It’s not about my moral disapproval. It’s about my values. I am certain that a lesbian marriage is not a marriage. I don’t want to hurt anyone, I simply want to use my own values in running my business rather than be forced to use yours. In states where same-sex marriage is illegal, pretty much everywhere every single person can use their own definition of marriage in running their business. I have never heard of a lesbian who was punished for treating non-legal same-sex “marriages” completely the same as actual legal marriages. But under same-sex marriage there is quite a bit of evidence – and you back that up – that gay people will fight and sue and use the government to stop people from using a traditional definition of marriage in running their business. Thus, if freedom is very important to a voter, even if she sees no problem with same-sex marriage, she needs to support Prop. 8, because that is the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage without government interference.

You keep using these euphemisms. What you actually want to do is express your moral disapproval by taking low level vigilante action against same-sex married couples, through actions such as shunning them or withholding service in your business. We’re not even under an obligation of politeness to put up with that, let alone a moral one. Nor are our many sympathetic straight allies. You’re behaving like jerks and we intend to treat you like jerks.

You say I’m welcome to try to pass the CMPA, and that’s all I’m asking to do. If the law fails, my choices are limited – urge compliance with an immoral law, or urge civil disobedience against it. I could of course call for violent resistance, but I don’t think it’s warranted in this situation. I could also choose not to live in California because of that state’s deep moral confusion, and I just might do that.

You claim that under “marriage equality” my freedom is “pretty much unchanged.” Of course you feel that way – you’re the one restricting my freedom. This issue is symbolic on your side. On my side, it has severe consequences in the limitation of the freedom of people like me to run our lives, raise our families, perform our jobs, and operate our business according to our own values instead of your values.

A vote for Prop 8 is a vote for liberty and freedom of conscience.

Furthermore, on the religious aspect, government interfering with freedom of conscience — attempting to marginalize the man-woman criterion as a religious feature of marriage — could not help society benefit from the social institution’s influence. Indeed, it woud detract by placing the government directly at odds with civil society.

Nope, government does not own marriage.

Neither do the peddlers of identity politics.

In a pluralistic society the government would not promote the sectarianism espoused by the irreligious or that brand of secularism which puts government at odds with religion and freedom of conscience.

It’s not my opinion – you’ve stripped off the qualifiers I put on it, blended several different reasons and circumstances why it might be objectionable, and reduced it to mush.

‘But I hear you saying that until “marriage equality” is implemented, teachers can say marriage is between a man and a woman, because that’s not just the religious definition, that’s the legal definition.’

Yes. They can still say it after, they’ll just need more words to be clear: “Orthodox Jewish marriage is between a man and a woman” or the like.

‘All I have to do is convince group B that the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs is if we defeat “marriage equality.” ‘

You’re welcome to try. I think I can defuse most of the effect by pointing out that however affected teachers and marriage clerks try to sell it, it’s not a religious free speech issue. When a marriage clerk refuses to hand over a certificate to a same-sex couple, they might like to convey the message that the resulting union would not be a valid religious marriage, but they can’t actually convey that because there’s no suggestion that civil marriage is identical to religious marriage. All they’re conveying is that they don’t want to be associated with same-sex couples getting civilly married, and I think I can sell that as pretty nasty homophobia because that’s all it is.

‘I would actually prefer it if we could agree to find a way under “marriage equality” that everyone can use their own definition of marriage in how they run their businesses, perform their jobs, and raise their families.’

But your freedom is pretty much unchanged. There is no sentiment that you can express in the absence of SSM that you can’t express with it. You may need an extra word or two or some scare quotes to make yourself clear, because SSM civil marriage will set a new default meaning for unqualified “marriage”, but there’s nothing you can’t convey. Even where speech is restricted, such as (I continue to claim) in the case of the public school teacher promoting traditional marriage with explicitly religious arguments, the argument that it’s constitutionally objectionable does not depend at all on whether SSM is actually in effect.

Moreover, and I’m flabbergasted that you don’t seem to haven’t realized this yet, there’s pretty much nothing you can _do_ in the absence of SSM that you can’t do with it. California domestic partners are already explicitly specified to have the same non-discrimination rights as spouses. So if you’re a swimming pool owner and you don’t want to give a family discount to a same-sex couple in the current regime because their marriage is not religiously valid, Prop. 8 is not going to help because same-sex couples will go back to having domestic partnerships and you still won’t be allowed to refuse a family discount. Your own argument bites you in the butt: marriage vs. civil union or CA-style domestic partnership _is_ largely symbolic.

I don’t have a problem with Gov. Schwarzenegger’s statement. I think Ah-nold is the best governor California has had since Ronald Reagan. Note that his concern is that the man-woman marriage laws were unconstitutional. Well, when we pass Proposition 8, they’ll be constitutional again, because constitutional amendments are by definition constitutional. I doubt he’ll be complaining, especially since the laws will then match his preferences.

Mark-

You write as if you’re exasperated that I refuse to accept the “fact” that a public teacher saying marriage is between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. But that’s not a fact. That’s your opinion. I hold the opposite opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such an issue, and I think given its current composition it would agree with me. Until it does, we can only speculate.

But I hear you saying that until “marriage equality” is implemented, teachers can say marriage is between a man and a woman, because that’s not just the religious definition, that’s the legal definition. Therefore, under your theory, how should each of the following groups of voters vote?

A) Voters who sympathize with “marriage equality” no matter the costs

B) Voters who sympathize with “marriage equality” but want people, including teachers and marriage clerks, to have the freedom to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs

C) Voters who oppose “marriage equality”

If your theory is correct, it will be quite easy to win this debate. All I have to do is convince group B that the only way everyone will be able to use their own definition of marriage in how they perform their jobs is if we defeat “marriage equality.” Given your statements, that’s a breeze.

And with groups B and C, I can surely get a majority. You might get a majority of A in San Francisco, but not statewide.

I would actually prefer it if we could agree to find a way under “marriage equality” that everyone can use their own definition of marriage in how they run their businesses, perform their jobs, and raise their families. But if you refuse to even try, that just makes passing Prop. 8 easier to do.

Oh, _do_ pay attention! The context was public school teachers, who are government employees. The government may _not_ promote religion, and neither may its employees on government time. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law. Government employees have rather restricted free speech on the job. Public school teachers are particularly tightly constrained. If you think that that gives an unfair advantage to the secular over the religious, too bad – that’s the way it is. It’s the principle of separation of church and state as enshrined in the First Amendment and interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions.

At the same time, _none_ of this applies to non-government employees. Private citizens can endorse religion as much as they like. Not only is the LGBT movement not proposing to have the government restrict this, we couldn’t if we tried because the principle of free speech works in your favour. To the extent you blunder from talking about one situation to talking about the other you’re making a spectacle of yourself – ignorantly misrepresenting everything in sight, from the law to the opinions of gay people. Focus. Please.

“I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It’s like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it’s good that California lead–is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don’t want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.”

I doubt that Benkof agrees with Gov. Schwarzenegger, after all.

Associated Press – June 29, 2008 11:03 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it’s a “waste of time” to try to get an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot.