Nice false analogy. My proposal exhibits no differentiation, and no segregation. Odd you STILL haven’t increased your reading comprehension sufficiently to see that rather obvious fact.

Gyges,

Did Prop 8 take something that was legal and make it illegal? Sure. That’s not in debate. The issue is rather the status quo regarding marriage and gays was problematic. Considering the equity and rights is a legal issue, Prop 8 is completely moot as to whether gays get those rights and equities. It simply states that CA closed an illegitimate door (which happens to be the most problematic) for those rights. An end does not justify any means, particularly when more equitable means are available. I am surprised that so many people advocate such a legal vigilantism.

P.S. The strawman was that marriage “has always” been defined as a union between a man and a woman. I do not believe that, but believe it true in the gross majority of cases. As such, “marriage” is a term that has traditionally (and currently) meant simply that, and to change a definition rather than seek equitable remedy is simply disingenuous.

Mespo,

“You heard (figuratively) and understood him correctly. That is what he said, and probably what he meant until you pointed out the sheer lunacy of it.”

One more dumb comment like this, and I’ll completely ignore you. And may I highlight the absolutely sad nature of a society w/ people like you, incapable of dialoguing in an intelligent, respectful manner. No wonder the anti-Prop 8ers lost the battle. They would cease the emotional nonsense and offense long enough to have a constructive discussion.

Jill,

Nailed it? Nailed what? Gyges has yet to explain why a charge of inequity is better fought via the dictionary, rather than the law. Moreover, Gyges has failed to show what equity is remedied by changing the definition of a word that has remained (for the most part) consistent over thousands of years, when a simple change in the law is available and rather simple. If you think Gyges nailed it, then I think you’ve drunk a little too deeply from the emotional, nonsensical rhetoric of the anti-Prop 8ers w/ out objectively evaluating both the equity, justice, and functioning of the courts and system.

“Justice for all” does not give rise to “justice the way I want it.” I challenge ALL to show me how statutory modification, equating gay unions w/ marriage (or even replacing “marriage” w/ “all civil unions”) does any further damage to a vulnerable minority. What grounds do the anti-Prop 8ers have to object? Oh yes…because they want to eye-poke. Time for them to grow-up.

“Wayne,

That was a poorly worded jab your responses in the 9/11 thread. I apologize, it was completely unnecessary and clearly against the wishes of our host that we remain civil. I’ll endeavor to keep my editorial critiques of your writing style to myself in the future.”

Yea I know.

I was just helping you come to that realization.

I’m glad you said what you said to Wayne. I have to say it was distressing to me and I admire you for owing up to it and apologizing. I’m also impressed with your argument with aaron. I think you nailed it.

You heard (figuratively) and understood him correctly. That is what he said, and probably what he meant until you pointed out the sheer lunacy of it.

You’re for something that changed the law to prohibit something that had people were able to do. Period. No matter how many times you cry “straw man” or refer to what “has always been” that doesn’t change that Prop. 8 took something that was legal and made it illegal. When asked to justify this removal of freedom you replied, “The ‘pressing’ reason in linguistic integrity.” If I misunderstood you by it was by taking your words at face value. Next time I’ll assume that you only mean something until someone points out how ridiculous it really is.

Either way, you’re set in your views, I’m obviously set in mine. I’m willing to agree to disagree if you are. I’ll even let you get the last word if you want. I hate taking part in pointless debates, which is what this is quickly becoming.

Wayne,

That was a poorly worded jab your responses in the 9/11 thread. I apologize, it was completely unnecessary and clearly against the wishes of our host that we remain civil. I’ll endeavor to keep my editorial critiques of your writing style to myself in the future.

“My premise is that are more equitable and efficient means of upholding justice than anti-Prop 8 (i.e. through “gay marriage”).”

*************************

That’s the exact position Gov. George Wallace had when he barricaded the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama trying to stop Vivian Malone and James Wood from attending. He famously said later, “A racist is one who despises someone because of his color, and an Alabama segregationist is one who conscientiously believes that it is in the best interest of Negro and white to have a separate education and social order.” Funny how the oppressed are always being benefited by the oppressors and don’t even know it’s for their own good. You are in good –and expected — company.

Apparently you have misunderstood me. You can’t take the government interest of linguistic integrity in isolation. Balance that with alternatives which are unarguable equitable.

Moreover, you continue to beg the question of changing definitions. The CASC certainly gave gays the right to marry. What this did more than anything, is highlight the difference in what people consider “marriage.” I do not doubt that the definition could change, but it has not…as evidenced by CA voters having now codifed a standard definition.

The irritating part of this whole thing is that the only reason anti-Prop 8ers have gone about the path they have, is simply to eye-poke. Given the easy equitable route, and the difficult, political stamping eye poke, they’ve chosen the latter. I have very little patience w/ such juvenile antics.

And in the future, before posing yourself as an academic, learn a thing or two about a strawman and then upgrade your academic integrity.

Mespo,

Go away, then grow-up. My premise is that are more equitable and efficient means of upholding justice than anti-Prop 8 (i.e. through “gay marriage”). To completely blind yourself to this fact and pick-up Gyges’ erroneous strawman to attack rhetoric rather than substance only speaks to your inability to dialogue. Of course, your ad hominem is glaring enough. You are irrelevant.

Wayne,

Get used to it. Strawman seem to be par for the course with these guys.

“Wayne,

Feel free to take offense, but you have to admit “verbose” is pretty accurate.”

Offense? Why are you planning on offending me?

I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. The last comment I made in this thread was 3 days ago.

What is your problem with me now?

“Sanctimonious babble” was too good not to use. Also I feel I should commend you for your own patience. I’ve been tempted to wade back into that other fray, but don’t have time to read all those verbose replies.

Wayne,

Feel free to take offense, but you have to admit “verbose” is pretty accurate.

As to your comment that “I don’t think Aaron’s an authoritarian. He probably views his idea as a compromise,” I suggest it is always the way of the autocrat to suggest that you should compromise with your freedom. Sort of the old line about what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.

I generally wouldn’t bother responding at this point, since you seem to be truly committed to the absurd idea that there exists some duty of governments to maintain an strangle hold on language. You’ve provided no reason for this idea other than to insist that it’s true. So, since I don’t feel like mocking it (which is the only response it warrants) anymore than I already have I’m not going to address it further.

I’m just going to point out one fact that so far you’ve been willfully ignoring. Before Prop. 8 passed gay couples were able to be legally married in California, Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, South Africa, and Spain. The definition had been already been changed to include gay couples. Despite of your sanctimonious babble about preserving the language the language had in fact already changed. So no, you can no longer claim that “Marriage always was between a man and a woman.”

Rather than asking for something new, those who oppose Prop. 8 are simply saying “Don’t take away what we already have.”

The ‘pressing’ reason in linguistic integrity. Take that and turn it on its head, then what’s the law worth? But more importantly is the fact that you are flat wrong. I DON’T have the right to be called a woman, and receive government subsidies for women and minorities. I DON’T have the right to call my dogs “dependants” on my tax return because they mean more to me than your children do to you. There’s an element of common sense—don’t hijack the language to meet your cause. Attack the inequitable law. Anything else is asinine.

“You want us to tell a whole section of the population “well, you’ve got equal rights as us… as long as you call it something different, because we like this word the way it is.”

Something different? No—call it what it is!! And if you have an issue with separate but equal (although that’s precisely what it is), then amend the law to include ALL civil unions, rather than simply state “marriage.” Why in the world does the gay community have the right to change our words for their own self-victimized purposes when changing the law is easier and more equitable…and all without adulterating the language.

“I’m sorry, but the meaning of words change over time, just look at the history of who was considered a citizen.”

They do, but CA has made it clear that there, marriage has not. The only way you can implicate this reasoning is to suggest YOUR definition is ok, rather than the majorities. You have yet to show a reason why that is so.

Again, a constant understanding of our language is imperative to our law. Look at all the examples within FRE. Hearsay, statements, etc. There are codified definitions, and to change them at the will of a whining minority with no good reasons of their own only opens a pandora’s box. It’s stupid, AND bad policy.

Mespo,

If you think I’m an authoritarian, then you are a fool. I daresay as much can be expected by such flimsy ad hominem stitched together while begging the question. Your inability to address the thread substantively, but rather descend into emotional name calling and rhetoric only speaks to your incompetence in engaging in a fruitful discussion. Go away. Like, to Canada.

Mike,

I tend to agree with the substantive equality you promulgate. However, you fail in believing that opponents confuse the secular and religious. While that may be true, even in the majority of the cases, such an observation is incomplete. The reason is simple: if equality can be gained via a change of law, approaching the subject of definitions is wholly premature, and unnecessary. There’s a right to equality, but not equality the way we want it. The only reason gays have pushed the issue, is to eye-poke conservatives. There rights are attainable through other means, but they want to eye-poke. That is inexcusable.

Gyges,

“The problem is that there is no reason that gays should have to compromise. They’re not asking for anything except to be treated the same way as everyone else.”

No they’re not. They asking for the unprecedented special treatment of changing words to include themselves that have not, and do not include them—by definition. Rather than seek equity, they seek to mark a political stamp. That is not their right.

I don’t think Aaron’s an authoritarian. He probably views his idea as a compromise. The problem is that there is no reason that gays should have to compromise. They’re not asking for anything except to be treated the same way as everyone else.

Broadly stated, a principal purpose of law is to define relationships and the rights and duties that flow from them. When, through the process of recording a document, the state confirms the existence of a marriage, it is simply acknowledging the creation of a legal relationship which will be recognized as such for certain statutory and common law purposes. In essence, the effect is identical to what occurs when the state issues a charter confirming that a new corporation has been validly formed or a title certificate transferring the ownership of a motor vehicle. In each instance, the action of the state merely confers legal recognition on an authorized type of relationship. It does not address the morality of the underlying transaction, nor confer the blessings of the Almighty.

The issue confronting society in the context of gay individuals is whether government should give legal recognition to gay couples and, if so, whether that recognition should be coextensive with that afforded heterosexual couples who have entered into a legal marriage (i.e, a civil union). Proponents of legal recognition argue that there is no rational basis to treat homosexual and heterosexual partners any differently under the law. I have long agreed with this view.

Opponents of gay marriage confuse the role of the state in regulating the legal aspects of civil unions (or marriages) and the role of religion in providing a sacramental foundation for relationships which meet the criteria of a particular religion. In other words, opponents of gay marriage argue that the legal recognition of gay relationships somehow undermines the sacramental character of marriage as they understand it. But this is quite literally nonsense. The state has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage as a religious sacrament. Therefore, the legal recognition of gay relationships has absolutely no bearing on a person’s religious view of marriage. In sum, the fear expressed by many sincerely religious people that recognition of gay marriage by the state will corrupt the theological underpinnings of marriage is simply wrong. It is, however, another example of the sort of muddled thinking we fall into when we attempt to integrate particular religious viewpoints into the law.

My thoughts are probably not as clearly expressed as I would wish them, and I do not expect to change anyone’s mind on the controversy at issue. But unless we find a way to properly restate the issue, the debate will continue to be fruitless and needlessly abusive.

Most authoritarians take the position that freedom is the aberration and not the legal right of mankind. Thus to have that freedom the burden is on you to show why it is beneficial. Certainly a difference in mentality quite at odds with the underpinnings of our democracy.

I’m sorry, but you have it backwards. In a free society (like ours aspires to be) Governments don’t need a good reason to not prohibit a behavior, they DO need a good reason TO prohibit it. So I don’t have to prove that there’s a pressing reason for gays to marry, but you do have to prove to that there’s a pressing reason for the government forbidding them to marry.

You want us to tell a whole section of the population “well, you’ve got equal rights as us… as long as you call it something different, because we like this word the way it is.” I’m sorry, but the meaning of words change over time, just look at the history of who was considered a citizen.

So until you can come up with a reason other than “I don’t think this word’s meaning should be made more inclusive,” you don’t get to tell me that I have to persuade you. I don’t care what you think on the matter, be wrong all you want, but you don’t get to force that belief on other people by limiting their actions.

“Fact. More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Apparently marriage is not as “dear” to the heterosexual community as you were led to believe.”

Your red-herring falls tremendously short substantively, and logically.

“You do realize it was issues like these that lost you guys the last two elections, right?”

Lost “us guys?” Aren’t you being a bit presumptuous about my political standing? Please, do not suggest I’m a conservative Republican. I am not. I am objective, and the anti-Prop 8ers are wrong because they’re wrong…not because of some hidden motive of mine.

“My parents won’t be any less married if two gays or lesbians down the street decide to get married. It won’t change anything. Its a nothing issue.”

Yet you avoid tu quo que like the plague. Why go after a word, when it’s the law that needs adjustment? I agree that a gay “marriage” won’t affect my marriage. But who said that’s the issue? It’s another emotional red herring used to fill the abysmal void of substance.

“If they want to get married, let em. Who cares?”

Minorities (or majorities for that matter) do not have the right to demand people accommodate their unique vernacular out of spite and skewed purpose. As Americans, we are so cautious of political correctness that we throw reason out the window. If you want the law changed, then change the law. Don’t eye-poke w/ shifting definitions which only adulterate our language.

“We’re supposed to be a free, equal, diverse and inclusive society. So why single them out? Who’s next? Blacks? Should blacks not be allowed to be married? How about Presbyterians? Nudists? Rotarians?”

What an absolutely brainless thing to say. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and as long as those groups engage in a union of a man and a woman, they are marriages. Moreover, Prop-8 only sought to codify the common definition of “marriage.” The ones seeking to change definitions, per your erroneous illustration, are the anti-Prop 8ers.

Ironically, however, you prove the point. Given a zealous right-wing conspiratorial majority, what do you think they would do with the precedence set by anti-Prop 8ers? There are some that would redefine words to explicitly exclude minority groups from certain rights and benefits; i.e. exclude gays from “families,” or adoption. That is ludicrous, but it would be the precise, subjective path that your precedence would trail blaze. Don’t be so disingenuous to pick and choose stupidity when it benefits you.

“Instead of worrying about the mote in your neighbors eye you might want to start focusing on that beam in your own.”

What the hell does that mean? I haven’t heard a single passing of judgment on this thread. The anti-Prop 8 argument falls apart at the seems of logic, reason, justice, and efficiency…we needn’t employ moral judgments. Go away. Or, at least back to law school.

People don’t care. I don’t care. No one cares.

My parents won’t be any less married if two gays or lesbians down the street decide to get married. It won’t change anything. Its a nothing issue. We have important issues to deal with right now. Real issues. Issues of great weight and severity. Who cares about gay marriage? I’m not “for” it but nor am I against it. Its a nothing issue. If they want to get married, let em. Who cares? We’re supposed to be a free, equal, diverse and inclusive society. So why single them out? Who’s next? Blacks? Should blacks not be allowed to be married? How about Presbyterians? Nudists? Rotarians?

Instead of worrying about the mote in your neighbors eye you might want to start focusing on that beam in your own.

“Why demand the word that is dear to the heterosexual traditional family.”

Fact.

More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

Apparently marriage is not as “dear” to the heterosexual community as you were led to believe.

The distinction the homosexual community made from the heterosexual
community was apparently made with pride.
Domestic partnerships have become accepted and given the rights that equal the marriage rights of “one man and one woman”.

Why would heterosexual couples want to give up the title “marriage” when they entered into “marriage” with the understanding of the special man – woman union?
Why do homosexuals want to take from heterosexuals the “marriage” their lifetime tradition allowed them to have?

This is selfish and demanding and discriminatory. And unnecessary.

Domestic partnership allows everything that marriage does without the word. Why demand the word that is dear to the heterosexual traditional family.

The problem is that marriage is not solely a religious issue. You are begging the question and conflating motive with reality.

Gyges,

Your smirk understanding of pluralities and definitions fails you completely, once again, in addressing the substance of my post. The union of “a man and a woman,” by definition does not limit the aggregate. A single man or woman could be “married” 100 times to another individual, and so long as that union is between 2 people, is marriage, and the aggregate is irrelevant. I’m surprised you missed this rather blatant and practical point.

“The reason I didn’t address the “substance” of your post was because you post lacked any real substance. Your view point seems to be that because a word currently has one particular meaning that it should not be altered, and that the law has some responsibility to keep the language “pure.” I didn’t find that worth commenting on.”

Yeah…right. Given your limited track record, save the time picking up your ego and get to the post. The fact of the matter is citizens have a right to codify they’re language if they’d like to. Moreover, where differing definitions have substantive implications, I think it’s rather important to do so.

“I will say this: Marriage has become about more than the legalities, it has become an avenue for two people to publicly declare their love for each other, and society recognizing that love.”

You think this is new? Since when did it “become” a facility of love? What an odd post.

“To continue refuse gays that basic happiness because that’s the way it’s always been is just cruel.”

No, it’s not. It’s self-victimization. Marriage isn’t between same gendered people, no matter how much it “means” to them. It may mean the world to me to have people consider me a woman, but I’m not. I never will be. And to boo-hoo reality is only lends to self-victimization.

Neil M,

“Ah…so the tradition of marriage has been unchanged except for all of those times that it changed? I guess no one can disagree with that.”

What are you talking about? The definition of marriage and how it is legitimized in the eyes of the state are two distinct concepts that cannot be so easily conflated into one notion of “tradition,” as you’ve so disingenuously done. More importantly, however, this discussion is one of definition. GLBT want to change the common (not to say only) definition of marriage. The majority of CA have rejected the move, and defined the word. This says nothing of instances throughout history where “marriage” has differed in form or substance. But what we consider today as “marriage” is generally the Judeo-Christian tradition. That doesn’t necessitate definitional compliance, but that’s the way it is. It’s really not that big of a deal. If the GLBT, again, would try and fix the laws rather than eye-poke, I think they’d reach the equality they deserve much quicker.

“Both polygyny and polyandry are still unions between “a man and a woman.” There is no limitation in the aggregate, and I daresay that “symbolic” marriages are completely moot. Polygamy is very much “marriage,” although deligitimized in America. Same thing w/ the marriages of minors (little children).”

Ah…so the tradition of marriage has been unchanged except for all of those times that it changed? I guess no one can disagree with that.

If you really want to learn something about marriage, I strongly recommend you read “Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage” by author and historian Stephanie Coontz. You’ll be surprised just how much the “unchanging tradition” of marriage has changed throughout human history, both in form and in function.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that the words ‘a’, ‘man,’and ‘woman’ had any usages that weren’t singular. Neither did the dictionaries I consulted. So you’ll forgive me if I (and the rest of the English speaking world) make the assumption that the phrase “A man and A woman” refers to two individuals.

The reason I didn’t address the “substance” of your post was because you post lacked any real substance. Your view point seems to be that because a word currently has one particular meaning that it should not be altered, and that the law has some responsibility to keep the language “pure.” I didn’t find that worth commenting on.

I will say this: Marriage has become about more than the legalities, it has become an avenue for two people to publicly declare their love for each other, and society recognizing that love. These people not only have a right all the legal perks, but they deserve to be able to tell people that they’re married. Not that “we have a state recognized civil union” but, “We’re married.” When we(and I imagine most people) were first married, my wife and I kept saying “We’re married now,” and we weren’t thinking about our insurance, or any of the other legalities. It’s the emotional impact of the word itself that makes that phrase seem to have talismanic powers for newlyweds. To continue refuse gays that basic happiness because that’s the way it’s always been is just cruel.

Is this a theocracy?

Both polygyny and polyandry are still unions between “a man and a woman.” There is no limitation in the aggregate, and I daresay that “symbolic” marriages are completely moot. Polygamy is very much “marriage,” although deligitimized in America. Same thing w/ the marriages of minors (little children).

More importantly, you’ve evaded the substance of my post.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Except when it was between a man and multiple women, and those rare cases where it was a woman and multiple men. Oh and let’s not forget those cultures that symbolically marry people to various deities.

Brown is likely making a blunder. He may be giving cause for his argument not to advance since the state will be unrepresented in a direct challenge to a state constitutional amendment. The court may not feel comfortable with that, particularly because of Brown’s flip-flop. Most likely, Starr will point this out. Brown’s actions has opened the door for legal uncertainty. It might be better to just defend non-aggressively.

I need to point out one slight inaccuracy in your post. The traditional reservation of “1 man and 1 woman” is not the definition being codified in Prop 8, nor is it traditional. It’s a rather moot for the present discussion, but the implication of “definition” is rather important.

I do not understand why it is necessary that “marriage” be all inclusive. Except for a very recent shift in the vernacular, “marriage” has always been “between a man and a woman.” If the benefits and rights enjoyed by marriages are not presently given to homosexual unions, then I say we give it to them. Clearly, marriage is a fundamental right; but there is nothing that suggests that gay-unions are not equally considered a fundamental right. Therefore, to argue that marriage is all inclusive is not only unnecessary, but disingenuous to our language.

Prop 8, in effect, codified the meaning of a disputed word. It does not limit the power of the state to recognize other similar unions, nor does it limit the state from recognizing all civil unions equally, including marriage. If we want equality, then substitute references to “marriage” in statute for “all state sanctioned unions.” Why not go after the statute for being exclusive, rather than redefine “marriage?” The only reason I can come to is pettiness. I am a strict proponent of equality, but not “equality on my terms.” Even less when the motivation is eye-poking.

I will most likely always ‘personally’ prefer to reserve the term of *marriage* between only 1 man and 1 woman, as I have previously expressed in my minority opinion within this forum. However, I think Mr. Brown is not only morally correct but also constitutional accurate in his attempt to overturn Proposition 8. How can we continue to deny other citizens equal rights under the law as long as they obey those laws?

There is a phrase from an older country song: “Sometimes right is just as wrong as wrong is!”

I just saw this old French proverb and I thought that it was somewhat apropos for this thread:

“Love makes passion, but money makes marriage”

Oh, and I never thought I would *ever* agree with Mr. Jerry Brown on anything (except that Linda Ronstadt was hot and how in the world did he ever manage that)!