We Were Not Asked to Amend the Dictionary

I try to understand the Proposition 8 supporters, I really do. I have read hundreds of blog postings and comments and letters to the editors, and nope, I still don't get it. The recent claims that somehow folks who are pointing out that Prop 8 was all about bigotry and hate is somehow hateful and bigoted still makes me choke on my tea.

Here is my summary of the arguments in favour of this horrid example of the tyranny of the majority:

"It isn't about civil rights; it is about the definition of the word 'marriage'."
The folks who make this claim often follow this with statements about how they support civil unions and giving gays all the same rights and privileges of marriage, but they just don't want the word 'marriage' applied to it.
Response: We were voting on an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, not an amendment to Webster's Dictionary. The constitution does not concern itself definitions of words that have no impact on the law. Words such as 'marriage' and 'spouse' and 'parent' are scattered about in many places in the legal code. If you really believe that legally redefining the word 'marriage' has no impact on actual rights of actual people, let's try a little thought experiment, shall we? Let's imagine that the vote was to define 'marriage' to only apply to a pair of Zoroastrians. If it is just a word, then why are you so exercised about it?

"Gay rights aren't about civil rights."
For some reason, some blacks get really hot under the collar about any other group talking about wanting equal rights before the law as "civil rights". It isn't a rational reaction, so there's not really a rational counter-argument. There is nothing in the term "civil rights" that says "black rights" and nothing that says it only pertains to sad treatment of black people in this country. There is also the sense, in some circles, that somehow gays "choose" their "lifestyle" so their quest for equality before the law somehow doesn't count. I have never met a gay person who felt it was a choice. In fact, I never met anyone who felt that who they fell in love with was a "choice". You love who you love.

"Radical judges overturned the will of the people."
Our constitutional system was designed precisely to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. It is the job of judges to ensure the law and rights are applied equally to all. If a simple majority can vote to take away rights from one unpopular minority, why not another? Would it be OK to pass a majority vote to forbid atheists from voting? No. Equal protection under the law means equal protection under the law.

"We're just trying to protect traditional marriage."
The folks who make this claim seem to have a very limited view of tradition. Whose tradition did you have in mind? There seems to be quite a tradition of multiple wives, historically and cross-culturally. There is also a fine old tradition of marrying girls barely out of puberty. No, not that one? Saying "the Christian" tradition, doesn't help there. King David? Jacob, Leah, and Rachel? But even if you accept the premise that a marriage between two adults, one of each sex, as traditional: just exactly how does outlawing other people's marriages "protect" such an institution? If marriage is truly such a foundational social and economic building block of our society, we ought to be encouraging gay marriages.

"Churches would be forced to marry homosexuals."
What a stupid idea. Are Catholic churches forced to marry Moslems? No. Why on earth would any rational being suppose that suddenly the state would force rules on the religious rituals performed by churches? Even if someone were to suggest such a thing (and why would they?), it would be such an obvious violation of the US Constitution that it would be shot down instantly (by those 'activist judges').

"Homosexuality is against God's will."
There are, of course, a lot of hidden assumptions and unwarranted conclusions buried in here. Which God did you have in mind? Zeus doesn't seem to have a lot of problems with it. How do you know it is against God's will? Well, OK, Leviticus says it is an abomination and unclean for a man to lie with a man (so...lesbian marriage is OK, right?). But here's the thing: Leviticus says a lot of things about what is unclean: shellfish, bugs (except great locusts), a woman who has just had a baby, skin diseases of certain sorts. (Oh, and here's a laugh: Jacob's marriage -- right out, they're sisters.) It says many things about what is forbidden: eating fruit from a tree planted less than three years ago, eating blood-rare steak, holding a seance. So where is the proposition banning those? Where are the pickets against Red Lobster and the Outback? It also says you shall not oppress your neighbour, but instead love him. So... that part of the Bible, not so important for you? And just because something is written in the Bible, how do you know that makes it God's will? Because the Bible says so? That doesn't even count as an argument, never mind a convincing one. But even if I set aside those objections, the fundamental problem remains: the California Constitution is not a religious tract, California is not a theocracy, and your religious doctrines have no business being enshrined in our law. We are not all Christians here. Making a religious argument for a legal question is a category error. You don't want to marry gays in your church? OK. Done. That has nothing to do with what the law should say.

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
This is bumper sticker, not an argument. If I hadn't seen it repeated so often, I'd dismiss it out of hand, it is that dumb. But, let's go through it. (1) California is not a theocracy, much less a Christian theocracy. (2) Even if it were, the fact that the first people were a man and a woman has no bearing on the question of marriage. One could just as well say "It's Adam, not Eve" and use that to somehow claim that we should exterminate all women in the world. (3) The Bible isn't exactly clear on the Adam and Eve thing, anyhow: how long were those Land of Nod folks around, anyhow? (4) The Bible is wrong. Sorry, I'm not going to sugarcoat this in politically correct "let's be especially nice to dumb ideas just because they are religious." So: incorrect on the facts, irrelevant to the question, and a category error.

"It's icky. It makes me uncomfortable."
Response: Grow up. Eating meat is icky to some people. Childbirth is icky. Making compost is icky. Your personal squeamishness is not a sound basis for public policy.

"What's the point? They can't have children."
This one just makes me angry. By this reasoning, all post-menopausal marriages should be outlawed, all post-vasectomy marriages should be outlawed, and probably all marriages involving contraception should be outlawed. And just because you can't see the point, what gives you the right to judge whether that couple has a reason to get married? There are plenty of reasons to want to get married, and children is just one of them. Reproductive plans of the married couple are none of your business and none of the state's business. But the fact is, gay couples can and do have children via adoption and artificial insemination. Forbidding those children's parents to be married just leaves them vulnerable. Yes: it harms children.

"It's harmful for children."
Well, given that the effect of the ban is harmful to the children of gay couples, I'd expect to see some really compelling evidence that the mere presence of gay marriages harms children by the folks making this claim. But there is none. Canada has had gay marriage for some years now, and there is no evidence anywhere that the children of Canada are suffering thereby. Tied up in this is a confusion between pedophilia and homosexuality, which have nothing to do with one another. You want to protect children from sexual abuse? Look in the mirror, Catholic church.

"Where will it all end? Next thing you know we'll have multiple wives and people marrying their pets!"
Whew. Finally finally something resembling an actual rational argument, although not, in fact, a very strong one. Slippery slope arguments always assume that there can be no rational reason to draw a boundary at all, once you decide against the current boundary. But in this case, it isn't so. There are rational reasons for disallowing polygamy: in practice it leads to coercive marriages involving young girls, maltreatment of young boys (aka rivals), and using additional marriages as a means to publish and control existing wives. There are rational reasons for disallowing "marriage" to pets: a non-sentient being cannot enter into a legal agreement willingly. Where these reasons differ from the reasons put forward for outlawing gay marriage is that they are civil arguments, not religious ones, and therefore actually have a valid place in the consideration of public policy.


All in all, Prop 8 was a scurrilous attack on not just civil rights but human rights, our constitutional principles, and families, and the arguments in favour of it are all absurd. I'm ashamed of my state, and I'm angry. There's a part of me that wants to go picket the Mormons and insist that if the Roman Catholic Church wants to inject its peculiar brand of bigotry into our Constitution then maybe its time to start paying some taxes in our state too. Fighting hate with hate is not a way forward, but the folks who are now saying that "the people have spoken" and "get over it" need to understand that when you vote to remove rights that people already have, the anger isn't going to go away. This is not just another defeat at the polls. I have some confidence that the California Supreme Court will do the right thing and recognize that a majority vote to remove fundamental human rights is an illegitimate act under our Constitution. We'll see.