Pressing an Association

Here's an example of how the Associated Press has been covering the general marriage neutering issue and Proposition 8 in particular all along. (Other news services have been doing much the same.) This article is from Paul Elias. He starts off with the erroneous "gay marriage ban" language...

The sponsors of California's gay marriage ban have asked an appeals court to stop a federal judge's order allowing same-sex weddings to begin next week.

...and writes as though same-sex ceremonies are prevented by law.

The news raised hopes among gay couples that they soon could tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

They can go ahead and make vows. With clergy. And keep the vows.

"We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state.

Ah yes, the "equal rights" language that is so misleading.

[More after the jump, including a short video.]

"It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," said Teresa Rowe, 31, of Suisun City who went to San Francisco's City Hall on Thursday morning with her partner to fill out a marriage license application.

Scott Campbell, 41, and Scott Hall, 35, had to tell family members en route to the Beverly Hills courthouse for the ceremony to turn back. They vowed to return next week.

You know, I don't go to government offices hoping that things will be going my way later in the day - based on the decision of someone, somewhere else, who isn't even aware of my individual situation - when there is a good chance they won't.

"We're both very traditional. Our parents both gave their blessings," Campbell said.

Yes... very traditional... all except for missing bride aspect. But you know, women apparently don't matter enough to be mandatory to the marriage institution. I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of the same lawyers who have been trying to use the courts to create these new associations that exclude women have actually, in the recent passed, sued associations that excluded women to force them to include women. One named Gloria comes to mind. I'm not going to write her full name because I think she gets all tingly inside every time she gets a mention somewhere.

Walker said on Thursday that ban proponents didn't convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume.

That's because he refuses to care that he is 1) devaluing both husbands and wives, and 2) disenfranchising voters, especially ethnic minority voters.

Gay and lesbian couples, however, would be harmed if the ban continued, according to the judge, who previously ruled that the ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

How exactly would they be harmed, given that California treats same-sex domestic partnerships the same as marriage, as required by state law? Citing social or cultural differences is not a good answer for a court of law, which is supposed to deal with... law. Walker is free to retire and write commentaries about culture, or try to infludence the culture through filmmaking or some other art, or write books on manners and how people should deal in a social setting with sexual orientation and different relationships. But as a judge, he is to stick to the law.

If they get a "person on the street" quote in defense of the bride+groom requirement, it is almost always from someone referring to the Bible, or their disgust with homosexual behavior. But a case can be made for the bride+groom requirement based secular facts that just about anyone who is honest and consistent must admit - without disapproval of homosexual behavior. For example, "There's a difference between men and women, and as such, the pairing of both is different from a pairing that excludes women or excludes men." Or "The pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind that can naturally create new citizens, and so that has greater state interest than other kinds of relationships." Or "I think two men should be free to commit to each other and share a life together, but I also think voters have the right to set certain requirements for licenses that are issued on their behalf. Proposition 8 allowed both."

Here is journalist/editor Jill Stewart, who I've found to be unusually perceptive and fair on other issues in the past, with a brief comment on how the news media has handled this...