thoughts on the new california gay marriage ban
this past election i voted no on proposition 8, per my little election guide. i didn’t really look into the proposition, other than what i heard both sides arguing in their advertisements, and i figured yeh, why should i vote to deny anyone rights.
i was surprised that it passed here in such a liberal state, but since the election i’ve started to think more about it, what it is they want and what they are being denied. and in listening to gay activists like ellen and in playing devil’s advocate arguing with some of my politically savvy friends, i’ve kinda flip flopped on the issue again.
in all of these protests and on every picket sign, the argument is about “rights.” they argue how in the past we’ve denied women the right the to vote, we’ve denied blacks and other minorities numerous rights, and we’re on the same path again, denying gays the right to marry. but in califorina we have civil unions for same-sex couples, which affords them all of the rights that opposite-sex couples have in marriage.
from wikipedia:
In California where domestic partnership has been available to same-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 has made it, like the New Jersey civil union law, equivalent to marriage in every respect at the state level, though neither is recognized by the federal government.
so this isn’t as much a rights issue as it is an argument over the word “marriage.” same-sex couples have all the rights as opposite-sex couples do, they can have their civil union blessed by a church, no one’s going to stop them from calling themselves “married” if they want to, they can refer to themselves as each other’s husbands or wives. it’s just on one document somewhere in the county courthouse it’s checked “civil union” instead of “marriage.”
and here’s the thing, marriage really is defined as a union between a man and a woman, so it’s not like they’re being denied a right, it’s that people aren’t willing to change the definition of the word for them. it’s like if i was adopted by a mexican family when i was a newborn, grew up with mexican culture, speaking spanish and it being the only thing i ever identified with, yet when i fill out some government form, i can’t check “latino”.
anyway, i know that this is the unpopular stance (well, i guess it’s the popular stance, but not among my friends) on the subject. but comparing women who were being denied a right to vote, or blacks who were kept as slave’s for God’s sake, to same-sex couples being denied the right to have a word changed to accomodate them seems like a stretch. i don’t regret voting no on 8, if it didn’t pass and they redefined marriage, i really wouldn’t care. i just think that they’re being misleading about this being a rights issue.
10 comments
10 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I’ve been engaging in a long debate with a Mormon friend of mine on my blog, and he takes the same stance as you — that it’s just a word, so what’s the big deal as long as the rights are the same.
The reason it’s a big deal is because as far as the gay community is concerned, marriage is a certain kind of contract between two consenting adults representing the commitment they make to each other regardless of sex (an opinion backed up by the California Supreme Court earlier this year). Yet some people who consider homosexuality an abomination according to their religion want this definition changed to specifically exclude them. Imagine if we were to change the definition of President to exclude blacks and make Obama use the title Prezidizzle because some racist whites believe that the office of president is a white-only institution. Sure his rights and responsibilities would be the same and only the name of the office would be different, but it would still be offensive and discriminatory to make him use a different title because of his race. Indeed, this is an issue of inequality, even though it’s just a title that’s at stake.
All gays want is to be treated with equality, respect, and dignity, and rewriting the law to specifically exclude them from holding a certain title (even if they’re able to use an alternate title that grants them equal rights under the law) sends the message that we as a society consider them to be different and less deserving of respect and dignity as everyone else.
Remember, it was proposition 8 that changed the legal definition of marriage from one that was indifferent to sexuality to one that specifically excludes homosexuals. If the religious right really feels like it’s just a word, then why bother changing it unless there’s some hidden agenda associated with excluding people whose lifestyle they disagree with?
well put mike! prezidizzle ha!
i was also under the impression that this issue was about granting equal rights. the supreme court overturning the ban did not grant any more rights to gay married couples than domestic partnerships. but there is a difference of about 1,100 federal rights granted to hetero married couples that are not granted to domestic partners or civil unions.
here’s the full list of rights granted to married couples
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
but i don’t think the fight is just wording or checking a box on a form. it is about redefining marriage, it is about being treated as equals, and it is a move in the right direction. what needs to happen for equal rights is to get rid of the defense of marriage act that defines a marriage as between a man and woman. the act was put in place because opponents were afraid that same sex marriages would become legal and other states would have to recognize it under the full faith and credit clause of the united states constitution. FORTUNATELY, with barack obama as president he plans to repeal this act. so hopefully if theres more democrats in the house and senate there might be equal rights.
i’m glad you voted no. i’m glad you stand behind it and listened to both sides of the argument. i’m glad you didn’t use the kids as some stupid veil to hide behind ignorance and stupidity.
because im bored at lunch…i checked the definition of marriage in dictionary.com… “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”
So is mike saying that the definition used to be different and prop 8 changed it to man and woman? Do I have to bust out my highschool webster’s dictionary from my bookshelf to satisfy my curiousity?? :)
see, i don’t have any personal or religious convictions against gays, or gay marriage. if and when same-sex couples can marry in this state and around the country, nothing will change in my life so i have no reason to attempt to deny them what they want.
i keep reading all these articles on digg and seeing protests on the news though about how this is a rights issue. more than half of the people i talk to didn’t realize that they have all of the same rights at the state level, and regardless of gay married or civil union don’t have married rights at the federal level. i didn’t know any of this until i started to look into it either, and that’s what’s irritated me. i think it belittles much bigger rights struggles that groups have had to face in the past.
mike, you’ve made the most clear and honest argument for why the word has special meaning, and i see the discrimation in not affording them (or rather excluding them) from attaining that title. however, the definition in every dictionary, literally says a union between a man and women. in my mexican family scenario, i too would feel a sense of discrimination by having to call myself asian when i identify with being latino, but i don’t fit the definition of being latino, so i can’t have that title. i don’t see why a gay couple would not feel the same sense of commitment and dedication to each other under a civil union or another fancy word. i’m guessing they wouldn’t choose something derogatory. i may be being naive here, but if for whatever backward reasons, taka and i could only have a civil union since she was a foreigner, i really don’t think i would care. if we had all of the same rights, still had the exact same ceremony, all of my friends and family would call us married and we’d call each other husband and wife… my commitment, or feelings toward her and our relationship wouldn’t be any different.
i think the rights issue that the gay community and other activists should be focusing on is obtaining civil union rights in all states, and having the federal government acknowledge these. if so many people, especially religious people are bothered by same-sex “marriage,” why not focus on the more easily obtained, and more important issue of the actual rights first before moving on to an issue that has such a strong sticking point, and again in my view shouldn’t be as important.
Shali, The word “marriage” in the vernacular doesn’t necessarily directly translate to the word “marriage” in a legal context, the same way the word “theory” in the vernacular doesn’t mean that Darwin’s “theory” of evolution is a simple hypothesis (since theory means something different in a scientific context). The california supreme court ruled earlier this year that marriage in a legal context doesn’t contain an inherent assumption that the participants are mixed-sex. Proposition 8 sought to change that at the constitutional level.
Anyway, you guys make an interesting point that there is a widespread belief (dictionaries and whatnot) that marriage is defined as being a man-woman institution. Whether this assumption should be built into the legal definition is what’s really at stake, and I don’t think anyone can say definitively what the standard for making this decision should be, but I’ll admit that popular opinion should probably count for something.
more interestingly, Kent, you make a great point that the comparisons to the civil rights movement belittle the great struggles that other minority groups have made in the past. I have been very critical of the “yes on 8″ campaign’s misleading and dishonest message that proposition 8 would keep gay education out of the schools, but I had not considered that the opposition was also being somewhat misleading by comparing this struggle over a word to much more serious examples of oppression in our country’s history.
I wish I could have been there for some of your devil’s advocate discussions. It sounds like it would have been a really interesting debate.
It is a big deal if you are not recognized as “married” to the federal government. Gays in a “civil union” are denied such things as married tax exemptions, social security benefits for surviving spouses, etc.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5585.htm
civil unions and marriage is still not the same. I could be wrong but theres like 300 something rights you get in a civil union and over a 1000 if you are married.
If you and Taka were in a civil union, its not recognized in other states. Hypothetically if you were vacationing in Colorado and she had some sort of accident skiing.. life and death situation, you would not be able to make decisions in the hospital for her and probably would not be able to see her. Yeh the odds of that happening are slim but it would fuckin matter in that situation.
I dont think obtaining civil unions and having the federal govt recognize it in all states is as easy as it sounds. The DOM act passed 85-14 senate and 342-67 house in 1996. I agree there are bigger issues that need to be fought but it was the religious groups and people against same sex marriages that brought this to the ballot. Not the gays. And if the state constiution defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thats just reinforcing the DOM. So yes it is just a word but I understand and agree with why it should be fought.
Lisa and Christine, i think you guys are misinformed, and if i’m wrong, please show me where, but i’ve really been looking into this a lot lately…
California gay marriage for the last couple of years was legal marriage in california, but *not* in any other state or at the federal level. it afforded all of the same rights at the state level. both afforded *none* of the rights at the federal level.
the defense of marriage act which christine referenced passed in 1996 and it has 2 parts, from wikipedia:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
So gay marriage in california already didn’t have the 1000 benefits that married couples get, but it does have all of the 400 benefits that civil unions have. in arguing against prop 8, they’re not fighting for federal rights (which i think they should, but as christine pointed out doesn’t look easy), they’re fighting for the title. Now mike eloquently pointed out why the title is important, and why it’s a form of discrimination, and i understand and agree with him, but it’s not an issue about rights, and the fact that so many people think so is the very reason i’m so irked by these campaigns and protests.
makes you wonder how much misleading information was out there for all the other propositions as well. anyway, totally agree that both sides misrepresented the facts behind the proposition.
I admitted earlier in your blog that I was misinformed and thought voting no would grant gays the same rights as hetero couples. After the election I looked into it and realized the same things you did. When the ban was overturned and they were allowed to get “married” its still the same as domestic partnerships. I’m not disagreeing with you about it technically not being about rights.
So yes civil unions and gay marriages are the same thing. I am saying saying civil unions/domestic partnerships and HETERO marriages are different. I feel like you are saying if you and Taka had to be in a civil union you wouldn’t care because you would have all the same rights. But you don’t, you have 300-400 of those rights, theres still 1000 you don’t get on the federal level. Thats why I gave you that example if you were vacationing and had to make medical decisions for her in another state .. you wouldn’t be able to. AND if Taka were a dude, just saying suspend reality for a minute (is that the phrase?) and you wanted to “marry” or enter a civil union w/ him. You wouldn’t be able to because you can only sponsor your man through a marriage which is defined as man and woman.
Prop 8 was put on the ballot by people who were pissed by the supreme court overturning the ban. Prop 8 is defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Defense of Marriage act also defines marriage as
“a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Why shouldn’t the gays be fighting this? I mean if they sat by and just said whatever its just a word we still have the same state rights, Its just setting them back even more. The point is to redefine marriage as not being about a man and woman. I don’t know I’m not gay. I can’t speak for their plight or what the point of this prop 8 business is all about.
I do believe that the Yes on 8 were far more misleading in their campaign using scare tactics and saying gay shit will be taught to kids.
Is it really misleading that the No on 8 was asking for equality? And even if they were leading people to believe that voting No would give them more rights. People are obviously voting No because they believe gays should have more rights. Finding out that they are not going to have more rights is not going to make anyone pissed that they voted No and wished they changed their vote.
What yes on 8 did was dirty and disgusting.