Prop 8 to pass?

[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.

[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?

[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'?

[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]

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...

[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.