California votes on same-sex marriage again

[sevfiv]

Everyone is of course entitled to his or her own beliefs and to live life as one sees fit. The issue is that these are indeed personal things. One's belief (such as your own about religion, marriage, and so on) should not dictate how someone else must live.

When it's taken to the polls, it's obtrusive, meddlesome, and disrespectful (and an odd over-interest in the matter).

What's the deal with getting all up in others' personal stuff?!

[barracuda]

The government is not in the "marriage business" per se in terms of sanctioning and blessing unions, churches do that. The government is, however, in the civil union business, right now. It just so happens that "the union" is nothing more than a license/contract that happens to have the words "marriage certificate" printed at the top. And that over the past 50 to 100 years, rights and responsibilities have conveniently been attached to that contract and is universally recognized by the state, insurance companies, financial institutions, etc, etc.

I'm agreeing with you. My point is that it should be equal under the law. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it should apply to gay couples as well. To give different rights (only civil unions) based on sexual orientation is discrimination.

The only credible argument I've heard against gay marriage is based on religious grounds. A church can do what it wants in terms of who they marry, but we are supposed to be equal under the government. So, while I don't want to force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies, I do want the government to recognize gay marriage as long as they are recognizing straight marriage.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a simple question of equal rights and I don't see what the issue is at the state level.

Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

I'm not asking you to marry someone of the same sex. But you are denying me the right to marry the person I love. So who's imposing?

[ProHouston]

I'm not asking you to marry someone of the same sex. But you are denying me the right to marry the person I love. So who's imposing?

We live in a democratic society. We have laws that govern the way we want to live. We give the people the opportunity to alter those laws and the constitution by proposing amendments that are voted upon by the people. We get to choose. In this case, the majority has voted this proposition down. California has chosen that their belief system is one of the traditional family. That could change some day, the great news is that it will be voted upon in a democratic way.

This is not a discriminatory issue for reasons I've stated above.

[editor]

So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

[barracuda]

We live in a democratic society. We have laws that govern the way we want to live. We give the people the opportunity to alter those laws and the constitution by proposing amendments that are voted upon by the people. We get to choose. In this case, the majority has voted this proposition down. California has chosen that their belief system is one of the traditional family. That could change some day, the great news is that it will be voted upon in a democratic way.

This is not a discriminatory issue for reasons I've stated above.

It is discrimination. Just because it's imposed through a ballot measure doesn't change that.

[memebag]

We live in a democratic society.

And yet the majority doesn't get to deny rights to minorities. At least it isn't supposed to. See Principles of Democracy (from the International Information Program of the US government):

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
  
• Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.
  
• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
  
• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.
  

Can you tell me how government recognition of gay rights will harm you? Are there any rights that it will take from you?

[barracuda]

I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

True. But IMO it's imposing when you use a religious belief as the basis and justification of a law. You're imposing you're religious beliefs on others who may not share those same beliefs.

[BryanS]

Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition. My brother is gay and I'm close to both him and his partner, but I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

So what rights and responsibilities, exactly, should your brother and his partner not have - if they cannot obtain a non-religious civil marriage license from the courthouse? "Domestic partner rights" ... like hospital visitation? joint checking accounts? Next of kin? Those kinds of rights? The most important kinds of rights that would typically be associated with a civil marriage license? Those? Probably right? Well... if you think its important that your brother and his partner have the most important rights and responsibilities of marriage, why not allow him and his partner to have the not so important rights and responsibilities too? The list is long. That is, why is it so imperative to give the most important rights away, that most people generally recognize are important, but not the rest? If you are willing to afford one right and/or benefit of marriage, there is no reason to not grant them all. And since there is no religious element in obtaining a civil marriage license at a courthouse, I would argue those who obtain a civil marriage license in this sense are not "married" in a religious sense whatsoever.

It is not about gay people getting or wanting to get married, or radically changing the definition of marriage, or any of that garbage. If all that were available were "civil unions," and they were recognized, and had all the rights and responsibilities of "marriage" attached to them... AND gay people were prohibited from entering into them (the way they are now with civil marriage) - this would all be about gay people wanting access to civil unions!

[KinkaidAlum]

I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

I'd agree but for the fact that in this country, We live under THE Constitution, not the Bible.

[editor]

I'd agree but for the fact that in this country, We live under THE Constitution, not the Bible.

Which is why the voters chose to amend their state's constitution, not the Bible.

[sevfiv]

Gay marriage/unions only affect/deal with gay people - so why are straight folks butting in so much (and wanting to legislate)?

[KinkaidAlum]

Which is why the voters chose to amend their state's constitution, not the Bible.

based on a definition taken from the Bible...

If we are going to go around amending The Constitution with things from the Bible, why don't we add gems like,

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12

or

Saul replied "Say to David, 'The King wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.'" Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things , he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage." Samuel 18:25-27

or

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." Corinthians 14:34

or

"Slaves are to be submissive to their mastersin everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back." Titus 2:9

or

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[dbigtex56]

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What a terrible mockery of marriage!

A better alternative would be a civil union.

[houstonmacbro]

What a terrible mockery of marriage!

A better alternative would be a civil union.

Here! Here!

[sevfiv]

"the end of a very long journey toward equality" in Connecticut:

While there's anger and recriminations in California's gay-rights movement after voters there banned same-sex marriage, gay couples in Connecticut are at the opposite extreme: They're getting ready to exchange vows.

Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once entered, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices, and some plan get married immediately afterward.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL...vB5hYwD94DDDQ00

[N Judah]

They're blaming African Americans, for some reason:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spauldin...n_b_142363.html

[Mark F. Barnes]

Well as the article says, it's far more than just blacks that supported Prop 8.

But I'm wondering why these folks are so caught up in the black voters, who obviously can't ever be persuaded on this issue because... well, because. There are so many other groups in the exit polling that voted for Prop 8 overwhelmingly (as in, more than 60%):

* The elderly (65+)

* Republicans

* Conservatives

* People who decided for whom to vote in October (but not within the week before the election)

* People who were contacted by the McCain campaign

* Protestants

* Catholics

* White Protestants

* Those who attend church weekly

* Married people

* People with children under 18

* Gun owners

* Bush voters

* Offshore drilling supporters

* People who are afraid of a terrorist attack

* People who thought their family finances were better now than 4 years ago

* Supporters of the war against Iraq

* People who didn't care about the age of the candidates

* Anti-choicers

* People who are from the "Inland/Valley" region of California

* McCain voters

Some of these groups supported Prop 8 far more than African Americans did, which makes me wonder why we're focused so much on race instead of any of these factors. In terms of predictive value, religion, political ideology, and being married with children tell us much more about how someone voted on Prop 8 than race does.

Here's where the Obama Frenzy backfired. You had a huge stimulus of African American, first time voters influxed into the system, and as with every other race of people, there is a percentage of them that, and I won't use the word hate, hate is a bit harsh, however there is a percentage of them that are supporters of Prop 8. Simple as that. With the huge turnout at the polls for Obama, Prop 8 was doomed by the mere odds. Black people are not different than anyone else, they have opinions, likes, and dislikes, these were expressed at the polls. With the combination of the list above, and the African American vote, Prop 8 passed.

Now as for as these Rabid Idiots standing out on the corner, spouting their Racial Filth, just goes to show their true colors. I am sure some of them are emotionally driven to a point, but it doesn't excuse the fact, that they are spewing hate at innocent people, one of the very thing they cry about when it's pointed towards them. It's not surprising to see, if you really think about it. Along with diversity, sometimes comes emotional instability, or imbalance. And that's not just pointed at gay people, at people i general. In most cases, it's the reclusive, introvert, that sits in the back of the class, that one days goes Postal without warning. For an extreme example, Columbine, those kids fit the profile I am speaking of. There are different levels of this that never gets to this extreme, just like not every gay person feels the same as these that are making all the media. It's just a few making a lot of noise. Sad noise as it is, it's drawing attention. Perhaps this behavior is their entire agenda, however it doesn't justify it, nor does it make it okay.

[editor]

They're blaming African Americans, for some reason:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spauldin...n_b_142363.html

This doesn't surprise me. Not that long ago, I was the only white guy working in an office of about 20 black people and about five Hispanics. I think because I was so in the minority in that situation they felt comfortable talking about a lot of things in "the black community" that wouldn't ordinarily be polite office conversation.

One thing that came up several times over the years in their conversations was that, according to them, "the black community" was far more homophobic than other races. I don't know if it's true, but that's what they said and they said it more than once. Maybe that's why the Prop 8 backers are pointing fingers that way.

[KinkaidAlum]

I bet the 30% of blacks who didn't support Prop 8 did so on the down low.

This isn't a race issue. I said that earlier in the thread when musicman was trying to race bait. It's also not like California is filled with black voters.

[millennica]

I bet the 30% of blacks who didn't support Prop 8 did so on the down low.

This isn't a race issue. I said that earlier in the thread when musicman was trying to race bait. It's also not like California is filled with black voters.

I'm Black, so is my spouse, and although originally from the East Coast, spouse from New York City, me from Boston, we have lived in California since 1991 and we and vote in California. Both of us voted in the November election for Obama-Biden and "no" on Proposition 8, which places us in the 30% of Blacks who didn't vote "yes" on Proposition 8. We didn't vote on the down low and in fact all of our Black friends and colleagues know we voted "no" on Proposition 8. In fact, we've argue with some of our more conservative religious acqaintances about about the issue. Neither my spouse or I are religious; we do not belong to or attend church of any denomination. A larger percentage of Black folks are church goers, often attending Black congregations, many of which are quite conservative on social issues. Many, but not all of the preachers in the California Black churches told the members of their congregation to vote 'yes" on Proposition 8 and apparently many did which I believe accounts for the fact that 70% of Black voted "yes" on Proposition 8. There have been quite a few discussions about this issue since the election and some of have claimed that the "no" on Proposition 8 was not as well organized as the "yes" on Proposition 8 did not have a presence or reach out to communities of color or other socially conservative communities for that matter--The Inland Empire, for example-- which were likely to vote "yes" on Proposition 8. I can't say for certain that these last points are accurate, but that is what the pundits are saying.

[WesternGulf]

I'm Black, so is my spouse, and although originally from the East Coast, spouse from New York City, me from Boston, we have lived in California since 1991 and we and vote in California. Both of us voted in the November election for Obama-Biden and "no" on Proposition 8, which places us in the 30% of Blacks who didn't vote "yes" on Proposition 8. We didn't vote on the down low and in fact all of our Black friends and colleagues know we voted "no" on Proposition 8. In fact, we've argue with some of our more conservative religious acqaintances about about the issue. Neither my spouse or I are religious; we do not belong to or attend church of any denomination. A larger percentage of Black folks are church goers, often attending Black congregations, many of which are quite conservative on social issues. Many, but not all of the preachers in the California Black churches told the members of their congregation to vote 'yes" on Proposition 8 and apparently many did which I believe accounts for the fact that 70% of Black voted "yes" on Proposition 8. There have been quite a few discussions about this issue since the election and some of have claimed that the "no" on Proposition 8 was not as well organized as the "yes" on Proposition 8 did not have a presence or reach out to communities of color or other socially conservative communities for that matter--The Inland Empire, for example-- which were likely to vote "yes" on Proposition 8. I can't say for certain that these last points are accurate, but that is what the pundits are saying.

i can say ditto almost 100%, except that i am not married or from the east coast.

[houstonmacbro]

i can say ditto almost 100%, except that i am not married or from the east coast.

I am not sure why this loss is being blamed on blacks either, but I will say that coalitions are built over time. The black community by-and-large is very religious and the older community (the ones that tend to vote) are very conservative on these types of issues. I doubt that the majority of my family would vote against this type of measure even though I and a sister of mine are gay and they love us unconditionally. It's just not something they are ready for.

[TJones]

How about making gay marriage legal but divorce for ANYONE illegal ?

[sevfiv]

There will be a nationwide protest against Proposition 8 this Saturday - ours is at City Hall at 12:30 pm

http://www.ghdc.org/2008/11/13/houston-pro...riage-1230-sat/

http://airexposure.com/fighth8/

http://eqfed.org/eqtx/notice-description.t...ter_id=28936991

[HtownWxBoy]

I am getting sick of hearing people say... "well the people voted NO on gay marriage so that's the way it should be".... heard that on TV several times today. I really hope the courts intervene (you know, those radical liberal judges who legislate from the bench). Just b/c "the people" vote for it doesn't make it right. The CONSTITUTION says all American Citizens should have EQUAL rights, and right now gay people DO NOT. Straight people, when they get married, are given additional rights from the federal government... gay people can't get these rights. Gay people are born gay (somehow I think I was not the only gay person born gay)... so b/c of that they should not be denied equal rights. If it takes the courts to strike down something that is unconstitutional, so be it! That's one reason they are there. If the majority of Americans decided tomorrow they wanted to bring slavery back and they voted that way... do you think slavery would come back? NO, b/c it's unconstitutional... the courts would stop it!

And I see now fox news (shocker) is running the story over and over of the good little old christian lady who had the cross she was carrying knocked down to the ground by those evil gays as she walked w/ it in front of their protest. NEWSFLASH... although I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE, it comes as no shock to me that when people are denied equal rights, or in California's case have their rights TAKEN AWAY, THEY GET ANGRY! If you are someone that actively worked to make sure gays do not have equal rights (like say, you voted that way), you may have to deal w/ that anger.

I am hoping w/ Obama now President-elect things will change for the better more quickly for gay people. I am 100% positive gay people will one day have equal rights in this Nation... that's the way history goes... it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". It's common knowledge that the younger generations are far more supportive of gay rights than older folks... so once the older folks die off and the younger folks take over it's going to happen. I would just like to see it happen as quickly as possible.

Sorry... had to rant!

YAY GAYS!!

There will be a nationwide protest against Proposition 8 this Saturday - ours is at City Hall at 12:30 pm

http://www.ghdc.org/2008/11/13/houston-pro...riage-1230-sat/

http://airexposure.com/fighth8/

http://eqfed.org/eqtx/notice-description.t...ter_id=28936991

Rally for equal rights on my Birthday??? I just may do that!

[BryanS]

Rally for equal rights on my Birthday??? I just may do that!

There is no may; I AM doing it! ... Hmmm... You must be a Valentine's baby too... do the math. =)

[VicMan]

I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

If they ever protest, I will say "Do unto others as they do unto you - You wanted to interfere in the lives of gays, so we will interfere in your lives and make you leave California or drive you into bankruptcy"

[HtownWxBoy]

There is no may; I AM doing it! ... Hmmm... You must be a Valentine's baby too... do the math. =)

OMG I know... I have already thought of that! ha ha

I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

If they ever protest, I will say "Do unto others as they do unto you - You wanted to interfere in the lives of gays, so we will interfere in your lives and make you leave California or drive you into bankruptcy"

Nice... every little bit helps!

[editor]

I am getting sick of hearing people say... "well the people voted NO on gay marriage so that's the way it should be".... heard that on TV several times today. I really hope the courts intervene

Wasn't the whole point of making it a constitutional amendment to make sure the judges couldn't mess with it? The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution of California, not their own personal beliefs or the beliefs of the loudest group of people.

If my civics is amiss, someone please correct me.

[editor]

I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

Be more specific. How exactly would a person in Houston punish several million people in California?