This is one of those really, really interesting Aries Point kind of weeks. This article is from Truthout.
“Marriage has a special meaning,” Zarillo said, according to a live blog of the trial. “That’s why we’re here today: to share the joy and happiness my parents felt, my brother felt, my neighbors felt when they married.”
Both men described how they felt discriminated against by Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed in November 2008 that defines marriage in the California Constitution as a union between a man and a woman. Civil rights groups and gay rights activists immediately challenged the measure, calling it unconstitutional and discriminatory. Defenders argue that Proposition 8 is the will of California’s voters, who passed the measure with a 52 percent majority. In May 2009, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, on behalf of two same-sex couples, filed suit against the state of California regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
The suit itself has attracted increased attention because of the unconventional nature of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. Boies, a prominent Washington lawyer, who represented Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election against George W. Bush, teamed up with Theodore B. Olson, a stalwart of the conservative legal movement, who argued for Bush against Boies in the Supreme Court case that installed Bush as president – and won. Against this backdrop, Olson delivered the opening statement, and Boies followed with questioning of all four of the plaintiffs who brought the suit, focusing on their relationships, past instances of discrimination and the difference between domestic partnerships (legal under California law) and marriage.
“This isn’t a country about ‘us and them,'” Katami said. “My state is supposed to protect me, not discriminate against me.”
In cross-examination, the lead counsel for the defense, Charles J. Cooper, focused on the rights of heterosexual parents to protect their children from discussions of homosexual marriage. In his opening statement, Cooper also argued that same-sex couples could not satisfy a basic requirement of marriage.
“[The] basis of marriage is procreation,” he said. “It is a pro-child societal institution.”
When you consider the legally sanctioned distinction between civil marriage ceremonies performed by the state and religious wedding ceremonies, this shit has been going on for quite a long time.
What’s in the mix? A power struggle for turf that used to be exclusively the province of organised religion which has slowly been colonised by the advertising industry. It’s forced conformity. It’s the right to get tax breaks from the state.
But with all that in the mix, what is the real issue here? It seems so damned simple to let people love and marry whoever (and how many) they wish – why is it so complicated and so frowned upon?
The Australian government just banned same sex marriage here too last month and they are supposed to be a slightly left of centre administration!
It’s simply nuts.
Consider – two people need a license to marry but nobody needs one to procreate.
Consider – childless married couples are not forced to adopt (fulfilling the procreation requirement, kinda…) or to divorce after X number of years with no live issue.
Weak does not begin to describe the holes in the idea that marriage is intended to support human procreation when you consider that same-sex couples can do just that. Hurray for science.
FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE:
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : christian science
These people are some serious blow hards and I assure you, a vast percentage are closet cases.
And all same-sex parents aren’t pro-child? Just wondering…
[Snort.] Was exactly what I thought when I read this. The second thought was “Sigh. This again? Can’t they come up with something more creative?” (no pun intended)
“[The] basis of marriage is procreation,” he said. “It is a pro-child societal institution.”
If that’s the case, then all childless heterosexual marriages should be annulled.