Prop 8, The Play

[Jaybear]

Which fact you hid.

I didn't hide the fact, I used ellipses to omit reference to your response which I did not consider germane.

and also accused me of promoting or appeasing bigotry.

No, I didn't. Frankly, I have no idea if you support granting gays all the rights and privileges of marriages, but for the sole privilege of calling their union a marriage.

I'm sorry if you don't like homework. I'm sorry if you don't like serious answers like "Go read this article on that very question." But, frankly, your conduct is unbecoming.

If you believe that granting gays all rights of marriage, but denying them the right to the name serves a PURPOSE other than promoting or appeasing bigotry, I would welcome you to articulate that purpose.

I don't care to be accused of lacking imagination, and tasked to do homework to get "the answer."

I don't consider such a response to be an "answer," let alone a "serious answer."

Moreover, when you begin your post with "Wow, admitting to being unimaginative?" you are really notin the position to accuse others of being unbecoming.

Now if you would like to articulate the PURPOSE to be served by granting all rights of marriage, but the name marriage to gay couples, I would be more than pleased to get the discussion back on track.

[Zeta-Flux]

I think this kind of reasoning is exactly why doing a stage play based on the Prop 8 charge will be so interesting. When does an analogy become a basis for law. Or when is it just a way of presenting an idea that has no basis in law. There is a huge difference coming up with prejudicial ideas on wanting a different name for the same thing because the union is different. But will it hold up in court? Does it have any justification for requiring a separate definition. I mentioned sitting at the front of the bus because it demonstrated the legal concept of the unacceptability of separate but equal. Perhaps if you feel this does not apply to this particular case, you could cite a similar legal case where separate but equal did become law that was used in the prop 8 trial. And if it was not used in the prop 8 trial, one has to ask the pointed question Why was it not used. After all, legal cases are won and lost by legal precedence.

Believe it or not, that's why the Prop. 8 ruling by Walker was so strange, and why the play will most likely continue to perpetuate the false idea that the Prop. 8 defenders had a weak case. In his ruling, Judge Walker ignored all of the previous precedent brought up by the proponents. Instead, he was transfixed by oral testimony--which he also manipulated via his video affairs. What will be much more interesting than the play will be the ruling by the circuit court. In particular, the differences between their ruling and Walker's. Look to see if they cite Walker's acclaimed findings of fact, which by the way were not facts at all.

[Zeta-Flux]

I didn't hide the fact, I used ellipses to omit reference to your response which I did not consider germane.

Let me get this straight. You hit the "quote" function, but then proceeded to delete the second half of my post in the middle of a sentence where I describe how to answer your question. You then replaced it with ellipses, leaving only the joke about being unimaginative. And you did all this because you didn't think it was germane. And then you said I didn't answer your question, which by any stretch of the imagination I did.

You certainly have chutzpa.

No, I didn't. Frankly, I have no idea if you support granting gays all the rights and privileges of marriages, but for the sole privilege of calling their union a marriage.

Then you need to pay attention more to the threads we've participated in. I've spelled out my position numerous times, and all sorts of minutiae related to gay rights.

If you believe that granting gays all rights of marriage, but denying them the right to the name serves a PURPOSE other than promoting or appeasing bigotry, I would welcome you to articulate that purpose.

See the article by Girgis and others. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155## It most closely articulates my view.

I don't care to be accused of lacking imagination, and tasked to do homework to get "the answer."

I don't consider such a response to be an "answer," let alone a "serious answer."

I'm sorry I didn't put an emoticon after my first sentence. But when someone says the only explanation they can come up with is bigotry, to an issue that people have been debating for years, well, ...

As for "homework" I don't know how asking you to compare two situations, and to read an article on the question constitutes a non-answer. That's simply ridiculous. But being a math professor, and believing "homework" is a good thing, I also don't understand your response. But I'm done here.

[kolipoki09]

It all comes down to what state and federal governments conceive as a compelling interest to promote "good." While ideally governments try to be neutral with regard to competing conceptions of the good, they can't always be.

I acknowledge Mr. Black's right to freedom of speech and artistic expression. Will I attend the play? Probably not. Will I have friends who will? Absolutely.

Mr. Black and others have encouraged lawmakers to remove the Church's tax-exempt status for becoming "involved in the political process" - which is perceived as a violation of the separation of Church and State. Yet I seem to remember the California Board of Rabbis, all six Episcopal Dioceses, the American Jewish Committee, and the Universalist Church of America, all of which organized phone banks and participated in fundraising efforts to defeat Prop 8 - yet for some reason, Black has no problem with their participation in the Democratic process.

The Church ought to (and may already be) prepare to sever its tax exempt status on grounds that it will not back down to a principle that according to LDS doctrine, remains fundamental.

[california boy]

Believe it or not, that's why the Prop. 8 ruling by Walker was so strange, and why the play will most likely continue to perpetuate the false idea that the Prop. 8 defenders had a weak case. In his ruling, Judge Walker ignored all of the previous precedent brought up by the proponents. Instead, he was transfixed by oral testimony--which he also manipulated via his video affairs. What will be much more interesting than the play will be the ruling by the circuit court. In particular, the differences between their ruling and Walker's. Look to see if they cite Walker's acclaimed findings of fact, which by the way were not facts at all.

I have heard you make this claim before. What specific argument did you find compelling based on case law did you find compelling that was not allowed in the trial?

[california boy]

It all comes down to what state and federal governments conceive as a compelling interest to promote "good." While ideally governments try to be neutral with regard to competing conceptions of the good, they can't always be.

I acknowledge Mr. Black's right to freedom of speech and artistic expression. Will I attend the play? Probably not. Will I have friends who will? Absolutely.

Mr. Black and others have encouraged lawmakers to remove the Church's tax-exempt status for becoming "involved in the political process" - which is perceived as a violation of the separation of Church and State. Yet I seem to remember the California Board of Rabbis, all six Episcopal Dioceses, the American Jewish Committee, and the Universalist Church of America, all of which organized phone banks and participated in fundraising efforts to defeat Prop 8 - yet for some reason, Black has no problem with their participation in the Democratic process.

The Church ought to (and may already be) prepare to sever its tax exempt status on grounds that it will not back down to a principle that according to LDS doctrine, remains fundamental.

You do realize that the church was found guilty of violating election laws in their participation of prop 8 and were given a slap on the wrist by being ordered to pay a fine. It is not like the church is completely innocent.

[bluebell]

You do realize that the church was found guilty of violating election laws in their participation of prop 8 and were given a slap on the wrist by being ordered to pay a fine. It is not like the church is completely innocent.

Could you post here exactly what they were guilty of.

[Zeta-Flux]

You do realize that the church was found guilty of violating election laws in their participation of prop 8 and were given a slap on the wrist by being ordered to pay a fine. It is not like the church is completely innocent.

california boy, that "violation" was due to the church accidentally filing a minor report 3 months late (but before any request by authorities). They withheld no information, and cooperated with law enforcement. The late report was on an amount that (if I recall correctly) was already reported somewhere else and represented a minor amount of the total spent. Such missteps are commonplace, and do leave the organization completely innocent (in the moral sense), hence only the minor fine. But you already knew all this, and somehow wanted to use it to find fault with the church.

I don't claim our organization is perfect, but the "violation" you cite was quite trivial and the fine they paid did not suggest any level of malfeasance on the church's part.

I have heard you make this claim before. What specific argument did you find compelling based on case law did you find compelling that was not allowed in the trial?

I didn't say the argument wasn't allowed at trial. I said that Walker ignored previous precedent throughout his ruling. He ignored (i.e., never cited) all of the case law presented by the proponents. For a specific example, Walker ignored precedent stating that homosexuals are not a suspect class.

[Daniel2]

[separate labels for gay unions and heterosexual unions]...just acknowledge the obvious differences between them.

In conversations such as this, I've repeatedly asserted my belief that so far as the government is concerned, "gay unions" and "straight unions" are totally indistinguishable from each other.

That is, if the government were reviewing tax, income, or other legal information from a combination of households headed by straight couples and gay couples, it would be literally impossible for the government to discern any differences--let alone "obvious" differences--between those households headed by gay unions vs. those headed by straight unions.

Further, I've never heard anyone articulate any universal difference in discernable behavior that distinguishes a same-sex couple vs. an opposite-sex couple.

Bluebell, if these "differences" are as obvious as you claim, can you please explain what they are? (assuming you're referring to something other than the physical genitals of the couples, themselves. Or--maybe that's the sum of your claim...?)

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

What are the obvious differences between a male and female bathroom that allow them to exist legally?

[Jaybear]

What are the obvious differences between a male and female bathroom that allow them to exist legally?

A urinal.

[Jeff K.]

In other words, sex differences.

[Jaybear]

In other words, sex differences.

Urinals don't have genitals.

[Jeff K.]

I am not in the habit of dealing with dishonest arguments. I think everyone here knows exactly what is meant by the sex differences and how the urinals reflect as much.

[california boy]

Could you post here exactly what they were guilty of.

I wasn't sure what the fine was for. I heard that it was because the church did not declair all of the in kind donations on the campaign. A lawsuite was filed against the church for failing to report all of the donations in kind that was used to pass prop 8. Evidently they failed to report work done by people in Salt Lake working on the campaign. I found this article. It is not quite as innocent as zeta wants it to be. It wasn't until after the lawsuit and investigation that the church agreed to pay the fine. I am not accusing the church of anything. I am just stating more clearly the order of events that led up to the lawsuit. Here is a more complete explaination of what the fine was about.

More than a year and a half ago, Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate accused the church of spending massive sums of money to support the Proposition 8 campaign, but of failing to disclose those expenditures. Initially, the Mormon Church claimed only to have spent a little over $2,000 on promoting the anti-family parity ballot initiative. Among other efforts to promote the marriage ban, Karger charged, the Mormon Church supplied phone banks and commercial advertising--expensive forms of support that went unreported to election officials. The church later revised its reports to reflect expenditures of nearly $200,00 in support of the anti-marriage measure. The $37,000 in question was part of that belated report.

Here is the link to the article.

[bluebell]

In conversations such as this, I've repeatedly asserted my belief that so far as the government is concerned, "gay unions" and "straight unions" are totally indistinguishable from each other.

So far as the government is concerned, i think you are right.

So much as the country is concerned, gay unions and straight unions are different in that one is capable of producing children, and the other isn't.

That is, if the government were reviewing tax, income, or other legal information from a combination of households headed by straight couples and gay couples, it would be literally impossible for the government to discern any differences--let alone "obvious" differences--between those households headed by gay unions vs. those headed by straight unions.

I agree.

Further, I've never heard anyone articulate any universal difference in discernable behavior that distinguishes a same-sex couple vs. an opposite-sex couple.

If people don't count 'the ability to create offspring' as a behavior, then i guess that would be true. I personally do count it as a behavior, and a significant one, and i don't think i'm the only one to do so.

Bluebell, if these "differences" are as obvious as you claim, can you please explain what they are? (assuming you're referring to something other than the physical genitals of the couples, themselves. Or--maybe that's the sum of your claim...?)

Daniel2

The sum of my claim isn't the difference in the genitalia in each union, but the differences in the potential for each union.

Put bluntly one type of union is a dead end genetically, the other type isn't.

[kolipoki09]

You do realize that the church was found guilty of violating election laws in their participation of prop 8 and were given a slap on the wrist by being ordered to pay a fine. It is not like the church is completely innocent.

Yes, I am entirely aware of the Church being guilty of being late in publishing all of its campaign contributions and ordered to pay a fine of roughly $5,000. I never assumed the Church was innocent with anything.

[bluebell]

I wasn't sure what the fine was for. I heard that it was because the church did not declair all of the in kind donations on the campaign. Evidently they failed to report work done by people in Salt Lake working on the campaign. I found this article.

Here is the link.

They didn't fail to report it-it was reported-they just failed to report it the way and in the time it was supposed to be reported.

That's why the fine was so light. They didn't do anything malicious, or sneaky, or anything that would impact their tax status, they made a mistake unknowingly.

[california boy]

I didn't say the argument wasn't allowed at trial. I said that Walker ignored previous precedent throughout his ruling. He ignored (i.e., never cited) all of the case law presented by the proponents. For a specific example, Walker ignored precedent stating that homosexuals are not a suspect class.

I am not very familiar with what specifically you are talking about. Are you saying that Walker ignored is precedents stating that homosexuals are not suspect class? Because this assertion was one of the main points of the lawsuit and the anti prop 8 lawyers made what judge Walker thought was a compelling legal case for making homosexuals a suspect class, Something that everyone acknowledges was not the case before the trial. The legal question was, what legal argument did the defendants have to support this assertion. As far Is Judge Walker was concerned, they did not make a compelling case that they were not a suspect class. Perhaps you could quote from the trial the defendents best argument for gays to not be a suspect classs other than in the past they have not been considered a suspect class. Obvious this ruling if it is allowed to stand will change that view of gays.

What I am really interested in is what you think the strongest legal argument supporting prop 8 was other than we have never allowed it before. After all, you could say that about most civil rights issues from women getting the right to vote, allowing blacks the right to a full vote or ending slavery, interatial marriage etc. If you don't want the law to change, you gotta put forth a strong legal case as to why it should remain as it is. Tradition is not a good enough legal argument.

[Daniel2]

I am not in the habit of dealing with dishonest arguments. I think everyone here knows exactly what is meant by the sex differences and how the urinals reflect as much.

Jeff,

I'd submit that individuals' privacy when eliminating personal waste is the underlying reason behind the existence of the physical divisions in bathrooms. Forced exposure of one's genitals or waste elimination to others seems unjust and a violation of one's right to privacy.

From my perspective, conservatively applying individuals' privacy rights to marital laws would suggest that the government has no business "policing" the genitals of spouses. Privacy (let along personal liberty) would suggest that when it comes to marriage, the ability to consensually choose one's spouse is a matter of personal privacy.

In short, the motivations behind the bathroom analogy you suggest would warrent privacy in the choice of one's spouse, as much as it suggests privacy to relieve one's self.

My view,

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

So far as the government is concerned, i think you are right.

I'm glad we agree on that point, which I think is key, given that same-sex civil marriage is a matter of equality in government recognition--not a compulsion by individuals to accept the morality of anyone else's marriage.

So much as the country is concerned, gay unions and straight unions are different in that one is capable of producing children, and the other isn't.

That isn't a universally true statement. Many straight couples are infertile or past the stage of procreation, and are equally "genetic dead ends." Of course, it also goes without saying that adoptive parents (single, gay, and straight) also raise children. It also goes without saying that many single women and unmarried couples also give birth to children. "Procreation" exists independant of marriage. "Child-rearing" exists independant of "marriage" and/or "procreation." "Marriage" exists independant of "procreation" or "child-rearing."

Is the strength of your view that "procreation is essential to marriage" such that you propose limiting the term "civil marriage" to only fertile, procreative couples--not elderly couples, adoptive couples, or childless couples?

In addition, once modern medical science progresses to allow lesbian and gay couples the ability procreate, will your view likewise change that such couples then quality for the term "civil marriage"? If your answer is "no," then your enumerated "significant behavior of child-rearing" is not your underlying reason for objecting to the legal recognition of the term civil "marriage" for LGBT couples.

If people don't count 'the ability to create offspring' as a behavior, then i guess that would be true. I personally do count it as a behavior, and a significant one, and i don't think i'm the only one to do so.

"The ability to create offspring" is certainly a significant behavior in many ways--just not synonymous with or mandatory for the exclusive use of the designation of "civil marriage."

The sum of my claim isn't the difference in the genitalia in each union, but the differences in the potential for each union.

Put bluntly one type of union is a dead end genetically, the other type isn't.

As I've shown, many straight marriages are childless by choice, infertility, or beyond menopause. Your logic isn't consistent.

My view,

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Individual privacy does not exist in public places, that is the law. I suggest you have tossed out a red herring in order to avoid the very issue of allowing for a difference due to gender practices. Given that bathroom stalls often do not have doors, and are not considered in violation of privacy issues, your personal view is negated by the facts.

Your question

Bluebell, if these "differences" are as obvious as you claim, can you please explain what they are? (assuming you're referring to something other than the physical genitals of the couples, themselves. Or--maybe that's the sum of your claim...?)

The answer

Why are there separate bathrooms for men and women.

In other words there is an acknowledged difference based on gender that requires the acknowledgement of different facilities. Yes very obvious differences that lead to very different definitions, based on gender.

[Jaybear]

In other words there is an acknowledged difference based on gender that requires the acknowledgement of different facilities. Yes very obvious differences that lead to very different definitions, based on gender.

So what? Some bathrooms serve women. Some serve men. Some serve both.

But, they are all still called "BATHROOMS."

They don't need different names. The stick figure on the door is all that is needed to serve the purpose of letting people know which door to enter.

As for marriages, you don't need different labels or even stick figures to distinguish gay and straight marriage. Nor is there a need for anyone to know the difference except the couple involved.

Your honest argument need to have a point that is germane to the issue at hand.

[Jeff K.]

They are called "the men's room" and "the womens room"

You cannot change the definition of "the mens room" and make it mean women go there too.

If two men pair up and copulate, that isn't marriage. It might be a civil union, but the rights do not matter to you. It is the definition you want to change.

[bluebell]

I'm glad we agree on that point, which I think is key, given that same-sex civil marriage is a matter of equality in government recognition--not a compulsion by individuals to accept the morality of anyone else's marriage.

We agree that as far as taxation and other legal issues, the two unions are the same in the eyes of the government.

What we disagree on is in terms of why it's beneficial for a country (not just the taxation and legal laws but the country as a whole) to recognize unions at all.

From that perspective gay unions and straight unions are apples and oranges.

That isn't a universally true statement. Many straight couples are infertile or past the stage of procreation, and are equally "genetic dead ends." Of course, it also goes without saying that adoptive parents (single, gay, and straight) also raise children. It also goes without saying that many single women and unmarried couples also give birth to children. "Procreation" exists independant of marriage. "Child-rearing" exists independant of "marriage" and/or "procreation." "Marriage" exists independant of "procreation" or "child-rearing."

And some gay marriages are comprised of one gay person and one transgendered person who saved their own sperm thus making it possible for two lesbians to actually concieve and bear a child genetically related to both partners... (watched that story on Oprah).

Yes, i get it. Individual marriages and unions are unique and can rarely be compared to each other accurately.

However, biology is clear. A man and a woman can make a baby. Two men or two women cannot. Whether or not they choose to, or whether or not everything works perfectly and both are capable doesn't negate the truth of biology and it doesn't negate a fundamental difference between the two unions in general.

If a union is recognized by a country it's generally because the country has a something to gain from it. Generally and traditionally speaking, that something gained, among other things, has to do with the union's chances of producing and raising children that will keep the population of the country viable and who will be contributing members of society.

That doesn't always happen, obviously, but that seems to be the hope and the reason that countries, historically, validate a union by calling it a legal marriage.

Now, in our day, we have unions of all sorts of different kinds of people and unions for all different sorts of reasons. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that marriage as legally defined has historically been about the chance for children. A union formed of parts incapable of that even in theory, in my opinion, is different than a marriage and should have a different name.

Is the strength of your view that "procreation is essential to marriage" such that you propose limiting the term "civil marriage" to only fertile, procreative couples--not elderly couples, adoptive couples, or childless couples?

My view is that because marriage, as it has to do with a countries government, has always been based on the biological possibility of the two people invovled to procreate, that something not based on that possibility is actually a different type of union all together and should logically be called by a different name.

In addition, once modern medical science progresses to allow lesbian and gay couples the ability procreate, will your view likewise change that such couples then quality for the term "civil marriage"? If your answer is "no," then your enumerated "significant behavior of child-rearing" is not your underlying reason for objecting to the legal recognition of the term civil "marriage" for LGBT couples.

When two sperm or two eggs create a child, i'll cross this bridge. I'm not foreseeing it being an issue that i'll have to come to any decisions about.

"The ability to create offspring" is certainly a significant behavior in many ways--just not synonymous with or mandatory for the exclusive use of the designation of "civil marriage."

As I've shown, many straight marriages are childless by choice, infertility, or beyond menopause. Your logic isn't consistent.

My view,

Daniel2

This isn't about opinion or morals. People can call their unions whatever they want with my blessing. They can have children, adopt children, or raise monkeys and claim they are their children and that's their business.

This is about a country legally recognizing a union and why they would do so and how a country's motivations for recognizing unions could logically impact how they label such union.

It seems to me that a country has something unique to gain from a straight union that it has no way of gaining from a gay union. Therefore, IF a country is at ALL motivated to recognize a union because of the possibility of that gain, then that makes such a union unique from all others in the eyes of the country.

The same country might decide to legally recognize unions that don't have that potential, but their motivations would have to be different by default, thus making the other unions fundamentally different in the eyes of the country.

It's not 'bigotry' or 'inconsistent logic' that suggests two unique and fundamentally different types of unions have unique and different labels, as far as the country is concerned.

Personally, i'd be fine with the US doing away with the legal recongition of marriage completely and just treating all unions as civil unions. That would get the country out of the business of validating unions based on their theoretical potential to create offspring. I don't think that's going to happen however.