Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Adam Freedman ·
Aug 6, 2010 at 12:05pm
I agree with all those who point out that Judge Walker’s opinion is a shambles and completely misses the point. But then, what is the point of the lawsuit (Perry v. Schwarzenegger)? It’s a fight about the English language. Consider the following points:
- This is not a case about denying legal or economic benefits to gay couples. California’s domestic partnership law affords the benefits of marriage to gay couples.
- But the plaintiffs insist that the term domestic partnership “does not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage.” This is why, according to the "findings of fact" that gay couples don't want to enter into mere domestic partnerships.
- As the judge recounts: "To Perry [the lead plaintiff], marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: 'I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.'” (emphasis added)
That’s the key. The lawsuit has nothing to do with rights – zero. Rather, it seeks to force government to change the English language in the hope that our hearts and minds will follow. And it’s an effective strategy. If you want society to view all committed relationships as morally equivalent, then start with language. Reasonable minds can differ about whether the "social and historical" meaning of marriage should evolve in the future, but does anybody want that question decided by judges?
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Two can play this game. Why do we on the right not change the language of the abortion debate? Henceforth, our side will be known as "pro-motherhood."
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Right -- or let's ask a federal judge to ban the terms "embryo" and "fetus." From now on, everyone must use the word "baby" from the moment of conception. That might change the debate.
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
On the other hand Adam, society does elevate mere words to great levels of importance, so perhaps there is a point to be made by Perry.
"Idiot" was a scientific word. It appears in several state constitutions. For instance in New Jersey, it is unconstitutional for an "idiot" to vote (based upon a review of many of our elected officials, it appears we've been ignoring that prohibition for quite awhile).
But the scientific term "idiot" was usurped by the purveyors of insults. Scientists were forced to find a new word (see also "moron" and the current debate over use of the term "retarded," also a scientific term now made taboo by political correctness).
Since it is indisputable that society does attach a great deal of emotion to certain words, perhaps Perry has a good point - that the word "marriage" has great meaning.
And allow me to argue the converse - if the opponents of the Judge's decision find use of the word "marriage" of lesser importance than a debate over accompanying marriage rights, then why not freely give up the word "marriage" to gays?
I suggest, that to straight people, the world is very important. Thus Perry's point.
May '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
How odd that in order to capture the use of a term with "social and historical meaning" the judge has explicitly disconnected the term from it's social and historic meaning. This is a silly way to settle things, and ultimately no one wins. The suit devalues the very thing it strives to capture.
May '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Sorry Adam -- I'm still back on the legal and economic benefits. I don't recall seeing the "domestic partner" line on my federal income tax return. Federal taxes do not offer the same benefits to RDPs as they offer to married spouses. Make it equal and I'd say there really is no issue at all.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/dompart.shtml
Aug '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
"To Perry, marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: 'I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.'”
If Perry has entered domestic partnership with Stier, if they live together and intend to do so till they die, if they practice fidelity -- if in short they have done all that's available for them to do right now to in order to be like married people, then why wouldn't Perry feel free to use the word "marriage" to describe that?
Why, if you consider yourself married (in the eyes of God, objective reason, or whatever you want to call it), wouldn't you want to call yourself married? Other people will undoubtedly disagree about your use of the word, but your self-description would make your point quite nicely.
Or am I the only one who remembers stories (in history or fiction) where two people who couldn't get married in the normal sense nonetheless did what they could to be as married as possible, and then defiantly called themselves married?
May '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
For the Left, tolerance is not enough; you must approve. Civil unions is a matter of tolerance. Gay 'marriage' is the Left using the state to force their ideas and values on everybody.
Jul '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
The mention above of a place on the 1040 for Domestic Partner opens a question of whether the IRS will acknowledge a homosexual marriage as a marriage in terms of the normal rules applied to a heterosexual marriage? Does the fact that one or two or more states allow homosexual marriage mean that the IRS is required to grant that that union is a legal marriage in terms of the tax codes? I think it will be an interesting thing to find out.
On the issue of what you call each other, I have lived with someone for a period of time and referred to her as my wife, simply out of convenience, since domestic partner seemed somewhat stilted. The actual marriage ceremony is irrelevant. My employer allowed my domestic partner to be covered by my insurance, etc., so what difference did it make? It is a non-issue except for someone seeking recognition which is their hang-up, not the state's.
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Trace, your point about federal tax is correct, but it isn't an issue in the California case. It is federal law (Defense of Marriage Act) that prevents same-sex couples from filing as "married" couples. I believe that there is a separate case to challenge that aspect of DOMA; however, Judge Walker's decision does not affect that. The Prop 8 case is solely about the status of marriage under California law, and even Judge Walker conceded that domestic partnerships provide the same benefits as marriage. So I stand by my point -- the challenge to Prop 8 is based on the plaintiffs' desire to have the government apply the label "marriage" to all same-sex unions.
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
You know what, Adam? You make a very, very astute point. It has the characteristic that Milton Friedman used to say defined the true insight: The moment after you hear it, it seems obvious.
Jul '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
Trace, with all due respect, you are wrong. Not one thing about this debate - the language used, the dynamics, the battlefields chosen - is about equal treatment of benefits. Even if all benefits were perfectly equal, the agitators for same-sex marriage would be just as crazed. More so, probably, because they would view all the other equal treatment as strengthening their argument.
(As an aside, the proper remedy for the inequalities you cite is for governement to get out of the business of favoring some over others - Flat Tax, baby!) No deductions.)
There is not one bit of doubt in my mind that this all comes down to a quest for moral/social recognition. The agitators want more than anything for homosexual relationships to be adjudged "just as good as" heterosexual relationships. As long as marriage is limited to heterosexual relationships that goal cannot be reached. So marriage must be redefined.
An honest debate would focuson that question. But no one seems to want an honest debate,
Jul '10
Re: Judge Walker: An Orwellian View
And I would be remiss if I did not say "Outstanding, Adam!" This is ultimately a matter of language, which too few have noticed.