Posted by
Playful Walrus on Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:32:01 AM
I’ve touched a nerve with some folks out there. This blog entry takes exception to some of my comments regarding Proposition 8. This is going to be a long one. It is times like this when I think of Rush Limbaugh’s quote that a “bigot” is someone who wins an argument with a liberal. Uh oh. I cited Limbaugh. That’s really going to rile them up.
It's good to know where some people really stand when it comes to lesbians and gay men.
That’s how she starts off. Where do I stand? Same place I stand when it comes to anyone else. I believe God has granted every human being rights that ought not be infringed upon by government or criminals – regardless of their sexual orientation. Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and self-determination. But notice that she makes someone’s thoughts about someone else’s feelings and/or sexual practices a criteria for judgment the way some people would say, “What do you think of Christ?” Whether or not I’m a good person has to do with what I think of what two men do with each other in private. Go figure.
Even though some leaders of the Proposition 8 movement claim that the movement "isn't a referendum on gay people" and that Proposition 8 supporters do not hate gay people, we all know that those claims whitewash reality.
I certainly won’t deny that there are people out there who hate homosexual people and are voting for Proposition 8. However, one need not hate homosexual people or even disapprove of homosexual behavior to be in favor of Proposition 8. They could even be in favor of neutering marriage, but think it is NOT the place of the judiciary to usurp the authority of the voters to do so. It's interesting that she claims to know the hearts of all who support Prop 8.
Let’s turn this around, though. There are also people out there who hate homosexual people in practice, if not intent, because they refuse to tell them the truth. There are people who are voting against Prop 8 simply because they hate the people who are in favor of Prop 8.
Wait, haven't we heard that odd, scary phrase "marriage neutering" before?
Yet she does nothing to discount the phrase. Here is the fact: When you change the marriage licensing requirement from “a man and a woman” to “two people”, you are neutering it because you are removing sex (gender) from the formula. When you change the paperwork/licenses/certificates from “Bride” and “Groom” to “Party A” and “Party B”, you are neutering it. A man and a woman can no longer get those things in a way that honors them. They are now known simply as “Party A” and “Party B”. And yet I haven’t seen greeting card companies scrambling to say, “I know you’ll make a lovely Party B.” I wonder why?
Walrus says that Mr. Overturf "lives... with a guy he apparently got a 'marriage' license with..." as though Mr. Overturf sort of just willy-nilly picked some guy off the street to go get a marriage license with.
Sorry, I do not think a man can be a husband without a bride. That was my point.
Then, of course, there's those trusty old scare quotes encapsulating the "marriage" of Mr. Overturf and his spouse.
Yes, because I don’t think that is marriage, any more than if the government started calling bottled tap water milk to appease lactose intolerant people who felt like they were being treated like second class citizens. I would call that “milk”.
Those indicate scorn, sarcasm, and disagreement with word usage.
I definitely disagree with the word usage. I bet she would disagree if I called a march by Fred Phelps (who I dispise) a gay pride parade simply because he were to call it one.
It indicates that Mr. Walrus doesn't view Mr. Overturf's marriage as a legitimate one even though the marriage is, actually, legal and therefore legitimate.
Considering she is a lawyer, I’m not surprised she thinks legality equals legitimacy. The Dred Scott decision was “legal”, too. But I bet she doesn’t think it was legitimate (nor do I). In some countries, it is legal to slaughter people for being homosexuals. Does the legality make such actions legitimate? I believe in a higher authority when it comes to legitimacy.
There would definitely be more legitimacy if marriage licensing had been changed by a vote of the people, since we are the ones issuing those licenses. But that’s not what happened.
But worse than that, which I could maybe agree to disagree about, let's also notice the scare quotes surrounding the phrase: "'their' two children." Those scare quotes indicate that the children Mr. Overturf and his partner are raising are not really their children.
Many anti-gays are fixated on the fact that same-sex couples cannot produce children together. Because that is the only distinguishing factor between many same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, they invariably use it as reason to deny same-sex couples equal rights.
Not all voluntary associations are treated equally under the law. We have rules for business licenses, nonprofits, etc. – even though all of those associations are formed by consenting adults. In California, domestic partners are treated as spouses. But no, I do not think the state has the same interest in a social association that excludes one of the sexes and one that includes both. The state has more of an interest in the only kind of pairing that can produce children. Finally, I doubt that she thinks that is the only distinguishing factor between same-sex couples and both-sex couples, unless she is a completely neutral bisexual.
Logically, he is denigrating all parents, straight or gay, who raise non-biological children.
No, I’m not. A man and a woman are the kind of couple that produce children. That some can’t or don’t for whatever reason and instead adopt is a surrogacy that still provides that child with a mother and a father. Adoptive parents, in that case, do not create a child to be deprived of a mother or a father. No same-sex couple has ever produced their own children. They bring children into their household entirely by intent and choice knowing that the child will not have both a mother and father. It does not happen by accident or naturally. Ever. What I’m not saying here is that if a child is left parentless through crime or accident or disease, that her homosexual uncle and his partner should refuse custody if they are in the best position to be good guardians. But that should not force us to reorder all of society.
How would Mr. Walrus feel if someone referred to his wife as "some lady he has a marriage license with," his marriage as a "marriage" as though his marriage were not real, and his children as "his" children as if his children weren't really his?
You see, that is the apparent difference between me and people like her. I do not rest my self-worth on what she thinks of me. I’ve written before – I do not think there is a right to a state-issued license, including a marriage license. Yes, the people of the state of California chose to issue one to us. But if you’re relying on the state to give meaning to your voluntarily personal relationships, then something is wrong with you. I am thankful I got a real marriage license, and not one referring to Party A and Party B. I would be saddened if I had to get a marriage license now.
But in the process, I wish Proposition 8 supporters could do so without simultaneously denigrating our families.
The fact of the matter is – two women can’t give a child a father, and two men can’t give a child a mother. The ideal is a wife and a husband. I do not think that a child without a mother or a father in her life is any less worthy. On the contrary, I wish she wasn’t placed in that position in the first place.
For instance, after stating that man-woman couplings contribute to society by producing children, in bold-faced type Mr. Walrus makes this claim:
"...same-sex couplings have not produced anything for society, except for the spread of disease."
She doesn’t refute this.
Frighteningly, it is logical to assume that if one truly believes that same-sex couplings have no societal value, then one might also believe that same-sex couplings should not exist.
Okay, let’s be really precise here. I do not believe that just because something does not produce something tangible for society, that it should be illegal. If she thinks that way, than that is really scary. However, I do believe that sex is for marriage (and that marriage unites the sexes). As such, I disapprove of any “sexual” behavior outside of that relationship. Does that mean I think such behavior should be outlawed and prosecuted, and same-sex couples broken up by force of law? Absolutely not. I would prefer it if people voluntary reserved sex for marriage. Yet I’m well aware of the large percentages of individuals of all sexual orientations who do not live that way nor see a reason to. In reality, I do not so much as wince or cringe or have any reaction to my male friends who kiss each other in front of me. It’s their bodies and their lives. (However, it is a different matter if they turn to me and demand, under the force of a judge, that I give them a marriage license – that is not allowing me my own choices.)
In any event, are relationships really only valuable to society insofar as they are capable of reproduction?
Reproduction is the reason the state is involved in the first place. Otherwise, the state should stay out of voluntarily personal relationships.
Frankly, I can't believe that this man has put us in the position of actually having to defend our right to exist in society as same-sex couples.
I do no such thing. Notice that she equates a state-issued license as equivalent to a right to exist - as if without that license, there wouldn't be existence.
Same-sex couples may not be able to produce children together, but we often adopt and raise children when other people are unwilling or unable to do so.
But that has nothing to do with what you do with each other’s genitals. You could do that in a platonic relationship. You still have not refuted my point. Homosexual individuals have contributed much to society, but same-sex couples have not – in the sense that they could have contributed the same things just being friends and roommates.
Now, if couples are only valuable insofar as they are able to procreate, I suppose heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to breed are just as value-less to society as gay couples are.
But that’s not what I said. I said the reason the state is involved is reproduction. I do not believe the state should know a couple’s ability or intention to procreate. But since the state knows sex, the state can make the distinction between something exclusionary (same-sex couples) and something inclusive (both sexes) that is the kind of relationship that can produce children.
I wonder why Mr. Walrus doesn't explicitly offend them the way that he has offended same-sex couples.
They aren’t demanding I go along with a judicially-imposed usurpation of my vote and a reordering of all society that will result in more children born and raised outside of marriage with both a mother and a father. If childless couples start demanding through the courts that I treat their pets as human children, then you’ll see me speaking out about it.
Maybe that's because, in his eyes, the dignity of heterosexuals matter, unlike the dignity of gay people.
You obviously don’t know me. I would argue that I care more about the dignity of homosexual people than you do.
After reading the article, I noticed that there is a little button that lets readers "Flag as Offensive" certain articles. I didn't press it.
How tolerant of you.
Even though this mean-spirited article rudely offends many of us, we already know that our feelings don't matter to this crowd.
And what our about feelings, hmmmm? You don’t seem so concerned about ours. The law should not be based on feelings. That is one of my main points.
When things offend the sensibilities of the "family values" crowd, they get to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Like I’ve said before, of course there is discrimination in the Constitution, and should be. If you believe in limiting marriage licensing to two people, you are for discrimination, too.
But I keep trying and part of that means knowing that living by the Golden Rule means acting out of love, rather than hatred.
I am acting out of love and not hatred.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
It’s a very good verse. But there is a context. Love does not mean abandoning our principles. It does not mean mocking marriage, masculinity, and femininity.
Then there are comments. “ZRAinSWVA” wrote:
He also states, in his twisted article, that "Society’s interest is in promoting the model in which microcosms of society (via one man and one woman) perpetuate society by producing children". I guess love has nothing to do with it.
How does the state know - and why should it care - whether you are in or out of love? Marriage has not always been about love. It has always been about uniting the sexes.
I wonder if he knows that, according to many forecasting models, we're already at the tipping point for population on this little world of ours?
We are if we use socialism and communism, perhaps. But if we actually use our resources well, we can accommodate many more times our current population. Even if we were overpopulated, that doesn’t change what the state’s interest in licensing marriage is.
Fannie chimes in with:
Yeah, about that microcosm of society bit- I don't think Mr. Walrus does a very good job of distinguishing humans from animals.
Hmmm. I wonder if she is a philosophical naturalist or an animal rights activist along the lines of PETA? As a follower of Christ, I do believe there is a distinction between humans and other animals.
We humans form partnerships with people for purposes other than or more than procreation and child-rearing.
Right. But the state should not be involved in all of them.
These people always act like the human race will die out if gay people are allowed to marry- as though opposite-sex couples will stop having sex and stop raising children together.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that marriage will be devalued and more children will be raised without a mother or a father or out of wedlock. We’ve seen this correlation in Europe. If marriage isn’t about children, why should people wait until they marry to have kids, or marry because of a pregnancy, or stay married if they have minor children?
Well, there you have it. They attack you as a bigot more than they ever address your arguments. And if you say you’re not a bigot, they use that as proof that you are. There’s nothing you can say to show them otherwise. Hey, how loving is it to call me a bigot, anyway? That's so... judgmental.
Don't get caught up in their charges of hatred and bigotry. They are trying to obscure the fact that they use judges to circumvent your vote and to force neutered marriage licensing on us. The real questions here are about the state's involvement in licensing marriages in the first place, and how changes to licensing should be accomplished.