Prop 8 discussion of the Defintion of Traditional Marriage

We received a great email from "BB" in response to Episode 78 of our Girl Meets Girl podcast. It was a long email and we're posting it, along with our responses, in parts over a few weeks. The first section dealt with Democratic Statutes and those posts are in two parts, first one here and second one here. The third post was on the Race Factor. And now, this is a discussion on the Definition of Traditional Marriage.

Our words are in boldface.

Definition of Traditional Marriage
This leads into the next subject of definition. Before I begin, allow me to simplify the premise of traditional marriage; which is the whole premise of Proposition 8. The formula is simply expressed as A+B=C.

Allow me to use literal semantics on this hypothesis against your legal references.

Examples

a+B=C (a = woman marital/legal status) (Common Law Doctrine of Coverture)

A+b=C (b = a male slave) (Dred Scott vs. Sanford)
This case wasn't about marriage. It was about a slave's right to sue for their own freedom. It illustrates how the definition of "citizen" has changed to include more people, not less.

a+b=C (whereas both a & b are interracial) (Loving vs. Virginia)

A+B1=C (King David, Old Testament reference of polygamy)
A+B2=C
A+B3=C

In all of the aforementioned legal cases, when applied to the initial
formula, have not discounted or disproved the premise of A+B=C.

True, but that doesn't weaken the case for "gay marriage." More on that soon.

This definition of traditional marriage has been in existence for thousands of years and is not a recent 20th century trend.

True, and again, this doesn't weaken the case for "gay marriage."

Now here's why.

In regards to the first assertion: that the legal cases "have not discounted or disproved the premise of A+B=C."

The initial premise does not have to be discounted or disproved for gay people to be able to get married to each other. Think: if gay couples can get married, does that prevent heterosexual couples from getting married or revoke heterosexual marriages ? No.

The purpose of introducing these cases was not to discount or disprove A+B=C. Why? Because it's unnecessary. Gay people who get married do not prevent heterosexual people from getting married.

In regards to the second assertion: That "this definition of traditional marriage has been in existence for thousands of years and is not a recent 20th century trend."

First of all, not that it's a substantial argument on its own (and we'll get to that next), but same-sex unions have been in existence for thousands of years and aren't a recent 20th century trend, either. Of course it may not have been called "marriage," which is an English word, because it wasn't part of English society, but same-sex couples have existed and their unions have been recognized in cultures around the world throughout history.

But you were talking about opposite-sex unions, not same-sex ones.

So they've been around a long time. Is that a real reason to preserve anything?

War and pestilence have been around too, but nobody says that's a reason to keep them around. Why? Because an existence of thousands of years alone isn't really a reason to preserve something.

But I think I know what you're getting at.

It would be a shame to have the quintessential image of man and wife joining in holy matrimony, infused with its edifying archetypal emotional, spiritual, and cultural significance, to be forsaken and forgotten by society at large.

Yes it would. I agree.

I love tradition and doing things the "old-fashioned" way. The smell of a wood fire is one of my favorite things. Not because I consider a wood fire as morally superior to an electric light bulb, but because it evokes feelings of ancient tradition and long history.

Good thing the time-honored wood fire is still allowed by the same law that also allows electric light bulbs.

Good thing time-honored marriages between people from the same race and culture is still allowed by the same law that also allows marriages between people of different races and cultures.

And good thing time-honored marriage between people of the opposite sex would also still be allowed by the same law that would extend the marriage right to couples of the same sex.

The law has changed it definitions to allow more ways to light a room and allow more forms that marriage can take. Not less.

In closing this segment of our discussion, to give us a better perspective on this issue, here is an excerpt from a speech delivered by Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, which made it possible for people of different races to marry without punishment under federal law in the U.S., beginning in 1967.

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

The full text of Mildred Loving's speech can be found here.

Prop 8 discussion of the "Race Factor"

We received a great email from "BB" in response to Episode 78 of our Girl Meets Girl podcast. It was a long email and we're posting it, along with our responses, in parts over a few weeks. The first section dealt with Democratic Statutes and those posts are in two parts, first one here and second one here. The following is on the topic of the Race Factor.

Our words are in boldface.

If you sampled a group of average citizens and asked for their personal opinion of homosexuality, I truly believe you will get a wide variety of responses. In order to clarify your examples of racial inequality I performed my own informal, unscientific survey of 20 people. These individuals ranged from all walks of life across the entire social and economic continuum. I asked them a simple question, “Do you think gays are considered a race or a minority?” Usually an inquiry worded in this fashion would cause the responder to answer in one of the two choices. But the greatest response I received was “neither.” I did get a couple of answers to minority, but upon further investigation they stated that gays were in the minority (overall numbers) as oppose to gays are a minority (ethnic group).

Gays are a minority because they are in the minority. Gays are not a race. A "race/ethnic group" is only called "a minority" if they are in the minority. Chinese people are not called a minority in China. In the United States, they are. So, gays are not a race, but they are indeed a minority. That's a fact of numbers. It's not up for an opinion survey.

With some of these folks I took the next step to interject examples of racial injustice. I used the Rosa Parks illustration. Because the majority of respondents in my survey did not associate homosexuality with race they saw no connection whatsoever. Although a number of people acknowledged struggles for both gay and civil rights groups, they still did not equate them as racial partners. In fact, with some African Americans they were perturbed by the idea of interconnecting the two. One respondent said “Rosa Parks was asked to move because she was black. Had she been a gay white woman no one would have said anything at all and left her alone.”

Actually, Rosa Parks wasn't asked to move because she was black. She was asked to move because she looked black, she didn't pass for white.

Here's the thing: Gay people pass for straight. In all kinds of institutions and situations, gay people can pass for straight. Discrimination against gays can't be enforced effectively much, because there's no way to see gayness.

Gays get into the military, the cubicle, the carpool, the football team, the pulpit, and nobody knows that their co-worker, accountant, teacher, neighbor, coach, or student, or bus-rider is gay, because gayness cannot be seen.

There's only one institution where gayness can be seen, where gay people cannot pass for straight. It's marriage.

Predictably, this is the one place where discrimination against gays is being attempted in such a forceful way.

Herein lies the fundamental element that separates the two factions. Most proponents of traditional marriage do not see a correlation between sexual orientation and race. Race by standard definition is based upon genetic physical characteristics while sexual orientation, according to some, involves behavior influenced by passion. According to this design both heterosexuals and homosexuals fit this definition of orientation. As far as defining race from a scientific or anthropological perspective, that is another argument in itself. Social construct and cultural relativity has modified the traditional definition of race to fit the current trends and attitudes. No doubt there still needs clarification on this matter and I will concede that it is well beyond my scope of intelligence.

Please understand that I am not discrediting your examples. I only address this because if gays want to use racial arguments to promote their cause they must take the time to inform and educate average citizens that they belong as a class of race. I would be interested to hear your results if you decide to undertake a similar survey. Perhaps you can find some studies or results on the internet.

Gays do not belong as a class of race, and the soundness of racial arguments does not require that they do.

Everyone knows the gay population is in the minority, the same way everyone knows the black population is in the minority. Both gays and blacks are a minority population. This status as a minority is the correlation between sexual orientation and race.

Proponents of "traditional marriage" who claim not to see this correlation are most likely intelligent and shrewd enough to realize that acknowledging it would reveal the bald-faced discrimination of their stance.

By the way, this minority vs. majority issue is also why many see wisdom, justice, and nobility in the ideals of democracy, wherein:
"The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote." (from The U.S. Department of State's website under the heading What Is Democracy?)

Prop 8 discussion of "Democratic Statutes" cont'd

We received a great email from "BB" in response to Episode 78 of our Girl Meets Girl podcast. It was a long email and we're posting it, along with our responses, in parts over a few weeks. The first installment was here. Now, here's the second in this series.

Our words are in boldface.

Personally, I am offended by the actions of State Attorney, Jerry Brown. He stepped beyond the bounds of his office to change the title of the initiative from “California marriage protection act” to “Eliminates the right for same-sex couples to marry.” This is a classic reversal of the USC/UCLA analogy I stated in the previous letter; using a negative over a positive. “Let’s beat USC, oh and by the way let’s support UCLA” and vice versa. When people inquire my stance on Prop. 8, I tell them I fully support it. Inevitably, the next statement is “So you’re against gay marriage.” My reply is “No, I am for traditional marriage.”

Let's take this seriously. Let's really think about this logically here.

If a man says to you, "So you're against XYZ marriage," and your reply is, "No, I am for traditional marriage," what is reasonable for that man to then deduce about you?

I'd say the following is reasonable and logical:
1. You do have something against XYZ marriage, even though you started your answer with the word "No." Otherwise your full answer would have been, "No, I'm not against XYZ marriage."
2. You probably do not recognize marriage can be available to "XYZ" and "traditional" couples both, but think it can only be available to one or the other. Otherwise, your answer would have been, "No, I'm not against XYZ marriages; and I'm not against traditional marriages, either. Neither prevents the other." This is where the USC/UCLA analogy breaks down. In USC/UCLA competitive sports, winning means the other team loses. In the case of a right to marry, just because XYZ wins the right does not mean others lose theirs.
3. You probably have a very specific but unspoken picture of what your term "traditional" means. Otherwise, your answer would have been, "No, I'm not against XYZ marriage; I'm for traditional marriage: arranged, dynastic, racially pure, polygamous, politically/financially strategic. I'm just for traditional marriage."

Let's stop and realize that people who are "for traditional marriage" include gay couples. Think about it, when you celebrate a wedding, it doesn't mean you withdraw support of any other married couples. Winning the right to marry is not a win/lose game. It's about trying to include more people, not exclude.

Let's also remember, "traditional" covers many pictures of marriage. People married for economic, political, and family loyalty far longer in our history than they've married for love. How many people reading this had great-grandparents or grandparents in arranged marriages, or picture-bride marriages? Probably many. I do.

The word "traditional" is almost meaningless because of the number of traditions there are. And when put into this accurate perspective, what becomes evident is the folly of claiming a supposed "traditional" quality as justification to champion just one, and only one, extremely recent idea of marriage, to the exclusion of all other, much older, and even more traditional incarnations of this institution.

Brown is trying to deceive the electorate that they will violate human and civil rights.

If there is a sex requirement that prevents you from obtaining a marriage certificate for you and your fiance, does that mean this requirement violates civil rights? According to the prohibition of discrimination based on sex, it does. There is no deception.

As I previously stated the original wording in the initiative has no direct reference to gay marriage.

You're right. It doesn't. More on this soon.

Once again, this is only about defining the institution of marriage between a man and a woman; plain and simple. Even if Proposition 8 passes Brown’s wording has left the door open for a legal maneuver to challenge. I am disappointed that both Brown and Gavin Newsom use their political positions to create policy and laws without due process. They are just creating a greater chasm between the two factions and adding gasoline to the fire.

Once again, as you said, the initiative had no direct reference to gay marriage. In fact, here's the wording. Prop 8 was to amend the Constitution of the State of California to include the following words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

No direct reference to gay marriage.

The United States Constitution used to refer to slaves as "other Persons" (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3). No direct reference to slavery, but everyone knew what these words meant, and they knew the conditions they were designed to enforce. The choice of words made it easier to discriminate, but didn't do anything to actually eliminate discrimination. (For more info, see this article on the 'three-fifths compromise.')

The lack of a direct reference to gay marriage doesn't mean it has nothing to do with gay people. Just like the lack of a direct reference to slaves didn't mean the Constitution had nothing to do with supporting slavery.

The irony is that there was a time when the gay community told government that it had no business what went on in their private lives; now it craves validation from them.

I think what the gay community craves is not validation, but equal treatment under the law, and wisely so. It's a positive thing when citizenry stands up for it's rights instead of remaining silent, while subtle creeping discrimination continues to build and morph into overt and ugly oppression.

Remember there are many things in a free society that are neither forbidden nor facilitated. Legal scholars claim certain actions are considered to be none of the law's business. But I can tell you firsthand being married does not give me any more liberty rather I am entrenched with more restrictions; both legal and otherwise.

Gay couples recognize this more than most. They've been forced to. They've had to pay extra money and spend extra time learning about and assembling contracts that legally enforce these restrictions which protect their rights, including hospital visitation, child and spousal support responsibilities, the list goes on. What most heterosexual couples have taken for granted, gay couples have had to pay extra for in every way.