Gay Marriage Ban


Recommended Posts

A federal judge recently struck down Proposition 8 in California as unconstitutional, a proposition which prevented gays from marrying. The proposition had been previously voter-approved in a popular election.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_15770593?source=rss

The judge ruled that while the proposition did harm gays, the absence of the proposition did not harm those against same-sex marriage. However, the defendants' argued that proposition 8 is necessary "to avoid confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

I think this is a beautiful example of why constitutional law and Objectivism are so important when determining whether laws should be enacted. Although the marriage law does not influence the defendants directly, it influences the institution from which they derive the meaning of marriage, and therefore causes dis-ease within their psychology. This argument is perhaps the most vicious of all arguments, for it requires that the behavior of others be regulated in order to appease a sense of "rightness" within the actors. It is inline with all historical religious and ideological arguments that have been used to subjugate or enslave a people under an institutional body.

Two cultures will not share the same meaning structures. Therefore, the options are either to have both meaning structures co-exist (traditional marriage and love-focused marriage), or to eliminate one culture in order to protect the "purity" of the other culture. What's your choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposition 8 was not a law, it was an amendment to the CA constitution. One apellate judge declared the constitution of CA unconstitutional.

It is simply a lie to say the proposition prevented gays from marrying. Consenting adults can hold any religious ceremony they wish.

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. It is also to use the force of the law to treat homosexual couples as if they were childless couples through no fault of their own. Rather than a fashion accessory, children will become the legal right of gay male couples, whose infertility is no fault of their own.

It is beyond absurd and ignorant to act as if using the force of the law to make gay male couples into the legal equivalent of biological parents is in any way consonant with Objectivism.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposition 8 was not a law, it was an amendment to the CA constitution. One apellate judge declared the constitution of CA unconstitutional.

It is simply a lie to say the proposition prevented gays from marrying. Consenting adults can hold any religious ceremony they wish.

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. It is also to use the force of the law to treat homosexual couples as if they were childless couples through no fault of their own. Rather than a fashion accessory, children will become the legal right of gay male couples, whose infertility is no fault of their own.

It is beyond absurd and ignorant to act as if using the force of the law to make gay male couples into the legal equivalent of biological parents is in any way consonant with Objectivism.

How does the law now force landlords respecting heterosexual couples? Insurers? Why should heterosexual couples have legal rights qua couples? If A wants to marry B why not private contracts? Why Sacramento? Why Washington? Are you sure you're not chewing the wrong end of the stick?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be illegal to discriminate against "married" couples, just as it is now illegal to discriminate against, say, mixed race marriages.

If there were no legal ramifications, there would be no reason to create the pretense of legal gay marriage. The whole point is to get the men with the guns on your side, against whomever, the the church, the employer, the neighbours, the insurer - or even the biological parents.

Civil unions allow any consenting adults, heterosexual, homosexual, or even just platonic to name each other next of kin. This is exactly proper - but the model for this should properly be adult adoption - not a bizarre form of marriage.

Julius Caesar named Octavius Caesar next of kin through adult adoption - not marriage.

Common law marriage has one justification, the protection of minor children and, secondarily, their guardian parents. It is the existence of children - biological offspring - that makes the concept rational.

What will happen now if a minor child of lesbians wants the legal right to visitation or support from her biological father? What rights will the father have?

This whole thing is about making children into fashion accessories for gay couples, at gunpoint.

Gay couples can play at make house all they like, and no one can stop them.

Why do they need men with guns to help them do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be illegal to discriminate against "married" couples, just as it is now illegal to discriminate against, say, mixed race marriages.

One of the main things all people do is disciminate. Ought there be a law and if so, why?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be illegal to discriminate against "married" couples, just as it is now illegal to discriminate against, say, mixed race marriages.

One of the main things all people do is disciminate. Ought there be a law and if so, why?

--Brant

I am an Objectivist, Brant. Surely you have heard of such people? Do I need to make it clear to you my view on anti-discrimination laws?

Do you not understand that the ONLY reason for using the law to enforce "gay marriage" as equal to marriage is for just the benefit of protection of such laws?

Yes, Brant, for the record I am for the repeal of all anti-discrimination law. That does not mean I cannot oppose the gun wielding farce of gay marriage until the law otherwise becomes perfect.

A state-backed "gay marriage" is a shotgun wedding where the gun is pointed at the unwilling guests.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically there are two ways to address this problem: Legal & Cultural.

The legal ramifications of marriage exist, and it is appropriate that either they exist for both hetero & homosexuals or such laws do not exist at all. As pointed out, government benefits that are available to only one group of people are discriminatory against other groups, particularly when such laws are in recognition of human relationships & not sexual-organs. (children are not the issue, otherwise sterile adults would be exempt as well from marriage)

This statement:

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples.
is overly emotional against gays. Already those insurance companies spoken of have "a gun pointed at them" by straight couples. It is Objectively inaccurate to say that it's ok for some people to receive benefits and not others, and I think we see that. So equality is not "gun pointing" by the group requesting equality; there is a bias when presented as such.

Addendum: An analogy to marriage benefits would be like this - if union workers received government-subsidized unemployment payments, but no one else received such benefits, Ted would prefer to have the union workers continue to receive benefits than "equalize" benefits across the population. I don't agree with this perspective. However, we both agree that no benefits should be given in the first place.

Regarding the cultural issue, which is truly what proponents of prop 8 are fighting for, that is the topic I addressed in my post.

Edited by Christopher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be illegal to discriminate against "married" couples, just as it is now illegal to discriminate against, say, mixed race marriages.

If there were no legal ramifications, there would be no reason to create the pretense of legal gay marriage. The whole point is to get the men with the guns on your side, against whomever, the the church, the employer, the neighbours, the insurer - or even the biological parents.

Civil unions allow any consenting adults, heterosexual, homosexual, or even just platonic to name each other next of kin. This is exactly proper - but the model for this should properly be adult adoption - not a bizarre form of marriage.

Julius Caesar named Octavius Caesar next of kin through adult adoption - not marriage.

Common law marriage has one justification, the protection of minor children and, secondarily, their guardian parents. It is the existence of children - biological offspring - that makes the concept rational.

What will happen now if a minor child of lesbians wants the legal right to visitation or support from her biological father? What rights will the father have?

This whole thing is about making children into fashion accessories for gay couples, at gunpoint.

Gay couples can play at make house all they like, and no one can stop them.

Why do they need men with guns to help them do this?

Absolutely.

The Big Stick of government continues to force this balancing act of enshrining and protecting every minority group, to the detriment of the only real minority, the individual.

What will depress you all further is that CA's constitution is beginning to resemble South Africa's. I don't know who's copying who...

This is hardly a legal issue - and I'm puzzled as to how it can be a cultural one - but foremost a moral one.

Any 'special interest group' denies individual choice and freedom, within, and outside, that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically there are two ways to address this problem: Legal & Cultural.

The legal ramifications of marriage exist, and it is appropriate that either they exist for both hetero & homosexuals or such laws do not exist at all. As pointed out, government benefits that are available to only one group of people are discriminatory against other groups, particularly when such laws are in recognition of human relationships & not sexual-organs. (children are not the issue, otherwise sterile adults would be exempt as well from marriage)

This statement:

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples.
is overly emotional against gays. Already those insurance companies spoken of have "a gun pointed at them" by straight couples. It is Objectively inaccurate to say that it's ok for some people to receive benefits and not others, and I think we see that. So equality is not "gun pointing" by the group requesting equality; there is a bias when presented as such.

Addendum: An analogy to marriage benefits would be like this - if union workers received government-subsidized unemployment payments, but no one else received such benefits, Ted would prefer to have the union workers continue to receive benefits than "equalize" benefits across the population. I don't agree with this perspective. However, we both agree that no benefits should be given in the first place.

Regarding the cultural issue, which is truly what proponents of prop 8 are fighting for, that is the topic I addressed in my post.

I suggest that the emotionality here is on the side of those who will corrupt the legal system to achieve a dubious cultural goal.

Again, marriage as a legal state, rather than as a religious ceremony, or a state of mind, has a rationale only when children are produced. Cohabiting adults without children are simply roommates, whether or not they have homosex or heterosex or just split the bills. Nothing in Prop 8 prevented people from performing whatever private ceremonies or taking whatever vows they wished or declaring themselves roommates or next of kin - just from declaring themselves as state sponsored childless parents. There is no third party interest justifying state interference in such an arrangement. It is only when children come into existence that the state has an obligation to ensure that the rights of the nonconsenting are protected. The state should no more be involved in the sacramental vows of marriage than it is in the sacramental vows of priesthood. The state of commonlaw marriage is a recognition of the fact that relationships which actually produce children are unique. Licensed marriage is simply an orderly way to establish commonlaw marriage before the fact without the need to go to court to sue. Childless marriages are mere fictions which can simply be dissolved with a division of property - and without the abomination of alimony to support a childless spouse. That's another corruption of the legal system caused by an irrational view of marriage, the fact that the state enslaves one adult to another through alimony when no child's support is involved. The "state" of California is an armed camp where sanity, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law have been abandoned and the mechanism of government has been perverted to serve the ends of those who would initiate force against others.

There is nothing more contemptible that a desire to corrupt the legal system in an attempt to establish one's self esteem, as if that were possible, by the use of armed force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well thats queer Ted.

I think from what I understand of your position is similar to mine namely that "Legalizing" "gay marriage" is initiation of force. words have specific meanings and the attempt to have "gay marriage" rather than civil unions is an attempt to corrupt the language.

Yes, it is tied in with forcing third parties to have to treat "gay marriages" as if they were standard marriages. The next steps will be to make it illegal to discriminate between married couples and to treat gay male couples as if they were no different from infertile couples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now