Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Gay Marriage in California

You may not have heard this piece of news coming from California, given the other more pressing news from the Gulf Coast, but our legislature passed a bill yesterday to legalize gay marriage. This is not domestic partnerships or some other arrangement . . . it is marriage on par with heterosexual marriages. Of course, the bill has to be signed by the governor, but the word out of Arnold’s office is not encouraging. His spokesman today is quoted as leaning toward letting the Courts decide. Great. More abdication of responsibility.

Discussions - 31 Comments

Did NO Democratic legislator or plain-Jane citizen raise a hue and cry about this BEFORE the vote? Why was this brewing bill not a topic of national interest before now?

Arnold is an idiot. I have no idea what the California Constitution says so if anyone knows please post it. However, whether you agree with gay marriage or not is not the issue to me. Here you have the legislature making a law which (once again about about Cali’s Constitution) is within its bounds and has the legal and constitutional authority to do so. This is not a matter for the courts and Arnold needs to wise up and get a backbone. He needs to stop acting like a Democrat and make a descion and stick by it.

This is one more example of the contempt California legislators hold for the voters. Along with the illegal drivers license bills, this is a real good argument for Proposition 77, the anti-Gerrymandering proposition, and for shorter term limits.

Hmm. Reminds me a bit of Bush, who signed McCain-Feingold into law despite claiming that he had constitutional scruples about the bill. Punting is a bipartisan sport.

But, at any rate, good for CA. I’m as glad as anyone to see this in the hands of legislators, who in this case happen to be doing what I think should be done anyway.

if you sign the bill Governor you might as well retire. You will have no political future and no acting career.

Nothing surprises me from California these days. They are rudderless, and the "conservatives" there seem wholly reactive. And Brett, tell me why we shouldn’t have polygamy? When people begin to push for group marriage (as they already have in Sweden), what will say then? Indeed, why bother with marriage at all?

Well the disasters been coming. Arnold never should have had Republican support. Shame to all conservatives who believed in him. Just because he could win Republicans went for him. It just shows the party will sacrifice principle for power. The Governator, or whatever he is, is a good example of the current problems in the conservative movement today.

Well, Clint, sometimes only a RINO can win, and having a RINO in office typically beats having a Democrat in office. If Ahnold is smart he’ll veto this...maybe he’s not as smart as we think he is.

I am not certain why the assembly voting on the bill is causing such outrage. From what I gather, the voters voted on an intiative (not a constitutional amendment) five years ago. Laws can be amended or revoked, by any law making body (the assembly, or the electorate through intiative), and this is proper.

I think people are more upset by the result, than the procedure, but are using the procedure as cover (we love democracy and "the people", yeah--this is a tired argument both sides use) to express disapproval of homosexual marriage without disapproving of it, or seeming rude by disapproving of it..

If California had an intiative making the speed limit on interstates 45 mph (assuming they have the power to do this), no one would be upset if the assembly voted to change the speed limit after five years of living with it. People that would be offended by the speed limit change (and by extension the homosexual marriage change), really want a direct democracy, not a representative one, which is probably not wise (read The Federalist, and Politics, and Polyibus). I would be very interested in someone offering particular subjects that should be subject to direct democratic decision making. I doubt if this can ever happen in particular areas though because of Romer.

Why the big fuss? What is wrong with gay marriage?

I was not aware that the people voted on this five years ago. I have to disagree with you Steve on this one. If the people voted on it, then it should be put back on the ballot to overturn it. The legislator over stepped its bounds in this case. However, I am at least happy that it was not the courts this time.

HDT,

Tell me exactly who is making a big fuss over gay marriage on this thread? Here is a proposition for you, how about you read the comments and try (just try) to figure out what people are talking about.

Marriage is not a private act, it is a social act. As far as I know, all societies have heterosexual marriage to regulate 1) reproduction, 2) inheritance, 3) gender relations, and 4) socialization of the young. Except for #2, gay marriage accomplishes none of this.

Another point is that marriage has always required social definition...it is not a natural right. Currently we define marriage as the monogamous union of one man and one woman, but if gay marriage is allowed then this (seemingly arbitrary) standard comes into question. I see no way to legitimately force other rules (e.g., age-restrictions, kin-restrictions, number restrictions) once gay marriage is allowed.

So you see, marriage has always been a discriminatory social institution, and it had better remain so for the sake of our society. What this is really about is forcing society (made up of millions of unwilling people) to accept and even celebrate what is essentially a dysfunctional (and perhaps pathological) sexual orientation. Can anyone "out there" explain to me why homosexuality is either desireable or "natural."

"Currently we define marriage.." Who is we? James Dobson? Pastor Haggard? You? Those people don’t speak for anyone except the lunatics on the right.

"Us" means society, trog. You really must bring a functioning brain stem to the blog when you post!

I believe even Schiavo had a functioning brain stem. Could she have blogged?

Mr. Biologist...undoubtedly her comments would be more intelligent than bybyby. And, you should be more respectful of murdered people.

"As far as I know, all societies have heterosexual marriage to regulate 1) reproduction, 2) inheritance, 3) gender relations, and 4) socialization of the young. Except for #2, gay marriage accomplishes none of this."

Wrong. Gay marriage can obviously accomplish #4, just not in the way you would like. What’s the worst that could happen? They’d raise ’em up gay? Even if you believe that gays become so because of their parents, so what? #3, I don’t even know what this means, exactly. "Gender relations?" If your first "relation" with a member of the opposite sex was marriage, that must have been an awkward honeymoon. You make it sound like men and women are two teams and that the only way they’ll work together is if they get married. And that leaves us with #1, which I’ll grant you is something that gays cannot accomplish in a marriage. But you’d have to admit that it’s not as though we have a real lack of reproduction in the world, so we don’t really have to rely on married men and women to reproduce for us.

So, "...." you say that there’s no fuss about gay marriage? So Julie Ponzi would have been in a dither if this law were about the taxation of lemons or something? Don’t hide behind that "it’s not what the people wanted" B.S.- admit that you’re bothered by gay marriage, just like your buddy Dain.

I’ll tell you what, Phil. I will respond to your questions/criticisms IF you tell me why homosexuality is either desireable from a social point of view or "natural" in the sense of "normal" and "sustainable." Remember, marriage is a social institution...it is not an automatic right. If you want to expand the definition of this MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL INSTITUTION, you have the burden of proof. I can’t wait for your reply.

Phil

I am afraid your reproduction comments evidence a narrowness of thought. While it is true that reproduction on a world wide level is fine, that really is not the question when it comes to domestic policy (marriage).

We should consider what homosexual marriage would do to the population of the US in relation to China and India, which have much larger populations than we do. A larger population means a larger pool of labor, which means greater supply of labor, which means labor is cheaper. Obviously, capital and labor will go to where labor is the cheapest and most productive (in absolute terms, considering productive qualities of the workers, human capital etc.). If the US population declines in relation to India and China, while the Indian and Chinese population increase in efficiency and intelligence (which they are surely doing), then it seems that they will easily elipse the US in terms of production of important goods.

Furthermore, once these jobs are overseas it is very difficult to tax them. Short of declaring war and conquoring the country, the US will not be able to collect income taxes from Indians and Chinese individuals. Because Americans will have fewer jobs, and there will be fewer Americans, this will result in lower tax collections. At this point 1 of 2 things will happen: 1. Social programs will have to be reduced (this will happen in Europe within the next 25 years because of demographic, i.e., not enough kids, pressures) because there is not enough money to fully fund the program, or 2. the poorer people will refuse to accept reductions in social programs; then either they get angry and start causing problems, or taxes are raised and the richer people start causing problems.

I am uncertain whether homosexual marriage will result in population growth slowing, or actually declining (I suspect it will slow), but I think all serious people ought to consider what the effects of such a population decrease would be. It is possible I am wrong. I await corrections.

Hey Steve Sparx, just stuff it OKAy? Even if gays was not allowed to get married they would still not be making kids. Gays is gay whether or not you allow it or sanction it or whatever you want to call it so whats your point? YOu and that bozo Dain can talk all you want about the sacred institution of marriage, but gays are just a fact of life that aren’t going to go away, ok my man? It’s just how it is and you might as well accept it and deal with it and live you own life. Instead of worrying about how other people live their lives. What do you think Dain, if you make it illegal to be gay, they’ll all stop and get themselves wives? Yeah sure, that’s what will happen my man. So marriage is an institution, Daino says, so CHALLENGE that!!! Well Dain, where is it engraved in STONE, my good amigo?? You act like these rules are so final that they can’t be challenged or changed, but why can’t they? If gays are being born every day and they are gay because they CAME that way and didn’t CHOOSE IT, why can’t they get married like anyone else? OH what’s next, daino And Sparxx will ask, marrying a dog or 20 women? Of course we can’t apply common sense to it, we have to take some ridiculous "analogy" and say what about this? Use common sense my good friends and you will see that gays DO have rights like anyone else- to live their lives as they see fit and not have your nosey behinds telling them how they should live and how they shouldn’t. Daino acts like he’s all about what’s good for the country- then here’s what he should do: Move somewhere else- like MARS!!! LOL!!!! :)

Yo, BIGGGGGS, stuff it yo’self, dude. So let’s use a little "commonsense." The fact that two dudes or two babes use their genitalia in ways nature never intended is one thing, but to sanction that and give it the blessing of socially-recognized marriage...why? So they can be happy? So they can pass on property? They can do both without the benefit of marriage. To buy insurance? To force society to accept homosexuality as natural and socially useful? I see no reason for society to sanction this behavior...no logic whatsoever. How about it, pal. You got any logic?

Remember, disease is "natural" too, but that doesn’t make it desireable or socially valuable.

And next time you address me, do so with respect, or go stuff yourself in some unnatural way. Dufus.

Little Daino now opines on the ways and intentions of nature.And genitalia too? Bwahahahahahahahaha! Dude, please don’t ever leave this blog.

Okay, since Peter isn’t around to remind people about the need for civility, I guess I have to. Knock off the name-calling if you want to see your comments appear here.

You know, I grow weary of idiotic leftists who can’t carry on an intelligent exchange but who CAN mock people in the most childish way. Their sarcasm and puerile self-righteousness is bad enough, but when you get warned every time you give back as good as you got...well, that’s nothing I need.

See you, John.

Why do you assume I was talking about you, Dain? In fact, I was referring to two posts that I’ve already deleted--one of which dropped the F-bomb.

is it true? has dain retired from NLT?

After an all time number of dumps here over the last several months, Little Daino couldn’t retire from NLT if wanted to.

I’ve started to wonder whether Fung and Dain aren’t the same person; perhaps a case of multiple personality disorder. "They" arrived on the scene at more or less the same time, seemed to know one another (it was Dain who told us that "Fung" came from "Freud + Jung"), and left within a couple of days of one another.

Just a theory.

Ok, John...enough. I’m am definely NOT Fung...I just figured out where he got his name, that’s all.

Since you were not aiming your warning at me personally, I guess I have nothing to get steamed about. I don’t suffer fools gladly, however, and this thread was dominated by an unusually childish nitwit.

No, I dont believe that Dain could also be Fung. People with multiple personalitys usually have only that - different personalitys. Not a lot of different deeply held social and political ideas and beliefs. Maybe Dain is a more angry charachter played by John MOser?? Possible - haha- but just kidding. I think there is a lot of good folks writing here. And theyr’e all different in there own ways. Except those shameful America-hating liberals! Not so good.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/7168