Gay, Gay Marriage

Prop 8: When The Law Stops Acting as a Shield and Starts Acting as a Sword

By  
on

Thanks to the voters of California, we now live in a time where previously granted rights can be snatched away from law abiding citizens on the strength of majoritarian domination.

If you didn’t think that was going to spark a whole bunch of legal arguments (on both sides of the issue), you’ve never been oppressed by an otherwise “free” society.

So, let’s take a look at all the crazy things dribbling out of California right now. For my money, here’s the most ludicrous argument:

If opposition to same-sex marriage is to be understood as pure bigotry, then no accommodation for religious believers will be made. This is what people have got to understand is at stake in this conflict. It is not a scare tactic, or a made-up charge: there really will be a substantial effect on traditional churches, synagogues, mosques and religious institutions if gay marriage is constitutionalized.

As usual, the argument ends there. People like to talk about the “substantial effect” on religious institutions, without naming one concrete effect. See, in this country, we have civil marriages and religious marriages. I’ve yet to talk to a supporter of gay marriage who wants to the state to force a priest or a reverend or a rabbi to perform a gay marriage in a house of worship. Heck, in the Catholic church at least, you can’t get straight-married by a priest in a church unless you submit yourself to hours of religious indoctrination and lie about your relationship with contraceptives.

(Christ, did I just say that out loud? Now I have to go to confessional again before Christmas. Damnit.)

Nobody is going to mess with the right of religious people to “not condone the gay lifestyle.” America reads you loud and clear. You’re not gay, you have a huge penis, and that one time in college you were just really drunk. The private feelings of religious people towards gay people are strictly between religious people and their Jesus (who preached a lot about love and tolerance, but whatever).

Sponsored

The impact of gay marriage on the 1st Amendment is nil. As many (many, many) people have pointed out: if you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. Thank God we have an entire constitutional amendment that allows churches to marry whomever the hell they want to without interference from the state. It’s a good thing that all gay rights advocates want is for gays and lesbians to have a legal bond commensurate with what straight people can achieve on a pirate ship.

Okay, but the 1st Amendment argument against gay marriage is a total red herring. After the jump, California drags us into some more complicated legal issues.


Remember during the “Red Scare” period of our history, people were “blacklisted” as communists? Remember how that period or time was pretty bad for “freedom?” Well, with history as our guide, the “Anti Gay blacklist” project can’t be a good thing:

The following individuals or organizations (according to ElectionTrack.com) have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them. 8 = HATE. Thanks!

Danger Will Robinson.

Sponsored

I get the “no more Mr. Nice Gay” idea, but surely this goes too far. This list gets dangerously close to persecution of political ideas that are different from your own. Gay marriage poses no threat to the 1st Amendment, but a political blacklist would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment (if the Anti Gay Blacklist people were government actors — which I’ll note, they’re not).

It’s good to know which organizations contributed millions to an effort you disagree with. But a person who gave a couple of hundred of dollars really isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the issue. Blacklists are never good.

On the more palatable end of the legal spectrum, Elton John has decided what “Yes on 8” people are begging for is just fine by him: civil unions for all (including heterosexuals)! Except, it’s not entirely clear that Sir. Rocket knows what they mean by “civil unions” in California. The Johnny California blog delves into the legal problems associated with civil unions:

Ya see, here in California we don’t have “civil unions” we have “Registered Domestic Partnerships” (“RDP”) and under the California Family Code, RDPs are explicitly limited to same-sex couples and in certain cases, heterosexual couples over the age of 62. …

Then there’s the problem of federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) prevents same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, but it could also happen to heterosexual couples. Check out how DOMA defines “marriage” and “spouse.” …

Under the California Family Code’s definition of an RDP, there is no reference to a “marriage”, a “husband” or a “wife.” Yeah, the Code mentions “spouse” when talking about RDPs having the same rights as spouses, but it never defines what a “spouse” is.

Sorry Yes on 8-ers, civil unions don’t confer all of the rights and benefits of a state-recognized marriage.

But hey, the Yes on 8 movement still has this argument, filed by Kingdom of Heaven on behalf of Prop 8. Popsquire reports that KoH believes that Prop 8 is legal for three reasons:

(1) “indirectly, God prohibits gay and lesbian marriage;” (2) free will causes problems, especially when exercised by George W. Bush; and (3) gays and lesbians have “contributed heavily to extreme weather, global warming, financial crisis, recession, [and] global hatred.”

So there’s that.

The voters have spoken, but the legal battle is far from over. But what you do you expect to happen when rights are taken away?

Prop 8: Elton John is Wrong – An Explanation as to Why “Civil Unions For All Couples” Won’t Work. [Johnny California]

How same-sex marriage harms 1st Amendment liberties [Crunchy Con]

Melissa Etheridge vs. Kingdom of Heaven? [Popsquire]

AntiGayBlacklist.com

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: ACLU to Sue ‘Yes on Prop 8’ Victors

Countdown to California’s Prop. 8 Showdown

Topics