ShareThisIn California, voters are preparing to decide the fate of Proposition 8, a measure that would knock down the California Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling from earlier this year that homosexuals have a right to marriage. Observers are waiting to see if a similar backlash develops in Connecticut, where that state's supreme court handed down a similar decision this month.Are these cases of judicial activism gone awry? Do gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as their heterosexual neighbors? And how will gay marriage change America? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, jump into the fray.JOEL MATHISThe expansion of marriage rights to homosexual couples might be the best news in America right now.During times of turbulence, the ability to take refuge in family, to rely on partners -- and to be legally entitled to do so -- becomes even more important. Gay marriage, far from being a destabilizing force, may well provide a much-needed extra layer of security to thousands of American families during this time of deepening economic woe. That's a development that conservatives and liberals alike should celebrate.Some critics will continue to complain about "judicial activism." But if marriage is a right -- and it is -- then no legislature or referendum should be able to deny it to any committed, loving couple in a consensual adult relationship. It's proper that courts uphold that right for everybody.That's not to say that everybody has to love gay marriage, nor that churches should be required to recognize relationships they regard as sinful. But your neighbor's gay marriage should have absolutely no impact on your own.Social conservatives warn that the expansion of marriage rights will cause social instability. That will be true only if conservatives, in their huffiness, turn their prediction into a self-fulfilling prophecy.BEN BOYCHUKThe push for same-sex marriage has little to do with tolerance or equal rights or vanquishing discrimination. Few people believe gays and lesbians deserve anything less than to live as they please. But the courts and politicians are well beyond live-and-let-live, and have set about imposing a worldview on Americans that most people would rather do without.A commercial by the Prop. 8 campaign in California captures the arrogance of the pro-gay marriage side brilliantly. The ad features San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom at a rally following the state Supreme Court's landmark decision in May: "The door's wide open now," Newsom gloats. "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not."But redefining marriage will have unintended consequences, including consequences some of the more starry-eyed proponents of gay marriage won't like.Consider what California has already done. As the Associated Press reported earlier this month, the words "bride" and "groom" will reappear on marriage license applications issued in California starting next month. The health department bureaucrats in June issued new gender-neutral marriage forms with the words "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be. The change was too much, too soon.Funny how dehumanizing "equality" can be.Gay marriage says that the natural family is dispensable. It isn't. Fundamentally redefining ancient institutions means destroying old norms. Take fathers out of the picture, or mothers, or say simply that any two parents will do, and that will undermine society. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again. Whether you like it or not.(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://politics.pwblogs.com.)(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)
What's the future of marriage in America?
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 16:25
Paying taxes unites us. It also divides us. People can pay five and even six times more in state and local taxes than other folks in similar circumstances making similar incomes.
Who's got your number?
In one of the fastest-growing forms of identity theft, crooks are stealing tax refunds by swiping personal information and using it to trick the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Boychuk, You would
Mr. Boychuk,
You would convince me more if you wouldn't make such unsupported generalities and expect me to accept them. You claim that at out-of-context quote by Mayor Newsom somehow represents the gay rights movements, and then you calmly discuss the possibility of stripping away constitutional rights and essential protections from gay people when the only reason you can give for doing so is that doing so will involve the government in an attempt to reform society drastically so that everything in it is to some conservative's liking. You then finish with the same words that you condemned from Mayor Newsom. Mr. Boychuk, how are you not a hypocrite?
Mr. Mathis offered compelling arguments for voting against Prop. 8, while you failed to show any compelling arguments for Prop. 8. I was an undecided voter, but you, Mr. Boychuk, have convinced me that it's my duty as a thinking American and prayerful Christian to vote against this deceitful amendment which dares to use the message of family values as a mask for individous discrimination.
Ben, I followed your arguments until...
"Gay marriage says that the natural family is dispensable."
No. Gay marriage says that basing the family unit on a heterosexual relationship is not for everybody. That is all it says. Just because a committed couple can't produce children on their own without outside help doesn't make them any less of a family, and poses no threat to those couples who (at least theoretically) can.
Also, "fathers" and "mothers" are descriptions of relationships, not biological sex. Problems arising when a 'father' or 'mother' is taken out of the equation isn't so much a problem of one-half of prescribed parenting not taking place, but of one parent being left alone to manage on his or her own -- a dearth of resources, of support, rather than of specific skills or disciplines that only a man or only a woman could supposedly bring to a situation. Partners in a homosexual couple are just as able to bring up a child in a healthy, well-adjusted fashion as a heterosexual couple, even to fill the traditional roles of 'father' and 'mother', if they so choose.
I do agree that the corrected wording on marriage licenses and paperwork using "Party A" and "Party B" are not as emotionally or even as connotationally laden as "bride" and "groom". Indeed, the terms 'bride' and 'groom' might not leave out homosexual couples, if the individuals themselves identify with the terms 'bride' and 'groom'. However, the importance of such nomenclature on a legal document, in that the choice of terms has no direct bearing on the effects of the agreement that both parties are agreeing to, is lesser than the importance of ensuring that adult human beings, living under the same conditions as other adult human beings, enjoy the same rights and privileges, regardless of whether or not they are biologically able to produce children without outside assistance.
Gay Marriage
Oh the hypocrisy! Since the 50%+ divorce rate of all straight married couples has already corrupted (and still threatens) marriage, it's logical to assume gays would appreciate being married more than straights. And that in itself would improve the divorce rates and help repair the institution of marriage.