California to abolish marriage?
posted at 12:16 pm on March 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The back-and-forth over Proposition 8, which amended California’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, has generated plenty of debate, heat, and threats — and now a new initiative to change public policy on marriage altogether. Attorney General Jerry Brown has submitted a referendum that would make California the first state in the nation to get entirely out of the marriage business [see update below]. If backers get enough signatures, any new marriages in the state would only get recognized as domestic-partnership contracts:
California same-sex “marriage” supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.
The “Domestic Partnership Initiative” proposes to categorize all unions simply as “domestic partnerships,” while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative’s summary, “Legally speaking, ‘Marriage’ itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions.”
State Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted the official title and summary for the measure on Monday, about one week after opening arguments in lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, California’s true marriage amendment.
Brown realized after the state Supreme Court arguments over his challenge to Prop 8 that he had little chance of reversing it. The justices seemed skeptical of Brown’s assertion that the citizens of the state could not amend the constitution through the referendum process without prior legislative approval, probably because the state has never challenged that right after previous successful initiatives. That means that the only real suspense in the upcoming decision will be whether the state should recognize the 18,000 same-sex marriages certified by the state before Prop 8 passed.
The DPI is an interesting and provocative referendum that will force people to consider the role of government in social constructs and religious practices. Those who argue that government has a duty to protect the sanctity of marriage will undoubtedly object, but that argument died on a pragmatic basis with no-fault divorce. Though not all states have it, most do, and it demoted the marriage contract to the lowest rung in legal commitments by allowing one partner to break it at will with no consequences whatsoever. On a philosophical basis, libertarians and some small-government conservatives would argue that “sanctity” is a religious/philosophical construct and not something for governments to enforce, anyway.
As a practical matter, eliminating marriage as a government sanction and forcing couples into partnership contracts would eliminate barriers to adoption and benefits for gay couples, at least in California. It would also avoid the state-recognition issue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court created and which the Defense of Marriage Act attempted to pre-empt. Since the couples would not have government-sanctioned “marriages”, other states would not have to recognize them as such, but the contracts would be enforceable anywhere in the US — probably a lot more enforceable than marriages are today. Those who want to claim “marriage” could have that sanctioned by their religious organizations instead of relying on the state.
Most opposition to this will rest on adoption and the profound nature of changing the way society treats its foundational building block, the family. In practice, DPI might not really change much anyway, since I believe California allows for private adoptions by singles and gay couples, and people are free to arrange their families in such manner anyway without government approval as “marriage” now. However much the libertarian argument appeals to me — and it does — I have to wonder whether we gain much in taking such a step, and what we lose in comparison.
Update: An e-mailer reminds me of what I should have remembered in the first place:
Jerry Brown did not “submit” the initiative. He submitted the official title and summary of the measure. In California, citizen backed initiatives are first submitted to the Attorney General, who then is required by law to prepare an official title and summary of the measure which is to be used on the forms for petition gathering and also appears in the ballot pamphlet. There is an official time period in which the Attorney General has to generate the title and summary. So, the fact that the “title and summary” for this measure came out shortly after court arguments on Prop 8 is due to when the measure’s proponents filed the initiative and not to a scheme by Brown. Brown also “controversially” wrote the title and summary to Prop 8.
So it’s unfair to hang this on Brown, who is fulfilling his duties as AG. My apologies to Mr. Brown.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I am absolutely for the government getting out of the marriage business. Both sides, pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage acknowledge that there is a marginal benefit in “marriage” over a legally equivalent institution, which is derived from the social acceptance that comes from being called “married”.
The government has no right to be granting social acceptance on any couples. The only justifiable governmental role anywhere close to marriage is acknowledging that two people sharing their lives are in a legally distinct situation from two individuals who are not sharing their lives, and there’s no basis for discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples on that front.
If you think marriage is between a man and a woman, as clearly most of the country does, there is absolutely no reason why you should ever be coerced by your government to redefine it. And if you want to see a man and man or a woman and a woman as married, there’s no reason why the government should coerce you to accept their definition. It’s none of the government’s business, and the government is not the place to fight conflicts between traditionalist views and progressivist views. The government doesn’t exist for traditionalists to force tradition on progressive and it for damn sure doesn’t exist for the progressivists to force progressivism on traditionalists. Freedom from governmental intrusion into our lives protects everyone, and those that would use the government to push their views on others should take it into consideration that the government is just as capable of being used by the opposition to force their views on you.
galenrox on March 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Dipsticks from the extreme sides of the political spectrum, like David Duke on the extreme right, and Kevin Barrett on the extreme left, have claimed to be libertarians. I don’t dispute one bit that the libertarian brand is tarnished, especially as a party. I do, however, believe that since the ideology shares a hell of a lot more with conservative principles than it does with modern liberal principles, that it certainly isn’t a failed one.
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Good points, but you do realize that the government is never getting out of the business of deciding what is moral and what is not? For a few examples-tax breaks, fines, penalties, discrimination laws, etc. When the government taxes/fines/prohibits something, they are deciding. Otherwise they would impartially make and observe the laws.
theotherKate on March 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM
If they can try to overrule a law that was voted in by the people maybe we have some hope to get rid of bambi within the next few months.
Rbastid on March 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I live in California… Check please!
davo on March 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM
That’s what you get when government interferes with insurance coverage. If they were truly free the market could decide.
theotherKate on March 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM
SCOTUS has consistently told the states to back off when they’ve tried to restrict an individual’s desire to marry or have children.
Artificial means are a positive development for straight couples who otherwise would be childless. They also enable gay couples to form families with children–lesbians would then be the most fertile of all couples.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I am trying to craft a statement for my Grandchildren when they ask me later “What were you doing while the Republic/Rome was burning”….Laughing at Californians and Democrats mostly ;)
Dr Evil on March 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Just throwing this question out there…can those churches then be called Christian? Sure, they can be called a church. They can call themselves whatever they want but I’d have a hard time calling them anything associated as Christian.
Rambler on March 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Here’s a question for you. What is Zen-Episcopalianism? They can call themselves what ever they would like … we’ll see where they end up in the end…
Upstater85 on March 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Your point at 1:56 was what I realized on re-reading. In my feeble defense, I didn’t see your comment before realizing it. Duly humbled and committed to reading more carefully the first time in future.
DarkCurrent on March 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I just don’t understand why 4 % of the population has the “right” to chamge the definition of a word describing a specific ceremony from the way it has been perceived and practiced for centuries. Especially since the general population voted against the 4 %.
kingsjester on March 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM
The abolition of marriage was always the goal.
Remove commitment.
Remove oaths.
Remove responsibility to others and to self.
Remove accountability.
Remove the concept of family.
All hail the advent of the State as God.
The State as spouse.
The State as provider.
All Hail California.
Oh by the way folks, California is a little short on cash. Say, how about all of you happily married working folks in fly-over country send some cash?
No wait. Don’t bother, we’ll just take it from you.
It’s for your own good you know. Progressive Kalifornia is here to help you help them.
Montana on March 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I think there are bigger things we need the government out of first. Starting with retirement, then with healthcare.
Tim Burton on March 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM
The Conservatives in the news now & past many years are no better than the Craps in my opinion.
You know it seems that many politicians who start off just to be of service end up getting hooked by the power & corruption.
There are very few good men or women who can evidently avoid the temptations of higher office.
We have cowards & thieves in charge of the henhouse.
As my grandpa used to say, in an effort to fix this problem, all current members of Congress should be ‘done away with’. The newcomers would then know what was in store for them if they strayed.
*SIGH*
Only in the wild west…
Badger40 on March 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM
As a former believer, I feel confident in saying this: until Christ himself resurrects and starts endorsing specific churches and refusing to endorse others, nobody really can say what is or isn’t Christian. Some churches believe accepting gay people into their Church isn’t Christians. Some believe that the Bible is infallible, and not a word of it can be questioned. Both the churches criticizing, and being criticized, in my opinion, are Christian. Methodists, Catholics, and Baptists all hold different beliefs on certain ideas and issues. They’re all still followers of Christ.
Only thing that annoys me more than atheists knocking Christianity is Christians knocking other Christians because they have different beliefs. I mean, come on.
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Wouldn’t this open the door to polygamy?
I’m all for the government getting out of my business, but I’m just trying to understand all of the ramifications here. If it does open the door to polygamy, I doubt it will survive.
FuriousAmerican on March 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM
I hear you.
I went into a Christian bookstore looking for something once, something you would probably only find in a ‘Mormon’ bookstore (but I was new to ND then) & they told me that they don’t carry anything of the LDS faith bcs they’re a Christian bookstore.
Sorry to burst the bubbles of ‘Christian’ Mormon haters, but we are Christians-Christ is our savior.
Badger40 on March 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM
It’s not like the polygamists would be getting marriage licenses…
Upstater85 on March 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I think so. And we cannot go there-ever.
Can you imagine the social chaos?
Look at the Middle-East & their familial relations.
It’s enough to make you want to chop your head off!
Badger40 on March 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I’d be in favor of this if they also completely eliminated the notion of marriage from the tax code. The only interest the state has with respect to marriage is that of protecting the offspring but there are other ways to accomplish that. Besides, soon the majority of children will be born without the parents having any kind of formal marriage contract.
For those who want the tradition surely the cults will continue to provide their services for a fee.
Annar on March 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Can we abolish California?
CP on March 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
…and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn’t Christian? Oy vey.
Screw you all. I am a Jedi. That’s faithful enough for me.
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Destroy it, destroy it all.
Progressives know better. /s
Conservatism is not simply preserving finances, or religion, it’s understanding human nature and valuing the wisdom of tradition distilled over millenia.
Maquis on March 12, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I might be for government getting out of the marriage business if they would do one other thing first. How about government acknowledging that homosexuals are nothing more than ordinary people that practice sex differently than the majority of humans, and are no more worthy of special legal status or protections than any other man or woman.
Or did I miss the definitive scientific proof that they are a completely different species?
TugboatPhil on March 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I’m okay with getting government out of the business of sanctifying marriages… but I don’t trust the Californians to do it right.
joe_doufu on March 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
So – can you tell me how those things you listed will somehow come to an abrupt end for straight couples currently married, or for those who will get married after any changes are made?
How far will a straight person’s arm have to be twisted to get them to give up on THEIR OWN morals and values, if these changes are made?
I’ll ask that one more time, so it’s clear:
How far will a straight person’s arm have to be twisted to get them to give up on THEIR OWN morals and values, if these changes are made?
I’ve yet to hear a good reason given as to how any changes like this will automatically force straight people to give up on their own values and morals. They’ll all supposedly just give up, and lay down for whatever is the “flavor of the month”. They’ll stop living their lives as they wish others to live theirs. They’ll stop providing good examples for society. They’ll stop doing unto others. All in one fell swoop?
REALLY?!
One cannot be threatened by something they refuse to be threatened by. One cannot be forced to give up values or moral stances, unless they ALLOW something to get in the way of their own convictions.
HELLOOOOOOOOOO????!!!!
What happened to individuality? What happened to the power of the individual to make his or her life into what they wish it to be (within legal bounds)?
Geez…..
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
For a mere $500.00/month in perpetuity, I promise not to tell “Bride of Monster” that she is “Bride of Monster”.
Wholly-Owned subsidiaries of the joint venture. In the event the JV is dissolved, ownership of the subsidiaries is decided either in arbitration or through a trial.
Conflict of interest clauses (pre-nupts) and other FTC rules control this.
AH! This is known as a merger. No subsidiaries are created that compete for parent-company support, nor is there any risk in future dissolution. This arrangement does not create growth through development, but merely makes the whole larger by acquisition.
BobMbx on March 12, 2009 at 2:23 PM
To become a Jedi is but the first step to approach the Way.
DarkCurrent on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM
One thing I forgot to mention in that post:
If a person has good morals and values,…and if those morals and values are ‘built on solid ground’…there shouldn’t be anything that gets in the way of having them. NO outside force or influence should be able to ‘dent’ those convictions.
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Well, whether or not Libertarianism is a worthwhile pursuit, I probably should have left it out of my rant, as its purpose was not to antagonize any respectable conservatives.
Kensington on March 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Not taking any more steps till I get my lightsaber.
Understood. Either way, the douchebags sitting in the Oval Office and the Capitol right now aren’t libertarians. Let’s focus on what their dominant ideology is. Fascism.
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Your point is well-taken. I should have made much clearer that my meaning was SEXUAL morality, as variously understood by individuals of various (or no) religious beliefs. We can almost all agree that murder is immoral, and child molestation, and rape, and burglary — with or without religious faith. But there are other moral choices that have no immediate victim, where government should not intervene. I was referring to that sort of moral issue.
I believe God wants and expects us to obey; but I also believe that if God had wanted people forcibly restrained from sinning, he’d not have given us free will in the first place.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I see what you mean. So your view is that as long as they hold true to the key point in Christianity (Jesus being the Son of God, died for our sins, etc. for sake of brevity) then they are still considered Christian? I’m not knocking that, just wanting to clarify.
I would agree with that for the most part. It gets into a grey area when people pick and choose what parts they want to agree with and follow but I suppose that’s what denominations are for. In the end though, we don’t answer to each other or the government.
Rambler on March 12, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Well I think the problem with them (workers at that Christian bookstore) is their view of some of the [Mormon] beliefs in regards to their history and afterlife…whether it’s true or just rumor/slander is a separate topic.
Rambler on March 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Montana, I believe your values and mine are pretty much the same, but I’d like to suggest a different perspective on the situation.
We’ve HAD the State as God. It granted marriages, administered and enforced oaths, supposedly held people accountable (e.g. to care for their children), etc. And it did all of those jobs DISMALLY. This is actually a step in the direction of the state ABDICATING those alleged powers. It is returning the responsibility of granting marriage and enforcing oaths to “social institutions” — for you and me, that’s the Church. For the horn-dogs out there, they’ve been acting like rutting animals for all time, and will continue to do so. They refer to their short-term farcical relationships as “Marriages”, which does at least as much to sully the name of Marriage as “gay marriage” does (which is to say “a lot”, in my opinion).
For Christians like us who value marriage, commitment, integrity, and responsibility, this is not a bad thing — at least it’s not necessarily a bad thing. As always, the devil will be in the details. But returning to our Creator as sanctifier of marriage instead of the state sounds like a step in the right direction.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Bingo. If you follow Christ, you’re a Christian. However, Christianity isn’t the biggest religion in the world because all its adherents believe exactly the same thing, and that’s good, because it means people are constantly keeping the churches in check.
Yup. If there’s anything all the denominations can unite under, it’s the resistance against governments to try to replace Christ as the entity you worship. Plenty of us agnostics and atheists can get behind that as well.
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM
This is a time when Christians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews and Muslims should stand together against this crazy stuff. We can agree that the State is wrong without adopting each others beliefs! Marriage is sacred to God in all our worldviews! We can argue our specific doctrines, but not to the point of letting the humanists run us all down.
Christian Conservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I agree with you in theory, but I don’t think a law designed to help society keep from imploding is being forcibly restrained from sinning. You can still choose to break the law but there are consequences to it. As to what we can agree on, I think that it gets murkier every year. 100 years ago, people believed that abortion or letting the old die because of cost-cutting measures was monstrous. Now, not so much.
theotherKate on March 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I know this post was mean for Montana, but…I wanted to mention:
I couldn’t agree more, on the majority of your points, RegularJoe.
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Will it have influence over the current generation? You are probably right, it will have a marginal effect. But you can’t tell me you can’t see the difference in America since the late 60s where they started to actively take God from our schools, actively started to attack parent rights, and actively de-moralized our society. Ya, those no fault divorce laws had little effect on the divorce rate right?
Marriage isn’t just a contract between a man and a woman, its an institution that the state, as society recognizes as the best institution to raise a family, and that the family is the best institution to keep society staying relatively stable throughout the generations. And that kids do better with a man and a woman as a father and a mother ( not a live in boy friend, but one who is committed to sticking with kids mother through tough times ).
Again, if we were a moral society, the libertarian argument would have more strength. But since this is in retaliation to prop 8, you should be very afraid what the next step is.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I would agree if the point of the debate was from a moral standing, versus a reactionary one.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Let me try this again:
I know that post was meant for Montana….
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
They can’t overturn the Will of the People so, they want to abolish marriage–the foundation of the family–the cornerstone of our Republic—to placate a minority of bullies. Brilliant, and in my home state no less; where else are people as crazy as rabid dogs? (The urban jungle).
Off topic: Why are there no posts about Obama signing yet another ‘Executive Proclamation’ (which are unconstitutional for several reasons) heppin’ dem wimins ‘n gals wit’ fi-nances an’ givem tips on howta balanz werk ‘n famlee.
Someone will tell him that he pays his female staff members at least $1,000 less than the men, right?
It’s all about distraction but it won’t work for long…
Christine on March 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I leave it to the almighty to decide who is and isn’t saved. “Christian” is a tricky term, just like marriage — everyone has his own definition of what it means, and is offended when he finds that others have a different definition.
If the lady in the bookstore had been a little more articulate (and perhaps a bit more informed, though we don’t know if that’s the issue) she could have explained that the store’s owners disagreed with LDS doctrines, so the store did not carry LDS books.
I wish parents would teach their children to express disagreement without being unduly offensive and insulting. We’d be a lot better off if “trash talking” could be relegated to sports.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM
1. Didn’t Andrew Sullivan assure us not long ago that gay activists were not attempting to undermine marriage but to take part in it? My how things do change.
2. This proposal won’t
eversoon pass in California, much less in other states. But if that state wants to go off the deep end, I’ll give ‘er a push.3. All of the libertarians who think government has intruded into the “marriage business” are so far off the mark it isn’t even funny. Although marriage has traditionally been backed by the monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, states have been involved in this institution for as long as there have been states. And if a state does not exist to maintain the most basic institutional structures of society, then I’m not sure what good it is.
Look, any other contract would be regulated in some way by legislative acts and judicial enforcement. Why should the marriage contract be any different?
4. Society has no interest–zero–in maintaining a system of “marriage” in which the participants are merely affirming through some public ceremony that they are “going steady” for the time being. Marriage is synonymous with child-bearing and child-raising, period. And don’t give me the whole “some couples can’t bear children” schtick. Those are exactly the kind of couples who are suited for adoptions in lieu of their own offspring.
If you want the right to enter the hospital room in which your lover is staying, then fine–but isn’t there a way to set that up in a living will? If you want to leave property to your lover when you die? Draft up a last will and testament. Can’t get survivor benefits from your gay lover? Sorry, should’ve had a job of your own I guess–like any single guy would’ve done. And if you really wanted someone to stay at home and do some housekeeping, you should’ve hired a maid.
As far as gay adoptions, give me a break. You have just as much a right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex and have kids together. Don’t tell me that after all these years of deviating from the natural way of doing things you suddenly want to play “house.” If you really wanted to have a tomato garden right now, you should not have planted your seed on asphalt.
That’s not “bigotry,” it’s cause and effect.
cackcon on March 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Agree on the store perspective ( I am a Mormon, but also a capitalist, let the owners carry whatever they want to carry )
Disagree on the term of marriage. This is not a Christian term, as it can be found all over the world, even in the secular.
Marriage isn’t about two or more people, its about the family.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Excellent.
Protecting marriage from the state should be top priority, as Ed points out:
Rae on March 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM
The IRS treatment is very different and can’t be modelled via contract.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM
cackcon on March 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM
couldn’t of said it better, well said.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Marriage is currently an individual right. The state doesn’t condition it on the eventual bearing of children.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Oh there is a marked difference between the America back then, and the America now. In many ways and on many levels.
But – I keep going back to individual responsibility for our own morals and values. As I previously noted….(and speaking only for myself)…having morals and values means that we do not allow outside forces or influences to distract us from having them, using them and practicing them, for the betterment of society. Setting a good example, walking IN that example, is what I’m talking about. If we expect society to live up to our individual ideas of what proper morals and values should be, the best way to do that is to set a good example, and walk the walk. Merely arguing about the issue, and contemplating it over and over again, with no real result, doesn’t help. It is our responsiblity to expect more from OURSELVES, and show the results to the world. The easiest way for the world to learn is to watch how others conduct themselves. Yes, the media and their hollywood surrogates have done a good job with getting an immoral “message” and example out there, but, it will do no good to simply yell about it. Those of us who pray that our society starts to behave more responsibly cannot expect that to happen if we aren’t walking the walk ourselves.
I’ll mostly agree with that.
However, marriage isn’t something that is “blessed” by a political body (read: government). It is so far beyond that. It is a union, blessed by God’s grace and favor. THAT is what makes it a marriage…not paperwork filed in triplicate in the state office building. Government got involved when it realized they could make money off the deal (i.e. – marriage licenses).
I agree….
However….expecting government to ENFORCE morality, when government itself isn’t moral, simply doesn’t work. Government can protect the rights of citizens to practice and maintain their own values and morals, but it is not government’s job to enforce morals.
No, we’re not a moral society. But – if government is doing the job that we as individuals should be doing, it relieves the rest of us from setting a good example. It also puts government in the place of actual moral resources (churches, temples, etc etc)
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I’m intrigued with the idea as well. It removes the government from the culture war as it pertains to this situation – and the government should remain neutral in these situations, as the composition of marriage (in itself) does not intrude upon another’s rights. Heck, the state could still call it “marriage” on the documents as far as I’m concerned, that’s only semantics, legally.
My concern in the whole “gay marriage” imbroglio comes from the intrusion on others rights and the freedom of contract, as it pertains to the issue of gay marriage and those things encircling it. It’s been mentioned about the church who refused to allow a same-sex ceremony on their property and the photographer who refused to cover a same-sex marriage. This new expansion of the legal (not religious) marriage institution should not be allowed to interfere with the establishment clause of the 1st amendment – yes, it cuts both ways. A church should not be forced by the government to accept a situation it’s tenets forbid just as much the government should not be forced to promote religious tenets. And a contractor should be able to deny his services for any reason at all, however petty, not forced to accept business it doesn’t want – even if it is not in the economic interest of said contractor.
An argument against this could be “separate but equal” in that those wishing services can obtain them from friendly groups but not from others. I submit this is a red herring argument in that separate but equal refers specifically to government provided services and is not applicable to specifically non-governmental entities, such as religious organizations and private businessmen.
JeffWeimer on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM
no it is not a right, it is a privilege. When two people get married, they nay not be able to have kids, but they didn’t know that when they got married. That is the story of my life right now. So my wife and I adopted. People get married, you can’t marry yourself. And you get married to grow old together, to take care of each other no matter what…and to raise a family. It isn’t going steady. The more we water down marriage and what it means, the more divorce is common. Want to mess up a kid…get a divorce. Because short of abuse, a divorce is scaring…even if you wait till after your kids are out of the house.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
The state, I agree is not to be trusted, it is a cesspool of power hungry thieves who think nothing of it to sell our kids into slavery if they could get away with it.
That said, if we remove marriage from the state, then we open the door to defining a family as to whatever is politically popular. Again if it was just between two adults…I could care less. But it involves children.
Removing marriage as a legal definition, get prepared for rather bizarre divorce or adoption cases.
Conservative Voice on March 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I’m not defending other definitions, nor am I commenting at all on the origins of the name or the scope of the institution; I’m just saying that different people (say, for example, Jack Black on the one hand and me on the other) have different definitions; and that individuals are highly protective of their own definitions.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Completely agree about divorce. Straight marriage isn’t a privilege, it is a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court. Adoption and artificial fertility technologies are very positive, but they also are used by gay couples.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I have advocated this approach for years.
The government has already defined marriage down through no-fault divorce. They will only continue to do so. As defenders of the institution, they suck.
Better that they were not involved at all.
gridlock2 on March 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM
It’s a valid point.
But – I again go back to the individual responsibility thing.
If we allow something or someone to disrupt the basis for our morals or values, then THEY have won. However, I always believed (and I would guess many Christians believe) that being a person of good moral standing means that we will face these outside “distractions” and influences, and it is THEN when we are tested. Do we allow those things to stop us from being more moral than most, or do we stand our ground, live our lives, and set good examples?
*shrugs
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Rot. The foundational building block of American society, as it is of every other, is the individual. That humans are social animals who, rightly so, prefer to pair up and reproduce does not change that fact. Re-read Madison and Jefferson.
JDPerren on March 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
My question. What would this do about laws preventing poligamy? If government completely removes it’self from the issue of marrage, then it seems to me that it would have to no longer enforce any laws it may have against any form of marrage.
MalkinFan on March 12, 2009 at 3:39 PM
This is a horrible idea. I don’t have time to read all the comments but this one immediately caught my eye:
Constraints or whims? What if there was a religious ceremony, but no contract?
How can you get rid of the government acknowledgment of marriage? Contracts are recognized by law, by the State; they’re not just meaningless ‘pieces of paper’ which can be torn up and discarded at whim as if they never existed. Which is a darned good thing for families and children.
Buy Danish on March 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
This is so stupid, it is hardly even worth commenting on.
This is like grade school kids fighting during recess!
“We can’t have our marriage, so you can’t have yours either!
NYAH! NYAH! NYAH!”
pilamaye on March 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Scripture commands to “earnestly contend for the faith,” so you’re outvoted for, oh, about 2000 years now.
You have the right to believe what you want and say what you want, but you don’t have the right to make the facts fit what you say.
Defending “the faith” is part of “the faith,” and necessarily requires being able to identify “the faith.”
tom on March 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Can I get a “heck, yeah”?
***
Once you decouple marriage from the state, it still leaves the question of whether or not it is a) allowed, and b) advisable, for the state to take actions and set rules to encourage biological parents to raise their children. I think I lean toward yes, but I am willing to accept no. However, this can be discussed in an environment free of creeping redefinition of rights and identity grievance.
Count to 10 on March 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM
One of the benefits of having the state perform marriages, is that it is consistent and the bookkeeping is orderly.
Because you are dealing with a contract that is too often broken, and other times lasting for decades…legal order is paramount.
When you get into calling it “contracts” then different contracts will be written, and chaos created.
Right now it is basically one contract, authorized or notarized by the state. Then additional contracts are added to amend that one consistent marriage contract.
The system works, has worked, no need to change it.
If a minority of people want something different, then the states have allowed that provision with domestic partner contracts.
right2bright on March 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM
I think you misread the situation. If this passes, then definition of marriage passes back to the church.
It only states that government will take its hands off. This would not destroy the institution of marriage, but preserve it.
Count to 10 on March 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM
No more marriage licenses. No more fees.
How is that going to help the State Cofers?
PappaMac on March 12, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Um…huh?
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Sorry, but the societal fabric and foundation of America is woven of families…governments are ruled by individuals.
Re-read Madison and Jefferson…they speak of individual rights as a legal term. When they move into societal terms, they talk of families, churches, towns, etc.
Hence the focus on separation of church and state, they understood the power of churches, or that home and ownership came with a family and that domicile is uniquely a family structure.
right2bright on March 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Because marriage would then have no legal consequences. The social evils of polygamy will have to be dealt with specifically and explicitly. As it is, no man is restricted from living with, engaging in sexual intercourse with, or having children with multiple women at once–he is just prevented from acquiring a marriage license with more than one of them, so polygamy is not really illegal now anyway.
In fact, this would clear the way for prosecuting child exploitation, if the man no longer has the shield of legal marriage to protect him.
Count to 10 on March 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
petunia on March 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM
You raise I good point but I’m not sure I necessarily buy it. Would recodification not lead California right back to where they are (with voters having just rejected same sex marriage)?
Clearly it’s not a winner with the voting public(yet) so even if certain pols may be inclined to support it, they may prefer to not stick their neck out too far either. Allowing the question to be decided by the public or the courts absolves them of any responsibility in the matter and allows them to exploit the result either way.
I can’t help but think that Jerry Brown is effectively cutting same sex marriage supporters off at the knees.
landshark on March 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Ah, there IS one thing more important to politicians than tax revenues:
“No more risk of losing votes by taking sides in the gay marriage debate.”
I’m stunned at the number of Christians who consider the craven and corrupt government of Caleeefornia a better preserver of the institution of marriage than the Church.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM
That was weird. This is what I said:
This is where the stem cell research is headed…cloning.
petunia on March 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I’m sure that this sounds like a good idea to somebody. But isn’t this the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
petunia on March 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM
(snip)
Bingo.
Talismen on March 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM
He is stating that you can’t twist facts and use them to support your beliefs.
Some religions will take a one fact, ignore others, and call themselves Christian…like some churches do when they ignore the Nicene Creed, say it isn’t representative of Christians.
Non-believers will “cherry pick”, and some churches will do the same, but the fact is, there is a truth.
The common is “I don’t need to belong to any church to have a belief, I know what I need to know”…and in essence they allow themselves to pick and choose what fits their desires.
right2bright on March 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Yes, you might as well be honest with yourself and live atheist.
Count to 10 on March 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Christ certainly made for some cherry picking regarding the Old Testament. Tell me how Christianity, in its basest form, is required to live by a book written before he started speaking?
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM
QFT.
Rae on March 12, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Pardonme but these conversations take on lives of there own and the original article has no relevance to the ending thoughts. What religion one is is only the business of that person and no one else. What that person believes is only truly known to that person. If you think that you should be able to tell some one else what they should or can believe you are wrong. Religions have tenants that their congregants believe and they have every right to express them just as those who oppose have that same right but we, none of us, have the right to tear apart the others.
As far as marriage is concerned. No one’s rights are being subverted anywhere in this battle. The rights are put forth in the definition and innate understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman; sorry to inform you but this is not a new concept. A gay man therefore can marry a woman as easily as a hetero man can. A lesbian woman can likewise marry a man as easily as a hetero woman can. They have that right and it is hindered in no way to achieve a marriage if they so choose.
The only privilege that is lost, to my knowledge, to the gay/lesbian couple is the joint tax return; big deal. Any person can establish powers of attorney that allow all matter of relational aspects in peoples lives. That encompasses a couple, a house full of people or a whole club; it makes no difference and people know that legal route exists. The argument about visiting in the hospital, etc, has no validity at all if the couple is serious and takes the prescribed legal remedies. Surprise but that is what marriage does: it is a prescribed avenue to many of the same relational aspects of peoples lives. The gay/lesbian community knows that they do not meet the criteria for marriage, speaking of the sex couple, and even when they have been “married” they still live knowing that their relationship and sexual life style is not the same as the hetero couple and never will be. Why does it matter anyway? If you love someone then go for it but don’t try to bring down the glue that holds society together. After all, how many hetero couples live together without marrying.
Pardonme on March 12, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I don’t understand your question…if you think that after several thousand years, some changes don’t take place, then I don’t know how to answer.
Christ came fulfill the prophecy’s of the OT, not to “cherry pick”.
With his coming, a new relationship was formed with God…a personal one, for those who a seeking that.
You will have to be more explicit…unless you are just throwing out something to start an argument, if so, then be more direct.
right2bright on March 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Your earlier statement implied that we need to accept one church as the true church, and that others were “cherry picking”. Was I mistaken in seeing that implication?
MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM
California Uber Alles.
Uber Alles California.
I am Governor Jerry Brown. My aura smiles and never frowns.
-Dead Kennedys, 1979
Greek Fire on March 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM
One of those monotheistic religions favors polygamy (Islam) and the Mormons were more or less forced to give that up although we continue to hear of splinter groups that continue the practice. The maintaining of civil unions preserves all the contractual relations that the state today regulates.The cults that wish to continue with the traditional ceremonies could do so and freely refuse to ‘marry’ those who don’t satisfy their rules.
What will happen if the state stays in the marriage business is that the ‘consenting adults in love’ argument will eventually lead to polygamous, polyandrous and polyamorous partnerships all considered as marriages by the state. State sponsored polygamy is already quietly accepted in some European countries for Islamic immigrants. It will happen here too as soon as the right judge gets the right case.
Annar on March 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Legislators can write the law to allow gay partnerships but not allow polygamy. They can write the law however they want. Might the courts jump in? Right now there is an “equal protection” argument that has been succeeding in state courts. Gay couples can make that case, while for polygamous groups it is less clear. Additionally, a state can point to compelling interests that allow it to prevent multiple marriage partners. Those arguments are more difficult to make against gay marriage.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Awesome idea. It’s not changing society, it’s changing the gov’t which should be a small part of society anyways.
malan89 on March 12, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I don’t understand your claim that gay people have a more clear cut case for “equal protection” than polygamous groups do.
It seems to me that number of people involved is just as arbitrary a line to draw as gender of people involved.
JadeNYU on March 12, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I haven’t read all the responses to this. I do support California getting out of the marriage business. But the state is not going to do that because it will result in a loss of revenue (ie. marriage license fees).
eaglescout1998 on March 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Polygamy is unavailable to everyone. Marriage is unavailable to gay people because they are unable to enter into a committed amorous relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
Lawmakers could decide to recognize polygamy if voters wanted–not now likely. However, the courts haven’t identified a fundamental right to polygamy as they have for marriage.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Yes, but when they identified “marriage” as a fundamental right, how did they define it? You want to say “oh, that means I can marry anyone I want.” Polygamists would say “oh, that means I can marry as many as I want.” The key to what that “fundamental right” means depends upon just exactly how the justices defined “marriage” — and thus far there is no precedent for it to mean anything other than one man and one woman.
Which would all be totally moot if we get the government out of the marriage & sexual approval business.
RegularJoe on March 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM
That’s right. The Supreme Court has assumed straight marriage, while some state courts have gone further.
I favor keeping the state out of the way of religious and cultural institutions as well as private behavior. Absent that, though, the courts will probably look to the society to determine what constitutes a marriage. To the extent that gay people live in committed relationships that are recognized by the community it becomes more likely the courts will determine that they deserve equal protection.
dedalus on March 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM
That state is full of warped lunatics . . . perhaps we could just abolish California.
rplat on March 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Abolish Cali. Abolish it now w/in Obama’s 100 days. Fauxbama can blame Bush.
BHO Jonestown on March 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
It’d probably be easier to do it that way.
Iblis on March 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
To all of you who believe removing the language of marriage from domestic partnership contracts would strip the institution of its meaning and cultural significance: why do we rely on the state to uphold our fundamental societal structures? If we are worried about the health of the institution of marriage, maybe we should be looking outside of the government and its laws for the source of that ailing condition… the sanctity of marriage is granted by our families and our faiths, and perhaps those are losing importance in American life. Putting our faith in the government to reinforce ailing social institutions gives over just as much power to the government as liberals who try to use the law to override the will of the people.
For a long time, the treatment of marriage was responsibly administered by the state. The state has now shown that it cannot be trusted to maintain the institute of marriage according to the values of many here. Why not lift marriage out of the hands of a meddling government, whose aims change with the winds of popularity and political correctness?
LockeFox on March 12, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Sacrificing a fundamental aspect of our entire society to cater to the lowest common denominator? A liberal standard.
Grafted on March 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Sometimes I think, “OK, if the gays can be legally married, then they’ll shut up.”
But I also thought, “Since a minority was finally elected president the Liberals and the minority racists will finally shut up.”
So, I can only wonder, “If the gays can be legally married, what will they want next?”
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM
I haven’t taken the time to read all of the comments, so my apologies if this has already been said. To you people who are making comments about the “Kalifornians” and your colorful and varied terminology suggesting we just eliminate California as a state, way to go. Way to let the gay fringers dictate your opinion. Simply because a small element of the state is doing everything they can to eliminate the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, you are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. You somehow forget that the citizens of California voted to preserve the state of marriage as being between a man and a woman. To suggest that the entire state is somehow supporting this, or is complicit in it, is simply ignorant. We voted, the gays are trying to nullify that vote. Perhaps a little support, rather than your pre-conceived bias against Californians is in order. We aren’t all nuts.
speed911 on March 12, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »