Voting on “civil rights”
CommentsA Web user responding to one of my arguments in favor of the California Marriage Protection Act wrote, “Allowing a majority of the people to decide the civil rights of a minority through a popular vote is simply bad policy. Should we have allowed the majority to vote on whether segregation should be ended or not?”
Actually, yes.
But allow me to explain: the reason defenders of man-woman marriage are pushing a vote on same-sex marriage is that is the only way a constitutional decision by the California Supreme Court can be overturned. A unanimous vote by the 120 members of the legislature, along with the governor’s vigorous approval, would change nothing without a vote of the people. Supporters of “marriage equality” can hardly complain that the system is unfair given that none of them objected to the process before the Supreme Court decision, and many of them voted for liberal California constitutional amendments in recent years on environmental, anti-smoking, education, and other issues.
I certainly feel that defenders of segregation in 1954 should have been allowed to introduce a Constitutional amendment overturning Brown v. Board of Education. That decision, which was one of the moral high points of the 20th century, had no special status that made it permanent. I definitely would have fought them, but if segregationists had convinced two-thirds of Congress and the Senate - and the state legislatures in 38 states - to pass a Segregation Amendment to the Constitution, what should have stood in their way?
A Super-Decider who gets to overrule constitutional amendments that aren’t consistent with his values would be the mark of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
The fact that California has a popular vote to amend its Constitution whereas the U.S. has a more complicated process is an accident of history, not a plot against gays.
The people crying foul that someone is trying to amend “their rights” should think about the Dred Scott case. That 1856 decision ruled that a white man had a property right to “own” an African-American. Do today’s complainers about the California amendment think Dr. John Emerson could have legitimately complained about people trying to amend his rights through the 1865 votes on the Thirteenth Amendment? Because contrary to popular opinion, it wasn’t the Civil War or even the Emancipation Proclamation that abolished slavery in the United States. It was the Thirteenth Amendment.
There has to be a process under which the people and/or their elected legislators can overrule constitutional decisions they don’t agree with. The process does carry the risk that good decisions may be overturned, yes, but that means bad decisions can be, too. I don’t want to live in a state where four justices (or a country where five justices) can have the absolute last word about important issues relating to the way we live.
Finally, while “marriage equality” advocates have the right to claim there is a civil right to same-sex marriage, very few experts agree with them. The Supreme Court has never recognized a federal right to “marry” a member of the same sex, and gay and lesbian groups have actively fought lawsuits seeking such a right, because they know they would likely lose. Massachusetts has a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and there will be one for about 4.5 months in California, at which point the people will decide whether that right should cease. The other 48 states provide no state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. And what is the opinion of the civil rights phenomenon of the century? “I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” said U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when running for the Senate four years ago.
Wow… I’m impressed. I found some one in the gay community that is of at leas a similar mind. It has seemed to me that the court in California wrong about the approach to equal rights. When American courts seek gender equity and racial equity, it seems they often specifically consider differences in race and gender to accommodate integration and to “level the playing fields.” It’s America. There is no reason that we cannot embrace our diversity.
I’m also distressed because it seems like whether or not the court was well intentioned, they seem to be trying to “steal” rights they feel same sex couples “deserve.” They’re judges for pity sake. Finally, I’m very troubled that the legal chicanery of “redefining” marriage is so threadbare that most intelligent people will see it as forcing others into outright lies. This last part troubles me the most, because if a government can force people to lie or to do what they perceive to be lying, what else can they get away with?
I’m really getting tired of reading and responding to these idiotic, slanted and almost dishonest posts, so this will probably be my last one.
First of all, you responded to me, David, in a previous post about me (Gay man) not having a Federal Constitutional right to marry. Neither do straights. The Constitutions both Federal and State say that powers of government are limited, the states retain the power for all things NOT specifically mentioned. And for the hundredth time, the state or fed has to have a compelling reason to butt into people’s private lives.
Many state laws did not even say marriage was a man and woman. This is reasonable of course, because “tradition” or laws based mostly on religion assumed it was between a man and a woman. And the USA is arrogant enough to think our way is the only way which is why I keep on bringing up other cultures and even info deliberately withheld from the mainstream media, history books etc. here. But the bottom line is when men wanted to marry, (Wisconsin 1970) the legislature hurried up and changed the law.
If you don’t want to marry a man then DON’T. I’m not asking to eat children for breakfast or blow up a building. I want to live with the person I love with all the benefits and privileges that straight people get - and that I have helped pay for all these years. Equal rights are not special rights.
The point this blog keeps harping on is how to deal with laws they disagree with, well we are not talking about unfair taxes, or unfairly being conscripted into the military, or taking away property. It is not your place to try to limit the rights of others by prohibiting things which have always existed. We are not talking about laws against murder or stealing here. We are talking about limiting through law what benefits people get that they help pay for. There is also a legal basis for the right to be left alone. All you busy bodies need to make sure your own lives are in order and let me live mine.
If you are so concerned about marriage and family as I have said so often on this post, then do something to strengthen straight marriage, lower the divorce rate, make sure children have good and safe schools. How about a law to restrict single parenting for those never married? Require premarital counseling? Prohibit divorce? Some of these things have been tried and found to be legally out of bounds, too invasive. If that is the case then I don’t see how you can prohibit SSM.
Of course, all the great legal minds on this post can’t seem to even imagine let alone grasp that the judges in California or Massachusetts or the legislature of Vermont might decide there are other principles at stake. What does NH state motto - Live Free or die? Freedom is not just for those YOU happen to agree with.
Jaroslaw-
Your righteous indignation about “the state or fed has to have a compelling reason to butt into people’s private lives” doesn’t move me, I’m afraid. I don’t understand the government’s compelling reason to restrict cancer patients from smoking medical marijuana, but I understand that I’m not the one who gets to decide. We have a democratic system and sometimes our issues will win out and sometimes they won’t. You can jump up and down and insist the government has no compelling reason not to “marry” you and your partner, but unless you can convince a legislature or a court, it won’t go anywhere. And even then, those who disagree with you can legitimately amend the constitution to make sure their position sticks instead of yours.
You write “I want to live with the person I love with all the benefits and privileges that straight people get - and that I have helped pay for all these years.” Fine. Move to California (if you don’t live there already). Even after we pass the California Marriage Protection Act same-sex couples will have all the rights the state grants married couples. It’s called domestic partnership. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings that it isn’t called marriage, but if your point is the benefits and privileges, you should be satisfied with that.
You write “It is not your place to try to limit the rights of others by prohibiting things which have always existed.” Same-sex marriage has certainly not “always existed.” But if it is not my place, whose place is it? Are you really saying that people who disagree with you have a moral or even a legal obligation to roll over and let people who agree with you make a drastic change to society’s laws and institutions because why - because you feel really strongly? I mean, come on.
You write, “there is also a legal basis for the right to be left alone. All you busy bodies need to make sure your own lives are in order and let me live mine.” Absolutely! You want to live with another man, be my guest. I don’t even support sodomy laws, at least not as they had been written - so, have whatever kind of sex you want without fear of government interference. You want to have a “wedding” - have a good time. I’ve been to two gay weddings. I would be more than happy to leave you alone. But then you have to leave me alone, too, and not demand that my taxpayer dollars go to subsidize and celebrate something I think is wrong.
You write “How about a law to restrict single parenting for those never married? Require premarital counseling? Prohibit divorce?” Well, if your values support such things, go ahead and try to bring about legal changes that will enact such measures. But my values oppose those measures, so I don’t see why you have the right to demand that I push for things I think are wrong. I’ll push for the measures I believe in, and you can push for the measures you believe in.
You write “freedom is not just for those YOU happen to agree with” but you seem to suggest that I shouldn’t even have the basic freedoms in a democracy to act as a journalist, a lobbyist, and even a voter in support of the values I hold dear. You already have the freedom to marry in all 50 states. In one state for the foreseeable future and in one state for at least 4.5 months, you even have the freedom to “marry” a same-sex partner. You have always had the freedom to hold a same-sex “wedding” and invite all your friends. You have always had the freedom to call yourself “married” (even though gay activists say under SSM journalists who deny that two lesbians are married should face libel lawsuits). Why do you insist on limiting my freedom to use the democratic process to ensure that marriage means what I think it means, instead of what you think it means?
David -
Paragraph 1 - comparing personal life choices such as whom to marry does not compare with drug policies. A case can be made that a population hopped on drugs impacts other people’s lives (drunk driving, losing one’s job due to being high etc.) which cannot be made with SSM. Just because the right wing keeps saying families are going to disintegrate over and over and over because of SSM doesn’t make it true.
Paragraph 2 & 4 - the fact that you are putting “wedding” in quote marks and your other dare I say mocking? comments illustrate exactly why domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage.
Paragraph 3 - are you saying you are unaware that Gay people have always existed? This is what I mean by saying you deliberately twist things and miss points. I have posted more than enough on here for you to be perfectly clear that I and the rest of planet earth who has watched 4 hours worth of TV news in the last 3 months knows SSM has not always existed in the USA and that SSM was NOT what I was referring to when I said “things which have always existed.”
Paragraph 5 - everyone on this post refuses to answer point blank what to do about single parenting. I have said repeatedly 50,000 unwed births occur in Michigan alone, annually. Why this is not a much bigger threat to the family than SSM and does not need a Constitutional amendment but that amending the Constitution to prohibit SSM did is beyond my comprehension.
Paragraph 6 and overall - of course you have the right to push for measures you believe in and write editorials. Unfortunately I happen to disagree with pursuing these things by providing misinformation which the Constitutional Amendment folks did here in Michigan. The dissenting Supremes said ignoring this amounts to condoning campaign mischief. Nor do I condone fear tactics. Everyone predicted the family and society as we know it would disappear when women got the right to vote. Abolishing slavery was supposed to end society as we know it. And few things have a longer history and are more “traditional” than slavery. But your responses imply act you are unaware that our system is set up so that the majority can vote on anything and everything without regard to the minority.
I do not condone Gay activists who misrepresent - but from reading literature from HRC, Triangle Foundation, and many many others, I don’t feel the majority do. On the other hand, huge organizations like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America have repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the truth by citing long debunked psychologists like Paul Cameron and others in their work.
I wish I had the time to clarify my writing or perhaps I’m not as good a writer as you - but I know that even if my facts aren’t 100%, the principle is clearly in the post. I’ve asked several people here at work if it mattered precisely how many Gays were killed at Oswieciem or if they were killed mostly by the Nazi machine - 4 people said they understood what I was driving at. And while they said my facts should be in order, it doesn’t change the point. Perhaps if these “protect marriage” drives were truly to protect something instead of driven out of a hateful agenda or manipulative agenda (by the leaders anyway) - and don’t pretend fear of the unknown hasn’t been used in spades - (example - what if you have to explain to your children about two men holding hands in the park - oh. I see. Two men in love is a danger but the fact the average child watches 600 murders a year on TV is not a problem. - and please don’t write back it is only 400, however many it is other than less than 10 is TOO MANY.
I don’t know how this got submitted- I had some corrections and I got the “duplicate comment” error -
The main thing in error above is that our system is set up so that the minority IS protected and that majority can’t vote away the basic rights of the minority.
Also, as I and others have said repeatedly - give marriage to the Church and let civil unions be for everyone. What could be more fair and equal than that? As for the ‘tradition’ of marriage being this or that, are you going to ignore that most laws are written in most societies are written with the predomninant religion in mind, up until the very recent past?
Jaroslaw, which “Paragraph 1″ are you referring to. I’ve been looking over my site for a post about drug policies and haven’t found one - which is probably my fault. Please clarify what you’re critiquing and I’ll respond.
Since I do not believe that a man can marry a man, I sometimes but not always put gay “marriage” in quotes. In a free society, you cannot demand that I adopt lingo that reflects your worldview. I’m going to use lingo that reflects my worldview. As for mocking, I think it’s same-sex couples who are mocking the institution of marriage by calling their unions “marriages.” If same-sex couples will stop mocking the institution of marriage, I will gladly stop mocking their “marriages.”
I simply don’t know how to react to your wild assertions that “Gay people have always existed” (!) and “Everyone predicted the family and society as we know it would disappear when women got the right to vote” - which you follow up by saying “even if my facts aren’t 100%, the principle is clearly in the post.” So I guess you want me to let you get away with unsupported generalizations about gay people always existed (which no scholar with a Ph.D. in gay history at an American university believes) and how “everyone” thought suffrage would destroy society… because it’s the principle that counts? I’m sorry, I’ve enjoyed talking with you but under your new approach I just don’t see how I can dialogue with you. I almost never make assertions I cannot back up. If you’re saying you want the right to say things that are only partially true or in some cases completely false without my pointing that out because you say I’m a better writer than you, that’s just not going to work. Sorry. If you change your approach, I’d be happy to resume the dialogue.
David - I’m not asking you adopt my lingo - you can put “weddings” in quotes if you want to but your prior posts indicate you are fully cognizant of when no state legalized SSM so now it is legal, why continue to put it in quotes? You might not like the fact that marriage is now legal in two states, but it is. So the quotes mean what exactly? This does not mean of course, you have to like it and are welcome to continue to protest - but it is demeaning to keep putting “weddings” in quotes. It says to me “it is not real” because David Benkof doesn’t like it. It may not be exactly the same thing but it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh how he always says “the Democrat party” instead of every other news caster and newspapers who refer to the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party. I purposely put “and your other comments” not just the quote marks.
I re-read my post, and I see no wild assertions - I even acknowledged my facts may not be 100% and even co-workers supporting me agree with you. But you are splitting hairs if you have to say things like “even SNOPES.com has disproven the 50% divorce rate in the straight community.” the fact is no matter how you slice the numbers, straight people get divorced at a far higher rate than Gay people - whether the SS be civil union or marriage in Massachusetts. This would be logical even without statistics. No marginalized group works hard for a certain thing only to fall in with the mainstream, at least immediately. Over time, who knows. Next, Is the main point the Nazi’s hated Gays and killed them or that they were killed in a certain place? Either way, I don’t see how this changes the main concept of the argument. The fact is people were led by the nose by society, church whoever to hate Gays (and Jews etc.) and that is one of the main reasons things like that were allowed to occur. Further, several sources I looked at about the Gay issue said for those who were going to be killed immediately (at the gas chambers) no records were kept.
Back to the wild assertions - women’s suffrage - I have to quote sources to prove it was a wildly contentious issue in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s? Heavens, they even talked about Suffragettes risking arrest in Mary Poppins - which was a common occurrence in the fight for civil rights for women. My grandmother told me she couldn’t even get a credit card in her own name until the late 60’s even though she always worked. I’ve read many articles asserting the same things.
Facts that are 90 or 95% on the mark which clearly illustrate the principle are not “partially true” things, as demonstrated by the “snopes” divorce comment above.
I have a lot of material in most of my posts and you continue to pick out the few things that are mildly contentious, ignore any kind of explanatory additions or caveats I include so I will discontinue the dialogue as well.
This is not a good excuse to say I’m at work and rushing to read these posts but it is the truth.
I missed this when reading your last response above - How dare you say Gays mock marriage and why would you? You doubt their love and committment to each other? Their passion for justice to get equal benefits? To be considered equal in society (whether you agree or not)? No way could any of this be considered mocking.
You, Mr. Benkof are a scam and I definitely will not post anymore.
But Jaroslaw, the rate of dissolution of same-sex unions in Sweden, where there is a longer history of civil unions, has been much higher (for both the all-male and the all-female) than for marriages. And everywhere that SSM has been available, in some form, the participation rate has been very, very low. It is low across the USA even if we use the far more broad category of same-sex householding.
So the indicators, to-date suggest lower participation and higher dissolution — by far — in same-sex arrangements than in marriage.
Chairm- I guess I can respond to you since I said I wasn’t going to debate Mr. Benkof anymore - and I did say on another topic I wasn’t going to post anymore.
This will DEFINITELY be the last post since you directed it specifically to me. There were some other stats about Sweden or the Scandinavian Countries about marriage and divorce I read about a couple years ago. At first glance, they seemed very straight forward but there was MUCH more to the story. There almost always is.
Bottom line, in a free society people get to make choices. If all the Gay people in America got married tomorrow and had kids, it would be a drop in the proverbial bucket percentage-wise compared to what straight people are doing with divorce, non payment of child support - all those negative things.
So while I understand your concern, I will compare - Gay marriage etc. is like a birthday candle and straight marriage/divorce/living together is the barn burning down. It is hard to see that people are genuinely concerned about the “children” in a Gay situation or whatever when there are exponentially greater issues in the straight community.
Peace and blessings - signing out - Jaroslaw
David, you show a sad lack of understanding of marriage. The government does not marry people (Gay or straight). The couple perform the marriage, and the judge or cleric merely witness what happened on behalf of the state and acknowledge what has happened.
Marriage is a civil contract between two persons.
Traditionally, and still in 48 states + DC, this is for opposite gender couples. But when the hysteria of the ballot box has not overridden common sense, the courts are understanding that marriage is going to happen. The courts in Vermont and New Jersey deferred to the legislature, who passed “Civil Unions”. The courts in Maryland, New York and Washington determined that the decision belonged to the legislature, which is where the debate is now occurring. Expect these five states to enact marriage equality by statute in the next 5 years. Expect another dozen states to do this in the following 10, and the remaining opponents of fairness will be dealt the same hand by SCOTUS as was done in Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia within 25 years.
Jaroslaw-
I put it in quotes because I don’t believe it’s a marriage. The quotes are another way of saying so-called marriage. It’s called marriage by the government and some citizens but it’s not a marriage so I’m not going to call it one. Some Democrats still refer to “President” Bush because he didn’t get the most votes. I don’t agree with them but I’m not offended when they do that. They’re wrong but they’re entitled to their opinion.
I am sorry I rarely speak so strongly but it is just stupid to say more straight people get divorced than gay people. Gay people have only been married for a few years. Do you have statistics that show how many gays vs. straights get divorced in the first two years of their marriage? That would be a fair comparison. But comparing gays who have been married for just a few years with married couples who have been married for decades is completely apples and oranges.
Come to think of it, I’m not going to waste any more time arguing with silly points like that. You’ve declared you’ve left the blog. I’m moving on. If anyone wants to know my answer to any more if his questions, they can post a new comment repeating it.
David, iMAPP has published on its website summaries about the low participation in SSM and about the higher dissolution rates (after 8 years) in Sweden/Norway.
Objectively, the much higher rates of dissolution — especially among the all-female arrangements — may be a product, at least in part, of the tendency for divorced people to have higher rates of divorce in subsequent marriages. About half of those who SSM’d had been previously married; and women were disporportionately representative in the participation and in the dissolution statistics. This raises concerns about children because we know, indirectly, that the all-female SSMs are much more likely to have children residing at home.
Now, one could propose ways by which the culture — or the government (!) — might promote higher participation and lower dissolution. Apart from relying on the magic of an SSM-merger, SSMers generally do not wish to promote preferential treatment of participation so they kinda handcuff themselves when it comes to defending their claims about promoting stable relationships.