I know we have our hands full here in Georgia, but I'd like to direct your attention for a moment to our friends in the west. On November 4th, California voters will vote whether or not to eliminate the option of marriage for thousands of people who love each other. Until recently, things were looking optimistic, with polls showing a majority of people opposed the amendment. The latest polls, however show that the anti-marriage equality forces have been successful with their scare tactics and lies (Their latest commercial claims - falsely - that churches who refuse to perform gay marriages will lose their tax-exempt status). These folks have about 10 million dollars to run these misleading ads up until election day.
On November 2nd, I will be in Los Angeles to attend the wedding of a dear friend who has found her soul mate. It will break their hearts and my heart if bigotry prevails and undoes their marriage after only two days.
If you have a few dollars to spare after donating to Jim Martin, Chris Huttman, Jason Adams, and all the other Georgia Democratic candidates, please consider making a donation to fight this amendment.
18 Responses to “No On 8”
Even if this amendment passes, the marriages performed already will stand, because you can't have ex-post-facto laws under the US Constitution, and undoing a marriage that was legal when it was performed would be ex-post-facto. But that doesn't change the fact that you'd have one legal mess if CA voters fall for the right wing's lies.
I hear ya jac1975, but my understanding of the legal situation is that the status of already-performed marriages in the event the amendment passes isn't so clear (at the very least, like you said, there will be a mess o' litigation over it). Plus, there's the symbolic effect.
By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.
Is a state granting of a marriage license an administrative act? My guess is that it is so they could undo all of the previously granted marriages, but what does that matter? The issue would be when a couple has to rely on the law to protect their relationship, and in many cases, they would need the marriage to still considered to be in effect in order to rely on any protection for the union.
Hi Paul,
Welcome to BfD. I wasn't going to respond to your comment since I doubt we'll convince each other of much. But, just a few small points (just so that you don't think I agree with you!):
1. You make incorrect factual assertions about the historical basis of marriage when you state that "Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. " This is simply false, as any cursory glance at history will tell you. Some societies do not recognize monogamous marriages as we understand them, and for much of history, marriage simply was a means to preserve wealth and power, with wives considered chattel. Bearing heirs was of course an important part of this relationship, but the "marriage" was simply to codify which heirs were legally entitled to the wealth and power. The modern concept of "marriage" is a *very* recent historical development.
2. A discussion regarding evolutionary biology requires more space than a blog comment allows, so I will mostly skip over it except to say that your treatment of it is absurdly facile. Just take a look at chimpanzees, apes, and bonobos (our closest biological relatives): they do not engage in your idea of natural monogamous marriage, and yet manage to procreate. I won't even go into the sexual habits of bonobos, which are entirely fascinating and very far from our ideas of monogamous marriage, but perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion.
3. Lastly, I simply don't understand your argument about language. You seem to say that "marriage" existed in nature prior to language, but also that that's the way it's defined, so that's how it must be accepted for all time. But, nature has provided many examples of relationships and procreative strategies. And language changes. Definitions change. And types of historical relationships, they also change. Ideas about "the best way to raise children" change. All the time.
I'm afraid you are on the wrong side of history (and biology) on this one, Paul.
Well said Paula, and welcome Paul (reminds me of an old song).
I might also add, that even if we accept that "species" have "a goal", and that the goal is "survival", it does not automatically correlate that every individual within that species must share that goal, or that the survival of the species is dependent on the behavior of every individual within that species.
Species survive because they are better adapted to their environment than their competitors, but we can manipulate our environment so even that is not a firm rule for us. If our species doesn't survive indefinitely, there are probably a thousand reasons besides gay marriages that are more likely to cause it.
Holy crap, in this thread we've gone from a discussion about Chomskyan linguistics to Aristotelian ethics...whoa.
Thank god I'm stoned
I should make that second part of my statement the truth so here goes...never do anything in excess or in deficiency and if Paul were truly virtuous we would have known how much, and what exactly to say.
By Paul's definition, any marriage between people (even man/woman) who cannot procreate or don't wish to, is not marriage and should be prevented. So those married couples without children, your marriage is not valid. If you are infertile for any reason, your marriage is automatically dissolved. And just b/c two people of the same gender get married doesn't mean children aren't coming. Lesbians can go to a sperm bank, and men can buy an egg and rent a uterus.
Besides, given enough time, evolution may allow us to reproduce asexually, like that shark did recently.
Which reminds me of a limerick:
There once was a man from Nantucket,
...oh, never mind.
Who kept all his cash in a bucket.
But his daughter, named Nan,
Ran away with a man
And as for the bucket, Nantucket.
Somewhat related to this.... Our very own Juliana tied for THIRD as SOVO's 2008 Best Transgender Activist!
http://www.sovo.com/2008/10-17/arts/feature/9310.cfm
Best Transgender Activist
Readers’ Choice: Scott Turner Schofield
Editors’ Choice: Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, who had the courage to sue state lawmakers after she was fired from her job as a legislative editor.
Earlier this year, Scott Turner Schofield became the first transgender man to be honored as an Atlanta Pride grand marshal. He’s also the first openly transgender person to win a commission from the National Performance Network. Best known for his one-man shows “UndergroundTRANSit,” “Debutante Balls” and “Becoming A Man in 127 EASY Steps,” Schofield never fails to both challenge and entertain. Second place went to Sir Jesse of Decatur; third place was a tie between Tristan Skye, founder of http://www.transamerica.ning.com, and transgender rights ally Juliana Illari.
Paul,
Don't even attempt to use science to justify regressive social policy around here.
You will be pwned.
I've wanted to make a comment since the first YES on 8 tv ad came on stating that public schools will be teaching about same sex marriage. I'm here to tell you that if it's not on the state mandated test (STAR/CAT6), then we're NOT teaching it!! I don't think in my 10 years of teaching primary school-age children have I once taught about marriage -- period! Where would marriage fall into our state adopted curriculumn anyway? I do find myself teaching alot about tolerance, though.
First I just want to say that I love you, whom are reading this message, just as Jesus loves us. The purpose of the message Jesus came to earth to share was that of salvation with a foundation of unconditional love. It was a new covenant he established for the forgiveness of sins so that eternal salvation could be granted upon us by his grace and love. The very last commandment that Jesus shared with his disciples was, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). The love God has for his children is an unconditional love, no matter what choices you may have made in your past. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 we find the following: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Immediately after this we find in 1 Corinthians 6:11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." We are all accountable to God in the day of judgment. Many people think they are right just because they are heterosexuals but the bible sees any sexually immoral behavior in the same way, be it any depravation of sexuality (homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, prostitution, etc). This text also puts thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers in the same category. Do not be deceived, you are not right just because you are heterosexual. We must all love each other in the way God loves us and live our lives in line with his instruction. The overall message is to turn your life to God. Through God ALL things are possible. God loves us all no matter who we are, where we’re from, what we’ve done, and even what we’re going to do. When we acknowledge God as our lord and savior and repent of our sins, we are completely cleansed of all of our sins. "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23). All Christians have something they are challenged with (our own cross) that we need to work on daily, as we are all sinners. I love you and I pray for your wellbeing, growth, and an abundance of blessings in every area of your life, in the name of Jesus.
Now we know what Bible Spice is doing with all her free time. Yuk.
Mel..
ROTLMAO!