Thursday, May 15, 2008

CA: Constiutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

As we all know by now, the California Supreme Court has held that the state's Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage. This is, of course, excellent news, but according to the NYT, the the Republicans have already circled the wagons.

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden.

One thing we'll never understand is why social conservatives are against same-sex marriages, at least for any other reason save being bigoted against homosexuals.

Some argue that the idea "degrades the institution of marriage," or something similar, but couched in religious terms. But heterosexuals, with a good deal help from major religions, have already made that institution more or less of a joke, and, anyway, that whole argument presuppose that religious fundamentalists and social conservatives have a monopoly on what the definition of marriage is in the first place (and why would they)?

Even more preposterous is the related argument where people say, "Hey, I don't want my kids growing up in a world where gays can get married; it's like saying that society approves of homosexuality and my kid could get the wrong idea." People said the same thing about interracial marriage in the South; turns out, they had the wrong idea, that is, they were bigots/

Finally there's the whole argument that gay marriage would mean gays could adopt, which would be bad. This argument runs two ways: first, social conservatives argue, it makes it more likely that the parents will be abusive or otherwise undesirable. Not surprisingly, nothing backs up this assertion but bigotry; there is no credible evidence that homosexual couples are significantly better or worse at parenting than their heterosexual counterparts.

Second, the reasoning goes, it's more likely that the kids will become gay (which is presumed to be bad for some reason; personally we could care less if our kid was gay, straight, bi, whatever...). Again, total hogwash. Most scientists operate under the informed and researched belief that homosexual attraction is biologically determined, i.e., it's not contagious. Few intelligent people dispute this, and yet, it's a major talking point for those opposed to gay marriage.

In short, we don't see what the big deal is. No one is going to make *you* get a same-sex marriage. So, really, who cares?

3 comments:

puja said...

"Second, the reasoning goes, it's more likely that the kids will become gay (which is presumed to be bad for some reason; personally we could care less if our kid was gay, straight, bi, whatever...). Again, total hogwash. Most scientists operate under the informed and researched belief that homosexual attraction is biologically determined, i.e., it's not contagious. Few intelligent people dispute this, and yet, it's a major talking point for those opposed to gay marriage."

it's not biological, but people do act more "gay" in environments where being gay is accepted (see: any women's college). in that sense, if you are against homosexuality, it only follows that you oppose any measure that condones it in order to protect it from "spreading."

Rule 12 (f) said...

"But people do act more "gay" in environments where being gay is accepted"

Uh, if you mean that one is less likely to repress biological urges where that trait is socially accepted, sure. But, I don't think being around gay people makes one more likely to be gay if one wasn't already gay to begin with.

puja said...

can you not start sentences with "uh" - it's really condescending.