Proposition 2
Texans are being called to vote on a number of amendments to the Texas State Constitution. Among these proposed amendments is Proposition 2 which reads as follows:
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Why would somebody support Proposition 2?
Here is one argument supporting Proposition 2:
"Defend the institution of marriage: Vote YES on Proposition 2.
Marriage has always been about the Union of Man and Woman, and it is only meant to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth.
'Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex.
Everyone abides by these same rules, and anyone who meets all five criteria can enter into marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups.'- taken from www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm"
I will take issue with the above argument piece by piece:
1. How can you support the claim "Marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman, and it is only mean to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth."?
Marriages may have started as only between males and females but it is untrue to say that marriage has ALWAYS been about man and woman. There are many instances in American Indian tribes where men married other men. Also, there is legalized same-sex marriage in other parts of the world, thus the claim that "marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman" is simply untrue. And therefore, the "truth" that this person is speaking of is, in fact, not "truth" but "fiction".
2. "Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex."
The argument is that "straight people can't marry people of the same-sex either-- so since the law is equally applied it does not violate the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)
The funny thing is that this exact same argument was used by those people that supported a ban on interracial marriages in 1967. The law stated that non-whites couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry non-whites, thus, the law was equally applied and, therefore it was not unconstitutional. Seems to make sense, however, In the court case Loving v. Virginia the supreme court stated that "the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes". Thus, simply because a law is equally applied does not mean that it equally protects.
As for the 5 requirements for what constitutes marriage... I realize your list is an accurate representation of the status quo, but just because the law IS this way doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be this way. The laws once defined "citizen" as "white land owner". It is easy to change the meanings of words... we could easily change the meaning of "civil marriage" to include same-sex couples.
3. How will changing the definition of "civil marriage" threaten "the institution of marriage"? I can honestly see no valid arguments to support this.
4. "Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups."
This line of argumentation is obviously flawed because the same arguments could be, and were, used to justify a ban on interracial marriage... which I don't think anyone would support. You may argue that there is a difference between race and sexual orientation... to anyone that makes this argument, I must ask, is it ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law because you disagree with their orientation? If you don't think it's ok to deny homosexuals (or bi or transexuals) equal protection of the law then you shouldn't support a proposition that will ban a certain group of people from having equal rights. If you do think it's ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law then you are a fascist that is making the same flaw in argumentation that people who were against interracial marriages made.
If you still believe that this ban would not violate the 14th amendment (which calls for equal protection of the law [which Loving v. Virginia said is not simply "equal application"]) then I must make a simple analogy that I feel shows the flaw in this line of argumentation:
There are two groups of people, group A & group B. The members of Group A are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking water. The majority of people under this government are members of Group A. As the majority, Group A decides they will make laws that give certain benefits to water drinkers. However, members of Group B are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking juice and they don't get any satisfaction out of drinking water. Moreover, many members of Group A think that drinking juice is wrong. In this system there is not equal protection of the law for juice drinkers because the benefits of the law won't apply to members of Group B... thus, this situation would fail to pass the 14th amendment.
This has been my argument within the current social framework of the U.S.-- however, if you wish to dismiss the constitution and argue from another standpoint... then it is possible to argue:
Homosexuality is "wrong" and you shouldn't support legislation that supports people's "wrong doings".
Certainly you do not think that everything that you consider "wrong" should be illegal. Should it be illegal to say God's name in vain? If you think that it should be illegal to say God's name in vain... then you are a fascist. If you do not, then you must admit that it is not the job of the government to decide "right" and "wrong". I believe it should be the job of the government to favor those actions that promote happiness and condemn those actions which impede on another person's freedoms (i.e. actions that cause harm). Since allowing same-sex marriage would promote happiness, through benefits, to homosexuals and since these benefits do not cause any harm, I see no solid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
Giving homosexuals equal rights causes harm to no one-- Why would you want to deny homosexual couples these rights that heterosexual couples can receive by marrying?:
-Spouses are allowed to make medical decisions in the case that their husband or wife is incompetent or disabled and they generally are allowed to visit their partner in the hospital.
-Married persons are allowed to make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying taxes.
-Spouses are given the automatic right to inherit without a will; the inheritance is also untaxable.
-Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse.
-Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse.
Actively fighting to deny these rights to homosexual couples is outright hateful... it's not bad enough that the status quo denies homosexuals equal protection of the law... but the bigoted right is so homophobic that they feel the need to ban something that is already not legal... so ridiculous.
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Why would somebody support Proposition 2?
Here is one argument supporting Proposition 2:
"Defend the institution of marriage: Vote YES on Proposition 2.
Marriage has always been about the Union of Man and Woman, and it is only meant to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth.
'Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex.
Everyone abides by these same rules, and anyone who meets all five criteria can enter into marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups.'- taken from www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm"
I will take issue with the above argument piece by piece:
1. How can you support the claim "Marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman, and it is only mean to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth."?
Marriages may have started as only between males and females but it is untrue to say that marriage has ALWAYS been about man and woman. There are many instances in American Indian tribes where men married other men. Also, there is legalized same-sex marriage in other parts of the world, thus the claim that "marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman" is simply untrue. And therefore, the "truth" that this person is speaking of is, in fact, not "truth" but "fiction".
2. "Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex."
The argument is that "straight people can't marry people of the same-sex either-- so since the law is equally applied it does not violate the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)
The funny thing is that this exact same argument was used by those people that supported a ban on interracial marriages in 1967. The law stated that non-whites couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry non-whites, thus, the law was equally applied and, therefore it was not unconstitutional. Seems to make sense, however, In the court case Loving v. Virginia the supreme court stated that "the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes". Thus, simply because a law is equally applied does not mean that it equally protects.
As for the 5 requirements for what constitutes marriage... I realize your list is an accurate representation of the status quo, but just because the law IS this way doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be this way. The laws once defined "citizen" as "white land owner". It is easy to change the meanings of words... we could easily change the meaning of "civil marriage" to include same-sex couples.
3. How will changing the definition of "civil marriage" threaten "the institution of marriage"? I can honestly see no valid arguments to support this.
4. "Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups."
This line of argumentation is obviously flawed because the same arguments could be, and were, used to justify a ban on interracial marriage... which I don't think anyone would support. You may argue that there is a difference between race and sexual orientation... to anyone that makes this argument, I must ask, is it ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law because you disagree with their orientation? If you don't think it's ok to deny homosexuals (or bi or transexuals) equal protection of the law then you shouldn't support a proposition that will ban a certain group of people from having equal rights. If you do think it's ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law then you are a fascist that is making the same flaw in argumentation that people who were against interracial marriages made.
If you still believe that this ban would not violate the 14th amendment (which calls for equal protection of the law [which Loving v. Virginia said is not simply "equal application"]) then I must make a simple analogy that I feel shows the flaw in this line of argumentation:
There are two groups of people, group A & group B. The members of Group A are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking water. The majority of people under this government are members of Group A. As the majority, Group A decides they will make laws that give certain benefits to water drinkers. However, members of Group B are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking juice and they don't get any satisfaction out of drinking water. Moreover, many members of Group A think that drinking juice is wrong. In this system there is not equal protection of the law for juice drinkers because the benefits of the law won't apply to members of Group B... thus, this situation would fail to pass the 14th amendment.
This has been my argument within the current social framework of the U.S.-- however, if you wish to dismiss the constitution and argue from another standpoint... then it is possible to argue:
Homosexuality is "wrong" and you shouldn't support legislation that supports people's "wrong doings".
Certainly you do not think that everything that you consider "wrong" should be illegal. Should it be illegal to say God's name in vain? If you think that it should be illegal to say God's name in vain... then you are a fascist. If you do not, then you must admit that it is not the job of the government to decide "right" and "wrong". I believe it should be the job of the government to favor those actions that promote happiness and condemn those actions which impede on another person's freedoms (i.e. actions that cause harm). Since allowing same-sex marriage would promote happiness, through benefits, to homosexuals and since these benefits do not cause any harm, I see no solid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
Giving homosexuals equal rights causes harm to no one-- Why would you want to deny homosexual couples these rights that heterosexual couples can receive by marrying?:
-Spouses are allowed to make medical decisions in the case that their husband or wife is incompetent or disabled and they generally are allowed to visit their partner in the hospital.
-Married persons are allowed to make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying taxes.
-Spouses are given the automatic right to inherit without a will; the inheritance is also untaxable.
-Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse.
-Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse.
Actively fighting to deny these rights to homosexual couples is outright hateful... it's not bad enough that the status quo denies homosexuals equal protection of the law... but the bigoted right is so homophobic that they feel the need to ban something that is already not legal... so ridiculous.
posted by spankidiots at 11:30 PM
19 comments
