From my syndicated column this week:
This week, the Proposition 8 trial draws to a close.
This is the trial that never should have been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson, once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not a case about California law. This is the case that will decide the future of marriage for the entire country.
* * *
I am flying to San Francisco to be there at this historic moment, to live blog the event for the National Organization for Marriage. The last time I was in the Bay Area a few months ago I was sitting in an upscale bar in Oakland talking to a friend. A young woman, pretty, well-dressed, educated, walked over to my table and proceeded to yell at me. "You should be ashamed of yourself!" she said. I looked her in the eye and told her simply I was very proud of the work that I did, although I understood she disagreed. That made her even madder. "You should go South," she sputtered. "Go South, this is San Francisco!"
Actually it was Oakland, but I took her point. It was an illuminating moment. Here was an educated young woman who believed she had a right to purify an entire American city of those who disagreed with her about gay marriage. She behaved in a way that I would describe as uncivilized, but she saw herself as a great champion of civility, of tolerance, and of civil rights.
Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side. He will be asking this judge to disrespect the views of his fellow Americans, to brand them ignorant, irrational and bigoted, and to take away our right to vote for marriage. And he will be bathed in applause for doing so.
Full text: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20100615/cm_ucmg/thecorecivilrighttovoteformarriage
13 Comments
Those darn liberals! They've taken away our civil right to vote on whether blacks can vote. They've taken away our civil right to vote on whether women can own property. They've taken away our civil right to vote on whether Jews can hold public office.
Those darn liberals -- taking away our civil right to vote away other people's civil rights.
Actually, it was the Democratic party that supported slavery and then segeregation in the South. Wasn't the Republican party founded as the anti slavery party? In fact, it was due to the votes of Republicans that the Civil Rights Act passed in Washington DC.
And no one is saying that gays should not be able to vote or own property or hold public office. This is about defending the core meaning of marriage. Women never demanded to be called men when struggling for sufferage. Blacks never demanded to be called white in the struggle to desegregate the south. Neither should homosexual couples demand to be called married couples.
Traditional family values is NOT a civil rights violation!
It is a civil rights violation when the state gets into the business of sanctioning straight relationships over gay relationships. With very real benefits (inheritance, Social Security, the list runs to over 1,100 of them).
So, Clark, would you be willing to redefine marriage for any other lifestyle other than homosexuality? What about incestuous couples or polygamists? Why should they be denied the over 1,100 benefits you would grant to gay couples?
The reason why we favor some relationships over others has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. It has everything to do with which type of unions best ensure the survival of the human species and the continuation and stability of civilization. And that type is between one man and one woman, no question.
Such a view has absolutely nothing to do with racism or bigotry and everthing to do with history, biology, and common sense.
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry will do nothing to diminish the survival of the species (I can't even believe you insinuate that) nor will it result in the demise of any straight person's marriage. What hogwash.
To that, Clark, I say: What a strawman.
My point is that most people have a very good reason to favor man-woman relationships as opposed to man-man or woman-woman relationships. Homosexuality, for instance, serves no natural or social benifit to society whatsoever. Worse, it is the most efficient method of spreading STDs like AIDs, HIV, syphillis, etc. That is why I don't believe the government should promote and encourage such a lifestyle by forcing such a redefinition of marriage onto society, even if it allows and tolerates homosexuality.
And even if redefining marriage doesent result in the demise of any straight person's marriage, it will result in the demise, or at least decay of marriage in society. As I have pointed out before, when the government decides that marriage is only about coupling and procreation is merely an irrelevant byproduct, the rate of marriages decline, illigitamacy rises, and the crime and poverty levels fester. Just look at Scandinavia and the Netherlands for example.
What's wrong with Scandinavia or the Netherlands? Oh and by the way, STDs are not a gay problem or a straight problem, they're a societal problem. Banning gay people from marrying won't affect rates of STDs.
Here's a cute soundbite from one of the defense's mastermind witnesses:
Blankenhorn testimony: “heterosexuals did the deinstitutionalization. It predates the discussion of gays and lesbians marrying.”
ConservativeNy, did you follow the Prop 8 trial testimony? The Netherlands material was thoroughly debunked.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/19/data-from-the-netherlands/
While true that marriages were already on the decline before gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, it by no means "debunks" my point.
I never said that gay marriage was the sole cause of the decline of marriages. It is one of several causes. Gay marriage is one part of a new stage of marital decline that contains three basic elements: parental cohabitation, legal equalization of marriage and cohabitation, and gay marriage. All three factors are mutually reinforcing. When any of these three factors emerges, the others tend to follow. And together, they all erode the institution of marriage to obscurity and irrelevance. That is what happened in the Netherlands.
And the government promotion and encouragement of homosexual activity DOES worsen the AIDS/HIV rates. Especially when it legalizes gay marriage.
ConservativeNY- it's not possible to connect the dots on the whole gay marriage = end of the human race argument so why bother trying?
Gay marriage advocates put at risk not only marriage as a union of a man and a woman, but even our freedom.
They say: if you don't agree with us, you're stupid, bigot, ignorant.
If this is the result of so many years of freedom... something went wrong.
ConservativeNY: "And the government promotion and encouragement of homosexual activity DOES worsen the AIDS/HIV rates. Especially when it legalizes gay marriage."
Please cite your source on this claim
Greg, I never siad that gay marriage will end the human race. That's just another strawman. But it will lower the marriage rate, increase illigitimicy, and increase crime and poverty, all of which are never good for society and civilization.
The government enforced redefinition of marriage will officialy label traditional family values as a civil and human rights violation and anyone who believes in those values will be ostracized as a bigot. I, for one, do not want the government to adopt such a hostile attitude toward such values.
And Grey, even the gay activist group: MassEquality admits that the AIDS/HIV rate has risen dramatically in Massachussets.
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/equality