Monday, January 11, 2010

Beating the dead horse once again

This entry surely belong in the "beating a dead horse" category. I give it to you nonetheless.

Equality California called me the other day and asked me to come volunteer to make phone calls. I said yes and then chickened out. I really hate it when people call me out of the blue with a pitch, even when so many of the causes are worthy. How am I supposed to do that to others? To make up for my wussitude, I volunteered to go in tomorrow and do some clerical work. I hate just sitting here and not being able to follow the court case of Olson and Boies. Got to do something with this nervous energy. The Supreme Court has decided it would be a media circus and have shut down the cameras. Damn, damn, damn, I say. They may change their minds on Wednesday, but I'm not holding my breath.

In any case, I've been reading the reports of the case as they dribble out all day. The case made the lead news article on PBS News tonight and the front page of all the papers I've read. It should, of course. This is bigtime stuff.

But there is no new information. I've been round and round on the arguments so many times it feels like I'm in one of those "your call is very important to us" loops. Yes, yes. Heard it all a thousand times.

Never mind. All this is just throat clearing. I read this piece in a local paper and had to dash off a response.

Once again, to all y'all who find this been-there-done-that stuff, my apologies.

I just could let this one go by.

"Dude" writes:

I believe the defendants have a much stronger case. This is not a civil rights issue. Gays and lesbians have the same right under the law to marry as those with a hetero sexual preference. A gay man can marry a woman and a gay woman can marry a man. Just like a straight man can marry a woman or a straight woman can marry a man. It doesn't matter whether you are gay, straight, transgender, black, hispanic, white, asian... In this case, we all have the same right to marry under the law.

In our society, the fact is that nobody has the right to marry anybody they love. There have always been and continue to be certain restrictions on marriage. A thirty year old can't marry a fourteen year old no matter how much they love each other. A married man can't wed a single woman. Two women can't marry one man.

For the most part, the state needs to stay out of marriage but there are certain circumstances when it is forced to be involved. If the state has to be involved for legal reasons in the dissolution of marriage (e.g. when divorce courts determine child and property rights), it certainly has to be involved in the certifying of it. In those circumstances, it is necessary and common practice for the courts to decide what is the ideal circumstance under which the children should be raised. The precedent has overwhelmingly favored placing children in married homes. That is because there is a mountain of evidence that shows that boys and girls learn only certain things from men and certain things from women, all of which is important for their development.

I do sympathize with those individuals in same gender relationships, who have a strong love for each other, who wish to express their love by being married. However, I don't think they have a strong enough case to support their view that they have a right to get married just because they love that person.

I respond:

Not a civil rights issue? The California Supreme Court disagrees with you. So does the state’s Attorney General and countless others with a background in constitutional law.

Gays have the right to marry heterosexually? That’s like saying Muslims have the right to worship God in their own way as long as they pray to Jesus.

How do you see a parallel between two consenting adults marrying and an adult marrying a child? The issue is since two consenting adults have the right to marry heterosexually, two consenting adults should have the same right to marry homosexually. The only people who oppose this do so for religious reasons. The United States is, however, not a theocracy.

You do not have your facts right when you suggest gay people don’t provide the “ideal circumstance” for raising children. What an insult to the one-third of American lesbians with children! There is absolutely no correlation between one’s sexuality and one’s ability to nurture a child.

Children learn some things from men and other things from women, you say? Even if that were true, you would be missing the obvious fact that children live in society. If neither parent is good at math, or dancing, or argumentation, or cooking, it’s very likely a neighbor or an aunt or uncle may be helpful. We pick up information in all sorts of places.

You don’t think gay people have a case? Isn’t the question whether you have a case for taking away a right that the Supreme Court said was ours as citizens of California?

To the day when none of this needs to be said any longer...

No comments: