Prop 8 to pass?

[Koga No Goshi]

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

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

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.

[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

[CountArach]

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

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What post was ignored?

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.

That is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read!!1

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.