I’ll do it like a test – start with the easy ones.
There are two California initiatives on which I have the strongest positions, Propositions 8 and 11.First, Proposition 11, which would attempt to reform gerrymandering.
To begin, we live in a horribly gerrymandered state. The elected officials pick their voters, no the other way around. Take a look at my State Senate district:
Note the way that the conservative Palos Verdes peninsula is joined by a strip of land the width of the beach to the more-conservative community of Long Beach, rendering what was a potentially balanced district – including both Venice and Palos Verdes – firmly Democratic.
There are arguments about the impact of this, but the reality – as I see it – is that this insulates the elected officials from the people they are supposed to represent, and it encourages more extreme and intransigent partisanship because in reality, the only race that matters is the primary – where the most dedicated partisans have the greatest voice.
Year, after year, our political leadership has lied to us about their willingness to do something about this issue. Here’s LA Times correspondent George Skelton in 2007:
Let’s back up and recall the precise promise.
In 2005, Schwarzenegger was backing a goofy redistricting proposal on his special election ballot. It would have forced a mid-decade redistricting, rather than waiting for the customary next census. Worse, it would have required any redistricting to be approved by a statewide vote, a political consultants’ bonanza.
If voters would reject the governor’s ballot proposition, Perata told me, “Our commitment… is to fashion a bipartisan solution in a thoughtful way and put it on the ballot next year.” Ditto, said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles).
The Schwarzenegger measure was soundly rejected by nearly 60% of voters.
Then the Democratic leaders didn’t deliver.
Schwarzenegger, Perata and Nuñez last week suggested that maybe they’d get it done next year and place a redistricting reform measure on the November 2008 ballot. Has a familiar ring.
We deserve better government than we have, and if the outrageous gerrymandering in this state is even potentially a barrier – let’s knock it down.
Next, Proposition 8, which would change the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
I’ve written before about my views on gay marriage. I support it, I understand why some people don’t, and I do not find them evil for opposing it. But I believe – strongly – that we will be best served by increasing the opportunities for stable, nuclear families. I personally know enough committed gay and lesbian couples that I can say with real confidence that letting gays and lesbians marry and rear children will add to social stability, not tear it down.
Do I support gay marriage? Of course. Do I think that all right-thinking people do? Of course not.
But for those who don’t, I keep wanting to ask – given the array of horrible sexual behavior that we all see around us every day; given the fact that most of the specific sex acts homosexual couples commit are committed by heterosexual couples as well – shouldn’t we look more favorably on a gay couple that has made a lifetime commitment and is living it out, and willing to do so before the state, and maybe a bit less favorably on someone like me?
Because society isn’t made by what happens in the bedroom, and that’s the only place where gay and lesbian couples are different from we straight couples. Society is made in the kitchen, and in the living room, and over the dining table. And as a society, we need as many stable families sitting with children over their dinner and homework as we can create. And as a just society, I cannot see how we can deny that right to people simply because of what they do in the bedroom.
[Spam crosspost. User has been banned for this post. –NM]
Agreed on both.
The ‘gay marriage’ question should be settled by voters, not by judges, so I’m glad to see prop 8 on the ballot. I’m equally glad to vote against it, and help put California on record against this type of discrimination.
I’d be even happier if we could get the state out of the “marryin’ business” entirely, and simply have it enforce the legal side of domestic partnerships for two persons of whatever sex and proclivity. It would be better to let one’s religious beliefs and social context deal with the more personal issue of the definition of “marriage”, rather than state power. But since that option’s not on offer, no on 8.
Agreed entirely on 11. Gerrymandering is a disgrace at both the state and national levels. One of its most insidious effects is to encourage extremism by creating safe seats beholden only to the hard core base of one party or another. This may not be the last word or optimal method on redistricting, but it’s a step forward. Yes on 11.
I agree on the ‘voters, not judges’ point.
I honestly don’t care about whether gay marriage is permitted by society or not. I just want the voters to decide it, not judges. I will accept whatever the voters decide.
So the process matters more than the outcome, for me, on that issue.
Look at the maps for the rest of the legislative districts at “Senate”:http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/districtmaps.htp — 5 and 11 in the Bay Area, and 31/32, and especially 25 in the LA area are fun —
“Assembly”:http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/assemblydistricts.html — 60 and 63 in the LA area, 15, 21 and 26 in the Bay Area are worth noting.
Remember, too, that the current district boundaries were a joint Republican/Democrat product; there’s plenty of guilt to spread around.
AL — Could you comment more specifically on the merits of Prop 11? I’m inclined to agree with you in general, but I’m interested to hear arguments on why this particular bill will fix the problem and avoid potential abuses. I don’t know that a ‘any redistricting reform is good’ argument is that powerful.
The issue I have is if gay marriage is acceptable how can you not accept any other form of marriage? Historically we have had child brides, polyandry, polygamy, and marriage between relatives to name a few. I don’t know of any historical acceptance of gay marriage although I would assume there were some in isolated locales. Given the above how can you argue against Mormon polygamy, for example, without being hypocritical? It would seem that other forms of marriage at least have a historical legitimacy.
I remember when the last attempt at redistricting reform was attempted, “Proposition 77 in 2005.”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_77_(2005) At the time, the opponents of 77 basically said that if given time, the legislature would certainly pass reforms on redistricting which would be more carefully crafted than 77. Well, its three years later, and we’re still waiting. Unfortunately I’m not living in CA anymore, but I hope the voters don’t make the same mistake twice and pass Prop 11.
Tim, #2, I still have a problem with the “Voters, not judges,” standpoint, from a theoretical and philosophy of rights standpoint. I’ve nattered on about this before, and I have no more solution today than I did the last time, but: If you consider something to be a natural innate human right, as some consider gay marriage to be, then what sense is there in holding it up to a vote? No sensible human being in modern America would allow, say, slavery to be held up to a vote, because votes don’t determine what human rights are… they simply are. In theory, they inhere.
Now, that’s a sword that cuts against me as often as it cuts for me. And it creates the problem of turning the elevation of smaller issues into the arena of fundamental human rights as a gambit, which I also find harmful.
Still, because this is a real and unsolved problem in American political theory, I feel obligated to bring it up. The current societal conjecture is to let the courts try and sort it out, and if they’re not overturned in a generation or two, it’s clear that the expansion of rights did not sufficiently wreck the country or mobilize it, so it stands. It ain’t great, but it’s what we’ve got.
(And BarryW, #6, the state can plausibly assert a state regulatory interest in every case you mention: For child brides, the protection of the children is certainly a state interest; for polygamy and polyandry, the status of every regulatory and legal benefit of marriage is of interest because they are all structured around the assumption of two partners; kin marriages are of interest because of known risk to the offspring. In the case of gay marriage, they only “interest” is in nosy people who freak out and get their shorts in a wad about private matters that do not concern them.)
AL — experience in Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden have been conclusive.
There are few takers for gay marriage. Gay men almost never get married, in fact they have far greater partners than any other demographic group. GSS after General Social Survey confirms this. Lesbians will marry, but at far lesser rates than straight people.
So, for moving at most in California, about 100 or so couples AT most (likely, about 65) into formalized marriage (and of course, gay divorce), we MUST accept Polygamy.
In Britain, Gay marriage meant polygamy. In Canada, polygamy. In the Netherlands, gay marriage meant polygamy. In Sweden, gay marriage meant polygamy.
The HARM to California society by Polygamy is HUGE. It dwarfs the benefit of say, 65 gay couples. Legally, gay marriage in EVERY jurisdiction where it has existed for more than five years has led inexorably to POLYGAMY.
Therefore, if your primary concern is social good, you would vote FOR Prop 8. If your primary concern is social status, striving and positioning in the fashionably hip and terminally trendy, you will vote against Prop 8 to demonstrate how superior you are spiritually and “morally.”
The larger argument of course is that given huge increases in illegitimacy and single motherhood (41% of all White births, and 70% of Black births nationwide), marriage is supremely threatened and the more “Gay” it gets, the more men will sensibly avoid it like other “gay” institutions like Broadway, or fashion, and so on.
But hey, what does about 2,000 years of tradition in the Judeo-Christian sense have to those who are eager to “start from zero” in Ed Driscoll’s term, because they are oh-so much smarter than every institution that has been tried before, and found successful.
This is the fundamental flaw of liberals, who live in a liberal, theme-park fantasyland like San Francisco, a place utterly dependent on money from actual productive places like San Jose or the San Fernando Valley. Turning marriage into a Gay San Francisco fantasy land is not a way to form nuclear families. Hint: gay men don’t get pregnant.
MV: A good point of discussion.
I would in fact consider equal access for same sex couples to ‘marriage’ (about which more below) as a natural right. However, I’d have to be blind to believe that there’s overwhelming support for that view. It will be close, even in this state. The past few years have shown a growth in that sentiment, and I hope in the long run that it will become a firm consensus. Leaving the question of how to get from here to there.
The country’s history is one of slow extension of what I would consider natural rights (freedoms held by an individual, not necessary to be granted by a state or provided by another’s labor). Slavery is the instance often used as the paradigm case, but I believe falsely. We got through property qualification and sexual limits to voting, for instance, without resort to violence. There was a slow growth of acceptance, finally topped off by a formal action by elected representatives. The last indicating an endorsement by a working majority of the electorate at the time, making it a lot less likely that there would be a ‘take back’ come the next administration or the like. My assumption is that an extension of natural rights should be on the ‘slow boat’ because of all things you don’t want that to be rolled back once asserted.
Remembering that we’re talking about a STATE level prop, what’s the appropriate venue? For better or worse, California has a history of activist judges, prone to riding the edge of judging and legislating from the bench. Those who’ve been here a while will remember a successful recall election on such grounds. There’s a history of the bench getting out ahead of what the citizenry actually support. Fortunately, we’ve also got the initiative process to directly poll sentiment and determine what will ‘stick’, without having to worry about politicians and judges pushing their agendas or protecting their rear ends. If you can get something through the process, chances are it really does have wide support. (One annoying thing about how this has gone down is that prop 8 is a ‘negative’ resolution. It would be better to be voting ‘yes’ on an extension of rights.)
California is not the country, in spite of what we think occasionally, and such action (along with MA, etc.) is going to eventually force some Federal issues. Which is just fine. Having such a fundamental issue pushed up from the state level has plenty of history as well. This will end up a national electoral and judicial issue in due course, as it should.
As to Barry #6: I’m wondering just what is unclear about the idea of ‘two’ – that would be one plus one. Not one more, not three, not four, not an indefinite number. Pick your genotype and sexual proclivities, but only two need apply. Most seem to be able to figure that out.
In a way this type of objection shows one of the problems with state ‘marriage’ as currently concocted. You’ve got two things going on under one name. The state’s element is creating and enforcing a civil contract between two individuals, plus minor children in the same household. This contract has been so elaborated over time, so deeply built into everything from insurance to housing to medical rights, that denial of access to it seems perverse, nearly up there with (for instance) denial of the right to own property. [And the existence of this contract is another reason ‘why not more than two’ – there are no consensus definitions for the rights and roles in a 3+-some in this form of contract.]
There’s another part of ‘marriage’ that is about some combination of family, society and religion. Some consider it the name of a sacrament. That’s not my belief, but I understand where it comes from, and the objections it creates. States generally recognize this two-part nature. The government issues the marriage license – a right to enter into the contract. But unless you ask the JP to assist, it leaves the solemnizing of the relationship to the parties involved and their families, friends, and clergy.
I’d feel a lot better if we just respected that two part nature and had the state memorialize the civil contract part for everyone [er. two] and let the ‘marriage’ part by name be done in whatever way is acceptable to those concerned. But that’s not on offer, unfortunately, and rather than be a part of rescinding what I regard as a right to contract, I’ll vote to keep the marriage name as well.
On Proposition 11, I’d like to second Anachronym in asking for more detail. You’ve talked before, Armed Liberal, about real and bogus electoral reform. This time, apparently, it’s reform for real. Why?
On Proposition 8, I think the best way to go at such a radical social reform would be carefully and experimentally.
I don’t think judge-driven radical alterations of the constitution of society, which is what we are seeing, are good.
On the one hand, there’s no back button, or the back button is very hard to use. Once the issue has been constitutionalized, if a few years down the track, say when kids being raised in gay marriages were hitting their teens and exhibiting problems, people decided, “no, this is not a good thing, it’s fine for the adults who want it but it’s but working out for kids”, how would you go about undoing this radical alteration in the definition of marriage?
On the other hand, steps in favor of the redefinition of marriage are unpredictable in their effects, if you think that what you vote for should be what you get, or highly predictable if you predict that judges are going to grab anything legislators and voters do and use it as an excuse to impose their own quite different preferences.
This means, you shouldn’t do anything that might be seized on to give judges more chances to impose radical changes.
Does this mean I’m saying it’s reasonable to oppose passing laws that you are in favor of, if you fear reasonably that judges may seize on them to do things that are contrary to the law passed and to what you want? Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I thought the South Dakota abortion referendum was a great piece of legislation, but I hoped it would be defeated, which it was, because it would have become a Supreme Court case and would have been seized on by the court to impose anything it wanted. When legislation is not real law but merely an excuse for judges to impose whatever they want, it’s better to steer clear of it.
(And at this point, of course, the people have lost a great part of their power to legislate by referendum, and the ordering of the government to separate the power of law-making and the power of judging has broken down. But I think we’ve reached that point, when judges consistently interpret “there will be no gay marriage but there will be generous domestic partnership laws” to mean “there will be no domestic partnership laws in place of gay marriage.”)
On the third hand, the radicalism, power-seeking and dishonesty of the legal establishment means that a solution based on compromise and trust is not a real option. The judges and the lawyers are cheating and acting in bad faith. Someone is going to lose. The only question is who.
#8 from Marcus Vitruvius:
bq. _”Tim, #2, I still have a problem with the “Voters, not judges,” standpoint, from a theoretical and philosophy of rights standpoint. I’ve nattered on about this before, and I have no more solution today than I did the last time, but: If you consider something to be a natural innate human right, as some consider gay marriage to be, then what sense is there in holding it up to a vote?”_
Because the courts are taking the opposite view, but you think you might win a popular vote. That would be one good reason to take a fundamental human right to a vote.
Another reason is that even if you have a widely agreed fundamental right, there may be no agreement on how, or in practice even whether, to protect it.
For example (and I’m going to use this “for example a lot, because I think it’s the ugliest American Supreme Court decision since Roe and Casey): Kelo. The court acknowledged a right in private property. But it did not protect it. So you need referenda to say: the Supreme Court says private property can be taken, regardless of private property rights (which are still valid but which confer no protection), but not in this state.
Of course, if the judges then interpret that popular initiative to mean yes in this state, and we’re constitutionalizing it to frustrate further popular input, then you’re pretty much out of luck. But it certainly made sense to try and protect the right with a vote.
Same deal with Heller: nine out of nine Supreme Court judges acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms, and four of nine interpreted that right to be consistent with total suppression of what the right forbade infringement of. So I don’t see much sense in saying, if something is supposed to be a fundamental right, leave it to the courts.
#8 from Marcus Vitruvius:
bq. _”No sensible human being in modern America would allow, say, slavery to be held up to a vote, because votes don’t determine what human rights are… they simply are. In theory, they inhere.”_
In theory, rights inhere, but in practice, often … “they simply are” not.
The reason Negro slavery could not (and should not) be put up to a vote in America is that Negro rights are vigilantly enforced by a mighty and socially and legally dominating lobby. That’s got nothing to do with what’s a fundamental right.
#8 from Marcus Vitruvius:
bq. _”Now, that’s a sword that cuts against me as often as it cuts for me. And it creates the problem of turning the elevation of smaller issues into the arena of fundamental human rights as a gambit, which I also find harmful.”_
Yes.
#8 from Marcus Vitruvius:
bq. _”Still, because this is a real and unsolved problem in American political theory, I feel obligated to bring it up. The current societal conjecture is to let the courts try and sort it out, and if they’re not overturned in a generation or two, it’s clear that the expansion of rights did not sufficiently wreck the country or mobilize it, so it stands. It ain’t great, but it’s what we’ve got.”_
Is this a conservative argument that judges should be allowed to impose anything they like unless civil war or the outright ruin of the United States of America overrule them, because that’s what they are in fact doing?
Because if you are making an argument that relies on the premise that which is, is good, or whatever we’ve got now is what we should keep going with, then that bolsters not only radical judges doing whatever they like and calling it constitutional law, but also all the things they’re sweeping aside, like the traditional definition of marriage.
Are there Republicans working to pass Prop 11 equivalents in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (all gerrymandered pro-GOP), or is this a unilateral disarmament proposal?
So, Andrew, you agree that California apportionment is a partisan hack?
And the reason they left the Congressional districts out is so that it won’t impact the national scene – unfortunately.
Andrew, I’m a Californian before I’m a Democrat, and the current scheme has been horrible for California while it has been very, very good to Democratic Party operatives and hack politicians like Don Perata.
It’s time to change it. Once we do, the trapped Democratic voters of Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan can follow our lead – as will the trapped Republican voters of Massachusetts etc.
A.L.
Mr. Blue, #12:
Is this a conservative argument that judges should be allowed to impose anything they like unless civil war or the outright ruin of the United States of America overrule them, because that’s what they are in fact doing?
Because if you are making an argument that relies on the premise that which is, is good, or whatever we’ve got now is what we should keep going with, then that bolsters not only radical judges doing whatever they like and calling it constitutional law, but also all the things they’re sweeping aside, like the traditional definition of marriage.
I am at a loss as to how you could read my post, and construe it as a particular argument for anything. It is a description of a problem I have with the standard doctrine of relying only on low level votes; a description of a larger problem in legal and political theory; and a description of what the country actually has been doing for over a generation.
Since I am not a conservative, it is certainly not a conservative anything.
#15 from Marcus Vitruvius:
bq. _”I am at a loss as to how you could read my post, and construe it as a particular argument for anything.”_
The mystery is simply explained: cluelessness is ubiquitous online, and everybody messes up sometime. This time it’s me.
I misunderstood you completely, and looking at your comment again I’m not quite sure how I did that; but I know that it’s normal to be that far off course in blogging.
Anyway, my apologies.
David,
Fair enough– it happens to all of us.
I’m still going to do my best to poke holes in your response at #11 tomorrow, if I have time….
Because society isn’t made by what happens in the bedroom, and that’s the only place where gay and lesbian couples are different from we straight couples.
Really?
Are you stating a belief that there are no other differences between men and women than their genital configuration? And by implication that kids are (on average) just as well off being raised by two men, or two women, rather than a man and a woman?
By the way, I as amused (or perhaps dismayed) by the moronic editorial in my local paper (the Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale) where we have a similar measure on the ballot. It declared that the new law would “create a new narrow definition of marriage of only being between a man and a woman.”
I say this, of course, who believes that the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating marriage at all (as opposed to civil partnerships). Leave it to the churches.
In Britain, Gay marriage meant polygamy. In Canada, polygamy. In the Netherlands, gay marriage meant polygamy. In Sweden, gay marriage meant polygamy.
Whiskey, do you have any citations or references for these claims? This is the first I’ve heard of it, and given the large number of Canadian friends I have, I would expect to have heard of it were it true.
_If you consider something to be a natural innate human right, as some consider gay marriage to be, then what sense is there in holding it up to a vote?_
I think we need to examine what is, or at least was, at issue in California. It’s not about regulating “what happens in the bedroom,” since there are “enough committed gay and lesbian couples” in California without the law. And under previous discriminatory California law, gay and lesbian couples were entitled to all of the benefits of marriage. The right at issue in California has always been about “government recognition” of a relationship.
This is a pretty thin reed of a right. We are certainly not talking about a libertarian notion of individual rights since a libertarian wouldn’t premise individual values on government sponsorship. And it’s hard to imagine a Rosy O’Donnell needing government approval of her lifestyle. There is something quite paternalistic and puritanical in the assumption here that the state is the source of legitimization of relationships.
But as to the issue of social approval, why not put it up to a vote? Is social approval likely to come from judges?
*All that said, I would not vote for Proposition 8.*
It goes to far in the other direction. I would probably vote for an amendment that left it up to the legislature to decide this issue, but this proposition would preclude the legislature from recognizing gay marriage.
PD, #20:
There is always something deeply odorous and suspicious about a promise that says, “Sure, you can have everything associated with [whatever] just as long as you and everyone else knows that you’re not actually [whatever.]”
It brings strongly to my mind the notion of “Separate but equal.”
Mr. Blue, #11:
I am always fascinated by the use of language when it comes to the intersection of the courts, and gay marriage. For example, the use of the word “impose.” Gay marriage is, by inference, an imposition. Gay marriage is being imposed by the judiciary. Judges are imposing gay marriage.
But I can never figure out just exactly how this works. I know it can’t be an imposition on gay people, unless there are mad men in black robes running abound imposing same-sex marriage on gay people.
It could be a comedy sketch, actually– “The Imposition Of Gay Marriage!” with John Cleese flapping about in cheap black robes and a shepherd’s crook, snatching gay men and women by the neck, shuffling them off to the courthouse, imposing marriage on them.
Really, there’s a series of sketches in there: Cleese messing up, imposing marriage on a gay man and a straight woman: “What’s wrong with her? She’s beautiful, she’s rich, she’s got huge… tracts of land?” “I don’t like her!” Or perhaps he’s accidentally imposing gay marriage on a gay man and a straight man: Cue John Young, complaining, “But I’m not gay yet!”
This could go on pretty much forever, I think, right up until the point where we get to completely uninvolved straight men and women, who are not being imposed upon in any way whatsoever, except to mind their own business and go about their lives exactly as they had done the day before gay marriage was allowed.
That’s where it stops being funny.
Marcus Vitruvius it’s simple: the redefinition of marriage from what has always been a marriage throughout history to what it’s never been in history is imposed in everyone, and even those who don’t contract new style marriages with partners of the same sex will still be in relationships that have been officially redefined. They will not be able to go on entirely as before, because they will have to discuss everything and justify or argue against everything, and practically have to think about everything related to family, in terms of the radically new, imposed definition of a marriage, or be accused of bigotry and hate speech. That is a large and forced change in culture.
Mr. Blue, #22:
even those who don’t contract new style marriages with partners of the same sex will still be in relationships that have been officially redefined.
Really? How so?
So, if I were married to a woman ten years ago, and am still married to her, our marriage would be redefined?
Is there something we were able to do nine years ago that we now could not? That would certainly be a redefinition. Would our insurance coverage change? Inheritance laws? Tax status? Visitation rights in hospitals? Divorce proceedings? Child custody rights? I’m not aware that gay marriage would redefine any of those rights.
Perhaps my hypothetical wife or I would be redefined in some way? I’m not sure how that would work, without one of us somehow being redefined as being gay. That would definitely be a redefinition, but afraid my sexual orientation is outside the courts’ jurisdiction. I had assumed yours was, too. Am I wrong, Mr. Blue?
Is it an emotional redefinition? Is my wife suddenly going to love me less because the state has sanctioned gay marriage? Am I going to love my wife less for the same reason? That would be a cruel and punishing redefinition, indeed. I can understand why someone would oppose that, if they thought it would happen. Do you, Mr. Blue?
I don’t understand how, aside from those broad categories, gay marriage rulings or statutes would affect anyone who is already married, or any straight people who wish to marry in the future.
They will not be able to go on entirely as before, because they will have to discuss everything and justify or argue against everything, and practically have to think about everything related to family, in terms of the radically new,
Ah, I see.
But I wasn’t aware that gay marriage rulings, statues, or movements, carried any legal mandate for previously married people, or for unmarried straight people, to say, discuss, or think anything.
You can say, discuss, or think anything you like, but those acts are solely your responsibility, Mr. Blue. I am strongly reminded of trouble-making kids in class, back when I was in fifth grade, blaming their incessant disruptions on everyone and everything else around them. “But teacher, Sally was–” “Sally wasn’t bothering anyone, Timmy. You were the one making noise. Now mind your own business, and do your work.”
imposed definition of a marriage, or be accused of bigotry and hate speech.
I believe you are mistaken, Mr. Blue.
Gay marriage opponents can be accused of bigotry right now, so that’s really not much of a change, and has nothing to do with the courts. I’m afraid anyone has the power to stand up and accuse gay marriage opponents of bigotry without any intervention by the courts whatsoever. Nor, come to think of it, is state legislative action or executive order required in order for someone to accuse gay marriage opponents of bigotry. That action is completely independent of government activity.
_the redefinition of marriage from what has always been a marriage throughout history to what it’s never been in history_ . . .
David, a small point: the view that the definition of marriage has beens stable “throughout history” is erroneous. “Throughout history” and across many cultures polygamy and polyandry have had (and continue to have) widespread acceptance. Likewise, the contemporary view of marriage as being necessarily between consensual adults is specific to certain cultures and to certain periods Arranged marriages, child marriages, state-treaty marriages, etc. have been common even in the West in the recent past. In short, civilization’s idea of what marriage is and what it means has been flexible and changing, differing from time to time and place to place. In the US, more and more people now think of marriage as something between two consensual adults regardless of the sex of the participants. All indications are that within the next 10 to 20 years, a majority of people will think this way. Since definitions of words depend entirely (in the end) on common usage, the redefinition that you oppose is going to take place whether one likes it or not.
Marcus Vitruvius said:
bq. “Judges are imposing gay marriage.
bq. But I can never figure out just exactly how this works.
I have answered you.
The legally forced redefinition or what marriage is is already a great cultural change, with implications to extensive to get into here. But to give just one implication that’s serious enough by itself: to put legal force behind a new, unprecedented marriage is immensely to add to the force of accusations of bigotry against those who refuse to accept it. Accusations of bigotry are serious, and much more so when backed by law.
Given that marriage is a key cultural institution, and give that what a marriage is will be redfineed by force of law, I don’t have to prove more than I have said.
It’s no good to insist at the same time that the word “marriage” does not matter, and nothing is lost to traditional marriage couples and cultures by legally forcing a radical change in what it means, and at the same time to get nasty…
bq. _”There is always something deeply odorous and suspicious…”_
about failure to concede a change of what a vital word means. Language matters, or it doesn’t.
And in this case, culturally, it does.
You have got to prove that “marriage” is not a key concept for traditional cultures and couples, which you can’t, which you can’t because it is one of the most important cultural concepts, or else the game of pretending not to understand how legally redefining what “marriage” means could be a significant imposition has no point.
#24 from mark:
bq. _”… the redefinition that you oppose is going to take place whether one likes it or not.”_
Referenda are about making choices.
A promise by one side that the change they want and that you don’t is going to take place whether you like it or not still leaves you with a choice. You can choose to support what you think is right, or you can capitulate to what somebody says is inevitable.
Which you choose is up to you.
_because it is one of the most important cultural concepts_
I agree. But precisely because it _is_ a cultural concept is the reason that it _can_ be changed–and will be changed– as the culture changes, which is what is happening during our lifetimes. The concept of marriage is changing, and the shifts in the law are following the shifts in our culture. Laws banning gay marriage are attempts to prevent a cultural shift. It is unlikely such laws will work in the long-run. Cultural tolerance of homosexuality is spreading rapidly. Very few young people have any difficulties accepting homosexuality in others.
David, I agree that the referenda regarding the acceptance of gay marriage will determine the people’s preference. I hold that this will change over time. Perhaps I am wrong.
However, the point I was trying to make was the argument opposed to acceptance of gay marriage that is based on the grounds that this would change the definition of an otherwise stable “traditional” universal constant is a faulty argument.
But I think we both agree that the definition of marriage depends on how a particular culture defines it. As I said above, I think there is a cultural shift going on. I applaud that shift. I think that the world will be a better place if there is more tolerance toward homosexuality.
Sure, A.L., California apportionment is a partisan hack. The map you put up isn’t even one of the more outrageous districts. I don’t, however, believe most of the states gerrymandered in favor of the GOP even have citizens’ initiatives; so I guess we’ll have to wait for hell to freeze over for our Democratic brethren over there. I’d have preferred trying to drive a bargain.
I don’t, BTW, see how reapportionment reform will do anything about corrupt Don Perata, one of less than a handful of Democrats I couldn’t bring myself to vote for. The Democrats will still control the State Senate, if aggregate figures are any guide, and Perata lives in a totally Democratic region of the state where boundary rectification will do nothing to diminish his electability. (Until he goes the Ted Stevens route, at least.)
Andrew, I’d flatly welcome a national effort to make this a standard in every state. Help me figure out how to do it, and I’ll sign up.
A.L.
_It brings strongly to my mind the notion of “Separate but equal.”_
Certainly, but the “esteem” harm from racial segregation was always the hardest to prove and for the government to address. From the sucess of a number of all African-American institutions, it might simply not be true that seperate institutions are “inherently unequal.” (Brown) And if we did this sort of analysis with homosexuals, would we find this class opressed in their educational pursuits or economic well-being? Doubtful.
The shameful state of Texas: (link)
I can’t find any talk of Republicans busily overturning this either. That does not reflect well on George W. Bush.
I like Sarah Palin more all the time. The Republican Party has more corrupt establishments that need smashing up than just Alaska, and it’s better for the honor of the GOP that the smashing be done from within.
But a nationwide effort as Armed Liberal wants would be great too. Who does the work is much less important than that it gets done.
I generally believe in letting cultural trends play out rather than the government interfering. For example, I think Roe V Wade is terrible law and should be struck down, and the states should decide abortion law (and abortion would mainly remain legal). I think Roe has frozen the debate in time and no progress has been made towards any kind of social compromise.
But i do hold the law of the land above that sentiment (the main reason i dislike Roe). If laws are infinitely malleable or don’t mean what they say, we have no system and ultimately no social compact will stand.
My reading of the equal protection clause in this context is that marriage is a government radified contract and hence gender cannot play a factor in who may engage in it, any more than race can. You couldnt pass a federal law whereby women can only engage in a contract with other women, that would be a clear violation of equal protection. For the same reason you can’t tell a man he cant engage in a marraige contract with another man.
I think its ultimately self-defeating to look for the government to sanctify marriage in any way other than a simple contract. I find it odd that conservative christians want the government involved in the religious/social aspects of marriage at all. Government has a terrible track record of enforcing morals and morays.
bq. David, a small point: the view that the definition of marriage has beens stable “throughout history” is erroneous. “Throughout history” and across many cultures polygamy and polyandry have had (and continue to have) widespread acceptance.
Yes, and “across many cultures” the right to rule and to conquer was deemed a divine right, derived from God/god/random_deity.
Let me try again: across many cultures, the chattel ownership of wives and women, and the abandoment of female infants in favor of keeping male infants, has had (and continues to have) widespread acceptance.
Once more for the hat trick: across many cultures, strict adherence to the Islamic coda of laws has had (and demonstrably continues to have) widespread and _fanatical_ acceptance. Hell, Allah-mandated governmental constructs have been around longer and were more widespread than our current form of democratic republicanism.
…
Point being, you may want to examine the *relevant* culture in question, instead of drawing on multiple sources. What was the historically “widespread acceptance” within generally Western, somewhat English, specifically American cultures?
AL, ISTM that Congress could require by law that districts be drawn by independent commissions, at least for Congressional districts.
The Unbeliever,
_Point being, you may want to examine the relevant culture in question, instead of drawing on multiple sources._
Which was exactly the point I was making. You seem to forget I was responding to the claim that _our_ culture’s changing view of marriage was overturning a definition of marriage that existed “throughout history.” Like you, I believe that what other cultures have done at other times should have little relevance on how we decide to conduct our own. We are bound neither by the past nor foreign cultures. We get to choose for ourselves. And if we decide that a past practice or custom–such as child labor or slavery — is no longer tenable, its prior existence is not a valid argument for retaining it. I say decide, but of course, many of these cultural changes take place over time, somewhat unconsciously. The mainstream cultural acceptance of homosexuality is taking a couple of generations. And once most people start thinking of marriage as being possible between two men, then the definition of marriage will have changed by usage. You cannot legislate or decide by referendum what a word means if it is used differently by most people.
Mr. Blue, #25:
I have answered you.
The legally forced redefinition or what marriage is is already a great cultural change, with implications to extensive to get into here. But to give just one implication that’s serious enough by itself: to put legal force behind a new, unprecedented marriage is immensely to add to the force of accusations of bigotry against those who refuse to accept it. Accusations of bigotry are serious, and much more so when backed by law.
You have responded, but I find no sense to your answers. I brought up a great number of possible ways in which gay marriage might be an “imposition” but you’ve responded to only one, and only with the bald assertion that you will be accused of bigotry if gay marriage comes to pass in this fashion. Unless there is some stipulation in the various gay marriage acts which requires you to engage in private speech or private thought on government-mandated terms, I find this assertion false.
For the rest, I take it that you can’t really tell me that you believe any of those impositions would in fact occur, and that therefore, none of those impositions exist. No one is being imposed upon.
You have got to prove that “marriage” is not a key concept for traditional cultures and couples, which you can’t, which you can’t because it is one of the most important cultural concepts, or else the game of pretending not to understand how legally redefining what “marriage” means could be a significant imposition has no point.
No, I haven’t got to do anything of the sort.
Realize, I might not actually be trying to convince you of anything. I’m simply reminding all the other readers out there that couples already married, will be just exactly as married if gay couples can marry, as if they cannot. I keep waiting for a reasonable demostration that this is not true, and I have great faith that it will never come. Your assertions to the contrary fail, because they’re simply that: assertions.
Marriage, Mr. Blue, is not a scarce resource.
Unless you’re gay.
Regarding 11, I’m in favor of the idea. But I need to know more about the implementation details.
As David Blue points out, if you take a look at Texas, the redistricting there is quite insane.
There is a political matter of unilateral disarmament, as AJL points out.
Perhaps handled at the national level?
hypo, it’s got to start somewhere.
A.L.
#39 from Armed Liberal: “hypo, it’s got to start somewhere.”
Spoken like a true democrat. (Two thumbs way up.)
#28 from mark:
bq. _”As I said above, I think there is a cultural shift going on. I applaud that shift. I think that the world will be a better place if there is more tolerance toward homosexuality.”_
That’s a good reason to vote NO on Proposition 8.
I don’t think all good people have to vote YES on Proposition 8. There will be good people with good reasons on both sides.
I also think the outcome will be good. Whether the proposition goes up or down, now it will ultimately be the people who have decided, rather than the judges having had the final word.
Tim Oren #10
And what is unclear about the idea that all of the other types of marriage have historical precedence but not same sex? The argument you are making that marriage is only two people is the same argument that is made by those opposing same sex marriage, the only difference is the phrase “between a man and a woman” that they add. Why is your argument any stronger than theirs?
Marcus Vitruvius #8
And have been historically based on the assumption of a male/female relationship (in this country). Can you deny that? Whether they can apply to a same sex marriage is a different argument. If you can argue that extending it to gay marriage is reasonable why do you deny the extension to other forms of marriage that have historical precedent? Just because regulations would have to change? Utah was only let into the Union by their making polygamy illegal. Why would you deny them their rights, but demand your own?
_Why is your argument any stronger than theirs?_
Because it is a more generous and tolerant one. The one argument extends the same rights to all people; the other denies rights to a certain class of people that others enjoy.
_Why would you deny them their rights, but demand your own?_
Because the the latter demand is a demand for an extension of the same rights to every single adult in America. The former would be a demand for special rights that address a single religious doctrine. Gay marriage would allow gays to do what straights already can do, i.e., marry the person of their choice. Polygamous marriage would create rights that no one else currently enjoys.
Think of it like voting. When women were asking for the vote, they were asking to be allowed to do what men already could do. They weren’t asking to have several votes; just the one.
Mark, I think your analysis fails. Being rational:
The two-people notion is just as arbitrary as any other definition, given the long history on the planet of other models, as documented all the way back to the Akkadians.
Assume for the moment that it really is about “rights”, which I’m not sure is true.
* Why should the right not be extended to any adult, regardless of marital status? Why can’t Paul marry Sally and Bob? Aren’t you discriminating against bisexuals?
* And married people have had outside relationships forever. Why discriminate against the other woman or man?
But let’s turn to the two-people model.
* Is a homosexual union between two brothers or two sisters in any way outside the bounds for applying the status (‘granting the “right”‘, if you will) of marriage? If so, what is your rational basis? No genetic-defect issue can exist.
* How about if I and my (hypothetical) sister both get sterilized? OK to get married, in your book? Same impossibility of defective kids. Only problem solved, right?
What possible compelling interest does the state have in either of those?
mark, I don’t find that entirely persuasive. Decades ago the California Supreme Court reasoned that the essence of marriage was a contract between a man and a women; and thus the race of the individuals was irrelevant. Now its argued that the essence of marriage is a contract between two people. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to theorize years from now someone arguing that the essence of marriage is a contract between people. And this here:
bq. _special rights that address a single religious doctrine._
is religous discrimination. Why should the religous views of a majority of mormons dictate what a minority of mormons can do?
Nort & PD,
I agree that to an extent it _is_ arbitrary. But then so is the exclusion of gays. If you can exlcude gays from marriage, why not left-handed people? Why not people who carry faulty genes? There are restrictions on marriage. I can’t marry a cousin, I can’t marry a dog, I can’t marry a child, I can’t marry a fictitious character, I can’t marry someone who doesn’t want to marry me. In some states, I can’t marry another man. The big difference between the first 5 restrictions and the last, is that there is a good reason for them. There is no good reason for the 6th restriction. All your arguments amount to the belief that if you ease one restriction, you have to ease every restriction. I just don’t buy that.
My argument for the acceptance of gay marriage is essentiall one of fairness. First of all, it does no harm. Secondly, there are millions of gay people who do in fact live in a situation analagous to marriage and who in fact are seeking to be recognized as being married. Thirdly, the modern conception of marriage is one of two adults who, out of love for each other, seek to live as sexualy monogous unit, aka a family. There is no reason to not acknowledge and allow this recognition other than outright predjudice against homosexuality.
I’m not arguing this from a legalistic point of view. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the law that prevents adopting a definition of marriage that includes homosexual marriage. And in the absence of any possible harm, why not adopt a definition that is more inclusive and that makes more people happy.
Marriage is a cultural construct. Cultures change. In our lifetimes people have begun to live openly homosexual lives and are beginning to find acceptance within mainstream society. That is a big change from 30 years ago. If our attitudes about marriage change, why shouldn’t the laws governing marriage change. Since there doesn’t seem to be any growing change in attitudes about brother/sister marriages, or a great demand for polygmous marriages, neither are something I feel there is much need to worry about.
Nort,
A brief aside: coming from the most active Marshall around here, someone who recently posted an interesting view on the hierarchy of argument tactics, this:
_Being rational:_ , implying that whereas you are rational but I am not, strikes me as being beneath you, not as being rational.
#47: Sorry you took it that way.
What I meant was: not trying to be a jerk, not trying to yank anyone’s chain.
I apologize for the implication you took. Thanks for the feedback. This medium can be tricky.
Oh, I see. Perhaps my skin’s just too thin.
Maybe I’ve set expectations for my own conduct too low. 😛 🙂
Really, though, I expect challenges to the same sex sibling marriage constraint using this as a basis. And as I indicated, using your rationale, I don’t see how Bob & Carol ought to be restricted from marrying Ted & Alice, if all four are bi. Seems like discrimination to me. Of course some doctrinaire people both gay and straight hold that there’s no such thing as bisexuality.
Anyway: you’re convinced gay marriage is OK and not a slippery slope, and I can’t *prove* you wrong. 🙂
mark #46 —
I think Comment #46 is succinct and important. You say,
bq. I agree that to an extent it [marriage being exclusively between two people] is arbitrary. But then so is the exclusion of gays. If you can exclude gays from marriage, why not left-handed people? Why not people who carry faulty genes? There are restrictions on marriage. I can’t marry a cousin, I can’t marry a dog, I can’t marry a child, I can’t marry a fictitious character, I can’t marry someone who doesn’t want to marry me. In some states, I can’t marry another man. The big difference between the first 5 restrictions and the last, is that there is a good reason for them. There is no good reason for the 6th restriction. All your arguments amount to the belief that if you ease one restriction, you have to ease every restriction.
I support gay marriage because I buy the pro-gay-marriage arguments, as they pertain to gays being married, raising children in a two-parent household, and family and societal stability. But I’m very troubled by the slippery-slope arguments against the institution. Because I think they are true; there is a slippery slope.
There is a good reason for restrictions against legalizing the act of marrying a cousin, a dog, a child, a fictitious character, someone who doesn’t want to marry me. Wait–let me go back to the examples raised earlier in the thread by doubters:
There is a good reason for restrictions against legalizing the act of marrying a brother, a sister, two other people, three other people, an already-married person.
Gay-marriage proponents profess there are good-enough reasons for these restrictions, but I think what’s meant is that gay marriage is really important to its proponents. And that these other slippery-slope circumstances are not.
So the invitation is to be relativists about this issue, e.g.:
bq. Marriage is a cultural construct. Cultures change… If our attitudes about marriage change, why shouldn’t the laws governing marriage change?
Stated differently,
bq. There is no essential reason for restrictions against legalizing the act of marrying person of the same gender, a brother, a sister, two other people, three other people, or an already-married person. What’s different about the first–gay marriage–is that we (people who want it) are a sizable plurality, while constituencies for the other changes are small and silent.
Although, unsurprisingly, polygamists have noted this line of reasoning, and stood up to say, “us too!”:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=2
Polygamy can rightly be viewed as a subjugation or infringement of woman’s rights and has no place in an argument about gay marriage.
So I’ve heard a lot of people raise this “slippery slope” argument wrt gay marriage but never heard it clearly explained. I don’t see why this would be a problem; we draw the line in society where we think it belongs, not somewhere distant from that in an effort to provide some kind of “buffer zone” against future challenges.
If this is your argument, it is exceptionally unfair; asserting, in essence, that a group’s rights can be restricted based on an unproven theory of social ethical behavior or morality.
AMac, LOL. I’ve been called many things in my life, but never, I believe, succinct. I must tell my wife, who things Joe Biden is more laconic compared to me.
Amac & Nort:
I am not arguing that it isn’t a slippery slope. I would argue that that isn’t a sufficient reason for not supporting gay marriage. Everything is a slippery slope.
Progressive taxation. Speed limits. All laws. Voting rights/voting restrictions. If an 18 year old can vote, why not a 17 year old. If a felon can’t vote, why shouldn’t there be an IQ test. At some point, judgement has to come into play and take over from slippery slope fears. We have to chose the lines we draw.
I will say this, though. I don’t equate gay marriage with the potential pitfalls at the bottom of the slope. I don’t see them on the same moral plane. I can also see pracitcal difficulties as a consequence of the other possibilities that I don’t see with gay marriage. Eg, if I have 2 wives which one decides when to pull the plug on my respirator. Which one gets to live in my apartment? How much does she get in a divorce settlement, 1/3rd? Could one sue for divorce on the grounds of adultry?
AMac, yes, there is no “essential” reason for proscribing the types of marriages you list. As we all agree, they are primarily cultural reasons. We do not allow types of marriages that others allow. If our culture were to evolve in a way that polygamy was a commonly accepted practice, we would change our laws. And, yes, too, the size of the group requesting the rights does have bearing; so, too, does the type of person requesting the rights. If I believed that homosexuality was a “choice,” I probably wouldn’t be as supportive of gay marriage. But I belive one’s sexuality is as much as a given as one’s ethnicity and I don’t think such conditions should be used as the basis for exclusion.
We know the slippery slope exists because its been on display in the two court cases overruling legislation. Massachusetts gave homosexual couples the right to adopt and pass anti-discrimination laws, and the Massachusetts Court reasoned therefore Massachusetts had to allow same-sex marriage. The direct effect of this in Illinois was to halt anti-discrimination laws because of the slippery slope. Similarly, California gave same-sex couples every benefit of marriage except the name, and the Court concluded that this was an act of bigotry.
Maybe if civil unions had been allowed for several years, the public would have decided the distinction was silly. Instead, the compromise is shredded.
Shorter PD Shaw: the courts create the slippery slope; there are rational distinctions between same-sex marriage and polygamy, etc.
_”The two-people notion is just as arbitrary as any other definition”_
Not so. Marriage is a contract. The government has the right to define, arbitrate, and establish rules for contracts. There _are_ contracts that can only be valid between two individuals. Power of Attorney, for instance, only makes sense if one individual has it.
Same with the marriage contract. If the government decides that the marriage contract and all of its control of property, children, medical decisions is best served by being limited to 2 individuals for pragmatic reasons, it is neither arbitrary nor unique for government to define the contract as such.
#52 from G_Tarhune
Which is as bigoted a statement as one that is homophobic. Because some cultures institution of polygamy is denies woman’s rights does not imply that polygamy is itself subjugation. Every other marriage form also has examples of cultures that infringe on women’s rights which does not condemn the institution as a whole. Unless you accept, as some do, that the institution itself in any form is subjugation of women, a priori.
#56 from Mark Buehner
And if the government decides that the contract is only between a man and a woman for pragmatic reasons?
#51 from AMac
I agree with your summary, but I am still left with the fact that historically there is no precedent for gay marriage. All of the other marriage forms that have been derided in these comments have, and this is including societies that have had no problems with homosexuality. itself. So if there are reasons for restrictions (although none that i’ve seem mentioned here that appear valid) on the other forms, that have been tried elsewhere, why doesn’t it seem reasonable that there must be reasons why gay marriage has not be tried before?
As far as I know, it has always been the case, from Pharaoh’s day to ours and over the world, that a union between a man and a woman was a valid marriage, whatever else also was. Does anyone know the contrary? If so, can you provide a link to your evidence?
David Blue #58 —
Depends what you mean. E.g., pre-Loving v. Virginia miscegnation laws meant that an interracial union between a man and a woman was invalid. I believe (but am not certain) that among some Orthodox religous groups (Jews? Amish?), declaration of an intent to marry an outsider meant that the insider would be cast out of the commmunity.
Re: Polygamy —
Some years ago, I recall seeing a video clip of an interview of a thirtysomething Mormon mother from southern Utah (alas, no link). Professional, articulate, trim, and witty, she offered a “like a fish needs a bicycle” feminist endorsement of the practice. “Let’s be frank, even the best of men (like our darlin’) get cranky when their baser urges are left untended. Sharing that burden isn’t half-bad, and in return, I get a couple of terrific friends. Best of all, Multiple Mommies is a fantastic child-care arrangement for women striving to integrate satisfying family and work lives!”
Amusing.
_”And if the government decides that the contract is only between a man and a woman for pragmatic reasons?”_
You run into the equal protection argument. For the same reason that it isnt enough to argue interracial contracts can be outlawed for pragmatic reasons (the argument was certainly made). There are protections for race and gender constitutionally.
_Depends what you mean. E.g., pre-Loving v. Virginia miscegnation laws meant that an interracial union between a man and a woman was invalid._
But many of the anti-miscegenation laws were innovations introduced after emancipation. Although Virginia had much older anti-miscegenation laws, these were not part of any common law tradition, nor any Continental tradition (see New Orleans creoles), nor any support in Christian theology. In the antebellum era, the U.S. had a vice president married to an African-American. I think this is a key difference between inter-racial and same-sex marriages. One has historic support.
Another thing to point out about anti-miscegenation laws in America is that they existed in the context of laws prohibiting cohabitation and fornication. The Lovings were not simply prohibited from marriage, they were prohibited from living together. To put it blunt, marriage was more important then, than now.
_”I think this is a key difference between inter-racial and same-sex marriages. One has historic support.”_
I dont know that to be true. We think about Western concepts of marriage and its history which have been pretty uniformly hetero, but thats a narrow prism. Native Americans, Asians, and Africans all had various different concepts of marriage and many included homosexuality (the Native Amerincans ‘two-spirits’ for instance). Homosexuality was apparently open and common in south and central America before the Spanish showed up and put a stop to it.
“Wikipedia”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions has links to some excellent historical evidence that gay marriage is not unheard of. There would seem to have been some level of gay marriage in the Roman Empire up until 342 when it was outlawed (telling in itself for a 500 year old empire, you generally dont outlaw things that are already forbidden).
This “particular”:http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/ link provides pretty compelling evidence of essentially what we would consider gay marriage in ancient Egypt, even by modern definitions.
Mark B:
I’ll leave it David Blue or others to defend whether same-sex marriage has no historic precedent whatsoever. I do believe anti-miscegenation laws were largely an American innovation that has little to do with any history or traditions derived from England, from other Western countries like France or Spain or from the various Christian sects.
I don’t think that this can be said of same-sex marriage. In fact, the opposite might be the case. I don’t think that’s necessarily dispositive, but I believe the Burkean argument of caution in the face of historic norms (which I think is the concern Tim Oren and others have suggested) favors different sides when comparing inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage.
I also would like to keep beating the drum on challenging the notion that marriage is a traditionaly state licensed and regulated insitution in the United States. It’s not, or if it ever was, it was in the regions of the country that retained the most fealty to the Church of England (like Virginia and Maryland).
Another largely American innovation was the common law marriage — we are married because we says we are.
Point taken- but that needs to be balanced with the fact that our modern concept of marriage just isn’t universal in general. Even our concept of romantic love as its basis is a relatively new and Western concept.
There is another alternative: you can be firmly opposed to gay marriage, as Barack Obama is, and also firmly opposed to Proposition 8, which is the only way to prevent gay marriage in California, given the judges’ determination to read gay marriage into the constitution. That is the position that Barack Obama takes. (link)