Posted on 04/21/2002 7:25:43 AM PDT by LarryLied
When Clark County Democrats at their April 13 convention promised to "oppose vigorously" Question 2, the Protection of Marriage initiative, the author of the platform plank was pleased.
Daniel Hinkley condemns the ballot question as an attack on gays and gay rights.
But some leading Democratic candidates will not be supporting the plank he wrote, perhaps mindful of the fact Question 2 has widespread voter support.
"I wish they would support the plank, but the fact they're running away from the plank does not surprise me at all, because they did it the last time," said Hinkley, founder of the Stonewall Democratic Club of Southern Nevada, an advocacy group for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community.
But Hinkley is careful not to be too critical. "I don't want to lose Democrats on this issue, yet they need to know how their vote impacts the GLBT community," he said.
At the convention, Rep. Shelley Berkley was the only top-of-the-ticket candidate who unequivocally opposed Question 2.
The ballot question passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote and must pass a second time to become part of the state's constitution. It reads: "Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state."
Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny wouldn't reveal how she voted when Question 2 appeared on the 2000 ballot, saying it was personal.
Congressional candidate Dario Herrera, who has accepted campaign contributions from national gay rights groups and is a recently converted Mormon, said he opposes the ballot initiative because "it's unnecessary, the state law is a good law."
State law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Attorney general candidate John Hunt voted for the controversial ballot initiative two years ago and supports it now, even if it means running against his party's plank.
Rory Reid, former Democratic Party state chairman and a candidate for county commission, also supports Question 2.
He said the Democrats have a far less restrictive platform than Republicans. "It allows the expression of almost any view," he said. "We don't have a litmus test of any sort. You can disagree with aspects of our platform and be a Democrat in good standing."
Republicans at their March 9 county convention debated whether a plank supporting Question 2 would be divisive, but ultimately voted to insert it, one of their 12 platform planks. They dropped language that said candidates had to agree with all 12 of their points in order to win an endorsement.
Question 2 organizer Richard Ziser, a Republican, said he found it "pretty telling for the Democratic party to endorse a `no' vote on Question 2."
"If the leaders of the party know that 70 percent of people disagree, why allow it to be put in the platform?" Ziser asked. "It shows there's a small minority that drives their process, apparently."
Assemblyman David Parks, D-Las Vegas, who is gay, opposes Question 2. He said, however, that the ballot question is irrelevant, which is one of the reasons the gay community isn't mounting strong opposition to it.
"It's so limited in scope, it's inconsequential," he said.
He believes its real intent is to draw conservative voters to the polls, but Parks predicted it won't result in more Republicans getting elected, just the election of Republicans who are more conservative.
"I see a resurgence of what took place in 1986 to 1988, when the religious conservatives made an effort to control the Republican party," said Parks, who added he left the GOP in 1984 after "anti-gay planks" were inserted into the national party platform.
Dan Burdish, who is gay and Republican and who worked on the GOP platform, said he didn't fight the pro-Question 2 language adopted by the party. Because he knew the plank would come up on the convention floor, packed with Question 2 supporters, he surrendered.
Hinkley said he realizes Democrats who don't back Question 2 open themselves up to attack. He blames the unwillingness to oppose the measure less on the candidate than on those who would criticize the candidate.
"I am sick and tired of homophobic demagogues inflaming anti-gay passions while masquerading as concerned Christian marriage advocates," Hinkley said. "From my perspective, the debate needs to be reframed so that people understand it's about rights."
When Ziser first began the effort, he said it was designed to close a loophole to ensure that gay marriages from other states wouldn't be recognized in Nevada.
Ziser raised nearly $1.7 million and spent $974,000 on the grass-roots efforts. Yard signs throughout the state popped up with a wedding ring urging support for "the protection of marriage."
"During that campaign, gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders went through a painful process of looking at those signs with a diamond ring on them, which says we're second class citizens, undeserving of rights. As a minority community, what a dreadful position to be in," Hinkley said.
Ziser said the next part of the campaign will emerge after May 20, the deadline for candidates to file for office. "What we've seen is that people aren't remembering it or realizing it has to be back on the ballot again."
Ziser and Hinkley agree on one thing: The issue is broader than just how marriage is defined.
For Ziser, the impetus is to make sure that alternative lifestyles are not taught in schools. "If same-sex marriage was sanctioned by the state, we'd have no way to stop the teaching of it in schools; that's been shown in Vermont."
For Hinkley, it's about securing equal benefits for gay partners in the areas of health insurance and in making medical decisions.
The Question 2 discussion is expected to continue at the state party conventions in Las Vegas.
The Democrats meet May 10-12 at the Castaways hotel and the Republicans meet May 17-19 at the Suncoast.
and it won't cause any less confusion and discord among "Republicans" these days, either. RINOs appear to be nearing majority status, and are no less infected with a severe case of moral relativism than the worthy opposition.
And I'm sick and tired of heterophobic demagogues inflaming homosexual passions while masquerading as concerned for civil rights. From my perspective, the debate needs to be reframed so that people understand it's about defining marriage as we have for millenia for the good of society.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. There are but two genders - male and female. There is no discrimination in marriage for those who claim to be homosexual or lesbian. A homosexual male still has the right to marry a woman. The lesbian still has the right to marry a man.
Taking your relativistic approach, you cannot deny a 40 year old to marry a 3 year old. You cannot deny a man to marry his goat. You cannot deny 3 men to marry 1 woman.
Laws are created for social order and for the good of society. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" because it is an oxymoron. There is but one definition of marriage.
I recognize you have no desire to see social order or for laws that might provide constraint. But the utopia you see in your mind will never exist due to evil in the world. Civil governments (which should certainly be limited) are still there to place constraints around that evil in society. Despite what you may think, there is still a place for law and government.
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
-
"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."
About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
-
The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows.
BEFORE YOU REACT TO WHAT I AM SAYING, THINK ABOUT WHY I AM SAYING IT...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." Your "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
Why does the state provide people benefits if the marry?
The follow up questions of course are "why should a non-married person agree to this extra burden and why should he or she tolerate it?"
There is an answer which should be obvious.
Good point and some food for thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.