Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

California Group Claims Nearly Enough Signatures for Anti-Marriage Ballot Measure

Jim Burroway

April 1st, 2008

The California organization “Protect Marriage” says it is close to meeting the requirement to place a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. The group says it has collected 881,000 of the 1.1 million signatures it needs to qualify. The deadline is April 21.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Regan DuCasse
April 2nd, 2008 | LINK

I have been working with Equality4 ALL here in CA to encourage the public to pledge NOT to sign the petition, OR if the amendment is on the ballot, to vote against it.

We’re still waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision, in which case this amendment will render their decision irrelevant.
It’s a sad day when people want to make permanent law based on prejudice and hypocrisy instead of justice and equality.

I think, that if this amendment passes, I’ll be among one of America’s citizens that will be one of those angry people that could hate this country for it’s backward thinking. Not only because of such actions against gay citizens who WANT to do the right things, but also the apathy in which this country responds to the real threats to marriage and families in America.

Jason D
April 2nd, 2008 | LINK

Regan, I couldn’t agree more.

I really don’t get this at all. There are plenty of things I don’t like, don’t approve of, and don’t think are morally right, but I’m not out lobbying to change the world to fit my ideals.

Like, for example, I don’t agree with plastic surgery for vanity sake. I don’t think people should lop off parts of their body, or worse–have things implanted just because they want to be skinnier, have bigger boobs, don’t like their nose, or don’t like looking as old as they are. It’s one thing to correct a medical issue, or try to return the body to it’s pre-accident or pre-invasive surgery appearance, that’s justified to me.

But, even though I strongly believe this, I also realize that at the end of the day it’s really none of my business if someone wants to look like a cat. I believe that freedom means that people get to make (what I consider) poor choices. If they’re not harming themselves, and not harming others, it doesn’t matter to me.

Gay Marriage will not harm anyone. In fact there is a mountain of evidence proving that NOT allowing us to marry IS harmful to us, our partners, our children, and society in general.

Joel
April 2nd, 2008 | LINK

“In fact there is a mountain of evidence proving that NOT allowing us to marry IS harmful to us, our partners, our children, and society in general.”

Ill be siting here… awaiting all this evidence(or at least a considerable tease as to get the point).

How many ppl live in CA? 1.1million doesnt seem like too many. Maybe like 15% of the population?

Hasnt this amendment to the constitution already been voted for in some states… and passed with flying colors. Not to mention, according to the ‘marriage protectors'(reminds of the paladins in Jumper) in the debate that took place here, it has already been tried in a court and has been ruled constitutional.

” Not only because of such actions against gay citizens who WANT to do the right things, but also the apathy in which this country responds to the real threats to marriage and families in America.”
Well… you have to agree though, these ‘marriage culture warriors’ have done a pretty excellent job in promoting their view.

“It’s a sad day when people want to make permanent law” WHen you say permanent… does that mean that consequential generations cannot overule it with a majority?

Jason D
April 2nd, 2008 | LINK

Joel,
-A gay couple, no matter how well crafted their legal documents can have that all null and voided if a judge decides that their arrangment is “marriage-like” enough to be disqualified in states where the anti-gay amendment goes so far to ban anything that sounds or acts like marriage.
-There are hundreds of stories where a will was contested and the estranged anti-gay family made off with the possessions of the deceased while the surviving partner was left with nothing and no recourse, in many cases not even allowed to be with the deceased in their final moments.
-In places where adoption is not legal, when the birth parent dies the child is ripped out of the home because the partner is considered a legal stranger — no matter how long they’ve been together.

-At least one gay man has had to testify against his partner, something married people never have to worry about.

-Taxes. We have to file seperately on our federal forms.

Marriage would protect against all of these.

Regan DuCasse
April 2nd, 2008 | LINK

JOel, when you consider how many people abandon spouses and their children at will, and there are no laws that can prevent or stop this….creating laws that KEEP ANYONE from caring for a significant other and their children is on it’s face, very wrong. The rulings in other courts or laws passed in this country run counter to this human right, and do so against gay people EXCLUSIVELY.

Indeed, the courts in NY and MD ruled that marriage supported procreation. Which is true, but it’s also true that no one is denied the right to marry based on the lack or intent of procreation.
The ruling is contradictory. I watched the court arguments here in CA and the state’s attorney, in defense of Prop 22, also called on procreation as the primary defense of the marriage ban for gay couples.
Ignoring the full intent of the law, and gay parents all at the same time.

ALL these laws are based on anti gay animus. And in effect do not save marriage at all.

And the evidence that Jason is referring to, is: in the single state and other countries where marriage for gays and lesbians is legal there is NO evidence of detriment to marriage or society at large.
And as the studies agree, marriage is good for one’s health, material gain and social happiness.
So denying this opportunity for gay couples also contradicts the agreed on benefits of marriage.

In EVERY case argued in the courts the couples had evidence of denial of care, custody, material and financial support for their partners and children, putting them all at risk. At risk of welfare, medical burdens and mistakes, financial burdens and economic and social difficulties that could be relieved or averted by marriage.
And Constitutional amendments cannot be reversed, even by an act of Congress.
And it must be noted, that for the first time in the history of these state constitutions, discrimination is being written into them and solely against gay people.

Gays and lesbians are a minority, globally.
In our democratic culture, it is also impossible for gays and lesbians to be able to participate fully in their own self determination if everything in their lives were put up to a majority vote.
This is why the tyranny FROM a majority was written into the Constitution as protection from situations just like this.
Where citizens are being DENIED their full rights and protections for ANY reason unequal to that of other citizens.

And being denied the ability to marry, care for one’s children or serve the country in uniform cannot be MORE tyrannical. If these are the foundation of a good life, to be encouraged and supported, there is NO justification to deny gay couples access to that happiness.

The opposition has never argued well on how it is justified. Rationalizing something is VERY different from JUSTIFYING it.
Even the rationalization that ‘it’s always been this way.’ is false (because it hasn’t), is an even poorer defense.

Several Constitutional and Bill of Rights standards have been BROKEN exclusively against gay people and will continue to be as long as such laws keep getting written.

When the most heinous and irresponsible heterosexual person, who is even in prison for murder can get married, while the most productive and compassionate gay person cannot…the moral principle regarding marriage and who deserves it flies right out the window and into the face of logic.

In fact, most of what the opposition states is contradictory, hypocritical or illogical. It even defies the golden rule and second commandment of Christ for those people of faith.
And anything that does that, is extraordinarily bad law.

Ben in oakland
April 3rd, 2008 | LINK

Joel: This argument really isn’t aobut marriage, as Regan notes. It is about what all of these discussions are about– how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people.

The anti-gay initiatives that were passed were indeed passed demopcratically, in the snese that the people voted for it. But in the great majority of the cases, there wrere no alternatives presented, no public debate before the issues werep lacedo n the ballot, not discussion of the issues gay people face because they can’t get married,m no presentation of alternative ofrms to protect our families and relationships.

But there were lots of lies, distortions, and hlaf-truths being thrown around. gay people are a threat to marriage, blah blah blah blah blah.

If the rights of the minority cannot be protected from the tyranny of the majority, as Jefferson put it, if gay people are demonized while the very real threats to marirage are blithely ignored, if equal protexction andapplication of the laws really mreans nothing, then democracy takes a back seat to…

demogoguery.

Zeke
April 5th, 2008 | LINK

Joel, are you with Watchmen on the Walls?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.