Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BryanS

California votes on same-sex marriage again

Recommended Posts

In a matter of about 2 weeks, California will be voting on civil rights at the ballot box; a tragedy. First in the nation to be given the opportunity to strip away civil rights, protected under the CA constitution.

Based on the latest polls... Same-gender marriage rights will be eliminated, by just a bare majority. I had expected that.

What I find interesting is all the MILLIONS of dollars that are being spent by both sides to make their case.

Just a month ago... polls indicated that same-gender marriage, and full equality under the law, would be preserved - by a 10 point margin. That is gone. The reason? 40% of 25 million dollars donated to the "yes on 8" campaign has been bank rolled by the Mormon church/Utah. And they have started advertising - and lying.

What is sad is that there are an estimated 1 million LBGT Californians... but only 30,000 donors to the "no on 8" campaign.

This is tragic all the way around. First, that such rights are being voted on at the ballot box. Second, that the Mormon church, which represents only 2% of America's religious community has donated almost 40% of the funding to strip minority rights in a state they really have no interest in, third, that the preservation/elimination of minority rights is tied directly to special interest funding, and fourth, that LBGT community local in CA has done so little to preserve their own rights in terms of the necessary donations required to put slick commercials on the air to sway public opinion. Disgusting.

The future of same-gender marriage, and equal protection under the law for all citizens, will not find its roots in CA. Instead... it will be the Northeast. I would be willing to wager that New Jersey in a matter of 12 months will be the next state to end civil marriage discrimination in their state - by way of the legislative process. Vermont will follow...

Nov 4 will be interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a matter of about 2 weeks, California will be voting on civil rights at the ballot box; a tragedy.

I'm confused. I thought the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964. Did California miss that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused. I thought the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964. Did California miss that?

Interesting you mention the Civil Rights Act. Bill Bradley, in 2000 (or maybe even before that)... actually advocated to amend the act to include LBGT Americans. He was right then, and he is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to go off on a tangent, but this seems to confirm and fortify the need to retain IRS prohibitions against religious groups using untaxed dollars to promote their political ends.

Political Endorsements from the Pulpit

IRS Tax Exempt Information for Political Organizations

I would agree. There is gigantic loophole in how the IRS handles religious organizations. They cannot endorse a particular candidate... but they can advocate for or against an issue. Even if that "issue" is eliminating or restricting rights of an entire class of citizens. And that's where religious organizations win: they meet every Sunday, like clockwork to meet, organize, and plot their next moves. The LBGT community, many alienated by their very churches they grew up in, do not have a similar meeting place/time... or, attend reconciling churches, that are vastly out numbered by non-reconciling religious organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree. There is gigantic loophole in how the IRS handles religious organizations. They cannot endorse a particular candidate... but they can advocate for or against an issue. Even if that "issue" is eliminating or restricting rights of an entire class of citizens. And that's where religious organizations win: they meet every Sunday, like clockwork to meet, organize, and plot their next moves. The LBGT community, many alienated by their very churches they grew up in, do not have a similar meeting place/time... or, attend reconciling churches, that are vastly out numbered by non-reconciling religious organizations.

You make some valid points, especially about LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) people. But, are we a community?

All we share a history of being treated badly because of our sexual orientation or identity. Despite the stereotypes there's no common thread, aside from that of abuse by the larger society. I can honestly say (without Stephen Colbert irony) that a person's consentual, private adult sexual practices no longer take precidence in my regard for individuals. "I don't see it" is fatuous; that it doesn't matter is true.

For some religous (and LBGT) people, strength comes from opposing a scapegoat instead of nurturing our better natures. For example, the gay community (that is, those who frequent gay bars) used to dread election day in Houston. There was a local tradition of raiding bars on election eve. Peoples' professional, financial and social lives could be destroyed, literally overnight. No wonder we had to unite. It was a matter of self-preservation. Now that we no longer fear HPD's wrath, complacency has replaced the outrage which united us.

For believers, it's much easier to point one's finger at "the gays" than to strictly adhere to the Ten Commandments. Anyone here read them lately? They're good. They're tough.

Nah. Let's shop on Sunday and ship Mom off to a nursing home, and find a more appealling spouse. It's The Gays who are causing all the trouble.

I'm tired of believers in cheesy religions getting a free ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is sad is that there are an estimated 1 million LBGT Californians... but only 30,000 donors to the "no on 8" campaign.

maybe what this tells you is that most of them really don't care one way or the other and it is really an issue pushed by a very small fringe group that really wants to take shots at religion

after all saying that all gays should come out and financially support his issue is similar to saying that all gays get in their underwear and dress like rocky horror and march in parades and embarrass themselves and their "cause" when that is far from the truth as well

what a shocker it might be for some to realize that many gays might just want to keep their private life private instead of pinning it on their sleeves or their lingerie and wearing it every where they go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe what this tells you is that most of them really don't care one way or the other and it is really an issue pushed by a very small fringe group that really wants to take shots at religion

after all saying that all gays should come out and financially support his issue is similar to saying that all gays get in their underwear and dress like rocky horror and march in parades and embarrass themselves and their "cause" when that is far from the truth as well

what a shocker it might be for some to realize that many gays might just want to keep their private life private instead of pinning it on their sleeves or their lingerie and wearing it every where they go

The people rushing the courthouse care.

30,000 donors/$15 million vs. 60,000/$25 million + church of LDS. Though out numbered 2:1, I would not call 30K a "fringe" group, but one that drastically needs to increase its base to counter the out of state assault on equal protection (through advertising) that is being funded primarily by intolerant religious organizations.

Even if every LBGT person in CA did something in an effort to defend their rights... at the end of the day, they are a minority population; one vulnerable of being raped of their civil marriage rights by a tyrannical majority; the ultimate failure of a constitutional form of government.

Rocky Horror, gay pride parades, and those who live "private" lifestyles... has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection under the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from your own numbers above

1 million GLTGs in California

30,000 made a donation

30,000 / 1,000,000 = .03

if .03 that bothered to care is not a fringe group then what the hell is

Marriage should be redefined for what it is the sanction of a union under God by a church and the governemnt should be out of it entirely and then if people want to contractually obligate the them to who or what they choose to have sex with then have at it

clearly the other 97% of GLTGs don't give a damn or they would have stepped up and done something.....probably because their entire life does not revolve around who or what they have sex with and they have no desire to pick at religion and marriage

not to mention the estimated 2007 population of California is 36,553,215

30,000 / 36,553,215 = .0008207 again QUITE the fringe group under ANY reasonable definition of a fringe group

I also defy you to show where the right to have a union sanctioned under God is written in the constitution or guaranteed anywhere at all

as for the benefits that some in the above fringe groups are after companies should be forced to provide benefits as a market basket so those that choose to not have kids or be single can have the same value of benefits as those that marry and have 12 kids and get benefits for all of them

I am smart enough to know that allowing legal unions and market basket benefits would still not take all those that wish to attack marriage and religion (speaking of intolerant who are you to define what marriage is for others religions just because it does not suit your life style mr/ms tolerant) but at least it would expose some of them for what they really are.....people that want to attack religion because they are too intolerant to accept that some religions have restrictions on behaviors VS being just a free for all

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking forward to a democrat in the white house w/ a democrat controlled house and senate... religious nut-jobs will finally have NO SAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So looking forward to a democrat in the white house w/ a democrat controlled house and senate... religious nut-jobs will finally have NO SAY.

The world is a lot more complicated than that. Even if the Democratic party wins the White House, the House, and the Senate not all Democrats are the same or hold the same values or serve the same constituencies. Even if there is a trifecta, I don't expect to see much change on most issues. Politics is about compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These sorts of civil rights issues are supposed to be handled by the judicial branch. A minority can never vote itself equal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like some of the European approaches to marriage. No matter IF you get married (male-male, male-female, female-female) in a church, the government has to legalize the 'marriage'. You can just have a civil union or go all out with a fancy dress and carriage if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The world is a lot more complicated than that. Even if the Democratic party wins the White House, the House, and the Senate not all Democrats are the same or hold the same values or serve the same constituencies. Even if there is a trifecta, I don't expect to see much change on most issues. Politics is about compromise.

Gotta disagree.

This time all the little commie/Marxists will have the ability to push their radical agenda on the country.

Why do you think I've been so vocal about this coming threat?

And the people of California never got to vote on the gay marriage issue to BEGIN WITH! It was legislation from the bench!

Now, finally, the people of California will get to speak at the ballot box!

Wow...some vestige of democracy still exists in California. I think that's a GOOD thing. Judges shouldn't be social engineers.

If the PEOPLE vote in gay marriage, I will still think they are stupid, but will at least respect a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta disagree.

This time all the little commie/Marxists will have the ability to push their radical agenda on the country.

Why do you think I've been so vocal about this coming threat?

And the people of California never got to vote on the gay marriage issue to BEGIN WITH! It was legislation from the bench!

Now, finally, the people of California will get to speak at the ballot box!

Wow...some vestige of democracy still exists in California. I think that's a GOOD thing. Judges shouldn't be social engineers.

If the PEOPLE vote in gay marriage, I will still think they are stupid, but will at least respect a vote.

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta disagree.

This time all the little commie/Marxists will have the ability to push their radical agenda on the country.

Why do you think I've been so vocal about this coming threat?

And the people of California never got to vote on the gay marriage issue to BEGIN WITH! It was legislation from the bench!

Now, finally, the people of California will get to speak at the ballot box!

Wow...some vestige of democracy still exists in California. I think that's a GOOD thing. Judges shouldn't be social engineers.

If the PEOPLE vote in gay marriage, I will still think they are stupid, but will at least respect a vote.

Yes. The people of CA voted on gay marriage before, in 2000, known as Prop 22. That was a vote on a CA statute, not an amendment to the CA constitution. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The CA legislature, twice, has put forth equal marriage bills. Only to have them vetoed by the Executive.

The Executive branch indicated that it would oppose any efforts to reverse a judicial decision on the matter, however.

The judicial branch has rendered its decision, and now all three branches of the CA government are in agreement with one another.

...and finally... judges do not legislate from the bench or "create rights" out of thin air. They merely defend the existing rights in the/a constitution. In this case, equal protection under the law. No judicial bench in the history of the United States has done otherwise.

So looking forward to a democrat in the white house w/ a democrat controlled house and senate... religious nut-jobs will finally have NO SAY.

We'll have to see if that really holds water this time. Remember Bill Clinton? He gave us BOTH DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta disagree.

This time all the little commie/Marxists will have the ability to push their radical agenda on the country.

Why do you think I've been so vocal about this coming threat?

And the people of California never got to vote on the gay marriage issue to BEGIN WITH! It was legislation from the bench!

Now, finally, the people of California will get to speak at the ballot box!

Wow...some vestige of democracy still exists in California. I think that's a GOOD thing. Judges shouldn't be social engineers.

If the PEOPLE vote in gay marriage, I will still think they are stupid, but will at least respect a vote.

You're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't you, disastro? No matter the topic, your response invariably contains the words commie, socialist or marxist. Are you a descendant of Joe McCarhty, or is talk radio fixated on marxism? Seriously, if you fashion a logical argument you might be taken seriously. Constanting repeating buzzwords suggests an inability to form a coherent argument. I realize that this may be due to the crowd you normally hang around, but here on HAIF, some of us enjoy a spirited debate. You'll need to step up your game a bit from mono-syllabic sentences if you want us to take you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't you, disastro? No matter the topic, your response invariably contains the words commie, socialist or marxist. Are you a descendant of Joe McCarhty, or is talk radio fixated on marxism? Seriously, if you fashion a logical argument you might be taken seriously. Constanting repeating buzzwords suggests an inability to form a coherent argument. I realize that this may be due to the crowd you normally hang around, but here on HAIF, some of us enjoy a spirited debate. You'll need to step up your game a bit from mono-syllabic sentences if you want us to take you seriously.

:lol::lol::lol:

There's plenty of visitors here who agree with me. But even so...

...rather than pursuing vain attempts to make me look ridiculous, why don't you prove me wrong instead?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to do that.

McCarthy apparently was QUITE CORRECT in his assessments. I don't know how McCarthy got turned into some kind of negative. To me, he was very prophetic.

Recent history and events are actually proving him to be a genius of a sort.

Edited by Disastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from your own numbers above

1 million GLTGs in California

30,000 made a donation

30,000 / 1,000,000 = .03

if .03 that bothered to care is not a fringe group then what the hell is

Marriage should be redefined for what it is the sanction of a union under God by a church and the governemnt should be out of it entirely and then if people want to contractually obligate the them to who or what they choose to have sex with then have at it

clearly the other 97% of GLTGs don't give a damn or they would have stepped up and done something.....probably because their entire life does not revolve around who or what they have sex with and they have no desire to pick at religion and marriage

not to mention the estimated 2007 population of California is 36,553,215

30,000 / 36,553,215 = .0008207 again QUITE the fringe group under ANY reasonable definition of a fringe group

I also defy you to show where the right to have a union sanctioned under God is written in the constitution or guaranteed anywhere at all

as for the benefits that some in the above fringe groups are after companies should be forced to provide benefits as a market basket so those that choose to not have kids or be single can have the same value of benefits as those that marry and have 12 kids and get benefits for all of them

I am smart enough to know that allowing legal unions and market basket benefits would still not take all those that wish to attack marriage and religion (speaking of intolerant who are you to define what marriage is for others religions just because it does not suit your life style mr/ms tolerant) but at least it would expose some of them for what they really are.....people that want to attack religion because they are too intolerant to accept that some religions have restrictions on behaviors VS being just a free for all

Let's assume that 50% of CA is full of God-hating atheists. That leaves 50% or 18,276,608 of concerned religious believers at risk of losing nothing in the event that Prop 8 fails. So by your math...

18,276,608 religiously-concerned voters in California

60,000 made a donation (even though a lot of that is out of state, but who cares)

60,000 / 18,000,000 = .003

if .003 that bothered to care is not a fringe group then what the hell is. no need to even do the math against the entire CA population.

...and of this tiny fringe group, 40% of all total funding for prop 8 comes from one of the smallest non-Jeudo-Christian religious dominations in the United States.

None of this is about fringe groups, however. Because at the end of the day, everyone in CA will have the opportunity to vote on this matter, a tragedy.

And the people wishing to preserve equality under the law (already present in both the CA and US Constitutions), do not want access to your, or anybody else's, church. Just access to the courthouse.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The people of CA voted on gay marriage before, in 2000, known as Prop 22. That was a vote on a CA statute, not an amendment to the CA constitution. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

The CA legislature, twice, has put forth equal marriage bills. Only to have them vetoed by the Executive.

The Executive branch indicated that it would oppose any efforts to reverse a judicial decision on the matter, however.

The judicial branch has rendered its decision, and now all three branches of the CA government are in agreement with one another.

...and finally... judges do not legislate from the bench or "create rights" out of thin air. They merely defend the existing rights in the/a constitution. In this case, equal protection under the law. No judicial bench in the history of the United States has done otherwise.

We'll have to see if that really holds water this time. Remember Bill Clinton? He gave us BOTH DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm not holding my breath.

It's not wrong if that's what Californians voted against. Who are you to say "this is wrong"? Are you saying a conservative vote is worth less than a GLBTG liberal one?

The fact is -- even though I support the concept of CIVIL unions between same sex couples (for legal reasons) -- the notion of calling same sex unions "marriage" is out of step with the views of mainstream America.

Dis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not wrong if that's what Californians voted against. Who are you to say "this is wrong"? Are you saying a conservative vote is worth less than a GLBTG liberal one?

The fact is -- even though I support the concept of CIVIL unions between same sex couples (for legal reasons) -- the notion of calling same sex unions "marriage" is out of step with the views of mainstream America.

Dis

No one, liberal or conservative, should be voting on civil rights.

CA already has a CIVIL UNIONS law. It is called a CIVIL MARRIAGE CONTRACT. And there is no rational basis or compelling state interest to deny any couple access in obtaining a civil marriage license.

Our history as a nation is filled with civil rights advances that have been deemed "out of step with the views of mainstream America."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our history as a nation is filled with civil rights advances that have been deemed "out of step with the views of mainstream America."

LBJ pushed through Civil Rights legislation when he became President. I wonder if it would have passed if it were left up to the public to vote on back then?

Edited by Heights2Bastrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marriage should be redefined for what it is the sanction of a union under God by a church and the governemnt should be out of it entirely and then if people want to contractually obligate the them to who or what they choose to have sex with then have at it

_____________________

I also defy you to show where the right to have a union sanctioned under God is written in the constitution or guaranteed anywhere at all

Interesting ideas! Have you shared your thoughts with your wife? She might be less enthusiastic about losing the rights afforded to her by the government because of her (heterosexual) marriage.

In other words, you view your marriage solely as a union sanctified by the church. Communal property, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, medical decisions....nah. That's lawyer stuff, and The Government should stay strictly out of it. Write up your own damn contract. Your wife OK with that?

I've heard people claim that it's the homosexuals who are threatening traditional marriage; but you, sir, take the cake.

___________________

True story:

"I don't get why those homos have to push their sexuality on other people. It's not like we straight people (giving his wife's hand an affectionate squeeze) have to flaunt it. Do we, honey?", and she give him an approving, wifely smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't you, disastro? No matter the topic, your response invariably contains the words commie, socialist or marxist. Are you a descendant of Joe McCarhty, or is talk radio fixated on marxism? Seriously, if you fashion a logical argument you might be taken seriously. Constanting repeating buzzwords suggests an inability to form a coherent argument. I realize that this may be due to the crowd you normally hang around, but here on HAIF, some of us enjoy a spirited debate. You'll need to step up your game a bit from mono-syllabic sentences if you want us to take you seriously.

applause.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting ideas! Have you shared your thoughts with your wife? She might be less enthusiastic about losing the rights afforded to her by the government because of her (heterosexual) marriage.

In other words, you view your marriage solely as a union sanctified by the church. Communal property, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, medical decisions....nah. That's lawyer stuff, and The Government should stay strictly out of it. Write up your own damn contract. Your wife OK with that?

I actually have mixed feelings about this myself. I want gay marriage to be a right since it's an equal rights issue. But I also view marriage as a religious proposition, and since we're not religious people, my partner and I have little interest in marriage.

My take is that the government should only 'certify' civil unions, regardless of whether the couple is straight or gay. This would offer equal rights by providing the same legal framework for straight and gay couples.

The couple's church would then be left to sanctify it's concept of marriage, under it's own banner, if that's important to the couple. This would take the impetus out of the anti-gay marriage crowd, at least from a national political perspective, and churchgoers could join the church that best meets their needs/prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting ideas! Have you shared your thoughts with your wife? She might be less enthusiastic about losing the rights afforded to her by the government because of her (heterosexual) marriage.

In other words, you view your marriage solely as a union sanctified by the church. Communal property, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, medical decisions....nah. That's lawyer stuff, and The Government should stay strictly out of it. Write up your own damn contract. Your wife OK with that?

I've heard people claim that it's the homosexuals who are threatening traditional marriage; but you, sir, take the cake.

___________________

True story:

"I don't get why those homos have to push their sexuality on other people. It's not like we straight people (giving his wife's hand an affectionate squeeze) have to flaunt it. Do we, honey?", and she give him an approving, wifely smile.

nice try, but it is more simple than you make it out to be

if you are married in a chruch where marriage belongs and you choose to not go to the government with a contract then upon a divorce it is automatic 50/50 split down the middle and the kids go to stay with the most fit parent to keep them

if you are married under the church you can also still go down to the courthouse with any agreement you wish and that will be the legal binding upon a split

really all that get married should be required to spell out the terms of the split before they are married I am tired of the courst being clogged with children like madonna and guy richie or modanna and who ever else she gets divorced from next week

if married in a church and have no contract then after the 50/50 automatic split of assets if you choose to fight over the kids it should be extremely costly to do so.....all court cost covered and some extra for not taking care of it before hand.....can't afford it and you can make it up with community service to be split equally by both

the governement needs to be out of MARRIAGE because MARRIAGE is a church concept......then the government can be in the contract business.....get one before you are married or risk a 50/50 no fight divorce and the expenses PLUS extra cost if you choose to fight over the kids

then businesses can provide benefits as a market basket any way they wish.......have 12 kids get less time off or a lesser health care package......contractually obligate yourself to 12 people and you can choose how your equal market basket of benefits is split and you can fight about that split at home with those in your contract.....and single people at your company can get extra pay, more time off, coverage for their kids or pets or what ever is available in the market basket of benefits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually have mixed feelings about this myself. I want gay marriage to be a right since it's an equal rights issue. But I also view marriage as a religious proposition, and since we're not religious people, my partner and I have little interest in marriage.

My take is that the government should only 'certify' civil unions, regardless of whether the couple is straight or gay. This would offer equal rights by providing the same legal framework for straight and gay couples.

The couple's church would then be left to sanctify it's concept of marriage, under it's own banner, if that's important to the couple. This would take the impetus out of the anti-gay marriage crowd, at least from a national political perspective, and churchgoers could join the church that best meets their needs/prejudices.

just a question what exactly is it that you and your partener wish to get out of a civil union....is it the right to see the other in the hospital if in a coma and against the living blood relatives wishes.....is it access to each others work place benefits

I have no issue with people contractually obligating themselves to anyone or anything they wish.....I can respect that you are not religious so you have no interest in a "marriage" as I define it or as almost all religions define it....I also think there are gay couples out there that are religious, but do not want to be married because they feel it is against the teachings they believe in or that their church teaches.....but at the same time we are all sinners, but to them that does not mean they push the church to change their choice from a sin to accepted....they accept that they are in a relationship that is viewed as a sin by the church and continue on with their relationship knowing that all sin

if you are after the benefits then what about people who choose to be single and have no kids....or what about people who are totally emotionally involved in their pets.....shouldn't their employeer under the guise of "equal rights" that some toss about also be obligated to cover their emotional attachments to their pets, their car, or their house....or even compensate them for their lack of emotional attachemnts....what about those that choose to be contractually obligated to more than one person....how many should the employeer of one be obligated to cover

I feel a market basket of benefits at a set cost to the employeer would cover those questions....I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what needs to be separated here is the terms "Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony". Leave Marriage as the Legal Term, and the Holy Matrimony to those that feel they need to have their religious beliefs protected. Having "marriage" and "matrimony" as one in the same is where I see the problem is. People renew their vows in a "matrimony" ceremony, without having to re-apply for a "marriage" license. It's a strictly religious ceremony that holds no legal value, ad serves only that of those involved.

Now "marriage" is a legal term, that is represented by two people listed on a marriage certificate, that have been unified by someone authorized to do so, whether that be a J.P., Judge, Clergy, or Captain of a Ship at sea, and whoever else falls into that category. It's when people try to bring religion into a legal term, that screws things up. I kinda thought that's where the belief in separation of religion and state came into play. In this case it seems to have been overlooked by that belief.

All this huff over changing definitions seems a bit overdone. Just leave "marriage" as a legal term and "matrimony" as your religious term. If you apply for a "Marriage Certificate" there is no mention of God on it. So what ties the term to religion legally, other that personal preference? Nothing I can see. But then there are those that take a different view on everything, and just insert religion where it serves a convenience. But in the same breath scream separation when it serves them wrong. Make up your damn mind will ya. If two people of the same gender want to get married, what threat is it to people of opposite gender? I really don't see any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're pretty much a one trick pony, aren't you, disastro?

Once you've seen the trick, it's safe to ignore him.

LBJ pushed through Civil Rights legislation when he became President. I wonder if it would have passed if it were left up to the public to vote on back then?

Not a chance.

Interesting ideas! Have you shared your thoughts with your wife? She might be less enthusiastic about losing the rights afforded to her by the government because of her (heterosexual) marriage.

In other words, you view your marriage solely as a union sanctified by the church. Communal property, Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, medical decisions....nah. That's lawyer stuff, and The Government should stay strictly out of it. Write up your own damn contract. Your wife OK with that?

Why not? I see no problem with letting churches define whatever they want to define, as long as those definitions are kept away from my government. Why would a wife be especially opposed to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another point to think about, if Marriage is a religious thing, how can two Atheists be legally married, when they don't recognize nor believe in God? See my point? There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And another point to think about, if Marriage is a religious thing, how can two Atheists be legally married, when they don't recognize nor believe in God? See my point? There is a difference.

This is exactly right (and your previous post). There is a necessary distinction between the piece of paper issued by the state and the ceremony performed by a religious party. I know plenty of folks that are married and did not have a religious ceremony but are afforded things like tax, pension, and insurance benefits.

The bottom line is that homosexuals are constituents in just the same manner as everyone else. Denying these things is morally wrong, imo. And just remember, there is someone that everyone knows that is negatively affected by these acts of bigotry - you may not know it, but they could be people you even care about!

This is an interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are after the benefits then what about people who choose to be single and have no kids....or what about people who are totally emotionally involved in their pets.....shouldn't their employeer under the guise of "equal rights" that some toss about also be obligated to cover their emotional attachments to their pets, their car, or their house....or even compensate them for their lack of emotional attachemnts....what about those that choose to be contractually obligated to more than one person....how many should the employeer of one be obligated to cover

Well, for one thing, no sane person is asking for a marriage or civil union with their pet or car or house. Secondly, such a marriage or civil union requires the consent of both parties, which in this case would be two adults and not a pet or inanimate object.

just a question what exactly is it that you and your partener wish to get out of a civil union....is it the right to see the other in the hospital if in a coma and against the living blood relatives wishes.....is it access to each others work place benefits

There are hundreds of practical benefits of a legal marriage in the U.S., such at tax benefits, hospital visit rights, government benefits, etc., that apply to spouses. Yet, outside of religion, there is no justifiable reason IMO to deny these benefits to a gay couple any more than to a straight couple that consents (and presumedly loves each other).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also defy you to show where the right to have a union sanctioned under God is written in the constitution or guaranteed anywhere at all

Fortunately, the RIGHT of marriage is Constitutionally protected. It was recognized by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Come on now.

And why do you care? It hurts NOBODY!

Edited by jayshoota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for one thing, no sane person is asking for a marriage or civil union with their pet or car or house. Secondly, such a marriage or civil union requires the consent of both parties, which in this case would be two adults and not a pet or inanimate object.

Well, maybe no SANE person was concerned about marriage with pets, but THIS former Pennsylvania congressman warned us that it was coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, maybe no SANE person was concerned about marriage with pets, but THIS former Pennsylvania congressman warned us that it was coming!

Oh no, don't bring up that monster!!!

What makes it even worse is that he represented PA, where I'm originally from. Like it's not already bad enough that people would immediately assume I'm a Republican and Bush supporter because I live in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no, don't bring up that monster!!!

What makes it even worse is that he represented PA, where I'm originally from. Like it's not already bad enough that people would immediately assume I'm a Republican and Bush supporter because I live in Texas.

Well, unless you lived in western PA, I wouldn't think you were a racist or anything. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe what this tells you is that most of them really don't care one way or the other and it is really an issue pushed by a very small fringe group that really wants to take shots at religion

after all saying that all gays should come out and financially support his issue is similar to saying that all gays get in their underwear and dress like rocky horror and march in parades and embarrass themselves and their "cause" when that is far from the truth as well

what a shocker it might be for some to realize that many gays might just want to keep their private life private instead of pinning it on their sleeves or their lingerie and wearing it every where they go

I think it's probably true that a majority of gay people have no interest in being allowed to be legally married. That is not a legal or moral justification for denying it to those who do.

Only 31% of American adults own a gun. That means probably 69% percent of Americans have no interest in owning a gun. Does that mean it would be okay to outlaw gun ownership by private civilians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like some of the European approaches to marriage. No matter IF you get married (male-male, male-female, female-female) in a church, the government has to legalize the 'marriage'. You can just have a civil union or go all out with a fancy dress and carriage if you like.

We basically have that here in the US too. There's no requirement that you have any sort of religious ceremony in this country to be considered married in the eyes of the state. And even if you do get married in a church, you still have to go down to the courthouse to get a marriage license first. For some reason Americans just don't get that concept. They seem to equate marriage with religion. Nobody's ever said that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages if that's against their beliefs. This is simply a civil rights and legal issue, not a religious issue. The fact is, there are churches that have been performing same sex marriage ceremonies in this country for many years, regardless of the lack of recognition of those marriages by the state and federal governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And another point to think about, if Marriage is a religious thing, how can two Atheists be legally married, when they don't recognize nor believe in God? See my point? There is a difference.

Wow, for once you and I are pretty much on exactly the same page on this, and your previous post. :D

But you're exactly right. And I have yet to encounter someone who uses the religious argument against same sex marriage who will also agree that marriages between a man and woman that are performed by a judge or justice of the peace are invalid because they didn't have a religious ceremony. It's a double standard, and completely unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In about one week... CA voters go to the polls. From what I read, it is an animal house out there; isolated street fights are beginning to break out; sign theft and vandalism is on the rise.

The religious right is claiming that this vote is more important than the race for president, and that Armageddon is now here. [Tony Perkins, president of the "Family Research Council" which for some reason does not include gay families.]

A recent examination of donors for/against the amendment shows that $60 MILLION has been donated so far.

...of those wishing to strip rights of others (those voting "yes") - it is now estimated, by some, that 77% of funding for the "yes on 8" side is coming from Mormons, many of them in the state of CA. That population, however, is only 2% of the entire population of the state. They are using images of children in their ads - against the wishes of the parents of those children, who oppose Prop 8... Absolutely disgusting. I have no problems with Mormons or any other religious faiths, so as long as those beliefs are not imposed on others.

Polls are mixed. Some show yes on 8 winning, others do not. I am fully expecting the "undecided" voters on this issue to break almost 100% to the yes side, to eliminate rights. Why? It's like when you were growing up and beat the hell out of your brother or sister... for no reason, other than to taunt them. You just did it out of spite. Same thing here. Eventually, people will grow up and, maybe in 20 years, realize "it was just stupid what we did in 2008." And in 2028... the amendment will NOT be FOR same-gender marriage, but to relegate the matter to the legislature (which has already TWICE put forward equal marriage bills).

I would expect a repeal of equal civil marriage rights in CA to set back the gay rights movement another three decades, at least. This on top of the now nearly two decades of set back of the failed 1993, third grade, "People can't handle the truth" Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, signed by Bill Clinton - who had a Democratic Congress backing him. Not to mention DOMA, signed by Clinton in 96. I would also fully expect real estate values in CA to further hasten their rapid decline as that state begins to align its social policies after southern states, and fair-minded people flee to the Northeast, many of them running for their freedom (to marry).

OR... CA protects and defends equal protection under the law for all citizens. Nov 4 will be interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In about one week... CA voters go to the polls. From what I read, it is an animal house out there; isolated street fights are beginning to break out; sign theft and vandalism is on the rise.

Well taking away rights from Americans angers them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually have mixed feelings about this myself. I want gay marriage to be a right since it's an equal rights issue. But I also view marriage as a religious proposition, and since we're not religious people, my partner and I have little interest in marriage.

My take is that the government should only 'certify' civil unions, regardless of whether the couple is straight or gay. This would offer equal rights by providing the same legal framework for straight and gay couples.

The couple's church would then be left to sanctify it's concept of marriage, under it's own banner, if that's important to the couple. This would take the impetus out of the anti-gay marriage crowd, at least from a national political perspective, and churchgoers could join the church that best meets their needs/prejudices.

Yes, keep the government out of the marriage act and let it just legalize the union. Let churches that want to or not actually marry people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this passes, the California pro-gay groups could deliberately stymie additional anti-homosexual efforts, convince anti-homosexual people to move to Arizona and Nevada, and then vote on the issue again once there are fewer anti-homosexual people in California.

I hope this amendment fails. Even if it passes, CA should try this formula above and ruin the population that supports this amendment.

Edited by VicMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if this passes, the California pro-gay groups could deliberately stymie additional anti-homosexual efforts, convince anti-homosexual people to move to Arizona and Nevada, and then vote on the issue again once there are fewer anti-homosexual people in California.

I hope this amendment fails. Even if it passes, CA should try this formula above and ruin the population that supports this amendment.

Amazing how this country takes 1 step forward and two steps back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...