Should California Pass Prop 8?

Should California Pass Prop 8?

The California Supreme Court abolished the state’s same-sex marriage ban in May, sparking public celebration in some places and angry protest in others. Now some critics of same-sex marriage are fighting back with an initiative to reinstate the ban, leaving voters once again divided. Should marriage remain between a man and a woman, or is it time to widen the aisle for same-sex couples? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.)

Next question in Politics

  • “Yes”
  • No Objections Yet

Pacific Justice Institute

Homosexuals Ultimately Want Government Approval of Their Lifestyle

Pacific Justice Institute

Homosexuals argue that the state of California should permit any two consenting adults who love each other — regardless of gender — to get married. Yet plenty of lifestyles are sanctioned by neither federal nor state governments.

Polygamous and incestuous marriages, even among consenting adults, are prohibited pretty much everywhere, as is pedophilia. Nor do states give recognition to couples involved in “open" or "swinging" relationships, in which partners, married or otherwise, are free to date other people.

Homosexual relationships were once proscribable as well — some states even made such relationships criminal. Still, even the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which rendered state sodomy laws unconstitutional, “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexuals seek to enter.” Lawrence merely states that gays’ “right to liberty … gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without interference from the government.” Currently, only one state outside of California , Massachusetts , recognizes homosexual marriages, though four others — Connecticut , New Hampshire , New Jersey and Vermont — allow same-sex “civil unions.”


Though not required to, California has already given formal recognition to same-sex relationships by permitting “domestic partnerships,” which confer upon registered homosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that married heterosexual couples receive. In gays’ view, however, “domestic partnerships” are inherently unequal to “marriages” because they do not go by the same name.


“Different” does not necessarily mean “unequal.” Few would argue that people of different genders, races, religions, or political parties are unequal despite the different labels placed on them. Likewise, the term “domestic partnership” does not necessarily imply that homosexual unions are unequal to the “marriages” heterosexuals enjoy, especially since domestic partners in California enjoy all the same rights and privileges that married couples do. The unions simply go by different names.

"Separate" does not necessarily mean "unequal" in this case.

Post a Comment

Next Argument Previous Next

Marriage Protection Act?

Loading
  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Loading
  • Rabbi Elliot Dorff
    Rabbi Elliot Dorff is Rector and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at American Jewish University. He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy with a dissertation in... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Loading
Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.