Gay Marriage Foes Go Negative (Transitive)

Time to brush off those old grammar books. Can you say “transitive”?

In asking a court to toss the ballot title and summary that Attorney General Jerry Brown slapped on Prop. 8, the initiative backers take issue with the first word in the description: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

“Selecting a ballot title that begins with a negative, transitive active verb (i.e. eliminates) is highly argumentative and likely to create prejudice against Proposition 8,” initiative supporters wrote in their petition to the Sacramento County Superior Court. What’s more, the pro-Prop. 8 folks went back 50 years and said they couldn’t find another ballot description that started with a negative, transitive active verb. The old titles relied instead, the filing argues, on “a neutral expression taking a noun construction.”

For example, they said, consider Prop. 17 of 1972, which restored the death penalty in California. It read “Death Penalty, Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” It did not read, as it would have in the style selected by the attorney general in the present case, “Eliminates Right of Criminals Against Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Prop. 8 backers wrote.

Initiative opponents have filed their own ballot-language lawsuit. In that case, opponents are asking a court to strike most of the proponents’ arguments, citing “false and misleading” comments, including the assertion that “teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” unless Prop. 8 passes.

“This is errant nonsense,” opponents write. “Prop. 8 says nothing about education.”

The first hearing on the lawsuits is scheduled for Aug. 7.

—  Cheryl Miller

Comments

[Paul Benedict]

I found this pamphlet that seems to support the Secretary's language about school curriculum:

http://www.healthiersf.org/News/HealthAwarenessMonths/Gay%20Pride%20one%20pager%202008.pdf

On the flip side, "the right to marry" is not literally at stake in the Prop. 8 debate. When the ballot measure says "marry" it means what is between a man and a woman. When the Supreme Court says "marry" it means something else entirely. I'd elaborate, but the Supreme Court's definition is pretty vague, well unintelligible.

[Shocked]

Wow! I'm continuously amazed at what some people want to push on children. What about the right of parents to decide? No wonder so many people homeschool. At what point will the gay movement go too far and suffer a backlash?

[RTB]

"Wow! I'm continuously amazed at what some people want to push on children. What about the right of parents to decide?"

I know. First they wanted schools to teach that people of different races are equal and even force children of different races to attend the same schools, even though lots of decent Christian, racially conservative parents didn't want such ideas pushed on their children for fear that it would lead to interracial dating, which it apparently has. Look at how many interracial families there are today!! What about the rights of parents to decide what to teach their children about things like racial equality and the importance of preserving racial purity?

Then they wanted to teach that science, not God, should be used to explain the origin of the human race, even though a great many religious conservatives do not want their children being taught anything that calls into question the religious teachings of their parents. What about the rights of parents to decide to teach their children that religious belief trumps science?

Then they wanted to teach that men and women should have the same rights and opportunities, even though many religious traditionists didn't want that taught for fear it would lead to women challenging their traditional roles and seeking to become leaders in all areas of society, to the supposed detriment of the family (and men's egos). What about the rights of parents to teach their children what they should aspire to?

And now, they want to force our kids to learn that people should have equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, even though many religious and other conservatives would prefer to teach their children that a biologically determined attribute is a sin against God. What about the rights of parents to teach their children that superstition trumps science?

Where are we headed with these abridgements of the basic rights of parents to control what their children are taught? Pretty soon, people wanting to make sure their children learn the appropriate superstitious and bigoted beliefs are going to have to emigrate to one of those theocracies where they don't tolerate any dissent from the official religious line.

[sue ann]

I AM AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

[sue ann]

I AM AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

[sue ann]

I AM AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

[try as you might]

You can't equate racial equality with the gay movement's effort to annhiliate biological distinctions between genders. There is no relevant biological difference between races, as far as marriage is concerned. There are indisputable biological differences between genders as far as marriage is concerned.

[someone's confused]

How does letting gay people marry "annihilate" biological distinctions between genders? Everyone's biology stays the same, it just stops being a basis for denying a certain group the many rights that the civil institution of marriage awards.

Don't worry, "try." Boys will still be boys, and girls will still be girls.

[Gay Marriage Blog]

let’s be honest about those commercials here. When were you ever taught about marriage in school? Those commercials are targeted towards public schools which have sex ed but… there’s no such thing as “marriage ed.” Those commercials are ridiculous. And has anyone else besides me noticed that: 1. they used the same book as the prop in all the commercials 2. The commercials are all set in Massachusetts. …think about it.