Proposition 8 Now More Likely to Fail

I agree with gay websites that suggest that the changed language of Proposition 8 make it more likely to fail.

The original wording read that Proposition 8, "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The new reading says Proposition 8, "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

I suspect people are less likely to vote for a proposition that removes a right than merely amends the constitution even if this "right" will only have existed for five months.

The question, though, isn't whether eliminating a right sounds bad or not. It's whether same-sex couples have the right – a just claim – to marry in the first place. Is their claim just? No, but that's not likely to be thought through carefully by many voters.

Now, supporters of the proposition are filing a suit to block the linguistic shift. We’ll see where this goes.

Comments

[BradB]

Missouri has had a similar experience with the manipulation of ballot language. In 2006, proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research were aided by our left leaning Secretary of State who determines ballot language for citizen initiatives. She redefined "cloning" to exclude Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, the method used in the laboratory to clone animals. The initiative was promoted as "anti-cloning" and necessary for the development of "life saving cures". Just enough voters were fooled by this ruse (the ballot summary at the polls did not include the definition) to narrowly pass the Amendment. Opponents of the measure tried to bring an Amendment to ban SCNT to this November's ballot, but the same Secretary of State has blocked the initiative by the once again changing the language of the measure in the same way as you spoke of. Backers of the new initiative sued, and won in state courts, but not before the time to mount an effective campaign, and the initiative was withdrawn.

Those who control the language control the arguments.

[Jack Hallman]

My fear is that the rhetorical devices that the gay rights community has been employing repeatedly over the last 20 years has dumbed-down the general population to the point where logical thinking over this issue no longer exists in the broader community. All that exists is the knee-jerk response of culture to any disagreement with gay rights no matter how gently or kindly those disagreements are stated. The result is that the Christian's right to freedom of speech and respectful disagreement is now viewed as nothing more than repressed hate. The Christian is viewed as a threat to the cultural idol of tolerance. Of course, dangerous people must me "dealt" with sooner or later mustn't they? Social marginalization always begins with identifying the "enemy". Then, targeting the enemy. Then separating the enemy from us. Some years ago the LA Times ran a political cartoon that portrayed faith-based conservatives as dangerous, murderous lunatics. I had to make sure that I was reading the LA Times and not a news paper out of Germany in the 1930s! The battle against gay marriage is lost. It will happen sooner or later. If Christians were alert we would be devising legal strategies not to overthrow gay marriage, but to preserve what freedom of speech and assembly we will have left once gay marriage is a reality.

[Francis Beckwith]

The amendment affirms California's statutory definition of marriage, which, by its nature, excludes. But this is true of same-sex marriage. For under the current regime different gender couples cannot have a same-sex marriage. Also, even in the same-sex marriage regime, close relatives can't marry and a marriage cannot have more than two spouses.

The other problem with the new language is that "couples" are not rights-bearing entities. Each member of the couple has a right to marry. But as a corporate entity it has no "legal right" to marry. Couples "get married," to be sure, but the right is not found in a composite one but in each of the individuals that make up the composite one.

The new language is clever, since in actuality the amendment would not forbid homosexuals from marrying. All that it would do is define what marriage is, which homosexuals can freely enter by marrying someone from the opposite gender. So, in order to claim that a right is eliminated, the secretary of state had to make "couples" the subject of the amendment. But couples are not the subject of the amendment. The subject are the individual citizens and the nature of the institution that the state wants to recognize.

I just hope that the lawyers for the amendment's supporters know what they are doing.

[Heath Griner]

Those who will not live by the Ten Commandments must instead be governed by the 10,000 commandments.
By waging war on reality, activist homosexuals are unscrewing the lid to Pandora's box. It will only be a matter of time before polygamists demand their portion of entitlement, using the same linguistic games employed by the homosexual lobby.

[Kevin Winters]

Are you really suggesting that the relationship between two same-sex partners is similar in nature to a fraternal relation? Isn't there a difference in content between a married couple and "brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, [and] fraternity brothers"? If so, are you arguing that a same-sex couple cannot bring about this different content in their relationship?

[Kevin Winters]

Correction, a difference inc content between a *loving* married couple and "brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, [and] fraternity brothers"? For those who are married here, isn't your love for your spouse different from your love for your brother?

[Wanda Zippler]

Yes my love for my husband is different then my love for any other person I know. I love my husband, father, my daughter, and my friends, but I don't feel the same about them. Each I have a different type of relationship with, and each have my heart in a different way. And I only sleep with one of them.

[William Wilcox]

Francis said: "All that it would do is define what marriage is, which homosexuals can freely enter by marrying someone from the opposite gender."

Brad said: "Those who control the language control the arguments."

How about insisting on using the word sex when that is what is meant rather than the word gender which more appropriately appplies to nouns?

Resist the linguistic shift!

[charland]

This discussion is interesting and I appreciate the nuances of our language. I'd like to see the Christians who speak out against homosexuality also investing in drawing people out of the lifestyle. The power of the Holy Spirit alone can bring life changes. Laws will come and go, but the soul lives for eternity. We need both political and personal action.

[BradB]

William

Thank you for pointing out the grammatical error. However, this is not the same as changing the definition of a term used to frame the disscussion of an issue, nor the same as using editorial means to influence the reaction of those who fail to stop and think over a issue before acting.

If the meaning of terms is not mutually agreed to by the opposing sides of an issue, then debate is meaningless. We all know what has happened to the meaning of the word "tolerence".
The change of wording in the California issue has the effect
of an emotional appeal, and is not based on the facts of the situation.

[BradB]

charland

Human laws do come and some do go. God's laws do not change. I wish everyone could have a saving relationship with Jesus, and that they would want to please Him by striving for Holiness. But by clinging to what the Lord calls sin, trying to justify and seeking to make the practice acceptable, even desireable, they shake their fists in his face.

This judgment against the practice of homosexuality was made by God. We should not hate the sinner, but we must hate the sin. Supporting human law to oppose sin is appropriate for us as Christians. I agree that more love needs to be shown to those who cling to homosexuality. But to discount the difference of the practice and God's plan for marriage by failing to oppose government acceptance of homosexuality is not a sound path to take. Some of God's people are called to focused ministry to groups like the homosexual community, such as Love Won Out. Others, like the Family Research Council, seek to oppose movements that would encourage the disregard of God's wisdom and guidance. Both of those organizations are seeking the good of those who are in the clutch of sin, in the way God has called them to. Both are acting in Love, not hate.

[starwise]

Everybody is way too upset. I wish we could be like this youtube. This youtube was awesome. It talks about how we can all live in peace and love with prop.8 stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA

[aimee]

But why stop there? I think that miscegenation is wrong, too. Especially ******* marrying whites. Hey, and I'm not alone here, check this out:
----------------------------------------
"As late as the 1950s, almost half of the states had miscegenation laws. While the original statutes were directed wholly against black-white unions, the legislation had extended to unions between whites and Mongolians, Malayans, Mulattos, and Native Americans"

"In the year 1967, sixteen states still had laws that made interracial marriages illegal."

"In 1996 the leaders of a Georgia church elected to disinter the body of a mixed race infant who was buried in the church’s all-white cemetery. After the decision gained national attention and protest, the church backed down and allowed the baby to remain in the family plot. But just one week later, the church made national headlines again when it refused to marry the baby’s parents, a white woman and a black man."

"High school students will find the case of a 1994 high school prom in Alabama to be especially relevant. In February the white principal at the seven-hundred-student Randolph County High School called an assembly of seniors and juniors. The school’s student body was 62 percent white and 38 percent black. Hulond Humphries, who had been principal of the school for twenty-five years, asked if anyone was planning to attend the prom “with someone who was not of the same race.” When several students indicated that they were planning to do just that, the principal threatened to cancel the event. The junior class president, ReVonda Bowen, whose father is white and mother is black, asked the principal what his order meant for her. The principal allegedly replied that Bowen’s parents had made a “mistake” and that he hoped to prevent others from doing the same."

Why just stop at gays? We have a fine history in preventing deviant marriages in this country. Let's keep it up...