Topic: Gay Rights
Why Log Cabin Republicans Should Support Prop. 8 Log Cabin Republicans are gay Republicans that have raised funds for and campaigned for Republicans throughout the nation. However, many are also strong advocates for gay marriage. In California the Supreme Court's wrong-headed overreach has put them in a difficult position.by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Log Cabin Republicans are gay Republicans that have raised funds for and campaigned for Republicans throughout the nation. However, many are also strong advocates for gay marriage. In California the Supreme Court's wrong-headed overreach has put them in a difficult position. If they support the court's overreach, they risk alienating the citizens of California who have liberally supported non-discrimination amendments and civil unions at a pace far outstripping the nation as a whole. On the other hand, like many Californians, they will be torn by the chimera of victory seemingly heaped on the gay community by this ambitious and insensitive California court.
A recent, articulate, and well thought through article by George Stienburg (July 12) argues that Proposition 8, the California amendment initiative saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, will not succeed on the November ballot. In his article "Why Prop. 8 is a losing proposition," Stienburg explains that voting against "Gay Marriage" rather than voting for "Marriage" will cause nice people to vote "no" on Proposition 8. He also notes a number of other disadvantages that Proposition 8 faces in November, including the pull of the general election on the numbers of people who show up to vote.
Mr. Stienburg may have miscalculated. Many originally argued that Proposition 22 was an unnecessary measure. Because California law already makes plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, they may have been correct. But it's too late now. The willingness to overturn a measure passed by a vast majority of California voters has exposed the California Supreme Court. This court is now widely seen as tyrannical and lawless. It knows no boundaries; it is callous to the very human institutions and rights it is sworn to uphold. The electorate may not be as religious about the pontifications of the Supreme Court judges as many hope. Despite California voters' feelings about being good sports, despite the electorate's willingness to "live and let live," surely they will see that this court has gone too far. It is the citizens of California themselves who are now the oppressed. What must the people of California do to have a voice in the laws of their own state? Perhaps they know now... Perhaps now they have an idea.
Log Cabin Republicans would do well to tell all the courts that the laws of this land are more important to them than single issues. They should vote for Proposition 8 and campaign for and with all who support the ballot amendment. The laws of our land protect us all. The court's denial of the case to keep Prop 8 off the ballot in November, without even a hearing, should be a warning to the gay community; the will of modern courts, like the will of all bullies and tyrants, is unpredictable, violent and severe. Send a message Log Cabin Republicans. Tell Californians, citizens who have supported diversity with generous civil union laws, and tell every American that you are the real deal. Join us in keeping the theocracy of the golden gavel and the pontifications of the priests of "fairness" from rewriting our constitution and every other aspect of our laws.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I think the real tyranny in California is to be found in the process that allows all these waste-of-time initiatives to make their way onto voters' ballots again and again and again. Isn't Prop 8 just another GOP get-out-the-vote tactic? Look at who's funding the Yes on 8 campaign. It's a bunch of rich Republicans looking to gain access, influence and favors by throwing some money at this initiative. Then take a look at who's being paid to execute the Yes on 8 campaign, and all doubt is removed. They're a bunch of amoral politicos who could care less about gay marriage and are concerned only with picking up a paycheck:
Two wrongs do not make a right (but three left turns do) Anyways. I understand why you think the California Supreme Court erred in its ruling; however; asking gay republicans to vote for prop 8 is silly and would not be prudent for gay republicans to do so.
Working under the assumption that the court erred; voting for prop 8 will do nothing to change that ruling but would subjugate gay republicans from receiving equal state recognition of the families they create. Then they would have to turn around and introduce a ballot initiative to undo prop 8 (with no help from the republican party). It is more prudent to ask them to vote out the justices that erred then to vote for prop 8. To ask them to do other wise is simply silly.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-17 13:06:47
You might be correct about the many problems all Californians face because this court overreached. I was thinking that if Prop. 8 passes, no one can appeal the California ruling to the U.S. Supremes. In turn, the nation does not need to get engaged, and the Courts don't get to say what a marriage is in the United States of America. It all remains a state problem. It all remains a state problem in a state that has been generally favorable on the issues of diversity.
Mr. Benedict, your proposition makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. At best, you make a case for the Log Cabin Republicans to oppose the Court removing the issue from the ballot. However, once the issue is on the ballot, what the Court did in the Marriage Cases is irrelevant and it's now up to the people to vote on, and why in the hell should the Log Cabin Republicans vote against their own interests? Voting against Prop. 8 is not voting for the Court decision; it's voting as a person (part of "The People"). A vote against is just as democratic as a vote for. I can't help but feel that you have alterior motives here with this garbage argument.
Are you serious? The ruling was callous and insensitive? To whom? To those who want to hurt other people for no other reason than they don't want to be equated to them? Sorry, the court was insensitive to those people, but they don't deserve sensitivity!
Furthermore, again, this issue is not appealable to the US Supreme Court. The decision was very in depth and reasonable. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the US Supreme Court can interfere in a state issue (afterall, again, this case was decided SOLEY on state constitutional grounds, not on federal constitutional grounds). The US Supreme Court has not jurisdiction over state constitutional issues.
This is just a pop-gun battle. The real fight about gay marriage will come when the U.S. Supreme Court has to decide if gay marriage will be legal across state lines, negating the 10th amendment in favor of interstate commerce laws. New York doesn't have gay marriage, but recognizes it in other states, because it's a joint contract of sorts.
Other western countries recognize gay marriage without thunderbolts and earthquakes. It'll probably happen in this country eventually. In general, I don't think it will affect my family much.
My wife and I are marriage preparation leaders in our church. One of the other leaders went on a rant how gay marriage can't be legal because it's immoral. I had to gently correct him in front of an engaged couple that the state's job is to make contractual relationships "legal", including property rights and other legal benefits. It's our job, at the church and community level, to help make marriages good and lasting, so that they don't end in divorce. I'm sure there is a gay church in California, where our counterparts are giving a similar speech.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-18 09:56:08
Hi John,
Have you read my other articles on the Court's decision? I did not pull these terms from the air without other presentations of evidence. Please check out “Dehumanizing Marriage” to start. The outcome was not as much my concern as the process that is reflected in the outcome.
Howdy DigitalBob,
Thanks for stopping by.
I'd have to see the actual laws by which the other countries have legislated "marriage equality" before I'd pass a judgment; however, in California the opinion the Court rendered IS the thunderbolt (we don't talk about earthquakes in California).
In the California since same sex couples cannot literally, or technically, be married, for equality's sake no one may any longer be married. Marriage contracts will only say "Party A" espouses "Party B." That is not only a linguistic curiosity, it is at the heart of the Court's rewrite of California's law.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-07-18 19:22:09
The Court ruled that relegating same-sex couples to "domestic partnership" while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry amounted to discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause in the State Constitution. It was the right decision. What I find appalling is the notion of people voting to take away someone else's constitutional rights. That should be illegal.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-18 19:55:53
Hi Wolfgang,I'm planning to post an article tomorrow, "Marriage is Not a School" that answers your question more directly. However, there is another article I've done, "Dehumanizing Marriage," that sheds some light on the ideas the U.S. Constitution (and even California's) maintain on civil liberties and constitutional rights.Courts and people have a right to say a guy is a guy and a girl is a girl. We have, actually, an obligation to "discriminate" or recognize differences. We still try to find ways that accommodate our differences and allow all of us, in our unique identities, access to the common good.
I don't think that this is a well written, nor a well thought of article. It sounds more like a fore-thought that needed to be given a little bit more time and understanding before it was written down. Next time...sit in front of your computer and don't just type away.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-31 17:31:14
Hi Franz,
You are a tough critic. This one seems to have fewer typos than is usual! Some of my ideas about the Supreme Court of California and the resulting oppression of all California's citizens are presented in greater detail in my other articles. If you don't "get" something, please let me know.
This is without a doubt one of the most assinine arguments for Proposition 8 I've heard yet. Libertarians have always been champions for individual freedom and liberty. Whether that freedom and liberty is obtained through the electorate voting, judicial ruling, legislative action or even executive order is inmaterial. It's the liberty that matters. Libertarians must never lose sight of this.
Is this the sort of garbage that is called "libertarian" these days. This is conservative crap and belongs in the Constitution Party. No true libertarian could write something this bad. But then one doesn't have to be libertarian to be Libertarian these days.
I have a better idea - the gay Libertarians should support Prop 8. After all, it's your idea.
Uh, there's about 0% chance of that happening. In fact, Outright Libertarians is about as strongly opposed to Prop 8 as can be.
And that's even before the "WTF" reaction one gets when reading this bizarre editorial piece incorrectly categorized as "libertarian." Clearly, it's more appropriately allocated to the "authoritarian" bucket, where individuals' rights -- as upheld by constitutional courts -- are to be sacrificed on the altar of majoritarianism at every opportunity.
"laws of this land are more important to them than single issues... ...The laws of our land protect us all."
I could not agree more! I believe another constitutional amendment should be past to conscript all doctors to work either for the state government or federal government at minimum wage or a set wage. After all, we all NEED medical care and the doctors' single issues of their own wages, and their single issues of their mortgages, and their single issues of their families are not as important as “us all.”
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-10-22 17:19:17
Let me try to make this simpler for some. Lots of folks have no problems accepting all sorts of people in society. Homosexual neighbors are no exception. However, some people just can't abide liars and charlatans. Any group of people that tries to force another group to lie, will lose friends. A government that does such a thing is in much more trouble. If Proposition 8 wins, the environment of tolerance will be challenged. That's not the California way. That's not where gay rights have come from over the years.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-10-22 17:24:51
Joe,
You're kidding right? It's hard to tell in the virtual environment. Either that or you got lost trying to post to my article "Spreading the Wealth, National Banks, and a Communist Family."
Anyhow, single issues rather than going against the "spirit" of the party and the friendships you've made is the essence of the argument.
Posted By: Joe FromAbove
Date: 2008-10-23 09:53:16
My apologies Paul for my attempt at sarcasm from my post above.
Let me clarify my position. I am opposed to proposition 8 vehemently and not for any reason regarding gay marriage or gay rights.
We are left discussing the warts in our policies but never directly addressing the virus that causes the warts. The wart in this argument is the subjective moral definition of marriage. A man may have more than one wife in some countries but only one in others. For those that would like to reference the bible, this is also true in the bible – multiple wives were of no objection there, but yet it is illegal in the United States – so we aren’t using a biblical definition. What or who’s definition of marriage are we using? This sounds quite subjective to me and stinks of bigotry.
What I consider the virus of the problem is government’s involvement in marriage. I am not opposed to marriage; in fact I greatly support it. Most importantly I understand that marriage is an institution that people must make and keep themselves and has nothing to do with the government. I know I’m out where no one else wants to go, but what business does the government have in marriage?
- Our governments role in marriage has more to do with the collection of fees (marriage certificate), divorce proceedings, taxes (of course our subjective tax system adds another aspect of stupid to this whole issue and is a virus-wart discussion of its own).
- Two people can make a commitment to each other without the government involvement.
- A marriage certificate on a piece of paper is not going to protect or strengthen a marriage.
- I respect the religious aspect of marriage, but these obligations can be made and kept without government involvement and can most likely be instituted and “sanctioned” by your individual church.
- For those of you who do believe in God, you should also know that your promises made in his eyes would be binding regardless of some piece of paper that the government gives you. Unless the government sends a notarized copy to God for filing before he acknowledges it.
The only role that I see government has in marriage is a pure legal one, the default transfer of property in the scenario that someone dies without a will, but we don’t need a government institution called marriage for this – there already are legal processes to deal with this issue.
Other than making money off of all the marriage certificates, what business does government have in marriage?
Pertinent to the subject directly, if a government whose constitution is that all men are created equal (or treated equally by their government), any and all actions by that government should be no different from one man to the other. Laws and consequence applied without subjectivity. Proposition 8 would violate this philosophy of equality.
Primarily, I am against proposition 8 because the constitution should outline government power and should explicitly grant government powers, and no power should government obtain without explicit declaration. The primary responsibility of our government should be to protect individual rights – anymore than that and you’re on your way to some collectivist society (which we are). Keep our constitutional documents clean and pure, explicit to the definition of government powers. Proposition 8 has no place in a constitution and only sets the precedent for more murky-water amendments.
To amend a constitution to “restrict” or “segregate” its people has no place in the United States. Granted, proposition 8 is to amend the California Constitution and not the US Constitution, but living in California and having spoken with people who support proposition 8, the majority of its supports don’t know the difference between the passing of a law and a constitutional amendment. If they don’t understand the philosophical difference between the two, they would have no hesitation to apply the same ignorance to the US Constitution.
Our country and our constitution was founded to protect everyone including the invividual. Proposition 22 was wrong and the courts were correct in striking it down. Just because 60%+ of people voted on the issue does not make it right. Those of you who believe in this type of equality beware, you will eventually be on the other side. Not many years have passed since the time when the majroity of people would have voted to make interracial marriages illegal -- the majority wasn't right then, and the majority isn't right now.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-10-23 16:38:49
Yea,
It\'s a little hard to read irony of tone online. Marriage to more than one wife does not alter what is the common understanding of a marriage.
The biblical definition comes in a. via Adam and Eve as the archetype of marriage referred to by the Lord Jesus Christ as the standard. The Apostle Paul continued to apply the standard of one wife one husband in the New Testament. Although there were men in the first century church who were married to more than one wife, perhaps before conversion, only a man married to one woman was to be ordained to the Christian ministry.
In Israel, the limited government kept track of genealogies. It had to do with land rights. Joe, I encourage you to check out the article I thought you meant to post to if you had been serious about the doctor thing. In the article itself and in the comments there is some further discussion of the importance of the family to the engine of prosperity in the Western world.
Most significantly, based on your belief that a marriage is primarily a commitment between the man and wife without reference to government at all, I think you might be interested in the seed article for this column: "Dehumanizing Marriage."
It seems that governments, good governments, ought to value the essence of what people are before governments come to be. That is they ought to fully recognize our ability to chose to have faith or not, our ability to speak freely, especially about religious and governmental issues, our right to self defense (which is the right to bear arms in the United States) and the right to choose to enter into matrimony. A full recognition does not mean the simple financial arrangements, for a marriage is more than this. A marriage is a compact between a man and a woman commensurate with the consummating act of that covenant.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
