"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Thoughts on California's Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is an attempt to change the California Constitution so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman only. That would invalidate an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage between same sex couples.

The people who want Proposition 8 to pass are, basically, people who call themselves Christians. They see marriage from a (limited) Biblical point of view as only between a man and a woman. (I discuss why Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible in my article, "Diametrically Opposed," two posts below.)

Contrary to the generally held Christian viewpoint, that homosexuality is a choice, I believe, due to the literature that I have read on the subject and from talking to homosexuals that I have known, that homosexuality is not a choice. And, from the historical record going back at least two or three thousand years, homosexuality is not new.

But what is the purpose of marriage? Why must it be sanctioned by the "state"? And, will allowing homosexual marriages to be legally binding negatively affect people who are opposed to it, for whatever reason?

Taking that last question first, I would have to say that the answer is, more likely than not, yes. There are always unseen consequences to actions and laws. If a church or private school, among other scenarios, will not teach or recognize same sex marriages, they could be sued for civil rights violations.

America, if nothing else, is a sue-happy nation. We have 5% of the world's population and 75% of the lawyers . . . who will quite happily attempt to prove a legal wrong has taken place in order to take money from one person's pocket and line their own.

What is the purpose of marriage? Originally, it was to unite familes and strengthen bonds between clans, tribes, or nations; to produce bloodlines for inheritance purposes; and to tell the community and the world at large that a certain man was the owner and protector of both his wife and children, as well as being responsible for them and their actions. (Well, that's the short and practical version. It's really a bit more complicated than that.) Homosexuality had nothing to do with it as no children could be born out of a same sex marriage, and children were crucial to the original purposes of marriage.

As for marriages being "legalized" by the "state", that only came into being in the late modern times. Now with social security, insurance benefits, and others modern complications to our financial lives, marriage licenses are needed to prove eligibility for various financial benefits and rewards.

Therefore, I can only surmise that the only reason that the homosexual community wants to have their marriages legally recognized is for financial purposes. If that isn't the case, then there is no reason why a same sex couple couldn't have a private marriage ceremony, with friends and family in attendance to witness their vows and intentions.

The proponents of Proposition 8 say that same sex couples have the option of civil unions that would protect them in the areas I mentioned above. I haven't researched that but, if true, then I am on the side of the Proposition 8 proponents, because the law of unintended consequences will cause many prolems for them in the future.

If that is not true, if civil unions don't give the same or equal benefits to same sex couples, then that should be remedied, legally. A homosexual couple can love each other just as much and be devoted to each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple. They are, after all, humans too.

No comments: