California votes on same-sex marriage again

[memebag]

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?

[Mark F. Barnes]

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.

[sevfiv]

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.

[barracuda]

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).

[jayshoota]

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!

[RedScare]

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!

[barracuda]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[editor]

Well, for one thing, no sane person is asking for a marriage or civil union with their pet or car or house.

As a point of interest and humor: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2998872.stm

[Reefmonkey]

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?

[ssullivan]

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.

[ssullivan]

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.

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.

[BryanS]

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...

[HtownWxBoy]

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.

[houstonmacbro]

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.

[HtownWxBoy]

Yay for gays!

[jayshoota]

Not looking so good in CA. Not good news.

[BryanS]

Not looking so good in CA. Not good news.

County by county:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics...93859.htmlstory

Early totals are from less populated, more conservative counties.

It will take hours, perhaps even until morning, to tally all the votes.

It is tragic that such rights are being voted on.

[VicMan]

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.

[houstonmacbro]

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.

[BryanS]

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

Yes, it is.

If this admendment passes... CA loses its title as the progressive state, socially.

In about a week, same-gender marriages will begin in CT.

In 2009, I bet NJ follows suit.

The future may not lie in CA... but the northeast.

The Field Poll indicated that this amendment would fail (49-44, something like that). Such polls, by Field, have been proven wrong only about 5% of the time. So if it passes... it just speak volumes to the wanton harm that one group (the majority) wish to impose on another. Like putting Jim Crow laws to a vote in the South.

[houstonmacbro]

Yes, it is.

If this admendment passes... CA loses its title as the progressive state, socially.

In about a week, same-gender marriages will begin in CT.

In 2009, I bet NJ follows suit.

The future may not lie in CA... but the northeast.

The Field Poll indicated that this amendment would fail (49-44, something like that). Such polls, by Field, have been proven wrong only about 5% of the time. So if it passes... it just speak volumes to the wanton harm that one group (the majority) wish to impose on another. Like putting Jim Crow laws to a vote in the South.

And watching Karl Rove on FoxNews right now. Man, he makes me ill just listening to him.

Has anyone EVER seen that man smile?

[jayshoota]

Not to get all personal, but man, this really hurts. I was really counting on CA. It is just hard for me to understand how people can have so much hate when I grew up with so much love from my friends and family. I guess this is the real world. Just hard to understand. I agree with you BryanS, we should not be voting on people's fundamental rights.

Allowing it hurts nobody, banning it hurts many.

[VicMan]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/state.laws/index.html

Arizona banned same sex marriage.

California is still counting its ballots.

[BryanS]

Final thoughts on this...

Going back to post #1 in this thread: "Same-gender marriage rights will be eliminated, by just a bare majority."

And that is exactly what happened:

~4.9 million YES votes (~51.9%)

~4.6 million NO votes (~48.1%)

But do you know what else happened? On the same ballot in CA... Prop 2 also passed, by wide margins:

Beginning in 2015, farmers would be required to provide room for egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows to fully extend their limbs or wings, stand up, turn around and lie down. It would outlaw cages and crates that prevent those movements.

Good news for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sows.

What is disgusting? Is that the same initiative process to "liberate" egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sows was used to strip a class of humans of their marriage rights, by a simple majority, at the ballot box, on the same ballot. I'm all for animal rights... but the impact/change to human rights should meet a higher standard.

Looking forward...

For states that have soiled their constitutions with these kinds of amendments... the only way to undue the damage is to put forward amendments that define marriage as "the union of two people to the exclusion of all others." That is the only way to handle this at the state level, without having to go to the Supreme Court. Given that prop 8 passed in CA due to overwhelming support from those 65 and older... and given that those 18-29 overwhelming opposed it... It will take about 20 to 30 years for the young people to grow old (and the now-old people to die) to finally support the notion of equality under the law, for everyone.

For states that have not soiled their constitutions, expect to see same-gender marriage legalized within five years. New Jersey, in particular. And then maybe one or two other states in the Northeast.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There is no credible reason that same-sex couples, here in the United States, should be barred from obtaining a civil marriage license, at any courthouse, in any state, right now. CA will have a unique class of citizens on its hands; those who have less rights than the generation that preceded them as it is expected that existing marriages, performed prior to Nov 4, will be left intact. And the mere prospect that this unique class, today's younger generation, must now wait three decades or more to obtain those rights, and equal protections, is a true testament at just how badly a true constitutional form of government - one of which minority rights can never be abridged or put to popular vote - has failed lesbian and gay Americans.

[ProHouston]

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.

Classless.

[ProHouston]

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.

Thank you! This is all it would take. A marriage by the Church is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. If you're not getting "married" but "united" then it's not a Church issue.

[sevfiv]

I am saddened but not surprised at the hateful legislation passed in California, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. It's just hard to take in that people truly are like that

[ProHouston]

Not to get all personal, but man, this really hurts. I was really counting on CA. It is just hard for me to understand how people can have so much hate when I grew up with so much love from my friends and family. I guess this is the real world. Just hard to understand. I agree with you BryanS, we should not be voting on people's fundamental rights.

Allowing it hurts nobody, banning it hurts many.

It's not hate. It's a disagreement. Just because people believe that a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman doesn't mean that they hate gay people. Please don't generalize. I firmly believe that only men and women should marry. I have nothing against gay people declaring a lasting union in front of anyone, but it doesn't count as a marriage. Call me what you want, I know the truth. I'm the most inclusive person you could meet. Christianity and religion is about accepting all people regardless or race, sex, creed, ethnicity, orientation, etc. You may have read about radicals but all groups have those. Look at HtownWxBoy above spitting venom at a group he doesn't even understand.

The people have voted, there was a majority. That's America. I guess in California more people agree with me than with the posters in this thread.

[houstonmacbro]

I am saddened but not surprised at the hateful legislation passed in California, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. It's just hard to take in that people truly are like that

It really is a step backwards.