Libertarians Should Support Proposition 8
Posted by: Jubal | 09/30/2008 5:51 PM
Although what became Proposition 8 was already moving toward the November ballot, what really thrust same-sex marriage to the forefront of California and national politics was the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision creating it. Since then I've been perplexed by the attitude of a number of Republicans and small "l" libertarians to the court's decision and the issue of same-sex marriage.
For example, the OC Register editorial page responded by expressing its support for the ruling, and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr chimed in his approval.
It's astounding to me that any libertarian would applaud a such a naked exercise of government power. Four judges took it upon themselves to use their power to re-define the fundamental unit of civilization in opposition to what it has been throughout recorded history. Such deep social engineering by judicial diktat should appall libertarians, not merit their approval.
Instead, libertarians and conservatives ought to be natural allies in the effort to pass Proposition 8.
Government in America exists to secure certain our inalienable rights such as life, liberty and property. These rights are "inalienable" because they reside within us. In other words, government is the protector, not the source, of these rights.
Stated another way, government exists to guarantee rights that already present in nature, which is why the Declaration points to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as entitling the 13 colonies to break from England and establish themselves as an independent nation.
In other words, the United States' founding principles spring from the natural law, which holds nature -- the world, creation, etc -- has an order and purpose we can know intuitively and by use of our reason -- the "self-evident truths" and aforementioned "laws of Nature and of Nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence. The natural law is universal and eternal, hence the Declaration's statement that "all Men" are created equal and "endowed by their Creator" with unalienable rights.
The point of this discourse is that the nature of marriage also flows from the same natural law on which our form of government rests. Throughout history and across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Granted, marriage has not always worn a monogamous form, but even in cultures where polygamy is tolerated or even the norm, marriage itself is the union of man and woman.
That marriage is by its nature between a man and a woman is a self-evident truth. A man can no more marry another another man that he can marry a parrot. Whatever relationship two people of the same sex may form, it cannot be marriage.
Marriage and its fruit, the family, are foundational to a healthy society. That government should secure marriage -- just as it secures our rights to life, liberty and property -- is entirely reasonable and in keeping with the American tradition of government. These are cornerstones of the virtuous civilization upon which self-government depends.
Now, opponents of Proposition 8 -- which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman -- try to cast the debate as a question of equal rights, as if marriage were a public facility of which everyone ought to have free.
But since marriage is, by its nature, by definition, intrinsically the union of a man and woman, a same-sex couple cannot claim the right to it. It would be akin to a man asserting the right to give birth to a baby; it would be absurd because it is contrary to his nature, regardless of how strongly he believes otherwise.
The true issue at hand in the same-sex marriage debate is whether our natural rights are the unalienable rights observed by the Declaration of Independence, or "positive" rights subject to revision at anytime by interest groups able to apply sufficient political power.
The latter philosophy of positivism drives proponents of same-sex marriage proponents, whether they are aware of it or not, and under it our rights can be made, unmade, reconfigured and invented at any time. This is the camp that views the Constitution as a "living document" and elevates universal health care from policy preference to the status of human right.
If a social institution as fundamental and ancient as marriage can be so abruptly redefined by the brute governmental power, then no natural right is secure from similar revisions into conformity with the desires of a powerful interest group.
Supporters of Proposition 8 aren't initiating a "culture war." They are protecting an ancient institution from being redefined by an arrogant judiciary into something it is not. The fight to restore marriage in California is in keeping with the philosophy of liberty upon which America was founded, and on which our form of government is built. Same-sex marriage proponents assertions that this is an "equal rights" issue are flat out, self-evidently wrong and in opposition to the collective experience of mankind.
It's not too late for those libertarians and those errant conservatives opposing Prop. 8 to come to their senses.
For example, the OC Register editorial page responded by expressing its support for the ruling, and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr chimed in his approval.
It's astounding to me that any libertarian would applaud a such a naked exercise of government power. Four judges took it upon themselves to use their power to re-define the fundamental unit of civilization in opposition to what it has been throughout recorded history. Such deep social engineering by judicial diktat should appall libertarians, not merit their approval.
Instead, libertarians and conservatives ought to be natural allies in the effort to pass Proposition 8.
Government in America exists to secure certain our inalienable rights such as life, liberty and property. These rights are "inalienable" because they reside within us. In other words, government is the protector, not the source, of these rights.
Stated another way, government exists to guarantee rights that already present in nature, which is why the Declaration points to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as entitling the 13 colonies to break from England and establish themselves as an independent nation.
In other words, the United States' founding principles spring from the natural law, which holds nature -- the world, creation, etc -- has an order and purpose we can know intuitively and by use of our reason -- the "self-evident truths" and aforementioned "laws of Nature and of Nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence. The natural law is universal and eternal, hence the Declaration's statement that "all Men" are created equal and "endowed by their Creator" with unalienable rights.
The point of this discourse is that the nature of marriage also flows from the same natural law on which our form of government rests. Throughout history and across cultures, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Granted, marriage has not always worn a monogamous form, but even in cultures where polygamy is tolerated or even the norm, marriage itself is the union of man and woman.
That marriage is by its nature between a man and a woman is a self-evident truth. A man can no more marry another another man that he can marry a parrot. Whatever relationship two people of the same sex may form, it cannot be marriage.
Marriage and its fruit, the family, are foundational to a healthy society. That government should secure marriage -- just as it secures our rights to life, liberty and property -- is entirely reasonable and in keeping with the American tradition of government. These are cornerstones of the virtuous civilization upon which self-government depends.
Now, opponents of Proposition 8 -- which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman -- try to cast the debate as a question of equal rights, as if marriage were a public facility of which everyone ought to have free.
But since marriage is, by its nature, by definition, intrinsically the union of a man and woman, a same-sex couple cannot claim the right to it. It would be akin to a man asserting the right to give birth to a baby; it would be absurd because it is contrary to his nature, regardless of how strongly he believes otherwise.
The true issue at hand in the same-sex marriage debate is whether our natural rights are the unalienable rights observed by the Declaration of Independence, or "positive" rights subject to revision at anytime by interest groups able to apply sufficient political power.
The latter philosophy of positivism drives proponents of same-sex marriage proponents, whether they are aware of it or not, and under it our rights can be made, unmade, reconfigured and invented at any time. This is the camp that views the Constitution as a "living document" and elevates universal health care from policy preference to the status of human right.
If a social institution as fundamental and ancient as marriage can be so abruptly redefined by the brute governmental power, then no natural right is secure from similar revisions into conformity with the desires of a powerful interest group.
Supporters of Proposition 8 aren't initiating a "culture war." They are protecting an ancient institution from being redefined by an arrogant judiciary into something it is not. The fight to restore marriage in California is in keeping with the philosophy of liberty upon which America was founded, and on which our form of government is built. Same-sex marriage proponents assertions that this is an "equal rights" issue are flat out, self-evidently wrong and in opposition to the collective experience of mankind.
It's not too late for those libertarians and those errant conservatives opposing Prop. 8 to come to their senses.
CATEGORY:
Proposition 8
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Nicely argued, Matt. That's probably the best defense of Prop 8 I've seen, because it appeals to constitutional law rather than FUD.
Ultimately I have to disagree with you, if only because the linchpin of your argument is that marriage has always been between males and females, and is therefore part of natural law. However, there are many social institutions that existed for thousands of years that have been done away with by courts or the legislature, and a similar argument could have been made for them.
For example:
"If a social institution as fundamental and ancient as slavery can be so abruptly redefined by the brute governmental power, then no natural right is secure from similar revisions into conformity with the desires of a powerful interest group."
But, while I disagree with you, I can understand your point of view.
Matt -- Its an issue of civil rights; you are denying something to someone solely based on their sexual orientation. I can't argue with the Church denying gays and lesbians the right to marry in the Church, but as long as government issues marriage certificates and associates property rights and such to married couples and CUs do not come close, its clearly a civil rights issue.
You seem to be confused over the role of the courts. If the people (the Legislature) or the Governor pass laws that don't follow the Constitution, the courts have the right to void the law.
The fact that you're using this blog to call Libertarians to the fight against Prop 8 tells me your side is going to lose this one.
Matt,
I believe that it was 5 judges and not four judges. Also, I believe that those justices were appointed by very conservative administrations atthe time of their appointments.
I may be wrong on these details but I am pretty sure I am correct. If you have the research to prove otherwise I will retract.
All the best,
Paul
I would argue that it is not the government's role to sanction marriage. That is God's role and should occur only in churches. The government should sanction only "domestic partnerships" and those could occur between heterosexual or homosexual partners.
Matt,
Nice argument but if I and a majority of voters were to say to you on the morning of November 5th, sorry, we like you and the missus, decent people, but you're no longer married and not entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as married people, you, too, would know the pain of being considered a second class citizen. The Supreme Court decision was a less than perfect way to achieve equality but when making omelets, eggs must be broken.
The problems attendant with using a political manifesto (the Declaration) as the basis of consistent legal, philosophical, or theological positions ought to be pretty evident.
The Declaration says "all men are created equal," etc.
Instead of worrying about "the brute force" of government "redefining" marriage you ought to be wondering why (as Why Government? did) government is needed to define a religious sacrament in the first place. That's the question that libertarians and true religious conservatives ask, although the kind of religions that line up for their government faith-based check may have a different conception of religious freedom.
If marriage is not a "public facility" then why does government have any business staking a claim to it?
N.B. Marriage is not a natural human state. I'll give anybody a dollar if they can point out where the institution exists in "the State of Nature" (in fact I'll give anybody a dollar who can show me one example of a human being in the State of Nature, itself).
Marriage is a human construct (oh! the horror!) devised for practical and emotional purposes. It may be congruent with a "natural" male-female sex act and subsequent procreation, but it is in no way necessary for the propagation of the species; and once the offsping have flown the parental nest Nature itself would demand nothing further of the genetic contributors in their relationship.
I would like to know if David Zenger, our resident expert in child rearing, actually has any children of his own?
Daddy-O, I never claimed to be an expert on child rearing. How is that relevant? The issue is the State sanctioning marriage, right?
But since you bring it up I can easily conceive of a gay couple bringing up a child in just as healthy an environment as a hetero couple, especially given the current incidence of hetero divorce and multiple marriages.
Matt/Jubal,
You make a compelling case for government to jump in and write new rules/laws to stop certain types of marriages.
However, I don't think that would be libertarian or supportive of smaller and less government intervention. Opposition of Prop 8 by these groups is understandable and commendable based on core principles and beliefs.
As a Catholic, my concern is not with what type of marriages City Hall allows, thats the State's business. My concern is what my church does. That is my choice of faith, the State does not and should never tell my church what type of unions to perform.
I oppose Prop 8 because it is not my business if two men or two women love each other. I don't think big government should place limits on this either.
This is a great example of less government intervention is good!
Gotcha! You all fell for Jubal's ruse!
Jubal just launched a preemptive strike against the libertarians because the GOP is about to throw GOP fiscal conservatives and taxpayers under the bus by voting for the bailout. Campbell won't be standing alone in the next vote.
And what does the GOP do when they throw fiscal conservatives under the bus? The gay boogie man!
Conservative GOP voters will be disgusted with the GOP for supporting the bailout. But, Jubal is showing social conservatives that they have nowhere else to go.
They have a choice: social conservatism plus big government, or fiscal conservatism plus social laissez faire. Clever, Jubal!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
California Prop. 8 Editorial: Intrusion into marriage should be even-handed
Revoking same-sex couples' right to marry doesn't belong in the state constitution
An Orange County Register editorial
Comments 14| Recommend 2
Proposition 8 on the November ballot at least has the virtue of being short and simple. It would amend the California constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The story behind it, however, is not so simple.
In 2000, California voters approved those same words as an initiative statute. However, this past May, the California Supreme Court invalidated that statute on the grounds that it violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. We thought that was a correct court decision. Prop. 8 would put the ban on recognizing same-sex marriages into the state constitution.
Guarantees of individual rights are included in constitutions precisely to ensure that such rights cannot be taken away, by majority vote, legislative enactment or administrative decision. The state Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental individual right that must be provided equally to all people desiring to marry. Allowing same-sex couples to share in this right does not denigrate or degrade the marriages of the vast majority of people who enter into the traditional man-woman form of marriage. It strikes us as simple fairness.
Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that it simply restores "what human history has understood it [marriage]to be." But marriage has not been a static institution. At one time wives were treated as chattel and had no property rights of their own. Interracial marriage was once banned in California, but that law was overturned as recently as 1948 on similar equal-protection grounds.
As our understanding of equal protection has evolved and expanded and as an increasing number of same-sex couples have expressed a desire to make lifelong commitments to one another – incidentally, promoting societal stability and reducing promiscuity – it has become clear that equal protection should be extended to same-sex couples.
The legal ramifications of the court's ruling have been minor, since the Legislature had already extended most of the rights accruing to married couples to domestic partners. The institution of marriage has not crumbled. It will continue to be the most important voluntary social institution in our society.
A few shibboleths deserve to be explored. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not require those who have a moral objection to homosexuality or homosexual marriage to recognize or approve of it. It does not require ministers who have doctrinal or moral objections to perform or bless such marriages. And it does not require schools to teach that there is "no difference" between man-woman and same-sex marriages.
In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a "no" vote on Prop. 8.
The Constitution does not protect gay marriage. Chmielewski and liberals argue that it is a "civil right" (i.e. protected by the Constitution). This is appears wrong because the Constitution didn't protect it at the time of ratification of the Constitution, the 5th Amendment, or the 14th Amendment. To claim that the Constitution protects it now means that we have no Constitution, whatsoever.
The question of the definition of marriage was left to the states. he people have the power to define marriage as they see fit. The people of California defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The court was wrong to overturn that law.
Rogue, I agree. We can not allow 4 judges from San Francisco to define the meaning of marriage for our family. The definition of marriage has been clearly written uniformly by the dictionaries around the globe(150+ countries).
How can a 4 members of the California court judes claim that entire population of the world has been wrong?........ and we must follow their opinion?
I won't go down this rabbit hole because it's endless, but I will correct Matt on one point: Marriage has not always been between a man and woman--the Juaneños used to practice male marriage before Serra and his pals came along, at least according to their most thorough ethnographer. I'll save the natural law hilarity to others.
Hyperlink didn't go through on my previous comment, but the ethnographer I mentioned was Father Geronimo Boscana, and he talked atbout Juaneño gay marriage in his book, Chinigchinich.
And where are the Juaneños, now?! ;)
If fictional Juanenos were some weird jungle tribes in the past time and they were all gays...we won't find them any more.
Think clearly! Mandatory gay marriage for one entire group means complete population extinction!
Here, taken from the Libertarian Party’s website is some of their philosophy. For the life of me, and I’ve read this four times, I cannot see where, according to their philosophy (i.e. not that of a conservative Republican) they could justify or otherwise rationalize supporting Proposition 8. So Jubal, you’re way off base with this one.
America's Heritage
Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.
Free and Independent
Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.
Caring For People
The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential.
Principled; Consistent
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
Tolerant
The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.
According to Boscana, the Juaneños were also cannibals. (See link below.) So you also support cannibalism?
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/mas/chicanohistory/chapter01/c01s04.html
Ultimately I have to disagree with you, if only because the linchpin of your argument is that marriage has always been between males and females, and is therefore part of natural law. However, there are many social institutions that existed for thousands of years that have been done away with by courts or the legislature, and a similar argument could have been made for them.
Mr. Whipple:
Thanks for the compliment, but no one, including me, is arguing that the longevity of a social institution means it derives sanction from natural law. The natural law isn't neutral as to good and evil. For example, although slavery is an ancient institution that exists even today, it is evil and contrary to the natural law.
Matt -- Its an issue of civil rights; you are denying something to someone solely based on their sexual orientation.
Dan, you can't give what you don't have. The term "opposite-sex marriage" is redundant because cannot me anything but the union of a man and a woman. What you and other "same-sex" marriage proponents are arguing for is not a civil right, but for government to re-define marriage as something it objectively is not.
but as long as government issues marriage certificates and associates property rights and such to married couples and CUs do not come close, its clearly a civil rights issue.
Is that the new threshold for what constitutes a civil right? Because the government issues a certificate?
Rogue: Beware selective citations, especially from second-hand sources. The passage you mention refers only to the creation myth of Chinigchinich--the cannibalism part for regular folks is in other sections of Boscana's tract, and was practiced only by sorcerers and looked down upon by the Juaneños. Gay marriage, on the other hand, was an active part of Juaneño culture--obviously not the predominant kind per previous comments here, but nevertheless practiced openly. The cannibalism comment is a non sequitor of the strangest kind, mixed with a red herring from the intent of my original comment--try again!
Instead of worrying about "the brute force" of government "redefining" marriage you ought to be wondering why (as Why Government? did) government is needed to define a religious sacrament in the first place.
You're assuming that explicitly defining the nature of marriage in law is equivalent to government defining a religious sacrament. One doesn't have to believe marriage is a religious sacrament in order to believe it is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman.
If marriage is not a "public facility" then why does government have any business staking a claim to it?
Private property is not a public facility either, and yet we expect government to pass laws protecting it, don't we?
N.B. Marriage is not a natural human state. I'll give anybody a dollar if they can point out where the institution exists in "the State of Nature" (in fact I'll give anybody a dollar who can show me one example of a human being in the State of Nature, itself).
Perhaps you're confusing natural law with "the state of nature."
Marriage is a human construct (oh! the horror!) devised for practical and emotional purposes.
And amazingly, this "human construct" has been consistently constructed as being between a man and a woman throughout history and across cultures and geography. My, what a coincidence -- almost as if by design.
It may be congruent with a "natural" male-female sex act and subsequent procreation, but it is in no way necessary for the propagation of the species
No, modern technology enables us to separate procreation from the marriage act, to the detriment of both.
Now, must what is morally good accommodate technology, or the other way around? After all, it is technically possible for us to operate Huxlian fetus farms and go about the propagation of the species in a more "rational," eugenic fashion.
and once the offsping have flown the parental nest Nature itself would demand nothing further of the genetic contributors in their relationship.
As an earlier commenter pointed out, David, child-rearing is just a tad more involved than you are making it out to be.
Animals in nature teach their young how to feed themselves and evade predators, and then set them loose. There's no moral instruction, no reasoning, no differentiating between right and wrong, no "love" as humans know love. So the reality of the human experience -- raising, caring for, teaching and morally forming children in a family -- is miles removed from your simplistic description of what's involved.
However, I don't think that would be libertarian or supportive of smaller and less government intervention. Opposition of Prop 8 by these groups is understandable and commendable based on core principles and beliefs.
Libertarians aren't anarchists. A libertarian would support government intervention to protect property rights, or a contract, or to secure public safety. A libertarian can also favor restrictions on abortion.
Libertarians aren't -- or at least, shouldn't be -- in favor of government social engineering, which is what the court's decision on gay marriage is. The court overturned the clearly expressed will of California voters, and the only recourse is a constitutional amendment to restore the status quo ante -- which I don't recall libertarians having had a problem with.
I oppose Prop 8 because it is not my business if two men or two women love each other. I don't think big government should place limits on this either.
Prop. 8 doesn't prohibit homosexual relationships. It protects marriage from government and political efforts to redefine it as something it is not.
Marriage has not always been between a man and woman--the Juaneños used to practice male marriage before Serra and his pals came along, at least according to their most thorough ethnographer
Leaving aside that I never said "always", Gustavo's example calls to mind the phrase, "the exception that proves the rule."
Nothing personal, but I'd prefer to read Boscana's description of this practice first-hand, rather than rely on your description of his description.
But more to the point: a homosexual relationship, whatever else it may be, is not, cannot be marriage -- and pointing to isolated examples of homosexual practices in a culture here or a culture there doesn't obviate that.
Buch:
There's nothing in the Libertarian Party statement you posted that would prohibit a libertarian from supporting Prop. 8. "Live and let live" is an attitude of tolerance, not nihilism.
Prop. 8 would simply overturn the state Supreme Court's decision -- a decision that takes us further down the road where our intrinsic rights are subject to modification, re-definition or jettisoning by whichever interest group can persuade a few judges to re-write reality. I'd think libertarians, if they care about liberty, would want to stop further progress down that road.
Yes! Our government has no right to interprete/ tell us how to build our family structure.
“Yes on Prop 8″ Signs On A Slow Boat From China
Jim Burroway
September 24th, 2008
The economy is sinking and people are losing their jobs across the country. What better time than now for proponents for California’s Prop 8 to outsource their one million “Yes on Prop 8″ yard signs to China?
Those “Yes On Prop 8″ signs were intended to miraculously appear on lawns all across California at 7:00 am on September 22 to give the appearance of a sudden “blossoming of support” (their words, oft repeated) for the initiative, according to plans devised by LDS backers of California’s “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign. But a serious glitch in that plan means that those signs weren’t ready for last Monday’s launch.
Julia Rosen Calitics blog contacted Gena Downey, producer of the cult Mormon film “God’s Army,” who works on the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign. Downey responded with an email confirming that those million signs are “still in route from China” and aren’t expected for another couple of weeks. Rosen concludes:
So, the Yes campaign, rather than purchasing some good old fashioned union made in America lawn signs, they went to some cut rate producer in China who blew the delivery date by at least three weeks. What, they couldn’t afford traditional American signs?
That seems to have worked out well. Why does the Yes on 8 campaign hate America?
Outsourcing jobs to China seems like a very strange way to “protect families” in America.
That seems to have worked out well. Why does the Yes on 8 campaign hate America?
Outsourcing jobs to China seems like a very strange way to “protect families” in America.
CR:
That is what's called a "red herring." Are you already reduced to intellectual dishonesty?
My first choice would be for the government to remove itself from the institution of marriage. I believe that the states role should be legal only, essentially overseeing the legal contract between two persons. As such, people enter into a domestic partnership according to the state and allow their church or place of worship to bestow the title of marriage.
But, that will never happen because those espousing the limited role of government will never allow the government to give up such power. Ironic.
Therefore, I will support any two legal persons entering into marriage that wish to do so. If they do it for love; great. If they do it for tax purposes, more power to them (although being married myself, I think there are easier tax shelters to find). It is none of my business why they do it but I do not believe it will affect my marriage, my children or my life one bit.
Call me a squish, call me a RINO, call me a little "l" libertarian. I am still a registered republican, a member of a central committee and delegate to the state party. If I disagree with you on this, you might want to look at all the folks leaving the party and ask why.
Jefferson D'Arcy,
I wish you would run for office in a district in which I reside.
You would have my vote.
Matt: Ask, and ye shall receive (I would've had it earlier, but I can't get hyperlinks in my comments, for some reason). From Chapter 8 of Chinigchinich:
One of the many singularities that prevailed among these Indians was that of marrying males with males, which has been spoken of by Father Torquemada. It was publicly done, but without the forms, and ceremonies already described in their marriage contracts with the females. Whilst yet in infancy they were selected, and instructed as they increased in years, in all the duties of the women--in their mode of dress--of walking, and dancing; so that in almost every particular, they resembled females. Being more robust than the women, they were better able to perform the arduous duties required of the wife, and for this reason, they were often selected by the chiefs and others, and on the day of the wedding a grand feast was given. To distinguish this detested race at this mission, they were called "Cuit," in the mountains, "Uluqui," and in other parts, they were known by the name of "Coias." At the present time, this horrible custom is entirely unknown among them. I was told by a missionary from the Mission of St. Domingo, in Lower California, that he once enquired of several Indians, from the plains of the river Colorado, if in their confines, were to be found any of the Coias? he replied that they were once very numerous, but a serious plague visited them, many years back, which destroyed them all--unfortunately the time when this great event transpired, they could not tell, as they possessed no idea, whatever, of chronology.
Boscana described this practice as marriage, the Juaneños considered it marriage. Boscana obviously didn't approve of the practice, but he nevertheless called it marriage. Seems like marriage to me--obviously not to you, which is where your de facto insistence that marriage is always between opposite sexes comes in. You might say this is an isolated incident, but there are many, many more isolated incidents like this, so at what point do exceptions become more than that?
The identical argument about "natural law" and marriage was used to prohibit interracial unions. Actually if you read the court decisions upholding the ban on interracial marriages, the court used the term natural law as an argument. It was, in their words, "unnatural and against law for a black and a white to marry." (I'm paraphrasing there but look it up)
These decisions were later overturned.
Matt/Jubal, so by your definition should interracial marriages be banned because they violate some so-called natural law? This racist, outdated argument held no water then, just as your arguments hold none now.
Natural law, again, the government court has no business in intruding into our family affairs. The inter-racial rulings and the "new definition of marriage opinion" by the 4 "loco" judges have no bearing on our social norm .
Just thank God we had "dad and mom" to bring us into this world!
CRA Republican,
I absolutely agree with you. I don't want the government to intrude on my family affairs either. I'm glad we agree and you will be opposing Proposition 8. That’s fantastic! I'm glad you are a staunch supporter of limited government as I am.
Red herring. Red County. Prop 8 dollars going to prop up Red China and support slave labor.
Prop 8 looks very rosy from the Cabana.
I see Cabana Republican is slipping into non-thinking mode. What a surprise.
Lawyers.
Boscana described this practice as marriage, the Juaneños considered it marriage. Boscana obviously didn't approve of the practice, but he nevertheless called it marriage.
Boscana described as such, but it's clear from his writing he didn't consider true marriage, but more of a simulacrum.
You can cite isolated practices here and there, but they're just that. And in the case of the Juanenos, the practice ceased with their Christianization. That doesn't happen in the vast sweep of history, even when religions, governments and cultures change. The man-woman union remains the core of marriage.
The identical argument about "natural law" and marriage was used to prohibit interracial unions. Actually if you read the court decisions upholding the ban on interracial marriages, the court used the term natural law as an argument. It was, in their words, "unnatural and against law for a black and a white to marry." (I'm paraphrasing there but look it up)
These decisions were later overturned.
Matt/Jubal, so by your definition should interracial marriages be banned because they violate some so-called natural law? This racist, outdated argument held no water then, just as your arguments hold none now.
Invocations of natural law were used to justify interracial marriage bans, but they were also overt appeals Scriptural interpretations (interpretations that are problematic in themselves, to say the least). I have made no such appeal here to Scripture, or even organized religion.
Those old arguments were poor reasoning mixed with racial prejudice, a misapprehension of natural law, because it is pretty obvious there is nothing in the design of creation to bar interracial marriage. Skin color or race form no intrinsic bar to the union of a man and woman in marriage, or to the essentials aspects of marriage.
Jefferson D'arcy, nice try but did you see I said "loco" 4 judes?
If your parents were gay ...you would have lost this privilege to express your views on the gay marriage issue/prop. 8 here. You will be still in a dormant stage as one of wasted billions of sperm cells. Every single organism on this earth strive to populate with many means and for our human race, the marriage/relationship between a man and woman produce our offsprings.
Vote yes to mom and dad!
Vote yes to our children!
Vote yes on Prop. 8!
CRA Republican,
Sorry, I don’t speak Spanish.
What if my parents are gay? What if they adopted me after a young and vulnerable Catholic girl was raped, went through with the birth but put me up for adoption? What if after years in foster care, I was adopted by 2 women who have been in a steady 8 year relationship and took upon themselves the responsibility that so many woman reject? What if they raised me to be a productive member of society and a California taxpayer? Your right, they wouldn’t be my “biological” parents, but I am pretty sure I would call them my parents and I’m pretty sure they could handle marriage as well.
Would it make you feel better if we called it Marriage de-regulation? If you want to cherry pick what part of your life the government regulates then check your party registration. I prefer that the government leave me alone, but I guess that’s not a part of the CRA agenda.
Jubal,
Well said. However, I completely disagree with you.
The important issue notwithstanding, this is a brilliant polital debate.
The proponents throw out terms like "Activist judges from San Francisco...... What a joke. Whiole the headquarters of the State supreme Court happens to be in that city, Only one is actually from there, and the court is led by a native Angelino (who made his bones presiding over the Hillside Strangler case).
In addtion, while silent on their religous beliefs, all are known to be Roman Catholic or Prodestant.
Lastly, only one of the Seven (yes the vote in fact was 4-3)was appointed by a democrat, Gray Davis, who in many respects had mopderate - tro conservative views. For example, his repeated parole denials.
This is about fear and deception and maybe a little about getting Conservative Christians to the polls, for California leads the way.
Prop 8 does not remove any rights that are enjoyed now by domestic partnerships! It only states that marriage is to be defined between a man and a woman...that's it! Same sex couples will continue to enjoy equalt protection under the law as well as health and retirement benefits as they do now even when Prop 8 passes!
Consider this hypothetical situation:
There is a fictional country, Massafornia. In Massafornia the
majority of religious people recognize and observe sunday as the
divinely appointed sabbath day. A minority of religious people
recognize and observe saturday as the divinely appointed sabbath. The
government grants several special privileges to those who observe the
sunday sabbath. The law has recently changed to also grant those same
privileges to saturday observers. Now the sunday sabbath observers
are attempting to change the law again so that the government only
recognizes sunday as the sabbath for its citizens.
Do you think the majority is correct in this situation?
Now compare these principles to proposition 8 and think about whether proposition 8 is right or not.
Isn't this just an issue of democracy? The people of California voted against gay marriage. That was the will of the people. However activist judges then went against that and rewrote the California constitution to allow gay marriage. Prop 8 simply restores the original will of the people, politically correct or not. Aren't we really getting sidetracked debating whether or not homosexuality is natural as well as by LGBT sob stories?
As an independent leaning very close to libertarianism, I was originally in a mild quandry over the whole gay marriage debate. Personally I really just don't care if someone is gay or not, unlike the tiresome in your face gays and lesbians you encounter where I live in Hillcrest CA. (I know you're here and you're queer, now get out my face and get on with your life.) However. . . After the most recent of obnoxious nanny state public service anouncements, know the one I'm talking about? The one bitchily commanding "knock it off" to people who privately say "that is so gay." I realized I am so sick of LGBT types telling me what to do and how to think, even in private. Moreover when addressing these issues you really need to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
While I am normally for government butting out, I also believe that government needs to be forced in this case to fix its own mistake. Since Proposition 8 is being painted as a civil rights issue, I will explain my support of the proposition in terms of preserving my civil rights. I am a parent of four children, the youngest of which is in preschool. Since the courts overturned the voice of the people, the laws are constructed in such a way as to require the same-sex marriage be positioned in the schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and woman, with such education beginning in Kindergarten. The successful passage of prop 8 will restore the will of the people and will preserve the parents’ right to explain to their children same gender issues when they choose, without a confusing message from the schools that such unions are the equivalent of man-woman marriages. Prop 8 does not retract any legal rights from same-sex couples (they are fully protected through a domestic partnership) other than to retire the incorrect designation of “marriage” for their same-gender relationship.
"Perhaps you're confusing natural law with "the state of nature.'"
Jubal, in John Locke's 2nd Teatise on Civil Gov't, natural law constitutes the "inalienable" rights derived from the human condition in "the state of nature," that is, prior to societal conditions.
Those rights inhere in the logic of basic self-preservation: thus life (and liberty - since the right to one's own life is indivisible; and property - with which to sustain one's life). Man's social contracts are entered into to better protect the basic right.
Whether one agrees with Locke's philosphy or not, marriage divorced from its sacramental character, is just a contract. And the only business government has outlawing types of contracts is in the case where they are evidently not ultimately enforceable by the referee (government).
Looks like Zenger has been hitting Wikipedia.
No Wiki, I actually reread the 2nd Treatise this past summer. It's not very long. I'll bet you could get through it.
BTW, people who love to cite Locke should also read his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. As a philosophical rather than a politcal work it gives new perspective on what Locke really believed about "human constructs."
David:
A couple of things:
Your premise is that marriage is always sacramental in nature, and that is a flawed premise. It really is obvious from the experience of mankind across, geography, culture and history that the intrinsic nature of marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of whether one believe marriage is divine in origination.
You dismiss marriage as "just a contract" but conjure a more primal place for property because it is "basic to self-preservation." It is? Self-preservation is impossible without private property?
And
Some time ago -- last year, I think -- you were arguing against the very idea of unalienable rights, which you regarded as based on superstitious hocus-pocus invoked by the Founders. You argued they were, instead, just man-made constructs.
Now they are unalienable?
Meanwhile, while Locke is useful because the Founders of this Republic drew upon him, it was they, not Locke, who wrote the Declaration of Independence that announced the principles our government is based on. And the Founders clearly believed our inalienable rights were such because they came from God.
i am voting yes on prop 8 simply because i think the United States Constitution says a little something about Separation of church and state and if this passes Churches all over CA would be required to marry but not just that why should i pay taxes so my kids can go on a field trip to see there gay teacher get married Double standard when they couldn't come to any Conventional Marriage it al sounds like a bunch of double standards we give give give and have never gotten anything back
From my understanding of Natural law and the Bill of Rights, marriage is neither a natural nor a human right. Also, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is not necessarily a discriminatory declaration. There is no mention of gender preference. Legally, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman. It seems illogical for people to do that, but that does not mean that homosexuals are being discriminated against.
For this and other reasons, I support Proposition 8.
http://protectmarriage.com/
"Some time ago -- last year, I think -- you were arguing against the very idea of unalienable rights, which you regarded as based on superstitious hocus-pocus invoked by the Founders. You argued they were, instead, just man-made constructs.
Now they are unalienable?"
Jubal, I'm glad you picked up on that. My point was to use Locke as the basis of considering the nature of what rights obtain to humans previous to civil society. I did this because you previously seemed to put great stock in Locke's ideas and have now claimed that marriage is a natural right.
You're correct in your recollection that I don't agree with Locke's basis for constructing "inalienable" rights since it is complete conjecture. He deduces first causes from existing circumstance. Odd behavior for one of the first great empiricist philosophers, but then it's important to remember that the both the 1st and 2nd Treatises were written as political apologia for the Glorious Revolution. Locke offers not a whit of credible evidence that humans have ever existed in something he refers to as a "state of nature." Yet from this shaky foundation he constructs his edifice. Or, seemingly, he starts at the top in 1690 and builds downward.
The institution of marriage - less its sacerdotal quality (over which the state should have no control) remains fundamentally a contract between two people. The state has no business outlawing any kind of a contract unless the terms are patently unenforcible by the government whose job is to be guarantor/referee (as say, between someone and an incompetent person). I believe this to be a pretty libertarian view - although I invite comment from any Libertarian who would like to opine.
I'm sorry for lowering the IQ level here by quoting Gustavo Arellano, but I had to share this whopper he wrote on "Navel Gazing" today:
"At this point, only a moron would follow the advice of California's Catholic leaders (note I attacked the hierarchy and not the faith, Papists). They tell you to vote for Prop. 8, Catholics? Do what Jesus would do--let the gays marry, and purge your Church of the true sinners."
Let's face facts: sometimes Gustavo is right on when it comes to the Catholic Church. And other times he is a pure idiot. His above claim is one of the latter.
What did Jesus actually say about marriage?:
Matthew 19:5-6 - He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
Did Gustavo have some conversation with Jesus that no one else has? Because Jesus is pretty specific here about who marriage is between.
Proposition 8 is more about same sex marriage its about protecting our sons and daughters from growing up in a world that teaches that being gay or lesbian is just as normal as being straight. I don't want my sons and daughters being taught as young as five years old in school that it is okay to marry someone of their same sex. It is about the principle of religion. And protecting what God has set up as the correct way to replenish the earth. It is marriage between a Man and a Woman. God set Adam and Eve on earth to have their posterity fill the whole earth. It goes contrary to the laws set up by God himself. I have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals. I believe they can live their life how they please. I am against the teachings that go against the teachings of God. And we must fight to protect God's holy ordinance of Marriage between one man and one woman.
Please go to www.protectmarriage.com to read more about the benefits of proposition 8.
Jubal, I haven't had the chance to meet you, but I'm very interested in whether you think Prop 8 will pass or fail? And if variables consistently accelerated along their current trends, do you believe that this will be the last viable chance to reverse the changes made by the California Supreme Court? thanks
comparing preserving the definition of marriage to preserving slavery is a fallacious comparison especially in response to this article. clearly those who took this line of argument have not truly read the article. it would be clear from the article that slavery is in opposition to the Declaration that 'all men are created equal' hence the practice of slavery (which involved the belief that some men are lesser and should not be free people), although normal at the time, was actually in opposition to the avowed belief above.
"you are denying something to someone solely based on their sexual orientation. "
true. not everything should be granted to everyone, because not everything applies to everyone. for instance, i do deny hospitalisation benefits related to childbirth to men, because since they are not able to give birth, this benefit is not relevant to them. and i do think that in cases of divorce custody should be weighted to the mother especially if the children are young, because young children need mothers in terms of quantity of time more than fathers. in other words, in this situation they are not equal.
similarly, society recognises marriage in order to increase the likelihood that children born of the sexual relations between a man and a woman have a family committed to them, thereby reducing the social burden of caring for children who somehow fall through the net due to tragedies like the death of parents or abuse. universal rights are already defined, and 'marriage', for good reason, is not a human right - such a belief is conceptually misunderstanding what it is for. it's not a 'right' in itself - it is an institution that has a purpose. since gay sexual relationships would never result in children, the institution of marriage is not relevant to them. and by stretching the definition in such an unnatural way, it dilutes the original meaning and purpose of marriage. if both men and women get the same benefits relating to childbirth, regardless of whether they both actually undergo childbirth or not, it dilutes the significance and meaning of bearing a child from a real natural event, to a theoretical idea. great for the man, but not so great for the woman who still bears the child.
But why stop there? I think that miscegenation is wrong, too. Especially niggers marrying whites. Hey, and I'm not alone here, check this out:
----------------------------------------
"As late as the 1950s, almost half of the states had miscegenation laws. While the original statutes were directed wholly against black-white unions, the legislation had extended to unions between whites and Mongolians, Malayans, Mulattos, and Native Americans"
"In the year 1967, sixteen states still had laws that made interracial marriages illegal."
"In 1996 the leaders of a Georgia church elected to disinter the body of a mixed race infant who was buried in the church’s all-white cemetery. After the decision gained national attention and protest, the church backed down and allowed the baby to remain in the family plot. But just one week later, the church made national headlines again when it refused to marry the baby’s parents, a white woman and a black man."
"High school students will find the case of a 1994 high school prom in Alabama to be especially relevant. In February the white principal at the seven-hundred-student Randolph County High School called an assembly of seniors and juniors. The school’s student body was 62 percent white and 38 percent black. Hulond Humphries, who had been principal of the school for twenty-five years, asked if anyone was planning to attend the prom “with someone who was not of the same race.” When several students indicated that they were planning to do just that, the principal threatened to cancel the event. The junior class president, ReVonda Bowen, whose father is white and mother is black, asked the principal what his order meant for her. The principal allegedly replied that Bowen’s parents had made a “mistake” and that he hoped to prevent others from doing the same."
Why just stop at gays? We have a fine history in preventing deviant marriages in this country. Let's keep it up...
z8x4cf
Fortunately, most Libertarians do not agree with Jubal because we want judges to use thier power to increase civil liberties rather than take liberties away. Proposition 8 takes the backwards step of stripping rights away from an oppressed group. I'm thankful that I can count on Libertarians to stand up for rights of oppressed groups and vote no on Proposition 8 or donate to No on 8 at www.noon8.org Thank you. -- Corey Chambers, Village TV
Another fallacy: ace is not relevant to forming a family.
#1, a man and a woman of whatever race can create progeny, hence marriage is relevant in order to provide the family structure to reduce the likelihood the burden of raising the resultant children falls to society as a whole.
#2, every race on earth has a place where they each have sustained a civilisation of their own. hence every race is capable of forming societies (incidentally, all of which is based on family units) and then forming a civilisation. otherwise, they would not have survived to this day as a 'race' in the first place. gays are not the same as a race group. alone they are incapable of forming and sustaining a society and a civilisation, and therefore is not a racial group, not a social-cultural group, nor even *like* or similar to either of those groups. they are more alike to ideological groups, as after all, whether we tend towards conservatism, liberalism, aggression, pacifism, is also to some extent influenced by our genes.
it is not a matter of opinion, that marriage is not relevant for gays. it's like a man wanting to be pregnant and goes through the motions of it, and then adopts a child - no matter how much he believes society should recognise his 'motherhood', he did not bear the child and could not. it is not a matter of opinion. therefore it is irrelevant whether one has an opinion on biracial marriage because it is not the same category at all.
Matt, you are spot on about marriage, and I am troubled to read so many comments that do not know when to apply notions of equality.
Equality is only worth discussing between things that are in fact NOT equal.
If two things ARE equal, then there is no debate about equality.
Confused? Consider, equality for women. If women were men (actual equality) there would be no basis for the equality of women. It os only that women are women and NOT men (NOT equal) that the notion of gaining equality makes any sense.
This is profound truth lost to most.
And in this context of "equality" only having meaning where actual equality does not exist, there is *always* one exception in the quest for equality: Since the discussion DEPENDS on inequality, the quest for equality can not extend to the specific area of inequality, lest the exercise implode.
Example: if the quest for equality for women extended to gender itself (the basis for the inequality) such that women would henceforth be regarded *as* men, then the actual inequality would vanish. If this were put to legal force, the state would, in effect, be outlawing the existence of women, an obsolete concept as everyone is now a man.
What this points to is this: Efforts at legal equality that target the basis for the known inequality (ex: homosexuals and heterosexuals are not equal... hence the two terms), one can NOT reasonably attempt to create equality in areas of sexuality because that is the basis for the distinction in the first place.
Now, the philosophy aside.... what this means to prop 8 is simply this:
Marriage is about sex, at its core. In every civilization known to exist in all of recorded history, from the most advanced to the most primitive, sex is the true center of marriage. Marriage has not depended on the church, the law, any notion of property rights, or any other of a host of things that we often, mistakenly, associate with marriage.
Marriage is the forming of a sexual partnership... a pairing, in the human species. That is it, at the core.
This means that casual sex... one night stands and such, are NOT marriage. It does mean that pairings that hold fast for a season or a life *are* marriage, regardless of if the government has been able to recognize or record it. (if the government does not record a birth, does that mean the birth did not take place?)
When a man and a woman pair and have sex, that is a very, very significant social event.
The human mating pair is a basic part of who we are, and our behaviors as a species on this world, as the many mating pairs known to exist in other species.
The answer to if humanity has the right to recognize the human mating pair is plain. As it is a natural occurrence with specific biological implications only between a man and a woman, the human mating pair can ONLY be between a man and a woman, and the act of making it illegal to recognize human mating pairs, and to have law force *any* pairings of people to be equal to the human mating pair is as senseless an effort as to make women illegal.
Women exist. They MUST be recognized.
Mating pairs in our species also exist. A failure to protect the natural right to form them is a crime to all of humanity.
The argument is genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter who took it upon themselves to do what, or how the legalization of gay marriage happened, the idea should be argued on its merits alone.
Libertarians may not have an obvious position supporting gay marriage because they don't want government to define what marriage is at all. Voting "yes" on prop 8 would be telling the government they have this right and can be blatantly discriminatory in their definition, while voting "no" would be somewhat neutral.
SMS,
Male homosexuality also exists in pretty much every human society every studied. These pairings can be long lasting. There is also a compelling but not fully proven idea that homosexuality conveys a selection advantage via kin selection; that is, amongst humans it is genetically favored at low levels in the population.
So your argument is pretty convincing that the state should recognize homosexual pairings.
Is that where you meant your argument to go?