Prop 8 to pass?

[KarlXII]

God help us. (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm)

Yes- Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry 5,387,939 52.5% For 4,883,460 47.5% Against.

:furious3: :shame:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

[KarlXII]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.


Yeah! No gay marriage in my Christain nation!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Come on, McCain got beat and Rossi lost as well. This and the defeat of Darcy Burner are what I'm bitterly clinging to. Along with my guns.

CR

[Xiahou]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CRGay marriage supporters could have gotten some sort of civil unions bill through without too much trouble- it's California after all. But instead of convincing people to support it, they did an end around and got an activist judge to rewrite the marriage laws. Now they face a constitutional amendment that will ban it permanently.

The lesson? Persuade people to support you instead of using the courts- they can backfire.

[KarlXII]

Come on, McCain got beat and Rossi lost as well. This and the defeat of Darcy Burner are what I'm bitterly clinging to. Along with my guns.

CR

And? McCain being defeated does not cause an amendment to the consitution saying "Presidents are only recognized as 30 year old men or woman".

[Strike For The South]

Score one for states rights.

[CountArach]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR
The election was already over by the time it came to the west coast, and as such the Democratic Turnout later in the day was severely dampened. When you add this with the fact that the "No on 8" group had no GOTV operation, whereas the Yes vote had the churches (Particularly the Mormon church) then there was always going to be much less chance of ithe No vote winning.

On the other hand, it ain't over yet. The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html) has launched a campaign to get the vote declared invalid. Its an interesting read - it says that the Proposition is directly contradicted by the part of the Constitution that led to Gay Marriage being legalised in the first place.

[Xiahou]

On the other hand, it ain't over yet. The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html) has launched a campaign to get the vote declared invalid. Its an interesting read - it says that the Proposition is directly contradicted by the part of the Constitution that led to Gay Marriage being legalised in the first place.Which is why their argument is so asinine- it's an amendment to the constitution. It's changing what the document says.

Mind you, I'm not saying their case won't win. Liberal judges are supposed to rule based on compassion and empathy, not any sort of rational standards, like the law. :wink:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Which is why their argument is so asinine- it's an amendment to the constitution. It's changing what the document says.

Mind you, I'm not saying their case won't win. Liberal judges are supposed to rule based on compassion and empathy, not any sort of rational standards, like the law. :wink:

Really, the initiative is changing the constitution of the state - but those ACLU idiots will support their ideologies first over what's in a constitution always.

CR

[Redleg]

Look folks its a constitutional democracy, then its up to the people to vote on what they wish for their society to have. So like in any election if you dont like the results not live in a democracy.

It could of gone the other way also, its the risk one takes when living in a democracy. The people of California have been allowed to vote their opinion on how they wish their society to precede. As long as individual rights are not being violated the new proposition to the constitution should not be overturned by the courts.

So the arguement returns to what rights are being denied to a gay couple? For instance a gay couple can indeed grant their partner most if not all of the marriage priviledges through legal means, one being a civil union and the other being a last will and testiment.

Is it a violation of their individual rights, when they indeed have a path to procede on/

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.
Must be really rough for Log Cabin Republicans...

o/ democracy

[Whacker]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans. :shame:

[Decker]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans. :shame:

Marriage is a religious act brought up and started by religions around the world. It was never really for men to marry men or women to marry women. It was for a man and a woman to marry. It was never started by some government. In the end it's not bigotry, they have all the same rights as straight couples but I guess that's not enough for them and they just want more more more even using the whole being treated like the slave shtick. That's a load of bull, but I guess we "have" to listen to it because they have a right to feel like the slaves? Really. That's rediculous for marriage to be fought over in a state's constitution, it appears that separation of church and state has no application here. So if it did pass and a church refuses to allows gays to marry because of their belief system, who is in the wrong? And calling people bigotry over something like this is exactly what they want you to feel like. That for me, was their biggest problem, they cried wolf and played the "victim" when in reality they have as many rights as any straight couple.

[Koga No Goshi]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

Yup, huzzah, a win for misdirection, misinformation and fear tactics based upon prejudice.

I heard somewhere between 3 and 5 "yes on 8" ads on the radio for every 1 "no on 8" ad. I don't have hard number stats in front of me but out of the 74 million dollars spent on 8, I can't possibly imagine no had a greater budget than yes. I'm sure a lot of the money was flowing in from all over the country on both ends.

But the "yes" campaign was downright shameful--- they dealt, almost ENTIRELY, with things that were misleading to outright false, and had nothing to do with the law itself. I had only heard the title "Knights of Columbus" here and there a few times before but they definitely have a very bad reputation with me now.

All of the ads covered one of the following points: first graders viewing a lesbian wedding, parents not being able to get notification or remove their children from instruction in school about gay marriage, gay marriage being taught in schools, and churches losing their tax-exempt status.

Whatever teacher took their first grade class to a lesbian wedding, especially considering that either one of the parents or the media or both had a flippin cow over it and made it a scandal in the press, had remarkably bad judgment. But this had nothing to do with Prop 8. Mind you, I think there is nothing wrong with seeing a lesbian wedding and I think the idea that kids were scarred or traumatized or stripped of their moral fiber by seeing one was ridiculous. I just think in the political climate a teacher who thought this wouldn't turn into a fiasco wasn't using very good sense.

Parents not being able to get notification and remove their children from instruction? Come ON. I'm a pacifist, does that mean I am entitled to be notified when wars will be covered in history classes and remove my child? (Assuming I'd want to, which I wouldn't... I don't see how ignorance of war would help me raise my child as a better person.) Somehow I think if this were a story about Muslim parents demanding notification and wanting to remove their children on days when sexual education, reproduction or evolution would be taught in a school somewhere in Paris or Stockholm, the defense our board conservatives will give of this concept would disappear in a hurry.

Teaching gay marriage in public schools (some of the ads were as vapid and petty as to say "it is a joke among children in schools, just like when it was legalized in Massachussetts.. this is a reason to vote for or against a law? That's pretty pathetic) was a lie and a scare tactic, they stopped just short of basically frightening parents that gay marriage was going to be "encouraged" or that kids would be taught to be gay or something. The California schools superintendent pointed out that schools do not teach anything about marriage (other than, I suppose, any incidental conversations where it would come up) and that nothing about Prop 8 had anything to do with "Teaching kids gay marriage"--- prop 8 proposed eliminating gay marriage rights in the California state constitution. How are these two related issues? Pure scare tactic.

Churches losing tax exempt status-- again, had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and was pure scare tactic. No church has ever or will ever be singled out and punished for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony which is not in keeping with their particular religion or denomination's beliefs. Take the Mormons, for example--- traditional Mormons do not allow any non-Mormons into Mormon religious ceremonies, including weddings. My coworker, whose friend is Mormon and lives in Utah, married a woman who was from Japan. Her family, not knowing anything about Mormonism (I suspect that the wife didn't know much either) flew out, only to be told they could not actually sit in the church for the ceremony itself because they were non-Mormons. Kinda crappy, but the Mormon Church is not going to lose their tax-exempt status over it.

It's one thing to not approve of gay marriage. It's another thing to try to defend the religiously-based ad campaign which flat out lied and misled people into voting yes on 8 NOT for any of the tired old arguments about protecting traditional marriage, but on things which had nothing to do with prop 8 whatsoever, and played on people's fears. This law might very well have failed if honest arguments had been presented--- so the people supporting yes on 8, apparently feeling smug and self-righteous enough in the correctness of their moral view of banning gay marriage, felt entitled to outright lie and use fear and prejudice and misinformation to get their way. And it worked.

You can call this a victory, but not for democracy, or for morals. Only for getting your way at any cost, using fear and ignorance and prejudice.

[Koga No Goshi]

Marriage is a religious act brought up and started by religions around the world. It was never really for men to marry men or women to marry women. It was for a man and a woman to marry. It was never started by some government. In the end it's not bigotry, they have all the same rights as straight couples but I guess that's not enough for them and they just want more more more even using the whole being treated like the slave shtick. That's a load of bull, but I guess we "have" to listen to it because they have a right to feel like the slaves? Really. That's rediculous for marriage to be fought over in a state's constitution, it appears that separation of church and state has no application here. So if it did pass and a church refuses to allows gays to marry because of their belief system, who is in the wrong? And calling people bigotry over something like this is exactly what they want you to feel like. That for me, was their biggest problem, they cried wolf and played the "victim" when in reality they have as many rights as any straight couple.

This is the same argument used by almost everyone who opposes gay marriage rights. Gay people aren't demanding that religion recognize gay unions. Gay people want the same ability to insure each other on insurance policies, own property together, file taxes together, allow each other medical decisions and hospital visitation access, inheritance rights, pension and social security rights, that any other couple would receive-- if they weren't a gay couple. Legal rights.

If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.

Your position on gay people's stance about marriage rights does come across as not looking at the issue from their shoes. If you did that, I don't see how you can objectively look at all the rights straight people may take for granted upon marrying someone and say eh, they're nothing, gay people have absolutely no legitimate complaint in not being able to get them.

And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."

[Kralizec]

I'm entirely for gay marriage, but doing it by stretching existing laws in court is crossing the line of what should belong the legislature instead of the judiciary.
And apparently it can backfire, too.


And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."

Civil unions in the UK and most other European countries that have adopted them are marriages in all but name.

Also... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)

[Redleg]

This is the same argument used by almost everyone who opposes gay marriage rights. Gay people aren't demanding that religion recognize gay unions. Gay people want the same ability to insure each other on insurance policies, own property together, file taxes together, allow each other medical decisions and hospital visitation access, inheritance rights, pension and social security rights, that any other couple would receive-- if they weren't a gay couple. Legal rights.

Now are you attempting to claim that these abilities are not present for a gay couple through the legal process?

Inheritance rights are covered by a last will and testiment for examble. If you dont have a will, the probate court can decide how your assets get distributed regardless of your marriage status, historically the court will rule to the spouse, then the oldest offspring, and then to the closest surviving kin. However anyone can protest to a probate court and cause a different ruling. So in today's society to protect inheritance one has to have a last will and testment.

Social Security payments come from the Federal statute concerning who gets surviving benefits. So individual states might not have much influence on that aspect regardless of how they pass same sex marriage statutes.

Medical decision can be made via a living will and a power of attorney, which often has to be done even for hetro-sex couples. Only situation I know of is a care of a child, and the genic parent has priority over the apodted parent. Adopted parents have the same right regardless of sex if the genic parent is not available. So this is not a same-sex marriage issue from what I can tell.

Own property together is also covered on how one purchases the property - regardless if you married or not.

So that leaves insurance policies - most insurance companies have policies on this, and some even cover same-sex couples alreadly. So I am not sure if this qualifies as a violation of rights/

file taxes together goes back to the Federal statute for everyone, and each state can cover how that is done for their state, but it does not override the Federal requirement. So in this aspect there might be a case of violation of a right, but one would have to establish the case that paying taxes is a right, not a requirement of the law.

So like I stated earlier what individual rights are being denied because an individual is gay? What priviledges are being denied to a couple who happens to be gay? are those priviledges by necessity also rights?



If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.

I dont see that as a valid arguement either since a medical decision can be made by having established the right documentation, for examble my wife also has a power of attorney to make medical decisions for me if I become incapatiated - I did this because we currently live in two different states to insure she has the ability to make that decision for me. Even hetro-sex couples have to have this power of attorney to insure medical care is within what the individual wanted, its called a living will I believe.



And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."

Your spouse can be un-insurable regardless of her being of the same sex or a different sex.
Pensions now can only be inheritable if they are established as such. Spouses are not automatically entitled to some types of penisions.

Like I said before - establish the proof that individual rights are being denied to gay couples and I might change my mind on the issue, but as far as I can tell there individual rights are not being denied. state sanctioned priviledges might be limited - but one can have their ability to drive an automobile denied because of poor vision - its a state sanctioned license event - which means it is not a right in itself.

[Whacker]

This is the same argument used by almost everyone who opposes gay marriage rights. Gay people aren't demanding that religion recognize gay unions. Gay people want the same ability to insure each other on insurance policies, own property together, file taxes together, allow each other medical decisions and hospital visitation access, inheritance rights, pension and social security rights, that any other couple would receive-- if they weren't a gay couple. Legal rights.

If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.

Your contempt for gay people seeking equal rights does, indeed, come across as motivated and informed by an intolerance of gay people and not wanting to hear their so called "whining", and a total lack of empathy or ability to place yourself in their shoes. If you could do that, even for a moment, you wouldn't look at all the rights straight people may take for granted upon marrying someone and say eh, they're nothing, gay people have absolutely no legitimate complaint in not being able to get them.

And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."

Well said.

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.

Edit - @ Redleg - I apologize in advance, I skimmed your post, gotta get to work. A number of points you made in your post are incorrect, inheritance being one of the more glaring ones, there are quite a number of laws that trump will statements and requirements. The fact of the matter is that current legal venues and instruments have a huge gap when it comes to offering gay couples the same means as straight couples. My (gay) friend once gave me a big rundown of what some of the larger issues are, but suffice to say that there's a rather large discrepancy. If folks are curious I can ask him again and post them.

[Don Corleone]

I cannot believe how naive you're all being. Lambda has come out and said they were hoping for somebody to modify a State Constitution. Why? Because that is what it takes to get the federal government involved. You cannot pass ammendments to your state constitution that do not jibe with the federal constitution. As soon as this ammendment gets puts into the California Constitution, its' going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which will find that all attempts at the state level to legislate or decide by executive act at the state level are unconstitutional, by virtue of the 14th ammendment. From there, either it will go to the Supreme Court, which will validate that decision, or as I predict it won't be picked up and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, which trumps state constitutions, will be the final say on the matter.

Translation, this is the backdoor for gay marriage (no pun intended) to become a national law. Sorry folks, game over. Even in Utah, they're going to have to allow for gay marriage. My guess is it will happen sometime before June, to allow for the traditional wedding season. ~D

[Yoyoma1910]

Why don't we just ban all marriage? :beatnik:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If they were real christians they'd do some actual good with the 25 million dollars they spent on the campaign rather than pushing through an issue that will just be on the ballot again next year.

[seireikhaan]

Good for California. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the vote, the fact is, this is how things are supposed to work. They wanted to change the constitution, so they did it with a vote. If people cared about the bill, they should have showed up. If they wanna change it again, vote on it again. :shrug:

[Yoyoma1910]

If they were real christians they'd do some actual good with the 25 million dollars they spent on the campaign rather than pushing through an issue that will just be on the ballot again next year.


And if they were really good Christians, they would use that paper money to build a pyre with which to burn gay witches on.

[Spino]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans. :shame:

So you don't like the opposition to gay marriage?!? Welcome to planet Earth! Please remain seated while the tour bus is in motion and kindly refrain from feeding the primates. We hope you enjoy your stay!

Seriously, since its inception marriage has been an exclusively heterosexual union of man and woman coming together for the purpose of creating legitimate offspring and the secondary purpose of strengthening inter-familial ties (i.e. blood bonds)... period. This whole love marriage thing is a recent phenomenon. Even more recent is this phenomenon where couples who have no intention of having children get married anyway... I mean, what's the point?!?

Love?!? What's love got to do with it? What's love but a second hand emotion?

[Decker]

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.

Alright, I don't think I was exactly clear in my initial post.

What I'm saying is that I believe that marriage is more of a religious tradition than how it was presented in the campaigns for and against prop 8. I think that they should get the rights, but fighting over them on something that is known to be a touchy subject is just the wrong way about it. From the outset I thought prop 8 was wrongly written, and figured that there are better ways for them (the gay community) to recieve any rights that they need or need fixing. I don't see them wanting the whole image of marriage more than the legal rights that accompany it. There are better ways to go about aquiring the necessary rights for them whereas I see marriage and religion going more hand-in-hand with the legal rights attached.

[Devastatin Dave]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans. :shame:

The same shame I feel for electing a commie after we've spent most of the last century trying to keep them from taking over. Sometimes you can't have everything you want....

[Hosakawa Tito]

Like union seniority rights, democracy is great till one doesn't get what they want, then it's not fair.

[Crazed Rabbit]

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.


Did you not read the story Don posted about that NJ Church losing part of their tax exemption for not letting lesbians marry on property they owned?

I don't want gay couples to be called 'married' in any way. Civil contracts that let them have hospital visitation rights are acceptable, but this isn't about 'equality' - no one's rights are being denied because people of the same sex can't marry.

EDIT: So much has been made of opponents being 'homophobic' or other nonsense. But its because the gay lobby is trying to tear down an institution sacred to most Americans, even in California, that this passed. Three constitutional gay marriage bans passed (by 62% in Florida!) this election, which might be enough to stop the gay lobby for a while.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

This issue is going to come up again, and again, and again, and again, until the rights are recognized. It is not really my purpose to "convince" people who are against it. There were people who went to their graves against interracial marriage rights and fully recognized equal rights for black people. Let 'em rot. The current unequal recognition of full rights--- or, as Redleg suggested-- having to go and spend a lot of money with an attorney to draw up complicated equivalent rights privately, which you then might get tied up in court anyway having to defend when they are challenged by family members or hospital administrators or an insurance company, is not supportable and courts are doing their job PERFECTLY when they find problems with the double standard. The idea that courts have absolutely no role at all-- indeed, that they are usurping power and abusively "legislating from the bench" when they make a ruling that a particular law is unconstitutional or violates equal protections, is regressive. If not for courts, if every decision was left purely up to popular legislation, I would not be surprised to still see antimiscegenation on the books in many southern states. Or the stay of Japanese Americans in internment camps to have lasted four times longer than it did. Or for schools in the south to still have formally segregated white and black proms. A state of unrecognition of gay equal rights is going to go the way of the dinosaur, but the social conservative and religious constituencies in the U.S. are just being used in the meanwhile as tools to come to the polls for a hotly controversial wedge issue, and a ton of money is being spent on it. I have extreme skepticism that the huge money people are willing to spend to encode bans on gay rights into state or Federal constitutions is only out of sheer moral conviction and nothing to do with the fact that this gets Americans of a certain political stripe energized to get their butts to the polls.

[Don Corleone]

Nobody from either side responded to me, so I'm going to repeat... just so I get the "I told you so credit" in February or March. This is going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, who will then make gay marriage the law of the land. I don't care what got approved in a state constitution, the lowest federal court trumps it.

[CrossLOPER]

The same shame I feel for electing a commie after we've spent most of the last century trying to keep them from taking over. Sometimes you can't have everything you want....
hur dur hur redurstibyoootin teh welth

[CountArach]

Like union seniority rights, democracy is great till one doesn't get what they want, then it's not fair illegal.
Fixed.

[Strike For The South]

Fixed.

how so

[CountArach]

how so
Read the link I posted from the ACLU.

[Goofball]

Did you not read the story Don posted about that NJ Church losing part of their tax exemption for not letting lesbians marry on property they owned?

I read it. And that was not the story at all. It was not a church. It was a group called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association that owned a piece of property (a gazebo, to be exact) on a beach, that they rented out at a profit to any group who wanted to have any sort of social gathering there. Until, that is, a gay couple wanted to rent it to have their civil union ceremony there. Did I mention that this prime located piece of real estate was tax exempt? Did I also mention that they also received all sorts of public money for things such as boardwalk repairs? And then, they have the balls to say "Regardless of the state law saying that gay civil unions are okay, we are a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION and are within our rights to refuse to let a gay couple use our structure, notwithstanding the fact that their gay tax dollars fund it."

Puh-leaze...

Here is the full story:

http://blog.nj.com/steveadubato/2007/09/ocean_grove_wants_it_both_ways.html

Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids.

Nice try, though...

[Strike For The South]

nm.

[KarlXII]

Really, the initiative is changing the constitution of the state - but those ACLU idiots will support their ideologies first over what's in a constitution always.

CR

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

[Strike For The South]

Can anyone find me An actual California Constitution? I really can't give an opinion until I read how the define marriage and if it should be there in the first place.

[Xiahou]

Read the link I posted from the ACLU.
I can't find anything in the California constitution that says "important" changes must go through the legislature. I see both routes to amendment listed (http://law.justia.com/california/constitution/article_18.html), but nothing that gives one more importance than the other. Like I said, their case is nonsense- it'll be a complete travesty if it's decided in their favor.


Can anyone find me An actual California Constitution? I really can't give an opinion until I read how the define marriage and if it should be there in the first place.I doubt marriage is even mentioned.

[Strike For The South]

I doubt marriage is even mentioned.

If its not mentioned than these Judges are kind of dumb

[ajaxfetish]

Churches losing tax exempt status-- again, had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and was pure scare tactic. No church has ever or will ever be singled out and punished for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony which is not in keeping with their particular religion or denomination's beliefs. Take the Mormons, for example--- traditional Mormons do not allow any non-Mormons into Mormon religious ceremonies, including weddings. My coworker, whose friend is Mormon and lives in Utah, married a woman who was from Japan. Her family, not knowing anything about Mormonism (I suspect that the wife didn't know much either) flew out, only to be told they could not actually sit in the church for the ceremony itself because they were non-Mormons. Kinda crappy, but the Mormon Church is not going to lose their tax-exempt status over it.

Okay, first a point of clarification. Non-Mormons are not allowed to attend Mormon temple ceremonies (neither are Mormons without a valid and current temple recommend). The vast majority of Mormon services and religious ceremonies do not take place in temples, and are open to anyone who wishes to attend. Furthermore, if your friend and his fiance failed to clearly explain the situation and their intentions to her family well ahead of time, that was gross negligence on their part and very discourteous.

Second, unless I'm mistaken, this amendment is not retroactive. I know my lesbian aunts in Berkeley were planning to be married before the election for that reason. Their union should still be legally protected, right? They've been together for many years and have two children, so it's about time their family becomes official, imo. And in case it hasn't come through already, not all Mormons are against gay marriage--just the vast majority ~:(.

Finally, as we live under a democratic nation and the will of the people of California has been expressed, even if misguided by whatever campaign tactics, the decision should be respected as final and legally binding until further legislation reverses it. As some posters have already mentioned, the effort to allow the legal protections of marriage to gay families must start with winning people over and move on to popular legislation. The straightforward way is the best.

Ajax

[KarlXII]

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

This could very well be what the ACLU meant.

[Strike For The South]

Not very convincing at all.

[KarlXII]

Not very convincing at all.

How so? I mean, it's in the State constitution, and if I recall, you were in support of following the Constitution.

[Strike For The South]

How so? I mean, it's in the State constitution, and if I recall, you were in support of following the Constitution.

I am. However expanding the meaning of "happiness" to include this cheapens the meaning of the document. Especially when you consider the courts found it prudent to do so between the 7 of them. If that is in fact what the constitution says and there was no mention of marriage before the judges made there decision then a referendum was a way to go. It sucks that it didnt pass but I have a hard time finding this illegal. The ACLUs case is on sand.

Actually what really sucks is gay rights is now being taken back because crazies on both sides want there oppnent to be run into the ground.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

No, they're changing the constitution.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Things going through the courts really isn't going to help the situation, look what roe vs wade did for abortion then compare it to the abortion situation in europe, i don't think gay marriage will be so decisive in the years to come as its obviously not as easy to get emotional over but it could create some negative feelings for a long time....

[Redleg]

Edit - @ Redleg - I apologize in advance, I skimmed your post, gotta get to work. A number of points you made in your post are incorrect, inheritance being one of the more glaring ones, there are quite a number of laws that trump will statements and requirements. The fact of the matter is that current legal venues and instruments have a huge gap when it comes to offering gay couples the same means as straight couples. My (gay) friend once gave me a big rundown of what some of the larger issues are, but suffice to say that there's a rather large discrepancy. If folks are curious I can ask him again and post them.

point out the more glaring ones, since my uncle died and was able to establish is requirements exactly the way I stated. Oh and by the way he was one of my favorite people in the world and was gay. So it varies by state, and how the individual establish how they desire their estate and their health to be handled.

[Redleg]

This issue is going to come up again, and again, and again, and again, until the rights are recognized. It is not really my purpose to "convince" people who are against it. There were people who went to their graves against interracial marriage rights and fully recognized equal rights for black people. Let 'em rot. The current unequal recognition of full rights--- or, as Redleg suggested-- having to go and spend a lot of money with an attorney to draw up complicated equivalent rights privately, which you then might get tied up in court anyway having to defend when they are challenged by family members or hospital administrators or an insurance company, is not supportable and courts are doing their job PERFECTLY when they find problems with the double standard. The idea that courts have absolutely no role at all-- indeed, that they are usurping power and abusively "legislating from the bench" when they make a ruling that a particular law is unconstitutional or violates equal protections, is regressive. If not for courts, if every decision was left purely up to popular legislation, I would not be surprised to still see antimiscegenation on the books in many southern states. Or the stay of Japanese Americans in internment camps to have lasted four times longer than it did. Or for schools in the south to still have formally segregated white and black proms. A state of unrecognition of gay equal rights is going to go the way of the dinosaur, but the social conservative and religious constituencies in the U.S. are just being used in the meanwhile as tools to come to the polls for a hotly controversial wedge issue, and a ton of money is being spent on it. I have extreme skepticism that the huge money people are willing to spend to encode bans on gay rights into state or Federal constitutions is only out of sheer moral conviction and nothing to do with the fact that this gets Americans of a certain political stripe energized to get their butts to the polls.

Actually it doesnt cost a lot of money to establish a power of attorney, a living will, nor a last will and testiment. In fact its really rather inexpensive in most cases - a computer program and a notary republic will accomplish most if not all of the requirements with a court cost to file the records in the County or City Court house. A whole lot cheaper then getting married.

Again I would like to see an accounting of what rights are being denied to a gay individual, and what is being denied to them because they are gay?

I see a lot of arguement but nothing that points out where the state is actually denying them a right when the state sanction marriage is nothing but a license - a contractual relationship between two people. Are you attempting to state that gay couples are not allowed to enter into contractual relationships with each other?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nobody from either side responded to me, so I'm going to repeat... just so I get the "I told you so credit" in February or March. This is going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, who will then make gay marriage the law of the land. I don't care what got approved in a state constitution, the lowest federal court trumps it.

Friend, I heard you the first time. I didn't respond because I suspect you are correct. I'll confirm your ITYS if need be.

[Redleg]

Nobody from either side responded to me, so I'm going to repeat... just so I get the "I told you so credit" in February or March. This is going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, who will then make gay marriage the law of the land. I don't care what got approved in a state constitution, the lowest federal court trumps it.

Well Don I am all in favor of the courts striking down unconstitutional laws or in many cases the just poor legislative laws that often are the attempt in a defense of marriage legislative law.

However I think a federal court will have a hard time striking down a constitutional amendment that a state has done without first having the arguement that demonstrates that the amendment in itself is against the United States Constitution.

Here is the problem with the gay marriage movement - the state sanction marriage is a license - nothing more nothing less, it allows the state to recongize a simple contractual relationship between two people. The state has the ability to define what constitutes what type of contractual relationship. The DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and until that act is revoked by congress or ruled unconstitutional the states are able to establish what constitutional amendments or laws that define marriage as thier individual constitutions allow. The courts hands are actually tied to the legalize of the written word of the legislative law or the amendment. And amendments will be very difficult to rule unconstitional if they followed the established process

What many dont realize is that in itself marriage does not entitle automatic insurance coverage, or the ability to recieve your partner's pension. This has to be established by the agencies and the companies issuing them.

Those who wish to protest this action by the voters of California need to protest the fact that the campaign by those who wanted the measure voted down did not campaign against it strong enough or could not counter the emotional aspects of the amendment.

So it goes back to my point - exactly what individual rights are being denied to the individual who happens to be gay with this constitutional amendment?

[Devastatin Dave]

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

[KarlXII]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

[Devastatin Dave]

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

And more importantly, the California voters said "no" to gay marraige. How many times must the California voters have liberal activist judges disenfranchise their votes to satisfy you? :no:

[KukriKhan]

I'm personally just jazzed that DevastatinDave is defending California voters. Woodathunk?

[LittleGrizzly]

Its part of dave's new 50 state stratergy...

[CrossLOPER]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.
YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.

[Devastatin Dave]

YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.

But I'm not pounding my :daisy: at the city courthouse now am I?:beam:

[CrossLOPER]

But I'm not pounding my :daisy: at the city courthouse now am I?:beam:
Wait, so those who masturbate frequently can't get married? HARDCORE MAN.

[KukriKhan]

Its part of dave's new 50 state stratergy...

LOL. Truth, Justice, and Crassness for all!

[Devastatin Dave]

Wait, so those who masturbate frequently can't get married? HARDCORE MAN.

Well played...

No, my point was that I keep my perversions within the confines of my home and don't need to government to recognise them. No matter how much people try to make homosexuality a "normal" sexual tendancy, its still a perversion and there is no need for it to be recognised put at the same level as a normal marraige between a man and a woman. Its not religous, its sanity. The voters have decided, I thought liberals were the great defenders of the mob rule?:yes:

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL. Truth, Justice, and Crassness for all!

Would someone please translate this to Latin so I can put it on my presidential seal. I want one like the Dear Leader has.

[CountArach]

Veritas, Iustitia et Crassus!

[KukriKhan]

veritas, aequitas, crassus

-edit-
CA's "Iustitia" is probably better. My "aequitas" for justice, is older, more along the lines of equalling, making even, revenge (sometimes), rather than the more high-falutin' sense of a moral justice.

[Divinus Arma]

Only one answer to this.

Ban ALL marriage. The state has no place in religious matters. Marriage is a religious union of a couple. Civil Union is a contractual agreement between two parties.

All couples should first get married by their respective religious authority and then apply for a civil union. This can be same sex or opposite sex.

It solves the matter for everyone!

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

[Strike For The South]

Only one answer to this.

Ban ALL marriage. The state has no place in religious matters. Marriage is a religious union of a couple. Civil Union is a contractual agreement between two parties.

All couples should first get married by their respective religious authority and then apply for a civil union. This can be same sex or opposite sex.

It solves the matter for everyone!

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

agreed

[KukriKhan]

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

Why did you vote 'yes'?

[KarlXII]

Well played...

No, my point was that I keep my perversions within the confines of my home and don't need to government to recognise them. No matter how much people try to make homosexuality a "normal" sexual tendancy, its still a perversion and there is no need for it to be recognised put at the same level as a normal marraige between a man and a woman. Its not religous, its sanity. The voters have decided, I thought liberals were the great defenders of the mob rule?:yes:

So your views that Homosexuality is a "perversion" is based on what? Could it be....religious beliefs? What is honestly perverted with two men loving each other?

[ajaxfetish]

Veritas, Iustitia et Crassus!

Just throw an omnibus at the end of that and you've got the whole thing.

Ajax

[Banquo's Ghost]

veritas, aequitas, crassus

And we all know what Crassus got up to...:wink3:

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually it doesnt cost a lot of money to establish a power of attorney, a living will, nor a last will and testiment. In fact its really rather inexpensive in most cases - a computer program and a notary republic will accomplish most if not all of the requirements with a court cost to file the records in the County or City Court house. A whole lot cheaper then getting married.

Again I would like to see an accounting of what rights are being denied to a gay individual, and what is being denied to them because they are gay?

I see a lot of arguement but nothing that points out where the state is actually denying them a right when the state sanction marriage is nothing but a license - a contractual relationship between two people. Are you attempting to state that gay couples are not allowed to enter into contractual relationships with each other?

I'm saying that having to privately draw up legal contracts, at private expense, and at the risk of having to run around with papers and documents everywhere and still have people challenge your "rights", for all the various rights automatically conferred with a marriage license is not equal protections under the law.

I'm not certain why this is a complicated thing to understand.

[Koga No Goshi]

And more importantly, the California voters said "no" to gay marraige. How many times must the California voters have liberal activist judges disenfranchise their votes to satisfy you? :no:

Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?

This issue isn't going to go away. The reason these things wind up going to courts is precisely because overt discrimination and unequal treatment requires widespread social consent in order to continue. Getting the same people engaging, or tolerating, discriminatory treatment to vote against their ability to continue in said discrimination is why so many civil rights advances have their birthplace in courts, with overarching Federal legislation frequently following along after the fact.

That plus, the overt LYING in the multimillion dollar "yes on 8" ad campaign scared people into voting for 8 on things which had nothing to do with 8. The belief that you are so morally correct in opposing gay marriage, that you are morally justified in lying on a massive level to get your way, is not the proper functioning of the democratic process IMHO. If you just listened to the ads you would think 8 had to do with whether or not gay marriage should not be taught in public schools, or that kids should not have to attend gay weddings in their education. I never heard a single yes on 8 ad that in any way even approached telling the truth about what the law was. I didn't even know it was a ban in the state constitution until I read more about it online.

[Redleg]

I'm saying that having to privately draw up legal contracts, at private expense, and at the risk of having to run around with papers and documents everywhere and still have people challenge your "rights", for all the various rights automatically conferred with a marriage license is not equal protections under the law.

I'm not certain why this is a complicated thing to understand.

It actually is because the ability to enter into those contracts is not denied to the individuals or the couple.

BTW when you get married to a opposite sex you still have to fullfil many of those same requirments to insure your personal desires are meet. For instance I am married and have a last will and testment and a living will, along with a power of attorney for my wife. All of which cost me very little in expense to get accomplished - in fact all was less then the cost of the marriage license and the marriage cermony. So a marriage license does not automatically mean a right is established. Especially when the couple has to be seperated by state lines, for what ever reason.

However you still haven't address what specific rights are being denied, your speaking of a contractual relationship that is regulated by the state. Is the state denying the same-sex couple the abilility to enter into a contractual relationship?

[Husar]

Well, you can say what you want, but it is kind of ironic, that in a democracy a referendum asking the demos should be illegal because of a constitution. :dizzy2:

[Devastatin Dave]

So your views that Homosexuality is a "perversion" is based on what? Could it be....religious beliefs? What is honestly perverted with two men loving each other?

Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean. My arguement is base on science. I thought you libs worshipped science? Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity. But, I'll never convince you of this even if I gave you all the stats from the CDC or any other study. So...

I'd agree with DA, the state should not recognise marraige. Its unfortunate the :daisy: needs to ruin things that are good for society as a whole, but hey, I guess since we won't recognise legal votes on the issue, we have to piss on everyone's parade.

[Devastatin Dave]

Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?

.

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

[Ronin]

Well played...

No, my point was that I keep my perversions within the confines of my home and don't need to government to recognise them. No matter how much people try to make homosexuality a "normal" sexual tendancy, its still a perversion and there is no need for it to be recognised put at the same level as a normal marraige between a man and a woman. Its not religous, its sanity. The voters have decided, I thought liberals were the great defenders of the mob rule?:yes:

I defend gay rights but I certainly never called their sexual orientation normal....it's everything but.

but we don´t discriminate against other people that are born not normal so why do it to this group???


This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

I don´t know about you....but I didn´t make a choice about wanting to have sex with girls...I just do....
I imagine gays didn´t choose what atracts them either.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

:yes:

Plus the obvious fact that the idea of marriage has nothing to do with skin colour, all it requires is one man and one woman.

[LittleGrizzly]

Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity.

A great reason to encourage gay people to get married and stick with one long term partner!

good argument!

Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean.

but you do choose what orafice you use for sex.

No one seems to have any qaulms about straight couples who engage in anal getting married, infact i don't really see why what type of sex couples have has anything to do with marriage or the goverment (assuming consenting adults obviously)

This issue is eventually going to get resolved in favour of gays, every generation the hate against gays drops slightly and a more open acceptance of them evolves, there is no point forcing this issue through the courts, it is simply a waiting game now...

Think about it, 10 20 years ago gay marriage wouldn't even be an option in any state, now already a few have approved of it and a despite a far worse funded campaign they only lost by 500,000 votes, its just a matter of time....

all it requires is one man and one woman.

All you need is love!

[Koga No Goshi]

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

Allow me to pitch another then.

Black people are entitled to equal rights.

But people who ACT BLACK are not. You can discriminate against those ones.

Same sort of thing you're arguing, really.

[m52nickerson]

Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean. My arguement is base on science. I thought you libs worshipped science? Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity. But, I'll never convince you of this even if I gave you all the stats from the CDC or any other study. So...

I'd agree with DA, the state should not recognise marraige. Its unfortunate the :daisy: needs to ruin things that are good for society as a whole, but hey, I guess since we won't recognise legal votes on the issue, we have to piss on everyone's parade.

Condoms for the win!

[Decker]

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more. In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously. What they want contradicts with others belief systems, yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream. Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage. It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it. It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same. I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

[LittleGrizzly]

They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

Yes like those damn blacks when we gave them equality... ohh no wait a second... though i suppose you do have affirmative action in the US, but barring that we gave opressed minoritys equality, its a common scare tactic to pertend minority x wants more than everyone else, a classic excuse to keep minoritys down...

It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Well gays couldn't get married in america before mass. im not sure why exactly... was it that the goverment or state wouldn't recognise such a union ? thats as good as law...

I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states,

Wasn't marriage around before the major religions we had today, im sure there was some prototype version at least, but anyway there are gay churches, whose to say these gay churches are any less entitled to marriage than some of the major ones ?

[Koga No Goshi]

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

This is not a valid argument to deny a group equal civil rights. The list of things that gay couples cannot get, or can get only after drawing up a slew of contracts in an attorney's office (which might be challenged just about anywhere) has been listed earlier in the thread.


In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously.

It has nothing to do with the comparison not being valid, and more to do with the black community being extremely religious and not "totally lib" on every issue like people tend to dismiss them as. Both the black and hispanic communities tend to be liberal economically and conservative socially. And the yes on 8 ad campaigns played to religious fears which had nothing to do with the law in question. And, people do not need to "prove that they deserve" equal rights. If any once spat-upon group in the U.S. had to do that, they probably never would have gained equal rights. You can still find plenty of people today who still hold pre-1965 views on non-white minority groups.


What they want contradicts with others belief systems

There is only one belief system that should matter when it comes to a question of legal rights: equal protections. Whether or not someone doesn't like gay people or gay lifestyles on particular religious grounds is entirely irrelevant.


yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream.

You think George Takei of Star Trek/Heroes just wanted legally recognized rights with his life partner just to "make America prove it could be P.C."? Or do you think it might have a little more to do with the fact that he worries about what would happen if he were in a critical medical condition and the hospital staff was saying "family and spouses only"? If you think this whole issue is a nitpick over nothing then I can only guess it's because you take the legal rights that come with marriage for granted, and don't appreciate how wide-ranging and important they are for people living together as a family unit.


Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage.

You, like almost every other people who approves of Prop 8, don't even understand the law you are talking about. Prop 8 was not "legalizing gay marriage." Prop 8 was writing a BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE into the state constitution. So if you think this was all just some people causing ruckus and trouble, go take that up with the Knights of Columbus and the religious people who spent millions of dollars to get this ban written, who were never going to be negatively impacted by gay people getting married in any way whatsoever.


It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it.

1. No, the Constitution delineates freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.
2. No, telling people to just "work around" a discriminatory law violates Constitutional guarantees of equal protections.


It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married,

It IS law. You are reinventing all of history in order to make your argument. If you think law has no business regulating marriage then you are about 300 years late to the party in the United States.


it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Gay marriage was established without the need of laws? Since when?


I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

I would agree with you that the Knights of Columbus lying in a multimillion dollar ad campaign to get a religious ban rights for groups that live a lifestyle not approved by Christian contemporary moral thinking written into state law is a big violation of church and state. Maybe a court will agree with that and strike it down in the inevitable challenge. But I think you are way off reinventing this issue as just gay people demanding excessive special privileges, complaining, or causing legal trouble. This was a religiously-funded law to ban equal rights for gay people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.

Why must this contract that gives powers regarding medical procedures etc be limited to those who enter into relationships based upon sexual attraction - that would be discriminating against those who don't want to for whatever reason.

As with the last thread, this is a matter of wording. Nobody can ever change what the traditional meaning of marriage is, if they allow homosexual couples to marry then they are creating a completely different institution.

A much better idea would be to allow everyone to pick one person, whether they are a sexual partner or not, and say that they can say what will happen if they lie dying in hospital etc.

[Xiahou]

The "equality" argument falls flat because the same rules do apply to everyone. I, a heterosexual, cannot marry another man either. The rules are consistent for everyone. The way gay marriage supporters try to sneak "equal rights" into the issue is by talking about "love" or "attraction", neither of which are prerequisites for civil marriage.

The argument is about homosexual couples wanting a government benefit recognizing their union. They can make their case for that- persuade enough people and they'll get it. Ramming it thru the courts however, leads to backlashes like we've seen in California. Now it's part of the state constitution and it will be much tougher to implement even if they do get more support for it.

[Strike For The South]

This really isnt about rights at all. It's about Judicial overreach

[Koga No Goshi]

This really isnt about rights at all. It's about Judicial overreach

No it isn't. The courts are doing their job when they find that a state law violates a Constitutional protection.


Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Strike For The South]

No it isn't. The courts are doing their job when they find that a state law violates a Constitutional protection.


The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

[Koga No Goshi]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.

Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.


The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.

You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.


So, if gay marriage:

a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were

Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.

a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

[Koga No Goshi]

The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?


You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.

I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him. :no:


a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.

b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.

a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

[Strike For The South]

Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.

Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

[Goofball]

Only one answer to this.

Ban ALL marriage. The state has no place in religious matters. Marriage is a religious union of a couple. Civil Union is a contractual agreement between two parties.

All couples should first get married by their respective religious authority and then apply for a civil union. This can be same sex or opposite sex.

It solves the matter for everyone!

I would vote for that and I voted Yes on 8.

I'm in. Where's the petition? I'll sign right now.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?

Why should clearly inferior black people get rights equal to whites? :SHRUG:


I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him. :no:

And you guys wonder why the term "bigotry" comes up regarding the opposition to gay marriage crowd?


a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.

b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?

a) I am fairly confident that homosexuals do not need your approval in order to pursue their equal civil rights, nor do I think this issue will go away until people who consider them nothing more than perversion fettishists "take them seriously."

b) Oh please.

I'm a white guy in South Carolina in 1962. I don't see what this big hubbub is about interracial marriage. I mean, it ain't natural anyway. But some folks wanna do it. But we got laws against that sort of thing. Marriage is for white and white, or black on black... stick to your own kind. I mean, all these protests-- what's the big deal? There ain't no unfairness. A black person can't marry a white person, but I'm a white guy, I can't go marry a black person either. There's nothing unequal about the law.

And, Rhyfe, "gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see" loses any of its potential benefit of the doubt when you refer to gay people as perversion fettishists. Besides, aren't you in the UK? Have you ever resided and lived in the United States? Or California? I don't really see what call, whatsoever, you would have to make that kind of an assessment. Your opposition to recognized gay rights in any form, in any locale, seems to be motivated by religious conviction of the "immorality" of homosexuality, period.

[Koga No Goshi]

Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.

Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution

I have no idea why this is an erroneous comparison. Back in the 50's and 60's a lot of people considered blacks less than full white humans. Today a lot of people think gay people are just perverts and their right to form families and access legal rights which protect families should not be legally recognized. I fail to see the difference.


The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm in. Where's the petition? I'll sign right now.

Somehow the Knights of Columbus and other religious organizations which spent tens of millions to write a ban on gay marriage in California have failed to yet produce a similar bill to get rid of legal marriage altogether. Funny...

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Off-topic

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.

I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes. :idea2:

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

[HoreTore]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever ~;)

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever ~;)

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

[Whacker]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?


Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever ~;)

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

Oh FFS, am I really going to say this? I agree 100% with the dirty commie for once.


So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

You just keep your eyes closed, ears covered, and keep chanting that to yourself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.

But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes. :idea2:

A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.

I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/California_Maternity_Leave

My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.

Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.

The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.

[Strike For The South]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?.

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

[m52nickerson]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.

I will go with this. The goal is equality for all unions, or marriages, depending on how the government labels them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I will go with this.

Sure - I think that this would get more people on board BUT we should bring it to the legislature and try to convince people.

If the American people no longer believe that the government should have an interest in propagation or interpersonal relationships, we should change the existing policy. I'm not opposed to taking the government out of what we should or shouldn't be doing (when it doesn't involve homicide or other forms of aggressive tyranny) but we need to discuss it and change it by legislative action.

[Strike For The South]

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

Oh, okay. We fought the Nazis followed by the Russians. Double whammy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

You're being far too pessimistic here Seamus...

[Whacker]

I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible.

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too... :shame:

[Strike For The South]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too... :shame:

I am against prop 8 for reasons I have stated above. I have not mentioned the bible nor will I to try and prove my point. You are fighting the wrong battle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too... :shame:

Sounds like foaming at the mouth to me.

[HoreTore]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

BAH!

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Neither does it matter what "every religion" say about it, simply because religion, thankfully, has no say in government. Separation of church and state FTW.

[Incongruous]

The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too... :shame:

You are being absurd and fantastical, and you know it.

Strike has only supported his views in a constitutional manner, out of a sincere belief in his Republic, not God. You are being unfair and unwise in my opinion, most probably in fact as well. You and your movement will only alianate more and more people when you treat them like you have Strike. You are putting the bullet to your brain, quite willingly. You don't need to blame those religious idiots, just blamne your own self righteous crap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

[Koga No Goshi]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/California_Maternity_Leave

My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.

Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.

The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.

Countries like Sweden and others allow paternity leave and I believe we will see more of this in the future, and I support it. Now that women are largely no longer "stay at home moms", and it will increasingly be the case that women are professionals and needed income earners, I would support any change in the laws allowing time split, flexibility, or paternity instead of maternity leave. We already have many clients (in my accounting workplace) where the dad comes in to take care of all the tax stuff, on weekdays, during the daytime, with kid in tow or on his shoulder, because between him and the mother, the wife made more money, and it was more financially sensible for him to take time off work with the newborn.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am against prop 8 for reasons I have stated above. I have not mentioned the bible nor will I to try and prove my point. You are fighting the wrong battle.

Strike, despite your claim that the comparison is erroneous, if you applied exactly the same logic you and many others seem to hold about the "role" of courts when it comes to deciding matters of legislation vs. civil rights, much of the civil rights movement would have been aborted. Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, Ex parte Endo, could all be painted as "judicial overreaching" if you espouse the idea that the court has no business overturning ANYTHING unless there is highly specific language in the Constitution protecting (or banning) a very precise issue in question.

[Koga No Goshi]

You are being absurd and fantastical, and you know it.

Strike has only supported his views in a constitutional manner, out of a sincere belief in his Republic, not God. You are being unfair and unwise in my opinion, most probably in fact as well. You and your movement will only alianate more and more people when you treat them like you have Strike. You are putting the bullet to your brain, quite willingly. You don't need to blame those religious idiots, just blamne your own self righteous crap.

I believe he may have read through the posts and mistaken Rhyfe with Strike, that was my impression anyway. But someone would have a damn hard time claiming homophobia has not made its presence known even in this thread (amongst a relatively well educated and international and metropolitan community), let alone the anti-gay marriage movement in general in our country.

[Koga No Goshi]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

[ICantSpellDawg]

the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them.


That is one positive solution. I do, however believe that society has the right to decide that the male/female biological relationship is special and that it is not inherently any more discriminatory than any other restriction on marriage. All are allowed to get married as of a certain age, but it has to conform to the utilitarian biological function to at least an nominal extent.

Now, if we can no longer maintain this, I would rather do away with the entire concept as it no longer serves its original purpose and it would usher in a more arbitrary, metaphysical and discriminatory system. It would, without any cause, give additional tax benefits to 2 joined people. Why shouldn't single mothers get the same marriage benefit? Why should people feel the financial pull to get married at all?

2 people sharing incomes, dormitory bills, utilities, insurance plans etc already receive astronomical discounts simply by sharing. Why do they recieve additional tax breaks for it when there is no reason 2 people together should be preferred citizens? Still no one can answer why the union of two is still so important and worthy of note without the biological function to back it up.


The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.

The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.

[Koga No Goshi]

The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.

As I stated you do not have the same history of segregated legal rights in the UK as here, with the accompanying repeated findings that they don't work here. Are separate LEGAL rights accorded to Catholic vs. non-denominational weddings in the UK? Somehow I doubt that is the case.


The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.

The founding fathers were not the fundamentalist christians you seem to believe they were. Most of them were deists. And.... equal legal rights is "forcing anyone to find something moral"... how, exactly? You can go cheat on your wife with 18 different women, and that's legal. But I don't believe it's moral.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.

Judicial review was a relatively early addition (not firmly in the constitution, though), but it was never supposed to usurp legitimate authority from the legislatures - rather only when there was a legitimate question of constitutionality.

It seems that people have started to use this exception as a tool to usurp the legislature whenever one party disagrees with the decision and cannot approach a majority. People brandish "unconstitutional" like it was "hello". If you can find this unconstitutional, you can find a graded tax code unconstitutional and on and on.

We should use the legislature to debate, write and nullify policy unless policy is in direct contradiction of the constitution and its amendments. I don't believe that marriage policy is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, so why would I support a Supreme court that overturns legitimate policy based on a foreign and personal moral code?

These are two separate arguments: Whether marriage laws are in contradiction of the Constitution (I say the are not) and whether Marriage should be extended beyond the male female relationship by the legislature (I say they should not).

It has also come to my attention that Massachusetts never enacted Gay marriage through its legislative process. I had always thought that Romney put "whether or not the state should allow marriage onto the ballot"; when in reality he put a gay marriage ban out to referendum in response to to strong arming of policy by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The rejection of the constitutional ban is not the same as the acceptance of Gay marriage in Mass.

So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.

[woad&fangs]

So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.

Actually, a couple years ago the California legislature did pass a law making gay marriage legal. However, Arny vetoed it because he fealt that either a referendum or the Judiciary should decide this issue. Arny was against proposition 8.

I heard somewhere that New York State is trying to pass through gay marriage legalization. I'll have to find some more info on that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, a couple years ago the California legislature did pass a law making gay marriage legal. However, Arny vetoed it because he fealt that either a referendum or the Judiciary should decide this issue. Arny was against proposition 8.

I heard somewhere that New York State is trying to pass through gay marriage legalization. I'll have to find some more info on that.

Interesting. I'll look into it.

I don't understand Arnold's position on the issue. It seems very bizarre to me.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.

Well if you count civil unions as marriage then they were passed by the legislature of Vermont after a court case wherein the court decided that excluding same-sex couples from obtaining the same benefits as heterosexual couples was against the state's constitution and suggested that the legislature take action. Just to be very clear the court did not enact civil unions, or force the legislature's hand, they merely recommended that the legislature take action, after heated debate the legislature did the right thing.

Of course civil unions aren't quite the same because though they do offer all of the benefits given by Vermont they are not federally recognized so no federal benefits are given to same-sex couples. I'm not entirely sure what those would be, but I imagine they would be federal tax breaks or something along those lines.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well if you count civil unions as marriage then they were passed by the legislature of Vermont after a court case wherein the court decided that excluding same-sex couples from obtaining the same benefits as heterosexual couples was against the state's constitution and suggested that the legislature take action. Just to be very clear the court did not enact civil unions, or force the legislature's hand, they merely recommended that the legislature take action, after heated debate the legislature did the right thing.

Of course civil unions aren't quite the same because though they do offer all of the benefits given by Vermont they are not federally recognized so no federal benefits are given to same-sex couples. I'm not entirely sure what those would be, but I imagine they would be federal tax breaks or something along those lines.

I'm not counting civil unions as marriage. That is the whole point of civil unions.

I'm not against those on a state by state basis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

Koga:

:inquisitive: I think we are saying the same thing.

My point was that the government would sanction NO marriages at all. It would only sanction and tax civil unions, they would be as simple to contract as a current "marriage," and they would be accessible to any legally competent adult.

Marriage would then be a strictly religious concern administered by and for the religion in question and marriage would be irrelevant legally.

The other discussion regarding normalcy was not directly connected. I was using "normal" strictly based on frequency of occurrence as any other definition is, as you correctly note, highly subjective.

[HoreTore]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually ~:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually ~:)

Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.

[HoreTore]

Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.

:2thumbsup:

[ajaxfetish]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.
Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

These word games are getting ridiculous. The purpose of a car is to get you around, its defining point is that it is a means of transportation (that has certain characteristics eg 4 wheels and used on roads), not the fact that it is drawn by livestock.

The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. So if all marriages were to take place in supermarkets, then without going into religious sensitivities they could still be called a marriage. Take two men though, and we have a problem.

[Ronin]

Take two men though, and we have a problem.

just a small correction....we don´t have a problem....you have a problem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

just a small correction....we don´t have a problem....you have a problem.

No you have a problem too you're just pretending it doesn't exist.

[LittleGrizzly]

No you have a problem too you're just pretending it doesn't exist.

Well the problem is people who think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, so we now the problem is there and were trying to solve it... but you guys keep disagreeing :wink:

[CountArach]

No you have a problem too you're just pretending it doesn't exist.
:laugh4:

[GoreBag]

Christain

Hur hur hur.

[HoreTore]

Countries like Sweden and others allow paternity leave and I believe we will see more of this in the future, and I support it.

What? Am I reading this correctly? Fathers don't get paid leave from work when they have a baby in the US?

[CountArach]

What? Am I reading this correctly? Fathers don't get paid leave from work when they have a baby in the US?
Quite a few countries don't have that.

[Husar]

I see.

My valuable post is being ignored while people argue about petty issues, grammar and make stupid jokes and then wonder why the Backroom is full of hostility and stupidity. :no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What post was ignored? :spider:

This post? I'd be quite happy to oblige.

Well, you can say what you want, but it is kind of ironic, that in a democracy a referendum asking the demos should be illegal because of a constitution. :dizzy2:That is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read!!1 :smash: :drama1:

A referendum can not brush aside a constitution. A constitution can deem a referendum void if it is deemed unconstitutional. A constitution establishes and protects a democracy. It serves as a check against the whims of the day. It can only be changed in accordance with special requirements, such as a qualified majority and strict procedure.

[LittleGrizzly]

Isn't part of a consitituion's remit supposed to protect against the tyranny of the majority

:spider: :scorpio:

[ajaxfetish]

The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman.
You're welcome to assume this is true. You are not welcome to assume everyone else agrees with you. We don't. And you addressed one of my examples (which are a mere handful of the thousands of words that have changed meaning over time). What about 'villain'? What's the fundamental meaning of the word, and how has it stayed the same from when it meant peasants to when it meant evildoers? You're making up a rule that doesn't exist, and then trying to use that rule to prevent a large group of people from enjoying the familial structure they desire.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Quite a few countries don't have that.

What? Seriously? I should be very happy I live in Norway then.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What? Seriously? I should be very happy I live in Norway then.

Under the aegis of the family medical leave act, all US employers with 50+ employees must offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees who can demonstrate that some medical crisis (or a new child) in their close family requires their assistance. Companies can, at their discretion, provide paid medical leave in such instances. Hospitalization etc. is usually covered (in large part) by the medical insurance one has through one's work.

In practice, many mothers take leave (though rarely the full 12 weeks) after downloading a new human, but very few fathers do so. They'd find themselves too far behind in their work and/or haven't built up a 3-6 month expenditures cushion as is recommended by financial planners.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Now it's just getting weird (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1390297.html).

Theater felt growing pressure before artistic director quit
By Marcus Crowder
mcrowder@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008 | Page 7B

The California Musical Theatre found itaself caught in a dramatic conflict between free speech and civil rights, a situation that ultimately led to today's resignation of artistic director Scott Eckern.

Eckern quit this morning. He became the target of strong criticism after it was learned he donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.

In an industry long considered gay-friendly and tied to causes such as AIDS research, Eckern's donation outraged theater workers across the country.

In Sacramento, a number of the musical theater's supporters contacted The Bee to rally behind the embattled Eckern, stating that he was now a victim of intolerance and persecution himself.

Playbill and other media have said he issued an apology and plans to donate $1,000 to a nonprofit committed to achieving equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

When Tony Award-winner Marc Shaiman, the composer of "Hairspray," read of Eckern's donation last week, he urged artists and theater workers across the country to boycott the theater.

On Tuesday, Kellie Randle and a group of like-minded friends launched www.supportscotteckern.blogspot.com to advocate for Eckern.

"It's everyone's First Amendment right to contribute to the causes they believe in and voice their political choice," Randle said. To show the abuse against Eckern, Randle's site links to the Clyde Fitch Report, one of numerous blogs now weighing in on the debate.

"I'm so enraged at the hypocrisy of the No on 8 community. I could care less how he voted on any issue. It's about what he does in his job. This is persecution," Randle said.

Other community members, including Kitty Wilson of Curtis Park, echoed this sentiment.

"Before any gay person talks about blacklisting anyone in theater, I'll remind them what McCarthy's blacklist did to the entire entertainment industry," Wilson said.

The idea of a blacklist and boycott have grown from Shaiman's postings and e-mails. The composer, who is openly gay, said he read about Eckern's contribution to the campaign on the Web site www.datalounge.com, and he felt he had to do something.

"I was so shocked. I'm dealing myself with being legally discriminated against, and then come to find out, I helped put money in his pocket that helped get this proposition passed," Shaiman said in a telephone interview.

Shaiman sent an e-mail which has reverberated through the national theater community and backed the CMT's leaders into the unusual position of doing damage control. He wrote he wouldn't allow his work to be done at California Musical Theatre, and theater workers around the country have followed his lead.

"No one should be surprised in 2008 at how fast information can be spread, and that's of course a doubled-edged sword," Shaiman said.

Susan Egan, star of "Thoroughly Modern Millie" and "Cabaret," followed with a similar e-mail.

Theater professionals flooded CMT's offices over the weekend with phone calls and e-mails decrying Eckern's actions.

In a statement released Monday, CMT executive producer Richard Lewis said: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support."

New York talent agent Chris Nichols, who negotiated three of the four contracts for the actors employed in CMT's "Forever Plaid" at the Cosmopolitan Cabaret in Sacramento, said New York is watching the situation closely.

"I woke up to Susan Egan's e-mail Monday morning and have received that e-mail 11 times in less than 48 hours," Nichols said. "I would say the industry is buzzing. I took no less than half a dozen phone calls from clients today who are working in various theaters across the country asking if it was true."

Frank Schubert, the local campaign manager for Yes on Prop. 8, wrote a letter of support for Eckern on Tuesday, faxing it to all of CMT's board members.

"Mr. Eckern unfortunately is the victim of what appears to be a systematic attempt to harass and intimidate anybody who had the courage to stand up and support traditional marriage," Schubert said by phone. "There's nothing about supporting traditional marriage which is anti-gay."

Shaiman hopes the episode leads to better understanding of gay people.

"I love God. And this is how God made me," he said. "How people can say this is a choice? Unless you are – you don't know."

Not the best way to attract people to the cause of equality and tolerance, methinks.

[Strike For The South]

The only equal and tolerable if you agree with them bubba. Otherwise they will run you out and call you a bigot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm just glad people are getting wise to the fact that the homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise.

[LittleGrizzly]

I'm just glad people are getting wise to the fact that the homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise.

And i suppose any kind of negativety towards gay people is showing that the anti homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise... i think you'll find the gays activists are a much nicer crowd.... though this is of course bad publicity i can somewhat understand the motive, i wouldn't want to support a movement so against my gayness and im sure my gay friends would want to know that thier money is used against them in this way

Not to say that the traditional marriage supporters are anti gay but it is easy to see why they see it as this when there are anti gay elements, and the discrimination suffered throughout recent history

[HoreTore]

Under the aegis of the family medical leave act, all US employers with 50+ employees must offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees who can demonstrate that some medical crisis (or a new child) in their close family requires their assistance. Companies can, at their discretion, provide paid medical leave in such instances. Hospitalization etc. is usually covered (in large part) by the medical insurance one has through one's work.

In practice, many mothers take leave (though rarely the full 12 weeks) after downloading a new human, but very few fathers do so. They'd find themselves too far behind in their work and/or haven't built up a 3-6 month expenditures cushion as is recommended by financial planners.

Right. I'm off to thank my mother for not raising me in the united states.

[Askthepizzaguy]

falls flat... try to sneak... persuade enough people and they'll get it... Ramming it thru... leads to backlashes.

Mmmm....

I'm trying to be serious but it's so hard when you use such colorful language. :laugh2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html


Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
:beam:

Oh, and some no-to-Prop 8 supporters are going way past the crazy nut one the fringe zone:

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081114/D94EEP9O2.html)

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California.

Authorities are looking into several theories on who sent the letters and why, Pack said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to Washington lawmakers and media outlets killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Periodic hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up since then but usually prove harmless.

And then there was that crowd of prop 8 protesters that assaulted an old woman and was close to getting even more violent. There's a lot of hate in those liberal people.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Trample the majority because you are right. That a way!:clown: