Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection ActWell, now that Arnold is the only thing stopping gay marriage from coming to California we should reflect on the legal issues raised thus far because, to be honest, I was misinformed. I was under the impression that the anti-gay marriage proposition passed a couple years back was an amendment to the state constitution when in fact it was, as Kevin Drum points out, only a statutory initiative. Accordingly, it could be found to be in conflict with our equal protection clause.
(This does a lot to retroactively defend the actions of Gavin Newsom a while back when he was handing out gay marriages: He argued that they were legal and since the issue hadn't been looked at by a court yet, you could argue that he was simply trying to execute the law to the best of his abilities. Now, I personally don't agree ith Gavin, but at the time, he was mayor and I wasn't, so it was best to defer to him... At least until a judge intervened.)
Anyhow, it's interesting to see how the conservatives are going to play this one: Arnold has been trying to make people's heads explode by arguing that this is an issue that should be left to the courts. I suppose that they'll have to have another referendum. But the last one which was vague enough to pretend to be not homophobic passed with only 60% and that was a while back. Anyhow, I hope it fails for the sake of Steve, Kurt, Michele and all the other people who can't get married to people they love right now because some other people are stuck in the middle ages.
Update: Title changed to reflect the name fo the bill in question.
Update: Socially moderate Republicans strike again: Arnold says he will veto the bill.
lets legalize gay marriage along wiT polygamy, marriage to children, marriage to animals, etc..
hey its all a part of freedom rite?
government should get out of da marriage bizness and juss recognize civil unions for every 2 adults daT want dem.
Smasht is in a funny spot. He doesn't hate gays, but he still needs to hate liberals. He splits the difference by implying that liberals defend gay marriage for reasons we do not. He implies that Liberals defend gay marriage becuase they support all types of uinions everywhere, including those where one party cannot give consent (like an animal or a child) and those that aer blantantly uneven (like polygamy).
Yes smasht, you support gay marraige. But not like the people who have actually done the hard work to make it possible. You support gay marriage like those (libertarians) who don't actually lift a finger to help and instead continue to vote for the people that activley oppose gay marriage. It's all about priorities after all.
Oh, you don't support polygamy, TS? I continue to be impressed by this curious exception to the rhetoric in favor of gay marriage. It seems that, if the idea is that two consenting adults can have a legally recognized relationship with each other called marriage, that the same should be true of three adults. Or four. Or N.
And I know some opponents raise this argument to say that the gay marriage folks are supporting polygamy, but I have the opposite concern. Why aren't they supporting polygamy? Does the idea of equal rights end with them, and not extend any further? What is blatantly uneven about polygamy?
"So, SmashT, what then is the difference between Civil Marriage and Civil Unions?"
i'd rater not piss of da religous majority in dis country by using da word marriage. my solution is da way to pls everyone. churches get control of marriage, gays get equal rights.
having gay marriage will produce a backlash and divide the country. not worth it imo wen der are bettar options.
and please dun try and equate gay marriage wit da civil rights movement. two completely different issues.
smasht said, "and please dun try and equate gay marriage wit da civil rights movement. two completely different issues."
They may be two different issues today, but we don't have to go back too far in US history (maybe 40 years) to find a time when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some US states. The so-called "liberal" courts declared such bans unconstitutional in the face of rhetoric similar to that used to attack gay marriage today. Strangely, I don't hear even the most ardent opponents of gay marriage calling for a repeal of the right to interracial marriage on the grounds that it was the first step on this "slippery slope".
By the way, for those unfamiliar with interracial marriage bans in the US, the case in which they were declared unconstitutional was Loving v. Virginia (1967). Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision of the Court. It can be read at:
Polygamy as practiced is intensily unequal and I strongly doubt that it could be made to work. People's freedom of contract has limits: You are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery, even if all parties involved consent. You are not allowed to enter into polygamous marriage even if you've been brainwashed into thinking it's ok.
As for smashT. You can't support Gay marriage, becuase it divides the country and your balls are too miniscule to stand up to the religious right, yet you have no problem supporting the Iraq war.
Oh let me guess, you don't the war either, you just keep voting for the Republcians that do.
ha ha. smashT has smashT everything smashT claims to stand for.
So basically you're saying that you disagree with the way that polygamy is practiced, thus you don't think it should be allowed even though it is entirely consensual? This says alot about the liberal mentality. Like the social conservatives, liberals base their decisions on their own personal opinion of what is acceptable or not. You may argue in the name of "freedom" but really you're just fighting for special interests.
On the other hand, one of the libertarian takes on this issue is to completely remove government from the picture. Make marriage into a completely private contract between consenting adults governed by churches and other organizations. That way, people can choose to live the way they want, without the approval of you or me or the government.
Unfortunately, if someone were to propose legislation to privatize marriage, it would come under fire not only from the social conservatives, but from liberals like Tomamaso who have an equally vested interest in controlling society.
You seem to ignore the potential for private coercion when you claim that polygamy is a contract among consensual adults.
Certainly history is replete with examples of the inequity that results when powerful individuals and institutions exert their will on those with less power, then claim that the powerless were free to say no if they were unhappy with the result.
This historical amnesia is the main objection I have to Libertarian philosophy. We know the harm individuals and private institutions inflict when left to their own devices. The domestic history of the US in the 20th century is in large measure the story of the rise of institutions to mitigate the atrocities we saw in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That is not to say that the remedies are not without their own problems, but it is to say unequivocally that tearing down those institutions and returning to such a time is unacceptable.
Personally I have no problem with taking government out of the marriage business. If they did I would continue to argue against polygamy. But of course, those who support that position don't really care to make the current situation better. They just need a fake position to cling to so they don't have to admit that they don't mind throwing gays under the wagon in order to get the tax-cuts they want.
Indentured servitude and many other forms of slavery are, like polygamy, often completley consenual. Yet they are still wrong. If you want to argue that people have a right to sell themselves into slavery, and that other people have the right to keep them as slaves then that's about as damning an indictment of libertarianism (or whatever it is that you call yourself) as I can think of.
Like conservatives, Liberals have values. Libertarians have values too. They want to force onto their fellow citizens a giant social-engieering project called unfettered free-markets without social insurance.
I don't see how any of these arguments against polygamy don't apply to plain old average monogamous marriage. Why does entering polygamous marriage make you a brainwash victim while enetering monogamous marriage does not? Is there no potential for coercion in the realm of monogamous marriage?
You seem to be worried about a seperate issue which happens to plague communities that engage in polygamy. But if such things are illegal even if polygamy was not, then there is no need to "overlegislate" it, thus depriving others of freedom.
One can argue against polygamous marriage without arguing against government recognition of it (as many people currently do for gay marriage).
Well, it's a value judgement I admit. I don't expect to convince everyone from first pincipals. But it's a value judgement I feel comfortable making.
You're free to make that value judgment. I do it, too. The question is why should the government make the judgment? Does it do anything? Is there a point? I can think of a reason why it should be legal. (consenting adults, etc.) Is there one why it should be illegal, besides "a lot of people don't like it," which (rightfully) isn't considered a valid criticism of gay marriage.
No. What I'm trying to say is that for the same reason you oppose allowing people to enter into slavery contracts, I oppose polygamy. There are some "contracts" that are so obviously bad for one party that they should be disallowed since the only way to induce someone into it is through neffarious means. Wanting to enter into it is almost proof that you are not fit to consent.
I know. There are a hundred ways to pick that apart since it requires lots of value judgements (who is capabl of giving consent. A 5 year old can't, but is a 17 year old, a mentally retarded person etc.) It's a judgement I make.
Do you have any sample polygamy contracts that would indicate the obligations and benefits of any or all parties? Since they are illegal in the US, I doubt it. So, what benefits do you see for the multiple wives? Or, are you envisioning a contract where one woman marries multiple men? Or perhaps, multiple men and women marry each other? Or, multiple men marry under one contract; and multiple women under another?
Likewise, what are the rights and responsibilities of individuals in traditional monogamous marriage contracts? I assume they are regulated by the state, so they might be easier to identify.
They probably are, and I haven't a clue. IANAL. If some of the rights/responsibilities so defined are such that they can only exist between two people, that's certainly a valid criticism of recognizing polygamy the same way as monogamy.
As a real-life married person, I promised to "forsake all others," which might get in the way of polygamy.
lolz good for ahnold
da people of california have alrdy spoken on dis issue. 60% voted against gay marriage smashT. arnold is keeping wit da wishes of da ppl.
dis juss shows how out of touch da legislature is wit da ppl's of california. if u are a democrap, get rdy to be smashT dis fall in da special election, get rdy to be smashT in 06 when Arnold wins his landslide re-election. and oh yea get rdy to be smashT in 08 when hilary gets smashT by whoever da Reps put up for president.
if u dun like da results of democracy leave california den and go to norway or some oter bs socialist countries. dere u can be in a society which has all da things u like socialized health, high taxes... etc.. juss make sure ur blonde wit blue eyes lolz oterwise u are gonna get smashT by dose socialist racists.
"ahnold smashT da extremists"
I'm glad you take so much pleasure in knowing that people that love each other won't be able to get married. Yeah, you're not a bigot at all. You just cheer when the forces of bigotry win.
If Arnold, with his mid 30% approval rating wins re-election I will buy you some candy and some speach therapy lessons.
The legislature, with it's sub-20 percent approval seems to have no trouble getting re-elected each time.
We never vote for "the legislature", we only vote for individual legislators. In California, at least, the actual voting day results, and polls asking people to rate their particular legislators rather than "the legislature" in general give individual legislators big shows of support.
We do however vote for "the governor". As Arnold's success in the recall election shows, polls there do count. (Both election day and preference polls.)
anyone wanna take bets on Ahnolds victory in 06? 100 bux says he smashT's daT socialist retard angelides. who's gonna bet? u got da balls tommasso?
fukin scrub ahnold owns u suckas. he is gonna smashT u in da special election den crushT u in 06.
"Ahnold smashT da newbs"
da only bigot on dis blog is u tommasso. u hate christian ppl's for der beliefs. keep on hatin dem along wit da rest of ur party. daT way u can keep on being smashT in elections.
"christian hata smashT"
also learn how to spell "speech" b4 u offer to give me lessons in it.
lol dis is funny as fuk, u just got ownT on ur own blog. hahaT
The only bigotry I've detected on this blog is in your messages.
As Tommaso is a Christian, are you saying that he hates himself?
a lot of left wing progressives hate demselves for being white and "priviledged" so ya he might hate himself. lolz
oterwise get of my nutz and get of dis thread. no one is talking to ur ass.
When we post on a public blog we talk to each other. If you want to communicate privately with Tommaso, maybe you should use his e-mail address or his phone.
$100 says Arnold runs for re-election and does not win or that he decides not to run at all. If Arnold dies the bet is off.
But we can't have a gentleman's agreement unless you give me your real name. I'm not one to go dredging the muck at the bottom of the barrel just to find a bad apple that owes me $100.
I'm a pretty proud liberal Catholic. We're not a small minority either. I know it may be confusing to someone who doesn't seem to have any solid position besides "liberals bad" but my liberal values proceed from my religious upbringing.
In the case of gay marriage, Jesus taught us that morality should not be allowed to calcify into what in his time was known as Talmudic law. He taught us to keep an open mind and to not let respect for tradition get in the way of doing the right thing. Because of this I have no problem reconsidering the morality of gay and lesbian families in light of our modern understanding of why they love who they do.
bet is on only if ahnold is in da election.
i cant belive any1 honestly tinks daT angelides f00l has a chance. he will be smashT
I won't accept the bet unless it includes the case where Arnold decides not to run. He's such a failure in the eyes of California, theres a good chance he will decline and I don't want you squirming out of your bet just becuase Arnold gives up.
I just read a summary of a Roll Call article on Rough and Tumble (http://www.rtumble.com/) reporting the Arnold will announce his re-election bid next week as part of the kickoff of his special election campaign.
Well then, if he officially announces his reelection campign I have no problem with the bet as stands.
Though I still need to know exactly which 15 year-old typing from his mothers home office computer I am making a bet with. You can send me a personal e-mail with your real name if you don't want to publish it.
firstname.lastname@example.org is my mail.
get rdy to be smashT
funny how u say ahnold isnt gonna run den beetle smashT's u again wit da facts. just fukin give up alrdy m@n. its s@d how much u get crushT on ur own blog.
That's $100 _Americann dollars_. I don't want you pretending that you can pay your debt with the money your secret Canadian girlfriend that no one has ever seen but you still talk about her all the time like she was real gave you.
wut da fuk are u talkin about n00b?Post a Comment
canadian girlfriend? wat r u insane or sometin?
i guess makin stupid shiT up fits in well with ur political ideology. lolz smashT