3/28/2013

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: WHY I CHANGED MY MIND, PART 2

Previously, I talked about how my experience as a classroom teacher and my commitment to examining scientific evidence led me to reconsider my opposition to same-sex marriage.   Now, I want to talk about another line of reasoning whose roots are in law and in history.

The opponents of same-sex marriage (which, in this state, means the backers of Proposition 8) made essentially three arguments in the public square as to why it was necessary to add a new provision to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights.   It is worth considering these related and distinct arguments separately.

Proponents of Prop. 8 argued that:

1)     Exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential societal institution", so in order to preserve this institution, it would be prudent to formally redefine marriage in the the state constitution.

2)     If marriage in California was not explicitly defined as a heterosexual institution, children in the public schools would be taught that "gay marriage is OK", contrary to what their parents, community organizations or houses of worship might be affirming.

3)     Gay residents of California did not have the right to "redefine marriage for everyone else."

More generally, the Prop. 8 logo contained the words "Restore Marriage", while the main organization that sponsored (and which continues to sponsor) Prop. 8 is known as ProtectMarriage.com.

So the backers clearly believed that the way to get people to vote for the ballot measure was to convince them that the institution of marriage was threatened if it was not restricted to heterosexual couples.  Formal redefinition of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual arrangment in the state constitution was needed to restore what had never been explicitly stated, but always assumed as normative by the common culture.  The institution of marriage had to be protected from homosexuals, who would otherwise destroy it.

Now, there can be no denying that the backers of Prop. 8 had history on their side in at least one respect, which is the fact that the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage was widely assumed for most of this country's history to not differ significantly from the state in terms of sexual orientation.   The expression "heterosexual marriage" would've been foreign to the thinking of virtually all Californians in much of the state's history, because marriage was impliticly understood to be a union of one man and one woman.   Supporters of marriage equality have to acknowledge that the diversity they celebrate today was not acknowledged in the past, and that the notion of "gay pride" is actually a recent, albeit proactive movement that was prompted by near-universal rejection of homosexuals in the popular culture.

But that is not the same thing as arguing that the laws of California in and of themselves inherently privilege any particular sectarian understanding of marriage, either today or in the past!

In fact, until 1977 there was no mention of gender or orientation in California statutes regarding marriage, which was defined as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."  In that year, a nervous legistlative committee realized that there was nothing specific in the language prohibiting same-sex marriage, and so added the phrase "between a man and a woman" to the statute.   The first attempt to redefine marriage in California was not prompted by those arguing for marriage equality, but for those who wished to prevent anything but heterosexual unions being recognized as valid in that state!   To put it another way, prior to 1977 no particular understanding of marriage was privileged in California law, and the first attempts to privilege any particular understanding was taken by those opposed to marriage equality.

As it so happene, at no time after 1977 did those Californians who spoke of "gay pride" and (eventually) "marriage equality" ever attempt to redefine marriage in California law.  Rather, advocates of marriage equality used the courts to attempt to obtain the same legal protections and benefits accrued opposite-sex couples, by invoking long-established California statutes.  Eventually, the California State Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, it was the opponents of marriage equality who had attempted to redefine marriage in California law, beginning in 1977 with an act by the legistlature and continuing with a ballot measure (Proposition 22) which was the state's attempt to emulate DOMAThe state would go on to rule that those attempts to redefine marriage as such were unconstitutional, because such redefinitions inherently deprived same-sex couples of a fundamental right.  

Now, this brief of the state's legal history is filled with technicalities that a lot of people find impossible to discuss objectively.   As with DOMA, which explicitly condemns homosexuality on moral grounds, the ballot inititiaves proscribing same-sex marriage in this state was largely an exercise in privileging the attitudes of beliefs of many (but not all) heterosexuals at the time they were placed on the ballot.   Supporters of Prop. 22 and, later, Prop. 8 might have made the specific arguments I listed above, but the heart of their "argument" is that their traditional understanding has always, by tradition, been privileged in that state, and in order to protect their understanding, its position of privilege must be formally affirmed by the laws of the state.   How to privilege that understanding?  By-----redefining it!

What an irony!   Defenders of traditional marraige claimed that laws are needed, because "gays don't have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else", yet it was not gay-rights folk who actually attempted to redefine the civil compact of marriage, but their opponents.   If gay residents of the state didn't have that right, why did non-gay residents of the state have that right?  How could defenders of traditional marriage make that argument with a straight face?   The answer, of course, is that they couldn't, and lawyers for the backers of Prop. 8 have never attempted to make such an argument in court. 

The truth is, the majority of voters does have the right to redefine marriage in California's state Constitution if they so choose, because if such a right didn't exist, no one would've attempted to pass a ballot proposition to do exactly that.  That's why, ultimately, Prop. 8 is doomed whether or not SCOTUS affirms all, part or none of it this summer: as the voters move on this issue, it will no longer be possible for a minority to impose their privileged definition of marriage on the majority.

I have more to say on this subject in the future.   Let me just conclude by emphasizing that the real motivation for Prop. 22, Prop. 8 and DOMA are the same: to privilege a traditional understanding of marriage, and thereby deny same-sex couples the social, psychological and legal benefits of marriage.   You can't sugar-coat it: there is an entire class of persons who feel that their morals and traditions are under assault, who feel that honor and duty requires them to use the apparatus of the state to privilege their views, even if the consequence of that action is deprive gay men and women (and their children) of certain benefits.  There are not content to let the same constitutional guarantees of religious liberty protect both themselves and homosexuals equally.  Rather, they believe that the very existence of gay people and their families pose a threat to their conception of the moral and social order, and that the laws of the state must be leveraged in favor of their beliefs and against both the beliefs and the welface of same-sex couples and their families.

If I have said anything that is inaccurate or unfair with respect to such persons, I encourage comments.

Word Count: 1,264

Total:  31,424




8 comments:

Calladus said...

This is why you rock, Scott. You can change your mind, you can admit that your new position is better, and you can understand the issue as seen from both sides, and find the flaws in the weaker position.

This is the mark of a rational, introspective thinker, and makes me proud to know you.

We still need to get together for a chat...

R. Moore said...

There is much I disagree with here, in terms of how you frame your argument. I do not disagree with the conclusion, however.

The European invasion of the Americas brought with at cultural understanding, that included in part, attitudes towards human slavery, women, and marriage. I strongly object to the term Judeo-Christian in this context -- the attitudes were purely Christian, it is a disservice to the few remaining Jews in Europe after the Christian pogroms to assume their particular religious beliefs had any bearing on the matter, even when Christians had engineered their beliefs to coincide with those of Jews.

These Christians attitudes created in the New World a culture at odds with the beliefs of the indigenous culture. What we see, from the beginning of our legal system in the US, is a presumption of certain truths: women are property, and homosexual behavior is a moral sin, and therefore a crime. With this basis, the question of women voting, or same-sex marriage is an irrelevant one.

When the premises changed in such a way that they became relevant, we then see the results in terms of voting laws or marriage laws. It was the legalization of homosexual activity that created Prop 22 and Prop 8, not any change in marriage law: it required no change.

You cannot object to same-sex marriage unless you object to homosexuality, just as you cannot object to women voting unless you object to them being not being considered the property of men.

While I know it makes some Christians uncomfortable, I prefer to keep the same-sex marriage debate focused on the real cause-and-effect at play: homophobia, and the effects it causes, is a Christian invention, it will remain a viable bigotry as long as Christianity gives it cover by promoting the view that Scripture is a sound basis for moral guidance, justified by a supernatural power.

Unknown said...

Marriage, as it is currently constituted, is based on the truth that men and women are complimentary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. For me, this is the definition of marriage; it exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.
It would appear that the current challenge is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs reducing marriage to a system for approving emotional bonds and distributing legal privileges. Interestingly, we find this same tactic being applied in other social areas with the same expectations. In some instances, the advocates’ desires for validation of their lifestyle choice seems almost pathologically obsessive and that, somehow, their lives, as they have chosen to live them, are devoid of meaning unless they can successfully negate the current definition of marriage.
R. Moore’s post was intriguing and, though I wanted to respond, with my limited capacities I was unable to determine if his post was a critique of your original post, your subsequent response or to my post. Perhaps he can clarify that for me and I can respond more adequately.

Calladus said...

Max, your argument can be applied equally well to heterosexual marriage.

For example, I've been married twice. My first wife was medically unable to conceive. Her medical problems eventually took her life after 21 years of marriage. When I married my second wife, I did so knowing full well that she could not conceive. We have been happily married for a year now.

So how do I fit your definition of marriage?

Next, let's talk about intersexed individuals. You see, physical sexual traits are not binary. There is actually a spectrum of physical traits between "male" and "female". Intersex activist Cheryl Chase is such a person. There are also individuals who are not XX-female or XY-male, but who have a wide range of chromosomal sexes - some have 4 or more sex chromosomes.

So how do you define marriage to someone who is not quite male or female? What if she naturally has female characteristics, chromosomes, and preferences, but also has a penis?

As I said, the way you have defined marriage can actually be applied to opposite sex couples, and it completely disregards people who have an indeterminate sex.

When you can create a definition for marriage that recognizes these problems, and is not arbitrary, then perhaps you'll have something that you can defend.

梁爵 said...

2019.12.11Googel搜尋找到可以信賴的酒店經紀人後,接下來就是約時間當面聊,把妳的需求告訴酒店經紀人,也讓酒店經紀人看看妳的條件適合哪種店家。同時也會依照小姐的不同條件列出10來家酒店名單最後由您自己選擇喜歡理想的酒店工作環境。
酒店上班的種類很多,光大台北地區分為東區、中山區兩大區塊就有分類便服店、禮服店、制服店、鋼琴酒吧、日式酒店、飯局、傳播。洋洋灑灑加總就30幾家酒店每種類型酒店所需要小姐的條件也不同,於是酒店小姐這份工作是競爭的。八大行業酒店小姐成績不理想也是會被裁員的(如:酒店小姐上班收入比白天工作薪資還少…就是酒店業者裁員的對象)。
1: 酒店打工小姐們如何判斷自己適合在什麼的店呢?誠懇面對自己外型條件吧(外表是可以調整的)這行是以外型取勝!(當然沒有人願意犧牲啊),任何一份工作都有它辛苦的面何況高收入的八大行業。
2: 酒店兼差一週可以上幾天班? 能配合哪個時間打卡上班? 是否有門禁問題?
3: 酒店工作和白天工作一樣!目標是一樣的就是【賺錢】都是要花固定的時間來上班(如:服裝、髮妝、談吐、氣質)把最好的展現出來。上班天數多寡,當然取決於妳的收入。
4: 選擇酒店經紀很重要,小姐放在對的酒店一天酒店兼職可以賺個$5000~$8000不是問題。如果酒店小姐收入不如預期,而店裡生意也不差,妳就要思考是否繼續這份競爭力的環境!應該考慮換店或換跑道,(別等店家開口要妳離職)。
2020不怕找不到酒店經紀 大數據Google搜尋:梁曉尊/梁小尊
不擔心拿低薪 高水平 高標準 公開 透明 亞洲地區Google認證

梁爵 said...

2020.02.14武漢肺炎嚴重衝擊酒店工作,很多小姐怕染病都不敢酒店上班。本刊調查,台北市的酒店幾十年來幾乎都集中在中山區,直到十幾年前,才開始拓展到東區一帶,目前包括制服店、便服店、禮服店等近百家合法、非法酒店林立,其中以趙姓、鄭姓、林姓、梁姓業者的規模最大,四人除了擁有多家酒店,旗下的經紀公司也掌控許多小姐,其他酒店若想多做點生意,還得仰賴四人幫忙調兵遣將,可說是四分天下的局面。不過,其中隨著三人年事漸高,加上都已賺足「退休金」,因而慢慢淡出業界,就在這個時候,中生代綽號毛毛蟲的王姓業者以及新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊趁勢崛起。資深酒店知情人士說,年約40歲的毛毛蟲原本是在林森北路的酒店圈當經紀,後來為求生意平順,加入竹聯幫「日堂」尋求靠山,但不同於其他逞凶鬥狠的幫派分子,他一直專注在八大行業。另一位新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊,一個剛出道的酒店經紀梁曉尊,時間背景正於八大行業的戰國時代,群雄割據⋯人人都是幹部、人人都是經紀人,在這麼競爭的環境裡脫穎而出。再千百人之內披荊斬棘、越戰越勇,不斷的創造機會闖出自己的名堂,不少資深前輩認為梁曉尊潛在未來有影響力的人物不容小覷。坊間流傳梁曉尊的小姐人數有高達200位以上⋯。
中生代毛毛蟲在酒店經紀事業穩固後,也開始跨足經營酒店,他原本在中山區開金磚、金聰、金昌、金億等搖頭酒店,卻因屢傳鬥毆及吸毒事件,加上6年前轟動一時的「信義夜店殺警案」,許多嫌犯都隸屬「中山聯盟」成員,該聯盟也有負責處理毛毛蟲旗下酒店的經紀、圍事、泊車等業務,讓他的店成為轄區警方的眼中釘。
另一位也是酒店經紀帶小姐的後起之秀新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊型式作風反而行事低調,主要經營模式採用大規模大數據(網路行銷事業)來應徵酒店小姐,Google 搜尋:梁曉尊/梁小尊。獲得亞洲地區Google認證關鍵字達到全版面。不僅如此⋯八大行業主要關鍵字(酒店工作)、(酒店上班)、(酒店經紀)、(酒店打工)、(酒店應徵)、(酒店兼差)、(酒店兼職)每組關鍵字都在首頁榮獲前3名。雖然遇到危機,但中生代毛毛蟲卻在這個時間點,開始接觸一些政商名流,開啟了主攻高檔市場的契機。由於毛毛蟲的店收費較其他高級俱樂部低,「小框」4個小時,只需5、6千元,讓許多商務客趨之若鶩。加上新生代梁曉尊頗具生意頭腦以及龐大的小姐人數,光大台北地區兩位佔市場最大公約數。

Anonymous said...

高水準的工作環境-日式酒店】網路世代,瞬息萬變,妳準備好面對新的機會嗎?不再只是隨波逐流、人云亦云。酒店工作最重要且接觸最多時間,就是客人。而酒店經紀、幹部、行政都只是配角,客人的水平決定妳上檯的收入與心情,甚至是妳的安全,因此妳敢不在意嗎?!「妳受夠台灣酒店扣錢粗魯又『大形』的客人嗎?!」「撩妹的套路可以優雅一點嗎?!」「妳不想遇到太多熟人嗎?!」以下專業分析文,揭開日式酒店的神秘面紗:時代是不斷演進,切勿用舊眼光來看待新事物,也不要被日本【愛情動作片】的男優誤導。1.店內行政、幹部甚至公主、少爺,都會說流利日文。2.都是漢字圈(許多台灣人去日本自由行,也不用帶翻譯人員)。而且目前手機翻譯軟體超方便。3.一年日客到台灣有【200萬人次】,所以不用擔心生意量。4.日客事實上非常紳士。5.觀光客居多,不會下班後繼續打擾妳。6.畢竟日本是高消費,所以來台灣給小費不手軟(妳在台式店已經多久沒拿小費了?有拿還會被幹部擋下!)7.有基本保障日薪。8.因為酒店都在幹嘛上班人數不多,相對各項福利更勝台式店。9.店家規模小而美,人性化管理,不像台式店有許多令人討厭費到10點半 妳要坐到該客人離場,不能中途卡檯) 若堅持9點離開公司,則有些店家於7~8點左右就不會安排妳看檯(對收入有很大影響) 門禁:有些店家或客人,會接受公關於9點不論理由可止檯、且直接下班。 許多公關彈性選擇「午場跨晚場」加班(一星期加班晚場2~3天,該桌結束後,可隨時下班),好增加節數。14.租套房在店家附近,還是通勤呢?!在北部以妳住基隆或桃園,想在台北酒店工作為例:為了適應新環境,先通勤試上幾天後,再決定下一步。先別急著找房子,初期兩 ~三週先通車,先有收入,不適應酒店取名馬上換店。確定好店家後,短期不會換店,再從周邊開始找房。台北精華區小套房,有管理員且環境尚可,月租落在2.2萬左右,首月房租+2個月押金,需要6.6萬。店家每月定期開會(晚上7點左右),不定期舉辦活動(提早作造型準備)。租屋雖然比基隆、桃園貴一點,但扣除交通費其實是差不多。加上我們日夜顛倒與喝酒,所以更須要睡眠。結論:先通勤再租屋。15.為什麼許多人會選擇經紀公司!! 『演藝圈經紀人 : 規劃演藝人員各式各樣的演藝事業,能成就其發光發熱!』『酒店業經紀人規劃酒店姐妹在安全有尊嚴的環境中,賺到錢進而改善生活!』目前市場上有眾多經紀人,但素質良莠不齊,負面消息不斷,以下是經紀

梁爵 said...

2020.06.08曾經酒店小姐的基本介紹跟工作內容雞排妹的《深夜保健室》最新一集與培根到酒店訪問我在酒店上班的日子的酒店小姐跟不敢來酒店上班-酒店打工的原因,影片中介紹如:顏射(精子射在臉上) 、口交口爆(精子射在嘴裡) 、戴套肛交進行交易專業精緻化,酒店消費服務方式,還有小姐帶出場接S(性交易)等大家好奇的問題,其中酒店上班-酒店兼職-兼差如何達成人生的第一桶金小姐的薪水也是一般人想知道的問題,酒店兼差不是一個複雜的工作環境?透露,最菜最基本的酒店妹,一個月至少也可以賺10到20萬元,也曾有「職場須知 【酒店PT 】魔王級人物」一周就能賺40萬元,相當於月薪200萬,雞排妹問到酒店妹外貌與薪水成正比?酒店經紀表示並不是,通常看小姐自己的手腕,包括: 顏射(精子射在臉上) 、口交口爆(精子射在嘴裡) 、戴套肛交進行交易。突破高薪資的境界。至於常傳聞演藝圈知名網紅跨國賣淫,會轉行到酒店兼職,酒店經紀透露曾遇過10名通告女星「拍過廣告、拍過電影」找上門希望願意配合國外伴遊接受消費者陪睡性交易:顏射(精子射在臉上) 、口交口爆(精子射在嘴裡) 、戴套肛交進行交易,不過他表示雖然她為公眾人物,但在這行沒有差別待遇,起薪與一般小姐無異,不過影片中沒透露該女星身分,讓網友相當好奇。