If prop 8 passes...

[FirmaFan]

I don't know if I will be able to stay in California. I love where I live and am happy with the way everything in my life is right now, but if Prop 8 passes, I don't know how I will be able to live in a state that obviously does not want me.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

Well there is only one other state where you could get married. Ca would be the same state it was 8 months ago when prop 22 was still in effect. it wasn't until the state supreme court said prop 22 wasn't constitutional that gay folks could get married.

 

[Spensed]

Plus, even if Prop 8 passes, it won't the end of the story.

There will be constitutional challenges. For example, it's far from established that you can change the California constitution significantly by a voter initiated proposition that side steps the legislature.

And then there's future votes, which is why it's ridiculous to change the constitution on a moving target social issue like this. Previously, the voters voted anti-gay by a significant margin. This time the anti-gay side will be defeated or will win by a small margin. Next time round or the time after that, as the bigoted old farts die off, the anti-gay side will lose.

In the meantime, the domestic partnership side of things stays in place and Obama has promised to give civil unions the full rights and benefits of straight marriage, which is the situation in places like England. I used to think that that was second class citizenship, etc. But the reality over there, as far as I can see, is that you wouldn't know the difference and, after a while, flipping over to gay marriage as such, if anyone is still bothered about that, will be a lot easier.

So there's no need to move. They can delay gay marriage, but they can't stop it.

 

[FirmaFan]

Well there is only one other state where you could get married. Ca would be the same state it was 8 months ago when prop 22 was still in effect. it wasn't until the state supreme court said prop 22 wasn't constitutional that gay folks could get married.

I don't want to do this roller coaster BS over gay marriage anymore, and if prop 8 passes, it will be the second time this state has said that people like me are different and are not allowed the same rights as others. Other states have not even started considering the matter, but this state has already done it once, let alone doing it a second time if the prop passes.

 

[FirmaFan]

Plus, even if Prop 8 passes, it won't the end of the story.

There will be constitutional challenges. For example, it's far from established that you can change the California constitution significantly by a voter initiated proposition that side steps the legislature.

And then there's future votes, which is why it's ridiculous to change the constitution on a moving target social issue like this. Previously, the voters voted anti-gay by a significant margin. This time the anti-gay side will be defeated or will win by a small margin. Next time round or the time after that, as the bigoted old farts die off, the anti-gay side will lose.

In the meantime, the domestic partnership side of things stays in place and Obama has promised to give civil unions the full rights and benefits of straight marriage, which is the situation in places like England. I used to think that that was second class citizenship, etc. But the reality over there, as far as I can see, is that you wouldn't know the difference and, after a while, flipping over to gay marriage as such, if anyone is still bothered about that, will be a lot easier.

So there's no need to move. They can delay gay marriage, but they can't stop it.

What I really don't understand is if there is no difference between marriage and the "domestic partnerships" that Obama has promised, why differentiate them at all?

 

[hotatlboi]

What I really don't understand is if there is no difference between marriage and the "domestic partnerships" that Obama has promised, why differentiate them at all?

Because the evangelicals still need to feel that they are not "giving into the gay agenda" on marriage. A separate but equal argument allows them to do that, without looking like people who want to deny fundamental rights to others. It's a necessary step for now, but will not be needed in the future.

 

[Homoerectus]

Life will be no different that it was 1 or 2 years ago. If it passes, learn to accept disappointment in your life and go to work to reverse it.

 

[FirmaFan]

Because the evangelicals still need to feel that they are not "giving into the gay agenda" on marriage. A separate but equal argument allows them to do that, without looking like people who want to deny fundamental rights to others. It's a necessary step for now, but will not be needed in the future.

I am still amazed by the domestic partnership vs marriage arguments they give. A "separate but equal" thing was tried once before in this country and it didn't work because everyone knew that the second part, the "equal" part, wasn't true, as everyone knows it now. Since they are on that line of thinking, maybe they should give communism a go. We know is hasn't worked in the past, but, hey, maybe it will this time.

 

[Kulindahr]

So there's no need to move. They can delay gay marriage, but they can't stop it.

I certainly hope they can stop it. "Gay marriage" is just a way to get privileges without fighting for liberty.

What I really don't understand is if there is no difference between marriage and the "domestic partnerships" that Obama has promised, why differentiate them at all?

Marriage, according to the vast majority of the American people, is "sacred", religious in nature. That's where Obama's at, with his "man and woman" definition. What's sad is that he fails to see (as far as we know) that because of that, the federal laws concerning marriage are unconstitutional, every last one of them.



Here's my take on it from a previous thread and post:

I think you know that my proposal would be an act "Returning Sacred Marriage to Those of Faith", except with some fancy anacronym that would make everyone want to vote for it. The whole argument would be that marriage belongs to the churches, and they should be in charge of it; marriage licenses would end, and churches could issue marriage certificates, which the couple would take to the court house to register their union.
The words "civil union" would have to be avoided, of course, due to their association with gay rights, so something like "domestic union" would have to do -- note that both those words come from the traditional Christian marriage ceremony!
Then after some period of time, like a presidential term, another act, "Equality in Domestic Relationships", would come along and say that any individuals who were entering a "domestic union" could be issued a certificate that would be taken to the court house, and their union be registered just like marriages. That would cover all the not-quite-church organizations which do marriage, and incidentally cover gay unions as well.

Part of my thought is that since 'evangelicals' are so up tight about keeping marriage holy, why not cede it to them -- and remove it from federal law as being religious, and so beyond the reach of government to define? But moreso, I am also convinced, and agree with Obama, that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's just one form of personal association, and since we have freedom of association, any forms of personal association we (or others) might want to undertake has to be recognized by the government as equal.
That's not something that has to be passed into law to be true: we inherently have freedom of association, and we know that all men are created equal, so whatever association some have is equal to whatever associations others have. So this isn't a fight to get something we don't have; it's a fight to get what we do have recognized, to get government and people to stop persecuting us over it.

 

[construct]

I am still amazed by the domestic partnership vs marriage arguments they give. A "separate but equal" thing was tried once before in this country and it didn't work because everyone knew that the second part, the "equal" part, wasn't true, as everyone knows it now.

Well, no, everyone didn't know that the second part, the "equal" part wasn't true. And it worked (more or less) for the fifty years between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board. That was fifty years of persistently chipping away at and narrowing what was acceptable under Plessy. I don't think this one will take fifty years though.

Until then if you want to move, you've got a choice--Massachusetts or Connecticut.

 

[joshmode]

You're not being appreciative! First and foremost..you are allowed to be gay! It's not against the law. Some countries ban homosexuality! People are killed or put in jail!
If you think of gays in countries like that..it makes you appreciative! Also California accepts you, gays have full adopting rights. Cali was only the 2nd state to legalize same sex marriage!! Now theres only 3 out of 50! Please, be grateful for the progress California has made and realize how lucky you are... Discrimination is something you will face your whole life for being gay. Eventually and hopefully it will decrease. That goes for anything. Your race/sex/orientation/ height/weight.. We all have to deal with crap..

 

[hotatlboi]

I think it's natural to be disappointed if this passes. California has lead on so many gay initiatives that it's sort of expected to be accepting of gay marriage.

yes, California often leads on these kind of issues. This is its chance to lead again.

 

[hotatlboi]

Gay people want it bcuz they can't have it. Domestic partnerships give rights so what is the real diff? Sometimes people have to compromise.

It's a separate but equal argument. Say blacks can attend school too, with all the same privileges, just not at the schools where white children go. How is that any different?

It's an unneeded classification for the purpose of marginalizing a minority group of people.

Though I agree that compromise and at least getting equal rights of partnerships probably has to come first.

 

[FirmaFan]

It's a separate but equal argument. Say blacks can attend school too, with all the same privileges, just not at the schools where white children go. How is that any different?

It's an unneeded classification for the purpose of marginalizing a minority group of people.

Though I agree that compromise and at least getting equal rights of partnerships probably has to come first.

Separate but equal is an oxymoron. It is impossible (I repeat, impossible) for anything to be segregated and have its constituents remain equal, it's just not possible. Try it on ANYTHING and you will find that it always fails.

 

[thackftl]

I don't know if I will be able to stay in California. I love where I live and am happy with the way everything in my life is right now, but if Prop 8 passes, I don't know how I will be able to live in a state that obviously does not want me.

While I certainly understand your point-of-view, I'd like to point out that it could be much worse. As "joshmode" pointed out, homosexuality is not illegal in this country. Additionally, there really aren't many options when it comes to moving to a state where you are fully "wanted".

I've argued on other posts that gay marriage is not the issue on which the LGBT community should be concentrating. While I do think that we should have equal rights, I'd argue that those equal rights should start with employment & housing and not marriage. You happen to live in a state (California) where discrimination against homosexuals in terms of employment is illegal. From my research, only 17 states plus DC include sexual orientation as a protected class in employment discrimination.

I grew up in California. Personally, I'd love to have the types of protection you currently have when it comes to discrimination. As a Florida resident, I can be fired and evicted merely for being who I am. Additionally, it already is against the law here in FL for us to get married. Despite that, homophobic bigots are attempting to write that type of discrimination into our state constitution.

FirmaFan: Please don't take my post as an attack. It's not. I'm just frustrated that CA Prop 8 seems to elevated by the LGBT media as being the most important fight we have. I believe we need to start with more basic issues like employment & housing. I LOVE that you are so passionate about Prop 8. Keep that passion; keep voting; keep encouraging your friends to register. Time is on our side and we will win.


Source: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/obj...C-9CBE-42EF-917012F2F6758F92/111/259/283/ART/

 

[hotatlboi]

Separate but equal is an oxymoron. It is impossible (I repeat, impossible) for anything to be segregated and have its constituents remain equal, it's just not possible. Try it on ANYTHING and you will find that it always fails.

I agree that's why I said it's an unneeded distinction.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you think of gays in countries like that..it makes you appreciative! Also California accepts you, gays have full adopting rights. Cali was only the 2nd state to legalize same sex marriage!! Now theres only 3 out of 50! Please, be grateful for the progress California has made and realize how lucky you are... Discrimination is something you will face your whole life for being gay. Eventually and hopefully it will decrease. That goes for anything. Your race/sex/orientation/ height/weight.. We all have to deal with crap..

I disagree that adopting same-sex marriage is progress -- I think it's persecution of religious people, turning the tables on them for their persecution of us.
The solution is to take marriage away from the government, and let the churches have it -- and then let everyone go to the government and register whatever relationships they have, as "domestic unions", whether it's marriage or any other thing.

I respect your point of view and appreciate you sharing it here, but I also respect people like Obama, Biden, Palin, McCain that marriage is a sacred, religious bond between one man and one woman.
People can live great lives without marriage. I don't know anyone that can live a great life without education.
Marriage is a concept and social contract more than it is a right. Domestic partnerships in Cali seem to take care of the "rights" part-is this true?

Since most Americans regard marriage as sacred, we have one more reason to leave it alone. By the same token, though, the government should have no laws about it.

But people are more interested in their own selfish interests than in human rights, so I suppose the campaign for gay marriage will continue -- to the detriment of our Republic.

 

[FirmaFan]

I respect your point of view and appreciate you sharing it here, but I also respect people like Obama, Biden, Palin, McCain that marriage is a sacred, religious bond between one man and one woman.
People can live great lives without marriage. I don't know anyone that can live a great life without education.
Marriage is a concept and social contract more than it is a right. Domestic partnerships in Cali seem to take care of the "rights" part-is this true?

Marriage in this society has been elevated to the absolute highest ceremony one can partake in to express their devotion and love to another person. Yes, a person can live without this, but imagine being that person and being denied that. There are many many things people can live without, but that doesn't mean they are in any way expendable. Marriage is many things to many people, and is only "a sacred, religious bond" to those of religion, and even then, those of different religions see marriage in different ways. And then, to some, marriage has nothing to do with religion (which is why atheists get married). Marriage is not defined in any legal document as a "sacred, religious" practice, that definition comes simply from people of religion, who, through their religious teachings, have learned to justify denying everyone the ability to express their love and devotion for one another based entirely on sex. I am still amazed that people will actively try to stop expressions of love and devotion, but they still do, hiding behind a mask of righteousness.

Oh, and by the way, domestic partnerships in no way "take care of" the "rights" part.

 

[frankfrank]

I'm just frustrated that CA Prop 8 seems to elevated by the LGBT media as being the most important fight we have. I believe we need to start with more basic issues like employment & housing.

The GLBT community isn't the first group to treat this Proposition as the ultimate life-force, and the most important issue in the history of the world. In fact, I wouldn't even claim that "our" community puts that ultimate and topmost importance on this issue.

It is evident from some comments of those who don't want us to be equal, though, that THEY consider it the most important issue in the history of the human race. When "Yes on 8" people, or people with a similar mindset, are saying that this push to preserve equal rights is tantamount to the rise and reign of Adolf Hitler, or say that gay marriage is the most threatening issue ever to face the United States [see: Sally Kern of Oklahoma], they are indeed elevating it to the most important issue of all time.

As a Christian I've felt disenfranchised for more than a generation because I've never attended a sermon which didn't go into trashing gays within a few minutes.

 

[FirmaFan]

I think it's persecution of religious people

Explain that to me. I am dying to know how you came to that conclusion.