Los Angeles Times Continues to Fight CA Constitution

Two opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times addressing the Proposition 8 trial warranted my attention. First up is columnist George Skelton, who seizes upon the strawman that was set up to be knocked down.

The notion that baby-making is the principal purpose of marriage in 21st century America is plain absurd. Let's just say that upfront.

It is the single most important reason why the government licenses marriage.

I finally concluded a few years ago -- and wrote about it then -- that we had much more important things to worry about than what two people living together in a loving relationship were called: "partners" or "married."

Okay, but this is about state licenses issued on our behalf.

[Much more after the jump.]

My God doesn't fret about homosexuality.

And which God is this? Where did you learn about this God? Or did you make him up yourself? And no, I didn't make up "my" God.

The voters sometimes get it wrong.

Yes, and so do legislators and judges. That is why we have checks and balances and constitutional limits on government powers.

It's really nobody's business -- least of all the government's.

State licensing is, by definition, the government’s business.

Just what is a "traditional marriage" anyway?

One that unites the sexes.

The website is taking comments. Here are a couple.

"ChicanoPrideSD" (01/14/2010, 12:06 AM ):

What is "natural" procreation?

If you have to ask a question like that, then your parents and/or your school failed you big time.

"gustrainer" (01/14/2010, 10:20 AM ) responded to an earlier comment defending marriage:

"it gives moral and legal sanction to what would otherwise be fornication; a woman whose virginity ends in marriage retains her virtue"." which is a full-time job that precludes gainful employment" what about mothers who work and raise children! is it a sin to have a nanny?

It is ideal that children are raised by their own parents instead of strangers or hired help - however that works out. Marriage assists in that.

So what about women that are not virgins when they marry?

Many (but certainly not all) marriage defenders advocate saving sex for marriage.

and everybody who fornicates without beeing maried is a sinner? lol,

According to the Bible, other scriptures, and many religious traditions.

These comments are a good example of what I wrote about in this blog posting.

Do you see how separating sex from marriage and encouraging both parents to work full time outside the home – both trends "conservatives" have opposed in the past – create an environment that make marriage neutering more palatable?

Say, who advocated those things most of all, anyway? I'm not calling for the crimilization of such things. Rather, I'd like to see our culture use voluntary means to encourage reserving sex for marrage and direct parenting as the ideals. I won't hold my breath, though.

The paper published an editorial this afternoon.

In what ways would same-sex marriages be the same as or different from heterosexual marriages? Answer: It's nobody's business.

It is if we're going to toss out a state constitutional amendment, changing state marriage licensing. State laws and regulations are the business of all citizens of that state.

We're sorry the topic even came up. Not because we believe there is necessarily anything different about same-sex relationships, but because it doesn't matter if there is.

Well, yes, it does matter. Laws treat different behaviors and different kinds of voluntary associations differently.

Same-sex couples shouldn't have to prove that their marriages would be as "normal" as those of heterosexuals or meet some kind of artificial bar -- a bar that many heterosexual couples fall short of -- for an ideal marriage.

Red herring.

Somehow, society -- and in this case, a federal judge -- are being put in the position of deciding whether these unions are "good enough" to earn the legal and social status of marriage.

Wrong. The question is whether or not the state should treat these different kinds of voluntary associations the same. In this actual case, it is whether or not the federal Constitution requires states to do so, to the point of overturning a duly adopted state constitutional amendment. I like how they write "somehow", as if they are unaware of the carefully planned assault on marriage via the courts.

Some people wed for money or health benefits.

Individual motivations aren't, for the most part, the business of the state. The state deals with objective criteria, such as whether both a male and female are included in a pairing.

In this town, some of them enter short-term marriages for the publicity. (You know who you are.) Teenagers barely old enough to vote marry despite the higher likelihood that they will divorce. Serial monogamists wed. There are couples who swap spouses, and those who live apart yet maintain their sense of affection and responsibility toward each other.

None of this justifies neutering marriage. Marriage defenders tend to oppose sham marriages, marrying without being prepared to be a spouse, divorce, "swapping" (which is adultery, even with "approval"), and spouses living apart permanently. We want to foster strong, healthy, lasting, happy marriages, and saving procreation for marriage - and neutering marriage will likely continue to chip away at the conditions that promote those things.

It's gay and lesbian couples who are singled out for this.

Wrong. Most states bar first cousins from getting a marriage license together, and all bar closer relatives from doing so, (and may even prosecute them for consensual, private, sexual behavior). If fostering the best environment for raising children isn't one of the core purposes of law, then why is this still the case? Please tell me why such marriages, which have happened in history, should be illegal, without invoking offspring - since marriage, according to your side, isn't about children.

The website is taking comments on the editorial.