Same sex marriage in California

[krimsonviper]

I'm at a stand still with it. As I've said before, I don't know much about politics and look to you guys to shed some light on it. Proposition 8 has me on the fence and I was wondering why you guys, if you lived in California, would be for or against this proposition. California is a leader in changing the U.S, so eventually this will effect your state as well.

As a Christian I say "no", but as an U.S. citizen I say "yes". What are the pro's and con's that some of you foresee in the future of our world if proposition 8 isn't passed?

Hopefully this subject hasn't been brought to your attention. I just thought of it midway through typing what I put up. If it has, then link me please.

[telcoman]

I'm at a stand still with it. As I've said before, I don't know much about politics and look to you guys to shed some light on it. Proposition 8 has me on the fence and I was wondering why you guys, if you lived in California, would be for or against this proposition. California is a leader in changing the U.S, so eventually this will effect your state as well.

I'd be against it.

As a Christian I say "no", but as an U.S. citizen I say "yes". What are the pro's and con's that some of you foresee in the future of our world if proposition 8 isn't passed?

This country was founded on religious freedom.As a christian you are free to practice your religion as you see fit.Just do not try to impose your religious beliefts on me or others that are not christians.

As Colin Powell stated last sunday, "what if he was a muslim, so what"

Why should anyone care who lives with or marrys whover if it does not affect them?

Successful politicians have learned to keep their religion out of politics if they are to be successful. That is one reason why Obama is leading in the polls and the Republican choice of Palin are losing.

Most large companies have changed and updated their benefit programs to include same sex partnerships because it just makes good business sense.

Religion has no place in business and no place in politics in my opinion.

BTW it is an issue here on the east coast as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...login

Telcoman


Modified by telcoman at 5:02 AM 10/26/2008

[C-Kwik]

I'm against it. Prop 8 supporters seem to push the notion that gay marriage would undermine definition of marriage. I simply fail to see how 2 men or 2 women who get married would redefine someone else's marriage. Marriage is what a couple makes of it. They define their own marriage. NOONE else can change that.

[smockers83]

I'd be against it but I would be for civil unions.

However, as to telco. This country was founded on religious freedom, yes. At the same time, if one is free to practice their religion and they then believe certain things and they vote accordingly, is that really imposing religion into politics? Not necessarily, as religion is the foundation of many beliefs and morals for millions of people. If we wanted to prevent the imposing of religion into politics, we would have to abolish religious activities.

*edit* Is Prop 8 to vote for or against gay marriage?

[skylndrftr]

I love CA with their confusing *** propositions.

smockers,

The CA supreme court legalized (in effect) gay marriage. Proposition 8 seeks to change the CA constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman so...

voting YES changes the constitution and OUTLAWS gay marriage

voting NO does not change the constitution and leaves GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL

everyone here has heard enough of my opinions on religion for me to post another rant...so suffice to say, @ viper, you have to ask are you a Christian or an American first. Its a personal answer for everyone but that's really the issue, like you commented on.

Heterosexuals have done enough to fubar marriage, maybe homosexuals would just make us look silly by doing a good job and we're afraid of that

[Jesda]

I'm against all government involvement in marriage. The government got involved originally to promote "hygiene" and other nonsense... and to control society.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm against all government involvement in marriage. The government got involved originally to promote "hygiene" and other nonsense... and to control society.

A very very enthusiastic "+1" to this.

I will be voting "yes" on a Maryland proposition to allow slot machines in the state this November, and I would also readily vote "yes" to allow gay marriage in my own state. I am proud to support individual liberties and keep the government out of issues that are none of its' business.

[heliochrome85]

I am against Prop 8. The US Government has no place in a religious debate. Prop 8 attempts to impost judeo-christian values to the whole. While i ascribe to those values, that does not mean i have the right to take away the rights of my neighbor.

[audtatious]

You have a Constitutional right to marriage?

[SteveTheTech]

You have a Constitutional right to marriage?

I like that question, it's something as heterosexuals we take for granted and often bastardize.

I am for gay marriage so I guess that would be a No. Although that referendum would never come to fruition here as I live on the fringes of the Bible Belt but maybe someday we will catch up.

For this small faction of people who seek happiness in the arms of members of the same sex why do they have to be treated like second glass citizens? If it were my fight I would be looking for something along the lines of social union to eliminate any connotation to the religious ceremony known as marriage. I think what they are primarily looking for is the same benefits any two heterosexuals have a will.

For far to many people they allow their religious beliefs interfere with their common sense. This always surprised how people could still to this day be so homophobic. If you are secure in your marriage then how does the ability for two strangers to legally share a household effect your marriage.

I do not understand the christian POV on this, so the bible vaguely states something in on paragraph about homosexuality and it becomes blasphemy? WTF.Catch up with the times ::cough, cough::: Ted Haggard. Excuse me there was something in my throat.

Homosexual tendencies are prevalent in the animal kingdom and even in human history it is nothing new. As long as people have had arms long enough to reach their goods they have been playing with their own and those of others.

[sensibleS13driver]

You have a Constitutional right to marriage?

No... No one was disputing the legitimacy of the proposition itself, only the government intrusion that it creates and represents, something a "conservative" would presumptively be opposed to.

[heliochrome85]

You have a Constitutional right to marriage?

while not enumerated specifically in the constitution, you do you have the right to marriage, as decided by the supreme court....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

check out the decision and tell me how that point of view does not apply to gay marriage rights.

Im not for it, im just against the government telling people how to live their private lives anymore than they already do.

[audtatious]

For this small faction of people who seek happiness in the arms of members of the same sex why do they have to be treated like second glass citizens? If it were my fight I would be looking for something along the lines of social union to eliminate any connotation to the religious ceremony known as marriage. I think what they are primarily looking for is the same benefits any two heterosexuals have a will.

Civil unions have been offered but dismissed as not enough. It is obviously more than just having similar "benefits". They see having the title of "married" as "moral justification", maybe? When 40% of kids are born outside of wedlock and current generations are moving away from marriage as a whole I simply see it as a "you WILL accept me" issue than anything else and this is probably why some are so against it. Most people don't care if Bob is shoving rod into Jim as long as they are not doing it outdoors.

Of course, there is a double standard as most males wanna hook up with a couple hot lesbians anyway

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[krimsonviper]

Religion is a major factor for me, and as a result I will vote for Prop 8. Yes we are created equal, but, to me, isn't appropriate and therefore shouldn't continue (please dont attack me for this, its my opinion and nothing you say or do will change it and nothing will change but get this thread locked or deleted). I dont hate my neighbor for doing this, in fact I'll accept you as a person regardless of how you live YOUR life, but that doesn't mean i approve it.

The 2nd reason why I dont like it in my state is because the Gov. and the supreme court over turned our decision to ban gay marriage. The majority of the people did not want it, so why did they go against our wishes? To gain support in politics. A dirty trick, but it's a trick I've been seeing alot lately and something thats always been around in politics and as a result I'd like this proposition to be a sort of "spit in the face gov'na!"

3rd reason is I see it affecting(sp?) kids train of thought. They will look at homosexuality as a cure to not interact with the different sex because they are too afraid. Alot of gay and lesbian couple are gay and lesbian because it's easier for them to be that way, meaning they aren't really gay. It's a trend and while it may make them happy, it might not be who they really are.

4th is doesn't this effect our economy, tax wise? dont married couple get a tax break because they have a family or can create kids? Granted lesbian couples can have kids because of our oh so useful sperm banks, but what about gay men? They get a tax break because why...?

[telcoman]

about gay men? They get a tax break because why...?

Because in many area's they go in and renovate neighborhoods, open restaurants and other shops and add to the economy aka Asbury Park, NJ

They have money and don't have to worry about college educations.

I fail to understand why you as a religious person would be in favor of government intrusion into other peoples lives?Be a good person and don't discriminate against others.The California Supreme Court ruled so get over it.The United States Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs Wade so the religious right needs to get over that.

Religious organizations that get themselves too involved in politics and the political process in this country should in my opinion lose their tax exempt status.

Telcoman

[krimsonviper]

Because in many area's they go in and renovate neighborhoods, open restaurants and other shops and add to the economy aka Asbury Park, NJ

I believe you missed my point. Straight married couple do the same exact thing you just listed.

Don't married couples get more of a tax break than those that have lived together for more than 6 years(I forget what this is called, *something* partners)? Isn't this because they reproduce?

The California Supreme Court ruled so get over it.

So I should be ok with the gov't going over our heads, when the majority VOTED against something? This idea, if it were a person, should be raped, tortured, publicly humiliated, water boarded, and murdered.

I would have been more "OK" with gay marriage if the majority of the public voted for it, but they didn't. Then they complained and complained and complained about it to get it reversed. To me it was tough tits, get over it, the public isn't ready for it.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs Wade so the religious right needs to get over that.

I need to study, I haven't a clue to this referencing.

[heliochrome85]

You need to form your OWN opinions and not go with the flow. You keep mentioning that the people wanted this, or wanted that. Does mob mentality ever legitimize hate? In this case it does. With gays and lesbians coming out in record numbers in all aspects of our society, don't you think its high time to accept them as members of our society and extend to them the same rights a heterosexual member would have? You say tough tits because you arent the one being discriminated against and therefore do not see any rush.

This country is largely secular, why should its laws be dictated by a powerful, if fringe, lobby. Would you be for an amendment if its based on jewish law, something like not eating pork, if it kept being voted for and had big lobby firms behind it? Why should this be any different?

[krimsonviper]

You need to form your OWN opinions and not go with the flow.

Ok, I will:

I dont agree with gay marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because its how nature intended life. If it wasn't then why don't we have both sexual reprodutive organs? Hetero's produce kids, I believe that because of that specialty, it should be honored with a sacred tradition-marriage, and should be kept as such.

Besides, if you have to show your "ultimate love" to another person through marriage, than I think there is something wrong in the relationship. There are couples out there that love each other and proclaim each other as their soulmate, yet they don't get married. MANY will view them as having a problem.

[smockers83]

3rd reason is I see it affecting(sp?) kids train of thought. They will look at homosexuality as a cure to not interact with the different sex because they are too afraid. Alot of gay and lesbian couple are gay and lesbian because it's easier for them to be that way, meaning they aren't really gay. It's a trend and while it may make them happy, it might not be who they really are.

This may spark a completely different debate, but I think that is baseless and would not become true. Whether you're gay or straight is genetic and biological. Your brain is wired to be attracted to whatever it finds attractive. One cannot make themselves attracted to something their brain doesn't allow them to be. One straight man may be attracted to certain features of a woman (long blond hair) while another straight man may be attracted to different features (short brown hair). But all of that starts with your brain wired to make your d!ck to go up looking at women. For a gay man, the same is true but it all starts with their brain wired to make their d!ck go up looking at men.

[krimsonviper]

This may spark a completely different debate, but I think that is baseless and would not become true. Whether you're gay or straight is genetic and biological. Your brain is wired to be attracted to whatever it finds attractive. One cannot make themselves attracted to something their brain doesn't allow them to be. One straight man may be attracted to certain features of a woman (long blond hair) while another straight man may be attracted to different features (short brown hair). But all of that starts with your brain wired to make your d!ck to go up looking at women. For a gay man, the same is true but it all starts with their brain wired to make their d!ck go up looking at men.

While I do agree with this 100%, this is not the case 100% of the time. Some people become gay because of a trauma that had happened to them. Molestation, rape, incest, so on and so forth. Besides, there is no "gay gene." Some people are born with a XXY or XYY chromosomes, but that's the closest that that statement will ever be to coming correct.

[HashiriyaS14]

line-item libertarianism.

I don't know if you made this up or pulled it from somewhere else, but it's a great phrase.

This is precisely how I feel about the right's recent tendency to advocate certain individual liberties (i.e. owning firearms) whilst railing against others (abortion, gay marriage, avoiding unwarranted wiretapping).

I support ALL individual liberties that do not infringe upon the liberties of my neighbor. I have a real hard time understanding anyone who advocates otherwise.

I simply see it as a "you WILL accept me" issue than anything else

This is not why, and anyone who THINKS this is why is obviously totally ignorant of how laws are made and written. I don't think you're an ignorant guy, but you've bought a line that the religious right has fed you. They don't want you to know the real reason it's important because they know that reason actually makes sense, and that would undermine their ability to create resistance to it.

What it's called means EVERYTHING.

It has to be called the same thing as heterosexual marriage because otherwise you could, in the future, propose legislation modifying "civil unions" while leaving "marriages" intact. The point is to hedge against the future possibility that a conservative government would be able to impose restrictions against JUST homosexual marriages whilst not imposing the same restrictions on heterosexual ones. If they are legally known by separate terms, this wouldn't be too hard to do.

For example, you could require anyone in a "civil union" to have a special designation on their photo ID and not require the same of people with "Marriages". This would be an easy way to basically require gays to announce their gay-ness on their identification, inviting all sorts of nasty potential consequences.

Get it?

So yes, the letter-of-the-law is of the utmost importance and it IS important that it just be called a "marriage", just like my marriage or yours.

[NY94J30]

To expand upon what Hash has said, and to add an additional legal element, many who can accept the notion of "civil union" while denying the use of the term marriage unwittingly undermine their own argument. The premise of denying the use of the term marriage is typically the hackneyed phrase that "a marriage is a union of a man and a woman." When pressed for the source of this apparent truism, most revert to a religious or natural law (read: religion) view. However, here's the rub, if marriage is a religious construct, it needs no state sanction; more to the point, the Constitution forbids it's sanction as purely a religious construct. Therefore, to create a two track solution on this basis would be impermissible.

The real reason a distinction may be - and has been - drawn is that under the federal Equal Protection Clause the state may justly discriminate (in most instances) against a class of persons so long as it possesses a rational basis for the class distinction or policy choice. Most courts have found this rational basis in the promotion of the traditional family. State Constitutions have been interpreted differently (e.g., MA, CT, CA)

[audtatious]

You need to form your OWN opinions and not go with the flow. You keep mentioning that the people wanted this, or wanted that. Does mob mentality ever legitimize hate? In this case it does. With gays and lesbians coming out in record numbers in all aspects of our society, don't you think its high time to accept them as members of our society and extend to them the same rights a heterosexual member would have? You say tough tits because you arent the one being discriminated against and therefore do not see any rush.

This country is largely secular, why should its laws be dictated by a powerful, if fringe, lobby. Would you be for an amendment if its based on jewish law, something like not eating pork, if it kept being voted for and had big lobby firms behind it? Why should this be any different?

Who is not accepting gays as members of society? They also have the same rights we do as far as marriage, they simply want a different interpretation on what marriage is for "whatever" reason.

So, let's say we change the interpretation of what marriage means. They get the same benefits as what a civil union would give them and they get to call it "marriage". What happens when they want to go to church "X" and get married "under God" when church "X" does not support that viewpoint? Is it OK for them to demand that the people of church "X" change their viewpoints and allow it and if they don't then the church should lose its tax exemption status and be penalized or disbanded? If the whole purpose of them being able to "legally" use the word marriage is a way to force acceptance then the next logical direction is to tear down the church's viewpoint all together.

What if they were wanting to be "married" at a mosque instead of some Christian church?

[audtatious]

This is not why, and anyone who THINKS this is why is obviously totally ignorant of how laws are made and written. I don't think you're an ignorant guy, but you've bought a line that the religious right has fed you. They don't want you to know the real reason it's important because they know that reason actually makes sense, and that would undermine their ability to create resistance to it.

Have you had this discussion with non-lobbyist gays? The ones I've talked to simply want what is offered via civil unions and don't care whether it's called marriage or not.

[HashiriyaS14]

So, let's say we change the interpretation of what marriage means. They get the same benefits as what a civil union would give them and they get to call it "marriage". What happens when they want to go to church "X" and get married "under God" when church "X" does not support that viewpoint? Is it OK for them to demand that the people of church "X" change their viewpoints and allow it and if they don't then the church should lose its tax exemption status and be penalized or disbanded? If the whole purpose of them being able to "legally" use the word marriage is a way to force acceptance then the next logical direction is to tear down the church's viewpoint all together.

What if they were wanting to be "married" at a mosque instead of some Christian church?

I understand how you could be worried about this, but it isn't really something worth worrying about.

Even if the legal definition of marriage changes, that doesn't mean that a given church has to be marrying gays.

If federal discrimination laws applied to religion, we'd see female Catholic priests, but obviously we don't. Religions are allowed to "discriminate", it's just for the legal implications of marriage, not the religious ones.

No one can force a given church to marry two gay guys if they don't want to do it. Frankly, if this WAS possible, I'd have a real problem with it. It would constitute "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" under the establishment clause and I would be just as rabidly against that as I am against the idea of not permitting gays to marry in the legal sense.

Have you had this discussion with non-lobbyist gays? The ones I've talked to simply want what is offered via civil unions and don't care whether it's called marriage or not.

^^This is because they aren't lawyers or legislators and they don't understand the issue either, I suppose.

For whatever reason, the gay lobbying organizations haven't publicized the precedent aspect of the issue, but that's what the argument is really about, I assure you.

They SHOULD publicize it, IMO, as it is a legitimate concern and would lend legitimacy to their crusade to get it termed "marriage".

[NY94J30]

Who is not accepting gays as members of society? They also have the same rights we do as far as marriage, they simply want a different interpretation on what marriage is for "whatever" reason.

So, let's say we change the interpretation of what marriage means. They get the same benefits as what a civil union would give them and they get to call it "marriage". What happens when they want to go to church "X" and get married "under God" when church "X" does not support that viewpoint? Is it OK for them to demand that the people of church "X" change their viewpoints and allow it and if they don't then the church should lose its tax exemption status and be penalized or disbanded? If the whole purpose of them being able to "legally" use the word marriage is a way to force acceptance then the next logical direction is to tear down the church's viewpoint all together.

What if they were wanting to be "married" at a mosque instead of some Christian church?

Civil marriage and religious marriage are and should be separate constructs. The state has no business in sanctifying a religious union and religious figures have none in sanctioning a state union.

However, as to your point with regard to tax exemptions, the coercive power of the government often times lies in the largess it doles out (or doesn't), i.e., in this case, tax exemptions. If the government chooses to promote a policy that a particular entity receiving tax-payer funding/benefits doesn't agree with, that entity can choose not to receive those funds/benefits. LA made that choice for sometime, foregoing highway funds in order to lower their drinking age as do many hospitals providing women the right to an abortion.

To expand upon what Hash has said, and to add an additional legal element, many who can accept the notion of "civil union" while denying the use of the term marriage unwittingly undermine their own argument. The premise of denying the use of the term marriage is typically the hackneyed phrase that "a marriage is a union of a man and a woman." When pressed for the source of this apparent truism, most revert to a religious or natural law (read: religion) view. However, here's the rub, if marriage is a religious construct, it needs no state sanction; more to the point, the Constitution forbids it's sanction as purely a religious construct. Therefore, to create a two track solution on this basis would be impermissible.

The real reason a distinction may be - and has been - drawn is that under the federal Equal Protection Clause the state may justly discriminate (in most instances) against a class of persons so long as it possesses a rational basis for the class distinction or policy choice. Most courts have found this rational basis in the promotion of the traditional family. State Constitutions have been interpreted differently (e.g., MA, CT, CA)

[audtatious]

I understand how you could be worried about this, but it isn't really something worth worrying about.

Even if the legal definition of marriage changes, that doesn't mean that a given church has to be marrying gays.

If federal discrimination laws applied to religion, we'd see female Catholic priests, but obviously we don't. Religions are allowed to "discriminate", it's just for the legal implications of marriage, not the religious ones.

No one can force a given church to marry two gay guys if they don't want to do it. Frankly, if this WAS possible, I'd have a real problem with it. It would constitute "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" under the establishment clause and I would be just as rabidly against that as I am against the idea of not permitting gays to marry in the legal sense.

Maybe, maybe not.http://www.lifesitenews.com/ld....htmlh ... d49794.asp

That's just a couple that I found easily enough. I also saw references of even wedding photographers being sued who would not take the job because the couple was gay. IF these vocal/lobbyists gay rights groups are pressing for equal partnership rights as they pertain to the law and it is handed to them, why would they simply reject them because it's not called "marriage" which is pretty much a religious term for a male-female union? They are not the same so why should the term have to be all-inclusive? Gays are called homosexual instead of heterosexual, why are they not "up in arms" over that as well?

^^This is because they aren't lawyers or legislators and they don't understand the issue either, I suppose.

That's an assumption. They don't care about lawyers or legislators when it comes to being able to claim a civil union. That being the case, what other reason would some have to press forth a redefinition of a word to be all inclusive if it were not simply to force approval? "See, we are now married so we are just like you".....Nope....

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[HashiriyaS14]

Maybe, maybe not.http://www.lifesitenews.com/ld....htmlh ... d49794.asp

Hang on.

Are you seriously defending Fred Phelps? Do you know who the Westboro Baptist Church is? Do you know what they do?

They PROTEST FUNERALS, including US MILITARY FUNERALS. The lawsuit is because they have caused "emotional distress". The "respect for America's fallen heroes act" was created almost expressly to keep Fred Phelps from protesting US military funerals.

You are quite seriously defending the Devil here, but I don't think you realized it.

As for the other one, if that organization is indeed a religious nonprofit organization, the lawsuit won't stick. I mean, you can SUE anyone, but that doesn't mean it'll stick.

The bottom line is that no one is going to be able to successfully sue a church or other "religious organization" (as defined by the law) for refusing to marry gays. It is blatantly unconstitutional, in the same way that requiring the Catholics to ordain women is unconstitutional. It won't happen, I promise, there is GOBS of precedent behind it.

Gays are called homosexual instead of heterosexual, why are they not "up in arms" over that as well?

Because there isn't any material legislation based on those terms. There aren't any laws out there saying that "homosexuals don't collect social security", for example.

There ARE plenty of laws out there that say that people who are "married" are entitled to x or y.

It needs to be the same word for purposes of future interpretation of the law, period.

That being the case, what other reason would some have to press forth a redefinition of a word to be all inclusive if it were not simply to force approval? "See, we are now married so we are just like you".....Nope....

Because of the legal Pandora's Box that it opens that I already detailed to you.