Topic: Gay Rights
Five More Reasons Log Cabin Republicans Ought to Support Proposition 8 Log Cabin Republicans are Republicans who identify themselves as having a gay sexual orientation. One would expect Log Cabin Republicans to be in favor of "gay marriage." Sadly, they are being tricked by liberals into voting big government.by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Accepting the Supreme Court's rewrite of our constitution is the wrong way to pursue gay marriage. Here are some reasons why:
1. It is a power grab by the government. Now only the government has the right to say what a marriage is.... and courts at that. Previously, a marriage was a marriage no matter what a government said.
2. It contracts the definition of marriage. It doesn’t' expand it. Gay couples are not "married." The court has simply denied marriage to all. We can now only become "Party A" and "Party B."
3. The court has ordered everyone to deceive his neighbor by using the word "marriage" in a manner consistent of the joining of a man and a woman when now it doesn't mean even that.
4. The California laws violate basic civil liberties. These civil liberties (the right to marry for instance) should be precious to all Americans, but certainly to true Republicans.
5. The California law is so bad it puts the issue into the hands of federal courts.
Everyone is campaigning for things that are not the issue. An amendment to the California constitution that said "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and is also ______________________________...." is what most people think California law now says. This is absolutely not the case. The California Court has closed the door on meaningful adoption of same-sex marriage. That court should be recalled.
Vote yes on Prop. 8. Support Prop. 8. Make friends and try this on a national stage in the proper fashion.
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.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-09-18 20:57:32
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word marriage as:
1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Or a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. Or a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-18 21:11:14
Howdy Wolfgang,Thanks for the update on the dictionary usages... The big blank "_____________" in the article above is where this might be relevant. The Supreme Court of California deigns to disagree with Oxford on this one. It says that marriage is only between a "Party A" and a "Party B." This is not extraneous verbiage. This is the heart of the ruling. I imagine you've read some of my analysis in previous articles? "Supreme Deception I- III?"
Ordinarily, I'd apologize for illiterate and presumptive Americans defying the wisdom of the continentals, but the truth is the court knew exactly what it was doing. It was grabbing more governmental control... Governmental control only dreamt about by the ancient despots... the governmental power to force people to lie.
Doesn't truth in advertising mean you ought to call yourself a conservative and not a libertartian. Libertarianism is a good thing and conservatives like you, pretending to be libertarian, only help destroy the philosophy. Go back to the Republican Party where you belong and leave libertarianism alone.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-09-19 03:41:29
And howdy to you to, Paul.
You wrote, "It says that marriage is only between a "Party A" and a "Party B."
I don't understand where you're getting this. I've read the CA Supreme Court decision--a few times over. It says things like, "By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage statutes, realistically viewed, operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation."
I agree that City Hall could've come up with something better than "Party A/Party B"--Couple: _________and_________ or _________and_________ are seeking to enter into civil matrimony. And there's no reason why they can't print up forms with "Bride/Groom" for whomever wants them.
How does the Court ruling "[violate] the right to marry?" You are free to get married in California, to any consenting, unrelated adult you wish.
You wrote, "The California Court has closed the door on meaningful adoption of same-sex marriage."
Keep marraige out of the government. It should all be private. Whether is gay, hetero, polygamous, or bi-curious is irrelevant. Just keep it out of the government. No more marriage certificates by any states. We should even abolish the government heterosexual marriages. We must take all marriages from the government and need to bring it back to private entities: churches, private lawyers, private witnesses, notaries, advisors, etc... or none at all. Enough already with thie government marriage B.S. We are all adults here! We don't need governemtn defining what marriage is. Worst if it is as a constitutional amendment.
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.
The fact remains that the term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no "right" for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to.
By stating that government doesn't belong in the marriage industry, you're completely ignoring, or intentionally mis-representing an important reality. The important reality that is lacking in your article is the tax breaks granted from the federal government to a married couple. The act of denying these tax breaks to a gay, married couple, or a gay couple who can't marry in their state, is at the heart of the argument for same sex marriage. However, I'm inclined to believe that you're an absolutist, and if it were up to you, you would never allow gay marriage to anyone. You, and your pions are too stupid, and ignorant, to vote on the intimate lives of anyone. This is why gay marriage is being fought for in court, and will continue on this path.
As for proposition 8 in California, if it passes at the ballot box, it will be struck down by the court. Read the 120 page ruling. The reason why it's important for the pro-gay side to defeat proposition 8 is because they will effectively end the argument that gay marriage is a result of judicial fiat.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-19 17:06:25
Hi Wolfgang,
I thought you\'d read the analysis of the decisions I\'d posted previously. It\'s redundant to say much of that again. Please see if you believe my article "Dehumanizing Marriage" or "Supreme Deception Part II" are misreadings. Perhaps we can pick up the discussion there.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-19 17:11:16
Hi Daddysteve,
No, a Log Cabin Republican is not some sort of sexual innuendo as far as I know. Abe Lincoln was raised in a log cabin. If there is some untoward meaning meant by the founders of this group, they haven't let me in on the joke.
Log Cabin Republicans fund raise for Republican candidates and participate in voter registration and so on. However, the group is for self identified gay couples.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-19 17:18:28
Hi Chuck,you are the kind of person I thought might be interested in what I have to say. I am certain the gay community has no desire to make it impossible for men and women to become "husbands" and "wives." Instead, you are part of gay community that wants to get in on the party. Nonetheless, if Proposition 8 goes down, the horrendous disruption of family law perpetrated on California by their Supreme Court will stand. There will be no more marriage in the state, except in name. What people think they are voting for or against is not the real deal. I would urge you to read my analysis of the ruling of the Supreme Court in other articles I've written such as "Supreme Deception III" or in "Dehumanizing Marriage."
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-19 17:26:43
trd,
You post is filled with much matter, matter that requires a more philosophic approach. If you'd check out "Dehumanizing Marriage" (previously posted by Paul Benedict), you would find my opinion that marriage is an inalienable right and must, therefore, be recognized by good and just governments. Some might argue that marriage is entirely social and not an inalienable right that exists prior to governments. I would disagree. The right to worship and speak freely is part of what we are as people. Likewise, what we as people, male and female, choose to become in marriage must be fully acknowledged and respected by any just government.
Libertarianism is not anarchy, and though I have a few issues with the test that labels me a libertarian, certainly libertarianism is an approach to the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the freedoms inherent in what we are as humans.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. It always has been in every society throughout history - whether Ancient Mesopotamia, Pagan Greece and Rome or Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
According to this "New" Oxford definition, I may consider my dog Vader my husband or my dog Koosh my wife. And tomorrow, I may freely re-define myself as a single pet owner.
What's the point of a dictionary if nothing is everything and everything is nothing?
Way to go Oxford with your Post-Modern conceptualist jabberwocky.
Whatever happened to the Separation of Church and State?
Why do Libertarians insist on arguing about Constitutional non-arguments?
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-20 07:45:31
Hi Natalie,The New Oxford Dictionary is responsible only for keeping track of the common uses of words. It's pretty clear that many people are using the word marriage as, "...a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex." Oxford is not in charge of saying whether common usage is logically correct or morally correct.However, I thought the definition was interesting. Even Oxford could not find a way to explain the use of marriage in language as being the same thing for all couples, same sex or heterosexual. It said that the use of the word for same sex couples was similar. In order to say it is the identical institution for all, the way we all use marriage in common parlance must be completely changed.Most people in California think that Proposition 8 is about saying that same-sex couples can call their unions a marriage too... What most people don't get is that the Supreme Court of California has totally changed the meaning of the word marriage so that it means, the court claims, the same thing for same-sex couples as it does for heterosexual couples. What marriage actually does mean in California law is now basically incomprehensible; however, it is not marriage as we commonly use the word. Marriage, as we commonly use the word, in no longer recognized in California law.Tha California Court, though, is disingenuous in its claims of equality. It states that it want the name marriage to apply to civil unions so that civil unions will be given the same respect as the ancient and widely accepted institution of marriage. The problem with that, of course, is that civil unions between same sex couples are neither ancient nor widely accepted. The Court has ordered everyone in the state to deceive his or her neighbor.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-09-22 18:52:13
Paul, I have read your other essays. They make no sense. One problem is that you base them on personal opinions like this: "A family always involves children."
You're referring to a specific type of family, that is, a traditional post-1940's nuclear family. But families take many forms. Plenty of straight couples who plan to never have children get married. And plenty of gay and lesbian couples do have children. These are families too. The desire to produce and rear children has never been a requirement for marriage.
The CA Supreme Court, did not change the definition of marriage. They merely recognized what the Constitution has always said, and applied that knowledge to extend the existing definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It in no way changes marriage for straight couples. Such couples can still marry just as they always have and access the exact same benefits and privileges provided by law. Thus marriage, "as we commonly use the word" still exists in California.
You just don't like the idea of having to explain that your spouse is a woman if you tell someone you're married.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-09-23 07:02:19
Hi Wolfgang,You seem to be working too hard when you read my articles. For instance, you've read whole arguments into "Supreme Deception I" that at least the author did not intend.The point was that the California Supreme Court, over a decade, changed legal terminology, constitutional terminology, by twisting legislative lingo and intent. The George Court began to call same-sex unions "family relationships." This is deceptive because from this manner of union no children can, by nature, flow. NOR do we call a husband and a wife, a traditional marriage, a family. When a husband and a wife have children, then they are a family. You are not correct about any other assumptions you ascribe to me. You are working too hard at reading my articles. That's why they don't make "sense." I trust you do a better job reading your students’ papers. If not, you do them a damning disservice.The shadows are getting very long Wolfgang. Beyond that veil nothing but verity and liberty prevail. Court those things while it is yet the day.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-09-23 14:35:49
Paul, I must say I'm flattered that you think I'm a teacher. For the record, I do not hold such a position of honor.
I am, however, a writer, and I know a poorly constructed argument when I see one. The purpose of an argument is to influence your readers in some way, whether by convincing them that your opinion is the "right" one, or just giving them food for thought. Your arguments do neither, which, truth be told, is fine by me. In fact, they are proof that when appeals to Biblical text are removed from the debate, there is no viable argument against same-sex marriage.
Doesn't truth in advertising mean you ought to call yourself a conservative and not a libertartian.
Precisely.
None of the garbage in this article is even remotely Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party -- both nationally and in California -- has been one of the loudest and most vocal critics of this ridiculous Proposition 8. Libertarians have been some of the most robust contributors of time and resources to fighting the Proposition.
To bring up these ridiculous right-wing authoritarian arguments and shroud them as "libertarian" is far more deceitful than anything that any of those favoring consistent application of constitutional principles -- including in marriage law -- have done.
The court has simply denied marriage to all. We can now only become "Party A" and "Party B."
If only the court would "deny" marriage to all. As an anarchist, I only hope I live long enough to see the state removed from the marital contract. In meantime, I'll be sure to vote NO on 8.
In reality, the "Party A / Party B" nonsense is something that the social conservatives foisted upon us. Prior to the 1970s (when gay people started to insist on equal treatment under the law) there were simply two blanks on the marriage certificates, as the 1940 marriage certificate for famous artists Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera demonstrates:
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-10-01 13:28:06
Responding to thoughtless spam in kind:
The current state of marriage licenses was foisted upon us by the George ruling in the Supreme Court of California. The licenses, sadly, are an extremely clear reflection of what the George Court did to family law in the state of California.
I encourage you to read Supreme Deception I, II, and III. The court decision, not what people think the law says, literally closes the door on gay marriage unless you want a state government with totalitarian powers. Gay rights activists, democrats and libertarians, conservatives too-- you are being fooled again. Read with your brain, not with your dreams.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-10-01 13:39:46
Hi Brian,There are about 17 different definitions ranging from anarchist bomb-thrower, anti-Vietnam war liberal, to a smaller, constitutionally based view of governments role. To the anarchists I'd say read the book of Judges. Sadly, it’s the people who tend to love kings because of their desire to fop of responsibility for life to any distant uncontrollable entity. Better to pray to a stone idol than to take personal responsibility. It’s better to curse a label than to engage in the hard work of considering an argument or reading a court opinion. It’s more fun that way. We only live once… deluded or not here we come.
Libertarians who vote against Proposition 8 are doing far more than calling for king… they are insisting on tyranny, the worst kind of tyranny, where one human demands that another tell lies to little children. Read the articles. Read the Court’s ruling.
Nolan's own movement is a little undefined. There is a whole posting site for arguments about the test.
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.
