Yes I am a sore loser

Anonymous — November 10, 2008

@nathan hi. I wanted to clarify. I understand that there is a difference between consensual sex and rape... and pornography, etc. That is, in terms of how people are impacted, and the laws in our world. I was grouping those together specifically in terms of sins against God.

In Matthew 5:28 it says that every man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. Other than Jesus, you'll be hard pressed to find a man who hasn't committed that sin! (to the discomfort of many women). So at the heart of the matter, we've all sinned against God. In terms of sin, homosexuality isn't somehow worse than viewing pornography, there's no use pointing fingers.

So then, the reason for the church is not to bring about laws to condemn. The purpose of the church is to share how Christ came to take away our sins, and not only to take them away, but to free us from sin.

Change is possible. And not change just for the sake of change. Rather, to find real meaning in a relationship with our Creator. Something far more valuable than these matters of sexuality.

As far as a matter of choice, perhaps a man finds other men attractive. It's not a sin to see beauty. But I don't buy the argument. Where you put your penis, that is always your choice.

While the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, I expect iceman12 is onto something. In all likelihood, prop 8 was passed more so due to discomfort than religion.

Guido van Rossum — November 10, 2008

Thanks for all the comments; it was enlightening to hear some arguments instead of a shouting match.

"Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia)" -- Methinks it is not directly from Greek ("fear of the same" makes little sense) but a contraction of homosexuality-phobia. I guess I should argue with Wikipedia.

"marriage is a religious institution and nothing else." -- Add, I'm married but no religion was involved.

"If a gay church wants to marry gay couples, I'm all for it. But the state shouldn't be meddling with [...] marriage." -- And yet, the constitutional amendment does exactly that.

"...painting the outsides of ziploc bags green is morally wrong." -- I think detaching the discussion from the specific issue doesn't actually help. There are lots of things that the majority of religions abhor -- e.g. premarital sex, adultery, jealousy -- for which no majority could be found to amend the constitution. So I am still stuck with the question why the Christian religion (we can ignore other religions since they don't have significant influence in this case) is so obsessed with homosexuality that they want to amend secular law to draw a line in the sand (or get a toe in the door, depending on you view) about this issue.

"Calling other social arrangements by the same name isn't historically sound." -- Well, things change, don't they? Equal rights for women aren't historically sound either if you are going to use that kind of argument.

"people CAN be ignorant without being evil." -- This is a theory to my own heart, much more so than blaming the mormons or the catholics. It means there is hope.

Anonymous — November 10, 2008

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous — November 10, 2008

Why "so obsessed with homosexuality that they [Christians] want to amend secular law?"

That is a very good question, I wonder why as well.

"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." - 1 Corinthians 5:12

Anonymous — November 10, 2008

I'm disappointed by the ruling, but not at all surprised.

It's true, San Francisco, one of the country's most liberals cities is in California and something of cultural center for liberals, is in California.

You know what else is in California? 33 million people who don't live in San Francisco.

America is a bunch of gems of wealth, education, culture, and industry scattered over a vast wasteland that holds none of the same.

Most people get the kind of education from our public school system that leaves them:
1. Literate, in the sense that they can read pulp fiction. Not in the sense that they can write competently.
2. Capable of doing simple arithmetic.
3. Vaguely aware that we live in a democracy and are supposed to be "free." Most people can't correctly answer concrete questions about their civil rights or the principles of the founders. For instance to a good fraction of people the first amendment means the "freedom to worship God in your own way."
4. With some underdeveloped critical thinking skills and no clear idea on what science is.

Kumar McMillan — November 10, 2008

Another interesting fact is that 70% of African Americans who voted in the election voted yes on the Prop 8 gay marriage ban. This election saw an overwhelming amount of African American voter turnout, several probably first time voters. I'm not sure if there's anything to make of these stats myself but this article does some analysis: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story

In summary, it suggests there is generally more religious influence in the lives of black voters and it talks about robo calls to Democrats that were twisting around words from Obama himself in order to persuade yes on Prop 8 votes.

Anonymous — November 11, 2008

Perhaps the wording of Prop.8 plays a role: having to vote NO when you're in favour of legal gay marriage isn't exactly self-evident...

wtanksley — November 11, 2008

Guido said:

"There are lots of things that the majority of religions abhor -- e.g. premarital sex, adultery, jealousy -- for which no majority could be found to amend the constitution. So I am still stuck with the question why the Christian religion (we can ignore other religions since they don't have significant influence in this case) is so obsessed with homosexuality that they want to amend secular law to draw a line in the sand (or get a toe in the door, depending on you view) about this issue."

Prop 8 isn't primarily about amending law, though; to an enormous extent, it's about supporting existing law. The CA constitution and statutes were drawn at a time when male/female marriage were definitional; they were written with masculine and feminine gender (although the genders were removed in a more recent change). Prop 22 was the law of the the land. The court's reasoning appeared to many people (according to the vote, MOST people) to be invalid, since it took the Constitution to be saying something that its own writers would disagree with, in order to override a recent law with overwhelming popular agreement.

Again, prop 8, in most people's mind, wasn't about amending law; it was about restoring law.

It also wasn't about restricting the free exercise of homosexuality; it wasn't actually about homosexuality at all. All the same acts are legal that were before. Nor does it restrict the rights of gays to enjoy a solemnized wedding; they may celebrate that, and may have it recognized by people who wish to do so. It doesn't even restrict the privileges given to committed couples (through the civil union law), and I would expect those privileges to be expanded in some way in the near future (I'm not sure that civil unions are truly equitable, and I'm quite willing to see a change to make them so).

What prop 8 does change is that people who didn't recognize same-sex marriage before won't be required by law to recognize it now.

As I said before, though, I'd like to see less talk about fairness and more talk about why we grant special privileges to "marriages" and "civil unions" anyhow. Marriage (and civil unions) aren't about fairness; they're exclusive unions, such that my marriage and your marriage are entirely different things. Why give an inheritance tax break in law? Is there a reason why bachelor business partners shouldn't enter into a civil union so that they don't have to worry about inheritance taxes? Is that something we don't want to encourage? Is there some reason, aside from tax policy, that we don't allow polygamy? (I'm not bringing a charge of "slippery slope" here; I'm just listing one of the many things that I think has to be considered.) Does tax policy override the "right to marry"? Why does genetic policy override the "right to marry" in one way (incest), and not in another (same-sex)? Should the possibility of procreation create additional requirements for marriage? Should that possibility be tested, or just assumed as the common case? How do the benefits and restrictions of the legal institution of marriage encourage and discourage the formation of stable unions? Does this stability benefit society and government?

These are, I think, profound questions. They're fundamental to the establishment of decent public policy. They're not religious.

Guido van Rossum — November 11, 2008

"not about amending the law", "MOST people", "not about homosexuality" -- now that I call seriously twisting reality.

wtanksley — November 11, 2008

""not about amending the law", "MOST people", "not about homosexuality" -- now that I call seriously twisting reality."

Can you respond to the arguments I made or the evidence I offered? Or offer any counterarguments? My words were nuanced and supported; all you've done is offer an unsupported claim.

Please recognize that you asked for the rationale behind a "yes" vote. You're free to argue that the rationale is irrational; but you're not entitled to claim that it's not actually a rationale. You don't know that; you didn't possess it.

I can certify that these are rationales because I actually possessed them and even voted according to them. Furthermore, I can show that these rationales were brought up in public; if you watch the ads you'll see them.

"Not about amending the law" - Yes, prop 8 was about supporting existing law (previously passed as prop 22). I grant that prop 22 was repealed by a court shortly after prop 8 was proposed; but even ignoring the technicality (that prop 22 was still the law when prop 8 was drafted), you can't possibly ignore the immense focus of the pro-8 ad campaigns saying that the law must be set back to how it was. The MEANS to set the law was indeed an amendment -- but it was an amendment that exactly matched existing law, and then when the judges changed existing law, it was explained and advertised as codifying the will of the people beyond the easy reach of judges.

"MOST people" - Yes, the majority voted yes on 8; that's why I said "most people"; but that's not my main point, and in fact I bring it up only because it's support for my claim that "many" people believe that prop 8 made sense.

"not about homosexuality" - I'll just have to refer you to my extensive arguments. It's true; this law doesn't address in its words or implications who you can like, have sex with, or commit to.

Marriage is considered by society (I don't know about the law) to be the primary foundation of the continuance of society; civil unions are largely an agreement between couples, helpful for current social stability but not long-term continuance. I asked a ton of questions above as to whether we should draw a distinction in civil law... It seems to me that we should, but it's not clear to me that the difference we're drawing is big enough to care about.

If there's no functional difference, or little enough difference that it's not worth maintaining two institutions, then perhaps what others have suggested is correct, and marriage should be relegated to the status of social convention, without support of law; and civil union be the only legally recognized status.

Again, I refer to my above questions for more detail.

Jurjen — November 12, 2008

The "real" reasons are neatly summed up by the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/california_passes_anti_gay

Kumar McMillan — November 12, 2008

Very moving commentary by Keith Olberman (MSNBC) : http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/keith-olbermann-on-gay-marriage?w=1

Among many good points he says consider that in 1967 blacks were not allowed to marry whites in 1/3rd of the states in the US. And in many states marriages between slaves were not recognized.

YourHumbleHost — November 12, 2008

The rationale for voting "Yes" on prop 8 boils down to this...

Most people don't care what other people do, much, so long as it does not affect them.

However, by permitting Gay marriage, the word "marriage" is being re-defined. Many of the same people that don't care what others do, nevertheless find homosexuality abhorrent. In redefining the word, the abhorrence is being tied to something they themselves hold sacred, their marriages.

In other words, by defending gay marriage, the movement is implicitly and, perhaps, explicitly offending many people that otherwise would not stand in the way of gay rights. Call it domestic partnership, call it civil union, call it anything but "marriage" and prop 8 never would have passed.

MrTact — November 12, 2008

So you're saying the gays should have a separate institution that is functionally equal to marriage?

wtanksley — November 12, 2008

MrTact: no, they can have the exact same institution with the exact same name and functions. The problem is that this isn't what they want, because they're not attracted to the opposite sex.
They need something different -- and it's perfectly reasonable to give different things a different name and treatment.

I simply don't see how this falls into the "separate but equal" category; marriage isn't a shared building that people are being included or excluded from. Nobody is given special treatment. (Although before civil unions were legal, married couples certainly did have privileges witheld from other couples.)

YourHumbleHost — November 12, 2008

@mrtact : Not exactly. I didn't say what I thought should be. I only laid out what I thought was the thinking of the crucial people who determined that prop 8 should pass. These crucial people are swayable so long as the movement does not, unintentionally or otherwise, offend them. Right or wrong, if the movement insists on calling homosexual unions "marriage", I believe it will have a much longer, more unpleasant road to otherwise achieving the rights gays and lesbians desire.

The word is exactly that important to that crucial voting block. Need it be so important to gays and lesbians that they lose all the other rights they seek and otherwise could have?

Jurjen — November 13, 2008

Oops.
My post got cut off, and I only just realized.
The Onion, supposedly funny but all too often close to the truth, gives its analysis in:
http://www.theonion.com/
content/infograph/california_passes_anti_gay

Hope you like it.

Sky — November 14, 2008

@wtanksley:

Your first argument amounts to an irrational preference
for what the law has been in the past.

"It also wasn't about restricting the free exercise of homosexuality."
Sure it is. Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.
According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO),
more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens
upon marriage.

"Is there a reason why bachelor business partners shouldn't enter
into a civil union so that they don't have to worry about inheritance
taxes?"
If you think this is fair, then why shouldn't they gain the benefits
co-ed business partners could enjoy?
But this would be very unwise for the partners involved considering the
power-of-attorney spouses entertain in certain circumstances, among other
things.

Reducing tax benefits of marriage, in general, is fine, but wholly
unrelated to Prop 8.

"How do the benefits and restrictions of the legal institution
of marriage encourage and discourage the formation of stable unions?
Does this stability benefit society and government?"
A philosophical question, but no where in it is there a reasoning
for differentiating between hetero and homosexual couples.

wtanksley — November 14, 2008

@sky:

Your first argument amounts to an irrational preference for what the law has been in the past.

No, I was responding to (and quoting) a person who said "they want to amend secular law to draw a line in the sand..." That person was concerned about maintaining consistency with old law; I pointed out that prop 8 was in no way an amendment to old law, but rather a simple promotion of it such that it couldn't get overturned without a majority vote.

I'd also question your assumption of "irrational". Guido isn't being irrational; he's simply incorrect about a minor detail of history. Nor is a preference for legal continuity irrational on its face; the rationality of continuity depends on the rationality of the law. And that's what we're trying to discuss; assuming that it's irrational is begging the question.

"It also wasn't about restricting the free exercise of homosexuality."
Sure it is. Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

That has nothing to do with restricting the free exercise of homosexuality. It has to do (at most) with incentivising marriage. And then we enter into some of the questions I asked -- why do we incentivize the unions to which marriage currently applies? Do the same reasons apply to same-sex unions?

It seems to me that the answer is a qualified yes -- not all the reasons apply, but some do.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens
upon marriage.

This is an excellent reason to discuss which of them are appropriate within arrangements other than marriage. It's a silly reason to demand that something else be called marriage.

"Is there a reason why bachelor business partners shouldn't enter into a civil union so that they don't have to worry about inheritance taxes?"
If you think this is fair, then why shouldn't they gain the benefits co-ed business partners could enjoy?

That's not what I meant -- I'm not arguing there against SSM. I'm just asking whether there are privileges specific to marriage that should actually be available elsewhere.

Reducing tax benefits of marriage, in general, is fine, but wholly unrelated to Prop 8.

Not wholly unrelated.

"How do the benefits and restrictions of the legal institution
of marriage encourage and discourage the formation of stable unions?
Does this stability benefit society and government?"
A philosophical question, but no where in it is there a reasoning
for differentiating between hetero and homosexual couples.

Nope, it was constructed in order to NOT differentiate. Stability is certainly a goal that society should reasonably pursue in both cases, with no differentiation.

There are, however, societal goals in which there IS differentiation, such as connecting childbearing to childrearing.

It seems to me that many of the incentives for marriage grow out of the inconveniences it imposes. Marriage is hard to get out of, and can be very costly.

Noah Gift — November 18, 2008

I think it speaks volumes when Churches spend money, time, and energy to "ban" the rights of people. Perhaps this could be addressed in the future by taking away the tax exempt status of these Churches, that contribute money to political causes.

The saddest thing about this situation, is in 50 years, our society will look back on this and be as equally embarrassed as we were about segregation in the South. All of the churches and religious people that voted Prop 8, will then have that on their record and conscience.

Voting prop 8 is akin to wanting to put scarlet "H"'s on all of those "dirty homos".

David H — November 19, 2008

Hi Guido -

I was thrilled to be able to meet you at the 2004 PyCon in DC. I bumped into this post while looking for your latest Python blog. Would you believe that someone like me who favors traditional marriage would even have enough brains to program a computer? :) Actually, I appreciate your refreshing attitude that you asked for our rationale in favoring prop. 8, giving us the benefit of the doubt that we even have one. Most pro-SSM folks on the internet just assume we're all bigots and fools.

Disclaimer: I'm not a California resident. But I am a US resident, and would have voted for prop. 8 if I could have.

First, about the statement that pro-prop. 8 voters "simply do what their pastor says." You can't choose your parents, you can't choose your siblings, but you can choose your church and your pastor. Really, we thought for ourselves and made up our own minds about prop. 8. And yes, we and our like-minded friends have the right to campaign for political causes, even if we're religious people.

The traditional definition of marriage has been around for thousands of years. There is no need to change it. It wasn't violating anyone's rights. But the courts usurping their bounds, taking it upon themselves to change society by judicial fiat, circumventing the democratic process -- that is not acceptable. That was a gross abuse of power. Redefining words like marriage is so Orwellian. Ever read 1984?

Proposition 8 is intended to correct the injustice committed by the courts and restore the democratic balance of power. If such a radical change as SSM is to become the law of the land, it must be done by the will of the people, not a few elite judges. That alone is rationale enough for prop. 8 in my mind.

If I objected to the government re-labeling tobacco as "health food" and putting it on the school lunch menu, you would understand. I consider SSM to be at least as harmful as tobacco. You consider SSM harmless. Do I have the right to think otherwise? Or has Orwell's vision come true and the thought-police have arrived? Why must my children be indoctrinated contrary to my wishes as a parent, in ways that I believe are harmful? And just like I'm not bigoted against smokers nor am I a "tobacco hater", I'm not a homophobe either. I just love my children and want the best for them.

I'm not convinced that traditional marriage violates anyone's rights. We were all doing just fine without SSM. Elton John agrees with that last point: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

Frankly, we (speaking for supporters of traditional marriage) would have been very happy to leave the "definition" of marriage in the realm to which it belongs - common sense and long-accustomed usage. It was activists and agenda-driven judges that forced us into the constitutional amendment route, both in California and the 29 other states that have passed such amendments so far. The fact that so many states have adopted such amendments indicates the very broad support for traditional marriage in America.

I keep running into this quote on the internet: "India is the most religious nation and Sweden is the least. The U.S. is a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes." Guido, I suppose you and most of your techno-elite friends sympathize more with the Swedes than with the Indians here. But I do appreciate you making at least an effort to understand us.

MrTact — November 20, 2008

google: "The traditional definition of marriage has been around for thousands of years. There is no need to change it."

YOU see no need to change it. Clearly you are not a gay person that wants to be married to the person you love, who happens to be the same gender as you. If you were, you might see such a need.

"It wasn't violating anyone's rights."

Obviously, because by definition no one can violate a right you do not possess.

"Proposition 8 is intended to correct the injustice committed by the courts and restore the democratic balance of power."

I think you may not be familiar with the history of this issue in California. Originally, there was a ballot initiative (Prop 22) to modify the California civil code to define marriage as only valid between a man and a woman. The legislature twice passed bills legalizing gay marriage; Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed both on the grounds that there was an ongoing challenge to the constitutionality of Prop 22 pending in the CA Supreme Court.

In other words, when the CSC decided that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, they were doing exactly what they were supposed to -- not legislating from the bench. That's just sour grapes.

"Frankly, we (speaking for supporters of traditional marriage) would have been very happy to leave the "definition" of marriage in the realm to which it belongs - common sense and long-accustomed usage."

Of course you are. People of privilege never regard it as inconvenient to deny other people the same privilege.

Guido van Rossum — November 21, 2008

@google: It's kind of hard to read a claim that you've met me in person while you're posting anonymously.

@all: I've heard enough from both sides, I doubt that there's much more that can be added without being a repeat.

Alex — November 22, 2008

Though I am unhappy with the prop-8 vote, I'm equally unhappy at the myopia and hatred it's engendered among those who opposed it. Social norms are arbitrary. Sometimes groups within a society end up with conflicting norms and there's really no objective reason for one group to be more right than another. For example, I think a lot of people who support gay marriage would not support polygamous marriages. Despite their arbitrariness, norms are still important. Many people just don't have it in their emotional register to accept two fathers as constituting a family. This is not because they are ignorant or fearful or whatever. It's just not their culture. You can try to change other people's perspective but there's no need to belittle or demonize them if you fail.

Rob Kohr — November 24, 2008

I forget the exact difference, but I think they won by less than 5% of the vote.

I suspect that percentage of people didn't grasp the negative nature of the the proposition.

Vote yes if you are not for gay marriage. Vote no if you are for gay marriage.

Some people made their decision and found out about the issue at the polling station, and perhaps did not carefully think about it. Maybe they just voted yes for gay marriage (which would be the opposite of their intention) and moved on to the next question (they were on question 8 at the time, and were exhausted).

Ok, that is my theory.