Thoughts on Prop 8
In a prior blog I noted that my biggest disappointment with President Clinton’s term was that his dispute with Ken Star was settled out of court instead of going to the Supreme Court whereby we could have settled the age old argument “do b.j.’s count as sex.”
Now I’m torn about this Prop 8 deal in Calif. I just read the Judge’s opinion (I recommend everyone read it if for no other reason than a good civics lesson) and while I support gay marriage, there were some interesting arguments made by the anti-gay marriage crowd.
The defenders of Prop 8 argued that “there are three universal rules that govern marriage:
(1)the rule of opposites (the “man/woman” rule); (2) the rule of two; and (3) the rule of sex.
“The state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage.”
this definition as focused on “the tender feelings that spouses have for one another,” Tr 2761:5-6. Blankenhorn agrees this “affective dimension” of marriage exists but asserts that marriage developed independently of affection.
Since the judge struck down Prop 8, which I support because I could give a rats ass what gay people do, I am compelled to think about the possibilities had he affirmed it. I could have then said to my wife the next time she had a “headache”, “I’m sorry dear, but please reference the underlined passages in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Now take an Advil and get naked on the kitchen table as the State has a compelling interest in our engaging in some irresponsible, non-procreative sexual activity. You don’t want me to call the State Police now do you?”
What could have been…….
PS: Here is one area the proponents blew it:
“Blankenhorn could only hypothesize instances in which the rule of sex would be violated, including where “[h]e’s in prison for life, he’s married, and he is not in a system in which any conjugal visitation is allowed.”
Really, Blankenhorn, really!!!?!?! Most of my 50+ year old peer group has the “rule of sex” violated 3 out of 4 weeks in the month….