Is Prop 8 Ethical?

[Beanieboy]

Prop 8 is to right into the California State constitution that marriage is defined by one man and one woman, thus, banning gays from marrying, which they can do now.

Is it just to have Majority Rule (the majority of constituents are heterosexual voting on the rights of the minority, and the minority vote will be far smaller) when the US Constitution specifically protects minorities' rights?

Is it just that Steve and Carol vote on whether Ernie and Bert's marriage should be voided, along with the rights included in marriage?

 

[Sycophant]

It's an interesting issue that often comes up with referendums - basically at what point is simple majority rule not enough? What if majority opinion is wrong?

It can easily be put in an historical context with segregation - it's often said that if a public poll had been taken, segregation would not have been ended. Instead it took some politicians to stand up for what they believed was actually right and just, despite what the prevailing majority opinion may have been.

This was very very similar with the introduction of Civil Unions in NZ (which are one of those separate but equal things - better than nothing, but not quite there). Some opinion polls showed the majority were opposed to Civil Unions, but the politicians chose to vote for what they believed was right, regardless.

Basically it boils down to the fact that a democracy isn't mob rule. The individuals have a voice, but not explicitly on every issue. Sometimes what's right isn't always what's popular.

An example the other way would be that if the US public were polled now, the majority would probably vote to end the Iraq war now. But that probably isn't the right thing to do.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I am thoroughly ashamed to be an American when in the year 2008 we are still fighting for basic human rights for a minority population. The people that are voting for this are nothing more than ignorant Neanderthals that unfortunately are the the majority in this country, thankfully at least in CA they are becoming less vocal and less prominent and I for one cannot wait until they go the way of the Dodo bird.

More chlorine in the gene pool is what the world needs.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No, not at all. What distinguishes democracy from vigilante justice is the basic rights that are not up for discussion and cannot be decided on by the majority.

Whoever proposed this proposition and whoever supports it are sworn enemies of freedom and everything liberal democracy stands for.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Prop 8 is to right into the California State constitution that marriage is defined by one man and one woman, thus, banning gays from marrying, which they can do now.

Is it just to have Majority Rule (the majority of constituents are heterosexual voting on the rights of the minority, and the minority vote will be far smaller) when the US Constitution specifically protects minorities' rights?

Is it just that Steve and Carol vote on whether Ernie and Bert's marriage should be voided, along with the rights included in marriage?

The altering of the definition of marriage is something to be opposed.

Prop 8 is therefore based on ethical behavior.

 

[Beanieboy]

Altering the definition to be able to include gay people does not cause any threat to straight marriages. Regardless of the income, they will still be able to marry the opposite sex. However, the results affect gay people, and possibly those who have already been legally married and are gay.

it's amazing to me the deceit to simply not admit that.

The reason that I ask if that is ethical is: does nullifying a gay marriage show how you are loving your neighbor? Does banning gay people who love each other and want to marry, while granting marriage only to yourself, a sign of loving your neighbor?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The altering of the definition of marriage is something to be opposed.

Prop 8 is therefore based on ethical behavior.

If you want to live in a country where personal 'definitions' decide civic matters, fine, move to Saudi Arabia. At least there'll be one less fascist nutjob at the polling station.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You will all note that PC-F failed to provide an actual, you know, REASON why you should want to oppose any change of the definition of marriage. But hey.

 

[Polycarp1]

You will all note that PC-F failed to provide an actual, you know, REASON why you should want to oppose any change of the definition of marriage. But hey.

On New Year's Eve, December 31, 1907, my (future) grandparents stood before the Presbyterian preaching elder they had been counseling with, and became the last couple in New York State to contract a legal marriage without a license. (The requirement that you must be duly licensed by the state to contract marriage went into effect at one minute after midnight, January 1, 1908.)

Clearly this change in the God-ordained institution of marriage, interposing the authority of the state to grant and withhold its consent, is one of those "changes in the definition of marriage" that one ought to oppose.

Although I do understand God's justice enough to know that no couple married in His eyes supports California Proposition 8. He did, after all, say by which standard he would judge, and they took that judgment on themselves in deciding to pronounce invalid the covenanted marriages of others.

 

[Beanieboy]

On New Year's Eve, December 31, 1907, my (future) grandparents stood before the Presbyterian preaching elder they had been counseling with, and became the last couple in New York State to contract a legal marriage without a license. (The requirement that you must be duly licensed by the state to contract marriage went into effect at one minute after midnight, January 1, 1908.)

Clearly this change in the God-ordained institution of marriage, interposing the authority of the state to grant and withhold its consent, is one of those "changes in the definition of marriage" that one ought to oppose.

Although I do understand God's justice enough to know that no couple married in His eyes supports California Proposition 8. He did, after all, say by which standard he would judge, and they took that judgment on themselves in deciding to pronounce invalid the covenanted marriages of others.

Again, if the Prop goes through, heterosexuals will still be able to marry, and Christians will still be able to marry someone of the opposite sex in their church.

If it is voted down, and the gay marriages survive the Prop, then heterosexuals will still be allowed to marry.

This only affects gays' right to marry, and those who are currently legally married in California and Massachusetts.

What is bearing false witness is to suggest that voting No on Prop 8 is voting against heterosexual marriage. That's like saying, allowing someone to worship as a Hindu legally is the same as being anti-Christian.

It simply isn't true.

Personally, I find it insulting, as a gay man, to have the majority, which are heterosexual, and have a 50% divorce rate, think that they have some kind of authority on the matter for others.

 

[Beanieboy]

I work with an American who married a Canadian. They have been married for about 2 years, and still very crazy about each other.

I can't imagine being them, and then being told, "Oh, you aren't recognized as married now." Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel about a community that tried to nullify your marriage to your spouse, simply because it didn't comply with their religion, their view or opinion? Would the US feel like a free country to you?

 

[Polycarp1]

Again, if the Prop goes through, heterosexuals will still be able to marry, and Christians will still be able to marry someone of the opposite sex in their church.

If it is voted down, and the gay marriages survive the Prop, then heterosexuals will still be allowed to marry.

This only affects gays' right to marry, and those who are currently legally married in California and Massachusetts.

What is bearing false witness is to suggest that voting No on Prop 8 is voting against heterosexual marriage. That's like saying, allowing someone to worship as a Hindu legally is the same as being anti-Christian.

It simply isn't true.

Personally, I find it insulting, as a gay man, to have the majority, which are heterosexual, and have a 50% divorce rate, think that they have some kind of authority on the matter for others.

I think you're mistaking my point. The law was changed 101 years ago in New York State -- it came close to impacting my grandparents (you could say it did, in that they were offended by the idea they needed a state license and decided to jump the gun on it instead of waiting until spring to marry). It's not like this is the first time ever that someone's written a law regarding who may or may not marry. (Note that the elder daughter of that marriage married her first cousin in their old age 70+ years later, which would be illegal in some places, again by man-passed laws.)

I am firmly convinced that the state should recognize the marriages of gay couples committed to each other, and that the "Yes-on-8" people in California have been demonstrating their own moral bankruptcy in the lengths they've gone to in opposing it: out-and-out lies, chicanery, recently attempts at blackmail, etc.

And I'm further convinced that God will abide by His own scriptural standards -- in this case Matthew 7:1-5, in making His judgments about who was in the right. If someone takes it on themselves to judge that another's marriage is not valid, guess what God's going to think of their own marriage? (There was, intriguingly, a bit of foreshadowing of this on a certain large Christian-oriented message board most of us are familiar with, where one very competent staff member was driven off staff in part because his spouse, who happened to have female body parts, suffered from gender dysphoria and he stood by his marriage vows, leading the busybodies of said large message board's self-appointed Inquisition to make all manner of unwarranted assumptions about them.)

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The altering of the definition of marriage is something to be opposed.

Prop 8 is therefore based on ethical behavior.

Marriage is two people that carte about each other plain and simple the fact that the church has hijacked it and tried to act as if it is theirs is not something to be applauded, it is time to take back a term that exhisted prior to the Christian church and tell them to shove it.