Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

**Reenk Roink** · 08-16-2010, 07:46

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

None of those things in your 25 point list should be prohibited to a same sex couple. If such privileges are extended to an officially designated heterosexual pairing, there can be little or no reasonable grounds NOT to extend the same benefits to an officially designated homosexual or lesbian couple -- or for that matter a platonic couple. Any pair of consenting adults should be able to form such a union.

The problem for the religious is that marriage (at least to them) is more than these civil benefits. It represents a sanctified joining that is sacramental and spiritual as well as legal and physical. Since many (most?) faiths do not consider same-sex unions to be sanctifiable, they oppose same-sex marriage on that basis. A few view homosexuals as actively sinning against the will of God, making such unions not only unsanctifiable but actively blasphemous.

Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.

Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.

And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...

**Beskar** · 08-16-2010, 10:24

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.

And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...

In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?

**Reenk Roink** · 08-16-2010, 18:38

Originally Posted by Beskar

In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?

In other words, even though marriage has largely lost it's "sacred" sense and meaning, the idea of a state privilege of marriage still permeates through society, and thus it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.

**Lemur** · 08-16-2010, 18:41

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.

Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.

**Reenk Roink** · 08-16-2010, 19:49

Originally Posted by Lemur

Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.

Oh for sure, I understand the practical obstacles to enacting such policies, and knowing the way things work when people realize they cant stop something they just try to tie it up in court. I was merely pointing out why there would be reasonable opposition to calling essentially the same thing two different things.

**drone** · 08-17-2010, 03:10

So the 9th Circuit Court retains the same-sex marriage ban until their hearing starting December 6th.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/16/sam...ex.html?hpt=T1
Interesting decision, I wonder if this was done to postpone flak before the elections.

Because it's a forgone conclusion that the 9th will uphold Walker's ruling.

**Xiahou** · 08-17-2010, 03:50

The "standing" issue is really unsettling to me. You have a majority of voters pass a proposition. One person can challenge it in court and if the attorney general of the state isn't interested in supporting the proposition, it gets overturned by default? That really seems to short-circuit the democratic process. This would mean any referendum passed by the people can be tossed aside if the current government doesn't support it.

On another note- isnt the AG shirking his duty here?