Saturday, August 7, 2010

Proposition ∞

Prop 8 was recently overturned in California. For those who don't know what Prop 8 is, it is a mandate to ban gay marriage. Of course, the decision will be appealed, most likely leading to what will become one of the more momentous Supreme Court decisions of this new century. The battle is, of course, being waged by whom one would imagine it would be: the more religious, conservative people on one side ardently pushing against the more liberal on the other. That story seems almost ubiquitous in every political situation now. What's my opinion on this, you ask? (I assume you asked. If not, well, I'll tell you anyway because I'm sure you want to know.)

To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.

My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.

I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

5 comments:

  1. Thing is...do you think that the supreme court will uphold the ruling or will throw it back without even hearing it as a "states rights" issue? In which case I think the courts in CA will rule with prop 8. I think that the challengers of prop 8 should've waited until there was a favorable majority in the court before attempting to challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This issue is definitely not a "state's rights" issue, as no state has the right to withhold rights given to a certain bloc of citizens from a different bloc. This is a civil rights and equal protection issue, both of which are extremely valid for a Supreme Court ruling. Also, one must remember that, as there is no Constitutional amendment defining marriage (which would be absurd), a "favorable majority" in the court means nothing. Conservative and liberal (or textualist and living constitutionalists, whichever you prefer) judges would likely rule in a near unanimous vote, hopefully.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry about the late reply (finals). Of course it is a civil rights and equal protection issue morally. However, legally, I don't think it's a civil rights and equal protection issue.

    This is because I believe if civil unions=marriage in terms of benefits and rights legally, then it is a "state right" to define the legal term "marriage".

    The comparison I make is the distinction between Police Chief vs. Police Commissioner. Both have the same responsibilities however, it is a different title used by different cities in different states. Even though they perform the same duties, they have different titles.

    If legally, there is no difference except only in name, I don't think the present supreme court will take it/rule favorably.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll elucidate the difference between civil unions and marriage, as there are differences:

    -civil unions are only recognized in the state of origin, as they are not allowed in some states; a marriage is recognized nationwide.
    -there are over 1400 federal benefits not given to homosexual couples because they are not technically "married"; some of the bigger ones are joint custody of children, medicare coverage, and social security.
    -procuring some of the aforementioned benefits for homosexual couples can cost upwards of 1000$, where in a heterosexual marriage, the benefits are conferred automatically.
    -homosexual couples also do not have the ability to be with their partners in a time of emergency, i.e. hospital visits. As they are neither recognized as husband nor wife, they are relegated to waiting.

    The 14th amendment guarantees that, and I quote, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    It is the classic "civil rights" amendment. It is the amendment that ended Jim Crowe in the south and ended segregation in schools. It ensures that every American is equal, regardless of any single state's endeavors to sequester rights from any particular group.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's say that the legal definition of civil union was corrected to the same as marriage. Would you still support gay "marriage"?

    I fully support the the idea of equal rights and practices for homosexual couples. However, I do not believe that marriage as a custom/cultural relic should not be redefined.

    Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is a legal term, a contract if you will between a man's family and a woman's family.

    To preserve the cultural significance of this term I believe that civil unions should be reserved for homosexual couples only if the legal definition is the same.

    I believe in this case the Supreme Court may alter the legal status of civil unions to that of marriage and perhaps leave it up to the states to decide the semantics.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughts, concerns, snide remarks? Leave them here.