Gay Marriage: Inciting a backlash, or dragging along too slowly?

[killersmom]

despite a Liberal MP saying that change could lead to polygamy.

I sure would like to hear his reasoning behind this statement

Good news, Tony.

That's how Liberals behave over there?

I agree, Sara and Tony.

My thoughts exactly, Sara.

[tfferg]

I sure would like to hear his reasoning behind this statement

I agree, Sara and Tony.

My thoughts exactly, Sara.

Well, there ain't no reasoning behind such statements, though there are a few polyamorists saying that same-sex marriage reform would discriminate against them by not including them. The Christianists don't refer to them however. It's just another slippery slope argument and is often extended to say that gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of bestiality, incest, marriage of children to adults and people marrying their favorite object. And some time ago, there was a prominent Sydney Muslim who made public statements in favour of polygamy, though it was not in the context of gay marriage.

Someone pointed out that in the real world, in most of the countries where polygyny is legal, homosexuality is legally persecuted and often with the death penalty.

The Liberal Party in Australia has not been liberal at all in recent decades, except perhaps to the extent they favour so-called free market economics and certain individuals excepted, their social policies are very conservative, if not reactionary. Australians have to to say "small-l liberal" when we use the word in the more general sense to make it clear that we don't mean the political party and their policies.

The Federal House of Representatives the other day passed a motion proposed by an independent member that the passage of any of the forthcoming same-sex marriage bills would not mean that clergy would be legally obliged to perform same-sex marriages.

[killersmom]

Thanks for the insightful explanation, Tony. Gives me a better I idea of things,

[tfferg]

When same-sex marriage advocates appeal to equality, opponents claim that equal rights would also necessarily apply to polygamous marriage, child marriage, bestiality and so on. They overlook the fact that legal marriage is based on free consent and the fact that children and animals cannot freely give (informed) consent.

As far as I understand it, Muslim men who contract polygamous marriages are supposed in Islamic law to treat and provide for each wife equally, which must be a challenge in real life. Mainstream Australian opposition to polygamy would be argued on the basis that wives would not often be equal partners in practice.

[Sandy]

^^^^

Agree. But it should also be noted that the "slippery slope" argument is actually a logical fallacy. (There is not modus slippery slopus comparable to modus ponens or modus tollens.) It's something that is trotted out when one doesn't have (logically) valid arguments to make. So when someone invokes that slipper slope in trying to sell you some idea, put your hand on your wallet.

Unfortunately, much of today's political discourse is conducted in sound-bites, not rational argument. Sigh.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

It's clear that people only bring up the polygamy argument to cloud
the real arguments--just like the Pro 8 people do and bring up faux
arguments about "the children."

I just say to those who bring it up that if you wish to make arguments
for or against polygamy, fine, but the argument about marriage equality
for gay people is an entirely different issue, so stick to the topic.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

BREAKING NEWS:
PROP 8 Retrial Denied

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just decided it will not rehear our case;
the request for an en banc hearing has been denied. AFER’s federal constitutional
challenge to Proposition 8 is now entering its final stage. Now, there are only two
things that could happen:

!.) Couples start getting married again in California

2.) The case for marriage equality goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.afer.org

[killersmom]

Fantastic news, Lyle!!!

[Lyle (Mooska)]

What happens now:

The Prop 8 proponents have 90 days to decide if they want to give up (ha!) or ask the Supreme Court to take it up. Since they have used every delay tactic possible, including bringing up sidebar lawsuits, and the issue of standing or that the judge is gay so the case needs to be retried, or the Prop 8 videotapes cannot be released or the trial should not be televised because their witnesses feel threatened by the poor people who want to get married and on and on, they will undoubtedly take the full 90 days before issuing their decision.  (About Sept. 1.)  Then in October or possibly into December, the Supreme Court will either decide NOT to hear the case, which would mean the 9th Circuit Ruling would go into effect, or they could take the case and it wouldn't be ruled on until sometime in June of next year.   

See this timeline of the case (doesn't include all the side issue cases that held it up).
CLICK ON IT FOR LARGER IMAGE

The court battle to overturn California's infamous Proposition 8, a voter-approved initiative that effectively banned gay marriage in 2008, has been long and grueling.

Every decision that comes down from a judge (or panel of judges) plants a little hope in the hearts of same-sex couples up and down the Golden State -- only to be crushed by another petty appeal from the bigoted "Protect Marriage" camp.

Which brings us to today's big victory:

OK, we know we've said that word before. But now that the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is refusing to reconsider a February decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Protect Marriage only has one single shot left at keeping Prop. 8 alive.

The group, which has been fighting like a pack of rabid pitbulls from the beginning, can't be expected to stop now. In the 90-day window ahead of them, they'll almost surely take Prop. 8 to the highest court of law: The U.S. Supreme Court.

From there, the Supreme Court can do one of three things:

1) It can refuse to hear the case, in which case Prop. 8 is overturned and we all run off happily into the sunset.

2) It can agree with the Ninth Circuit, in which case Prop. 8 is overturned and we all run off happily into the sunset.

3) It can agree with the Protect Marriage nutjobs, and we can take a giant step back in the largest remaining civil-rights fight in America, even though history has shown that equality will eventually triumph and this is all a huge waste of time.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/prop_8_victory_california_ninth_circuit_supreme_court.php

[atruant]

This may be slightly larger than a BABY step? 

[gattaca]

Thanks for the summary.  While this would certainly decide the case for CA.  The only hope the other bigoted states have is for the Supreme Court to hear the case and invalidate all of these "...constitutional amendments" the rapid bigots have succeeded into writing into State's constitutions.  Though I'm not sure the right-leaning court would go so far.   Here's to watching this case very closely.   Vincent

[fritzkep]

We have the solace of realizing now that enshrining anti-miscegenation laws into state constitutions "forever" had a much briefer lifetime.

The authors of such amendments were no doubt equally as sure that their views would prevail.

But the federal constitution has a nasty habit of trumping state laws.

[tfferg]

Thanks, Lyle, for the news on Prop 8. What a saga!

Meanwhile, today's news from Australia.

Australian Marriage Equality, the online progressive activist organisation Get Up! and free-to air television Channel 7's Sunrise breakfast program organised the televising of the launch of glossy women's magazine marie-claire's pro-equal marriage  'I Do' campaign from 6am to 9am in Martin Place in the financial heart of Sydney and in the Bourke Street mall in central Melbourne outside the Myer department store, Myer being one of the commercial sponsors. marie claire is collecting signatures for a petition.

We heard from Get Up!yesterday that the 'Australian Christian Lobby' had organised supporters to pressure the commercial sponsors of Sunrise to cancel their sponsorship of the TV program. Get Up! asked supporters to email thank-you cards to Sunrise and to email the program's commercial sponsors with out stories

We had a late night last night and Im afraid didn't get up till after 8am and Phong has a class this morning, but I managed to catch a clip of a short 'debate' on Sunrise between Dr Kerryn Phelps, an equality activist, a former president of the Australian Medical Association who married her same-sex partner in a Progressive Reform Jewish ceremony in New York some years ago, but of course their marriage in not legally recognised in Australia and Jim Wallis of the 'Australian Christian Lobby' who has spooked the Prime Minister and politicians into believing he can marshall massive votes in marginal outer suburban Bible-belt electorates.

When Kerryn Phelps made her initial argument in response to one of the host's opening question whether Australia was falling behind the rest of the world, Jim Wallis accused the gay marriage campaign's statements of being like Goebbels. The host intervened and said that he would not allow anyone to be accused of being a Nazi. Jim Wallis then accused the Sunrise program of illegitimately having become an activist pro-same sex marriage program. The hosts claimed they were merely reflecting a current debate dividing Australian society. Jim Wallis went on to claim that children need both a biological mother and a biological father and then fell back on the slippery slope, quoting recent statements by polyamorist individuals. Kerryn Phelps, was of course, able to refute him with factual evidence.

The 'Australian Christian Lobby' has now lodged a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority that Sunrise's involvement in the 'I do' campaign is a breach of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, which requires news to be presented impartially.

Separate Federal House of Representative and Senate committee inquiries are due to report to Parliament this month and three bills are due to be debated some time later. Many Federal politicians have not declared their voting intentions. Polls show support for the Labor government has fallen to 26%. People are mostly angry over issues completely unrelated to marriage, but Labor parliamentarians are scared stiff of losing their seats in a landslide next year. They are reported to be trying to work out how to hang on to every last vote. The State Labor government was defeated in a massive landslide in Queensland where they reduced to eight members  a few months ago. The Federal Liberal National Party Coalition Opposition leader is a doctrinaire Catholic who is refusing to allow Liberal Party members of parliament their traditional conscience vote.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Thanks, Lyle, for the news on Prop 8. What a saga!

You're welcome, and I've mentioned a time or two before, even though
I don't usually respond to the news you post, I do look at it and appreciate
you keeping us abreast of what's happening.  It feels alot closer when you
do that!  Cheers!

[Marge_Innavera]

It's clear that people only bring up the polygamy argument to cloud the real arguments--just like the Pro 8 people do and bring up faux arguments about "the children."

That was the pious dodge of choice whenever the subject of interracial marriage came up in the 1950s and 1960s.  It was most often phrased as "it's the children I feel sorry for."

I just say to those who bring it up that if you wish to make arguments for or against polygamy, fine, but the argument about marriage equality for gay people is an entirely different issue, so stick to the topic.

If anyone sincerely believes that polygamy should be legal, with or without considerable updating on the female side, they'll have to organize and make a case for it to the government and the public.  It would be entertaining to hear the arguments against it by domestic fundamentalists, since they've invested so much hot air in the 'biblical' foundations of marriage.  It would be difficult for  proponents to argue that polygamy is a sexual orientation.