Arthur Salm: Prop 8 is brain dead

Public will soon pull the plug.

Monday, June 1, 2009

38 comments | read comments | post a comment

San Diego: salm72dpi Gay marriage in California is a done deal. Yes, Proposition 8 was upheld - that is, it was ruled an amendment that the people of California could vote on. But Proposition 8 was just a battle in the much larger conflict that the tide of history has already decided. It’s as if British, not the Americans, had won the Battle of New Orleans, which took place - unbeknownst to the participants, of course - after the war was officially over. Congratulations, good fight, but guess what.

Part of the reason for the inevitability of gay marriage naturally has a lot to do with the growing acceptance of homosexuality. But more and more people have also realized that there’s a more basic question involved, one that goes to the core of the concept of liberty:

What’s it to you?

As in, What’s it to you if two people you don’t know want to get married? People you don’t know get married all the time. Every day, thousands of people you wouldn’t know if you passed them on the street get married. On paper - at least, on some paper given weight by some religious organizations - we do have an interest in the marriage of people whose marriage ceremonies we’ve been invited to, and we can, if we’re characters in a movie, stand up and do something about it when the minister asks if anyone wants to stand up and do something about it. But that’s about as far as our butt-in rights take us.

Thomas Jefferson, writing about freedom of religion, got to the heart of the matter. He put it a little more elegantly than “What’s it to you?” but the sentiment is identical: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Written 227 years ago, but it couldn’t be clearer.

See related:

More from Arthur Salm

Local leaders on both sides of Prop 8 dispute react to ruling

People are coming to understand that gay marriage neither picks their pockets nor breaks their legs.

Or maybe it does.

Let’s be fair, hear the other side out. The 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed before the (temporary, I tell you) ban have been ruled legal - grandfathered in. (”Heather has two grandfathers!”) Now, that’s a lot of gay married couples, even for a state the size of California. Since opponents of gay marriage insist that it is an attack on the institution, that it is harmful to marriage itself, surely they must be able to present some evidence of the damage inflicted so far: a ding in a honeymoon here, a sideswiped 10^th anniversary there, the occasional totaled marriage in the wrecking yard of divorce. That is, testimonials: “My marriage has suffered because there are gay people who are legally married. And here’s how it has suffered.”

The most vocal proponents of Prop 8 should step forward, lead the way. Tell us: Sex not so frequent? Not as good? Just can’t get the thought of … that out of your mind, and it’s interfering with performance? Really, we want to know. If you’re having difficulties, maybe you’ve got a point.

As for children being confused if gay marriage is legalized, well, by definition children are very young, which means they don’t know much. So we’ll explain to them - if they ask, if they haven’t noticed on their own - that people of the same sex can marry. Then they’ll go play a video game.

(Those who claim that the institution of marriage will be damaged if same-sex couples are allowed to participate remind me of people - and I suspect they are some of the very same people - who declare that “the gay lifestyle” is a choice, one that must be resisted. Ah, yes - the siren call of homosexuality; what straight person hasn’t heard it?, they seem to be saying. Well - sorry, gotta get a little personal here - I’m a straight man, and I have to tell you that I’ve never heard it. But you have, huh? And you’ve resisted. So far. Interesting … )

Turns out we’ve been running an experiment: 18K married gay couples turned loose on society. And the results are negative. Looks like it might be … safe.

And more and more people know it. More and more people are coming around to seeing it as another case of ‘What’s it to you?’ Unless it involves friends of theirs. Or family. Then maybe it’s something special.

Game over.

Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.

Tags: SDNN

This entry was posted on Monday, June 1st, 2009 at 8:46 am and is filed under Columns, Lifestyle. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

READER COMMENTScomment rules | moderation | privacy

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 10:19 am

Homosexuality is a sexual behavior. It cannot be compared to race or ethnicity. People who engage in same-sex behavior are accorded the same rights as every other citizen. Special rights should not be given to individuals because of their sexual behavior. Homosexuality is not a genetically encoded condition - like height or skin color.

Comment by: Stephen Posted: June 1, 2009, 11:45 am

By your own logic, heterosexuality is a sexual behavior. That means it’s not natural, that you chose it over other alternatives, etc. See how stupid that sounds?

Comment by: Paul Posted: June 1, 2009, 12:00 pm

Okay Andrew,if what you say it also follows that
heterosexuality is a sexual behavior. It cannot be compared to race or ethnicity. People who engage in mixed-sex behavior should be accorded the same rights as every other citizen. Special rights should not be given to individuals because of their heterosexual behavior. Heterosexuality is not a genetically encoded condition - like height or skin color.
No more exclusive marriage rights for heterosexuals.

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 12:08 pm

You are 100% right. I did choose my heterosexuality. There are distinct biological differences between males and females that draw men to women and women to men. Pheromones is a very dumbed down simple example. I could get more scientific on you and spout more complicated examples but I’m not sure of your knowledge on the subject. Natures paves the way of our choice, and God controls nature. Homosexuality is not emotionally or physically natural for reproduction or any other human need. Our laws are based on a time-tested tradition of nature and justice. It is not natural for humans to kill other humans as well as the practice of homosexuality. You see…I think we agree. Its often nice to agree with someone who has different point of view.

Comment by: Ted Posted: June 1, 2009, 12:15 pm

Oh, Andrew. Did you get your argument from 1971?

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 12:50 pm

1971? What happened in 1971?

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 1:07 pm

And for the author…You ask “What’s it to you?”… Last year the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on AIDS treatment, research and programs. AIDS in the U.S. is largely a homosexual disease stemming from unhealthy sexual practices. There are many consensual behaviors that current laws and customs have deemed harmful because of their negative effect on society. Although this isn’t directly tied to marriage, the idea of private matters, do have a negative effect on society.

Comment by: Joe Posted: June 1, 2009, 2:51 pm

Andrew,
Gay people shouldn’t be afforded special rights (which they are not), and they shouldn’t be singled out for special exceptions to rights and responsibilities(which they now are).

I think you’d be surprised that most gay people want what you want - to be left alone to marry and raise their families. Might think about that instead of what goes on in the bedroom.

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 3:45 pm

Joe,
When you say families, the normal person would refer to bearing and raising children. Homosexuality disqualifies a couple from bearing children for obvious reasons. Psychologists agree in saying that a child needs can only be fully met from both a mother and father. I’m not making this stuff up. This is a very well known and documented fact in which psychologists spent years researching.

Comment by: Larry Hogue Posted: June 1, 2009, 4:45 pm

Nice article Arthur. Thanks for reminding me of that Thomas Jefferson quote.

And for Andrew: boy I’m glad my wife and I had our two kids before the marriage police checked up on us. Or are we required to have more? What are the punishments if we’re not procreative enough? Banned from the institution of marriage, or something worse?

Just had dinner with three other married couples last night. We were the only ones with kids. Should I warn my friends that the marriage police are coming for them?

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 1, 2009, 5:21 pm

Mr. Hogue,
I was simply responding to a comment by Joe. He had mentioned raising families. Now if you want to make fun, maybe you should leave that to your dinner parties and not in this article. You make yourself look silly.

Comment by: loybax Posted: June 1, 2009, 5:56 pm

Mr Hogue,

One difference to note is those couples you had dinner with may not have children now, but their marriage is open to procreation anytime they should decide to have children in the future.

Comment by: Richard Posted: June 1, 2009, 6:07 pm

Andrew,

#1 - Not everyone gets married in order to have a family. Raising a family is not a rule of marriage.

#2 - Many gay people already have children from previous marriages, or from adoption. So, they already have families. And these families should be protected.

#3 - What’s it to you? Focus on your own life and stay out of others’ lives.

#4 - Hogue could come to a dinner party of mine, anytime. And if he is making himself look silly .. it is much better than what you make yourself look like .. which is foolish. Why don’t you quote some scripture for us, to make yourself feel better…

Comment by: Chaparralian Posted: June 1, 2009, 8:04 pm

Andrew,

Although you may want to believe homosexuality is not genetic, your beliefs have nothing to do with science. Since I suspect you are not a scientist (no scientist would make a absolute statement like you did considering the significant amount of evidence that strongly suggests homosexuality is indeed genetic), it would probably be best to stick with what you know. You know your faith. Go with that. However, understand that many of us believe that Jesus would have embraced love shared between two people, no matter the gender, without caveats.

If you want to codify marriage according to rules within your own church, that’s fine. Just don’t assume you have the right to force those rules on the rest of us. Marriage is a legal contract, a contract that is associated with the state. As such it must be available to any couple that desires to enter into that contract, not just to people who agree with Andrew.

As long as you love instead of hate, what’s the problem?

Comment by: Ada Posted: June 1, 2009, 11:44 pm

Response to Andrew’s comment, “Psychologists agree in saying that a child needs can only be fully met from both a mother and father. I’m not making this stuff up. This is a very well known and documented fact in which psychologists spent years researching.”

Please refer to this link before making absolute statements: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Since you brought psychologists into the picture, here is something directly from the APA’s website regarding children of lesbian and gay parents: “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children…Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

I’m not making this stuff up, either. I promise!

Comment by: Ada Posted: June 1, 2009, 11:47 pm

To: loybax

Re:

“Mr Hogue,

One difference to note is those couples you had dinner with may not have children now, but their marriage is open to procreation anytime they should decide to have children in the future.”

And what if one of those couples Mr. Logue had dinner with were infertile? That renders your argument invalid then, I suppose.

And what if those

Comment by: Chaparralian Posted: June 2, 2009, 7:07 am

Ada,

Thanks for the science! It is refreshing when someone actually brings real data to the discussion.

Comment by: Mel Posted: June 2, 2009, 9:03 am

Andrew~
you just said it yourself. I will quote you “here are distinct biological differences between males and females that draw men to women and women to men. Pheromones is a very dumbed down simple example.”

You don’t choose who you are attracted to. It is biological.

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 2, 2009, 9:21 am

Oh Ada,
It is another well known fact that the APA is a strong advocate for Gay and Lesbian rights. The study you have provided in a link has been shot down numerous times in courts of law stating that the APA misrepresented the scientific literature to courts in support of homosexual custody. So its like me providing a link to you that was written by a Christian pastor stating that homosexuality is a sin. The APA completely based their study on there own beliefs. FACT.

I do give you an A for effort on your internet search, though.

Comment by: furbrain Posted: June 2, 2009, 9:41 am

This article is absolutely correct. Last year over 18,000 couples chose to get married. You may know some of those couples, you may not. I ask a simple question. If you are truly honest and introspective the answer is also simple…
What effect, difference, impact, result have these marriages had on your life? The only answer is none.

Comment by: Mark Holmes Posted: June 2, 2009, 11:20 am

Way off topic, but I just have to note that the quality of comments here at SDNN far surpasses that of signonsandiego.com, which tend to be juvenile and a little, well… dumbed down. So kudos to the San Diego News Network for drawing such bright readers and posters.

And Andrew, I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the APA, whether you are talking about the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, both of which do not consider sexual orientation a disorder, but as simply an orientation. Both organizations are over a hundred years old and represent the overwhelming majority of current research and thinking of modern mental health professionals in the U.S.

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 2, 2009, 11:37 am

Mr. Holmes,
I appreciate your non-biased comment but I wouldn’t be so quick to support the APA (American Psychological Association). Recent news has surfaced of a recall from an earlier claim they have made. At one point, they claimed there is a gay gene and now they are back-pedaling to withdrawl that statement. But hey…they’ve been around for over a hundred years so we have to believe everything they say, right?

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

Comment by: TomSD Posted: June 2, 2009, 4:18 pm

I think the answer to this is simple.

The government should be in the business of giving legal rights to partners. That’s all. Domestic partnerships determine these rights. The government should issue domestic partnerships to all couples regardless of sexuality.

If someone wants to be married in the eyes of God, find a church that will “Marry” you and get married. This aspect is not a function of government. If you truly believe in the teachings of your church, then live up to the individual churches rules. The government should not be in the middle of this debate.

Comment by: New Hampshire gov signs gay marriage into law Posted: June 3, 2009, 3:06 pm

[...] Arthur Salm: Prop 8 is brain dead [...]

Comment by: loybax Posted: June 3, 2009, 8:10 pm

Hi Ada,

Good point. I guess infertile couples are still open to procreation because future medical “miracles” (or maybe a miracle from God..hehehe) may actually allow the couple to procreate.

You may say that technology may come to a point wherein a man can be made to bear children (is there such a science already?). Well i’d say that is different and is another moral/ethical issue altogether.

Comment by: Lark Posted: June 3, 2009, 9:55 pm

Brilliant, as usual, Salm.
Novel time….. You reviewed enough books in your time, now it’s time to write one. Your fans are waiting.

Comment by: Arthur Salm: We need national health care Posted: June 4, 2009, 11:59 am

[...] Arthur Salm columns: Prop 8 is brain dead Lose the Chargers? No loss at [...]

Comment by: Eleanor Posted: June 4, 2009, 6:31 pm

Andrew, you cite as your authority that there is no “gay gene” an article published by Bob Unruh, editor of WorldNetDaily, a far right on-line magazine that promotes the rantings of such upstanding Americans as Jerome Corsi and tells us how the U.S. government is secretly stockpiling huge amounts of canned food for some impending crisis and how we can plant our own crisis gardens with “survival seeds.” The basis for Mr. Unruh’s conclusion that there is no gay gene is that the APA admits that there is no consensus among scientists as to whether homosexuality is caused by a single factor or a combination of multiple factors, i.e., “.. nature and nuture play complex roles…”.

People who actually care about the truth base their opinions on scientific issues on the work and writings of actual researchers in the field who publish in juried scientific journals, such as the “Proceedings of the Royal Society B” (Biological Sciences) and “Nature”: “we develop theory to make contrasting predictions about the genetic characteristics of genes influencing homosexuality including: (i) chromosomal location, (ii) dominance among segregating alleles and (iii) effect sizes that distinguish between the two major models for their polymorphism: the overdominance and sexual antagonism models.” They don’t rely on some hack political publication that makes no secret of its homophobic predisposition.

Andrew: broaden your information sources and you’ll broaden your mind.

Comment by: Andrew Posted: June 5, 2009, 9:19 am

Eleanor, Eleanor, Eleanor….Lets just be real for a second. As I realize WorldNetDaily is a right wing publication, it doesn’t deny the fact that the APA made this gay gene statement.

I am a social worker and I see things how they really are; the effects of soceity on children and the scars inflicted from a dysfunctional up-bringing. You choose to justify yourself by degrading people who don’t see things as you do.

Eleanor: broaden your understanding on how soceity works and you’ll start to see things from real-life expierences and not from the “Proceedings of the Royal Society B”

Comment by: Michael Posted: June 6, 2009, 1:38 pm

I take exception to your statement; of a “growing acceptance of homosexuality.” Tolerance perhaps, but acceptance, no, never, regardless of how “unenlightened” they may seem or choose be.

Comment by: Jeff Posted: June 8, 2009, 10:54 am

Why in the world are gays so hell-bent on getting married in the first place? If it is just for the feel-good love of it all, why the fierce response to the new amendment? I suspect there is money at the root of all this (as with most things) in the form of benefits, etc. There is an agenda here and the new, militant attitude among activist gays is going to set them back. Their attempt to create and image for their lifestyle as “normal” is also off the mark. Gays represent a small minority of the population so their sexual practices are, by definition, not normal.

Comment by: Jeff Posted: June 8, 2009, 2:55 pm

Why must you oppress people?

By the way, he is an article that refutes the “pheremones” argument. Turns out gay men react to male pheremones in a similar way straight women…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

Take that pseudo-scientists!

Comment by: ENMOSD Posted: June 13, 2009, 7:34 am

I am plain disgusted at seeing all the people who think that homosexuality is a choice. Most gay people are born gay and should be respected, just as heterosexuals. On the other hand, in the many businesses that I have successfully run in my life I have always found that gay employees are always among the best. I know of gay couples who are lovingly raising a family by adopting kids who did not have any opportunity in life. I am heterosexual but find the gay marriage issue absolutely right and those marriages do not affect anyone. That Hate of proposition H8 harms our social and moral values. That Hate is what make gays stay in the closet, with fear of hateful bullies who are everywhere in our society (almost 51%, remember?).

Comment by: Charles Posted: June 24, 2009, 9:07 am

WHO would ever CHOOSE to be uncertain, awkward through sexuality and picked on by other young people of the same gender. Why would anyone CHOOSE this. Being homosexual is not a choice. You cannot CHOOSE this lifestyle! Think about it. Closely. Prop 8 is pure discrimination. Just like Japanese American internment camps of the 1940’s, just like the Jim Crow Laws; this Prop 8 is something that most of the people that voted for, don’t even understand because they haven’t taken the time to understand what it means. this Andrew fellow, and his quote about how children need both a mother and father to go up in a nurtured and “correct” way may want to look at the President of the frickin’ United States! He had barely any contact with his father! I know more screwed up people that had the perfect mother and father and Leave it to Beaver type family then anybody else. So, please don’t speak on things that you do not understand. If you want to express your opinion then back it up with rational thinking. So, why the hatred, why? Gay marriage is not hurting anybody. And I’m straight.

Comment by: Charles Posted: June 24, 2009, 9:12 am

As for Gay Marriage. Many people ask why gays want to marry. This is what infuriates me. Maybe folks don’t know that gay partners are legally cut off from so many benefits: health benefits, death benefits, tax benefits, if you come from a money/logistical standpoint. That Jeff guy that says, homosexuals represent a small portion of society should have his head examines. African American, Arab Americans, Hispanic-Americans also represent a small portion of society, so we should exclude them too? Where is this guy writing from, Santee?

Comment by: Realitycheck Posted: June 25, 2009, 9:13 am

Charles writes “Where is this guy writing from, Santee?” - Way to stereotype a whole community as not being inclusive in your effort to make a point. Where are you writing from, Hillcrest?

Comment by: samuel colt Posted: June 26, 2009, 6:56 pm

To those who argue (including yourself Arther
Salm) that allowing homosexual marriages would not affect anyone else, I say not so fast. In New Mexico, a husband and wife who were photographers were fined $6,000 by the state human rights commission for refusing to photograph a “lesbian commitment ceremony” because it violated their religious beliefs. In New Jersey, a church run Christian camp lost part of its tax-exempt status for refusing to host another “lesbian commitment ceremony” In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was forced to shut down their adoption program that they had run for many years because they would be forced to adopt children out to homosexual couples.
School children in Massachusetts being taught about homosexuality from books titled “the prince and the prince” This alarming trend has even spilled over into freedom of speech issues. In Ohio, an associate vice president at the state run university was fired for writing a column in which she, as a black woman, objected to the homosexual movement being compared to the civil rights movement. In San Diego, an employee was fired because he objected to an e-mail for all employees to observe “gay and lesbian pride month” Yes, Mr. Salm the homosexual movement has not broken any ones leg, but it sure “picked the pockets” of those individuals who lost their jobs because they had the audacity to stand for their faith and what they believed in.

Comment by: Daniel Keggin Posted: June 28, 2009, 12:49 pm

All we have to do is look at Holland, to see what is next on the homosexual agenda. Sex with babies and animals.

Version 3.21