Orson Scott Card and Mormon Politics

There's a danger when celebrities use their fame to promote a political agenda - the danger being that you loose all respect for them and their work. It seems Orson Scott Card is advocating revolution in the event that the Federal Government comes out in favor of gay marriage.

"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization.."

I just don't understand how the author for Speaker for the Dead a book which heavily advocates consideration of alternative viewpoints could have grown into such a tragically close minded senior.

Wow...

I followed your link, and what did I find? Nothing credible.

Apparently, the author of the article was sent a source-less email, and immediately concluded it must be true. As I posted there: Oh, you got it in an e-mail! Must be true then. Did the person who sent you the e-mail also send you the links to the articles? Or tell you where they were published? Or give you any other information by which this can be verified? Because, if not, I'd delete this e-mail just like I delete the ones from former Ministers of Finance in Nigeria.

I don't know about the source for the above quote, because I didn't read all of it, but there is an essay by Orson Scott Card written in 2004 about gay marriage at ornery.org. I think his opposition is very clear.

#3: If you Google elsewhere, you'll see more blogs citing this post, which state that it was an op-ed for the Mormon Times, July 24, 2008. The link that the blogs are sending me to isn't working, but I'm pretty sure this is legit. Having read some of Card's noxious writings on homosexuals before, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Here is just one of the many blogs which link to the Mormon Times. Maybe somebody can find a way to retrieve the article itself, since the links aren't working.
http://janalubina.com/2008/07/29/orson-scott-cards-anti-gay-rant/

http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237

#6: Yep, just found it myself. Thanks.

#3 If it's untrue, it's pretty bold to publish it online. Certainly you would make yourself vulnerable to litigation from Mr Card.

For the record, I'm not thrilled with it either lilithcat. I probably own 90% of the books he's published, from Treason on up.

> 8

Yes, it makes you wonder why someone would publish something when they themselves don't have the source in hand. (Of course, New York Times v. Sullivan makes it pretty difficult for a public figure like Card to win a defamation suit, though it could happen.)

I'm constantly amazed at how credulous people are about things they "read on the Internet" or "were sent in an email", as though the fact that it arrived electronically proved the item's bona fides. There's a couple of people in my office who are constantly distributing the wildest of urban legends which two minutes at Snopes would disprove. But do they check? God forbid.

B-b-but it's on the Internet! It must be true! :D

As an aside, the fierce opposition by Mormons to same-sex marriage is a bit mystifying to me. If I'm recalling correctly, Mormon people were heavily persecuted, socially and governmentally, in their early founding days in America. And, eventually, had to cave in to governmental and societal pressure to change their views on marriage from polygynous to monogamous.

So Mormons mobilizing to restrict marriage rights does seem a bit odd ...

Yes, you'll notice Card (vel pseudo-Card) didn't express it as one-woman-and-one-man, but heterosexuals...

Damn. I was going to avoid commenting on this topic!

#10 It's beyond me why Card concerns himself with the relationships of non-Mormons. No one is forcing their church to conduct gay marriages, so what difference does it make?

> 12 It's beyond me why anyone, really, concerns themselves with the relationships of others, including movie stars. C'est la vie, I guess ...

I can understand (though don't share) that a person disapproves of same-sex sex, marriage, etc. based on religious belief. Mr. Card falls into that category. But I have, as of yet, seen no secular arguments as to why same-sex marriage is harmful, either to gays/lesbians, straight people, government, or society at large.

Maybe we need to take this in the opposite direction and eliminate the Federal recognition of marriage. Make it just a church thing.

>13 Essa:

So, you support legal polygamous marriage?

(And no, I'm not taking that from a social-conservative point of view—"ho ho ho, and then we let people marry horses!" I can't see any argument for gay marriage that isn't about the fundamental rights of the matter; and I don't see why dissident mormons can't have legal protections that were the case for gay marriage.)

> 15 I'm not sure I'm understanding your post at all, particularly the last half of the last sentence. What's that about dissident Mormons? I'm not sure what you mean.

As to legal polygamous marriage ... I have mixed feelings. For one thing, I don't believe I have enough legal knowledge to be able to understand and address it properly, from the standpoint of U.S. laws -- how they would change, what would need to be addressed, what precautions to take, and so on.

An examination of countries where polygymy is legal, might be illuminating. Unfortunately, I believe -- or assume -- that most such countries have only polygyny, and are generally operating from a system highly skewed in favor of men and male rights. And I'm emphatically not in favor of steering the U.S. in that direction.

Is it possible to have legal polygamous marriages in which all genders are treated equitably, and which protects the rights of spouses, children and taxpayers? Maybe. What would such a system look like, and how would we specifically go about creating it? ... I have no idea. :D

#14: yes, I agree - the government - state or federal - should have no authority, no jurisdiction, and no interest in marriage.

Simplify the tax code, nix the dependent claims, and enforce contracts as matter of civil law when required. No special rights, no exclusive recognition, and above all no government sanction or oversight.

What is so difficult about this?

What is so difficult about this?

Well, obviously, if the government doesn't sanction people's marriages and subsidize their child-bearing, humans will stop marrying & reproducing. The end of the human race! ;)

Sorry, only dissident mormons have polygamous marriage. Regular mormons do not.

in which all genders are treated equitably, and which protects the rights of spouses, children

See, I just think that undercuts the whole gay marriage argument. It's not about whether a particular sort of marriage are—on average—equal, good for children or etc. If it could be proven that black-white marriages were 10% more likely to include abuse or involved more stress on children, for example, should we prevent blacks and whites from marrying? Of course not. It's not about whether any group is better or worse at marriage. The issue is one of equality and rights—right?

13>
It seems that some gays and lesbians people got it into their heads that when two adults love each other, they should be able to get married and have that marriage receive legal recognition, like by Alaska. Boy oh boy, how naive they are! Doggone it, don't they understand that when gay people marry each other it undermines the marriages of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals, I'm one you see and there's lots of us too, we get hurt when we see gays and lesbians slipping those wedding rings on. Really really hurts. See -- and this is what they don't see -- that marriage is only for one man and one woman, together, it's in the bible. The bible also, don't forget, in Levisi Seuss, it's wrong, homosexuality is wrong. It's right there in that good book, right there for everybody to read and marinate over. Now when God shows me an open door, even if it's just a little crack, I'm gonna plough right on through it, don't ya know. But then gays and lesbians see that little crack, the tiny little opening to get married, we'll I'm gonna slam that door right shut. I want to shut on them, bless their hearts.

And for support of the above argument reference mr. Card's site. http://www.ornery.org/ . :)

There's a little video on the right hand column about prop 8. If this is what y'all had to see in California, I feel very sad.

@13: "I have, as of yet, seen no secular arguments as to why same-sex marriage is harmful"

(1) Which of the many books on the subject have you read?

(2) What reasons does President-Elect Obama give for opposing same-sex marriage?

(3) What secular arguments are there for only accepting secular arguments?

(2) What reasons does President-Elect Obama give for opposing same-sex marriage?
Personal religious beliefs. You'll notice that's why he's not out there legislating against it; despite his wishy-washy hemming and hawing on the gay marriage issue, he did not support Prop 8. Because re: your #3, in the political realm, there's that whole pesky separation of church and state bit...

>22 cpg:

The NYT did a good story on Obama vs. McCain's justifications for their stand. Basically the thesis was that Obama's expressed justification was religious, and McCain's was not.

24
McCain just thought it was icky.

#22 cpg, you seem to oppose gay marriage, and I'm guessing from your questions that your reasons are religious.

Why would you bother to impose your beliefs on people that are not a part of your religious organization? Beyond bigotry, I don't understand the motivation.

How about imposing your beliefs on dead people that aren't part of your religious organization:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9l-R1TIM_X5myzSoEzLN7QnqdSwD94C9QH80

(In case that link doesn't work, just Google for stories about Mormons baptizing dead Jews.)

27
Well, I'd say this thread is about to get a lot more interesting....

19 Ah, yes. True. Thanks for the clarification. As for protecting rights, I'm thinking issues such as, if you take a second (or third, or more) spouse, are you legally required to inform the first spouse(s)? Or can you just marry up a bunch of people across the country/world and keep them all secret from each other? If marriage of multiples leads to a divorce of multiples, are there laws or structures in place to ensure that alimony and child support issues (if any) are handled equitably? That's the type of thing I'm referring to.

Of course, going the libertarian route and ditching the government recognition of marriage completely, as enevada mentioned, may be an option that works. I'm unsure if or when such a step will be taken, though.

Hi cpg, I'll try to answer your questions.

(1) Which of the many books on the subject have you read?

None. It's generally a topic I try to stay away from, frankly. :D This is why I did not say, "There are no secular arguments"; instead, I said, "I have, as of yet, seen no secular arguments." There may well be some out there, but they haven't crossed my radar. Which, given that I am not glued to the radars on this issue, is not all that surprising.

(2) What reasons does President-Elect Obama give for opposing same-sex marriage?

To the best of my knowledge, he opposed same-sex marriage based on his Christian religious faith; however, he did support legal civil unions.

(3) What secular arguments are there for only accepting secular arguments?

I'm not sure I understand your question. In my opinion and to my understanding, religious belief alone is not enough to warrant the inclusion or exclusion of something in public law. Thus, for instance, Jews and Muslims are commanded by their religious texts not to eat pork, but we don't have secular public laws forbidding everyone to eat pork, because there is no non-religious reason to have such laws. We do, however, have laws regulating food safety and meat inspection, because tainted meat and public health are problems that can affect everyone.

@23: "Personal religious beliefs. You'll notice that's why he's not out there legislating against it"

I'm not sure what that means. Vice President-Elect Biden insisted in his debate with Governor Palin that he and President-Elect Obama do not support same-sex marriage. If that wasn't a comment on laws pertaining to same-sex marriage, what was it?

@26: "Why would you bother to impose your beliefs on people that are not a part of your religious organization? Beyond bigotry, I don't understand the motivation."

(1) There are many books that address secular reasons for not supporting same-sex marriage. Have you read any of them?

(2) Do you claim that none of your personal beliefs affect the way you vote?

@27: "How about imposing your beliefs on dead people that aren't part of your religious organization"

If speaking a dead person's name while performing a religious rite is tantamount to imposing one's belief on him/her, then speaking to a person about your beliefs (or disbelief) is tantamount to imposing your beliefs (or disbelief) on him/her. I don't find that a useful definition of "imposition".

@30: "In my opinion and to my understanding, religious belief alone is not enough to warrant the inclusion or exclusion of something in public law."

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. What is the secular reason for disallowing the performance of sexual acts in the public square?

cpg, we are interested in YOUR reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, not those of an author who is not present to respond.

Its very brave of you to join the conversation. I hope your courage persists so that we can understand your position.

Card takes a very pro-creation centered stand. If reproduction is the only function of marriage, should women who've gone through menopause or men who sperm is past its prime be permitted to marry? Should sterile people be permitted to marry? Should we outlaw and thus dissolve the marriages of grandparents and childless couples?

@32: "we are interested in YOUR reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, not those of an author who is not present to respond."

Where did I say I oppose same-sex marriage?

LOL! Oh well. Courage is fleeting I guess.

> 31

What is the secular reason for disallowing the performance of sexual acts in the public square?

It frightens the horses.

The obvious answer to the questions in your last paragraph are simple...it is not JUST the act of procreation, according to Mormons, but the whole structure of family, of which procreation is a necessary part, but not the only part.

So people who are past child bearing age, but who have had children are still functional members of a family. In fact, a remarriage after a death would be a desirable thing, because it places one back in a family structure. The family is a system that is ordained by God, and involvement in a family is a part of God's will for our lives.

I am sure there are secular arguments against gay marriage, but it is fair to say that many of them are still based on a religious mentality, and that religious arguments far outnumber secular arguments. (I am not aware of any purely secular studies on this, so perhaps cpg could point us toward some.)

In Germany there are state marriages and religious marriages and never do they officially meet. One is married by the state for legal purposes. One is married by the Church for religious purposes. A church marriage is not recognized as a legal marriage.

I think society has a benefit in encouraging healthy family life, so I am not opposed to tax benefits for couples, etc. To a certain extent, I am not opposed to setting a few barriers to divorce...not making it impossible, but I don't think it should be too easy either, especially if children are involved. Anyone whose parents are divorced can probably testify to both the need and the pain of divorce.

I don't oppose gay marriage at all. Straight people provide a benefit to society when the marry (stability, which improves the chances of buying a home, having joint bank accounts, being able to make health care decisions, etc). And so would gay couples.

I would not necessarily be opposed to polygamy, but it would have to be voluntary and consensual. (Those are basic human rights in my book.) If someone does not know about another spouse, that is hardly a consensual polygamous marriage.

@34: "Courage is fleeting"

But hasty assumptions last forever.

Well then, say something and it won't be necessary to make assumptions. Just a suggestion.

It's not necessary to make assumptions even if I don't say something.

#36 I agree with you that marriage, is so much more than procreation. It's not only a support structure for children, but also for parents and elderly. I'm not sure I agree that the state should be in the business of rewarding it though. By granting special tax status, the government has created a caste system.

One of the most heartbreaking situations is when an elderly gay person is hospitalized and their life partner is denied access to their bedside by the fundamentalist family. Of course marriage equality would eliminate nastiness like that.

It's as makifat said, the "yuck." factor. Sex is about power and heterosexual men have a strong negative response to being placed in the position of potential catcher. That primitive fear is what drove the whole "abomination" clause (imo) and what is driving the opposition to gay marriage now.

#37 cpg, all you give us hasty hit and run comments. But you're wrong about the forever. I am nothing if not in a state of perpetual evolution.

31
If speaking a dead person's name while performing a religious rite is tantamount to imposing one's belief on him/her, then speaking to a person about your beliefs (or disbelief) is tantamount to imposing your beliefs (or disbelief) on him/her.

"speaking a dead person's name while performing a religious rite..." is a wildly gross misrepresentation of the LDS baptism by proxy. It is, frankly, a despicable practice which, as the cited article explains, the church had previously promised to cease. This was a big issue when I lived in Utah a few years ago, and representing the complexities of of it in such an offhand manner is disingenuous.

Sorry that this isn't directly pertinent to the thread, but I have strong feelings about this, and can't let this go by.

35
Hilarious!

40
For the record, the "icky" comment I made in post 25 was not specifically a personal opinion, but more in the line of a lame joke.

Oh I know, but it's definitely out there and it's definitely worth addressing.

For the record;

Most states do not recognize common law marriages, even among persons of different genders. Gay couples who cannot marry, and anyone else who is in a non-legal relationship, should have a medical power of attorney, which is limited, but gives the person you designate, presumably your partner, the power to make medical decisions on your behalf. If you have a power of attorney, no other family member can keep you from seeing the patient.

We have a pretty open door policy at our hospital. Unless we feel the visitor would be bad for the patient, we encourage visits. If we have to work out times to keep some family members from meeting other family members, we try to do that. (One guy, who had a stroke, aged 23, was visited by his girlfriend, who was interrupted by a visit from his OTHER girlfriend. Neither knew about the other.

What is the secular reason for disallowing the performance of sexual acts in the public square?

Ay, caramba. I'm not a legal scholar or jurist, and LTers who actually have knowledge in these areas are going to blast me as I try to answer your question. :D

My assumption, or guess, would be, that such laws were in fact religious or quasi-religious in their origin. However, I think one could probably still make a secular argument for such laws.

Just as one cannot, despite free-speech laws, shout the clichéd fire in the proverbial crowded theater -- because it causes a public disturbance and possibly even harm, etc. -- one cannot "let it all hang out," without limits, in the public square. And I'm not even sure that sex falls under the rubric of "speech" and free-speech laws. (With some exceptions, such as for instance the cases involving nude dancing here in Oregon.)

In Western culture, it's our tradition (generally) that sex remain a private thing amongst consenting adults, and that the non-consenting -- and children -- not be involved with it at all. This tradition survives into modern times as a general cultural value, irrespective of people's individual religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Thus, we still have laws on the books that restrict sexual expression in the public square. Perhaps similarly, we have the rights of free speech and assembly, but we regulate the public square to keep it free from excessive noise, rioting and the like, so that everyone can partake of the public square, not just those who have consented to the excess noise or the riots.

You could perhaps also make the case based on things like aesthetics and public health, as the no-smoking laws do.

As for books on secular discussions of same-sex marriage, feel free to recommend some, as I'm sure they would be quite interesting. Well, or as interesting as the area of law ever gets. :D Honestly, sometimes after reading these threads where people wrangle to death over these issues, I begin to think that Lunar is right and that ridding ourselves of this stuff is the way to go. Which will also get me blasted by some. :D Oh well.

I would recommend What Is Marriage For? by E. J. Graff as a place to start (of course, it is the only book I've read on the subject, there may be better ones out there). It looks at the tradition and purpose of marriage through history, particularly in Europe and North America. Graff argues for marriage equality.

So, I am in favor of gay marriage, but I think someone needs to put the "secular" case well—to have the conversational empathy to treat this as a real question, rather than to turn it into a bugaboo of the religious right.

The basic secular argument would be that marriage is an extremely old institution, central to the family which is itself basic to the organization of society--and that it has always been between a man and a woman, not just coincidentally but because marriage is related in a basic way to procreation, and is grounded in how the human species has worked for millennia.

Someone advocating for gay marriage—as I do—should at least realize the audacious "newness" of the idea. Although gay sex is old—if generally frowned upon—in world culture, gay marriage is an innovation, and, historically speaking, quite a big one.

I think you get past this argument in two big ways. First, I rather fond of rights, and nobody has a right to stop me from marrying. But you also get past it by recognizing that although it involves an innovation, it actually underscores the importance of marriage and its value to people and the society.

Basically homosexuals were once marginalized and/or essentially forced into heterosexual marriage. That is now over—and a good thing. The former situation was no doubt unpleasant in many ways, but at least it offered homosexuals entre into the long-term family structure of society. (No doubt many homosexuals have chosen to marry against their preference and identity because family life attracted them, and it was not available outside of traditional marriage.) Now that homosexuals can love whom they want, it is particularly cruel to prevent them from doing as heterosexuals can—to convert romantic and sexual love into that stronger, deeper and more important love—the family.

Well put, Tim.

On the positive side:

NEW HAVEN — Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregion/13marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=...

makifat, responding to your message 41, I too have forever been offended by that practice of the Mormon church. I do not want my deceased relatives joined up to the Mormon church just because some remote relative wants to tidy up their lists. I am noting that this church has officially repudiated polygamy, and racism and I am hoping this practice, too, will be deep sixed. Although, I realize it is a church practice and does not affect me directly. It is not as far as I know a matter of public policy or law.

in world culture, gay marriage is an innovation, and, historically speaking, quite a big one.


Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Paperback) by John Boswell

#46: There are still a great many who want no part of it, and accept their orientation for what it is: a point of difference, accepted and celebrated as such.

I am reminded of Gore Vidal's interview with Deborah Solomon in the NYT Magazine, from which:

"Are you a supporter of gay marriage?
I know nothing about it. I don’t follow that.

Why doesn’t it interest you?
The same reason heterosexual marriage doesn’t seem to interest me.

link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15wwln-Q4-t.html

Well that's certainly seems interesting. Hmm, I wonder if I could get that at the library. Have you read it Lola?

Years ago (I have a copy, as well as Boswell's earlier Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality).

I'd recommend it already for the discussion of the original documents alone, whether you end up persuaded by Boswell's arguments or not.

I have it (Boswell book) also, and thought it was interesting. Like LolaWalser, I own my copy, but I'm sure you could obtain it at libraries. My local library has a copy of it.

Other cultures have their own histories with regards to same-sex activity and relationships, and there are various studies and books about those, too. To my eyes, the heterosexual nuclear family seems like a relatively recent invention, historically speaking.

51
But it's nice to have options, no?

I think for those of Vidal's generation and older, the possibility of marriage was so remote, and the relationships so deeply closeted that, like Vidal, they just didn't consider it as any kind of real option. Hence the term "long-time companion".

#55: from that same interview:

You live in California , where last month the State Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage . As someone who lived with a male companion for 50-plus years, do you see this as a victory for equality?

People would ask, How could you live with someone for so long without any problems of any kind? I said, There was no sex.

Were you chaste during those years?

Chased by whom?

Everyone has the option to pursue whatever (non-criminal) relationship they want, and if they are of legal age they can create formal, binding contracts - but beyond that, what is the need for state sanction and or approval? I do not see one.

The State can not please everyone on this issue, nor does it have an interest to do so.

#54

Certainly the argument "it ever was thus" holds little value in deciding what is just and what is not.

Anyway, while Americans debate how fast or slow to approach extending legal marriage rights to homosexuals, it's useful to remember that the precedent has already been set in a number of countries, and will continue. Toronto has developed a small wedding industry for foreigners (mostly Americans); last year I attended one such wedding of a couple of friends from North Carolina. It seems their Canadian certificate may be recognised soon in Massachusetts at least. While I was in Argentina (which has civil unions for homosexuals), Uruguay became the first South American country to recognise equal marriage rights for them. So you see, there's plenty of hope in progress outside the Land of the Free.

Another couple of friends flew last month from Australia to San Francisco just to get married there (one of them is a San Franciscan), I'm not sure what the legal status of their marriage is now. The legalities are important because they wish to regulate property administration, citizenship papers, and finally "just because"--because they WANT to be a married couple in the eyes of the law. That they actually are "a marriage" no one has doubted for years.

#51

Some people don't like the idea of marriage, period. Although, if I may be hopelessly romantic for a second, Vidal lost his Tru Luv at nineteen (and by his own admission, never recovered), so who knows how he'd feel about it if he had a crack at a relationship like, say, Isherwood and Bachardy's.

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Paperback) by John Boswell

That thesis doesn't have much of a reputation among specialists--in the period anyway. You can say a lot of hoey about Medieval Sicily and sell a lot of books to gender studies classes without getting called on it.

Even if, contrary to all other evidence, gays were actually marrying in medieval Sicily—rather than engaging in church crafted services to end blood feuds—it was hardly a general case! Marriage is not some arbitrarily constructed piffle of a thing that every culture in history has done wildly differently. Wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

Again, I don't think the argument-from-history should be decisive at all. Slavery too was a contant in much of human history--however much some abolionists tried to argue that away. But it's an argument, and not one grounded in "faith." The implication of much of this thread--that being against gay marriage is only possible from a "religious" standpoint, and that only because, as we all know, religions have no ideas, merely prohibitions, doesn't hold up.

I think there's a general point here: Some people don't want to win arguments--to make a better argument and build support for it. They want to rob opposing arguments of any claim to coherence or plausibility, and demonize those who hold them.

It's odd that people who express antipathy towards homosexuality (and 'gay marriage') also have no problem extolling the wisdom of the author -- a founder of Western Civilization! -- of numerous passages such as this:

Socrates: 'Once upon a time, then, there was a boy, or rather a young lad, and very beautiful he was; and he had a very large number of lovers. And one of the was cunning, because although he was as much in love as any of them, he had convinced the boy that he was not in love with him. And once in pressing his claims he tried to convince him of just this, that one ought to grant favours to one not in love rather than to the one in love; and he spoke like this:
"'In everything, my boy, there is one starting-point for those who are going to deliberate successfully; they must know what they are deliberating about, or they will inevitably miss their target altogether. Most people are unaware that they do not know what each thing really is. So then, assuming that they know what it is, they fail to reach agreement about it at the beginning of their enquiry, and, having gone forward on this basis, they pay the penalty one would expect: they agree neither with themselves nor with each other. So let us, you and I, avoid having happen to us what we find fault with in others: since the discussion before you and me is whether one should rather enter into friendship with a lover or with non-lover, let us establish an agreed definition of love, about what sort of thing it is and what power it possesses, and look to this as our point of reference when we make our enquiry as to whether it brings help or harm.'" Plato, Phaedrus 237b2-d3

I wonder if medieval monks, working in their dimly lit cells, blushed while reading such expressions of tender "manlove" in the works of this pagan Father.

> 56

what is the need for state sanction and or approval?

To obtain the numerous rights and benefits (and responsibilities) that the state provides to those in a state-sanctioned relationship (marriage): tax filing status, inheritance rights, insurance coverage, social security benefits, immigration and residency rights, the right to file wrongful death/loss of consortium tort claims, to name but a few.

I am very much in the camp of let the state grant a law based union that covers tax filing status, inheritance rights, insurance coverage... and let churches add what ever religious trappings their particular god or gods need to be happy.

I believe there is current study that approaches the dominance sexual reproduction (as apposed to the sorts of asexual reproduction) as something that comes more from species group survival than to the survival of the gene. Though this kind of talk makes folks like Richard Dawkins angry I believe the basic idea is that sexual reproduction or more importantly "sex" has more value in creating bonds between animals and therefore stronger groups (which I would think bodes well for genetic survival) than for the gene. Genes could come up with (and have) a simpler and more efficient way of reproducing. All that to say (a really big jump here) legal unions would add more strength to those bonds regardless of the sex of the people involved.

Now that's just my very simplified explanation for something I heard in a discussion over at bloggingheads.tv with Michael Brooks the author of 13 Things That Don't Make Sense - sex I guess being one of them.

#60: But that wasn't the case in the California Supreme Court decision this spring (pdf link here: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/gay_marriage051508.pdf) in which no additional rights were granted beyond those already established under the state's broad domestic partnership law - rather the court's decision was a judicial imposition or fiat that dictated "respect and dignity" without regard to tradition or the will of the majority, two conditions which Chief Justice George noted as "insufficient".

The majority of the court found on constitutional grounds alone, which quite predictably provoked the remedial or corrective (speaking to the balance of powers here, not the merits of the case) response of the referendum process.

When the Massachusetts decision was made and there was some talk of changing the state constitution I asked my lawyer-in-law, who specializes in appellate law, what would happen if it passed. He told me that the media had missed that the majority had clearly indicated they would be willing to base the decision on the federal constitution alone, making any changes to the state constitution immaterial. Has anyone read the California decision and can say if the same reasoning would apply?

Another point regarding same-sex relationships and rights ... if gay couples were afforded all the same rights as hetero married couples, and "only" prevented from calling their relationships "marriages," it would actually be unfair to hetero couples that aren't technically married and don't get those same rights ... also, it's interesting to note that current news reports are showing some number of people now starting to leave the Mormon church over the Prop 8 situation.

#63: Can you clarify your question: the majority of the court or the majority of the people?

#64: The California decision was based on the application of the "historic designation" of marriage and the court found that to limit the designation to opposite-sex couple only was unconstitutional - clearly they found an inherent "right to marry" within the state constitution that elevates, recognizes and gives favorable status to married couples. Unmarried couples that don't bother to seek this favored status are plumb out of luck - by choice, of course.

#65: My point was that taking the opposite tack, giving unmarried gay couples the same rights as married hetero couples but keeping those rights from unmarried heteros, could be conceived as giving "favorable" status to gays ... they wouldn't "have" to marry to get those rights ... it's kind of like the gays in the military situation ... hypothetically speaking, if there were a draft on for a very unpopular war, a war that some people thought we were tricked into or was illegal, it would strike me as unfair that gays could get the "benefit" of not getting killed while heteros had to go.

>63 timspalding:-64

The majority of the court. My question is whether the CA court can retreat to basing their decision on the Federal Constitution, as apparently the Massachusetts court was willing to do.

#66: Not just gays, but anyone who can pretend to be gay :) And really, how hard can that be?

Second question. I gather the vote is going to be challenged as a "revision" to the constitution—which requires 3/4 approval. I also gather legal experts think this won't work here. What are the merits of the case?

If it doesn't work, overturning the ammendment would amount to a revision. So opponents of prop-8 are not going to be able to restore the right by switching 3%, but will have to switch 28%, basically. Right?

#66: There is nothing in the Domestic Partners law that would prevent opposite-sex couples from registering, as defined in the Family Code
SECTION 297-297.5

297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.

Link here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/

#67: Yes, I imagine most state supreme courts would base their decision on an established universal (or federal) right to marry if such a right was established. I think the state by state approach is done out of sense of expediency and that many gay-marriage supporters see the Federal amendment route as long-shot at best, while established state rights combined with marriage recognition laws or place-of-celebration rules would achieve the same objectives.

Popular ballot initiatives are exactly why we have a representative republic. The FF were opposed to popular democracy for just this reason. The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be denied to unpopular minorities by the irrational emotions and mob like mentality of the majority.

Ballot initiatives constitute a big middle finger in the eye of the principles upon which this country was founded. with regard to our government they are a radical innovation.

66

It is a bit like apples and oranges. Since gays cannot marry, it is harder for them to do things like have their partner inherit their assets, make health care decisions, get automatic custody of children, have access to bank accounts of their partner if the partner dies, and probably a host of other things.

Straight people have the option of marrying, which can technically be quick and cheap (although it rarely is).

Twice this year I have married people who lived together for a long period (17 and 23 years) who needed to get married quick for the purspose of health care (insuranace and decisionmaking.) Gays do not have that option.

So domestic partnerships, I think, level the playing field a bit.

Because there are so many legal ramifications to marriage, taking the state out of the equation altogether would probably benefit the lawyers more than anyone else.

Enevada, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be arguing that gay couples are pretty much allowed to be married all but in name, no? The current Domestic Partners law, you argue, grants them all the rights accorded married couples, but the right to say that they are married. If the DP law is indistinguishable from marriage but for name, why insist on the distinction?

#73: It isn't my argument, but that of the California Supreme Court, which explicitly stated that it was a matter of "respect and dignity", the sanction or imposition of which was found to be in the compelling interest of the state.

Personally, I think it exceeds state authority - either actual or ideal. I'm not sure that the state, let alone the court, can broker acceptance and demand respect by fiat. I'm not sure that we would want them to, in all honesty.

I do think the state has an obligation to protect and uphold the rights of all in a non-discriminatory fashion. I also see great social benefit to the practice of long-term, formal commitments, regardless of who is making those commitments. I also do not have any personal interest in what those relationships are called, which leads me to the same question that you have asked: why insist on the distinction? I would ask that of both sides involved.

I guess, "I now pronounce you domestic partners" just doesn't have enough umph for some people.

For me the distinction is that it is much harder to be registered as a domestic partner. Two people could meet at a bar, and get married in about two days, depending on how drunk they were. Domestic partners often have to prove they have been living together for an extended period of time, as well as prove they have joint bank accounts, etc. Married couples rarely have to do these things just to get insured by their spouse's company.

I do think the state has an obligation to protect and uphold the rights of all in a non-discriminatory fashion. I also see great social benefit to the practice of long-term, formal commitments, regardless of who is making those commitments. I also do not have any personal interest in what those relationships are called, which leads me to the same question that you have asked: why insist on the distinction? I would ask that of both sides involved.

But those who wish to legalise marriage for gay couples don't believe that it's a distinction without a difference. That's why they want to eliminate the distinction. Those who argue that gays should not be allowed to marry and say that the current Domestic Partner laws essentially grant the same rights and argue that it's a distinction without a difference are nullifying their own position by insisting on the distinction. Even if you're not one of those people.

For me the distinction is that it is much harder to be registered as a domestic partner. Two people could meet at a bar, and get married in about two days, depending on how drunk they were. Domestic partners often have to prove they have been living together for an extended period of time, as well as prove they have joint bank accounts, etc. Married couples rarely have to do these things just to get insured by their spouse's company.

But again, that negates the argument that it's a distinction without a difference.

I think there IS a difference. That is my point.

#76: Yes, but is the state the agency to impose this distinction? I do not think so. Those who argue against gay marriage on principle believe, as do those on the other side, that the distinction is of supreme importance. I do not, but my concern is with state imposition - I think the state obligation (non-discriminatory application) is best met by making no recognition of anyone's marriage beyond that required by law (enforcement of contracts, criminal code, etc.).

Those who argue against gay marriage on principle believe, as do those on the other side, that the distinction is of supreme importance.

My experience in Orange County has led me to believe the exact opposite. Or rather, that this may be what they "believe" while not being what they state at all. I've talked to quite a few people who voted for Prop 8, and I can't think of one that failed to preface their explanation of their vote with some version of the statement "I've got no problems with homosexuals/homosexuality". And it's part of what bugs me personally about the opposition to gay marriage. It just seems very disingenuous. It's the old "I'm not racist, but..."

I've got no problems with gays, but the children do.

> 80 Which kind of goes back to my original question: Is there a secular, non-religious argument that broadening the law to allow same-sex marriage is against the public interest? So far, at least, I have not seen one. (And, as I said before, that does not mean that no such arguments exist, but only that I have not seen one.)

To those who would get the state completely out of the business of sanctioning marriages: would you eliminate all rights, priveleges, tax breaks, etc., that are given to married couples? If not, how do you decide whether two people are married? If the state doesn't sanction marriages, it has to recognize marriages sanctioned by someone else; churches have been the most widely mentioned option. Do you want the state to decide whether the wingnut down the street has the same authority to sanction marriages as a major church?

They already have, Jim. An old friend/bar owner/raconteur I know from San Francisco sent his $5 off to the Universal Life Church solely so he'd be able to marry people at the bar.

And it seems that they'll now ordain you online for free. The $5 is no longer necessary.

Have the ability to perform marriages conferred upon you now for free.

According to their website, they started that back in 1959.

#84: It's true. My best friend from high school married my husband and me in Texas, where the ULC is recognized. It was free and took about 30 seconds to find the website and fill out a form. She even got to choose her own title (I was really hoping she'd choose "Rabbi," but she went with "Reverend").

ETA: How disappointing. It seems that Reverend is now your only option...

A couple of my friends are ordained via the ULC as well, and have officiated at weddings. If memory serves, recognition of ULC's validity (to officiate) does vary by state. (It is considered valid here in Oregon.)

Do the couples not have to obtain marriage licenses in order to have their marriages recognized by the state? Even though herself and I got married in a church (lots of interesting moments in the hybrid Catholic-Quaker service), we had to get a license. Of course that was in the middle ages.

My best friend from high school married my husband and me in Texas, where the ULC is recognized.

According to Wikipedia's ULC page, requirements vary from state to state -

Within the USA, all 50 states theoretically authorize ministers who are ordained and authorized by their church to officiate marriages. In most states, ordination as a minister is the only requirement for a minister to be able to officiate lawful weddings. Some states require additional documentation, such as a "letter of good standing" or that the minister present his or her credential of ordination and register. One state also requires that the minister must be a United States citizen, and some states specify that the minister must be at least 18 years of age (although this is probably a presumed requirement in all states, since the minister will attest to a legal document).

Some states do not even require actual ordination, but permit those who declare themselves to be ministers to officiate marriage. ULC ministers wishing to perform legal weddings should refer to the local authority in the jurisdiction where the marriage is to occur for specific information about jurisdictional issues and requirements.4

In 2002, the ULC went up against the state of Utah (from Wikipedia's page again) -

In 2002 the Church sued the state of Utah regarding the legality of its Internet-based ordination process. Utah had passed a law banning ministers ordained by mail or over the Internet from officiating legal marriage. The court ruled in favor of the Church, declaring the statute unconstitutional and permanently barring the state from enforcing it, noting among other things that there is essentially no difference between an Internet-based application or mail-order application and one sent by courier, fax machine, phone, or done in person. Had the law been allowed to stand, it might well have had the unintended consequence of "defrocking" many ministers from traditional churches for purposes of officiating marriage, for the ULC is not the only church to conduct such business via U.S. Mail.

Do the couples not have to obtain marriage licenses in order to have their marriages recognized by the state?

That's an entirely different question, though. Pretty much any old wingnut can officiate.

From Wikipedia's page on Marriage Licenses...

Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licenses to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage license being previously obtained.

The requirements for obtaining a marriage license vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the license is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's license, state ID card, birth certificate, or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required by someone who had been previously married in some states).

Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass between the granting of the license and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage license (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage license and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority.

The requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.citation needed

Some states require a blood test to verify that the applicants are not carrying syphilis, a sexually-transmitted disease. As of 2008, the District of Columbia, Mississippi, and Montana require blood tests; Connecticut, Wisconsin, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts have withdrawn the blood testing requirements in the last few years.citation needed

In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.3 By the 1920s 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

#82 Yes I would get rid of all the tax "benefits" of marriage - actually more expensive when two people are earning close to the same amount. Deductions could be filed under head of household, and power of attorney issues handled by the same paperwork that non married couples use.

We celebrate Santa at our house. It doesn't need the state's endorsement.

#82: Yes, I would eliminate all state endorsed or enabled benefits, including tax benefits and deductions for dependents.

I once did a wedding for a couple that didnt want to legally marry, because she would lose her insurance. So I did the service, married them in the eyes of God, but not the State of Alaska, because they had no license.

93

Would you eliminate insurance benefits for spouses and children if the primary beneficary worked for the state?

I respectfully submit Arctic as an example that any old wingnut can officiate at a marriage.

#95: yes, any wingnut will do, and there is no need for any state oversight or sanction.

#94: the state as an employer has in interest in maintaining an attractive, competitive work environment - no different from any other employer, and would offer commensurate benefits packages. (But you probably don't really want to know my views on employer-sponsored health insurance - I'd prefer to buy mine outright).

#81: Which kind of goes back to my original question: Is there a secular, non-religious argument that broadening the law to allow same-sex marriage is against the public interest?

Well, how about the argument that there is no compelling reason for the state to do so? Or that doing so will represent a drain on state resources through endless cycles of litigation, appeals, and referendum or ballot initiatives?

A far easier and nondiscriminatory application of state support would be to cease all recognition of what should be a private, voluntary personal arrangement between consenting adults: straights, gays, polygamists, you name it.

It doesn't get any more secular than that, Essa.

>97 enevada:
Interesting, and if I may bring you and Lunar to the altar, so to speak, this sounds like a libertarian argument.

It has its appeal but I think there are practical difficulties. For instance, in post >79 enevada: you mention that this approach means

"no recognition of anyone's marriage beyond that required by law (enforcement of contracts, criminal code, etc.)."

There's the rub. Enforcing those contracts and criminal code will require the state to take a stand somewhere along the continuum. For better or worse, marriage has a long tail.

Gay people who want to marry know this, and that's why they want join the club.

#98: Enforcing those contracts and criminal code will require the state to take a stand somewhere along the continuum.

How so?

In both civil and criminal law the state has a duty to recognize individual actors and not relationships: if there is a contract dispute it is the contractual relationship that must be recognized and not the emotional or familial bond, the same is true for criminal law.

The one area that would represent the greatest challenge is in the area of family law – but recent trends within this field (no-fault divorce, family dissolution, cohabitation equivalence, etc ) is moving away from public or state standards on marriage, parenthood, and family. These trends would suggest that the challenges are not insurmountable, and that the law is moving in the direction of non-recognition.

In other words, the State is incapable of recognizing every conceivable concept of what constitutes a family – but it can, quite effectively, refuse to recognize any. The question is: does it need to? (I do not know the answer to this, but would like to hear the arguments both in favor of State recognition and against. My position at present is that there is no need - or interest- for the state to do so.)

Ignoring for the time being any financial treatments, such as tax breaks, I think the recognition by the state of certain rights and responsibilities of married couples gives us, if nothing else, a shortcut past requiring that every couple hire a lawyer to secure contractually the rights currently given by virtue of marriage. It seems to me that having the state discontinue recognizing marriage as the basis for all these rights, as a way of leveling the field between hetero couples (or "breeders" as a friend of mine says) and gays or other non-traditional couples or groups, would complicate everybody's lives greatly.

I would also expect such a change to deconstruct the family as an institution. At a time when we are blaming the criminalization of a whole group of children on the lack of stable families, is this desirable?

#100: I would also expect such a change to deconstruct the family as an institution

The state has no such power - the institutional strength of the family is inherent and not conferred.

The family that really counts, the extended family, has already been deconstructed in this country.

#102: By the state? By market forces? By personal choice?

By a combination of all of these factors?

Geneg, I quite agree on the value and pre-eminence of the extended family, but I am not looking to the state for definition or support.

There seem to be parallels between what's going on with gay marriage and the "separate but equal" laws we used to have pertaining to blacks. What we proved then is that separate is NEVER equal.

Personally, I think everyone should have equal rights and I support gay marriage. But part of me pines for the days when a bit of the allure of the being gay was that it was a way OUT of the expected marry/have kids/watch-tv-every-night trap. I guess what I'm saying is I get Gore Vidal.

>103 enevada: -- By a combination of all the above and probably television, too.

If you look around, it is obvious in this country that the extended family HAS BEEN deconstructed, though. It may be a result of modernity. Modernity, while it has been a good thing in many ways, is not perfect. As I've said elsewhere, chaotic systems such as human culture carry within themselves the seeds of their own destruction and the extended family is one of those things destroyed by the move from the Renaissance to modernity or maybe modernity to post-modernity.

I am not looking for support or definition by the state either. We must find ways to convince ourselves that the extended family is something worth reviving. If we slide into depression, we may rediscover it.

> 97 (enevada) Quite true! However, it seems to me that it is not an argument against same-sex marriage per se; rather, it is an argument against state recognition of (and interference in) all marriage.

It seems like a valid libertarian argument to me. But as I understand it, many of the people who argue against SSM are arguing only against state recognition of SSM. They wish to preserve state-supported marriage of heterosexuals.

So, perhaps my question should be reworded as, "Are there secular, public policy-type arguments against the granting of govt.-recognized marriage to gays/lesbians, while still maintaining govt.-recognzied marriage of heterosexuals."

Off-topic, but in response to 105:

Television is not a part of my life, so I had forgotten its corrosive influence which so many people welcome into their lives. A bizarre aspect of modernity, when we began to prefer watching phony people do phony things to actually doing those things ourselves.

#106: Can’t help you there.

> 107 Fair enough. And I'm with you on the TV. When asked "How can you live without a TV??!!?" I simply shrug and ask, "How can you live with one?" Not that there isn't some excellent programming out there, but I don't see how people find the time. Especially when there's so many books in the world. ;)

Prop 8 Supporter: "Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been."

Prop 8 Non-Supporter: "It wasn't that long ago that it had always been that a marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race."

It hasn't been that long ago that marriage was a way of acquiring property, most especially including the woman.

Our marriage involved racking up debt, not property. Someone should pass a law requiring parents to pay for weddings...

Or demanding people have simple weddings. Its one day, and often involves too much waste. Save the money for a car, house, honeymoon trip.

By and by, when we got our marriage license, we had to be sober and had to swear we were not being coerced into the marriage. Apparently there was a problem with alcohol + shotgun driven weddings in ohio.

ETA:fix as per Makifat's suggestion.

...we had to sober...

Either a "be" or an "up" is missing from this sentence.

really its six of one, half a dozen of another. You had to be there or get there when you went to sign the document. Though I suppose you could be drunk as you want at the ceremony :).

Or demanding people have simple weddings

We did. Only six ice sculpture swans!

we had to be sober

The best rule is the Persian, as reported by Herodotus: Consider sober every decision you make while drunk, and consider drunk every decision you make sober.

Rampaging Homosexuals Harass Marching Christians.

#117: I think I need that on a T-shirt.

Watch out or they will start shooting people who run marriage clinics. Oh, wait...No, that is someone else.

>119 Arctic-Stranger: - There have already been instances of vandalism against Mormon temples since prop 8 was passed, so who knows what the future may hold. But since Christians acted bad in the past, therefore it must be okay for homosexuals to act likewise.

Rampaging Homosexuals Harass Marching Christians.

This surprises you? Have you ever heard of the Stonewall riots or the White Night Riots?

So following the various links from your #117 has led to some interesting places...

There's this one and this one. I'm confused, Cody. Since when did boycotting become harassment?

There's also this piece, which is rather interesting, if only for it's purple prose.
The GOP governor of California is encouraging church-bashing protesters to continue to defy the will of the people and wreak havoc until Proposition 8, the traditional marriage ballot measure, is overturned.

Wreak havoc? Defy the will of the people? That's a nice pic they've chosen to attach to it, also.



What with phrases such as the "the mob taking to the streets", one would assume that we were looking at Watts in 1965.

Watch out for the rampaging mobs, Cody.

I wonder whether you read and watch things before you post them. "Rampaging Homosexuals Harass Marching Christians" doesn't really describe the clip, or the coverage. A "rampage" is an unfocused attack on people or property in a wide area. Rather we have harassment of a group of Christians in a gay neighborhood—verbal threats in the clip, but physical harassment appears to have started it. And they weren't marching at all, but evangelizing in an unfriendly neighborhood.

The clip is disturbing, but it's not "Rampaging Homosexuals Harass Marching Christians."

You must be fun at parties, Tim.

I rampage.

Codyed counts on people not clicking his links, for fear of encountering another VDare post.

Here's an alternate take on Cody's event. There's also JMG's take on the event. Read JMG's comments for an example of how the community is responding to the incident.

If I understand correctly, here's the website for the Justice House of Prayer, the Christian group in the video.

Regarding the questions about who can perform a marriage ceremony, here in Alameda County, California, anyone can become a "One-Time Deputy Marriage Commissioner, Without Compensation", so you don't even need to join the ULC after all. It does cost $50, so the ULC is cheaper.

Anyone have any thoughts as to whether California's Prop 8 was an "amendment" or a "revision"?

Mormons on Broadway. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3482049/South-Parks-creators...

>131 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

That's a really interesting question, and one I know nothing about! In general, in questions like this, the answer people give is entirely about the result they want. This bores and irritates me—the law does not require every good thing and prohibit every bad, that's why we have law, not the rule of well-meaning people. From what I gather, the "this is a revision" argument hasn't met with much success in California Constitutional history. It would, however, pretty plainly apply to a repeal of the amendment, which is unfortunate.

I was talking to a pretty high muckety-muck in CA politics the other day. He seemed pretty confident that the court would rule against "amendment" and for "revision". The court already upheld a language change when the prop went on the ballot... From WPedia's page -

On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8. Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like “eliminates” in the title of a ballot measure in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used. Representatives of the Attorney General produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.

On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating, "the title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution." That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state appeals court. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of California. The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11, 2008.

So, the argument goes, the court has already decided that this is a right previously guaranteed by the constitution and the prop is a revision.

I just read the relevant sections of the CA Constitution. Man, it doesn't offer much help. It seems the intent is to put safeguards against wholesale redrafting on a simple majority vote. But the wording--which I at least think ought to be the thing---doesn't offer much help.

Is this what you're talking about?

Language there is rather spare. Is there another piece I'm missing?

No, I think that's it. Ah, the law...

Wikipedia has this to say, which really isn't much help...

The constitution can be changed by either amendments or revisions, the latter of which is defined as a "substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than ... a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions". Amendments may be passed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature or a California ballot initiative, which a majority of voters must approve. Any citizen may petition for an amendment to be placed on the ballot if they gather signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, among the lowest thresholds for similar measures of any U.S. state. As of 2008, this was 694,354 signatures compared to an estimated 2007 population of 36,553,215. Revisions originally required a constitutional convention but today can be passed with a two-thirds vote in the legislature much like an amendment.

I'm guessing that the previously decided cases offer some sort of guidelines on what the distinction is.

Yes, but I think we need to read the footnote to that quote, the definition not actually being in the constitution.

That said, the basic question is whether a interpretation of the constitution—in force but, in fairness, just decided—has the same existence as an actual piece of it, the revision of which the distinction is designed to protect. That is, if the Constitution said "marriage is not to be restricted to male-female couples," prop 8 would probably be a revision of that. But if the court's opinion, presumably on whatever CA has that's like federal equal protection grounds, holds that gay marriage must be legal, does that work the same way?

If it did, then the rule about revisions would basically mean that no decision of the CA Supreme Court could be overturned by amendment—but only by the much harder revision process—since, by definition, the decision was also the Constitution. I think it would be pretty daring for a court to declare that it's decisions couldn't be amended away. Certainly that's one of the reasons you *have* an amendment process--as a check against judicial power, and indeed various amendments to the US Constitution (eg., slavery, income tax) were expressly done in order to trump court decisions.

Now the Mormon Church will be investigated. http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1425404.html