|
August 03, 2005
Busting up illegal unions?
The fight against same sex marriage is heating up, with opponents now trying to do away with domestic partnerships in the guise of "protecting marriage." Here's the text from a leading California ballot initiative which would amend the state's constitution: SEC. 1.1. a) Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere.Note the phrase "rights or incidents of marriage." That's what this is really about, as there is no legal same sex marriage in California, and it's doubtful there will be any time soon. Nonetheless, the initiative's advocates are in a legal tussle with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer over the official ballot summary -- which the advocates claim should stick to the protection of marriage issue and not highlight the elimination of domestic partnerships. Most likely, this is because experience shows that most voters will only read the summary, if anything at all, so they're hoping that "protection of marriage" will be the only words on voters' radar. Here's the San Mateo Journal: The attorney general summarizes measures before they are added to the ballot, but one of the amendment’s official sponsors said Lockyer was “inaccurate and prejudicial” and vowed to challenge it in court.(More here from the initiative's sponsors.) Lockyer is accused of misleading voters by telling them too much about what the measure would eliminate: While noting that the amendment would "provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California," it goes on to state that the measure "voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations" in areas ranging from inheritance and adoption to insurance benefits and hospital visitation."Sigh. Like it or not, an ill-informed electorate seems to be a way of life in California. What ought to matter is not what the summary says, but what the initiative says, and this legal debate seems to be centered around the anticipated intellectual laziness of the voters. Anyway, this initiative is a perfect example of what's known as a backlash, and I think the gay activists (and Gavin Newsom) mostly brought it on themselves. Certainly, there's nothing fair about it; California has gotten along quite well with domestic partnerships. They're voluntary, and no one is obligated to enter into them. Making them illegal violates the individual right to enter into private contracts, and will open a can of worms I hope will come back to haunt those who are promoting this odious amendment. (My thoughts on prohibiting "incidents of marriage" here, here, and here.) Meanwhile, there's yet another competing ballot initiative which limits itself to a single sentence (to be added to the California Constitution): Sec. 7.5. A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.The second initiative is supported by a wide coalition (including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Pacific Justice Institute, and Concerned Women For America). It's probably more likely to pass, because it's easier for voters to understand. But is the phrase "legal union" easy to understand? Googling the phrase gave me over 28,000 hits. What if you're in an "illegal union", or an unconstitutional common law marriage? Vagueness often masquerades as simplicity. posted by Eric on 08.03.05 at 08:53 AM
Comments
I'm with you. While I don't have any problem with gay marriage (after all, I see it as just a contract between consensual adults), I understand that it may take a while for people to adjust. Many people are still adjusting to the very idea that gay people 'exist' and (heaven forbid) that it is 'natural'. alchemist · August 3, 2005 05:26 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I can respect the Burkean conservative argument against homosexual marrige, i.e., that it's never been done before in the West, and that if something (like marriage) "ain't broke, don't fix it". I'm opposed to change generally myself, except the change in my pocket. I disagree in this particular issue for other, theologically conservative, reasons of my own, but I can still respect their viewpoint, agree to disagree.
But the people promoting these ballot propositions are, all too obviously, not traditionalist conservatives, but "activist" haters of homosexuals, determined to punish them by denying them all the "rights and incidents" of marriage. Most of these organizations are on record as supporting "sodomy" laws. They will do whatever they can get away with in order to persecute a hated minority, particularly a sexual minority. Since it's no longer "respectable" to persecute Jews or Negroes, they target homosexuals. They need a scapegoat.
And, as you have shown here, they are also liars. Honesty is obviously not part of their "moral" agenda.