Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage On Tuesday Ballots
Voters in SD and CO rejected abortion bans; voters in AZ, CA, FL endorsed bans on same-sex marriage. MI voters gave a "thumbs up" to embryonic stem cell research and WA voters passed a death with dignity initiative modeled on an OR bill.
In South Dakota and Colorado, voters are considering measures to restrict abortion. In Arizona, California and Florida, voters consider same-sex marriage bans, even though it's already illegal in Arizona and Florida. Michigan ponders allowing human embryos to be used in scientific research, and Washington votes on a death with dignity measure modeled after one in Oregon.
Welcome to the culture wars.
Same-Sex Marriage
In 2004, there were 11 similar ballot measures and all passed. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama walks a narrow line. He believes "marriage is between a man and a woman" but he thinks voters should reject California's proposed ban because it's a constitutional amendment. He prefers civil unions for same-sex couples.
Republican Presidential candidate John McCain opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, like Obama. They differ only on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Obama opposes. It defines marriage as being between heterosexuals and frees one state from being required to honor the same-sex marriage conducted in another state. Currently, 39 states have laws modeled on DOMA.
Subsequently, the courts have ruled against prohibitions in Connecticut and California. Add Massachusetts, and there are three states in the country where same-sex marriage is legal.
One stumbling block that too many Americans seem unable to navigate is that "marriage" in America is both a religious and a civil institution, with a long list of legal privileges attached to the civil part. It is discriminatory for the law to treat one committed couple differently from another committed couple. Period.
California - Proposition 8
In 2000, California passed Proposition 22, which mirrored DOMA and was a statutory change. In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. Enter Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution, thus negating the court ruling.
There is bi-partisan opposition to Prop 8; all major newspapers also oppose the ballot measure. Support comes in large part from the traditional religious community, especially Focus on the Family Action, the Colorado lobbying arm of Dr. James Dobson.
News reports suggest that religious leaders are telling parishioners -- from the pulpit -- how to vote. This should violate their federal tax-exempt status.
The rhetoric is running hot and wild. Reuters shares this gem from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:
This is the most important thing on the November 4th ballot. We've made bad selections as presidents but survived as a nation. But if we move down the path towards the dissolution of marriage we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of that.
Arizona - Proposition 102
Under a law passed in 1996, it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Arizona. And yet in 2006, Arizona voters faced a ballot initiative, Proposition 107, that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman and would also have banned civil unions and domestic partnerships. They rejected it, making Arizona the only state not to pass an anti-gay marriage ballot measure.
Polls suggest Prop102, which amends the state constitution but confines itself to marriage, could pass. Republicans squeaked it through the legislature on the eve of the last day of the legislative session.
The Arizona Wildcat quotes political philosopher Hannah Arendt: "The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right." Amen.
Florida - Amendment 2
Like Arizona, Florida already bans same-sex marriage, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.As the name suggests, this ballot proposition would amend the Florida Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. The sponsor is Christian conservative activist John Stemberger.
There is last minute controversy over two billboards and TV ads supporting the amendment. Opponents say they are illegally funded; a judge ruled late Monday that they can stand. This measure requires 60% approval to succeed.
Abortion
Voters in South Dakota rejected an abortion ban in 2006. This year, they will vote on Initiated Measure 11, a constitutional amendment that would prohibit all abortions; there is an exception for pregnancies of less than 20 weeks if there was a reported case of rape and incest or if there is a serious threats to the mother's health.
In Colorado, Amendment 48 would define the term "person" to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization" in order to protect the life of the unborn. Should voters adopt this constitutional amendment, it would equate abortion with murder. Polls show a split electorate.
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) says that measure would "require fertilized eggs to be counted among the state’s population." Polls suggest defeat.
Other Initiatives
Washington's Initiative 1000 makes it legal for a terminally ill person to take a lethal dose of drugs under medical supervision. In Michigan, voters consider a constitutional amendment, Proposition 2, "that would lift a 30-year-old ban on the destruction of human embryos to get stem cells for medical research." Polls show a statistical tie.
Search the National Conference of State Legislatures database. Status of same-sex marriage in the U.S..
Comments
The marriage amendment in California does three simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved by 61% and human history has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist judges in San Francisco who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
Oh, my, Kathy! You certainly will get folks stirred up today!
)
The cornerstone of our democracy is clearly stated in the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. . .”
In plain English, the Founding Fathers made it crystal clear that there is no “right” when it comes to religion. We don’t get to compel others to embrace our religious creeds and values.
Because certain groups didn’t quite get this, the 14th Amendment was added in 1868:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States. . .nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.”
We may not like it ~ it may offend our religious point of view or our values, but the Constitution leaves no doubt that gay people are free to engage in the PRIVILEGE of marriage just like their hetrosexual brothers and sisters. That’s what EQUAL PROTECTION means ~ if you get to do it ~ so do I.
The true “activist” judges are the ones who read into this crystal clear language their own religious point of view.
As an unwanted child, I’m also going to publically opine for the first time on the issue of abortion.
I have never been able to comprehend how someone can be both “pro-life” and “anti-choice” because life is all about choices.
Unwelcome and unwanted children are born into an exceedingly cruel world. I saw what happens to these kids when I clerked in family court. We have millions of unwanted kids in foster care. We have millions of unwanted kids in prison. Yes, they are alive, but they don’t have much of a life.
It is easy to command a woman to birth a baby. But, I really do wish people would think about the cruel world we are forcing that child to enter and survive as best he or she can devoid of love and nurturing, support and guidance.
So, unless a person is personally willing to embrace each and every one of these unwanted children into their heart and home, I really do wish everyone would take another look at the 1st Amendment and respect the intent of the Framers.
On this monumental election day, I pray we will find a way to embrace the foundation of all the world’s major religions which call upon us to treat each other with love and compassion. We’ve had eight years of the manipulation of religion to abuse political power. I hope we’ll give peace and love a chance.
Thanks, Sunshine. You’ll be disappointed to see that all three same-sex marriage amendments passed. However, South Dakota said no to the abortion ban.
Portia, I don’t want to argue with you about this issue … but I’d love to hear your answer to this question:
*Which* traditional marriage?
The one where the parents arranged the marriage? The one where the wife had no power and was considered chattel, where any property she owned or earned was not hers under the law but her husband’s? The one where a woman could be stoned to death for adultery but the community turned a blind eye if the husband strayed from the marital bed?
*Which* traditional marriage?
I am a Christian and I am pro-life. HOWEVER, I agree completely w/ sunshine87’s comment on imposing our values on others.
The US Constitution separates Church and State for a reason. I would never consider an abortion but I do NOT have the right to tell someone else that they cannot. What about the women/girls who are raped? Chances are they won’t report it (most don’t) which means that by the time they find out they’re pregnant, it will be too late to qualify for the “reported rape or incest” criteria mentioned in the SD proposition. What about the couples who cannot afford to raise another child? It’s easy for us to say they shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place, but if a couple cannot afford another child, chances are they cannot afford health care to get contraceptives, cannot afford the resources they need to become empowered and assertive enough to prevet an unwanted pregnancy, etc.
As for same-sex marriage, I really don’t understand what the big deal is. How are you affected by the fact that Thomas who lives in your neighborhood would rather share his life with Patrick instead of Patricia?
Portia made a point that is valid, she’s trying to protect her kids. That being said, you are responsible for raising your kids. You have every opportunity to talk to them and explain to them your point of view.
My guess is that people who share Portia’s opinion have such strong emotions over the issue that they haven’t really thought about what the reprecussions are.
Did it ever occur to you (and I’m totally not picking on Portia, it’s just too weird to write these comments using they) that gay couples are trying to protect their children too?
Stop judging for one minute and think about these injustices:
1. a pregnant lesbian does not qualify for her partner’s insurance if they’re not “married”
2. heaven forbid that the biological mother/father dies, the child can be taken away by the dead parent’s family because by law they’re more related to the child than the child’s other parent who has raised them from birth and is mom/dad to that child (talk about traumatic)
The following are the ones that I see as someone who works in a hospital.
3. When someone is in the ICU only immediate family members are allowed to visit. How would you like it if you knew your husband was dying and someone told you you couldn’t see him and say goodbye because you’re “not married”.
4. Most hospitals won’t allow a same-sex partner make medical decisions for their beloved spouse because the marriage is not recognized, but they will allow a family member of the dying patient make the decisions EVEN when those family members have not talked to the pt for years because they couldn’t get over the fact that their brother/sister was gay!
I think this comes down to a very simple rule, you should be familiar w/ it as Christ himself said it when asked which commandment was THE most important one:
“Love the Lord your God w/ all your heart… and love your neighbor AS YOURSELF”
Whatever happened to compasion, to not judging others, to truly loving others regardless of whether or not we like or even know them. It’s much too easy to love your friends and family, but as Christ said, “what’s so great about that?”, the real test of love is loving those with whom you don’t have a special relationship.
Kathy: Which one of those “traditional” marriages were between same sex couples? Oh, and didn’t you forget one or two, e.g the one millions of Americans live in today?
Sunshine: Gay people can and do get married all the time. They’ve been getting married for the 200+ years of this country’s existence and no one has ever denied them that right. Gay people and straight people and bisexual people and Jews and atheists and Christians and Zoroastrians all can get married. There is no religious test and there are no “Are you gay?” questions on the marriage license application. Isn’t freedom grand?
Oh, wow, Suzanne. Thank you. And thanks for this reminder:
“I think this comes down to a very simple rule, you should be familiar w/ it as Christ himself said it when asked which commandment was THE most important one:
Love the Lord your God w/ all your heart… and love your neighbor AS YOURSELF”
Kathy
Miles – I was trying to make the point that “marriage” is not a static institution. Thus any reference to “traditional” marriage (not my term) is meaningless without a definition.
Same-sex couples cannot get married in the eyes of the LAW, which is what counts. See Suzanne’s very short list of the benefits our legal system showers on the married.
Kathy: You were bringing up irrelevant examples from the past in an attempt to ridicule Portia’s argument while ignoring the current definition. I was bringing us back to reality.
Suzanne does not provide us with a list of benefits our legal system “showers” on the married. She provides us with a bunch of very unusual circumstances, most of which can easily be addressed (or are already being addressed in most jurisdictions) without undermining the institution of marriage. She also includes a bunch of religious preaching inappropriate for such a discussion.
Hello, Miles — I am not the person who brought up “tradition” or “history” — that was Portia:
Quoting from the first comment:
[Prop8] restores the definition of marriage to what … human history has understood marriage to be…
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
[end quote]
I asked a reasonable question: define the historical context for what you believe to be is “traditional” marriage. How far back in time is a historical definition “OK” and how far back is not “OK.” The logical question that would follow that would be “why did you pick that cutoff in time?”
These are not “irrelevant” examples, nor were they intended to “ridicule.” They were, however, intended to demonstrate just how malleable a term like “traditional marriage” really is.
Heck. In the 50s and even the 60s (not that very long ago), “traditional marriage” was not an option for a white man and a black woman.
Kathy
I think you asked an irrelevant question. It doesn’t matter how far you go back in time. You’re still not going to find a “traditional” definition of marriage that includes same sex couples.
But nice try.
And in the 1950/60s interracial marriage was an option in all but 1/4 of the United States. In the 1860s interracial couples could get married in many of the United States, but same sex couples couldn’t. In the 1760s interracial couples could get married in many, perhaps most of the colonies, but same sex couples couldn’t. In 1760s B.C. interracial couples were getting married, but same sex couples weren’t.
The same church that invented polygamy is once again defining marriage for the rest of us. There are three MILLION foster kids in Arkansas looking for a home.
Three MILLION kids. One state. How do we explain “family values” to kids who have no family?
You can’t pick and choose from the bible.
If you’re going to declare that gay marriage is a “sin” then you also need to take the following stances: Sell your daughter into slavery (Exsodus 21:7), Posess slaves (Lev. 25:44), Kill those who work on Sunday (Lev. 11:10), Stop cutting your hair around the temples (Lev 19:27), Stop touching the skin of pigs (Lev. 11:6-8), Stop Eating Shellfish (Lev. 11:10), Stop Wearing clothing made of 2 different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19).
The Christians pick and choose the parts of the bible they want to, for political gain. Your agenda is transparent and nothing more then desperate attempts at controling others. Stop being hypocrites. If you’re not going to follow the bible completely, then stop being hate mongering bigots.
Whoa…this discussion has really deteriorated. Three million foster kids in Arkansas? That can’t be right. I’d be surprised if there were 3 million PEOPLE in Arkansas!
And speaking of polygamy…why not? I we’re going to toss out the definition of marriage we’ve been using, why discriminate against polygamists. At least thy can point to millennia of tradition supporting their arrangement.
And as far as the Bible goes, who cares? The Bible has nothing to do with this discussion. Please read the First Amendment.