I have always tried to blog honestly, and allow my post to reflect my intellectual growth (or shifts) as well as my conflicts. Today’s post is a reflection of both of those categories as it relates to Proposition 8 in California. For those of you who do not know, Proposition 8 (link wiki) was a proposition that passed in California this November 2008 election that essentially certified that marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Blacks overwhelmingly supported this proposition causing Black folk to catch heat from gay folk and uber-liberals.
For those of you who know me, know I have a Christian conservative background, and spent my early years in the Republican party before becoming a staunch independent. I am still a Christian, and so my ideology is filtered through that particular belief system. Now, based upon that you would think I would be 100% anti-gay marriage. The truth however is that I am on the fence on this one. As a Christian I: A) Believe homosexuality is a moral issue revolving around sexual choice, and B) That Christians, like anyone else, have the right in democracy to express their preference in behaviors of choice through vote. Obviously you can feel free to debate me on anyone of those principles.
That being said as it relates to homosexual marriage these are what are at issue for me:
1. In a democracy that protects me in theory, from the majority, should I take a more libertarian approach to the issue of gay marriage and say the state should not be involved? Fundamentally I believe with the major exception of abortion that Christians should change hearts first, and work on policy second.
2. Does fighting against gay marriage open the door for future oppression against my faith, or does it in fact do the opposite…does the fight for gay marriage eventual impede upon my right as a Christian to express my opinion of homosexuality as a sin in a public setting?
Here are a few final points, I don’t think banning gay marriage is discriminatory in the traditional use of the word. I am open to listening to libertarian based arguments for the tolerance of gay marriage. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but we don’t live in a theocracy, but a democracy, and other items that I view as sins are tolerated and legal according to the state and I am Ok with that.
Any thoughts, points of contention, etc.?
Others Blogging:
Tiny Seed (If you all remember Malik, this is his Blog, check it out)
On a side note and totally unrelated to the post at hand. The two coolest gay brothers ever on TV have to be Omar from the Wire and Lafayette from True Blood:
You can throw me up on that list. I don’t know if I should care whether or not the state institutionalizes same-sex marriage either. But I do know that I’m vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage advocates constantly drawing an analogy between anti-Black racism and opposition to same-sex marriage. I can’t think of a more specious and unprincipled argument. It’s a cynical appeal to emotionalism, and when the argument is deconstructed, the comments of same-sex marriage supporters that I’ve read in defense of the argument leads me to believe that they know it.
By: Malik on December 15, 2008
at 6:02 pm
Then what about the laws where marriages were not allowed between white people and non-whites?
By: dracil on December 15, 2008
at 7:57 pm
I really like what Jane Galt said on gay marriage. She neither supports or condemns gay marriage, but she does point out a lot of things I hadn’t thought of before. It’s definitely leaning Libertarian.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/
By: beetlebabee on December 15, 2008
at 10:26 pm
What about them?
By: Malik on December 15, 2008
at 11:18 pm
Why does Government license marriage anyway?
Wouldn’t we object if the Government started trying to license who could and who could not preach?
The only strong argument that I can think for governmental licensing of marriage is to permit exceptions for teenagers who want to marry at an age that is younger than the statutory rape age of the state in which they will reside.
But other than that, why is marriage not treated as simply a part of religion?
By: Elephant on December 15, 2008
at 11:30 pm
How about tax breaks and legal provisions to name a few.
By: t-shirts101 on December 16, 2008
at 12:20 am
That was a law as well, also a civil rights issue, but is not specifically about The Civil Rights Movement, and is very similar to Prop 8. Do you have an issue with that as an example?
By: dracil on December 16, 2008
at 12:39 am
Dracil: How are anti-miscegenation laws similar to proposition 8?
By: Malik on December 16, 2008
at 1:09 am
Malik: Since you seem to think they’re not similar, how are they not?
By: dracil on December 16, 2008
at 5:16 am
Makil: Dracil: How are anti-miscegenation laws similar to proposition 8?
In 2000 Alabama voted on whether to ban interracial marriage. It got 40% support.
I think the premise of allowing the majority to decide which rights a minority can have is one of the arguments which should be examined.
Where in this country would blacks have any rights if they were determined by a majority vote in state-by-state elections?
t-shirts: How about tax breaks and legal provisions to name a few.
Exactly. The tax code rewards marriage and/or parenting.
Hell I’m single without children so I can only claim myself on my taxes while I am subsidizing someone’s choice to get married and have children.
By: Roderick on December 16, 2008
at 7:12 am
Roderick: Alabama didn’t vote on banning interracial marriage. It was a referendum on removing defunct language prohibiting interracial marriage from the state constitution. South Carolina held a similar referendum prior to that with a similar result.
Being a member of a protected class isn’t equivalent to being a member of an ethnic minority. For example, many white people claim Native American descent on legal forms in order to take advantage of the benefits that are available to that group, but in no other way are they affiliated or identified with Native Americans.
Dracil: Loving v. Virginia affirmed the right of any adult male to enter into a mongamous marriage with any adult female, irrespective of the race of the marital partners. There is no logical or legal parallel between so-called interracial marriage and same-gender marriage.
By: Malik on December 16, 2008
at 3:08 pm
A few points:
1. Gays have the right to marry, just with someone from the opposite sex. So how is that discrimination?
2. Roderick, if the majority can determine through legislation what it was to see a society be then do we truly live in a democratic society. Or to put it another way, if the minority can make decisions for the majority is that democracy?
3. Anti interacial marriage is not changing what in America has historically been seen as marriage, between a man and a woman. It is saying a man and a woman can’t be married because of a difference in race.
4. We limit human interaction all the time. Dracil, I think it was you who said that kids under a certain age should not be allowed to marry. How do you justify limiting marriage in that respect, or who do people who are anti-polygamy limit it in that way but say limitations can’t occur in other areas?
Like I said, it may seem like I am anti-gay marriage but actually I am probably more on the fence. However I don’t buy any “discrimination” arguments, or the “gay marriage is the same as straight” arguments. I am open to hearing a really solid libertarian based argument though.
By: Deus Ex Machina on December 16, 2008
at 3:21 pm
I voted no on Prop. 8, so I am in the 30% minority of Black Californians. On this issue, I am “live and let live.”
My marriage will succeed or fail based on how my wife and I get along. Whether the people in the next house are married, unmarried, gay, straight or bi-sexual, my marriage will succeed or fail based on my wife and me.
Why do you care if two men or two women get married? Hell, there are a great many heterosexuals who should not be allowed to get married.
By: brotherbrown on December 16, 2008
at 6:33 pm
Thomas Jefferson said:
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote: a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.” –Ayn Rand, “Collectivized ‘Rights,’ ” The Virtue of Selfishness.”
By: Dragon Horse on December 16, 2008
at 7:31 pm
Deus Ex Machina:
freeing slaves and banning slavery truly changed American society and not just that, went against historic human tradition.
Slavery was definitely as deep a formal tradition in Western (global society) as marriage.
Do you feel that Southern whites should have had the right to vote for our ancestors freedom in referendum?
Women voting changed society to. Should men have been allowed to vote for that in referendum by state?
Should people be allowed to vote for or against polygamy?
No where in the bible does it say that one man has to marry one woman, it talks about the relationship between man and woman. Having one legal wife was a Roman tradition not a Semitic one…it is obvious that some of the most respected men in the old testaments had multiwives and concubines (Soloman) and God never said it was bad or wrong to do so.
If people voted in the affirmative in Utah that each man can have as many wives as he can afford to take care of would that be okay with you?
By: Dragon Horse on December 16, 2008
at 7:36 pm
sorry the quote is from Ayn Rand but she took it from Jefferson…Jefferson talked a lot about the will of the majority…how the vote of the citizen and the majority is sacrosanct, etc. Still, he recognized that the majority could abuse the minority…(unfortunately he did not see that in his own home with his own slaves…guess he only felt white men could abuse white men). White mean WASP and I guess French at the time…
By: Dragon Horse on December 16, 2008
at 7:46 pm
How is freeing slaves equivalent to legalizing same-sex marriage, except for the fact that they both represent, in the abstract, a “change”?
Are you saying that marriage is morally equivalent to slavery?
Are you saying that the legalization of same-sex marriage is morally and legally equivalent to the abolition of forced labor?
By: Malik on December 16, 2008
at 8:29 pm
I agree with the fundamental hands off libertarian position on marriage. The more I think about what it is that the state does with marriage the less I think it is a right. And I do so going straight to the tax return.
I know that as a single man I pay way more taxes than I do as a married man with children. But do I have a right to my tax money as a single man? The answer is no.
What about as a wealthy man? Do I have a right to my money as much as a poor man in a lower tax bracket? The answer is also no.
Our society, being what it is has decided that the state has an interest in my money depending upon how much I make and whether or not I’m raising children. There’s nothing I can do about it – I don’t have a right to keep tax money. I am discriminated against because of my choices.
So this is the basic understanding about the premises about the legal standing and benefits of married couples. A tax break or a healthcare benefit are not rights, and no amount of screaming or begging can make them so. We would have to rearrange our entire society to change such things. I’m not saying that it can’t or won’t happen, I’m talking about political reality and what it takes to change some very fundamental premises of our society.
California joins 30 other states who have explicitly denied gay marriage. It shouldn’t be surprising, especially given the way the situation came about.
Dell, we are not a theocracy, but a nation of democratic laws. It is that very specific separation which brings my most serious concerns. Think about it this way. America already has world class gay-friendly community standards. Down in Southern California, West Hollywood is the gay capital. Obviously neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Castro are as gay-friendly as humanly possible. When activists attempt to change the law of the State of California using the rhetoric of rights, they are attempting to use the law to force every community to be as gay-friendly as whatever standard they deem appropriate. That’s a gank move – a hostile takeover.
So it came as no surprise that when 8 passed, there were attacks on the Mormon church. The activist aim is too high, too radical and too harsh as well as being fundamentally wrong on the question of rights. They are trying to deny your the right to say that homosexuality is a sin, because they will use the law to constrain religious activity. But now that momentum has been arrested, which is a good thing for all concerned.
I hope our gay-friendly communities continue to flourish and that our society changes at its own pace. When those who advocate for gays are able to make sense, we’ll all know it and respond accordingly.
By: Cobb on December 16, 2008
at 10:10 pm
Malik:
The point is that slavery and polygamy were historically normal for most of human history in the vast majority of human societies and not considered immoral. It was common knowledge from Africa to Japan at various times that some people “deserved to be slaves” or “were just born to be enslaved or a de facto slave class”. It was common knowledge throughout most of the world that a wealthy man should be able to have many wives.
In fact these things have been illegal in most of the world for a very short time, if you take into account human history…you have 12 thousand years of recorded history to about 200 years of the opposite.
The point is that they are equal in that they all represent radical change in society.
So to say marriage is between one man and one woman and do change that will go against history and radically change society is a lame argument. We have done that many times and actually if we want to be true to history we would have polygamy be legal.
What you are doing is taking today’s moral values of 2008 and trying to retroactively analyze history and say “those things are not equal”. According to who? You? What you think in this way does not matter. What matters is what happened and what people at the time thought (the majority).
I also have to agree with Cobb that from a libertarian perspective and from a founding father perspective (Jefferson who I quoted above) denying gay people equal protection under the law in the realm of marriage (which also denies their children equal protection) I feel is quite wrong.
I’m not pro-gay, but I think that they are born that way. I don’t believe this is a choice.
If they are born this way it is like being born black or born a woman or born crippled. You can not deny people equal rights due to how they are born if that innate behavior does not harm others.
If they are born “crazy” or handicapped in a way they can not drive without hurting others…that is one thing.
Gays in being gay don’t hurt people as long as their sexuality is consensual, but the same applies to heterosexuals.
Cobb:
“Dell, we are not a theocracy, but a nation of democratic laws. It is that very specific separation which brings my most serious concerns. Think about it this way. America already has world class gay-friendly community standards. Down in Southern California, West Hollywood is the gay capital. Obviously neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Castro are as gay-friendly as humanly possible. When activists attempt to change the law of the State of California using the rhetoric of rights, they are attempting to use the law to force every community to be as gay-friendly as whatever standard they deem appropriate. That’s a gank move – a hostile takeover.”
I’m sure some white folks thought the same way about the Civil Rights Act, many Libertarians would like it repealed, I’m sure you know that.
My argument against that is the first duty of the government is to do things collectively we can’t do for ourselves, like protection. The state had a duty to protect black citizens from oppression, often protection from local and state governments which were given power by the vote of the majority.
I apply the same standard to everyone, not just people who do sex acts that I agree with.
By: Dragon Horse on December 17, 2008
at 12:19 am
Agreed.
That’s not an argument that I made. I just posed a question.
I recently addressed that argument at length. An essential point from that argument:
By: Malik on December 17, 2008
at 1:13 am
Malik:
So if a swede was born in the black community he would be “black”?
lol
BTW..here is where the scientific research is on “gayness”…
http://www.slate.com/id/2159262
I have a gay friend. He insist he was born gay and so gay rights are like civil rights for minorities. Many disagree and there is no affirmative proof either way (yet). What if gay people are born gay…due to a group of genes (I’m going to guess something that complex involves more than one gene). If we can test for that. In Middle America… Read More…typical moderate folks…will most of them bring a gay child to term when confronted with a 70-80% chance of having a gay child, in the privacy of their doctor’s office? I doubt it.
Sounds like the movie Gattica is inevitable.
That’s another topic in a way…but in the end it is the “Final Solution”…you reduce the gay population pre-nataly and gay marriage is not an issue.
By: Dragon Horse on December 17, 2008
at 12:54 pm
Good argument:
“This is a recapitulation of argument #1 in legal form. First, race isn’t an “immutable characteristic”. It is a product of the social and historical context in which it was created. Second, protected classes were created to prevent discrimination against social groups based solely on secondary characteristics like ethnicity or religion in circumstances where those characteristics are irrelevant to the application of law or the determination of qualifications. Using “immutability” as a criterion for defining which secondary characteristics are protected is a post civil-rights legal innovation which is inconsistently applied. There is nothing “immutable” about religion for example. Moreover, whether or not sexual orientation is immutable remains an open question. In any case, the intent of anti-discrimination laws is to protect against unjustified discrimination.”
By: Dragon Horse on December 17, 2008
at 12:56 pm
If he was born in Black America, he wouldn’t be a Swede. And in my neck of the woods, there are more than a few folks with white skin who were raised by Black families. They think, walk, talk and identify as Black. How they should be classified is a discussion for another day.
By: Malik on December 17, 2008
at 2:30 pm
So Steve Martin in “The Jerk” was a black man because he was raised by a black family.
So is a Chinese girl adopted by a white family white?
Will she mark White on the census? Really?
Yes, there is a cultural element and a gray area, but to say that someone who is phenotypcally white, without a trace of any black ancestry would be accepted as “black” (a African American) in the U.S. in 2008 you are kidding yourself.
You would have a point if you said, Prince or Beyonce would not be black if their last name was Moreno or Salazar…that’s a different situation though.
By: Dragon Horse on December 17, 2008
at 3:38 pm
In many places, yes, for all practical intents and purposes. “White” has proven itself to be an elastic category that can assimilate many previously excluded ethnicities, such as Irish, Greek, Italian and Jewish.
Deciding who is “phenotypically white” is an entirely arbitrary determination. People can and do cross the boundary in both directions all the time.
By: Malik on December 17, 2008
at 11:32 pm
Cobb: Our society, being what it is has decided that the state has an interest in my money depending upon how much I make and whether or not I’m raising children. There’s nothing I can do about it – I don’t have a right to keep tax money. I am discriminated against because of my choices.
Roderick: Wow how did you keep a straight face when you typed that?
All of you conservatives whine and bitch about being punished for succeeding ( i.e. being ambitious and earning more money and having taxes taken out but you’re ok with the government rewarding people for their most personal choices (marriage, children) and you want to limit those rewards to a certain group?
Is that what you are saying?
Cobb: So this is the basic understanding about the premises about the legal standing and benefits of married couples. A tax break or a healthcare benefit are not rights, and no amount of screaming or begging can make them so. We would have to rearrange our entire society to change such things.
Roderick: ROFTLMAO!!
Talk about hyperbole. So how would extending health benefits to same-sex couples as some major corporations and the federal government already do require a major rearrangement of society?
Cobb: Dell, we are not a theocracy, but a nation of democratic laws. It is that very specific separation which brings my most serious concerns.
Roderick: and that’s where the hypocrisy in the debate lies.
The people who say they oppose gay marriage on moral grounds and because it undermines ‘traditional marriage’ never say a word about banning divorce or criminalizing adultery or fornication. Of course such proposals would not get 20% support from the electorate because 90% of the population isn’t going to vote for something that restricts their rights only the rights of others.
Cobb: Think about it this way. America already has world class gay-friendly community standards. Down in Southern California, West Hollywood is the gay capital. Obviously neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Castro are as gay-friendly as humanly possible. When activists attempt to change the law of the State of California using the rhetoric of rights, they are attempting to use the law to force every community to be as gay-friendly as whatever standard they deem appropriate. That’s a gank move – a hostile takeover.
Roderick: As usual you go off on some tangent that isn’t relevant to the discussion just to muddy the issues. BTW are you related to Cultural Strategist?
The entire discussion is how can you deny some citizens rights and marriage is a right because there are no qualifications except age and in most states that can be waived with the parent(s)’ permission.
As for your ‘why can’t gays be satisfied with their gay-friendly cities?’ argument what if whites had offered MLK and other civil rights leaders a compromise where blacks were only allowed to have full rights as citizens but only in certain locations (Watts, Detroit, NYC, and Los Angeles) and blacks were prohibited in every other location in America would you be so flippant?
Cobb: So it came as no surprise that when 8 passed, there were attacks on the Mormon church. The activist aim is too high, too radical and too harsh as well as being fundamentally wrong on the question of rights. They are trying to deny you’re the right to say that homosexuality is a sin, because they will use the law to constrain religious activity.
Roderick: No one is trying to silence anyone from expressing their opinion but the Mormons raised money which was used to advocate a particular political position which is a direct violation of the separation of church and state and they should lose their tax exempt status ASAP.
By: Roderick on December 18, 2008
at 1:12 am
12 18 08
Dell: You know we don’t live in a democracy. WE live in a Constitutional Republic. Therefore, the will of the people is protected against itself in a sense.
By: Mahndisa on December 18, 2008
at 9:10 pm