Aloha, marriage?
CommentsI recently returned from my vacation in Maui (thanks for your patience, everyone!), where I had a chance to observe the debate over the civil unions bill currently under consideration in Hawaii. I was particularly interested in the letters to the editor in various Hawaii newspapers, especially the small ones targeting Maui or even West Maui.
The pro-civil unions side (including representatives of churches) made the point that civil unions are not marriage and will not lead to marriage.
Ah, would that it were so. I’ve demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere that a pro-gay promise that “this will not lead to marriage” is completely valueless if later the measure can possibly be used for marriage. For example:
In Massachusetts, the Goodridge decision was based in part on a law that specifically said could not be used to support gay marriage.
In New York, Gov. Paterson used the SONDA law to recognize gay marriage, despite a clause in the law saying that was not to be done, and a legislative history of promising that the SONDA job-protections bill had nothing to do with marriage.
In California, the gay-marriage Supreme Court decision declared that the gay-marriage side had a lower burden of proof because of the domestic partnership law. This despite the fact that the domestic partnership law was sold to legislators and the public as not being marriage and not leading to marriage.
Thus, in three states, passing gay-rights measures that were sold as “not leading to marriage” led to marriage. And the appalling part is, not a single gay-rights leader (except me) has objected or apologized. Anything that leads to gay marriage is fair game, even if one has to lie, cheat, or steal to get it.
I’m increasingly thinking that with such wily opponents, it does not make sense for defense-of marriage people to give a single inch when it comes to “special rights” for gay individuals or same-sex couples. The Salt Lake City plan, yes, but that’s not special rights. But civil unions in Hawaii and elsewhere, no, because when we’re promised a measure won’t lead to gay marriage - and then it does - nobody says, “Whoops, that’s not the result we had promised.” and certainly not “We’ll try to overturn gay marriage, for now, and fight fair another day.”
Give em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.
David Benkof
Indeed yours is not an exhaustive list. The Connecticut opinion is yet another, as is the New Jersey Opinion.
In the latter case the court demands full civil union rights and encourages the legislature to go all the way to “marriage”.
In that case I like the Good Cop/Bad Cop element of the way the case developed.
After Massachusetts – Both in New Jersey and in Connecticut their legislatures were offered “civil unions” as a fair minded compromise to prevent the specter of full “marriage” for gays. The citizens, wanting to be generous supported the compromise to one degree or another, thinking this would satiate the marriage radicals.
Then the courts step in and order full “marriage” rights or full civil union protections despite explicit language in the legislation that attempts to keep the concepts distinct.
In New Jersey a stacked “human rights” panel is now endorsing full “marriage” rights.
Clearly they can’t be bargained with. And compromise is the mother’s milk of politics in a democracy.
Another interesting angle to this is the ERA that numerous states have and how it has been used to advance same-sex “marriage”. This despite the fact that the legislative records all go into detail about how those ERA amendments would not lead to the absurdity of same-sex “marriage”.
Indeed most that raised the alarm of same-sex “marriage” under the ERA were dismissed and derided as kooky alarmists and Armageddon types with a spurious slippery slope.
Just as today claims of same-sex “marriage” leading to polyamory are equally dismissed despite the clear ideology of the left and the inescapable pull of logic.
DB: “The pro-civil unions side (including representatives of churches) made the point that civil unions are not marriage and will not lead to marriage.”
I’m sorry, you’ll need to provide citations before I can believe you. I went through 100 recent letters to the editor in the Maui News and didn’t find such a point being made. The closest I found was a writer making the point that civil unions would not lead to same-sex marriages celebrated under duress by religious organizations: http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/515260.html?nav=18 . Meanwhile, another writer is making the point that civil unions are just “a step” to full civil rights: http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/515229.html?nav=18 .
DB: “And the appalling part is, not a single gay-rights leader (except me) has objected or apologized. [...]I’m increasingly thinking that with such wily opponents, it does not make sense for defense-of marriage people to give a single inch when it comes to “special rights” for gay individuals or same-sex couples.”
Why should we apologize? We were just taking moderate conservatives at face value. They allied with us first to repeal sodomy laws and then to institute anti-discrimination laws, but balked at same-sex marriage. We thought the deal was that they disclaimed any government interest in sanctioning or otherwise discouraging same-sex relationships (and indeed acknowledged a government interest in _defending_ gay people from vigilante actions by people opposed to same-sex relationships), and we acknowledged that they reserved other objections against same-sex marriage. So we thought we were letting them write into the record that there was no majority intent to proceed with same-sex marriage, which was perfectly true at that time.
Why would we imagine that that was not the deal? After all, on the one hand, they made many affecting expressions of sympathy for gay people and gay couples. Who could credit that they would be so helpful if they secretly believed that gay relationships were immoral? And on the other hand they were insisting that same-sex marriage was a bad idea for all these other good reasons like tradition or religious freedom or procreation etc, etc, etc. Who could credit that with this much bravado, they didn’t have the courage of their convictions? Indeed in Goodridge, the Public Health Department didn’t even try to make an argument that keeping marriage opposite-sex-only was about stigmatizing or otherwise sanctioning gay relationships.
So when amici in the same case argued that “prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral”, I thought, “That’s not the deal and they weren’t parties to it in any case - the court is quite right to slap them down.” But now that you explain that we were supposed to realize that the sympathy was fake and would be withdrawn as soon as the other arguments stopped convincing people, and agree not to treat that as any sort of concession, it all makes so much sense.
We didn’t get the Maui News. But here’s an example from the Lahaina News: “The issue here is not about marriage, despite the millions of dollars that were previously funneled into the inflammatory media smoke screen intentionally manipulating and confusing us.” http://lahainanews.com/story.aspx?id=10027
MB: I’m sorry, you’ll (DAVID) need to provide citations before I can believe you.
David provided this letter with the link: http://lahainanews.com/story.aspx?id=10027
here is the follwing sentence in that letter:
“Their massive advertising and commercial blitz in 1998, and again in 2007, was designed to deliberately mislead, emotionally incite and manipulate good, well-meaning people into supporting legislation of bigotry and intolerance, hoping to distract the public from the real issue, and unfortunately it worked both times.”
Here is the letter. . .written by a Doctor and from what I can tell it is a pro civil union -pro gay letter.
SEXUAL RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
Hawaii has a long and honorable history of respecting and embracing cultural and religious diversity. This celebrated tolerance was gravely threatened in 1998 by the constitutional amendment passed that year against gay marriage.
Supported and financed extensively by powerful religious extremists’ foundations, mostly from the Mainland, this referendum was a deliberate and atrocious assault upon democracy. It was spearheaded by small, yet vocal and well-organized, religious coalitions publicly committed to legislating morality nationwide. Hawaii was then but the latest pawn in their national campaign, and the repeated willingness of this faction to sacrifice truth and decency in order to achieve their self-serving agendas at any cost is well documented and on record. Admirably, once again today the Hawaii Legislature is focusing on correcting this injustice through a renewed push to grant committed same-sex couples similar rights and benefits to married couples through civil unions.
The issue here is not about marriage, despite the millions of dollars that were previously funneled into the inflammatory media smoke screen intentionally manipulating and confusing us. Their massive advertising and commercial blitz in 1998, and again in 2007, was designed to deliberately mislead, emotionally incite and manipulate good, well-meaning people into supporting legislation of bigotry and intolerance, hoping to distract the public from the real issue, and unfortunately it worked both times. However, attempts to legislate morality always attack our fundamental liberties. Further, they violate America’s constitutional law requiring separation of church and state. The real issue then and now is simply one of equal rights and justice for all, for everyone, regardless of race, religious creed or sexual orientation.
Science has proven that a person’s sexual orientation is not something that is chosen any more than is the color of our skin. Sexual rights are human rights. Attacks on the rights of any of us attack the rights of all of us, and threaten everyone. Otherwise, who is next? We must ensure that the aloha spirit of our beautiful state continues to extend evenly to everyone by treating people equally. The majority of Hawaii residents have spoken out in favor of tolerance, and hearing us, our lawmakers now appear to have found the fortitude and conviction to rectify this mistake. Get behind our state representatives in taking a courageous stand against discrimination and prejudice, and encourage them to vote YES on equal rights for all by calling and writing them now with your support of civil unions.
DR. MICHAEL RA BOUCHARD, Hilo
Well David this is another big leap. . .
‘And the appalling part is, not a single gay-rights leader (except me) has objected or apologized. ‘
You are now considered a ‘gay-rights leader’ ?
PUHLEASE!
DB: ‘But here’s an example from the Lahaina News: “The issue here is not about marriage, despite the millions of dollars that were previously funneled into the inflammatory media smoke screen intentionally manipulating and confusing us.”‘
I think you’re taking it out of context. It can’t sensibly be referring to the issue of whether civil unions are a slippery slope to marriage because it continues:
“Their massive advertising and commercial blitz in _1998_, and again in 2007, was designed to deliberately mislead, emotionally incite and manipulate good, well-meaning people into supporting legislation of bigotry and intolerance, hoping to distract the public from the real issue, and unfortunately it worked both times.” [MB's emphasis.]
But the big issue in Hawaii in 1998 was _precisely_ marriage: the referendum to amend the constitution to specifically allow the legislature to define marriage as opposite-sex only if it so chose (which it then did). How could the writer possibly be referring to marriage as not the issue relative to civil unions in a context where civil unions were not being discussed and marriage was?
Rather, I suggest that he’s making a version of my point that most of the anti-SSM movement (including most of the big money) isn’t nearly so pro-marriage as it is just plain anti-gay.