Why? Because Prop. 8 is not about hating gay people (for some people, at least). Aren't there legitimate cultural conservatives out there who are simply uncomfortable with a redefinition of marriage? Say what you will about the institution, but it has been around for thousands of years, so I think that whether or not it should be changed is a legitimate debate. Now, if Eckern is had said, "I think being gay is wrong, so I'm voting against Prop. 8," then any backlash would be for personal - not political - views. But while not constitutionally protected, I think everyone benefits from having all political views protected from personal backlash.
Aren't there legitimate cultural conservatives out there who are simply uncomfortable with a redefinition of marriage? Say what you will about the institution, but it has been around for thousands of years, so I think that whether or not it should be changed is a legitimate debate.
Now, if Eckern is had said, "I think being gay is wrong, so I'm voting against Prop. 8," then any backlash would be for personal - not political - views. But while not constitutionally protected, I think everyone benefits from having all political views protected from personal backlash.
Now, aside from the "it's not about what you are, it's about what you said" red herring, the thing I find compelling about the repsonse is that too many on the Prop8 side are saying that allowing gays to marry is a blow against all marriage, against the tradition of marriage, when it is anything but. The responder states that there are 3 potential aspects of marriage and each of them is not actually related to the other two but may or may not exist co-incidentally. This, to my mind, utterly demolishes the prop8 contention.
However, I appreciate I'm probably too close to it and too easily swayed by people being clever rather than intelligent, but can't hang around cos I'm out the door in a couple of mins and have to sign out. keep to the Fen Causeway
Similarly a 'civil' ceremony legitimises the relationship under a slightly more visible but still somewhat abstract civil authority.
More or less at the bottom of the scale of legitimisation is two people saying in public that they would like to stay together. It's not usually enough for two people to do this, because - as any authoritarian will tell you - people can't be trusted to stay out of trouble and keep their promises.
So the statement is meaningless socially unless legitimised by an external authority. (It won't feel meaningless personally, but if personal feelings were considered foundational, marriage wouldn't exist at all.)
So there really is only one kind of marriage - a public ceremony where a totemic authority approves the union. The only apparent difference is that different sub-communities choose to respect different authority totems.
By removing the possibility for formal approval, gay relationships are delegitimised. The implication is that gay relationships can't be serious, unlike 'real' straight marriages.
It doesn't need a round trip through any of the amendments to get to this - it's a very obvious and straightforward form of discrimination.
The notion that 'marriage has been around for thousands of years' is nonsense, of course. In practice, marriage has always meant different things in different cultures.
Also - why has hardly anyone pointed out the irony of a church which promotes polygamy complaining about 'the redefinition of marriage'?
In the Catholic wedding, the priest and congregation certainly thought that TheirGod had sanctioned the wedding and the couple. With all the joy in the room, I'm not certain that they would be wrong. I don't know if Italian law says that they have to have a civil ceremony before.
The civil authority wasn't too abstract, nor were the expectations during the ceremony in Cannes. Everyone knew what they were getting out of the package. They could have gotten a religious ceremony on top of that, but didn't.
The problem in California is that there is a discrimination issue that won't go away since the door is too open and there are too many precedents. The courts will again and again slap that way. The state sanctions and approves certain things, among them certain legal immunities, tax and estate privileges, and things like hospital visits, among others.
The problem, of course, is not just those silly Californians, but the federal law that inseminates insinuates the marriage rights of another state into all states.
I'm sure that someone pointed out that in previous centuries, when the Mormons were being slaughtered for being too 'other' that they had a MotivatedProcreationalPlan. But it hasn't been promoted for a long time. I don't know much about the religion, but most of them are pretty straight-laced. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
In the Catholic wedding, the priest and congregation certainly thought that TheirGod had sanctioned the wedding and the couple. With all the joy in the room, I'm not certain that they would be wrong.
That's totems for you. Would there have been any less joy among pagans or buddhists?
siegestate:
They could have gotten a religious ceremony on top of that, but didn't.
If you're not part of a sub-community, its rituals won't have any mojo for you and you're unlikely to bother with them.
The difference with civil ceremonies is that there are legal and financial rights, expectations and privileges.
Anthropological nuance aside, denying those to a group is discriminatory.
Difficult not to concur, since I made the same point.
I also said the same, minus the smear on AnthropologicalNuanceTM. I don't feel like dragging this out, but one must agree that there is more to life than legal and financial rights, expectations and privileges. I can't think of any, but certainly there must be something. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
