and post an angry reply. You have been warned.
And one more short soapbox moment. Marriage may have once been religious, but no longer. You can go to the local county clerks offices, or something similar depending on your area, and have the ceremony performed by a Justice of the Peace without ever having anything religious mentioned. Marriage is, and has been for quite a while, a contract between two people and the state. It is a government institution, not a religious one. I know it’s been said before, but some people don’t hear it the first time.