Posted by
Playful Walrus on Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:09:10 PM
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.(1)
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. The people of California have only consented to issue marriage licenses to bride-groom couples, as reaffirmed in their voting Yes on Proposition 22 in 2000.
4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2)
5. Since there is no right to a state-issued marriage license, the California Supreme Court erred when ordering the people to issue marriage licenses even though no bride or no groom would be involved.
6. Voting for Proposition 8 restores our rights without hurting anyone.(3)
Please note that nowhere in this argument is there hatred or bigotry expressed, nor religion invoked.
Notes:
(1)There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
(2)Under the principle of equal access/protection, California law prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver’s license can’t be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different. If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn’t want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be married to a man.
That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver’s licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don’t have to. Marriage is optional.
Equal access was provided before the California Supreme Court’s decision, it is provided now, and it will continue to be provided if Prop 8 passes. There is no sexual orientation requirement involved.
There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver’s license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them.
(3) California law treats same-sex domestic partners as spouses – with all of the legal attachments thereof that fall under state jurisdiction. Prop 8 won’t take anything away any rights or benefits or obligations from these couples. (Prop 8 won't change immigration - which is a federal issue - one way or another.) Prop 8 will not stop anyone from living together, making vows and commitments, having ceremonies, exchanging rings, changing names, signing contracts, and asking other people (including business) to treat them as married. Such things all involve voluntarily consent and participation.
================
Questions and Answers
Q. Why shouldn’t same-sex couples receive state-issued marriage licenses?
A. If you want to argue WHY I should support changing marriage licensing, that is a different argument and there can be a new ballot proposition that would do just that. Whether or not two men or two women (or more) should be granted marriage licenses by the state is a different question from who should decide. And yes, it does matter how things are changed. If Prop 8 passes, it will still be possible for those who do want state marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples to place their own initiative on the ballot for a public vote. There has been nothing stopping anyone from placing an initiative on the ballot in any of the years since to change marriage licensing. Instead, activists counted on the courts to usurp the authority of the people and impose changes on us. We did not consent to these changes – the California Supreme Court forced them upon us. Proposition 8 will restore the power in this case to the people.
Q. What’s the harm if we allow the California Supreme Court decision to stand?
A.
1. It sets a bad precedent in creating new rights that infringe upon existing rights and allowing the court to redefine the English language. Since all of our laws, including our Constitution, use English, if a court can change the definition of the words, the Constitution becomes meaningless.
2. Even if we assume that no harm can be demonstrated, that still doesn’t make it okay to force the unwilling populace to give something (marriage licenses) to someone else (couples excluding one of the two sexes) without the consent of the populace.
3. I suspect there will be harm if the official state policy is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes. That would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and one less pressure for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn’t about children, why bother to get married to raise them? How could adoption agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father?
The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state’s interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I’m well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your birth certificate.
4. Conversely, no harm will come to same-sex couples who bother to register as domestic partners if Prop 8 passes. The biggest "loss" will be the inability for same-sex couples from outside of California to get a California marriage license and then return to their state of residence and use the courts in those states to force a change in marriage licensing in those states. The people of those states should decide for themselves, and not be forced to change because of the California Supreme Court’s decision. And even if Prop 8 passes, Connecticut is still available for that tactic.