I'm still waiting for a cogent argument defending Prop. 8, the initiative that changed the California Constitution to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.First and foremost, Proposition 8 doesn't need an argument defending it. It is law - part of the state constitution. The time to argue over Prop 8 was before it was passed by voters. Now that it has passed, the argument is: It was duly adopted. If Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, no defense would be enough. That someone even asks for defense of Proposition 8 reveals that either they don't understand the Constitution, or they are fine with laws that violate the Constitution, as long as someone gives a "cogent argument defending" it. As for me, I don't care if a law is a "good idea", if it violates the Constitution, then either the Constitution needs to be amended or the law really isn't a good idea because the negatives outweigh the positives. The burden is on critics to show that Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment, in effect now) is unconstitutional. They haven't presented a compelling argument that it is.
Comment Policy
Thursday, July 15, 2010
An Example of Ongoing Attacks on Dr. Laura
I have a follow up to a recent piece I wrote about how Dr. Laura's support of bride+groom parenting has resulted in ongoing, often misinformed attacks on her. This time, a writer has expressed his dislike of Proposition 8 and gleefully relayed a report by a friend of his who harassed Dr. Laura at a recent appearance. As far as I know, she has never backed Prop 8 on her show or her website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I suppose that Judge Walker will claim that it is unconstitutional, at which point it will go on to the Court Of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are real problems if Walker (or any other judge), in effect, claims that the public can have no say in the redefinition of marriage. Would that mean that the public could also have no say if a court, or a legislature, ever declared polygamy legal?
Or (taking it one step at a time, and for now leaving siblings and parent/child combinations out of it) if they ever, say, declared aunt/nephew and uncle/niece marriages legal?
Perhaps Judge Walker has already thought of that, and will say that unlike the case with same-sex marriage, there is a practical reason why close relations should be prohibited from marrying, namely, that they are more likely to have children with genetic defects.
But that can be shot down by the same kind of logic used in the Prop 8 trial to try to shoot down the common-sense argument that same-sex couples cannot marry because they are incapable of reproducing: "Well, some opposite-sex couples are also incapable of reproducing, and no state has a requirement that they be able to procreate in order to have a marriage license."
Okay, then, how much more solid is the argument that an aunt and a nephew cannot marry because they are more likely to have children with genetic defects?
It can just as easily be argued: "Many OTHER couples who are NOT closely related also have children with genetic defects. Or are likely to because they both carry disadvantageous recessive genes. Are these couples prohibited from marrying? Does the state mandate that all couples be tested for possible genetic defects they may be carrying in recessive form? Does any state require this and deny marriage licenses to unrelated couples who carry potentially dangerous genes? Are closely related persons actually tested to see if they really carry dangerous genes? Would a state allow them to be married if it found that they did not? No. Which means that the denial of marriage rights between a person and a child of their sibling is not really about the birth defects at all, but just society's irrational prejudice against two people who love each other but happen to be so related. Therefore, there is no reason why they should not be married."
I'd like to hear Judge Walker, or the Court Of Appeals, or Olson and Boies, explain again how that is not just as persuasive an argument not only as to why an aunt and nephew should be married, but also as to why if the legislature/judiciary decides they must be, the public has no right to vote it down.
It can just as easily be argued: "Many OTHER couples who are NOT closely related also have children with genetic defects. Or are likely to because they both carry disadvantageous recessive genes. Are these couples prohibited from marrying? Does the state mandate that all couples be tested for possible genetic defects they may be carrying in recessive form? Does any state require this and deny marriage licenses to unrelated couples who carry potentially dangerous genes? Are closely related persons actually tested to see if they really carry dangerous genes? Would a state allow them to be married if it found that they did not? No. Which means that the denial of marriage rights between a person and a child of their sibling is not really about the birth defects at all, but just society's irrational prejudice against two people who love each other but happen to be so related. Therefore, there is no reason why they should not be married."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear Judge Walker, or the Court Of Appeals, or Olson and Boies, explain again how that is not just as persuasive an argument not only as to why an aunt and nephew should be married, but also as to why if the legislature/judiciary decides they must be, the public has no right to vote it down.
And in regard to polygamy, two arguments are most likely to be given by SSM proponents as to why it should remain illegal:
ReplyDelete1. "A child should only have ONE legal mother and ONE legal father"
Uh, can't use that argument anymore if you advocate SSM.
2. "A person should be faithful to only ONE spouse."
To which it can easily be argued, with logic similar to the kind Boies, Olson, and Walker use to pooh-pooh the argument that same-sex couples cannot marry because they are incapable of procreation:
"Maybe they should, but where is it required, in any state, that a person be exclusively faithful to only their spouse in order to be married? Marriage has evolved through the years; the old vow of 'forsaking all others' is still used in weddings, but no state requires it as an oath before a couple can be married. No state forces a couple to divorce if one of them has an extramarital affair or if they are not both exclusively faithful to only each other sexually. Therefore, sexual exclusivity is not a legal requirement for marriage, and the prohibition against more than two people marrying is thus not about sexual exclusivity at all, but merely about society's irrational prejudice against more than two people who all happen to love one another."
Again, could Judge Walker, or Olson or Boies, explain how this is not just as persuasive an argument for legalizing polygamy and denying the right of the public to overturn it?
But on the other hand, I'd also like to hear Charles Cooper and Andy Pugno at least ask this question of Walker, or Boies, or Olson, or (more importantly now) the appeals court judges or Supreme Court justices.
R.K, you're right. How many times have we heard "Marriage isn't about children"? Then how can the same people cite children as a reason to prevent close relatives from marrying? And if two brothers can marry because there's no chance of them producing a child, then if it is really all about equality, how can we prevent a brother and sister from marrying? Also, it isn't much of a stretch for children to have two fathers and two mothers legally, not only with SSM/third party repro, but with so much heterosexual divorce and remarriage. So it isn't hard to see polygamy being a "right." Anyway, as I've written before, with Lawrence vs. Texas, "reproductive rights", and privacy rights especially when it comes to medical information, how can we stop anyone from making babies?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, PW.
ReplyDeleteWhen I point out things like this, the typical response I get (in regards to other combinations not now allowed to marry) basically boils down to "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it" or "I'll worry about that when there's a bigger demand for it" as if the number of people asking for a right, real or claimed, somehow made any difference as to whether it was to be legally recognized.