In The News: Prop 8 Judge's Ruling

[rabid1st]

I was just reading through the ruling from the judge that overturned Prop 8 in California.

Here is a link if you want to read it yourself...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377082/Judge-Overturns-California-s-Proposition-8

But I was just sort of stunned by the idea of the proponents of Prop 8 making the following argument about marriage.

Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its
essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging
sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in
stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy
and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents
to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10. The
state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging
all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or
irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable
marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that
opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage.


I would bet you many of these supporters are out there saying they don't want any government involvement in their lives. They don't want the government interfering with things like health care or safety issues on oil wells. It is too much for the government to want to tax companies with off-shore accounts designed to avoid taxation (with the express purpose of using those collected taxes to fund health care for 9-11 first responders). No, that sort of government interference bothers them...but wanting to stop people from building a place of worship or have me married and pregnant by order of the the law...that's the type of government interference they are happy to support. It's not just that I hate their views on gay men and women. I hate this view of heterosexual couples and marriage, too.

Rae

Comments

[wickedgillie.livejournal.com]

The mind just boggles. Truly.

But thank God Prop 8 was overturned. I have a gay wedding to attend in California in the not-so-distant future.

[keswindhover.livejournal.com]

It's very medieval - although perhaps a slight improvement since you could be executed for adultery and burned alive for homosexuality in those dear old days.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Or stoned to death in Iran, if you committed one of those "crimes" today. And that would be after they married you off at 12 years old, before you had any idea who you were.

Rae

Kirsten

[(Anonymous)]

Could I just say... That suddenly I love you so much more right now.

[np-complete.livejournal.com]

I can "see" the argument that the state has an interest in its citizens growing up in stable families. And I can "see" an argument that marriage improves the chances of family stability, so it's in the state's best interest that citizens be conditioned to associate procreative sex with marriage. And I can further "see" an argument that the stakes are high enough that the state has an interest in all citizens associating all heterosexual sex with marriage, just to ensure that any that happens to be procreative occurs within marriage. Finally, I can "see" that the state might find it necessary to bribe its citizens by assigning certain benefits (automatic survivorship, tax breaks on inheritance, social security benefits and the ability to share employer-provided insurance) solely to married couples.

It's just that none of this explains why marriage needs to be restricted to heterosexual couples. Nor does it explain why a society that takes marriage and family as terribly seriously as the above argument requires, permits divorce.

And as Rae points out, it's awfully intrusive of "the state" in the first place. If a society is that prescriptive of domestic arrangements, and uses such a functional, ends-based method of evaluating them, one need hardly be surprised if it takes a similar evaluative interest in religion, education, and methods of child-rearing.