California Proposition 8

[not_so_new]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.

[joobz]

nothing to add, except that's an amazingly well written sentiment.
nominated for it's brevity and weight.

[Nursefoxfire]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.


I have many Mormon family members, some of whom live in CA. There was a HUGE LDS church campaign to get this Prop passed. And from what I've read, it was the second most costly campaign effort behind the actual Presidency ($74 million).

My husband also remarked that CA has a large Hispanic population. Perhaps the Catholic vote counted here as well.

p.s. the dog in your avatar is lovely!

[NotJesus]

It's very disappointing. This issue is destined to end up in the courts... again.

[Pookster]

It's very disappointing. This issue is destined to end up in the courts... again.


IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually. I can only hope that, when the opportunity arises, Obama will nominate Justices who respect the rights of all citizens.

[Walter Bellhaven]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[not_so_new]

nothing to add, except that's an amazingly well written sentiment.
nominated for it's brevity and weight.

Thank you joobz.

Among other gays I consider friends, a lesbian couple moved into the house next to us in May. They are great folks, I really enjoy their company.

Over the summer "The Girls" as we call them decided to get married. Planning the trip to California was an exciting adventure, who to invite, how to get there, what to take with them, where to stay. Underlying all of this was a feeling of relief knowing that there was a safe haven in our nation that understood and accepted them.

We went with them to the polling center last night to vote, we were all happy and relaxed, walking on air to be part of history. Today I don't know how to talk to them about California.... I just don't know what to say.

I am really frustrated and hurt, these are good people that have a huge letdown in front of them. Knowing there is little I can do to help is maybe the most frustrating of all.

[Bob Blaylock]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

[ZirconBlue]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.


So, do you support camera's in all married households to verify that no married couples are performing "sexual perversions"? Because I guarantee that there are straight couples performing sexual acts you don't approve of.

[not_so_new]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

Bigotry in the highest order.

If you are not one of us you are less than us?

Blacks on the back of the bus, throw the Mexicans in prison or accost the border, American Indians should stay on their reservations where they belong?

I understand.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

Ha. Ha. You're going to LOVE the next four years with your new president.

From his speech last night:

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. :D

(Bolding mine.)

[chipmunk stew]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.
This is a great demonstration of the most repugnant aspect of this whole thing. Some anonymous douchebag thinks it's icky, and, on that basis alone, claims the right to put legal limits on the choices made among other consenting adults.

[Darat]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So you support incest.

[Fordama]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.
You mean the perverts won? To remove the civil rights of people is a perverted act.

Secondly, Prop 22 was clearly contrary to the California Constitution, and a panel of Republican appointed judges overturned Prop 22. There was nothing corrupt about the decision--it was a no-brainer.

As far as the people "speaking" goes, it passed by a very narrow margin this time. Prop 22 won with over 61% of the vote. Prop 8 passed by just a point or two. There is no reason to think such a trend would change given. The proponents of Proposition 8 used extremely deceptive advertisements, and sooner of later such lies won't be able to hold up.

Fordama

[Pookster]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.


When Obama was born, about 30 States still had laws against people of different races getting married. Gallup polls at the time showed the biggest majority of Whites were opposed to mixed marriages. It was considered a perversion. Children of such marriages would be maladjusted and such. It's sad to see such ignorance as yours still exists today. But hopefully soon, your day will pass too.

[Thunder]

I am very surprised....even shocked...that 60% of the voters in Cali. voted for liberal social-democrat Barak Obama...and then did a complete 180 and voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Totally mystified. It makes no sense. Talk about being inconsistent.

I suggest they come up with a compromise allowing for same-sex domestic partnership.

[Thunder]

Bigotry in the highest order.

If you are not one of us you are less than us?

Blacks on the back of the bus, throw the Mexicans in prison or accost the border, American Indians should stay on their reservations where they belong?

I understand.

Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.

[Praktik]

Not sure if Bob Baylock was being serious, but if he was another person in the other Prop 8 thread mentioned how many (conservatives especially) seem to think of the judiciary as some extension of "the will of the people" and judgments are given a litmus test as to whether or not a decision conforms to the polling of the day.

This displays a frightful ignorance of the machinery of democracy: the judiciary is supposed to be insulated from the will of the people. Thats why you have lifetime appointments, its why here in Canada, we don't elect judges or DAs. The principle is one wherein the "will of the people" is expressed through the legislature, and the judiciary is there - apart from the "will of the people" - to determine legality based on other things, such as stare decisis, constitutionality, and so on.

Civics 101 man!!

EDIT: and while we're talking about the "will of the people" - let us remember that "the will of the people" is only sacrosanct in the paint-by-number realities of ideologues. There's a reason political science has developed a term called "tyranny of the majority" - that's right tyranny, and this proposition (along with the ban on ferrets I mentioned in the other thread) is a prime example of it...

[not_so_new]

We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure.

Here is a little "normal, healthy" family structure for you.... sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with having a "healthy" family.

Massachusetts has lowest divorce rates with gay marrage (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/)


Divorce rates significantly higher for conservative Christians (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)


Two of the three little girls adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Bowman of Maryland are dead (http://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/people/renee-bowman)


Child killed for failing to say please
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/28/child.remains.ap/index.html)

Man accused of killing wife in front of their children (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/360257_bonilla24.html?source=mypi)


Children removed from Rocky Point Drug Den (http://www.beaconrecord.com/Articles-i-2008-05-15-71867.113114_Police_Children_removed_from_Rocky_Po int_drug_den.html)

[Praktik]

With all this "Defense of Marriage" claptrap going on - how come we haven't seen any ballot initiatives banning divorce??

[Pookster]

Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. They simply cannot marry someone of the same sex. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.

(emphasis added)

I bet this would've been a popular argument before anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. As the Court said in Loving, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.

[ZirconBlue]

Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It should not be up to "society" to decide which couples are "inappropriate for marriage", as long as all parties are concenting adults.


It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Society should only be able to make such rules to protect those who do not concent (or are unable to give concent, such as minors)

Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?

Nice slippery slope you've built there.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.

Comparisons between banning gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws are wholly appropriate.

[Darat]

Now now, lets be honest here.

...snip...



So to you this would OK?:

No one is telling a black woman and a white man they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a white man can only marry an unrelated white woman..and a black woman can only marry an unrelated black man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against differnet-race couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?

[ZirconBlue]

(emphasis added)

I bet this would've been a popular argument before anti-miscegenation laws were overturned. As the Court said in Loving, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.


You might want to go back and look at his post again. He has edited it to remove the part you quoted and add in some more wrong stuff.

[ponderingturtle]

Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry,

Cousins can marry in some states, so if someone wants to marry their cousin it is doable, if possibly inconvienient.

And why was there found to be a right to marry who you wanted to when Loving vs. Virginia was tried?

It ment that you couldn't define marriage as being between an unrelated man and woman of the same race after all. And that is not discrimination just defnining what marriage is.

California struck down its anti miscegination laws in 1948 the first state in the 20th century to do so. So clearly there is some right to marry who you want to in california regardless of how the laws define marriage.

[Darat]

Obama being elected and this news (and the other similar propositions across the country) got me to thinking, and I think it is just a matter of a little bit more time. When I think of the changes in my own lifetime (in the UK and over 40 years) in regards to equality for homosexuals it is quite astonishing, it has gone from being completely illegal to civil partnerships.

I'm sure the USA will get there!

[Walter Bellhaven]

So you support incest.

As long as it's a man and a woman.

[not_so_new]

Now now, lets be honest here. No one is telling gay men and women they shouldn't be treated as complete citizens. The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man. That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesn't just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.

It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules. Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?

You are 100% wrong... I don't like saying that to people but in this case it is true.

The reason we don't allow mothers to marry sons is because the children they could produce would have serious heath issues.

All marriages between close relatives are outlawed because the marriage can have a physical consequence to others, namely their offspring.

The argument that gays shouldn't get married because of the physical harm they could cause for others is absurd. They can't harm offspring because they can't have any and their likelihood of violence to other members of society is just as high or low as anyone else.

The ONLY reason why gay's can't get married is because of bigotry and fear based on bronze age thinking. Don't try confusing issues by introducing untruths.

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.

Really? Why is that? Gays have never been killed for who they are? Gays have never been discriminated against in the workforce? Gays don't have hate groups hunting them down and creating hateful websites? Gay's don't have people marching against them in the streets? Gays don't have any problems with laws erected against them?

Anything you can say about any other minority can be said of gays. It's just that you are overlooking the fact that they are a minority with the same problems and same hurdles to overcome. Gay marriage is to gays what school segregation was to blacks.

[KingMerv00]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Adam and Eve didn't exactly have much in the way of choice.

[ZirconBlue]

Adam and Eve didn't exactly have much in the way of choice.


Of course. And those kids of theirs? Who did they marry?

[Darat]

Their brothers and sisters of course!

[ZirconBlue]

Their brothers and sisters of course!


:jaw-droppEww! Perverts!

[Hokulele]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


Marriage has nothing to do with love, true or otherwise. It has to do with legal rights, property rights, inheritance, custody of children, and a host of other contractual issues.

Besides, the true love between Adelia and Eve always gets left out with this harping on Adam and Steve. Sheesh, it's like lesbians are invisible when it comes down to the fundamentals of bigotry.

[Madalch]

Besides, the true love between Adelia and Eve always gets left out with this harping on Adam and Steve. Sheesh, it's like lesbians are invisible when it comes down to the fundamentals of bigotry.
That's because nobody dislikes lesbians.

They're hot.

[IMST]

I'm not usually a particularly emotional person, but I've wanted to cry all day about this. My depression over this elector loss trumps the fact that very nearly every other race I tracked closely went as I wished. This is a horrible, very personal feeling slap from what is supposed to be a liberal state, and one of only 3 I have ever lived in.

Walter Bellhaven: I'm not certain you mean what you're posting in this thread. Maybe you're just trying to get a rise out of us. If you are, it's not welcome here. Welcome to ignore.

Bob Blaylock: **** you and the bible you rode in on. Welcome to ignore.

parky76: How dare you say that this doesn't say we're not being treated as anything less than full citizens? WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED TO THE PEOPLE WE LOVE AND ARE IN RELATIONSHIPS WITH! I cannot imagine the cognitive process that allows you to thing that constitutes full citizenship.

[Swagomatic]

Here in Arizona, we had a similar "Marriage Protection" (Prop 102) amendment on the ballot. It passed - in spite of the fact that a similar amendment was voted down in 2006. I was happily surprised when it was defeated the first time. But it seems to have taught the anti gay people a lesson. This time, there was a huge amount of money spent here promoting Prop 102, and, unfortunately, not much in the way of an anti-102 campaign.

[Magyar]

I have been thinking about this all day, after seeing the national results from a number of states regarding this issue. I too am straight, white and while I've had some gay friends no one in particular that has ever been close.

One of my best friends, in fact my first friend in the US was black and it was he that I thought of when I cast my vote (He died 6 years ago in a car crash)

But I found it sad that while the African American community rejoices today for finally shedding this yoke, on the same day they are so totally blind to the same exact hatred they applied to others and supported for the FIRST time in the history of our Republic to strip a groups civil rights.

[Arus808]

Shall we even go into the real meaning of marriage, when it was coined hundreds of years ago?

Back in the early days "Marriage" was only used as means to procreate, and to bear children. And at that time, women were treated more like property than a human being with their own choices to make. Most women couldn't even choose the person they wanted to "marry" and it was determined for them by their parents, to whom they could pay to marry their daughter (dowry).

So this whole "protect traditional marriage" is nothing but a crock of ****. Because "traditional" marriage wasn't ever threatened. If we wanted "traditional" marriage, then women would be losing their rights; their parents would choose their spouse, and marry them off to whomever they paid them for their daughter.

In the five months since California allowed same sex marriages, how has the union of two women, or two men hurt the marriage of heterosexual married couples? Did these couples endure undo hardship because of these marriages? Did they suffer financial losses? Physical pain?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

So you support incest.
As long as it's a man and a woman.

Get thee gone troll!

[NotJesus]

This is a horrible, very personal feeling slap from what is supposed to be a liberal state, and one of only 3 I have ever lived in.

California's reputation as a liberal state derives mainly from San Francisco and Hollywood. Much of the rest of the state is moderate to conservative. Ronald Reagan came from California, after all.

[often mrunderstood]

“The door’s wide open now… it’s going to happen… whether you like it or not.”

....guess not

[joobz]

Now now, lets be honest here.
ok
No one is telling gay men and women they shouldnt be treated as complete citizens.
um...
The law simply states that a man can only marry an unrelated woman..and a woman can only marry an unrelated man.
Which is to limit the rights of gay men/women as they do not gain the right of inheritence, medical rights, adoption rights....
So you just contradicted yourself.
That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesnt just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.
Because we arbitrarily draw the line to include incest, that poisons the well against gay marriage? Do you really think lumping the argument in this way helps your point?


It may not be "fair". It may not feel "right". But society has the right to make such rules.
By your argument, it would be acceptable for society to make any arbitrary law.
Such as Jim Crow laws....
Do you really want to see mothers marrying their sons?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.Because.......um......
Do you have an arugment supporting this assertion or do you believe making a blanket statement acts as a ward against an argument you are uncomfortable with?

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm not saying that women should be treated as secondary citizens. I'm just saying that as democracy is one of the main pillars of society, the tradition of male-only voting needs to be upheld. Democracy by definition has always been male-only, and turning democracy upside-down by allowing women in will wreck it completely! Once we throw out the traditional approach by allowing women to vote, where do we stop? What do we do when the liberals start pushing for children to vote? Do you want to see dogs and cows line up to vote for candidates? Do you support the ability to vote for several candidates at once? Where does the slippery slope end?

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is preposterous and insulting.Only because you oppose Apartheid. KKK members accept that the analogy is quite apt - back in the Civil Rights Movement days, opponents of inter-racial marriage used exactly the same arguments you do. Tradition, slippery slope, the yuck factor, a causation argument blaming inter-racial marriage for societal ills, and the appeal to tyranny by majority.

The same arguments.
The same bigotry.
The same fears.
How are they not the same?

Shall we even go into the real meaning of marriage, when it was coined hundreds of years ago?

Back in the early days "Marriage" was only used as means to procreate, and to bear children. And at that time, women were treated more like property than a human being with their own choices to make. Most women couldn't even choose the person they wanted to "marry" and it was determined for them by their parents, to whom they could pay to marry their daughter (dowry).

So this whole "protect traditional marriage" is nothing but a crock of ****. Because "traditional" marriage wasn't ever threatened. If we wanted "traditional" marriage, then women would be losing their rights; their parents would choose their spouse, and marry them off to whomever they paid them for their daughter.

In the five months since California allowed same sex marriages, how has the union of two women, or two men hurt the marriage of heterosexual married couples? Did these couples endure undo hardship because of these marriages? Did they suffer financial losses? Physical pain?Anyone who roots for 'traditional marriage' should watch Ibsen's play A Doll's House.

[dudalb]

California's reputation as a liberal state derives mainly from San Francisco and Hollywood. Much of the rest of the state is moderate to conservative. Ronald Reagan came from California, after all.

It is sad that the opponents of Prop 8 forgot this basic fact, and launched a campaign that preached to the converted...not those you needed to persuade.


“The door’s wide open now… it’s going to happen… whether you like it or not.”

....guess not

The Mayor of San Francisco 's comments were played non stop on the pro Prop 8 commericials. A good indicator that with friends like this, the Gay community in California does not need many enemies.

It is heartbreaking that a lousy piece of legislation passed partly because those against it screwed up .

[boloboffin]

There is a lawsuit seeking to declare the amendment invalid (http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/lawsuit-filed-against-anti-gay-prop-8.html).

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, Senior Counsel with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by parky76
That means that cousins cant marry, fathers and sons cant marry, fathers and daughters cant marry, mothers and sons cant marry, mothers and daughters cant marry. This doesn't just "discriminate" against same-sex couples, it "discriminates" against all couples that society deems to be inappropriate for marriage.


You know the question I have for you parky is WHY STOP THERE?

We used to have laws in this country where Blacks couldn't marry whites,
Catholics couldn't marry protestants either.


WHY NOT PROTECT MARRIAGE AGAINST THESE THINGS TOO????

[Regnad Kcin]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.Now that your misunderstanding has been pointed out and corrected, will you concede your mistake?

Welcome to the forum.

[Regnad Kcin]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.Is this meant to be provocative? Setting aside the anti-American tone, it's mostly clumsy and, well, wrong.

Surely you don't wish to be wrong?

[Puppycow]

Does this proposition affect civil unions?

Are there practical consequences or only symbolic ones?

[Puppycow]

Take some solace in that exit polls showed that the young demographics under 30 overwhelmingly voted against this. I think this will be reversed in the future.

[Mitchell314]

And I thought we were supposed to protect civil rights. Silly me. Now I see it all so clearly. Don't you guys realize that being understanding of other people is morally wrong? Our own personal insecurities are by far more important!!! Don't you realize that if it had been Adam and Steve, we wouldn't be here. Well okay, maybe, but because Eve had an affair with one of them, but that's not the point! [/colbert voice]

[Bob Magness]

I am very surprised....even shocked...that 60% of the voters in Cali. voted for liberal social-democrat Barak Obama...and then did a complete 180 and voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Totally mystified. It makes no sense. Talk about being inconsistent.

I suggest they come up with a compromise allowing for same-sex domestic partnership.

I wasn't surprised, just look at the demographics. Barrack Obama being on the ticket was likely the impetus for the black community showing up to the polls in record numbers. Now, there is a group of Democrats that would be expected to have voted for Prop 8: religious Democrats. I would venture to say that the majority of the black community falls into this group.

So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 not being passed.

While the Gay Rights Movement lost in regards to this particular law, I look at the day as an overall win for the gay and lesbian community.

As Fordama said, the last time a similar law was put up for vote to the Californians 61% voted for it. This time it was just about even. I look at this as the people slowly but surely turning toward common sense. A couple more years we will have it in the bag, even if the US Supreme Court doesn't hear the case.

On a personal level I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. But before that happens the FEDERAL government needs to recognize civil unions so that a civil union in one state is recognized in every state. Otherwise, civil unions are worthless.

[Elizabeth I]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Wow, that was original. :rolleyes:

[Terry]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

Way to gloat over depriving people of rights, you must be so proud of yourself.

[kallsop]

There is a lawsuit seeking to declare the amendment invalid (http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/lawsuit-filed-against-anti-gay-prop-8.html).


As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.

[Zygar]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

It saddens me that I was raised by a Mormon family. And that the Mormons, who I oft defend, have turned out to be such bigots.

[Terry]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

[hcmom]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

They're being forced to act as if tolerance is a good thing, and it's killing them, which is harmful to them, even if the rest of us don't mind.

[Bob Magness]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

Sorry Terry, I don't think you are going to get an answer other than that. I am usually pretty good at seeing the "other side" of things. I am strongly pro-choice but I can make myself see where the pro-life folks are coming from. I believe in universal healthcare and state-paid education all the way through college, but I can see the other side.

As for this case, I can't wrap my mind around it. Religious bigotry is the ONLY explanation. How, how, HOW does you marrying another adult of the same gender infringe on my liberties in ANY way?! It doesn't. Plain and simple. It has to be religious bigotry.

[Bob Blaylock]

Not sure if Bob Baylock was being serious, but if he was another person in the other Prop 8 thread mentioned how many (conservatives especially) seem to think of the judiciary as some extension of "the will of the people" and judgments are given a litmus test as to whether or not a decision conforms to the polling of the day.

This displays a frightful ignorance of the machinery of democracy: the judiciary is supposed to be insulated from the will of the people. Thats why you have lifetime appointments, its why here in Canada, we don't elect judges or DAs. The principle is one wherein the "will of the people" is expressed through the legislature, and the judiciary is there - apart from the "will of the people" - to determine legality based on other things, such as stare decisis, constitutionality, and so on.



I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.

As far as the authority of judges, I'll refer you to Thomas Jefferson: "You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

—Thomas Jefferson in a letter to W. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820—


Civics 101 man!!

EDIT: and while we're talking about the "will of the people" - let us remember that "the will of the people" is only sacrosanct in the paint-by-number realities of ideologues. There's a reason political science has developed a term called "tyranny of the majority" - that's right tyranny, and this proposition (along with the ban on ferrets I mentioned in the other thread) is a prime example of it...


On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.

[Hokulele]

Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman...


Why?

[brodski]

Why?

more to the point, why is Bob seemingly unable to distinguish between consensual and non consensual relationships?

[Axiom_Blade]

So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 not being passed.



Perhaps. Don't forget, Obama is against gay marriage as well.

[Bob Magness]

more to the point, why is Bob seemingly unable to distinguish between consensual and non consensual relationships?

Hey now, there is a new Bob on the block...don't go lumping us all together.

;)

[Bob Magness]

Perhaps. Don't forget, Obama is against gay marriage as well.

I haven't, and good point. He went out of his way to mention gays in his victory speech and that probably annoyed more people than made happy so I have hope. In my opinion, federally recognized civil unions would be a bigger victory for the gay community than legalized marriage in a couple states and I could invision Obama signing such a law whereas McCane would likely "leave it up to the States."

Of course the strong possibility that I am being overly optimistic remains.

[Wildy]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

But I'm sure that you wouldn't care if it was between Eve and Lilith.

[Redtail]

Ok, as far as the Black turnout on passing Prop 8 no surprise there. While religion in the Black community is a cause it's much more than that. The reasons range from "it makes baby jebus cry" to "sissies are weak" and "It's icky".

For those who may not know, there is a sub culture in the Black community called "down low". Members of this subculture simply refuse to admit they are gay/bi. Oh they'll have sex with a guy, maybe even mostly guys, but it just happens... Since "it just happens" no condoms allowed. See, if you bring condoms to a guy's night out, that means you wanted to have sex with a guy and thus you're gay/bi, and of course due to your "thug" attitude, you must have sex with many women too. If you're married (to a woman of course) that's a bonus. (If you've seen that in a TV show, they weren't joking)

It's so bad that one of my best friends, a guy I've known since I was 3, was so shaken up by the thought of telling me he was gay that I thought he had killed someone and was trying to ask me to help him dispose of the body. It may sound funny but it wasn't.

(NOTE: What I'm about to say may be too much info for some about me. Just a warning.)


As far as the perversions, my fiancee and I have been swingers since we met. At one of our favorite sites it amazed me at how many people planned to vote against Prop 8 because "It was morally wrong."

[DarthFishy]

About the comparison to Apartheid, that is perfectly valid. You see during the apartheid years Homosexual marriage was banned. (In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Homosexual sex was banned as well).

[Bob Magness]

For those who may not know, there is a sub culture in the Black community called "down low". Members of this subculture simply refuse to admit they are gay/bi. Oh they'll have sex with a guy, maybe even mostly guys, but it just happens... Since "it just happens" no condoms allowed. See, if you bring condoms to a guy's night out, that means you wanted to have sex with a guy and thus you're gay/bi, and of course due to your "thug" attitude, you must have sex with many women too. If you're married (to a woman of course) that's a bonus. (If you've seen that in a TV show, they weren't joking)

But Redtail, how much of a impact do you think that particular subculture had on the vote? Do you think the people that are concerned about maintaining a "thug" attitude are members of the voting community? I'm clueless as to how prevelent that sub-culture is. The only time I had ever heard of it was on an episode of CSI or NYPD Blue.

[boloboffin]

As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.

It's part of a judge's job description to overturn the wishes of the people when the wishes of the people are against the law. We don't allow mob rule here in the U.S. whenever possible.

Would you like to deal with the substance of the lawsuit instead of just snidely dismissing it with your little truisms?

[Meadmaker]

By your argument, it would be acceptable for society to make any arbitrary law.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".

[Regnad Kcin]

I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.Never mind that homosexuality is a naturally occurring aspect of animal life and hardly a "perversion," since you ignored my earlier post, I'll try a different approach.

How do you feel about atheists?

[boloboffin]

...the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim.

Leaving aside the complex questions of gender identity, let's just deal with this heteroexceptionalism.

I am single now, but when I was in a committed relationship, I found the interactions pretty significant, too. It would have been nice to have tax benefits and other socially given privileges available to help add more stability to our commitment. We might have even been willing to help share that stability with some children lost in the social services network.

So thanks for pretending that hetero relationships are somehow more "special". But it ain't necessarily so.

[joobz]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".

It isn't arbitary?
Then explain the non arbitrary reason for why marriage is defined as being between only a man and a woman.

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".

You are affirming the consequent here. Definition of marriage isn't arbitrary because marriage imposes special rights to those who are married.

[mhaze]

As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.True, but the argument in the petition seems a bit weak:

The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group - lesbian and gay Californians.

Although it can be argued that the right to marry same sex is a fundamental right, that would if so be a fundamental right that only existed for a year or two, since some CA municipalities began granting same sex marriage licenses.

That's a factual matter, and quite different than saying that these people have always been denied these rights (until the last year or two).

Ex. For a while, medical marihuana was allowed, then the feds stopped it. Does that brief period of existence of that right raise it to the "fundamental right" level?


It's part of a judge's job description to overturn the wishes of the people when the wishes of the people are against the law. ....Outcomes often depend on which judge is picked.

[boloboffin]

Outcomes often depend on which judge is picked.

As Dred Scott found out.

[Safe-Keeper]

If only these people took half the time spent on fighting gay marriage and devoted it to actual problems, such as divorce or spousal abuse.

[Pookster]

... On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.


Jefferson also had some beliefs on the role of legitimate Government as well. It is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.

[Praktik]

I was serious. Perversions such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and such, are not equivalent to a proper and normal marriage between a man and a woman, and I am solidly opposed to society being forced to pretend that they are. So, it seems are enough of my fellow Americans to get laws passed in three states to this effect this last election.

Right, enough americans to enforce a tyranny upon your fellow citizens. Just as responsible ferret owners were criminalized by their fellow citizens due to a proposition that should never have been added to the ballot, we see the "tyranny of democracy" at work once again - depriving citizens of basic rights because 50%+1 think the way they live should be the way everybody else lives.

In your mind Bob, is there anything 50%+1 shouldn't be able to do? What if there were enough signatures to start up a ballot initiative to completely legalize the sale of crack cocaine? Or to be even more far-fetched - what if 50%+1 put up a proposition that lowered the age of consent to 10 years old?

Would Jefferson consider a court decision striking down such a proposition "dangerous"? Or would he see the proposition itself as "dangerous"?

Your quote of Jefferson really is distraction - and it does nothing to address the fundamental separation of powers in a democratic system. You as an American should be very familiar with checks and balances and the fact that there are three branches of government, one of them being the judiciary - which is, by design distanced somewhat from the "will of the people", since even the framers knew that sometimes democracy could descend into mob rule, and that tryanny could come from a despotic King as much as it could come from "the people". Hence checks and balances and the separation of powers.

On the other hand, any legitimate government derives its authority entirely from the will and consent of those who are governed thereby. A government that entirely rejects the clearly expressed will of the people does so without legitimate authority.

The first part is true, and the second is false. Many people understand how a judiciary operates and like checks and balances and the separation of powers. The judiciary is legitimate authority - unless you're proposing that it be abolished?

If a government rejects the will of the people through simple fiat, or executive order - thats one thing. If a judge determines through an open and public process of legal scrutiny that this or that piece of legislation is unconstitutional - even if that legislation is a product of the 'will of the people' - it is by definition "legitimate", since a judge is constitutionally and legally empowered to make such decisions.

Seems to me you think there should only be two branches of government - and maybe three as long as the judiciary is a carbon copy of the latest polling data and deciding cases according to your personal value system (a corrupted value system I might add - grouping homosexuality in with "beastiality" is a clear sign of corrupted values).

[Pookster]

... Although it can be argued that the right to marry same sex is a fundamental right, that would if so be a fundamental right that only existed for a year or two, since some CA municipalities began granting same sex marriage licenses.

That's a factual matter, and quite different than saying that these people have always been denied these rights (until the last year or two).

Ex. For a while, medical marihuana was allowed, then the feds stopped it. Does that brief period of existence of that right raise it to the "fundamental right" level?



Your argument is convoluted at best, and ignores that we all have natural rights. To refer to Jefferson again, he believed that Government can't create a right; it can only violate rights. He believed, as well as the other Founders, that we have natural rights. The right to marry and the right to choose who we marry are fundamental rights. They exist with or without Government. Jefferson believed that individuals have an innate sense of the natural rights of others. To suggest that it takes a Government to give me rights is absurd when you look at the beliefs of the Founders.

[maxfrost]

The California Supreme Court did what it was supposed to do--it looked at the evidence--and in the case of Proposition 22 the moderates on the court ruled that it violated the California State Constitution just as surely as if it had been a law banning "miscegenation."

Corrupt judges, Bob? Where is the evidence of corruption, other than the fact that you disagreed with the judges ruling?

Bob Blaylock's enthusiasm for the will of the people is predicate upon the people agreeing with him. Judging from other posts he's made, I doubt that he would have been anywhere as near as enthusiastic if Proposition 8 had been voted down.

[GStan]

<snip>

The reason we don't allow mothers to marry sons is because the children they could produce would have serious heath issues.

All marriages between close relatives are outlawed because the marriage can have a physical consequence to others, namely their offspring.

<snip>

What if they want to get married but have no intention of having children, or for that matter, even having sex?

Just sayin...:rolleyes:

[Porkpie Hat]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry. Terry,

I think I can answer your question.

A few facts about me before I start:
1) I’m a Canadian citizen.
2) Canada has legalized gay marriage.
3) I live in a small town.
4) My neighbors are legally married lesbians (just two).
5) My wife and I co-exist within the framework a “traditional marriage”.

I can’t speak to how your marriage has caused harm to those around you but I can speak to my particular situation and how it has caused harm to me and my “traditional marriage”.

It can all be summed up in one word: beer and beer. And beer.

It all started when the girls moved in next door around 1 ½ years ago. They were very upfront about being a married couple and just wanted to be treated as we would treat any of our other neighbors who co-exist within the framework of a traditional marriage.

No problem. Until one day when I was outside working on my yard and one of the girls started talking to me about hockey. Turns out she’s an avid hockey fan, as am I, and invited my wife and I over to watch the game. Still no problems.

Well, later on that evening my wife and I go over to their place and settle in to watch the Flames kick some Oilers butt. Everything was fine. We made small talk about a few trades in the works, how our goalie was playing…yadda, yadda, yadda. What happened next absolutely blew me away.

One of these fine hockey lovin’ ladies offers us a beer and we accept (naturally). She goes into the kitchen and returns with…(this is the scary part) a Wildcat!

Now I drink Alexander Keith’s and only Alexander Keith’s. It’s a fine beer brewed in one of the eastern provinces of Canada. Wildcat is cheap swill that smells of soggy bandages and tastes like the bottom of my shoe after mowing the lawn but before cleaning up the dog crap from said lawn.

I hid my horror well and managed to drink almost the whole can. To my amusement my wife liked it, she starts talking about how much she liked it during a commercial break. One of the girls mentioned how its one of the cheapest brews around and my wife, always looking for a bargain, quietly filed this information away for further use.

Well, our beloved Flames lost that night and my wife and I bid our neighbors good night and returned home.

The next day my wife had some shopping to do so I stayed home and played with the kids, did a little bit of housework…the usual Sunday routine. My wife got home around 2pm and I helped her offload the groceries then went back to doing some of the yard work I hadn’t finished the previous day.

Around 3pm I decided it was time for a break and went into the garage to get a beer out the fridge. I opened to door and to my everlasting shock and horror was confronted by a cat….a Wildcat to be specific. This was not good. I ran into the house and found my wife in the kitchen.

“What the heck is this?” I asked.
“What?” She said.
“This!” I replied holding up the can.
“Well its 4 dollars cheaper than the brand we usually buy.” She says.

That was over a year ago and I haven’t had a decent beer since.

I’m sure you now see the harm gay marriage can cause. Baby jeebus may not have cried but I sure as hell did and still do.

I’m not against gay marriage. I just think gay people should but better beer.

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

[Praktik]

Wildcat??

Too bad we dont do ballot initiatives up here - because I'd be out there rounding up signatures to ban that horrible brew...

Might as well drink a Miller Genuine Draft a Silver Bullet or the King of Beers - I think you've convinced me.

Gay marriage is DANGEROUS!! ;)

[GStan]

Terry,

I think I can answer your question.

A few facts about me before I start:
1) I’m a Canadian citizen.
2) Canada has legalized gay marriage.
3) I live in a small town.
4) My neighbors are legally married lesbians (just two).
5) My wife and I co-exist within the framework a “traditional marriage”.

I can’t speak to how your marriage has caused harm to those around you but I can speak to my particular situation and how it has caused harm to me and my “traditional marriage”.

It can all be summed up in one word: beer and beer. And beer.

Darn. For some reason I thought that story was going to end with you sharing the steamy details of how drinking Wildcat beer turned your wife into a lesbian.:(

[NobbyNobbs]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Um...


Could you please point out in which Bible verse Adam and Eve got married?

[ponderingturtle]

Does this proposition affect civil unions?

Are there practical consequences or only symbolic ones?

It does not affect civil unions, but civil unions have different rights than marriages. I know NY state recognises foriegn homosexual marriages, I do not think they do anything for foriegn civil usions.

This is because inspite of what some people think, civil unions will never have all the legal precidents behind them that marriages do.

[Alferd_Packer]

IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually. I can only hope that, when the opportunity arises, Obama will nominate Justices who respect the rights of all citizens.

If it does, there is very good legal precedent ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) to overthrough the ban.

[Alferd_Packer]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

[Alferd_Packer]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.


You know, every time I run into someone like you, I suspect that they are repressed homosexuals themselves. Come out of the closet, Bob

[ponderingturtle]

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions,

So you mean that people who do not fit cleanly into either sex should be denied any form or marriage then?

and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

And we know that the proper place for homosexual partners is as the state department defines it, lower than a dog.(they will give you money to relocate your dog to an overseas posting, they make sure they you get no help at all with a homosexual partner)

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".

It is pretty arbitrary, because the common definitions have no roll for people who do not fit cleanly into one or the other, and then you need to define exactly who is a man and who is a woman, something that is very very complicated in many situations. The easiest one is define them by if they can carry out the role of one of the sexes in sexual reproduction, but then women stop being women at menapause, so that is out.

The definitions of man and woman certainly are arbitrary.

[Alferd_Packer]

The comparison between banning gay marriage..and slavery/segregation/Apartheid is proposterous and insulting.


I interchanged the word gender for the word race in the quote below.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the gender classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. . . There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious gender discrimination which justifies this classification.

Supreme Court decisions are great, aren't they?

[TriskettheKid]

You gotta love those religious zealots who haul out the Bible at the drop of a hat.

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".......HA!

Seriously, why not get a proposition on the ballot to make it a capital crime for a child to be disobedient to a parent? Or how about a proposition to make it punishable by death to work on the Sabbath?

These people make me sick.

[Alferd_Packer]

With all this "Defense of Marriage" claptrap going on - how come we haven't seen any ballot initiatives banning divorce??


Because the religious fundamentalists don’t care about marriage. Not since Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife.

This is all about the gays. First they ban gay marriage. Then they will ban gay people from adopting children. Then they will work to ban gays from working in jobs that involve contact with children, like teaches, day care workers, pediatricians, Catholic priests, etc. Then they will ban gay people from having any contact with children whatsoever (even their family). Finally, all gay people or anyone who just “looks” gay will be stripped of their citizenship and shipped to Cuba. ;)

[Alferd_Packer]

I just think gay people should but better beer.


Now, That's a waste of good beer! ;)

[ponderingturtle]

That was over a year ago and I haven’t had a decent beer since.

Why don't you buy the beer yourself?

[Daylight]

Not sure what good this will do

http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition-sign.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition-sign.html)

I’m hoping that somehow Prop 8 will be the last gasp of the campaign style of “make up any lie you want”. Most of the Prop 8 commercials and robo calls were pretty disgusting in their lack of truth.

[noch1Narr]

Passage of Prop 8 in California- one small "victory" for the religionists, one GIANT step backward for all decent, rational human beings!
Blaylock & Bellhaven-you're arguing from a bible standpoint and you deserve the contempt and anger of every decent, caring human being everywhere! You ought to enroll in tolerance 101, then follow up with courses in rationality and in compassion, none of which your bible evidently taught you.
If it were in my power, I would sterilize you, because this world does not deserve more of your tribe!

[Porkpie Hat]

Why don't you buy the beer yourself?Spoil sport.:)

[Porkpie Hat]

Darn. For some reason I thought that story was going to end with you sharing the steamy details of how drinking Wildcat beer turned your wife into a lesbian.:(No such luck.:(

[ProbeX]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.

My apology if any of my comments are repeats. Didn't yet read the whole thread as I'm fairly busy right now, but would like to add a response:

Like you I have mixed feelings. Wish Prop 8 weren't even an issue. To me it seems like just as much a civil rights violation that gay ppl can't get married, than it was when Black ppl couldn't legally get married.

It's not just the Blacks who are to blame for Prop 8 passing. It is any culture - including many Latinos/Whites/Asians - who are homophobic and hide behind their religion to justify such sentiments.

But if your argument is that more Blacks voted for Prop 8 than others, then that may be a result of Blacks being stripped of everything years ago, and pressured into converting - by Whites - to a homophobic model of Christianity that obviously still exists today.

Also, gay people have harbored prejudice against, and wrongfully treated, Black people throughout history, too. I've heard gay people use interesting words to describe Black people, even in liberal, present day San Francisco. So this is not such a Black-or-White issue.

[Regnad Kcin]

The gay community was almost completely behind Barack...[/I][Jack Benny]

Now cut that out!

[/JB]

[Regnad Kcin]

1) I’m a Canadian citizen

< clip >

It all started when the girls moved in next door around 1 ½ years ago.

< clip >

No problem. Until one day when I was outside working on my yard and one of the girls started talking to me about hockey. Turns out she’s an avid hockey fan, as am I...Two Canadians, living next door to each other, who also love hockey? What are the odds!

[Meadmaker]

I can’t speak to how your marriage has caused harm to those around you but I can speak to my particular situation and how it has caused harm to me and my “traditional marriage”.[/FONT] ....
That was over a year ago and I haven’t had a decent beer since.

I’m sure you now see the harm gay marriage can cause. Baby jeebus may not have cried but I sure as hell did and still do.

I’m not against gay marriage. I just think gay people should but better beer.

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.



:)

[chipmunk stew]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".
I was somewhat abstractly in favor of same-sex marriage for a long time, but I didn't really understand why it was any different from civil unions. Until I got married. Then I understood why it's such a huge deal for gays and lesbians.

In strictly legal terms, restricting marriage to one man/one woman is a rational position. But it's also an archaic one that leaves a substantial population of Americans out of reach from America's ideals and falls short of the More Perfect Union.

[Meadmaker]

The definitions of man and woman certainly are arbitrary.

I will not try to persuade you otherwise, but simply note that many people, including me, disagree.

I will also add that the fear that many people have of gay marriage actually has very little to do with gay marriage, but rather they fear that this view may become more commonplace if gay marriage is accepted.

I once read a great column on the subject by John Derbyshire, one of my favorite columnists. It was called "The End of Sex" if I recall correctly. In the column he explained that by "sex" he was referring to biological sex, i.e. the distinctions between men and women, and he felt that ending the recognition of such distinctions was a primary motive for many of the leaders of the gay marriage movement.


As for gay marriage, specifically, I think the key to deciding who should be allowed to enter into such an agreement should begin by asking exactly what sort of agreement is being entered. What does this "marriage" thing mean, anyway?

It's a question I find surprisingly little interest in answering, considering how adamant many are about expanding the right to enter it. The most common response is to indignantly insist that government cannot tell people what it is.

"What do we want?"

"NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"

[Hokulele]

I once read a great column on the subject by John Derbyshire, one of my favorite columnists. It was called "The End of Sex" if I recall correctly. In the column he explained that by "sex" he was referring to biological sex, i.e. the distinctions between men and women, and he felt that ending the recognition of such distinctions was a primary motive for many of the leaders of the gay marriage movement.


Well, I disagree. Strongly. I have never met (virtually or physically) anyone who saw gay marriage as a step towards ending biological differences. I have found that most people making that argument are seeing marriage as a procreation issue, rather than a financial/contractual/personal issue.

I agree that the word "arbitrary" has been misused in this dialogue, but I cannot agree with the conclusion as you have described it here.

As for gay marriage, specifically, I think the key to deciding who should be allowed to enter into such an agreement should begin by asking exactly what sort of agreement is being entered. What does this "marriage" thing mean, anyway?


I completely agree. This is why it is such a hairy issue to blend the governmental position with the religious/moral one.

It's a question I find surprisingly little interest in answering, considering how adamant many are about expanding the right to enter it. The most common response is to indignantly insist that government cannot tell people what it is.

"What do we want?"

"NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"


Eh, that sounds to be a bit of a strawman, but I am sure you can find people who think this way.

[Meadmaker]

Eh, that sounds to be a bit of a strawman, but I am sure you can find people who think this way.

The chant at the end is not a strawman. It's a parody. The responses that government has no business telling anyone what marriage is is quite common. My guess is that we will see it come up quite soon.

[Thunder]

My question is, if the rights of marriage and domestic-partnership in California and several other states are literally identitical, then whats the big deal about the term "married"?

If this was just about rights and privelages, domestic-partnership with all the rights of married couples would be okee dokee. But for some reason, it ain't. Why is that?

The people of California, have given same-sex couples the right to domestic partnership, which includes ALL the rights and privelages of married couples. And rightfully so.

I think this should be good enough.

[Hokulele]

The chant at the end is not a strawman. It's a parody. The responses that government has no business telling anyone what marriage is is quite common. My guess is that we will see it come up quite soon.


Mmm, I meant a strawman on the part of the people claiming the government is telling them what marriage is. The government can state what benefits accrue from marriage/domestic partnerships/common law/whatever, but it can never state what marriage is to the participants.

Sorry if my point was unclear.

[Hokulele]

My question is, if the rights of marriage and domestic-partnership in California and several other states are literally identitical, then whats the big deal about the term "married"?

If this was just about rights and privelages, domestic-partnership with all the rights of married couples would be okee dokee. But for some reason, it ain't. Why is that?


Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

If a water fountain offers the same refreshment, does it matter if it is labeled "whites only" or "colored"?

[Thunder]

Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

If a water fountain offers the same refreshment, does it matter if it is labeled "whites only" or "colored"?

haaa!!..funny analogy.

we all know that white bathrooms, lobbies, stores, offices, doctors, schools, etc etc...were 1,000,000 times better and higher quality then black ones. thats why segregation was wrong..because "seperate but equal" was really "seperate but UNequal".

now, if someone can prove to me that domestic-partnership is in ANY WAY unequal to marriage in terms of rights, privelages, freedoms, etc etc...I will utterly change my view and support same-sex marriage.

and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?

[Alferd_Packer]

I was somewhat abstractly in favor of same-sex marriage for a long time, but I didn't really understand why it was any different from civil unions. Until I got married. Then I understood why it's such a huge deal for gays and lesbians.


Yeah, They should have an opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us.

{rimshot}

[Hokulele]

haaa!!..funny analogy.

we all know that white bathrooms, lobbies, stores, offices, doctors, schools, etc etc...were 1,000,000 times better and higher quality then black ones. thats why segregation was wrong..because "seperate but equal" was really "seperate but UNequal".


Odd, I was referring strictly to the water fountains. Was there any tangible difference there?

now, if someone can prove to me that domestic-partnership is in ANY WAY unequal to marriage in terms of rights, privelages, freedoms, etc etc...I will utterly change my view and support same-sex marriage.


Yes. What images go through your mind when you hear the term "marriage" and the term "domesitc partnership"? Is there a difference?

and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?


In several countries, yes.

[Meadmaker]

Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?



Even if there are intangibles, people seem to be reluctant to discuss exactly what sort of intangibles are involved. There is this relationship that the state has decided to define and recognize called "marriage". It defines certain legal status, and the state puts limits on the number of people who can enter it, the age of the people who can enter it, the genetic similarity of people who can enter it. In most jurisdictions, both in America and worldwide, the state restricts the relationship to existing between one man and one woman, although many jurisdictions now allow two people of any gender. In ages past, there were restrictions on religion, and I'm sure those restrictions still exist in places.

Why does the state create and/or recognize such a relationship? Why bother? What good can come of it? And, if some good can come of it, which of those restrictions are relevant in creating that good? Are there benefits to society that come from creating that institution? If so, can the benefits to society be created if we drop some or all of those restrictions?

It appears that society thinks there is some benefit, because, as you noted, certain benefits accrue to those who enter that relationship. However, I must correct something in your post. I'm sure you felt it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. In addition to certain benefits accruing to those who enter into marriage, society also defines certain responsibilities on those who enter into marriage. As I said, I'm sure that you omitted any mention of responsibility because you thought it was so obvious that it need not be mentioned, while discussion of the benefits was much more important to point out. It's so easy to forget, amid all the discussion of the burdens and demands of marriage, that it is considered sufficiently important that society actually encourages marriage by providing some measure of benefit to those who become married.

[Meadmaker]

Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?



To answer this more directly, the legal definition of marriage is a set of legally binding agreements that define benefits and obligations between the partners themselves, and between the partners and society.

The intangibles are motivating factors, but, as far as ballot propositions are concerned, they aren't all that relevant.

[Thunder]

Yes. What images go through your mind when you hear the term "marriage" and the term "domesitc partnership"? Is there a difference? .

um, considering that Ive heard the term "partner" used by Australians and New Zealanders all the time to refer to their spouse or fiance, I honestly don't see any real difference anymore between domestic partners and married folks. domestic partners just sounds a little more technical and legalistic, while married sounds old fashioned.

but, like i said, if anyone can show me evidence of ANY difference in rights, privelages, freedoms, etc., between married folks and domestic partners, then i will support same sex marriage.

[chipmunk stew]

To answer this more directly, the legal definition of marriage is a set of legally binding agreements that define benefits and obligations between the partners themselves, and between the partners and society.

The intangibles are motivating factors, but, as far as ballot propositions are concerned, they aren't all that relevant.
Equality, recognition, validation, acceptance. Of course these are relevant. They go to the heart of "all men are created equal."

[eeyore1954]

So you support incest.


How many here are against incestuous(sp?) marriage between two consenting adults?

[MattusMaximus]

You gotta love those religious zealots who haul out the Bible at the drop of a hat.

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".......HA!

Seriously, why not get a proposition on the ballot to make it a capital crime for a child to be disobedient to a parent? Or how about a proposition to make it punishable by death to work on the Sabbath?

These people make me sick.


I think we should start ballot initiatives stating that all Mormons no longer qualify for U.S. citizenship. Then we should deport them.

** Waits for some loser of a religious nut to whine about how I'm just discriminating against good, honest Christian folk and how it's not fair! Wah!!! :rolleyes: **

[MattusMaximus]

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.



Damn, I read through that whole thing waiting to find the part about the hot girl-on-girl action :(

[Travis]

My own new religion, the Church of the Fractional Genius, declares that men named Roger marrying women named Lucy is an abomination before our unwhole Lord the Decimal Genius. We expect an initiative to allow the "will of the people" to stop this blasphemy sometime soon. Don't doubt that we will find numerous references in our new "discovered" Holy Books to back our need to protect marriage from this type of perversion.

Expect TV ads showing how if this doesn't happen our children will be taught they have to adopt the names of Roger and Lucy "whether they like it or not."

Expect radio pundits to explain that if this isn't outlawed people will start being able to marry their dogs.

Expect information pamphlets explaining how this Roger and Lucy menace will lead to the end of religion and the rise of our anti-Christ the Whole Number Single Digit Retard Satan.

We must protect marriage from all these imagined threats people!

I expect tens of millions of dollars to see this happens unless those damned Judges get all Activist on us and protect civil rights or something.

[Thunder]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

if someone can show that domestic partner status...and marriage status are inherantly and in practise unequal...then heterosexual and homosexual unions should be the same.

but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.

[Meadmaker]

How many here are against incestuous(sp?) marriage between two consenting adults?

I am. Anyone else?

[chipmunk stew]

I am. Anyone else?
I'm more interested in what is relevant to the discussion. Such as the intangibles you said were not.

[mhaze]

IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually..... Maybe, maybe not. SCOTUS would have to accept that an issue was within it's areas of concern.

Unrelated, but it occurred to me that one solution to this mess would be for "civil unions" state level law to be passed with the exact rights as "marriage", and for such relations to be specifically named "merriage".

[Travis]

Maybe, maybe not. SCOTUS would have to accept that an issue was within it's areas of concern.

Unrelated, but it occurred to me that one solution to this mess would be for "civil unions" state level law to be passed with the exact rights as "marriage", and for such relations to be specifically named "merriage".

Brilliant! We'll use the dumb rednecks lack of spelling ability against them. They can be off protecting "merriage" from whatever threats they've dreamed up when they aren't busy chugging moonshine or fondling their cousin and gay people can be content with their "marriages."

[NobbyNobbs]

My question is, if the rights of marriage and domestic-partnership in California and several other states are literally identitical, then whats the big deal about the term "married"?

If this was just about rights and privelages, domestic-partnership with all the rights of married couples would be okee dokee. But for some reason, it ain't. Why is that?

The people of California, have given same-sex couples the right to domestic partnership, which includes ALL the rights and privelages of married couples. And rightfully so.

I think this should be good enough.


but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.


Conversely, if there is no difference at all, whatsoever, between civil unions and marriage, then what harm in categorizing them under the same name?

Separate but equal, huh? We've seen that before.....

[Bob Blaylock]

To me it seems like just as much a civil rights violation that gay ppl can't get married, than it was when Black ppl couldn't legally get married.


There is no such word as “ppl”.

[Coffee]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

They can't. They will use their religion to "justify" their irrational fear, ignorance and bigotry. That is all they can do.

[ponderingturtle]

I will not try to persuade you otherwise, but simply note that many people, including me, disagree.

Then explain how your views relate to intersexed individuals. You need to come up with definitions of what is a man and what is a woman, and deal with the people who do not fit into either of the definitions you create.


I once read a great column on the subject by John Derbyshire, one of my favorite columnists. It was called "The End of Sex" if I recall correctly. In the column he explained that by "sex" he was referring to biological sex, i.e. the distinctions between men and women, and he felt that ending the recognition of such distinctions was a primary motive for many of the leaders of the gay marriage movement.

End of gender would be a more accurate description, because this is the social realm of gender not the physical realm of sex.

BUt in what ways do you want the laws to descriminate on the basis of sex?

For example ideas of what sex defined was used for unfair discrimination for centuries.

You would be rewriting the marriage laws far more than those who are for gay marriage, you want to change marraige to have rights for the husband and rights for the wife, that are different. Seem to be argueing for explicit sexual discrimination.

As for gay marriage, specifically, I think the key to deciding who should be allowed to enter into such an agreement should begin by asking exactly what sort of agreement is being entered. What does this "marriage" thing mean, anyway?

Easy, it is a legal status that has many broad effects on laws, such as civil and criminal law. It effects property enheritance and a host of other things.

It's a question I find surprisingly little interest in answering, considering how adamant many are about expanding the right to enter it. The most common response is to indignantly insist that government cannot tell people what it is.


That is because marriage is not some nebulus concept, it has precise definitions in the laws of this country.

[ponderingturtle]

haaa!!..funny analogy.

we all know that white bathrooms, lobbies, stores, offices, doctors, schools, etc etc...were 1,000,000 times better and higher quality then black ones. thats why segregation was wrong..because "seperate but equal" was really "seperate but UNequal".

now, if someone can prove to me that domestic-partnership is in ANY WAY unequal to marriage in terms of rights, privelages, freedoms, etc etc...I will utterly change my view and support same-sex marriage.

Well there are no extant domestic partnership laws in the world that are unequal. But I don't expect this to be about debateing facts.


and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?

So we must now get into the transgendered/transexual bathroom issues?

[ponderingturtle]

Why does the state create and/or recognize such a relationship?

So you agree with the state department then, that homosexual partners are worth less than dogs. Lets them know their place.

Why bother? What good can come of it?

My Gradfather remarried at 75, you can say all the samethings about his marriage.

[Swagomatic]

Brilliant! We'll use the dumb rednecks lack of spelling ability against them. They can be off protecting "merriage" from whatever threats they've dreamed up when they aren't busy chugging moonshine or fondling their cousin and gay people can be content with their "marriages."

I believe in true redneck, it's properly spelled "merridge."

[ponderingturtle]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

Which is why there is nothing wrong with racial segregation in theory, but in practice it was never fair.

Well for marriage and domestic partnerships to be equal you need to force the world to rewrite its laws everywhere to make them equivalent everywhere.

NY state recognises Canadian homosexual marriages, I would be very supprised to learn if it recognised british domenstic partnerships.

This is because marriage has a lot of long standing legal precidents around it, something that domestic partnerships do not have.

So in NY you are better going to canada and getting married than going to Vermont and getting a civil union.

So any talk about them being equal in theory is just like talking about racial segregation being equal in theory, just talk.

So you have to simply force the world to accept any legal marriage precident as being aplicable to homosexual unions.

[Meadmaker]

So you agree with the state department then, that homosexual partners are worth less than dogs. Lets them know their place.

You have remarkably keen insight. Not many people would have found that particular hidden meaning in a question about why the state recognizes marriage.

[Meadmaker]

I'm more interested in what is relevant to the discussion. Such as the intangibles you said were not.


Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I said that the intangibles were motivating factors, but not really relevant to the ballot initiatives.

What I meant was that the ballot proposition defines law, i.e. tangible things. It is tangible to say that a pair of people can have something called a "marriage license", an official government document. It is tangible to say that a couple can have a "civil union license", and say that a "civil union license" is treated, by law, exactly the same as a "marriage license".

The associated intangible is saying that, since there are two different things, they are inherently "unequal". The first intangibly you noted was "equality".

I think that's the most important of the intangibles, and the one that motivates people to vote as they do. The people of California said that while they were willing to grant people the legal benefits (and responsibilities,,,there are some, aren't there?) of marriage, they are not willing to say that a homosexual union is "equal" to a marriage.

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

[ponderingturtle]

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

The Ick factor. Genetic arguments fall short because we have so much better ways to determining who falls into catagories that should not marry each other, but that is not used to prevent people from marrying geneticaly incompatable people.

[Vic Vega]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

You are absolutely incorrect. It is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court found in Brown vs. The Board of Education that separate could not be equal.

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

[Hokulele]

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?


And this is the main intangible I was thinking of in my earlier post. If marriage/domestic partnerships is solely a contractual arrangement, then I have no problem at all with incestuous marriages. But, marriage is clearly associated with sex (reproductive issues aside, as non-fertile couples are allowed to marry, provided they pass the gender test). If the sex is "icky" for whatever moral reasons, people are opposed to calling it marriage.

I personally think this is wrong.

To expand just a bit on the incest question, in the most extreme cases (mother/son, brother/sister), marriage is irrelevant, as the birth relationship already guarantees most of the rights and privileges of marriage, which is why most people justifiably ignore that issue. Many places already allow first cousins to marry. Would you consider that incestuous?

[Stankeye]

Sometimes I am amazed at the enigma that is California.

We can pass a law allowing farm animals to stretch their legs but not allow fellow human beings to get married?

[PhantomWolf]

IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually. I can only hope that, when the opportunity arises, Obama will nominate Justices who respect the rights of all citizens.

To remove the civil rights of people is a perverted act.

Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?

[luchog]

blah blah blah
I'm very impressed by how cleverly you manage to consistently avoid adressing the issue of intersexed individuals. :rolleyes:
Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?
The proof is stupidly simple.

The US government accords over a thousand legal privileges of various sorts to married couples. A substantial fraction of these are also available to immediate blood relatives, but not anyone else.

Another fraction is available to non-related people via civil contracts (a "civil union" is nothing more than a civil contract). These can be, and often are, challenged and overturned by blood relatives. These same privileges granted via a government-recognized marriage are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overturn by anyone outside the marriage; and typically requires a judgement of mental incompetence or fraud. By contrast, in a civil contract, a judgement of overriding interest is often sufficient.

Yet another fraction is available only to legally-recognized marriages, and are not available via civil contract (many of these are related to taxes).

The US Constitution requires all state governments to recognize all marriages which are also recognized by the Federal government. This is known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". This is not true for civil unions or many other civil contracts.

The only qualifications for entering into a marriage are mutual consent, having reached the age of consent, and the physical sex of the two parties involved.

That clearly makes it as much a civil rights issue as any race, sex, or belief-based laws. Restrictions based on gender are just as illegitimate as restrictions based on race (interracial marriage was legally banned in many parts of the US, until 1967). Sex is not allowed to be used as a discriminatory criterion for any other partnership or civil contract; yet it's allowed to be used so for marriage contracts.

If interracial marriage is a civil rights issue, then same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

Personally, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage game at all. Marriage should be a strictly religious status, and historically typically has been. The government should only enforce civil contracts, not religious ones. It's involvement today is nothing more than an anachronistic remnant of the state holding religious authority, and the dominant local religion therefore wielding substantial political power. It's one of the few remaining holes in the "wall of seperation between Church and State".

[Meadmaker]

And this is the main intangible I was thinking of in my earlier post. If marriage/domestic partnerships is solely a contractual arrangement, then I have no problem at all with incestuous marriages. But, marriage is clearly associated with sex (reproductive issues aside, as non-fertile couples are allowed to marry, provided they pass the gender test). If the sex is "icky" for whatever moral reasons, people are opposed to calling it marriage.

I personally think this is wrong.

To expand just a bit on the incest question, in the most extreme cases (mother/son, brother/sister), marriage is irrelevant, as the birth relationship already guarantees most of the rights and privileges of marriage, which is why most people justifiably ignore that issue. Many places already allow first cousins to marry. Would you consider that incestuous?

When it comes to first cousin marriages, I am undecided, leaning toward allowing it. It's a bit difficult for me to relate to, personally, as I have no first cousins, and am almost entirely out of touch with my extended family.

I don't think "icky" quite covers it in the case of incestuous relationships, especially of the brother/sister, father/son, sort of relationships. I think most people feel that if a man were to try to marry his son, he would either be trying to get a tax advantage of some sort, not having a "real" marriage, or most people would, at the very least, say that there was some form of family dysfunction and/or mental illness. Either way, I would say it ought not be allowed.

By the way, the birth relationship doesn't guarantee very many of the rights/privileges of marriage. (And after age 18, confers none of the responsibilities.) I can't file a joint tax return with my mother, or include her on my health insurance, nor, if I were an immigrant to the United States, would she be entitled to join me.

And impotent individuals are allowed to marry. Shall we conclude that sexual intercourse is not relevant to marriage?

Of course, unless we declare that, legally, a marriage really is just a standard contract between any two consenting adults, with no other implications or requirements, sexual intercourse, other sexual relations, and reproduction are all relevant to marriage, even though there are marriages in which some or all of those activities are impossible.

As a matter of practical consequence, the question of incest isn't very important, because there is near unanimity that incestuous marriages ought not be allowed, but in trying to explain why they ought not be allowed, I think it helps expose questions about what marriage is, and why the state is considered to have the authority to regulate marriage.

[Alt+F4]

if someone can show that domestic partner status...and marriage status are inherantly and in practise unequal...then heterosexual and homosexual unions should be the same.

but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.

Here's an example from our very own New York City. If you are a city employee you can add your spouse to your health insurance at no cost. If you have a domestic partner, rather than a spouse, then the city considers what it pays for the domestic partner's insurance as income of the employee.

For example, if the city paid $3,000 for the domestic partner's health insurance then the employee gets a 1099 for that amount and has to pay tax on that money. The married couple pays nothing.

[Alt+F4]

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Yes they are wrong. In 1959 would a ballot meaure in any southern state have approved the desegregation of public schools? Of course not, but an "activist" Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown. Same circumstance in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia.

Now looking back on these cases 40, 50 years later of course we can all agree that school desegregation and the right to interracial marriage are morally and ethically acceptable despite what the electorate at the time thought. In my opinion, the public simply needs more time to become enlightened. One day those who voted for prop. 8 will understand that taking away the rights of others only diminishes themselves.

In the meantime, as we wait, it scares the hell out of me that well funded special interest with lots of cash can take rights away from people in a democracy. What's next, separate California water fountains for Mexicans and "whites"? Hey, get enough signatures on a petition and it could happen.

[Meadmaker]

Yes they are wrong. In 1959 would a ballot meaure in any southern state have approved the desegregation of public schools? ...One day those who voted for prop. 8 will understand that taking away the rights of others only diminishes themselves.


Except that wasn't the question.

What I had said was to note that the voters were willing to allow the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage to be granted to homosexual partners, they were not willing to say that such a union was "equal" to a marriage.

It's that intangible thing. The civil rights issues you discussed dealt wth very real things that people wanted to do, and the law prevented them from doing it. Today, the majority of people would let them do what they want, but they simply won't let the state call it "marriage".

We can put voters in a handful of groups. There are some people who think homosexuality is wrong, and are perfectly willing to pass laws against it. This used to be the majority, but today is a small minority. There are those who would have no laws against it, but would refuse to recognize it in any manner. Those people would oppose either marriage or "civil unions". The third category is those who are willing to grant "civil union" status, that is identical or nearly identical to marriage. There are those who are willing to let gays be married, making no distinction at all between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and there are those who insist that anything short of full and complete equality is unjust. Any distinction between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple is, in those people's minds, an infringement on civil rights.

My question was directed at that third group. To rephrase it. Suppose you find someone who is willing to grant all the tangible benefits* of marriage to gay couples, but they are not willing to call it "marriage". This denies gays a certain level of intangible benefit, by creating an official distinction, however, meaningless in practice, between the two sorts of unions. It somehow marks them as different. There are plenty of people in that group. Are those people wrong?

ETA: All the references to Loving v. Virginia and the civil rights movement are also somewhat misleading. In those days, "marriage" was a requirement to legally have sex or live together. To deny someone the right to a marriage was also to deny them the right to a relationship. That's no longer true today, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to not acknowledge that difference.

========
*and obligations and responsibilities of marriage, of course, but that goes without saying. Still, I think if it were said somewhat more often, you might find more approval for your agenda.

[Moochie]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.

I'm incredulous that the right of people to marry was put to the vote. Bloody ridiculous.


M.

[chipmunk stew]

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I said that the intangibles were motivating factors, but not really relevant to the ballot initiatives.

What I meant was that the ballot proposition defines law, i.e. tangible things. It is tangible to say that a pair of people can have something called a "marriage license", an official government document. It is tangible to say that a couple can have a "civil union license", and say that a "civil union license" is treated, by law, exactly the same as a "marriage license".

The associated intangible is saying that, since there are two different things, they are inherently "unequal". The first intangibly you noted was "equality".
Okay, I understand what you mean.

I think that's the most important of the intangibles, and the one that motivates people to vote as they do. The people of California said that while they were willing to grant people the legal benefits (and responsibilities,,,there are some, aren't there?) of marriage, they are not willing to say that a homosexual union is "equal" to a marriage.

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?
Yes. And I recognize that that's an opinion. I think putting it to popular vote and declaring victory when you win barely over half is the wrong way to amend a constitution, though. "Tyranny of the majority" comes to mind.

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.
It's not hard to answer ("No. Because it confers no tangible benefits that do not already exist or that cannot already be obtained by other means, and there is no class of people on whom it would confer intangible benefits. Genosexuals?") but it's a red herring.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?
There are several places that governments could draw the line that are rational. Drawing the line at one man/one woman is rational. As is drawing the line at first cousins or what have you. But governments should consider the intangibles in their calculus about where that line is drawn. I think the line should be neither rigidly fixed nor an open free-for-all. It should be moved conservatively, moved only if there is substantial interest in moving it and one or both of the following:
1) moving it would be a net benefit (tangible and intangible) both to the people affected and to society as a whole;
2) not moving it is a net cost (tangible and intangible) both to the people affected and to society as a whole.

It's a tricky calculus to be sure, but in my opinion it clearly comes out in favor of moving the line to include same-sex marriage.

[PhantomWolf]

nor an open free-for-all.

But if it is a Civil Right, and according to the UN is it, shouldn't it be availible to everyone and anyone? I'd even have to question why the Governments of the world should be allowed to licence it, what other rights do people require the obtaining of a state issued licence before being allowed to claim it?

[Thunder]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?

American society has decided that "marriage" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman. i dont see anything wrong with that.

[Moochie]

Sorry Terry, I don't think you are going to get an answer other than that. I am usually pretty good at seeing the "other side" of things. I am strongly pro-choice but I can make myself see where the pro-life folks are coming from. I believe in universal healthcare and state-paid education all the way through college, but I can see the other side.

As for this case, I can't wrap my mind around it. Religious bigotry is the ONLY explanation. How, how, HOW does you marrying another adult of the same gender infringe on my liberties in ANY way?! It doesn't. Plain and simple. It has to be religious bigotry.

Totally agree. There is no rational argument that can be made. It's bigotry -- religious or otherwise.

I'm wondering at the wording of the proposition. Seems to me there might have been more than a few "donkey" votes.


M.

[shadron]

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?


The Ick factor. Genetic arguments fall short because we have so much better ways to determining who falls into catagories that should not marry each other, but that is not used to prevent people from marrying geneticaly incompatable people.

Exactly. Children are told, through many channels, but especially religious ones, that incest and homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, perverse (see BB's post in the use of that word), cruel, wrong, illegal, unclean. This starts long before a child can even understand what the ramifications, let along the mechanics, are. How else are they going to define it when it comes their turn to describe it?

In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up. They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership" of some other unclaimed term (a glimp? a burple?), and remove all mention of marriage from the legal books. Of course, the word will then have two meanings - the meaning of a union sanctified by the church, and the "common" meaning, which will, for example, always refer to a legal declaration of a domestic union as a "marriage license". Coolaid faced that sort of TradeMark problem for years, and eventually lost its name to the common pool of English. So be it. Perhaps the churches will want to take legal measures o protect their property:

American society has decided that "Marriage™®©(pat'd pending)" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman.

...and with that I have no problem either.

[Moochie]

Because the religious fundamentalists don’t care about marriage. Not since Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife.

This is all about the gays. First they ban gay marriage. Then they will ban gay people from adopting children. Then they will work to ban gays from working in jobs that involve contact with children, like teaches, day care workers, pediatricians, Catholic priests, etc. Then they will ban gay people from having any contact with children whatsoever (even their family). Finally, all gay people or anyone who just “looks” gay will be stripped of their citizenship and shipped to Cuba. ;)

I guess Ryan Seacrest had better learn Spanish, then.


M.

[shadron]

There is no such word as “ppl”.

True. But the concept was communicated to you anyway, was it not?

[PhantomWolf]

In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up.

Well to be fair, Marriage as we know it was a religious thing before it was a Sate thing.

They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership" of some other unclaimed term (a glimp? a burple?), and remove all mention of marriage from the legal books.

Actually I totally agree, in fact the silly thing is that De Facto, or common law relationships are far more common these days and in many countries are granted none of the protections of marriage. (NZ is one of the few examples I can think of that treats De Facto relationships, including same sex ones, equally to marriages for property rights and such.) Instead of forcing people that don't want marriage to be changed from 1 man and 1 woman to accept an all-inclusive (except those we are still bigoted against like sibblings) marriage definition, why not just change the systems to include all de facto relationships (regardless of the couple) above a certain term as recognised by the State and also introduce a legal next of kin where the person can choose who represents them as next of kin. This actually solves all issues very easily, but hey why would we want to get all logical about it?

[Moochie]

<snip>

and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?

Last place I worked at had unisex toilets -- that's what we call them here in Australia. There was a receptacle for (gasp!) used tampons in each. They were, in fact, no different than the toilets in our homes, and, yes, everyone's fecal matter stunk.


M.

[Moochie]

<snip>

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?


Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time. As a skeptic and rational person, surely you're aware of that?


M.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time. As a skeptic and rational person, surely you're aware of that?


M.

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

[Mitchell314]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

The worst (except for...well, you all know the quote).


Banning gay marriage or discouraging it is not the governments' (for that matter, anybody's) job.

[Moochie]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

No, it doesn't. And living in a democracy means that eventually a majority of folks will understand that which they don't now.


M.

[rwguinn]

As I've said before, how hard can it be in California to find some judges to overturn the wishes of the people? I'd put money on it.

Under US Constitutional law, as I understand it, "The Will of the People" is valid ONLY when it does not infringe on the RIGHTS of the minority.
Republicans tend to forget this.
Unfortunately, Democrats tend to Ignore it...

[jp834618]

In 2000, the people of California spoke loud and clear when they passed proposition 22. We do not support the notion that sexual perversions are to be treated as equivalent to a normal, healthy family structure. Earlier this year, corrupt judges ignored the will of the people, and overturned 22. Last night, the people spoke again, and once again, the perverts lost.

You could attack a person for being ignorant or just for being a jerk and you might have a point. But when you attack someone for their sexual orientation, they really feel that because that's how they were born and they can't change it. It's as rational as being a racist. Congratulations.

[Meadmaker]

Exactly. Children are told, through many channels, but especially religious ones, that incest and homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, perverse ....

I think psychologists, too, might frown on sexual relationships between parents and children.


In my humble opinion, since religion has decided to take ownership of the word marriage, then the state ought to give it up. They should go entirely, in all applicable law, to "domesic partnership"...

Sounds good, but why stop there? Why have any term at all? Why is the state interested in the whole subject?

[Alt+F4]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

Slippery slope argument. This hasn't happened anywhere that gay marriage has been legalized.

[Alt+F4]

When Obama was born, about 30 States still had laws against people of different races getting married.

Yup, and that's what bugs the crap out of me about Obama. Right from the start he's saying that he is allowed to have a certain right (in this case marriage) and he has no problem dening this right to others. So much for change.

[Pookster]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?


There are no absolute rights. The Courts have long said there must be a legitimate compelling interest on the part of the Government to deny a fundamental human right. In Perez ..

"there can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. ... the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice ..."

In Perez, the Court points out that it doesn't say anyone can marry anyone else, but that the starting point is that one can choose who to marry, and that choice cannot be limited by the State unless there is a legitimate State reason to do so. The State can preclude incestuous marriages and establish a minimum age for effective consent because such limitations do further an important social objective by reasonable means without discriminating based on arbitrary classifications.



American society has decided that "marriage" should be left between an unrelated couple of 1 adult man and 1 adult woman. i dont see anything wrong with that.


I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as there is a legitimate State reason. What is it, sir?

[Pookster]

Yup, and that's what bugs the crap out of me about Obama. Right from the start he's saying that he is allowed to have a certain right (in this case marriage) and he has no problem dening this right to others. So much for change.


I'm not certain how to take Obama's position. He says he's opposed to it personally. But, is he for the Government prohibiting it? There are examples I can come up with where I personally wouldn't approve of something, but recognize others rights to do that very thing (abortion, for example).

[Pookster]

Since there seem to be a lot of threads on this I'm going to ask again, can you prove that Marriage is a civil right, or do you just assume that it is?


I missed this before. The Courts have long recognized marriage as a fundamental human right. An example in Meyers v Nebraska ...

“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

From Skinner v. Oklahoma ...

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

[Cavemonster]

In California, there have been multiple games shows where the prize was marriage between two relative strangers.

Doesn't that seem like a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Where were the Christians up in arms about that?

[Mitchell314]

In California, there have been multiple games shows where the prize was marriage between two relative strangers.

Doesn't that seem like a threat to the sanctity of marriage? Where were the Christians up in arms about that?

Not as big eww gut reaction?

[Meadmaker]

I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as there is a legitimate State reason. What is it, sir?

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place. Why bother recognizing or providing incentives* for anyone to become involved in any sort of sexual relationship with anyone else?

Once you answer that question, you might be in a position to ask whether restricting that right to exactly two unrelated, adult, individuals of opposite sex furthers that cause. Once you know why you are doing this in the first place, you might decide that marriage needs fewer, or greater, restrictions on eligibility.

For example, protecting the right of an adult to engage in any sort of sexual relationship with any other consenting adult is, in my opinion, a legitimate state concern. However, marriage does not advance that concern in any way. Indeed, it restricts that concern. So if that were the only concern being addressed by marriage laws, the obvious solution would be to abolish marriage as a state institution.

===============
*Not to mention placing restrictions on the behavior of those who enter such a relationship, but that is so obvious that it need not be said.

[Darat]

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place.

...snip...
Two points, the first may seem to be just a niggle with your wording but I think is an important point, currently the state does not recognise marriage, the state defines what marriage is.

The second point is that we are not starting from a neutral position. Marriage, as defined by the state, already exists so the argument is one of whether the definition of marriage is discriminatory is not.

[Meadmaker]

Two points, the first may seem to be just a niggle with your wording but I think is an important point, currently the state does not recognise marriage, the state defines what marriage is.


I don't think it's just a niggle. I think you are absolutely right.


The second point is that we are not starting from a neutral position. Marriage, as defined by the state, already exists so the argument is one of whether the definition of marriage is discriminatory is not.

Clearly, it is discriminatory. Of that there can be no doubt. Anyone who says it is not has never looked up "discriminate" in a dictionary.

The question, in my mind, is whether or not that discrimination serves a legitimate purpose, and I think that is what Pookster asked as well. In my humble opinion, a precursor question to that is whether having marriage as a state institution serves a purpose. Does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating, recognising, or rewarding sexual relationships among adults? Does the state have a legitimate interest in facilitating or restricting property sharing among people engaged in long term relationships that are presumed to involve sexual activity? If so, what is that legitimate interest?

Once you answer that question, you can then move on to the question of whether or not that interest is furthered, or impeded, by discriminating among various sorts of people when defining who can enter that relationship.

I seriously doubt that most voters in California or Arizona, or any of several other states who had previously enacted similar initiatives, actually explicitly considered such weighty philosophical interests before going to the polls. However, I think they are worth considering, and consideration of such issues might grant insight into why people voted as they did, even if the voters themselves did not or could not express their reasons in those terms.

[PhantomWolf]

The State can preclude incestuous marriages and establish a minimum age for effective consent because such limitations do further an important social objective by reasonable means without discriminating based on arbitrary classifications.

What "important social objective" is that?

[PhantomWolf]

From Skinner v. Oklahoma ...

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Except the "basic civil right of man" in this case was the right to procreate. The quote doesn't say that marriage is a right, just "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" which would likely be because in 1946 the idea of unwed couples having children was unthinkable. Today this is not so.

Having said that, try looking up the UN Universal Human Rights Article 16.

[Safe-Keeper]

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."Someone have Wolfman tell him about the Mosou.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm very impressed by how cleverly you manage to consistently avoid adressing the issue of intersexed individuals. :rolleyes:


You know he is never going to present definitions, and address that determineing someones sex can be a very complicated issue.

Up to and includeing determining what % of someone is male(XY) vs female(XX) in the case of chimera.

[ponderingturtle]

who here would argue that fathers and daughters should be able to marry?
who here would argue that mothers and sons should be able to marry?

how about grandfathers and granddaughters?

if they are adults..and acting of free will...why not...right?

I don't care about if someone is related to someone else, I think a stepfather or adoptive father is just as wrong as a blood relative, but the law does not always think so.

I just don't see why it is the laws job to prevent people from getting into unhealthy relationships. The whole genetic argument is a joke, as no one is seriously promoting laws that would ban unrelated people with known genetic incompatabilities from marrying.

[ponderingturtle]

Well to be fair, Marriage as we know it was a religious thing before it was a Sate thing.

And was a state thing before it was a religious thing.

Marriage might be a cultural universal but I have not seen any evidence that it is a religious universal.

[ponderingturtle]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

That is why people have the courts to protect people rights, as the majority often does not care about people rights.

This is why there are not pure democracies.

[Meadmaker]

You know he is never going to present definitions, and address that determineing someones sex can be a very complicated issue.


I'm not going to, because it is totally irrelevant.

There are men, and there are women. Those are not meaningless distinctions. The fact that there are people who are not easily categorized as one or the other does not make the categories less significant.

Laywers, legislators, and judges may have to, on rare occasions, deal with an actual human being who can't be easily categorized. I've never met such a person, but I know they exist, and I encourage legislators to recognize their existence when crafting solutions. Because their numbers are small, I will continue to simplify the discussion to the vast majority of people, who can be easily categorized.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not going to, because it is totally irrelevant.

There are men, and there are women. Those are not meaningless distinctions. The fact that there are people who are not easily categorized as one or the other does not make the categories less significant.

You are requireing catagorization for the law. You need a legal definition of what someones sex is to determine if the person they are marrying is of the same or the oposite sex.

Or do you just ban marriage to intersexed people?

So you are demanding legal decisions based on sex, but not suggesting a legal framework for determining what someones sex is.


The way this is handeled the clear thing to do would be have people look at them and vote.

[Alt+F4]

There are men, and there are women.

Also known as human beings. Why should the government get to look down my pants before I'm allowed to exercise my rights in a democracy?

[PhantomWolf]

Also known as human beings. Why should the government get to look down my pants before I'm allowed to exercise my rights in a democracy?

Why should you have to appliy for a licence and go through an expensive ceremony before being elligible for those rights?

[ponderingturtle]

Why should you have to appliy for a licence and go through an expensive ceremony before being elligible for those rights?

The required legal ceremony is not expensive. You can get married for $50 in vegas. Probably you can get married in any state in the US for not more than $100. Sure people often have big expensive weddings, but that has nothing to do with the legal requirements

I am not sure I am ok with it being decided that people should be treated as a couple with out them asking for it.

[PhantomWolf]

The required legal ceremony is not expensive. You can get married for $50 in vegas. Probably you can get married in any state in the US for not more than $100. Sure people often have big expensive weddings, but that has nothing to do with the legal requirements

$50 plus travelling to Vegas is a lot of money for some people, even $100 can be more than some can afford.

I am not sure I am ok with it being decided that people should be treated as a couple with out them asking for it.

If the requirement is merely x amount of time togther and then registering with a local authority, how is this not asking them?

ETA: Even in NZ where thereis no registration required, just a time together, couples can opt out if they don't wish to be included.

[ponderingturtle]

$50 plus travelling to Vegas is a lot of money for some people, even $100 can be more than some can afford.


That was a specific example of what wedding can cost. A drive through wedding in vegas is probably about the cheapest.

So you are against fees for registering things with the goverment?

[PhantomWolf]

That was a specific example of what wedding can cost. A drive through wedding in vegas is probably about the cheapest.

So you are against fees for registering things with the goverment?

Actually yes, I think that Bureaucracies charge stupidly huge fees for nothing and simple registrations such as the above should be free, just as registering to vote is.

(Note this is coming from someone about to fork out US$300 just to file an application to extent my Visitor's Visa. Tell me that is not exorbitant!)

[Pookster]

Except the "basic civil right of man" in this case was the right to procreate. The quote doesn't say that marriage is a right, just "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" which would likely be because in 1946 the idea of unwed couples having children was unthinkable. Today this is not so.

Having said that, try looking up the UN Universal Human Rights Article 16.


You can split hairs with that all you want. To not call it a fundamental right with that wording is just being obtuse.

[Pookster]

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place.


I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

[PhantomWolf]

You can split hairs with that all you want. To not call it a fundamental right with that wording is just being obtuse.

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, firstly because it's international and secondly isn't talking about procreation with marriage sort of thrown in as a secondary thought. Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.

[Meadmaker]

I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.

Or are you saying that it really doesn't matter why the state establishes marriage, as long as they establish it for everyone?

Or...something else?

[chipmunk stew]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.
:con2: I didn't think this needed articulating but: The state has an interest in defining marriage because many laws, tax codes, etc. use the term. The state confers different privileges and responsibilities upon different segments of the population, one of them being married people.

[Pookster]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.

Or are you saying that it really doesn't matter why the state establishes marriage, as long as they establish it for everyone?

Or...something else?

I'm saying marriage is something the Government shouldn't be involved in at all, but it's long ago been too late to stop that from happening. But since the Government is involved in the marriage business, then it must have a legitimate State interest to deny such a fundamental human right to certain people. Prior Court cases (see the examples I mentioned previously) have recognized that we have the a fundamental right to marry, and refer to it even in non-marriage specific decisions.

[Pookster]

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.



You are incorrect. Chief Justice Warren also disagrees with you. Quoting from Loving ...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."

[Pookster]

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, ... Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.


While I agree, in general, with the part of your post I quoted, this is primarily a discussion of the issue in the United States, specifically California and the US Courts in this instance.

[Meadmaker]

:con2: I didn't think this needed articulating but: The state has an interest in defining marriage because many laws, tax codes, etc. use the term. The state confers different privileges and responsibilities upon different segments of the population, one of them being married people.

So...it has an interest in defining marriage because it defines marriage?

We know it does all those things, but should it? If so, why? See my reply to Pookster.

[Meadmaker]

I'm saying marriage is something the Government shouldn't be involved in at all,...

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.

Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.

[Cainkane1]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Adam and Eve never existed.

[Pookster]

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.


What I see occurring is the Government allowing certain privileges by recognizing what it defines as marriage. I believe marriage exists with or without Government. But the way things are setup, the Government denies some pretty significant privileges that civil unions don't provide. While same-sex marriage was "legal" for a time in California, the Federal Government still didn't recognize it as being within their definition.


Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.


This caused me to remember a joke I've read a few times -- why should homosexuals get favorable treatment by being excluded from the hell that comes with marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

Damn You, Hammurabi!

[ponderingturtle]

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, firstly because it's international and secondly isn't talking about procreation with marriage sort of thrown in as a secondary thought. Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.

And it also has little legal force anywhere. In the US the precidents matter, they do not matter for anywhere else sure, but does the UN Article matter anywhere? Where have people used it to support the rights of homosexuals?

[chipmunk stew]

So...it has an interest in defining marriage because it defines marriage?
This is in danger of getting into a semantic meta argument. Define "define" etc.

What you really mean to ask is, does the state have an interest in discriminatory legislation based on marriage status. My answer to that is yes.

We know it does all those things, but should it? If so, why? See my reply to Pookster.
Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

[Jonnyclueless]

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.

Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.

But in some areas (like CA) it DID exist and was state defined. And I have been to Gay weddings that are legal and recognized by the state. However now that the religious fanatics are getting their way, there's a chance those marriages may no long hold. I guess somehow ending their marriages benefits some heterosexuals somehow.

PS - I can say I got to attend the first legal Jewish Lesbian wedding. I wasn't really sure which side of the temple to sit.

[Cavemonster]

I think it's somewhat silly to argue whether the state has any business defining or legislating marriage.

They have, for as long as this country has existed and millions of citizens depend on the systems set in place around state sanctioned marriage. There is absolutely zero chance of hetero couples rising up to dissolve those laws and benefits that address marriage.

[PhantomWolf]

And it also has little legal force anywhere. In the US the precidents matter, they do not matter for anywhere else sure, but does the UN Article matter anywhere? Where have people used it to support the rights of homosexuals?

As I have pointed out elsewhere what the US courts decide is a right in the US is irrellevant to what is a Basic Human Right. c.f. the Right to Bear arms. This is considered a right in the US, but is not considered so by much of the rest of the western world. Whether the UN Article has much legal force or not, it is a better indicator of what is a Human Right that the US Courts because the US Courts system means nothing outside the US, the UN Articles are at least in theory supposed to be subscribed to by all members of the UN.

[Meadmaker]

Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

I happen to agree that these are two reasons why the state ought to incentivize marriage.

Therefore, any proposed modifications to marriage laws (for example, allowing same sex marriages) should be able to be justified by noting how those changes further these legitimate state interests.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

Are you saying that couples who are unmarried, but in commited long term relationships, are unable to contribute to a stable community or provide an environment for upcoming generations to thrive?

[chipmunk stew]

I happen to agree that these are two reasons why the state ought to incentivize marriage.

Therefore, any proposed modifications to marriage laws (for example, allowing same sex marriages) should be able to be justified by noting how those changes further these legitimate state interests.
I don't think the state should be limited by its original and main reason for incentivizing marriage, though. Often, the state's actions have unforeseen effects that should be considered as a community changes. One of these is that by incentivizing marriage, the state has given special status to married people, and by leaving out gay and lesbian members of the community, they have denied them that special status. This, IMHO, is non-trivial and should be included in the calculus, even if broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples does not clearly further the original purpose. (I believe it does, BTW, but I don't believe that it's essential to the argument.)

[chipmunk stew]

Are you saying that couples who are unmarried, but in commited long term relationships, are unable to contribute to a stable community or provide an environment for upcoming generations to thrive?
No. The idea of incentivizing marriage is to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship. It's by no means the only reason people do so, and it's obviously not perfect. But it is one effective means to increase the rate of committed long-term relationships.

[PhantomWolf]

No. The idea of incentivizing marriage is to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship. It's by no means the only reason people do so, and it's obviously not perfect. But it is one effective means to increase the rate of committed long-term relationships.

But it clearly isn't working since nearly half of all marriages ends in divorce. In fact the number of Americans "living in sin" i.e. in a de facto relationship has increased tenfold since the 1970's while the number of marriages has been decreasing. If these incentives are supposed to help encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, they obviously don't work. Could it be that many people are actually getting married simply for the incentives and then when the relationship fails they divorce? Isn't that something that is also being encouraged?

Besides, if the idea was purely to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, why not consider ALL commited long term relationships, rather than just those that sign a marriage licence. How is a 15 year long de facto relationship any less commited than a 2 year long marriage?

[chipmunk stew]

But it clearly isn't working since nearly half of all marriages ends in divorce. In fact the number of Americans "living in sin" i.e. in a de facto relationship has increased tenfold since the 1970's while the number of marriages has been decreasing. If these incentives are supposed to help encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, they obviously don't work.
On average, people who are married stay in committed relationships longer than people who are not. There is a lot of data that supports the idea that marriage encourages stability. Note: This does NOT imply that NOT being married DIScourages stability.
Could it be that many people are actually getting married simply for the incentives and then when the relationship fails they divorce?
Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Isn't that something that is also being encouraged?

Besides, if the idea was purely to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, why not consider ALL commited long term relationships, rather than just those that sign a marriage licence. How is a 15 year long de facto relationship any less commited than a 2 year long marriage?
It's not. If the people in that 15-year-long de facto relationship wants to take on the privileges and responsibilities that come with a marriage license, there is nothing stopping them, so what's the problem?

[Meadmaker]

I don't think the state should be limited by its original and main reason for incentivizing marriage, though.

Neither do I, but I think that any change ought to be for some sort of legitimate state purpose, even if it that purpose was not one of the original purposes.


One of these is that by incentivizing marriage, the state has given special status to married people, and by leaving out gay and lesbian members of the community, they have denied them that special status.

They have also denied single people that special status. That's kind of the point of an incentive. It creates a special status, or provides a gain, or does something that people want. The state has decided to encourage people to get married. (Or have they? See next post.) If they gave it to other people, there wouldn't be an incentive.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.


(I believe it does, BTW, but I don't believe that it's essential to the argument.)
Well, in my opinion, some furtherance of state interests is necessary in order to justify a change in law. You noted, and I agree, that marriage promotes a stable society and an environment for the next generation to thrive. That's a pretty powerful interest. Any adjustment to something so significant ought to be justified.

[PhantomWolf]

On average, people who are married stay in committed relationships longer than people who are not.

I accept that this is true, however the reason is not clear to why. A Canadian study by Anne-Marie Ambert notes that those that choose not to marry tend to have less issues with having affairs and also that religon is a stablising factor in a marriage and that most rreligious people get married rather then cohabitat. Socially people who plan to be commited for a long time are "expected" to get married as well, so this is also a factor, that people who would otherwise not have been married, do for social or benefit reasons rather then stay in a de facto relationship. Of course this is the reason for having a time requirement on an RDP.

There is a lot of data that supports the idea that marriage encourages stability.

Is it that marriage encourages stability, or that people in stable relationships tend to move towards marriage because society expects them too?

Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Have you ever experienced one (parents/self?)

It's not. If the people in that 15-year-long de facto relationship wants to take on the privileges and responsibilities that come with a marriage license, there is nothing stopping them, so what's the problem?

Why should they have to though? Why should they be discriminated against because they don't want to be married?

[Meadmaker]

Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.


Exactly. The "incentives" to marriage are, in my humble opinion, highly overrated. At least, the state provided incentives are. Meanwhile, the responsibilities are, in fact, fairly extreme. The state has to make divorce at least moderately difficult in order to get people to remain in the marriage.

Thought for the day: The state prohibits people other than gays and lesbians from getting married. There is a class of people who are in love, and would very much like to spend their lives with a partner of their choice, but the state prohibits them. I believe their number is far greater than the number of gays and lesbians who would prefer marriage. It's a bit of a trick question, but a little thought will allow most people to get it. Still, I'll put the answer in a spoiler, so as not to reveal it too quickly. Why does the state prohibit these would be lovers from marrying?
They are already married to someone else.

Marriage restricts peoples behavior in the most personal ways.

Given the opportunity, many people have opted out of it altogether. Given the opportunity to leave it once they are in it, with little or no penalty, many, many people get out of it, despite the "incentives".

[chipmunk stew]

Neither do I, but I think that any change ought to be for some sort of legitimate state purpose, even if it that purpose was not one of the original purposes.
As I said above, I believe that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples does further the original state interest of promoting a stable community for the next generation to thrive. But I also believe that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting equality, and discrimination from a state-sanctioned incentive program based on sexual orientation runs counter to that, and I believe that that is reason enough on its own to expand to definition.

They have also denied single people that special status.
What I meant is a class of people. People who are denied entry into such an arrangement because of something inborn.
That's kind of the point of an incentive. It creates a special status, or provides a gain, or does something that people want. The state has decided to encourage people to get married. (Or have they? See next post.) If they gave it to other people, there wouldn't be an incentive.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.
You don't believe that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage undermines the goal of stability in the community? I do. I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

Well, in my opinion, some furtherance of state interests is necessary in order to justify a change in law. You noted, and I agree, that marriage promotes a stable society and an environment for the next generation to thrive. That's a pretty powerful interest. Any adjustment to something so significant ought to be justified.
I agree. And I think in this case, it is.

[Meadmaker]

I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.



Hmmm.....must ponder.

[PhantomWolf]

I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

And yet you support the discrimination against unwed couples unless they conform to what everyone thinks is normal to show they have a commited and stable relationship.

[Bob Magness]

I wasn't surprised, just look at the demographics. Barrack Obama being on the ticket was likely the impetus for the black community showing up to the polls in record numbers. Now, there is a group of Democrats that would be expected to have voted for Prop 8: religious Democrats. I would venture to say that the majority of the black community falls into this group.

So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 being passed.

I would like to go on the record as saying I was wrong in my above analysis after reading this break down from Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272). It is pretty lengthy, with rhetoric of its own, bu the analysis seems solid.

[chipmunk stew]

Have you ever experienced [a divorce] (parents/self?)
Yes (parents).
Why should they have to though? Why should they be discriminated against because they don't want to be married?
This doesn't make any sense. Either a couple wishes to take on the privileges and responsibilities of holding a state-issued marriage license, or they don't. I fail to see the discrimination. Unless you're saying that unwed couples should enjoy the privileges the state offers married couples without the responsibilities that come with those privileges.
And yet you support the discrimination against unwed couples
No.
unless they conform to what everyone thinks is normal to show they have a commited and stable relationship.
A marriage license is not proof of a committed and stable relationship. It's an enticement towards one.

[Meadmaker]

I do. I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.


Interesting line of argument, and potentially quite powerful. If I may put words into your mouth, it seems that you are saying that marriage is an important social institution. By denying gays the possibility of participating in that institution, we are creating division within the community, which leads to instability of that community. Put another way, every person born into a community should be able to participate fully as a member of that community, if they choose to do so. By denying marriage to some people who are born into the community, we are effectively rejecting our own.

It seems a reasonable argument. Needs a bit of work, but has possibilities.

More to come.

[chipmunk stew]

Exactly. The "incentives" to marriage are, in my humble opinion, highly overrated. At least, the state provided incentives are. Meanwhile, the responsibilities are, in fact, fairly extreme. The state has to make divorce at least moderately difficult in order to get people to remain in the marriage.
That's true. A marriage license is really a carrot and a stick. It's as much a disincentive to leave a relationship as it is an incentive to stay in one.

Thought for the day: The state prohibits people other than gays and lesbians from getting married. There is a class of people who are in love, and would very much like to spend their lives with a partner of their choice, but the state prohibits them. I believe their number is far greater than the number of gays and lesbians who would prefer marriage. It's a bit of a trick question, but a little thought will allow most people to get it. Still, I'll put the answer in a spoiler, so as not to reveal it too quickly. Why does the state prohibit these would be lovers from marrying?
They are already married to someone else.

Marriage restricts peoples behavior in the most personal ways.
It's a good brain-teaser, but it's not completely accurate. The state does not prohibit these people from obtaining a marriage license, it just places a prerequisite on doing so. And the state obviously doesn't prohibit this class from holding a state-issued marriage license.

There is no prerequisite that a same-sex couple can fulfill in order to obtain a marriage license in states where marriage is restricted to one man/one woman. They are truly prohibited.

[chipmunk stew]

Interesting line of argument, and potentially quite powerful. If I may put words into your mouth, it seems that you are saying that marriage is an important social institution. By denying gays the possibility of participating in that institution, we are creating division within the community, which leads to instability of that community. Put another way, every person born into a community should be able to participate fully as a member of that community, if they choose to do so. By denying marriage to some people who are born into the community, we are effectively rejecting our own.

It seems a reasonable argument. Needs a bit of work, but has possibilities.

More to come.
That's a pretty good sketch of where I'm coming from. Marginalizing people undermines the stability of the community, in part by creating a vacuum of acceptance that is sometimes filled by much less stable social groupings. I'm thinking specifically of the so-called "gay culture" that a lot of people think of when they think of gay people at all, which has accelerated the spread of STDs and drug addiction.

[ponderingturtle]

They have also denied single people that special status.

The status is for couples not individuals. So it is not denied to single people it is not something that makes sense in such a situation.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.

So we need to evaluate which of the thousand+ effects that marriage has and none of them make sense for homosexual couples?

Do you support the State Deparments decision to give help to someone to relocate their spouce, children and pets when transfered to a foriegn country but never anything for a homosexual partner, to the extent that they make sure than the underware the state department employee packed included none of his partners clothes?

Having a pet is something goverment needs to support, but never a homosexual relationship.

[Meadmaker]

It's a good brain-teaser, but it's not completely accurate.

Of course. The point of the brain teaser was that a marriage license wasn't just some ticket to a bag of goodies. There were strings attached. To hear a lot of people talk, marriage is some sort of ticket to a government handout.

And when does the government send me my goodie bag, anyway? I was pretty wealthy back when I was single.

[Meadmaker]

That's a pretty good sketch of where I'm coming from. Marginalizing people undermines the stability of the community, in part by creating a vacuum of acceptance that is sometimes filled by much less stable social groupings. I'm thinking specifically of the so-called "gay culture" that a lot of people think of when they think of gay people at all, which has accelerated the spread of STDs and drug addiction.

The reason I like this argument is that it doesn't rest on some sort of individual rights argument. It's an argument for the good of society. It doesn't even depend on some sort of assertion that a heterosexual relationship is somehow "equal" to a homosexual relationship, and therefore should be treated equally.

My participation in this thread began with a discussion about whether or not the sex of participants in a marriage was some sort of "arbitrary" line. I stand by my position that it is anything but arbitrary. However, your line of argument doesn't depend on some sort of equivalence between men and women, or heterosexuals and homosexuals. It simply notes that by marginalizing homosexuals, a problem is created.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course. The point of the brain teaser was that a marriage license wasn't just some ticket to a bag of goodies. There were strings attached. To hear a lot of people talk, marriage is some sort of ticket to a government handout.

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

[Meadmaker]

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

The fact that I happen to be their father might also play a role.

[PhantomWolf]

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

Of course giving same sex partners the right to adopt a partner's children assuming either a) the other biological parent is deceased or b) gives their permission for such adoption, is the far better idea here. Of course even for step-parents who are married to the child's birth parent, they can face the exact same situation where they raise a child who is not theirs biologically, and on the death of their spouse they can lose all rights and custody to the child's biological family too.

[ponderingturtle]

The fact that I happen to be their father might also play a role.

An interesting thing many states have specific organizations to make it easier for women wanting to put their child up for adoption to do so with out the fathers consent.

[Meadmaker]

An interesting thing many states have specific organizations to make it easier for women wanting to put their child up for adoption to do so with out the fathers consent.

There are a couple of different cases here. We might have a case where the father will not marry the woman he impregnated. In that case, he's a no good scoundrel and would probably make a lousy father anyway.

If there is a case of a "hook-up", and the father is willing to marry the woman but the woman does not wish to marry, I have a hard time saying that the father should have no rights. It seems to me that if the woman puts the kid up for adoption, dad should have first choice in the matter, unless there is some cause to believe the child will be abused or neglected.

It's hard to see exactly how to apply that to same sex marriages, though. It's almost as if there is something fundamentally different between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

[ponderingturtle]

There are a couple of different cases here. We might have a case where the father will not marry the woman he impregnated. In that case, he's a no good scoundrel and would probably make a lousy father anyway.

So if the parents do not get married the father shouldn't have any rights?

The case here is that the mother wants to give up the child and the father does not, legaly once the child exists they have equal rights, and both need to aggree to put a child up for adoption

It's hard to see exactly how to apply that to same sex marriages, though. It's almost as if there is something fundamentally different between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Or just reproductive matches and non reproductive matches. This is why we need to ban old people marrying.

You do seem to be in favor of reintroducing sex as a factor in laws in a broad basis.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes (parents).

Me too. I have to come to the conclusion that Divorce in NZ and divorce in the US are two different beasts.

This doesn't make any sense. Either a couple wishes to take on the privileges and responsibilities of holding a state-issued marriage license, or they don't. I fail to see the discrimination. Unless you're saying that unwed couples should enjoy the privileges the state offers married couples without the responsibilities that come with those privileges.

Well it's be interesting to know what responsibilities there are that come with the licence, about the only one I can think of is that they are treated as a single entity for certain financial things thus if one incurs a debt, the other can be held liable for it. What responsiblities are there to the state?

No.

But that's exactly what you are doing.

A marriage license is not proof of a committed and stable relationship. It's an enticement towards one.

So why do people who are already in a committed and stable relationship have to have one? It doesn't make logical sense, why should they have to pay for an enticement of something they already have just to get something that should be a right anyway.

"We're giving free lounge suite cleaning!"
"Oh we have a lounge suite."
"Well you just have to buy this coupon to buy a lounge suite and you'll get your free cleaning"
"But we already have a lounge suite, why do we need a coupon?"
"Because the coupon is an enticement to buy a lounge suite!"

[Meadmaker]

So if the parents do not get married the father shouldn't have any rights?

As is so often the case, you have leapt to an unfounded conclusion.


You do seem to be in favor of reintroducing sex as a factor in laws in a broad basis.
But once in a while, you get it right.

[Jonnyclueless]

Why is the notion of people staying in long term relationships so important?

And perhaps the reason there are more divorces now is more of an indicator that people aren't as afraid of the social outlook of being divorced now, whereas in the past they might be more inclined to stay unhappily married rather than happily divorced?

[PhantomWolf]

Why is the notion of people staying in long term relationships so important?

And perhaps the reason there are more divorces now is more of an indicator that people aren't as afraid of the social outlook of being divorced now, whereas in the past they might be more inclined to stay unhappily married rather than happily divorced?

There are plenty of studies showing that long term relationship are the best place to bring up well adjusted children.

[chipmunk stew]

Me too. I have to come to the conclusion that Divorce in NZ and divorce in the US are two different beasts.

Well it's be interesting to know what responsibilities there are that come with the licence, about the only one I can think of is that they are treated as a single entity for certain financial things thus if one incurs a debt, the other can be held liable for it. What responsiblities are there to the state?
Here's a partial list of federal rights and responsibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

There are others that vary state by state.

So why do people who are already in a committed and stable relationship have to have one? It doesn't make logical sense, why should they have to pay for an enticement of something they already have just to get something that should be a right anyway.
As I wrote above, a marriage license is both a carrot and a stick. It's an enticement to stay together, not to get together. A couple may not want to take on the responsibilities of marriage. That's fine. But why should the state give them the benefits, then?

"We're giving free lounge suite cleaning!"
"Oh we have a lounge suite."
"Well you just have to buy this coupon to buy a lounge suite and you'll get your free cleaning"
"But we already have a lounge suite, why do we need a coupon?"
"Because the coupon is an enticement to buy a lounge suite!"
"To accept this free cleaning, you also have to sign a contract to pay a monthly fee for regular cleanings, for as long as you own the suite." That's as close as I can stretch this analogy to what a marriage license really means.

[ponderingturtle]

But once in a while, you get it right.

It is good to see people wanting to bring back legal sexual discrimination.

[Meadmaker]

Here's a partial list of federal rights and responsibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States



What did we do before wikipedia?

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.

In my opinion, a some of them don't make much sense for heterosexuals anymore, either, but they once did.

[ponderingturtle]

What did we do before wikipedia?

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.

In my opinion, a some of them don't make much sense for heterosexuals anymore, either, but they once did.

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

[PhantomWolf]

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

I know the question wasn't adressed to me, but I'm not in favour of it, but hey, I come from a country where the State is willing to help those in this situation until they get on their feet and get a job.

[PhantomWolf]

As I wrote above, a marriage license is both a carrot and a stick. It's an enticement to stay together, not to get together. A couple may not want to take on the responsibilities of marriage. That's fine. But why should the state give them the benefits, then?

So taking a few of the WP listed rights... you don't think that unmarried couples should be entitled to the follow things?


domestic violence intervention
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison
Access to children's school records
Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime
Domestic violence protection orders
Funeral and bereavement leave
Making partners medical decisions
Right to inheritance of property


"To accept this free cleaning, you also have to sign a contract to pay a monthly fee for regular cleanings, for as long as you own the suite." That's as close as I can stretch this analogy to what a marriage license really means.

But having a marriage licence doesn't actually cost you a monthly or even a yearly fee.

[chipmunk stew]

So taking a few of the WP listed rights... you don't think that unmarried couples should be entitled to the follow things?


domestic violence intervention
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
family visitation rights for the partner and non-biological children, such as to visit a partner in a hospital or prison
Access to children's school records
Threats against partners of various federal employees being a federal crime
Domestic violence protection orders
Funeral and bereavement leave
Making partners medical decisions
Right to inheritance of property


*sigh* I'm not arguing that unmarried couples should be denied all the things that are guaranteed for married couples.

But having a marriage licence doesn't actually cost you a monthly or even a yearly fee.It also doesn't come with a free cleaning. The point is, marriage carries responsibilities, enforceable by law, that couples shouldn't be forced into just because they live together.

[PhantomWolf]

*sigh* I'm not arguing that unmarried couples should be denied all the things that are guaranteed for married couples.

So what things should they be denied? And why?

It also doesn't come with a free cleaning. The point is, marriage carries responsibilities, enforceable by law, that couples shouldn't be forced into just because they live together.

O'm still looking for these responsibilities actually. Best I have seen so far is that getting married makes you a single finacial unit and that it introduces certain pitfalls that mean you aren't allowed entitled to some things single people are. I still haven't seen anything you are expected to so because you are married.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, am I right to think that you are for alimony to be paid to housewives but not househusbands?

I can't make a blanket statement that one or the other should never receive or should always receive alimony in the event of a divorce. However, I think ex wives should receive it a lot more frequently than ex husbands.

[PhantomWolf]

I can't make a blanket statement that one or the other should never receive or should always receive alimony in the event of a divorce. However, I think ex wives should receive it a lot more frequently than ex husbands.

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

[chipmunk stew]

So what things should they be denied? And why?

O'm still looking for these responsibilities actually. Best I have seen so far is that getting married makes you a single finacial unit and that it introduces certain pitfalls that mean you aren't allowed entitled to some things single people are. I still haven't seen anything you are expected to so because you are married.
This is getting way off topic. This has nothing to do with Prop 8 anymore. Please start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

[Meadmaker]

Sounds a little sexist there. Personally I think that instead of relying on their ex to support them they should go and get a job like everyone else on the planet.

It's not just a little sexist.

More later.

[ZirconBlue]

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.


Except that we're not talking about extending them to homosexual couples. Married homosexual couples in California already had these rights and responsibilities.