If prop 8 passes...

[Kulindahr]

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.

All the more reason to not fight for gay marriage!
It doesn't have to be defined in any legal document at all; the fact that most Americans consider it religious, that it is almost always done in churches, makes it religious -- and thus outside the purview of government to regulate, or to provide benefits on the basis of.

All we have to do is what I suggested before:

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.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

I've only ever heard one sermon that even mentioned gays!

 

[Kulindahr]

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

It's taking something precious to them, and ramming something utterly horrific into it.

It's a quest for special rights in a religious scheme of persecution; if granted, gays will have become party to religious persecution as well.

 

[FirmaFan]

It's taking something precious to them, and ramming something utterly horrific into it.

It's a quest for special rights in a religious scheme of persecution; if granted, gays will have become party to religious persecution as well.

No matter how much you think marriage is or want it to be about religion, marriage is a government defined institution. It may have religious roots, but it is government defined, and, as such, is not about disrespecting religious beliefs, or about "ramming something utterly horrific into it," it's about granting everyone the same rights and privileges under the law, not under religion. People of religion may hold marriage sacred and believe that gay marriage violates that, but we're not talking about religion, and never were, we're talking about what the government is enacting, and marriage is government controlled. Now, if there was a law were to say that all catholic churches must perform gay marriages, then I understand how that would be an intrusion or violation of a private institution, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a government institution, which, under the foundations of a free society, must treat everyone equal.

And again, I am forced to question how you can believe that two people showing love and devotion to one another is, in your mind, "utterly horrific."

 

[accorn]

The precise problem we have is a matter of semantics...The LGBT community at least in our state level insists on this word "marriage" rather than civil unions and will not settle for less. I am not saying this is right or wrong but what it did was infuriate a conservative evangelical voting base that is predominant in the inland communities of california.

Let us be fair this is something that the religious community is struggling with but it just so happens that conservatives are way more mobilized on this matter for several reasons. First older generations in general are more likely to be more apprehensive about gays religious or not. Second, these older generations are the more likely voters. So what polls and political scientists are finding that even among the religious there is a generational gap in terms of the support and opposition to prop 8.

Yes religion is a factor but it seems that the stronger factor is a generational issue. Just today alone for example, rallies were held in san diego (by the thousands) and in st johns cathedral in los angeles by ministers and pastors all opposing proposition 8.

What were seeing then is a conservative movement rallying those apprehensive about gays in general through a religious argument.

It looks like prop 8 will pass because the younger voters may not turn out primarily becuase they already think this is a gimme state for obama.

but since we know that this is largely a generational issue it is only a matter time, (maybe a shortwhile) until we can win this semantics issue.

 

[FirmaFan]

Exactly what rights are denied here in Cal? From what I have read civil unions have very similar rights to marriage. If you are talking federally you'd have to take on the DOMA regardless of how CA votes on prop 8.

"Very similar", but not the same.

 

[FirmaFan]

What rights are you claiming to be denied?

I'll start with a big one: The right to be married.

 

[accorn]

I'm sure this is true but I read an article attached to the other prop 8 thread that claimed the largest growing support for prop 8 is actually amoung young people.

here is a similar article:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundthe...ort-gain-ground-among-young-people-poll-says/

If were looking at it from the generational argument and through the lens of political science. It is obvious that the largest growing group will come from the young people because they already have the lump support of older folks. In other words the only room for them to grow significantly is among young voters.

http://yubanet.com/california/Field-Poll-Prop-8-dividing-voters-49-No---44-Yes.php
has somewhat of a better breakdown on the current polls on 8

 

[accorn]

Oh cool. Well I hope those numbers are based on likely voters!! 49% NO is a good lead.

but they are suspecting a bradley effect...people dont want to sound politically incorrect and are just saying they are voting no on prop 8 when asked.

 

[Kulindahr]

No matter how much you think marriage is or want it to be about religion, marriage is a government defined institution. It may have religious roots, but it is government defined, and, as such, is not about disrespecting religious beliefs, or about "ramming something utterly horrific into it," it's about granting everyone the same rights and privileges under the law, not under religion. People of religion may hold marriage sacred and believe that gay marriage violates that, but we're not talking about religion, and never were, we're talking about what the government is enacting, and marriage is government controlled. Now, if there was a law were to say that all catholic churches must perform gay marriages, then I understand how that would be an intrusion or violation of a private institution, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a government institution, which, under the foundations of a free society, must treat everyone equal.

And again, I am forced to question how you can believe that two people showing love and devotion to one another is, in your mind, "utterly horrific."

Marriage is about religion -- that's why there's a problem: the government has got one very specific religious definition enshrined in law. That has made those religious people whose definition it is feel very privileged. The way to end that is to get government out of marriage, not to add another privileged class to the structure of discrimination.

For however much people say it piously, the quest for gay marriage is not "about granting everyone the same rights and privileges under the law", it's about getting our group the same privilege one group already has.

The only way to solve it is to replace the word "marriage" in federal law with something neutral, like "registered union", and not let the government define it at all. The government's only function here should be to solemnly record the union when anyone comes in and declares theirs -- opposite sex couples, same sex couples, trios, or whatever. That would actually open the door to liberty, because freedom of association would be unchained and people could invent whatever relationship they wanted --- even to a girl in every port, or a 'boy' in every truck stop. And the government would be required to extend the same benefits and privileges to all of those relationships.

Any fight for just ourselves is a fight for participation in tyranny, not for freedom.


note: I thought the context was sufficient to make clear that "utterly horrific" was in their minds. Sorry.

 

[accorn]

don't y'all love it when the bisexuals all talk about how the faggots don't deserve equal rights since we're not as good as they are? I mean.. if you let the faggots marry you'll be able to marry your dog.

Best to just have secret sex with us and then go back to your wives, eh?

If anyone needs me, I'll be in my trailer.

I think we have to really define what we want out of this, do we want marriage or do we want equal rights or are they one in the same?

I myself want it all...

I kind of want for prop 8 to pass so that we can take it up to the federal supreme court in a couple of years (hopefully will be filled by two more liberals by then) who will strike down the law and by striking it down indirectly legalizing gay marriage (but that is just my dream).

 

[Kulindahr]

No it's not.

Christians would love you to believe that, but marriage was actually a business deal and the two parties didn't usually choose each other, meet each other or like each other much.

Often fathers would sell their daughters to the highest bidder and get a couple goats in exchange. Did you see the 10 Commandments? Where Moses gets to choose a wife from a whole bunch of sisters because the father just wants to get rid of one of them? Nothing about love or religion there.

And correct me if I'm wrong but Britney Spears once got married in a drunken stupor "for fun" to some guy she knew from high school. When Britney Spears can stagger drunk into a chapel on a whim and get more rights that I have with my partner of 16 years... can you explain the religious basis for that?




I'll give you a few minutes if you need to pop your head out of your ass before talking.

1. There was a business deal involved, but there was no marriage without the ceremonial blessing by the priest, shaman, or whatever. Ancient middle eastern texts on marriage universally declare that the blessing of the god/gods/spirits were required -- and the government did not recognize a relationship as a marriage without that imprimatur. You could indeed, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did, get a wife by buying her -- but that didn't make her a wife; it only made her yours; a bought woman could be slave, servant, or concubine, besides the possibility of wife. And also, as with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the pre-eminent Old Testament breeders), marriage could involve love (as well as lust; freely translated, one Old Testament patriarch's view of a potential wife was "OMG fucking hot!").

2. So you're in error about Moses: without religion, he would have had property, but no wife. You're also in error about how he got his wife: there's no indication that there was any bargaining, or for that matter that Moses even got a choice!

3. Just because someone abuses an institution doesn't reduce it... else we're all perverted child molesters.

4. Your final point is well-taken: religion, if we're talking about what Jesus taught, wasn't and isn't about throwing rules at people, especially while abusing them yourselves, but about loving everyone. Any real minister of Jesus would have directed the ushers to escort Britney somewhere to sober up, and postponed the ceremony till later, rather than let such a travesty go on. And if the next two to enter were Clyde and Dillon, he would have directed them to a place where they could get married, if a church was around willing to do that but his church forbade it.

 

[accorn]

1. There was a business deal involved, but there was no marriage without the ceremonial blessing by the priest, shaman, or whatever. Ancient middle eastern texts on marriage universally declare that the blessing of the god/gods/spirits were required -- and the government did not recognize a relationship as a marriage without that imprimatur. You could indeed, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did, get a wife by buying her -- but that didn't make her a wife; it only made her yours; a bought woman could be slave, servant, or concubine, besides the possibility of wife. And also, as with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the pre-eminent Old Testament breeders), marriage could involve love (as well as lust; freely translated, one Old Testament patriarch's view of a potential wife was "OMG fucking hot!").

2. So you're in error about Moses: without religion, he would have had property, but no wife. You're also in error about how he got his wife: there's no indication that there was any bargaining, or for that matter that Moses even got a choice!

3. Just because someone abuses an institution doesn't reduce it... else we're all perverted child molesters.

4. Your final point is well-taken: religion, if we're talking about what Jesus taught, wasn't and isn't about throwing rules at people, especially while abusing them yourselves, but about loving everyone. Any real minister of Jesus would have directed the ushers to escort Britney somewhere to sober up, and postponed the ceremony till later, rather than let such a travesty go on. And if the next two to enter were Clyde and Dillon, he would have directed them to a place where they could get married, if a church was around willing to do that but his church forbade it.

The bible might have said that but the practice wasnt about religion. It was evident from the get go, historically marriage was a binding contract that involved the preservation of property. This is why the family ensured that widows were married by the dead persons brothers as much as possible.

Was marriage a religious thing, I would argue that it is a difficult thing to translate now if we are using biblical contexts. Religion and government during that time (just like many societies) were pretty much fused so any legal contracts were for the most part also religious. There was no separation like we have now so technically speaking marriage by government is different from a religious one

The fact of the matter is marriage and our concept of it has evolved over time, and gay marriage is just the natural step in its evolution.

I just give you one example, read shakespeare it was quite common that people never married their love rather married the ones those who were more stable financially. Marrying the one you love initially is a relatively modern concept.

 

[Kulindahr]

The precise problem we have is a matter of semantics...The LGBT community at least in our state level insists on this word "marriage" rather than civil unions and will not settle for less. I am not saying this is right or wrong but what it did was infuriate a conservative evangelical voting base that is predominant in the inland communities of california.


but since we know that this is largely a generational issue it is only a matter time, (maybe a shortwhile) until we can win this semantics issue.

The best way to do it is to show respect for the religious folk and cede them the word, in fact to support getting the word out of the law in order to guarantee that the government can't mess with their institution.
See, it isn't just semantics: the word "marriage" evokes the sacred for not just the religious right, but for the great majority of Americans. I don't know too many gays interested in a "sacred" relationship; they just want the civil aspects of what at this point only the devotees of a particular religious definition are permitted.

I'll start with a big one: The right to be married.

But is marriage alone, a right?

No, marriage is not a right. As it stands under American law, it's a privilege, and one founded in religious discrimination -- note that there are religions in America which have to hide because their marriage beliefs don't fit the official definition (enough cause right there to remove the word from all law!).

What is a right is freedom of association. Marriage is one form that associations can take. We don't need the name; we need the substance. I don't think many gays would object -- giggle, maybe -- if suddenly Congress (high on something...) changed the law so instead of "marriage" it read "blueberries", and that anyone who wished could join in some blueberries. So let the religious folk have the word, and its freight of history, and its sacredness, and replace it in law with something everyone can have, whether with one partner, or two, or three, or eighteen even.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^What about with income taxes and contracts. Doesn't the gov't need to define who can jointly engage in those. I don't see a "unioned, filing as a trio" is gonna fly. 'Yah judge we all had an orgy now the 6 of us want to be unioned." haha

Is it supposed to be a free country, or not?

The reason that "won't fly", as you put it, is that hardly anyone in America these days is interested in equal rights for all; what they want is special privileges for themselves. What we have here is a situation which discriminates by bestowing benefits of relationships on those engaged in one type only. To fight for equal rights for all would be to demand that the discriminatory definition be eliminated; instead, gays are fighting to get included. And if that is accomplished, gays will be a group of discriminators just as much as the Christians are now.

 

[Kulindahr]

don't y'all love it when the bisexuals all talk about how the faggots don't deserve equal rights since we're not as good as they are? I mean.. if you let the faggots marry you'll be able to marry your dog.

Best to just have secret sex with us and then go back to your wives, eh?













If anyone needs me, I'll be in my trailer.

Smoking more of what made you pull those notions out of the blue, I presume?

Those thoughts expose a mind closed to the subject at hand, btw.

 

[accorn]

^^Hmm. Thanks for your insightful posts. Makes me think the battle shud be for the right associated rather than the religious title of, marriage. Though I would imagine there are a significant amt. of Gay religious people who wud want to be married in a church and have that count.

there are already churches marrying gays regardless of what anyone says...it is a debate that is heated in the christian church particularly.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think we have to really define what we want out of this, do we want marriage or do we want equal rights or are they one in the same?

I myself want it all...

I kind of want for prop 8 to pass so that we can take it up to the federal supreme court in a couple of years (hopefully will be filled by two more liberals by then) who will strike down the law and by striking it down indirectly legalizing gay marriage (but that is just my dream).

No, we want them to strike it down in recognition that since most of the country holds marriage to be sacred, the government cannot enshrine it in law, and must replace it with something open to everyone -- even those who still want to be married.
A good justice would note that people can call it "married", "hitched", "bonded", "committed", "handfasted", or any of a number of terms from history, but that the government's interest is not in choosing one of those to mean all of them, but to choose a neutral term which will mean none of them, but include them all -- in whatever forms they come. For here a number of rights intersect, namely freedom of religion and freedom of association and right of privacy, and all must be honored; the Constitution does not permit us to choose among them. So the religious folk may have their definitions, which do not all agree with the current one, and non-religious folk may have theirs, and the government must honor them all.

That's the sort of ruling justices in a free country would give -- but then, we haven't had a free country here in a long time.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^Hmm. Thanks for your insightful posts. Makes me think the battle shud be for the rights associated with rather than the religious title of, marriage. Though I would imagine there are a significant amt. of Gay religious people who wud want to be married in a church and have that count.

Quite correctly so!

Because in a free country, churches also may disagree, even as to number and sex of whose unions may be blessed!

And a bonus would be that the churches could argue amongst themselves, and let everyone else in peace.

BTW, personally I'd like to be 'joined' in a church with a bf and gf, in a threesome -- and all the people pushing for "gay marriage" aren't interested at all in rights for me!

 

[construct]

It's clear that some of you folk need to spend some time with In re Marriage Cases. It's the California Supreme Court decision that Prop 8 is attempting to overturn. Here's a link.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

In it you will see how the right to marry is protected by due process and how the right to choose your own mate is protected as equal protection. The court finds that domestic partnerships are a scheme that is inferior to marriage. For good measure, they reject the idea of deinstitutionalizing marriage.

The majority opinion is the first 121 pages.