Prop 8

[downtown]

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

Why did Californian's vote to abolish the right for two people to get married?

[blue_sphere]

Because they had an excellent advertising scheme.

Before I start this let me say I VOTED NO!

Now,

They focused on kids being taught about gay marriage in schools, while this is not a common practice, under the California constitution it is allowed. I think this made a lot of people uneasy. Personally I have no problem with the LGBT community, as in regards to ME. While I don't have children I do question if my opinion would have changed in regards to the prop. It is a very touchy subject for a lot of people, and I am sure marriage will be on the next ballot and will pass.

We will have to see. In any case no one should be told they cannot marry.

[JohnG]

It is a shame. Constitutions should be used to define POSITIVE rights, not NEGATIVE rights.

The argument that gay marriage destroys the institution is false.

[AllergyDoc]

The argument that gay marriage destroys the institution is false.

No John, YOUR statement is false.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

[LegendofSpeed]

The problem (and I am from California) is that "marriage" is a religious term and ceremony... thus, people view gays marrying as being sacrilegious and a desecration of their religion... and against their freedom of religion...

What should happen is to declare that "marriage" is a religious ceremony and no longer constitutes a legal proceeding in the eyes of the law... as, church and state should be separated.... then you create a law stating for any two people to be joined in the eyes of the law, they must have a civil union ceremony....

Thus, marriage is preserved as a religious ceremony for those that are concerned... and gays are granted the same rights as any heterosexual couple who are legally linked...

To fight over the term "marriage" is something that will be the roadblock for a long, long time... invoke the separation of church and state.... and break the term away from acquiring the rights wanted...

When I married my wife in Peru (which does not have a clear separation of church and state) we had to have two ceremonies... one that was religious.. and another, a civil ceremony, to make it a legally binding union...

Just my $.02...

[swissaddict]

Ok, so maybe we can give gays the same legal civil union, tax benefits, etc. as a man-woman union, but reserve the sacred (to some) term "marriage" for a man and woman?

BTW, I'm from California too and voted No on 8.

[oscarmadfish]

i guess johng and onze will be not going to cali after all :rofl:

[LegendofSpeed]

Ok, so maybe we can give gays the same legal civil union, tax benefits, etc. as a man-woman union, but reserve the sacred (to some) term "marriage" for a man and woman?

BTW, I'm from California too and voted No on 8.

Yes... the term "marriage" comes from the Bible... it's a religious term... that's what the yes on 8 people were fighting for...

If the prop was, " ban the ability of any two people to join in a legally-binding civil union" see how it would fair... then religion is out of it completely... it becomes a true civil rights prop...

people were voting yes to the preservation of marriage, not the banning of gay rights... at least in their minds...

[swissaddict]

I can see the points of the Yes-On-8 folks. If it was just about keeping the term "marriage" to refer to the union of a man and woman, I think that might go over more easily. However, there's an additional underlying religious premise that homosexuality is wrong... and I think that's something that people will never all agree on.

[LegendofSpeed]

Yes.... but if it's not a "marriage" then it's not religious... and if it's not religious then the fight loses its' passion.... people make think its' wrong, but they'll be out on street corners protesting basic civil rights, not religious beliefs... it becomes a much more clear, unemotional fight...

As for the religious connotation of homosexuality.... well, as someone who has studied the Bible, I can tell you that God hates ALL sin... and all is EQUAL in the eyes of Lord... so, if you sped on the way to work, you went against the law of the land and therefore, you have sinned... if you have checked out a woman's ass today as she walked by you, you have sinned.... if you looked at a watch on this board and were jealous, you have sinned... but none of those is more or less of a sin than homosexuality... so, let he without sin cast the first stone and all that...

People are fighting the wrong fights...

[JohnG]

No John, YOUR statement is false.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

I read this article a long time ago. Neiter Kurtz nor anyone else has proven the causal link. This is an opinion piece, not a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal, and published in the National Review, so pardon me if I don

[Luthier]

Good article, Doc, thanks!

No, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Most of homosexuals were born with it, so, how it could be a sin? But, please, don't try to tell me that it's normal.

No, I'm not against homosexuals, they must to have same rights as everyone, and I will support it, until they'll start to teach my kids that man, sucking a cocker of another man is normal thing, and that my kids should try it before they'll determine their sexual orientation. Yes, it happened in CA schools.

But marriage and adoption should be banned for sure. Otherwise next will be legal polygamy (why to ban desire of people to marry?) or somebody (beside our members) will demand the marriage with his sheep or goat, and we'll fall in long discussion if animals have soul, etc, etc.

I guess most of people, who voted NO on 8, never had kids and marriage, so, they just can't really understand the damage of gay marriageto society.

And, tell me, please, why need to fight for legal marriage, if they already have civil union, that practically is the same thing, except leaving the house and property in the case of death of one partner, to another partner? Fight for right of inheritage, that's it. Who cares are you legally married or just live together?

I also don't think it has something to do with Church, at least in CA gays married in the last few months not only in civil offices but in churches too.

But it definitely has everything to do with institution of marriage and even more - with weak and unprotected kids mentality.

Anyway, it's banned, thanks God, and so be it.

John, now you have a reason to call me a fascist, yeah?

[JohnG]

i guess johng and onze will be not going to cali after all :rofl:

We were going to Boston. And we still are. Marriage, in all its forms, is still alive and well there.

[JohnG]

teach my kids that man, sucking a cocker of another man is normal thing, and that my kids should try it before they'll determine their sexual orientation. Yes, it happened in CA schools.

John, now you have a reason to call me a fascist, yeah?

No, not a fascist, nor even a homophobe. You are mistaken, that is all.

[greg_r]

No John, YOUR statement is false.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

Sorry, AD, but I'm with John here. Kurtz' reasoning is self-referential and his argument is circular. He provides no evidence for his findings other than his belief in his own point of view. On that aspect alone, one can only discount what he says.

My personal view is that if the institution of marriage cannot survive the belief that love itself is all that really matters, then it is a sick bird indeed and probably not worth saving. Needless to say, I do not belive that this is the case.

[downtown]

Good article, Doc, thanks!

No, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Most of homosexuals were born with it, so, how it could be a sin? But, please, don't try to tell me that it's normal.

No, I'm not against homosexuals, they must to have same rights as everyone, and I will support it, until they'll start to teach my kids that man, sucking a cocker of another man is normal thing, and that my kids should try it before they'll determine their sexual orientation. Yes, it happened in CA schools.

But marriage and adoption should be banned for sure. Otherwise next will be legal polygamy (why to ban desire of people to marry?) or somebody (beside our members) will demand the marriage with his sheep or goat, and we'll fall in long discussion if animals have soul, etc, etc.

I guess most of people, who voted NO on 8, never had kids and marriage, so, they just can't really understand the damage of gay marriageto society.

And, tell me, please, why need to fight for legal marriage, if they already have civil union, that practically is the same thing, except leaving the house and property in the case of death of one partner, to another partner? Fight for right of inheritage, that's it. Who cares are you legally married or just live together?

I also don't think it has something to do with Church, at least in CA gays married in the last few months not only in civil offices but in churches too.

But it definitely has everything to do with institution of marriage and even more - with weak and unprotected kids mentality.

Anyway, it's banned, thanks God, and so be it.

John, now you have a reason to call me a fascist, yeah?

Ok, Luthier, I'm going to assume that english is not your first language, so bear with me here.

The problem with your argument is that it compares a legally binding institution between two loving and and consenting adults (who are people legally enabled to sign legal documents) to barnyard animals. No rational person could make the same argument because it's bigoted, absurd and a mask for homophobia. Comparing gay marriage with bestiality is incomparable and unintelligent. As for the introduction of polygamy because of gay marriage? I'd be interested to know what this assumption is based on, sincerely, because I'm having a hard time understanding the comparison between, again, the legal union of two consenting adults with one adult and the subsequent power relationship between him and having numerous wives. I just don't follow your comparison.

Also, the widespread paranoia that as soon as the legal institution between two monogamous adults is reinstutiuted into public law, everyone will automatically try to teach their children to be gay. I have an underlying suspicion about that as well; if you truly weren't homophobic, what would it matter if your child were gay? I'll grant that most conservative parents who are tied to traditional notions of sexually repressive religious tendencies will never be convinced that homosexuality is "ok", but I will question as to their motives for preventing people, who they don't know, from enjoying the same freedom that they do. It just doesn't seem very "christian" to me.

Also, the matter of homosexual being natural is an absurd notion. I'm not a cultural relativist, but the idea that homosexuality is somehow against the laws of nature is an un-thought out theory. I hate to say, but if it exists within the human condition without coercion, as you attest there is none- a person is born gay, then how can it be called "unnatural". You're contradicting yourself by saying that people are born gay but it isn't normal. And to compare homosexuality with a disease, as most opponents do, is also a proven social error.

I will agree, however, that the creation of two "different-but-equal" institutions of marriage will hurt marriage overall. Because there are two different methods of civil union, you'll see more straight couples participating in the "less-equal" method, thus a decline in actual "marriage". If there was one institution of marriage, couples would have no reason to take a separate route other than to simply live together, which is also becoming more popular.

Any religious attribution to the intolerance of homosexuality is moot. Time is the only factor that can "progressify" the conservatively backward religious intolerance that is rampant throughout the US. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for years, and you don't see the degradation of any moral fabric, much less teachers preaching the benefits of homosexuality over heterosexuality in elementary schools. Any cases of this in the news are clearly isolated cases and have not been instituted on a grand scale. Events such as this are going to occur whether there is gay marriage or not and I don't see it as being a significantly different controversy than teachers openly discussing God in the classroom and explaining how athiesm or agnosticism lead to moral decline.

All fears are based on bigotry and fear, conscious or not. I'd press you to try to understand your own perceptions of sexuality rather than what you've heard on the 11 o'clock news.

[onzenuub]

Why are you guys making all this noice about this, tsssssk

[trailboss]

OMG AD. I can't belive a man of your standing put that up as a serious paper! Greg is totaly correct in what he says. Utterly useless piece of magazine pap. Sorry mate but I expect beter from you.

Col.

[DiamondRich]

Wait - I'm confused.

How can a marriage between 2 people you don't know - regardless of sex - influence anybody else's marriage? I can't imagine defining my own marriage by somebody else's - regardless of the circumstances. How can Bill and Ted down the street - who get married - cheapen or illigitimize my own marriage?? Relatioships are what you put into it, not what other people do with theirs. Can somebody please explain it to me - I think I'm missing something.

[jake48]

OMG AD. I can't belive a man of your standing put that up as a serious paper! Greg is totaly correct in what he says. Utterly useless piece of magazine pap. Sorry mate but I expect beter from you.

Col.

"Useless" Says who? Now that's funny to me... Allergy Doc I have read that article and several more that all state essentially the same thing. I haven't heard a sensible argument yet that can explain away several thousand years of tradition (marriage between one man & one woman). Isn't it amazing that when self professed "tolerant" people are exposed to a point of view different then their own, they immediately become intolerant and try and belittle the opposing point of view though the use of name calling?

JohnG - I' am not a constitutional lawyer, but even I know the constitution does not give rights (we all ready have them as stated in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights") the Constitution restricts rights. You might be thinking about the "Bill of Rights" and even that just guarantees what we already have.

Beside arguing that Marriage of any type is a "Right" is fundamentally flawed so it really is a mute point.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT - as it is LICENSED by the state, much like driving. Nobody has the "right" to drive - it is a privilege granted by the state and is recognized with a license.

Prop 8 did not take anything away- Prop 8 PUT BACK what has been the standard of marriage in California since the states inception. A single Liberal activist Judge is the one who took something away, and that would be the will of the people in California, when OVERWHELMINGLY in 2000, the Defense of Marriage Act - Proposition 22 was passed into law by the VOTE of the people of California. This proposition quite simply read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The argument that gays need the same guarantees as "married" heterosexual couples is another flat out lie when domestic partnership laws in the state of California give substantially the same rights and impose substantially the same responsibilities on those who choose to enter into same sex unions. No "right" is being kept from gays...

I could get into the whole gay agenda and personally I think it is obvious, but when I see so many basic errors already that restate so much misinformation, I really don't see the use of opening up that can of worms to an argument.

Now, if someone can explain how it is "normal" for a man to shove his pecker up another man's a$$ and call that "love" - that I would like to hear...

Edited November 7, 2008 by jake48

[downtown]

You're right, it's pretty obvious that you're not a constitutional lawyer.

Your argument goes from rational to a reference of anal sex and how 'wrong' it is. It's basic intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the conspiracy theory of an insidious 'gay agenda' as if the gays are obsessed with restricting the rights of straights. I'm not calling you stupid though, because I don't think most bigots are. Ignorant perhaps.

I'm also curious to how "equal but different" laws which in reality do not give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples, as mentioned before, could be considered good enough. Let's get this straight; they're good enough for closet homophobes but not for the actual people they impact- monogamous homosexuals.

Also, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance. I refuse to stand by and allow those who use the mask of a ''different point of view'' try to RESTRICT the equality of others based on a bigoted and outdated self-professed tradition.

If we're discussing traditions that are old and proven, let's discuss the wonders of slavery or gender inequality.

Also, what does it even MATTER to you if loving adults are allowed to get married? How will it impact your marriage?

[jake48]

You're right, it's pretty obvious that you're not a constitutional lawyer.

Your argument goes from rational to a reference of anal sex and how 'wrong' it is. It's basic intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the conspiracy theory of an insidious 'gay agenda' as if the gays are obsessed with restricting the rights of straights. I'm not calling you stupid though, because I don't think most bigots are. Ignorant perhaps.

I'm also curious to how "equal but different" laws which in reality do not give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples, as mentioned before, could be considered good enough. Let's get this straight; they're good enough for closet homophobes but not for the actual people they impact- monogamous homosexuals.

Also, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance. I refuse to stand by and allow those who use the mask of a ''different point of view'' try to RESTRICT the equality of others based on a bigoted and outdated self-professed tradition.

If we're discussing traditions that are old and proven, let's discuss the wonders of slavery or gender inequality.

Also, what does it even MATTER to you if loving adults are allowed to get married? How will it impact your marriage?

pahleeese!

Let's just skip the to the bottom line of what I guess your point is - "what does it even MATTER to you if loving adults are allowed to get married" This type of juvenile logic makes it OK for a brother to marry a sister - in California that is a FELONY...

The question "How will it impact your marriage?" is weak. How would an adult who marries a farm animal impact your marriage? How would an adult who marries a small child impact your marriage? This has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage.

If I have to explain to you that marriage in it's own right, is the symbol of a time honored sacred tradition, that throughout history in EVERY civilization has ALWAYS been defined as a commitment between one man and one woman - then I am not sure it is worth my time trying to explain that anything short of this does a disservice to marriage itself.

Look, if you want to have sex with a goat in the privacy of your home, as far as I am concerned, go for it - just don't call it "normal" and don't try and tell me your "marriage" to the goat is the same thing as the marriage to my wife.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jake48

[Luthier]

pahleeese!

Let's just skip the to the bottom line of what I guess your point is - "what does it even MATTER to you if loving adults are allowed to get married" This type of juvenile logic makes it OK for a brother to marry a sister - in California that is a FELONY...

The question "How will it impact your marriage?" is weak. How would an adult who marries a farm animal impact your marriage? How would an adult who marries a small child impact your marriage? This has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage.

If I have to explain to you that marriage in it's own right, is the symbol of a time honored sacred tradition, that throughout history in EVERY civilization has ALWAYS been defined as a commitment between one man and one woman - then I am not sure it is worth my time trying to explain that anything short of this does a disservice to marriage itself.

Look, if you want to have sex with a goat in the privacy of your home, as far as I am concerned, go for it - just don't call it "normal" and don't try and tell me your "marriage" to the goat is the same thing as the marriage to my wife.

That's what I said, just in not-too-perfect English, which is not my native tongue, you're right, downtown, at least in that point.

Jake, all hell will break loose on us now.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Luthier

[downtown]

That type of "juvenile logic" also dictates that comparisons between two legally consenting adults are not comparable to incest or bestiality. I've made this point three times but you still don't comprehend. I fail to see how this would impact your own marriage. I expect you to return to my previous points which, instead of addressing, you've discounted.

I'll make the point, again, that throughout history, men have been placed above women, whites above blacks and birth over personal equity, yet these so-called traditions, have been overcome with progressive and modern social standards. Unless you can make a valid argument without alluding to bestiality, incest, or rape which have literally nothing to do with homosexual marriage, I'll concede. But you can't. I don't want to think that you're a straight-up bigot, so you'll have to prove me wrong.

And please, explain your interpretation of the history of marriage, because as a married man who's currently doing a masters in historiography, I'm rather curious.

The last point I'll make here, is that there is not one rationalist argument against allowing homosexuals to participate in the institution of marriage that don't have to do with idiotic or ignorant comparisons to barnyard animals or rape or incest. If that's the only arsenal that the anti-gay movement has, history stands a better chance.

[old skool]

Hmm. Well, I don't really want to get into the middle of this.

I will say that marriage is not a right. Of course it isn't. The problem is that the State government has decided to make a legal union between two adults that is called marriage. This legal union has nothing to do with religion in any regard. You don't need to be religious to get one. The State can't force Churches to marry people and the Church can't force the state to grant or revoke the legal union.

What is guaranteed by the Constitution is equal rights for all people under the law. Since the law allows for legal unions (marriage), they have to provide them equally. This is what the CA SC upheld.