Prop 8 to pass?

[Decker]

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

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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[Yoyoma1910]

Why don't we just ban all marriage?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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...both_ways.html

Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids.

Nice try, though...

[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.