A weird little potential backlash from the Calif. Sup. Ct. ruling
Bookworm on May 20 2008 at 9:51 am | Filed under: Gay marriage, Judges, Judicial activism
Dennis Prager has a good column discussing what will be, in his view, the ramifications of the California Supreme Court decision creating a new right out of thin air. One of the points he makes is that, in the future, to avoid charges of discrimination, homosexual relationships will have to be promoted equally with heterosexual relationships. Schools that once had books about boys and girls meeting and starting a family, will now have to have an equal number of books for little kids showing same sex couples meeting and starting families. That thinking will have to permeate every reference to marriage and relationships, and this trend will appear in every aspect of life.
While Prager doesn’t say it in his article, on his show yesterday, he mentioned that this inevitable trend (which will be legally mandated on discrimination grounds) will create a rather unexpected fall-out, one that I’d already figured out on my own: parents who have previously encouraged their children not to be discriminatory against gays will, when faced with a society that is required to promote homosexuality equally with hetereosexuality, begin preaching against homosexual behavior in the home.
Many of these parents will be like me: They will recognize that a small percentage of people are homosexual out of the box. However, they will also know that, as in ancient Greece where popular culture encouraged homosexual relationships for pleasure and heterosexual relationships solely for procreation, people in the great middle can have their sexuality manipulated.
Lastly, these parents will know that, while there are gays and lesbians live the same stolid (and solid) middle class life that I do (which is what I want for my children), a large number — especially men — enjoy the promiscuity that comes from (a) no worries about pregnancy and (b) dealing with sexual partners who match them testosterone for testosterone. Sadly, the evidence shows that, with this type of promiscuity, you also get rampant diseases and statistically increased substance abuse and domestic violence.
I actually don’t need studies to know about these problems. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and, until I switched from urban life to suburban domesticity, had many gay friends — and these were people whom I valued greatly and whose friendships I cherished. Nevertheless, even then I saw them going down a life trajectory antithetical to what I hoped for myself — one of unbridled, although often classy and beautiful, hedonism. And so many of them died of AIDS. It wasn’t AIDS they got at the dentist or from a blood transfusion or from one unlucky coupling. It was AIDS they got at the orgies they used to boast about attending. Only two men I know who were monogamous got AIDS and, in both cases, it was because their partners were incredibly promiscuous — something my friends knew about and tolerated.
Without passing any judgment on homosexuality itself, this is not the lifestyle I want for my children. Therefore, if the state is promoting homosexuality because it is required to do so, it’s my responsibility as a parent to push back, not because I don’t like gays, but because I fear the consequences of a lifestyle that has too many negative consequences for my children.
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “A weird little potential backlash from the Calif. Sup. Ct. ruling”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is someone who writes a column who is under pressure - and I’m sorry, I don’t remember who or where I saw it - due to the fact that she wrote about the increased health risks of homosexual behavior. She finds it incomprehensible that there can be such a campaign against smoking and none against homosexual behavior, when homosexual behavior statistically shortens the life span of those who practice such behavior significantly more than smoking does. Her position is that without being morally judgmental at all, there should be health warnings along with any educational information that is discussed.
“One of the points he makes is that, in the future, to avoid charges of discrimination, homosexual relationships will have to be promoted equally with heterosexual relationships.”
This is one of the saddest effects of our convoluted and snarled legal system. There is absolutely no SANE justification for these kinds of “equal time” lawsuits and pressure. Most people in every single state in this nation are against gay marriage. If they are confronted by these kinds of quota arguments - equal time, equal representation arguments - the backlash will be severe.
I cannot believe that the far-left gay activists would want to make a small point only to lose the kindness and tolerance of their supporters. Blacks made the same terrible, monstrous mistake with forced busing in the early 70s. They lost so much support among people when they began shipping the children miles and hours from home just to satisfy a near-meaningless social agenda.
Lawsuits and pressure for “equal time/quota/equal representation” would be a similar monstrous mistake. I can’t believe they’d be that STUPID, but then again, they ARE far-left liberals, aren’t they?
Equal protection under the law does not equate to an equal number of minutes of promotion in health class. I thought health classes are supposed to be about health education rather than promoting a particular view of homosexuality–something properly done by parents at home. This is a total red herring argument designed to scare people into denying homosexuals the same rights that the Constitution requires.
Smoking is not a good analogy because no one is born a smoker. It is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality does not appear to be exclusively a choice. Bookworm is correct that a certain amount of experimentation goes on, but there is also real evidence that a minority (10%?) of the population has real morphological differences in the brain that appear to be correlated with homosexual preferences. I can’t wait for this science to develop further to finally silence the bigots and reveal their thinking as perfectly analogous to opposition to the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Because their status is not one of choice, homosexual individuals should not be denied the ability to bequeath property, to adopt children, to enjoy tax benefits or any other rights enjoyed by heterosexual people in the civil union of marriage.
And both homosexual and heterosexual people can be held equally accountable for their choices, from smoking to promiscuous sex. With all due respect, Bookworm, I believe you kind of are passing judgment by equating promiscuous sex with homosexuality, which are totally different things. Recognizing that men tend toward more promiscuity than women, there nonetheless are many heterosexual men who have passed AIDS to women. Moreover, you may not want that lifestyle for your child, but that is beside the point. If it turns out your child is born gay, do you want him or her to live legally as a second-class citizen on account of a genetically derived orientation and breathtaking ignorance on the part of his or her fellow citizens?
“Equal protection under the law does not equate to an equal number of minutes of promotion in health class.”
In theory, no, echeccone but in fact, as we know from Title IX, schools treat these equality dictates as quota issues. In the area of college sports, the powers that be have mandated that men and women must get precisely the same funding. Since women are less interested in sports than men are, the colleges have responded by cutting the men’s sport programs to maintain parity. One can readily imagine that precisely the same thing will happen here — especially if, as Prager predicts (and, correctly, I think), that any gay rights groups will demand that any mention of heterosexual relationships be offset by mention of homosexual relationships, so as not to discriminate.
And it’s not a second class citizenship thing not to be married. The state encourages marriage to establish families. That straights who do not have children marry anyway is just something they do. The state’s interest is in families.
Ah. Gotta go. Kids.
So now the minimal government conservative is in favor of a nanny state when it promotes her lifestyle… Being single puts one at a tax disadvantage, which is also highly unjustifiable. And being a gay couple, puts you at an even greater disadvantage for all sorts of legal protections and rights. The state’s interest is in protecting individuals first and foremost, regardless of those attributes that they cannot choose (e.g., the religion they are born into, the sex they are born with, the color of the skin their parents gave them). The canard about promoting families is a weak one, since nobody is choosing a straight lifestyle with kids over a gay one without because of this utilitarian violation of equal protection clause. Besides, who says that gay couples cannot adopt kids, thereby satisfying what you believe to be a legitimate state interest and means of pursuing it? Is it because you think that gays should not be allowed to adopt as well? And I thought that you were not prejudiced against gay people when you said that a lot of your friends are gay…
As an aside, the reason for Title IX is that there were similar numbers of boys and girls at school but boys were getting 90 percent of the funds. If homosexuals are a small minority then they cannot expect to receive equal time and I doubt they would demand it. Jewish students in public schools have asked for a little money to be spent on a separate kosher toaster, which gentiles have allowed without handwringing over whether they’ll next demand that every dollar spent on non-kosher cookware is matched with kosher equivalents. Why it’d be different for gays is a mystery to me. Anyway, as a conservative you should be against quotas, but now you are using them as a defense. Where is the logical consistency in your arguments?
I’ve had enough, and indeed more than enough, of such inanities as are sprouted by people like echeccone. Let me point out some facts to you, buddy, about ’second-class citizens’.
1. There is a constant, universal OVERT preference for the first-class citizen. For instance, in a job that can be done equally well, the first-class citizen will be chosen SOLELY because of his status (whether birthright, or skin colour, or religion). Not just in ONE field, but in almost every field; especially in the area of government.
2. First-class citizens get government support; perhaps entrance quotas, discounts on real estate, tax exemptions and/or rebates not available to second-class citizens, SOLELY based on their status.
3. There will be a consistent and DEFENDED policy that prohibits second-class citizens from reaching the apex of political power, or military power. In certain cases, even economic power.
4. There will be put in place many, many policies; some subtle, but others so bloody blatant it’s hard to believe, that reinforce in people’s minds the qualitative difference between the FIRST class and the SECOND class.
There are a lot more I could go on about this, but just look up the term ‘dhimmi’ and you’ll get an idea. Or, in fact, at stratified societies like India and the caste system, or the Estates of feudal eras.
But here’s another thing. Without exception not one, such class-delineated societies do not look kindly on the uppity second-class folk as a whole trying to break out, and violence erupts between the classes. Look at what happened in India when the ‘untouchables’ wanted to convert wholesale to something else OTHER than Hinduism. Without exception, violence and revolution - or the threat thereof. Except perhaps Christian Rome, and I’m not so sure myself.
Contrast this with the GLBT lobby, which is as powerful a lobby as any other, granted ridiculous leeway by the MSM, who have succeeded in pushing their agenda into the public arena. Second class my backside!
I could not care less about the causes of homosexual tendencies (and I was going to get vulgar, but this isn’t my blog). If genetic, they represent aberrations. If environmental, they can be chosen against or mitigated. You don’t hear haemophiliacs agitating for their *right* to bleed till they die. Or kleptomaniacs forcing the government to recognise their thieving ways are just as good as any other person’s.
I am sick and tired of this nonsense. At MOST, hardcore homosexuals make up 1-3% of the WHOLE BLOODY POPULATION, and much less elsewhere, if only because they get strung up on the gallows.
But I dunno why I even bother. I’m not gonna convince anyone who’s not prepared to listen.
PS: Full Disclosure. I am currently (and have been all my life) celibate; not chaste, but celibate. By choice. But my preferences sexually can be described as omni. There are always options and choices. It’s just that SOME people don’t LIKE the choices. But a choice between broccoli and spinach remains a choice. Even if you’d like a medium rare Kobe steak instead.
>>I’ve had enough, and indeed more than enough, of such inanities as are sprouted by people like echeccone.>>
You mean you read his stuff?
As I said, I cannot wait for medical science to displace the unsupported speculations on what constitutes homosexuality and how many there really are–lest we have to rely on gkong3’s “facts.” BTW, I’m not sure what country you’re describing (perhaps you just finished Brave New World or something) but responsible people actually reference real laws and constitutional rights when talking about what governmental support or political power accrues to which citizens. Also, I’m happy about your lifestyle choice. TMI, but I’m happy if you’re happy…
suek: Yeah. Yeah, I read his stuff. With the exception of LGF (which has something on the order of 1000++++ comments per post, I read every comment on every blog that catches my eye.
echeccone: Why rely on my facts? Even if there were as many as 10% of the world population were homosexually inclined the Romans had a beautiful word to describe it. It’s called ‘decimation’. Which is what will happen without the necessary technological and legal support to have somebody else’s children considered yours.
What country am I describing? Well. Let’s start with…
Indonesia
Malaysia
India
Pakistan
Iran
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Australia during the ‘White Australia’ days
Japan (yes, Japan. If you want to be a citizen in Japan, you need to adopt Japanese *everything*)
England before Magna Carta (and indeed, all the way through to the 17th century and then some)
The great ol’ US of A, specifically with regards to Chinese people in the 19th century (’No dogs or Chinese allowed’ ring a bell, chum?)
South Africa under apartheid
Are these real enough to you, buddy? Don’t talk to me about second class citizenship until you’ve seen, or at least read, what it *really* means. Then come back and say that gays not being allowed to marry is the *exact same thing*.
Aah, I’m wasting my breath here. I might as well go back to work.
So even though the US Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone equally, I guess homosexuals should tolerate unequal treatment until they feel like they are living in South Africa under apartheid. If that’s what you believe, then you should go live in one of those countries on your list. This is America, and here we have laws that don’t require the standard you propose before seeking justice. BTW, the etymology of decimate has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is from the latin decimare: “the removal or destruction of one-tenth,” from decem “ten.” Killing one in ten, chosen by lots, from a rebellious city or a mutinous army was a common punishment in classical times. This has nothing to do with the inability of homosexuals to procreate, which I think is what you were going for in your post.
>>So even though the US Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone equally, I guess homosexuals should tolerate unequal treatment>>
Please list specific examples of unequal treatment that you feel homosexuals need changed in order to have legal protection.
Civil marriage is a very important right in this country. A spouse has the right to visitation in case of serious hospitalization, the right to speak for the other when one is incapacitated and the right to inherit property. Couples can file joint tax returns, have family medical insurance, and if the couple should decide to divorce, can have legal mediation between the two parties. Also, homosexuals are denied the right to adopt children and raise them as their own. All these rights are denied to homosexual couples because many people cannot separate their personal moral views from what is clearly required by the Constitution. Whether you approve of their lifestyle or not, the homosexual people of this country are citizens of this country and are required to have all the legal rights endowed to the rest of us, based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Even if you and I both hope that our children never discover that they are homosexual, we both would like to know that the Constitution considers them equal in the eye of the law. This issue is pretty cut-and-dried; it’s not a question of what one “feels” but what the law says. Or maybe suek wants to rewrite the Constitution to only afford full civil rights to those people who think and act similarly.
a)A spouse has the right to visitation in case of serious hospitalization,
b) right to speak for the other when one is incapacitated
c)the right to inherit property.
Homosexuals already can have these “rights” - though I’d disagree that they are “rights”. They are, instead, contractual agreements.
d)Couples can file joint tax returns,
True. Society has granted certain privileges to specific groups in order to encourage activities it considers conducive to the betterment of that society. This is not a constitutional privilege, though. Whether this is a benefit or not is probably not relevant to the principle, but if both adults in the family are working, a joint return will result in higher taxes, so I doubt that’s much of a benefit - but hey! If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it!
e)family medical insurance
As opposed to each having individual insurance? This is a right?
f)if the couple should decide to divorce, can have legal mediation between the two parties.
If the “couple” doesn’t get legally married in the first place, the issue is moot. In any case, anybody can hire a lawyer for legal mediation. Write it into the original contract.
g)homosexuals are denied the right to adopt children and raise them as their own.
No one has the “right” to adopt children - and shouldn’t. It is society’s obligation to provide - to it’s best ability - parenting that best fits the needs of the child, should a child not have natural parents that can take care of him or her. At this time, to the best of psychology’s knowledge and experience, that means a two parent home with a male and a female parent. Until that changes, homosexuals will have to go get their own just as most heterosexual couples do.
h)All these rights are denied to homosexual couples because many people cannot separate their personal moral views from what is clearly required by the Constitution.
None of these are “rights”. They’re “wants”. It’s clear you don’t understand “equal protection under the law”…you want to _make_ laws that fit your “wants”.
i) Whether you approve of their lifestyle or not, the homosexual people of this country are citizens of this country and are required to have all the legal rights endowed to the rest of us, based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
j)Even if you and I both hope that our children never discover that they are homosexual, we both would like to know that the Constitution considers them equal in the eye of the law. This issue is pretty cut-and-dried; it’s not a question of what one “feels” but what the law says.
What you want is special privilege - exceptions from the law. Your problem is that the law _doesn’t_ say what you want it to say, so you want the judges to rule in favor of the laws that this society won’t make.
k)Or maybe suek wants to rewrite the Constitution to only afford full civil rights to those people who think and act similarly.
Well…to a certain extent, that _is_ the meaning of democracy.
suek, I would direct you to Bookworm’s newer post entitled “Marriage is not an individual right” for an explanation on how the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, including providing for the rights listed above. Moreover, you should better inform yourself on whether homosexuals in fact enjoy some of the rights you claim they do. There was a famous case a while ago involving a lesbian woman mauled to death by a Doberman in SF, whose partner face difficulty with visitation rights and was unable to inherit property (which went to the state) even though had they been a heterosexual couple–because they’d been together for more than 7 years–the partner would have inherited the estate in full. And this occurred in liberal San Francisco…
>>for an explanation >>
More correctly, for _your_ explanation.
>>There was a famous case a while ago involving a lesbian woman mauled to death by a Doberman in SF, whose partner face difficulty with visitation rights and was unable to inherit property (which went to the state) even though had they been a heterosexual couple–because they’d been together for more than 7 years–the partner would have inherited the estate in full.>>
I’m familiar with the incident. Not the specifics you mention, but the incident generally.
Ok…so if they had been a heterosexual couple, they’d have what is called a common law marriage. My guess is that with no legal determination, visitation rights might still have been a problem, and heritable property would have been challengeable if there were other potential heirs - even if they had been heterosexual. But giving you that you’re absolutely correct, didn’t they know this? why hadn’t they written up wills? requests for hospital visitation rights? In other words, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not doing what needs to be done and then using negligence as a rationale for demanding rights that don’t exist is hardly calculated to win friends and influence people.
The problem homosexuals have is that they are attempting to force on society an acceptance of their lifestyle as “normal”. They are attempting to do this not through persuasion, but through the courts. If they were willing to be patient and use persuasion, the time would probably come when it would be passed through legislation. Using the courts system to force the decision is likely to do more to antagonize than win sympathy. Sufficient antagonism against the courts could have a long term very bad result, I think.
suek, the point is that a heterosexual couple without wills would not have had a problem but they did. The arguments about forcing acceptance and being patient were the same arguments that segregationists made in the South about integration, mixed marriage, etc. And what exactly are they forcing you to do? They are not asking for a tax transfer from your pocket or even a minute of your time. Their ability to be treated in exactly the same way as a married couple would be no skin off your nose, other than the knowledge that a couple whose behavior you disapprove of was not treated dissimilarly. What you are demanding is that they suffer more dire consequences because you don’t like their behavior. This is whey I could never be a Republican: freedom only applies to behavior you approve of, with the rest being empty rhetoric not fit for a bumper sticker.
>>What you are demanding is that they suffer more dire consequences because you don’t like their behavior.>>
No, I object to their effort to remake the language.
Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. If gays were honest about it, and if they truly wanted only the benefits you mention, they’d recognize that a “civil union” would satisfy that requirement. However, they have indicated that the “civil union” is _not_ satisfactory, even if all of the legal points you raise are covered by that contractual designation. Therefore, I conclude that they want something _more_ than the legal rights you’ve raised as the crux of their position. And what is that? It seems to me that the critical point to homosexual demands is that they want to be recognized as “the same”. “normal”. “acceptable” in polite society. Shame they can’t be more honest, and it’s a shame that they can’t accept themselves for what they are and have to try to take on the coloration of what they seem to want to be.
>>freedom only applies to behavior you approve of>>
Bogus. No one is attempting to deny them the rights of living their lives as they see fit with whom they see fit. What is being denied is the right to claim benefits to which they are not entitled. It’s _almost_ all about money. Not 100%, but about 90%.
echeccone: I presume you are homosexual, and indeed serious and not a troll. Please let me know if my presumptions are incorrect.
1. Where did you think I’m commenting from, buddy? Little Rock, Arkansas? Or maybe Toledo, Ohio? Try Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I took exception to your whining about being second-class citizens because I am</em a second-class citizen, raca! Not that we don’t manage, because our second-classness is not as bad as outright apartheid. Homosexuals are most certainly not - at least, in the Western world.
2. Unequal treatment. Constitution applies to everyone equally. OK, let me ask you a question. Suppose gays can now marry each other. Does that mean that straight males or females cannot marry each other? Isn’t that now an inequality?
And here’s another question. Suppose now you move to, oh, say, Malaysia. Where your marriage will NOT and NEVER WILL BE recognised. What now? Are you going to agitate for it?
I’m asking seriously, because monogamous, normal marriages by and large are recognised worldwide, with attendant privileges and whatnot. Homosexual marriages and polygamous ones are NOT. At best, you can only agitate for it in one or more states, and probably not even nation-wide.
You know what? Forget it. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. I got better things to do with my life.
EC’s speaking like all aristocrats do to commoners. Much talk and action, not much results good for the commoners.