Prop 8, Marriage and the Tradition of Change
by KevinNovember 3rd, 2008
Proposition Eight in California will take away the right of homosexual copies to marry. It is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to make one class of citizens permanently second class. It is about fear and bigotry and nothing else. The proponents of this rights destroying proposition really offer only two arguments: it is against God’s will and traditional marriage must be saved.
The first argument is the most ludicrous. Lots of things are against someone’e conception of Gods will. We don’t ban lobster dinners even though shellfish are called an abomination right along with homosexuality (and, please, spare me the story of Peter’s dream. If you really think that passage refers only to the prohibition on shellfish, then you really, really need to go back and read your Bible again.) We don’t forgive debts every seven years or force anyone to obey any of the Jubilee Laws. We don’t forbid marriage to the divorced. We don’t do hardly anything to impose religious beliefs on any class of citizen that does not wish to partake of them. And almost none of the groups involved in Prop 8 publicly argue for those kinds of impositions– except when it comes to homosexuals.
The traditional marriage argument is just as weak. For most of western history, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one woman and one man chosen for that women by her father or other legal guardian. For much of the history of capitalism, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one woman and one man of the same socio-economic class. Until forty years ago, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Somehow, the institution of marriage survived those changes and you find no except the worst bigots — and certainly none of the groups publicly advocating for Prop 8 — agitating for a return to those states of affairs. Western culture has traditionally been fine with changing the traditional definition of marriage, and the institution has rolled happily along. To believe that gay marriage will somehow change that is to ignore the evidence of history and of places like Massachusetts and Canada, where the institution of marriage has quite easily survived being opened to gays. No, the only real reason to be opposed to Prop 8 is that gays freak you out a bit..
And, really, so what? Lots of things freak you out a bit. The weird girl in college who wanted to be tied up before sex; those weirdo hippies who name their kids things like Sunbeam and Moonsickle; the overly uptight parents at the PTA meeting who refuse to let their kid call them Mom or Dad, just Ma’am or Sir; the, umm, enthusiasts, that dress in full Star Wars regalia and get married on a sound stage in Vegas; the couple that dresses their twin daughters in matching outfits ever single freaking day. There are a lot of weird people out there, and they do a lot of weird things. But we don’t take their rights away. Only homosexuals, apparently, are weird enough for that level of discrimination.
Marriages that the state recognizes are about two people who love each other and are willing to make a public commitment to use that love to help build a family. That is a hard thing to do, so the state provides a bit of help here and there for those willing to take up that effort. The race, relative class, or sexual orientation don’t matter a damn in that equation. Only the love and the commitment do.
If you live in California, please vote NO on Prop 8. It is wrong and it is unfair.
Categories: General |
Doesn’t it seem strange that this type of litigation seems to become very important during major elections? Isn’t this another form of dirty politics to get out the right wing vote to help influence to outcome of an election?
Proposition Eight in California will take away the right of homosexual copies to marry.
Rick Santorum was right. If we change the definition of marriage, the first thing you know it will lead to unbridled, hot, Man-on-Xerox action! We’ve got to draw the line somewhere!
UPDATE: The weird girl in college who wanted to be tied up before sex . . .
Dude! You had one of those? I dreamed of one of those . . .
Extremely well reasoned. I have never read a more thorough debunking of the so-called ‘legitimate’ reasons to hate on gay people.
“The first argument is the most ludicrous. Lots of things are against someone’e conception of Gods will. We don’t ban lobster dinners even though shellfish are called an abomination right along with homosexuality (and, please, spare me the story of Peter’s dream. If you really think that passage refers only to the prohibition on shellfish, then you really, really need to go back and read your Bible again.) We don’t forgive debts every seven years or force anyone to obey any of the Jubilee Laws. We don’t forbid marriage to the divorced….”
When people make this argument it shows a lack of understanding of what the Old Testament is about. At the time, Israel was the chosen nation of God, and He had made a covenant with his people (5 in all because they kept breaking them). The New Testament of course contained the 6th Covenant, which was the new and everlasting living Covenant, Jesus Christ. Anyway, there was a strict Judaic law which they were to follow (this is the reason why some of these things seem odd today). However the the Old Testament prophecies were all fullfilled in the new, and the old Covenants and law are now trumped by the coming of Christ. They no longer apply. Well you may argue, doesn’t that mean the prohibition against homosexual behaviour no longer applies as well? No, because in the NT Book of Romans deviant sexual behaviour, including homosexuality, is condemmed once again. Must have been pretty important to our Lord to condemn homosexuality all throughout time. Really though, all sexual activity outside the confines of a sacramental marriage is condemmed (fornication / adultery) by our Lord.
More later…
“The traditional marriage argument is just as weak. For most of western history, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one woman and one man chosen for that women by her father or other legal guardian. For much of the history of capitalism, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one woman and one man of the same socio-economic class. Until forty years ago, marriage was traditionally defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Somehow, the institution of marriage survived those changes and you find no except the worst bigots — and certainly none of the groups publicly advocating for Prop 8 — agitating for a return to those states of affairs. Western culture has traditionally been fine with changing the traditional definition of marriage, and the institution has rolled happily along. To believe that gay marriage will somehow change that is to ignore the evidence of history and of places like Massachusetts and Canada, where the institution of marriage has quite easily survived being opened to gays. No, the only real reason to be opposed to Prop 8 is that gays freak you out a bit…”
This is somewhat of a straw man argument. Marriage has always been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman (notice the trend in all your examples?) and to equate prohibiting the changing of that definition to racism, classism, homophobia or whatever is fallacious reasoning.
“Doesn’t it seem strange that this type of litigation seems to become very important during major elections? Isn’t this another form of dirty politics to get out the right wing vote to help influence to outcome of an election?”
No, its in response to yet more activist liberal judges legislating from the bench.
You lord Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuallity. The self-loathing P/Saul condemned it after falling down in an epileptic fit and hitting his head. Good try, though.
Not that the rest of us care what your religion says about it.
Bob: That’s what you religious zealots don’t seems to want to acknowledge, this country is built upon SEPARATION OF CHURCH and STATE. We ‘other religions’ type of people (or hey, NO Religion people) don’t want YOU Christians pushing your hatred and bigotry on those of us who cherish love and feel it is a rare cherished emotion. Marriage is not defined by religion, except in the a religious institution. It should be kept that way and you should defend that with all your might. I am so sick of you all pushing your hatred that is defended by saying “God made us do it” The constitution of the US was written by Deist, NOT Christians. and They specifically stated, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Get that through your heads! California IS NOT A CHURCH!
the old Covenants and law are now trumped by the coming of Christ
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
- Matthew 5:17-18
Marriage has always been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman
Where she was chattel. (That changed.)
Of the same religion. (That changed.)
Of the same class. (That changed.)
Of the same race. (That changed.)
The point, as is obvious but which you refuse to see, is that appeals to the “traditional view,” with the underlying assertion that it must not be changed, when what constitutes “traditional” has changed over the years, is what is “fallacious reasoning.”
While not exactly an unpitched contest, KTK, you just got yourself p0wned on brevity by LarryE.
Despite the valiant but unavailing attempts of our latest addition - i.e., bob - to shift the focus, the simple fact is that just as Biblical authority is now invoked to justify bans on same-sex marriage, so too was it used to justify the earlier bans on interracial marriage, Used even in the courts.
For example, the original trial judge in what became Loving v. Virginia wrote in his decision that “Almighty God” put different races “on separate continents” which proved that “he did not intend for the races to mix.” And in 1955, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a ban on interracial marriage, calling such a ban “clearly divine.”
So the argument that “well, this is different” really does not impress me.
Dan -
I aim to be brief; I usually fail. I just got lucky.
Kevin:
No, the only real reason to be opposed to Prop 8 is that gays freak you out a bit..
I think you mean the only real reason to support Prop 8…
bob:
Marriage has always been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman
Tell that to King Solomon’s 700 wives…
LarryE beat me to the old testament/new testament stuff…