Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, December 06, 2010 1:02:50 PM
In order to call California's constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8 a "gay marriage ban", as the MSM does repeatedly, you have to call all of your gay friends who had "marriage" ceremonies where and when they didn't get state licenses together liars. Because if they really got married and really are spouses, then marriage means something independently of state licensing doesn't it? And there was no law against their ceremony or commitment to each other. For Pop 8 to be a "gay marriage ban", it would mean that only state-licensed marriages are marriages, and so all of those other gay couples calling each other spouses are liars.
So which is it? Is marriage something that exists whether or not it has a state license, or is it only what the state says it is?
Also, to argue that a state can't distinguish between men and women and between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women and is compelled to recognize a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage, you have simultaneously argue that there is no difference between men and women AND that there is a difference, because a homosexual man "can't" marry a woman and a homosexual woman "can't" marry a man.
So which is it? Is there a difference or not? If there is no difference, then any homosexual man can just as easily marry a woman, and any homosexual woman can just as easily marry a man. Here's a hint to the answer: Federal law treats men and women differently in multiple ways.
I bring this up because today three federal judges, based on the previous intrusion of one federal judge, are considering today intruding into California's constitution based on these topics.
As always, you can find thorough analysis
over at The Opine Editorials.
1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.
2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.
3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?
4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.
5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.
6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.