You've got to have a tough skin to be a politician. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger whose popularity has dropped almost 20 points since December. The reason: money, or rather, the lack of money in California's treasury. The state is anticipating a $15 billion budget gap. The governor's remedies involve borrowing, a tax increase, and cuts in health care, and are not sitting well with the public.
But today, the justices of the California Supreme Court may have unknowingly helped both the governor and the budget. They refused to stay their decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. This means that beginning June 17 th , counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses. So the weddings will begin and probably continue until at least November 4 th . That's when California voters will weigh in on an initiative that would again outlaw same-sex marriage in the state. If the amendment passes, it is unclear whether those June-to-November marriages would be nullified, a question that might get kicked back to the Supreme Court.
Matthew C. Scallon
June 09, 2008 at 12:21 AM
"There is more to government than a filthy pursestring." John Adams
Matthew C. Scallon
June 09, 2008 at 07:11 PM
Oh, Gloria, let's not forget the other "benefit" which "gay" marriage will bring to the state: "gay" divorces.
According to every sociological conducted on homosexual relationships (Columbia, Duke, DePaul, UCLA), homosexual relationships are less monogamous and --not surprisingly-- more prone to break-up than traditional marriage, bad though its state may be. Given the science, this means an increase in divorce attorney boomdoogles.
Look to ever decreasing property values from divorcing couples having to sell their homes to settle up property. Look to more of the custodial parents ending up on welfare when the non-custodial parent refuses to pay child support. Look to more broken homes and broken communities.
No doubt, those 4 state Supreme Court justices who overturned the will of 61% of California voters (including majorities in both Los Angeles County and San Francisco County) have figured out how all of us going to finance all of these divorces.
Cheers!
michael valentine
from spring Valley
June 10, 2008 at 06:30 AM
Gee Gloria, how about the moral issue of people in love making a commitment to be with one another only and the issue of legal rights for life partners.
In an age of deadly social diseases .... sexually monogamous relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual, are the first line of defense against STDs.
A far greater problem for the sanctity of marriages is no-fault divorce.
Gloria Penner
from KPBS
June 12, 2008 at 09:53 PM
I was indeed thinking about including the cost of divorce in my blog since 50% of marriages end in divorce, according to the conventional wisdom.
But that seemed like such a pessimistic tone to take as so many same sex couples prepare for their happy day. According to the County Clerk,
almost all slots for a civil marriage are filled for that first available day.
http://www.10news.com/news/16577838/detail.html
So, I decided to avoid the "d" word.
Gloria
Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 02:59 AM
@Gloria: "But that seemed like such a pessimistic tone to take as so many same sex couples prepare for their happy day."
So a pessimistic tone is bad but a crass economic justification is good. Okay. I now understand your thought process...
...but wish I hadn't.
Oh, BTW, would that gay couples only broke up 50% of the time. That would be an improvement, according to the studies I cited.
michael valentine
from spring Valley
June 13, 2008 at 03:50 AM
Gee Matt, don't you think that gay people have as much a right to be married and miserable as straight people? No, too many gay divorces? No not divorces, but relationship brake-ups?
Any study of gay and straight couples longevity would have to compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.
Having been in relationships in the past and a marriage, I have to tell you there is a substantial difference in the two. One is a convince the other is commitment.
Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 05:45 AM
@michael valentine, I know that Kinky Friedman joke, too. His timing, frankly, was better, but keep working on it.
You've made my point. Gay relationships can't be compared to straight relationships, and to call gay relationships "marriage" would be putting an apple on an orange tree.
What's the difference between the gay community's definition of marriage & a power of attorney? According to Scott Horsley's story on this issue, there is none. Since this is a Navy town, you'd think we'd know something about powers of attorney.
BTW, all of these economic benefits could just as easily attach themselves to signing ceremonies for powers of attorney as they could for marriages. As well, powers of attorney, unlike marriages, are easier and cheaper to rescind (this was enough to convince a lesbian friend of mine that marriage had its limitations). Finally, no one from my side of marriage debate ever objects to powers of attorney, resulting in a win-win scenario.
So, aside from some visceral desire for partisanship and a hatred of anyone who dare disagree with you, why does your side insist on gay "marriage" & won't consider powers of attorney instead?
Alma Sove
from San Diego
June 18, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Power of Attorney may protect several economically impacted decisions, including resolving end of life choices and hospice care. However, power of attorney wouldn't resolve several other legal areas.
For instance, immigration laws don't recognize a power of attorney exception. The fed. government only allows spouses and immediate family members to "marry into" the citizenship option. This one may signal a need to overhaul the federal immigration laws, but as it stands this is where it stands.
There are spousal privileges recognized in criminal law, notably where testimony can't be compelled against a spouse. Also, survivor's benefits, unemployment benefits from relocating for a spouse's job, recovering damages on behalf of an injured (or deceased) family member/spouse... these are all automatically granted to relatives.
True, the power of attorney would allow another person the agency to represent one in making certain basic, important, and even familial decisions. But there are still a whole heap of legal ramifications that distinctly apply to marriage.
Personally, I think it's worth discussing these things, even if the argument gets nasty. As long as people are talking (and hopefully listening well) there MIGHT be an answer.
Speaking of the "d" word... (and I agree w/Gloria Penner's thoughts on leaving them out of the main blog-- it would be like a jinx!)
There is an interesting statistic that I hadn't heard before today. According to the self-identified Christian "Barna Research Group", more than atheists and agnostics, conservative Christians are divorcing at a higher rate. See, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
People get married. People get divorced. Gay, straight, Christian, Atheist. Divorce is messy, mean, and yes, expensive. But that doesn't mean people should be denied the right to get married in the first place.
Matthew C. Scallon
June 18, 2008 at 09:44 PM
@Alma Sove, Thank you also for responding. I knew if I kept at it, eventually a conversation would start. Persistance pays off.
I can keep a civil tone. I've discussed my position with my homosexual friends. Some agree with me; some don't. But none walk away declaring me a homophobe.
Funny you should mention immigration issues. My wife, a Kenyan, and I had to go through that bizarre dance ourselves, so I know more than the average native-born American. POA not covering immigration may have spared my homosexual friends a lot of the frustration my wife and I faced, but I'm not going to be glib.
I take your point that a POA as statuted now does not cover immigration or priviledge. Neither, sadly, will redefining marriage in California, since the state doesn't a CIS (the agency fka INS) office and such priviledge will only work in California state courts and their subordinates. I contend that amending POA is far easier to legislate than redefining marriage. I still contend --and Scott Horsley's story on this topic confirms-- the gay community's definition far more likely matches a POA what most Americans would call marriage.
As to the study, as one who's visited that Web site, our good friends up in Canada who host that site cherry-pick only those studies which support their left-wing theology. Right-wing religious Web sites quote their studies which say that conservative Christians divorce at a lower rate, but they cherry-pick, too. I remember where a religioustolerace.org page on the Catholic Church only had quotes from ACT-UP, not exactly a "tolerant" portrayal of the 2000-year old community. It's no more tolerant a site than Rush Limbaugh's blog.
As I said earlier, divorces are expensive, and, if economics be a motivation for opposing the traditional definition, as Gloria's original post claimed, divorce makes the economic benefits a push at best. You don't want it jinxed, consider it jinxed. ;-) And we "conservative" Christians are accused of superstition. Jeez!
All kidding aside, thank you for replying. I enjoyed the exchange.
amy humrichouser
June 27, 2008 at 07:47 AM
This is not intended to be a well-researched comment; in fact, it represents the opinion of only one lesbian. I don't pretend to speak for all gay people.
Now, having clarified that, I wanted to address Matt's comments regarding the longevity of gay relationships. Believe me, this topic is of particular concern to me lately as I ponder the sustainability of my own future relationships. Lately, I've found myself trying hard to convince myself late at night that I could convert back to the straight lifestyle, which I left 6 years ago. At age 25, all of my best friends from college, my coworkers, and even my old high school boyfriends are all getting engaged or are married already. It's hard as a femme woman to long so badly for my own wedding and know that society will probably never acknowledge and respect my commitment, my own relatives will not attend my wedding let alone help to fund it, my church will not perform the ceremony, and most people will discourage me and my partner from being together no matter how perfect a couple we make. The point I'm trying to make is that the reason many gay relationships fall apart stems from factors outside of the LGBT community, silicently the hegemonic, predominantly straight culture in which we live: the lack of encouragement granted to LGBT relationships and the general cultural expectation that LGBT relationships won't work.
No, I can't back up my argument with stats, but I can provide you with information to which a straight person would never have access: the knowledge of what it is like to be treated as a gay person. As you probably know, friends, family, and society in general do play important roles in determining whether a relationship between a man and women will last. When I was in high school, I dated guys. My mother and I would have "girltalk" sessions discussing my dates, buying my outfits for them, and providing me with advice. I remember getting into arguements with my boyfriends and my mother encouraging me to work through them. I remember by boyfriends' mothers inviting me to their family gatherings, taking my parents out to nice dinners, and attempting to smooth things over with me when their sons made mistakes in the relationship. My parents always liked my boyfriends, even the ones that I knew to be poor influences. My entire extended family wanted to hear about how my relationships were going. I was encouraged to act appropriately in the relationship and I was encouraged to continue the relationships.
....When you get married to someone, you accept them into your family and you are accepted into their family. Familial acceptance is a key factor....
The treatment I receive from my family and friends now toward my lesbian relationships is completely different than their reactions toward my straight ones. When my aunt found out I was gay, she excommunicated me and my entire immediate family from the Thanksgiving dinner we had attended every year at her home since I was born. Knowing nothing of the person I was dating, she spent two hours on the phone with me arguing to me that my girlfriend of a year at the time was not my "intellectual equal" and was going to give me HIV. Suddenly, everyone started scrutinizing my relationships. If I spoke with my parents about one of my relationships - even mentioning something increditably romantic or kind a girlfriend had done for me - my parents had no feedback. They would quickly sigh and change the subject. If they did speak about it, the comments always took on a tone of presuming that the relationship was casual, as if I were eventually going to "come to my sensed" and become straight again. I had been living with a girlfriend for 9 months and my parents still would not allow her to celebrate Christmas with our family. Male coworkers failed to respect my relationships, even though I was out as a coupled lesbian to everyone at work. One male coworker even announced to his friends that we were dating...despite the fact that I wore a promise ring from my girlfriend of two years on my left ring finger! Another male coworker "informed" me that I was probably "90%" straight. Straight people all around me, with good intentions granted, went out of their way to let me know that it was ok to be gay and that they would "accept" me (as if I needed them to "tolerate" me in order to feel complete. I never went through a process of hating myself for being gay and I have always expected people to treat me as they would anyone else). Basically, very few straight friends or family members have encouraged me or acknowledged my relationships. When a man puts his arm around his girlfriend at a baseball game and gives her a kiss, everyone around thinks "aww, what a lovely couple." When two women kiss at a baseball game, they get thrown out of the stadium! Society cannot get past its notion of homosexuality's inappropriateness - or perhaps, should I say, lack of common erotic appeal - to notice that there is an intensely real bond of love and commitment growing between two adult individuals who are working together to finance and plan their future together. If a person were to disrespect the sacredness of a bond between a man and his wife, the married couple would certainly be offended, as would most of society. Gay and lesbian relationships are disrespected daily. Their PDA is restricted and their relationships concealed to protect the comfort zone of the straight majority. I'm sure you can see why maintaining a relationship in this social climate is an uphill battle. It's a lot easier to throw in the towel when everyone around you has been encouraging you to do so - either explicitly or implicitly - since day one...and marriage has never been your goal as a couple (since this goal has been unachieveable until very very recently).
....Let's face it, a marriage is work. My parents have been married for 27 years and I know that it hasn't always been easy for them. During rocky times in a marriage, the couple needs support from their family, their friends, their church - and their thoughts of how difficult and expensive a divorce would be - to prevent them from simply giving up. A divorce process can take years, and I'm sure that plently of separated couples have thought twice about it and repaired their marriages during this process. In a lesbian relationship, two women could have lived together for 20 years and had children together, but if one walks out the door, the relationship can be over in a second without a hitch.
By the way, very few gay people sit around preoccupying themselves with conversations and blog debates about the incompetencies and errs of straight people, esp. given the straight community's inability to make their marriages last. Society encourages them in every way - they get a tax break, great social benefits, and a huge party for getting married- and they STILL can't make their marriages work. Wow. Perhaps the LGBT community of California will show these straight boys and girls what "till death do us part" really means!
I'm a yuppy. I hold a management position at a large corporation. I am well educated, articulate, positive, outgoing, attractive, fashionable, and well-liked by mostly everyone. I hope I haven't offended anyone with this response, but sometimes I just get fed up with being treated as though I were subhuman because of the people I like to date.
Chr
July 26, 2008 at 02:31 AM
Everyone should have the chance to get married. This site has more info on
Christian Dating
meliton
from Davao city of the philippines
August 14, 2008 at 02:22 PM
I think a marriage with the same sex will not be in permanent relationship. Why?example of this is a gay marriage,many of them does not have been a long relationship.the first reason of this is they have the same gender and because of that they cannot have a baby even though it is okay for them for not having a child,their relationship will not be working out.and the other reason for it is this is not good in the eye of the god.Because only man and woman are created by god and only two of them are allow by god to be in marriage and not the same sex marrige.800
