Proposition 8 in California contains this simple statement, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
A single judge in California reversed the vote of seven million people. Certainly, this issue will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where another single Justice, Anthony Kennedy will probably decide whether to let the vote of the people stand, or whether he will be the person to define marriage for the future in America.
The media is celebrating this victory. Do not doubt me. Newsrooms held parties yesterday and the joy is evident on their “impartial” faces during every report on this issue.
They see this as an issue that begins and ends with gay marriage. To them, this is all about gay marriage and only about gay marriage. CNN goes to a gay bar in Hollywood to get reaction. The graphics and headlines say this is an issue of “same-sex marriage.” I must correct their narrow vision here. This is an issue of defining marriage, and there is a major difference. If this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court and will define marriage in America (which it will), then where’s the live shot from Colorado City? I hear all the time this issue is just about two people who love each other. I will ask, who chose the number two? Why just two?
You know Colorado City, dontcha? It’s in Arizona, but close enough to the borders of three other states so that polygamists can high-tail it to another state when the coppers come a-callin’. They define marriage in a much different way than most. I happen to not like their definition: one man and 3,4,7, or a dozen women. They also seem to like them rather young. If the definition of marriage changes, then Big Love becomes legal and who says Young Love will not as well? Oh, you can tell me that you think this is all sick, and I would not disagree, but since we are opening up the rules here, who is to say where this goes?
Which brings me to the question I have asked often in my newsroom to my gay friends and I will ask again here. Who gets to define what marriage is? Should Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco decide? Should Warren Jeffs, the accused polygamist, decide? Should a gay judge decide? Should the people of a particular state decide? Should social “norms” decide? Should Anthony Kennedy decide? How about me, should I get to decide? Should everybody just decide for themselves?
In the end—as we fast-forward a dozen years or so, the answer will be that nobody can decide. Marriage will be everything to everybody and thus, nothing to nobody. There are also some serious Constitutional issues here about how this determines the rights of the people and the states to decide their future.
To the media covering this story—think outside the box. This is not just about gay marriage. I know you want it to be because that’s your issue, that’s evident in each of your reports. Try something different. Do that “live shot” from Colorado City and see what they think about that messy little law that limits the number to a man and a woman. Then ask the town patriarch what he thinks about that messy little law that says he can’t “marry” that 13-year-old girl down the street. Why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, why not a boy and a woman? Who sets the rules?
Right now, marriage is a privilege licensed by each state. Every state has its own rules. I live in Nevada, we advertise how few rules we have here so that people will come here, get married, party and leave their cash. Even “free-form” Nevada overwhelmingly (70%) passed a Constitutional amendment similar to California’s about 10 years ago. Nevada’s reads: ”Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.”
There are a lot of aspects to this emotional issue. I would just ask the media to understand exactly what is happening here. This is not just a gay marriage issue, it is much bigger, this is an issue of how we define marriage forever in this country. If it means everything to everybody, it means nothing to nobody. Perhaps that’s part of the plan.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
64 Comments
Did MSM TVs cover the Missouri vote against health-care mandate? Don't think so.
"Marriage will mean everything to everybody, thus nothing to nobody." So true, so sad.
The MSM can't see past their own nose. How can you expect them to consider the consequences of redefining marriage or anything else for that matter? Remember the mantra of the "60's"? If it feels good do it.
From the article:
" If it means everything to everybody, it means nothing to nobody. Perhaps that’s part of the plan."
Another tear at the fabric of society by the left who want to redefine an institution that has served civilized society well for some 25,000 years…
Why? They're Big government crybabies who want everything their way or they throw never ending tantrums, until we get so worn down, we just say fine, screw it, and give in..
That's what will happen with this, "We the People" have no say anymore, our wishes (elections) are constantly thwarted
by a judiciary stuffed with leftist activist judges who are complicit in the cancellation of the Constitution and redefinition of the United States.
The left wants there to be no consequences for anything. Who are we to define what is "right" or "moral". They believe that they are on a higher plane than conservatives. Progressives believe that our family values are outdated and we MUST accept gay marriage, teenage sex, vugarity on TV and so on. I trust that the Supreme Court will see through this charade and validate the votes of 7 million Californians.
Just another step in the left's attack on America. Indeed, why not polygamy?
Hmm.. multiple husbands….
You know, it's hard enough training one boyfriend, let alone several simultaneously.
it's all about power and control. The progressives support gay marriage because it falls into line with all their other priorities. Even global warming can be tied to this through the meme that humans are destroying the planet. The 1st natural law is survival of the species. They do that foremost through procreation. If humans are to blame for the ills of the planet, then reduction of numbers of people is the solution. Gay couples can't reproduce. More gay couples means less children, means less humans to destroy mother Gaia.
Here's a conundrum for you folks. I support same sex civil unions but also support Prop 8 yet am against same sex "marriage". That's a little tangled but here's the explanation. Support of civil unions cause it's not my place to judge someone's behavior here on earth. That is above my pay grade. Support Prop. 8 because it's the right of the state to prohibit or allow a particular type of civil union. You don't like it you can always move to a state that supports your view. (Our Founding Fathers really were brilliant!) I'm against same sex marriage because the word marriage has religious connotations. You can't force a religious leader to "marry" two people if they believe the union violates their religious principles.
Not a constitutional lawyer here but I believe that this District (Federal) Judge overstepped their authority here. Not the federal government's place to tell the state of California where to get off here.
Two cents is almost spent here but any civil union where allowed must be granted the same legal rights as any marriage.
Very good article, Mr. Futrell. You are absolutely right. The gay community and this judge have no idea the Pandora's box they've just opened, nor do I think they care: polygamy, adults and children, children and children, possibly even marriage to pets (why not?), all will be challenged as viable alternatives to traditional marriage.
This is one of several issues where the government is acting against the will of the governed. Some day people will rise up to end the tyrany.
I think what you've articulated sounds most closely to my own views on the subject but then I was thinking today, how does the label 'civil unions' become limited by number or age anymore than marriage? Doesn't it still boil down to excluding some groups (which I'm okay with as marriage is (or was) a state that precludes other states) and won't we still be opening up legal action from polygamous groups or other non-traditional advocates?
This government will not stand, there is a REVOLUTION brewing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gay Marriage became legal in European states around 10 years ago. First the Netherlands, then Spain and a few others. Also, Canada for the last five years. In no country, has Gay Marriage approached 1/2 of 1% of the marriages. There is little real demand for Gay Marriage. The question therefore becomes, why has an issue of little real-world impact been shoved down the collective throat for so long? The left is intent on forcing this onto the public with no regard for Society's normative will. The true reason, in my opinion, is that using Government to force gay marriage effectively makes normative Judea-Christian sexual mores illegal. All Social Organizations will be forced to accept gay people. Religious Schools/Adoption Centers/Hospitals/Fraternal groups will be force by law to accept Homosexuality as normal. Hidden behind the phony agenda of gay marriage is an attack on Christian morality.
A marriage is a commitment between two people, in front of their god, friends, family, or whatever. I've never quite understood the argument of making gay marriage "legal". Last I checked, the cops weren't running around busting up gay wedding ceremonies. I'm sure there are some sodomy laws still on the books in some states which would make it technically illegal, but until the cops actually start enforcing them, I don't see what the big rush is to legalize something which isn't actually illegal.
I see this issue in two ways:
1) Many liberal homosexuals desperately need someone to validate their commitment to each other because they are too immature to make that commitment on their own, so they look to the "all-powerful" government to grant them a piece of paper that they can wave in front the face of whoever has given them crap for being gay, whether that be their parents, or clergy, or just mainstream society in general.
2) Progressives hate religion and Christianity in particular as it is the source of individual liberties and natural rights (I'm agnostic but I haven't any problem acknowledging this). They have always hated the institution of the church and will do whatever they can to weaken it. Once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, well won't that be discriminatory if my church won't allow me to conduct my gay marriage there? This is the next step, I'm certain of it. The liberal gays (like all who place their minority status above their identity as Americans) are simply being used…
The ACLU had been after the LDS church to fight the gov't on allowing polygamy again, but their motives weren't genuine…duh! You can barely find a leftist now that agrees with Ron's suggestion, however. Redefining is redefining and if you do it once, why can't you do it again? I'm starting to wonder if there are any intelligent lefties, because they sure aren't up to snuff on logic.
Right you are, Ron! Next thing you know, men will be a-marryin' their classic cars, or gettin' hitched to autographed pictures of Gordie Howe, for landsakes! Manon Rheaume, yes! Gordie Howe, NO!!
Criminalize same-sex divorce.
Great point and the one that nobody seems to want to see/look at/admit. In the National Review Online only a few pages of the (ridiculous) 135 page ruling were examined and more or less explained. This was my favorite part (the brackets are opinion):
California’s domestic-partnership laws [which the California supreme court has said provide generally the same rights, protections, and benefits as marriage] do not satisfy California’s obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry. Domestic partnerships “do not provide the same social meaning as marriage” and “exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage.”
So the bottom line is gay marriage MUST be socially accepted or else. That to me is insane. You cannot mandate acceptance. But by bringing the law into it, you threaten churches with lawsuits when they refuse to marry same sex couples which by the tenants of their religion they are not allowed to do. Let alone all those other "slippery slope" situations.
You ought to try simply ridiculing what you can't understand……..
I understand Manon Rheaume is hotter'n a pistol, AND she can stop pucks.
What a terrific piece. If marriage is everything to everybody, then we are left with nothing. And I think the game here is bigger than marriage. If we all get to decide our own values, who's to say a pauper can't steal from a millionaire? If just anyone can define marriage, what about a border? I mean, why have arbitrary, black and white terms like "citizen?"
Because it is disruptive of the status quo. Anything and everything that does that is supported by the left so long as it is disruptive. "Change", no matter what: "Change".
The lawsuits can be curtailed by simple tort reform. You file a lawsuit and loose, you pay everyone's legal fees and all court costs. But since most law-makers are either lawyers or affiliated with their lobbying groups that will never happen. States have a right to make these laws. Really, when they do it's the local society exercising their ability to define social meaning. You as a citizen have the right to vote with your feet by moving. It's that simple. You deny the state your abilities and tax revenue by moving somewhere that suits your personal beliefs. You want to marry a goat? Move to a state that allows goat marriage (India does).
When we get to "I now pronounce you Man and Horse", we'll know then it got a little out of hand.
who's to say a pauper can't steal from a millionaire? They've set that up with the progressive tax system. Some people whined to the govt that they wanted health care, and the govt stuck a gun in our backs and took the money for it.
The next California Proposition should be to lower the yearly salary of judges to $25,000 per year. See how they like that!
I heard a brief snipet today that the Judge that made this ruling is openly gay, not sure if it is true, but if so how was he able to hear the case with such a blatant conflict of interest issue?
Anyway, who decides what the definition of marriage is? As the definition of marriage has been the perview of religious doctrin before the establishement of the Constitution and that definition is the union of one man and one woman. With the 1st Amendment barring the government to interfere in religious doctrin, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion… " (you know, what the left calls the seperation of Church and State – let's see how they like it when a non-existant Amendment is hurled at them) it looks looks they hamstrung themselves on their ability to redefine marriage.
Marriage is a religious and legal union, civil unions are well, legal unions. Have your civil unions, fine, but marriage and the definition of marriage does not belong to the court it belongs to the Church.
We are a country that stays civilized by law and order. When this is no longer valid because of out of control judges and politicians we are no longer a valid country. No one person should EVER be able to overrule 7 million voters. The revolution coming we just need a powerful leader to sweep the slate clean This country can not survive with who we have in power now. Demorats an those balless Republicans.
Well, since the LDS church currently forbids polygamy, and you are excommunicated for entering into that type of relationship in the LDS church, why wouldn't they have a religion that actually practices the behavior fight the decision? I have nothing against the doctrine itself; it's widely practiced by men of God in the Bible, and if God commands you to do something, then you do it, end of story. But when you start forcing underage girls into the lifestyle, that's wrong. Our Father in Heaven, and the Savior Himself, have always taught going the extra mile in obeying the laws of the land. They're not going to command a person to marry a 13 year old girl against her will.
The author whines about negating the "vote of the people"… are you some kind of commie? This is a Constitutional Republic, not some dirty democracy. The author then laments: "If the definition of marriage changes, then Big Love becomes legal and who says Young Love will not as well?" Well… who the hell are you to say any 6 people, for what ever reason they deem fit, shouldn't or CAN'T get married? I am not even going to address the "Young Love" comment beyond saying that it is idiotic, there are countless valid laws preventing the exploitation of minors.
The facts are that since the government grants the legal status of "married" to people after paying a licensing fee they MUST NOT descriminate against people based on gender… can they deny a person a business license because they are a man? Nope! The solution is to eliminate "married" as a legal status and government regulation of marriage all together. Institute a flat tax on individuals and then leave "marriage" to religion.
Agreed. I wasn't implying someone couldn't fight the gov't for it, but the ACLU's aims weren't to help the LDS church right some wrongs of the past. It was their back door (no pun intended) for same-sex marriage.
Polygamy as practiced by the Colorado City folks seems quite a bit more authoritarian, even without the underaged forced marriages.
This whole thing is not about gay marriage, it's about changing a definition. Homosexuals can get civil unions and have all of the same legal opportunities that a hetero couple can have. There is an ulterior motive at work here. If the state recognizes gay marriage, then the state will force churches to honor and accommodate those marriages. This is an indirect attack on religion.
I agree that government needs to get out of marriage. That would solve all the problems between religion and homosexuals. Religions would be able to continue marrying those they deem fit and homosexual couples would have the same status as heterosexual couples.
Shhh, you are going to give someone an idea. lol
Gah, the butthurt is delicious! This affects your lives in no way! Stop with the polygamy and bestiality and marriage to inanimate object arguments! They're canards, and bad-faith, and you know it! You've lost this fight, LOST IT! You're on the losing side of history!
Now that is a brilliant idea!
Their change has a purpose, to destroy the social bonds of society to create a "new man".
If you want a top down government controlling everything, then your enemy is the normative social institutions that function to create social structures that supercede the allegiance of the individual to the state. Church and family are the most fundamental of those structures.
"The will of the people" The will of the people is defined by the consitution. Not by 7 million (2% of the population)people in CA. The judge in this case ruled that prop 8 went against the will of the people as defined by the constitution. Now it is for the high court to figure it out. This is how we do it in the USA.
Looks like the only hope for you far righties is for the high court to rule in favor of prop 8. Unlikely!!! I say this is your only hope because the only other thing you can hope fore is to change the constitution, and you will never have the votes to do that.
can i marry my dog? i could save a bundle by having him on my insurance and he could legally visit me in the hospital. could he be eligible for state aid since he cannot seem to hold down a employment? foodstamp maybe? how about earned income credit? if he can marry he can file taxes right? hey he DOES LOVE ME! will PETA help me in court? how about ACLU? if my rights are denied how about his? i am sure i can find a channeler in california who can articulate his wishes! maybe i can get a judge who owns a dog too!
it wasn't until 1967 that the supreme court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. with some minor modifications we could have posted Mr. futrell's column back then.
churches can choose to recognize gay marriage or not. the government is not our God, and i don't want my political leaders telling me what my relationship with God is about. The evidence compiled by ted olson at the trial was that gay marriage isn't harming us heteros, and the prop 8 lawyers were just no match for olson & boies.
the claims that this decision will lead to pedophilic marriage (can't you already get married at 16 in tons of states anyway, or even earlier?), or polygamy are just the son of the 1960's bogeyman.
look at this ridiculous ny herald tribune editoral by David Lawrence from 1963 (republished in some south carolina paper), "mixed marriage underscores the real danger" – whats the danger? that blacks and whites will get married, but that it goes against human nature, citing Abraham Lincoln.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=epgiAAAAIBAJ...
David Lawrence, of course, was a leading conservative writer of the mid-20th century.
When all forms of marriage are legal, I totally plan on marrying this guitar riff! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE3BbTsKtsk
(don't hate! It's just a joke and excuse to trot this gem out ~_^ )
"The gay community and this judge have no idea the Pandora's box they've just opened…" Love your comments but I would delete this one. They certainly do not even think about Pandora's box and they certainly do not care.
The article above sums up the situation very well but this is not an issue that has anything to do with common sense.
God help us to help ourselves.
Why stop at man and women or man and multiple women, or even humans? Maybe someone wants to marry their dog or horse. Seriously though, Marriage was originally a religious institution and ordinance that was later recognized as a legally binding contract by the governments. To protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage, perhaps we should separate it somewhat and create a second part of the joining of two individuals in a civil union contract for the state while preserving the religious portion for the churches. Everyone who joins together would have to have a civil union, but the churches could also recognize the union as a joining together before God as marriage originally was intended. That way everyone would have the right to a civil union because it would be the secular union that would be recognized by the state, yet the additional covenant of marriage would be preserved for those who desire the union to also be recognized by God. Special rights can not be forced upon a church – yet. Licensing and regulation would not differ in any way and the gays can have the same legal secular recognition that a married couple would have.
A little late to comment but I just want to add that this article is spot on but no one wants to go down that road. Common sense to the back of the room.
If civil unions were identical to marriages in benefits and legal standing, then i would support that and not the quest to redefine marriage. I'd rather there were no tax, pension or legal authority of marriage so we can try and focus on something that actually matters…
And the whole point is that the judge stated Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Remember that.
"Do that “live shot” from Colorado City and see what they think about that messy little law that limits the number to a man and a woman. Then ask the town patriarch what he thinks about that messy little law that says he can’t “marry” that 13-year-old girl down the street. Why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, why not a boy and a woman? Who sets the rules?"
The polygamy question is a sticking point, but underage and/or incestuous marriage is solved with relative ease: incest and pedophilia are both ILLEGAL in the U.S., but homosexuality is not. That's the basic logic at play here: If the law makes no distinction between a gay adult couple and a straight one, is it or is it not a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution to deny a legal right to one but not the other? The legal decision here isn't against the PEOPLE of California for their vote, but against the STATE for putting what a duly-appointed judge found to be an unconstitutional (and thus illegal) initiative on the ballot. Or, said more concisely:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote: a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities : and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." –Ayn Rand
In theory, not a terrible compromise (not a good one, but not terrible.)
In practice: Go ahead and try it, and see how many engaged-to-be-state-married straight couples suddenly discover they care about their gay fellows' right to marry when it becomes THEM about to lose something, too
It's like what Benjamin Franklin said:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Exactly. Who are you to define what is "right" or "moral"?
HEAR YE HEAR YE Leftest homosexual judge declares the definition of marriage , between a man and a woman , is unconstitutional.
May God have mercy on our souls.
"leftist" republican appointed by republicans, whose appointment was opposed by gay groups, you mean.
Who's going to this event? http://www.goproud.org/homocon-2010/
A r or d behind the name is irrelevant. The result is reprehensible.
Don't worry, Mago. I realize that the whole point of this is all bets are off, but really, do you think all those "just" men will allow multiple husbands? To my knowledge that has never happened in any culture anywhere (women are too smart to even be really interested for just the reason you state….it's not supposed to be so much like WORK.
Multiple wives? sure. Marry your dog, cat, sheep? Why not. Mutiple husbands? Nah, that's just sick!
Civil unions ARE identical to marriage in California. The author is right: This is about defining what "Marriage" really is. The judge took a long and convoluted path to get to his "unconstitutional" finding, and basically said that if you voted in favor of Prop 8, that you're a thought criminal.
To all of you that think that the polygamy and pedophilia points are just canards, I'll be laughing in your faces when the first case of a man, a woman, and a woman; or an adult man and a 13-year old girl; bring a constitutional challenge because they "can't marry who they want to" because the law (not a democratically passed state constitutional amendment, which holds more weight) denies them that "right".
I didn't listen to all 9.32 minutes but I liked it and the joke
Why not let people marry multiple partners? It's called "liberty".
Constitutionally, however, there is no right to define marriage however one wants, so it's up to the states.
If you live in a state that let's you define marriage however you want, and, one day, you find yourself married to three women, three men, a hamster, and a dog, then you can look in the mirror and blame yourself.
Why my state should waste my time and my tax dollars trying to stop you (and endlessly debating it in and out of court) is beyond me…
And, I would also like to point out that I am, in fact, simultaneously supporting gay marriage, polygamy, proposition 8, and the Constitution, all at the same time. Beat that!
I was deliberately being facetious.
They'll probably allow pet marriages before multiple husbands. Because well… multiple husbands is just gross. Multiple wives are ok though….. Uh huh… *rolls eyes*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Rare, but it has happened in some cultures. =)
Well, yeah, I caught your facetiousness…I was just expanding on it ! The whole thing is too absurd for words…I have been happily married to one guy for nearly 32 years, and there are definitely still days when I wonder why anyone would fight so hard for the "right." What happened to "it's just a piece of paper"?
You are correct – the state of california allows domestic partnership to have the same STATE rights that a married couple has. But the federal benefits to married couples are the problem – not the state ones in california. Remove those benefits and this argument as no power.
If you're saying that the judge made the argument that those who voted for Prop 8 are "thought criminals" then i'd disagree. And although i'd disagree with polygamy, i wouldn't deny someone that right. And i certainly wouldn't like to make a federal distinction to fight against it.
Not only did they forget Colorado City, but they forgot it's twin city of Hildale, Utah.
You must be logged in to post a comment.