If prop 8 passes...

[construct]

Prop 8 would deny gay partners the dignity that comes with the name marriage. It would deny gay couples a right that straight couples have, namely the right to marry.

 

[FirmaFan]

You're very good at making things up.
Have you tried actually reading my posts???

You're still not standing up for equal rights for all, which means you're not standing up for equal rights. You're perfectly happy to keep the law as it is -- discriminatory.

How is the law, as it is now, discriminatory? Again, I believe you are looking too much at what churches define as marriage and are not looking at the real issue, which is what government defines as marriage, because like it or not, marriage is a government controlled entity. The fact that it originated and is practiced by the church doesn't change that (which is why when you are married in a church, you still go to the courts to receive your license). Churches and religions can think of marriage however they want (which differs significantly between people, churches, religions, etc), but what is actually being challenged is how the government treats marriage. To give a perspective, if a church believed in human sacrifice, is the government corrupting their belief system by saying that murder is illegal? So, when churches believe that same sex marriage is wrong, is the government really corrupting their belief system by saying it's not? And, if I start a religion that defines marriage as only between two men or two women, are you violating my beliefs system by having man-woman marriage? If same sex marriage is allowed, has the sanctity of marriage truly been tainted? Is your marriage any less sacred to you if gay marriage is legalized? (and, if your answer is "yes", you have got some serious security issues). It's not trying to force churches and people of religion to change their meaning of marriage, it's changing what the government defines as marriage, and in this country, governmental laws and regulations are applied equally to everyone, and marriage is no different, which is why supreme court judges deemed it unconstitutional to deny same sex marriage under the government (notice how nothing in their documentation or ruling did they ever once mention anything about churches or religion). Legalizing gay marriage is allowing same sex marriage under the LAW, not under Christianity, or Judaism, or Muslim, or Wicca, or atheism, or any other of the hundreds and hundreds of religions that each have their own definition of marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

OK wait... how is the current law discriminatory? A law that allows me to keep my marriage? One that doesn't eliminate my rights?

Go back a few years, and the 'evangelicals' were saying the same thing, and not caring that they were actually discriminating -- or probably not even able to grasp the concept.

The current law has one kind of marriage, and one only; all others are excluded.

 

[Kulindahr]

And according to one of our resident "non gay guys" I'm being the biggot by asking to be treated the same under the law.

No, you're being a bigot by only being interested in your definition of marriage, which you're happy to share with the same people who say you shouldn't be able to enjoy it. You're excluding everything else.

 

[Spensed]

No, you're being a bigot by only being interested in your definition of marriage, which you're happy to share with the same people who say you shouldn't be able to enjoy it. You're excluding everything else.

One step at a time.

Let's get gay marriage in place and go from there.

Your theorizing is just that and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[Kulindahr]

How is the law, as it is now, discriminatory? Again, I believe you are looking too much at what churches define as marriage and are not looking at the real issue, which is what government defines as marriage, because like it or not, marriage is a government controlled entity. The fact that it originated and is practiced by the church doesn't change that (which is why when you are married in a church, you still go to the courts to receive your license). Churches and religions can think of marriage however they want (which differs significantly between people, churches, religions, etc), but what is actually being challenged is how the government treats marriage. To give a perspective, if a church believed in human sacrifice, is the government corrupting their belief system by saying that murder is illegal? So, when churches believe that same sex marriage is wrong, is the government really corrupting their belief system by saying it's not? And, if I start a religion that defines marriage as only between two men or two women, are you violating my beliefs system by having man-woman marriage? If same sex marriage is allowed, has the sanctity of marriage truly been tainted? Is your marriage any less sacred to you if gay marriage is legalized? (and, if your answer is "yes", you have got some serious security issues). It's not trying to force churches and people of religion to change their meaning of marriage, it's changing what the government defines as marriage, and in this country, governmental laws and regulations are applied equally to everyone, and marriage is no different, which is why supreme court judges deemed it unconstitutional to deny same sex marriage under the government (notice how nothing in their documentation or ruling did they ever once mention anything about churches or religion). Legalizing gay marriage is allowing same sex marriage under the LAW, not under Christianity, or Judaism, or Muslim, or Wicca, or atheism, or any other of the hundreds and hundreds of religions that each have their own definition of marriage.

That government controls it is irrelevant to the root of the issue: since the majority of Americans consider it sacred, it is religious, and the government has no business controlling it in the first place. The government's present position is an adoption of a religious position into law, which is unconstitutional. As it stands, the establishment clause is being violated. The most direct method of sorting it out is to get the religious definition and the word out of the law and back into the churches. It is encumbent on the government to maintain neutrality in religious issues, and by continuing to use both the religious term and definition it not only continues, but invites, entanglement.

Changing the word from "marriage" will eliminate all that, while so long as it remains, churches will continue to believe that they have a legitimate interest in dictating to everyone else.

So let them have "marriage", and choose a neutral term. And if they want to fight over it, we can ask, "Where in the Bible does it say 'registered union' (or other term)? You have marriage; leave the rest of us in peace."

 

[FirmaFan]

^^Well lets just see what the people of CA voted.

Even if it passes, that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, as it applies different rules to different people under the law. If marriage can be defined as between a man and a woman, it can be defined as marriage between a white man and woman, or a USA born man and woman, any any number of other discriminatory things as long as they are voted in, which, in no way makes them right. No matter what the people of CA vote, the discrimination it implies does not dissipate.

Can anyone tell me what legal rights (i.e. contracts, health benefits, state income tax joint returns) come with marriage that are not in domestic partnerships and civil unions? Everyone keeps saying there are and they are very important but damned if they mention one.

If they are not different, as you are trying to argue, then why differentiate at all under California law? If they are not different, would you be willing to annul your marriage and instead become "domestic partners"? I don't know of one person that would answer "yes" to that question with the current definitions of each.

And in the end, when it comes down to it, it's very very simple for me. I believe that EVERYONE should be able to say "I am married to the person I love."

 

[Kulindahr]

One step at a time.

Let's get gay marriage in place and go from there.

Your theorizing is just that and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Just when do you plan, then, to take an interest in the rights of others?

Fighting for "gay marriage" is begging for religious persecution, for conflict.
Fighting to correct an unconstitutional situation is a whole different matter: for one thing, we can plainly tell the 'evangelicals' that we're trying to rectify a situation that's in violation of the order God established for this country.

Meanwhile, better to take no steps that a wrong one.

 

[construct]

That government controls it is irrelevant to the root of the issue: since the majority of Americans consider it sacred, it is religious, and the government has no business controlling it in the first place. The government's present position is an adoption of a religious position into law, which is unconstitutional. As it stands, the establishment clause is being violated. The most direct method of sorting it out is to get the religious definition and the word out of the law and back into the churches. It is encumbent on the government to maintain neutrality in religious issues, and by continuing to use both the religious term and definition it not only continues, but invites, entanglement.

Changing the word from "marriage" will eliminate all that, while so long as it remains, churches will continue to believe that they have a legitimate interest in dictating to everyone else.

So let them have "marriage", and choose a neutral term. And if they want to fight over it, we can ask, "Where in the Bible does it say 'registered union' (or other term)? You have marriage; leave the rest of us in peace."

Kuli,

If you want to legalize plural incestuous marriage on the basis of a violation of freedom of religion, sue for it in Oregon. Be careful though. I think there's a nineteenth century federal law prohibiting polygamy. You may wind up in the federal court system.

This California case and the proposition in question have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Freedom of religion is not the root of it. Freedom of religion is actually irrelevant to it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even if it passes, that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, as it applies different rules to different people under the law. If marriage can be defined as between a man and a woman, it can be defined as marriage between a white man and woman, or a USA born man and woman, any any number of other discriminatory things as long as they are voted in, which, in no way makes them right. No matter what the people of CA vote, the discrimination it implies does not dissipate.



If they are not different, as you are trying to argue, then why differentiate at all under California law? If they are not different, would you be willing to annul your marriage and instead become "domestic partners"? I don't know of one person that would answer "yes" to that question with the current definitions of each.

And in the end, when it comes down to it, it's very very simple for me. I believe that EVERYONE should be able to say "I am married to the person I love."

Yes, everyone should be able to say that -- or to say "We're bonded for life", or any other thing. And the government should treat them all equally, under a neutral term that can't be claimed by any religion, philosophy, or other system of belief. Let each devotee of every belief system be able to feel ownership of the word for his or her relationship, and not feel it's sullied by having to share it with others.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli,

If you want to legalize plural incestuous marriage on the basis of a violation of freedom of religion, sue for it in Oregon. Be careful though. I think there's a nineteenth century federal law prohibiting polygamy. You may wind up in the federal court system.

This California case and the proposition in question have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Freedom of religion is not the root of it. Freedom of religion is actually irrelevant to it.

Yes, there is.
And it's unconstitutional on the face of it.

And ALL our state laws about marriage have to do with religion: that's where the definitions came from.

 

[FirmaFan]

That government controls it is irrelevant to the root of the issue: since the majority of Americans consider it sacred, it is religious, and the government has no business controlling it in the first place. The government's present position is an adoption of a religious position into law, which is unconstitutional. As it stands, the establishment clause is being violated. The most direct method of sorting it out is to get the religious definition and the word out of the law and back into the churches. It is encumbent on the government to maintain neutrality in religious issues, and by continuing to use both the religious term and definition it not only continues, but invites, entanglement.

Changing the word from "marriage" will eliminate all that, while so long as it remains, churches will continue to believe that they have a legitimate interest in dictating to everyone else.

So let them have "marriage", and choose a neutral term. And if they want to fight over it, we can ask, "Where in the Bible does it say 'registered union' (or other term)? You have marriage; leave the rest of us in peace."

So the only problem you have with marriage laws in government is the semantics? Call it something else and everything will be fine? Why not make it equal for all and then change the verbiage? If the word marriage is changed to civil union or some other "neutral" word, how does that effect people if prop 8 passes? Instead of "marriage" being only between a man and a women, "unions" will be only between a man and a women. Let's worry about equality first.

And haven't you gotten it by now that it doesn't matter one little bit what the churches believe marriage is? It's written in US law, it's there, it's not going away. So forget about what churches think, it's not a church matter, it's a governmental matter, and as of right now, there is no initiative in place to change that, the only thing going on right now is how government, not churches, defines marriage, which must be equal for all since it is a governmental law.

 

[Kulindahr]

So the only problem you have with marriage laws in government is the semantics? Call it something else and everything will be fine? Why not make it equal for all and then change the verbiage? If the word marriage is changed to civil union or some other "neutral" word, how does that effect people if prop 8 passes? Instead of "marriage" being only between a man and a women, "unions" will be only between a man and a women. Let's worry about equality first.

And haven't you gotten it by now that it doesn't matter one little bit what the churches believe marriage is? It's written in US law, it's there, it's not going away. So forget about what churches think, it's not a church matter, it's a governmental matter, and as of right now, there is no initiative in place to change that, the only thing going on right now is how government, not churches, defines marriage, which must be equal for all since it is a governmental law.

It's a government matter only by import: the government definition is a religious definition. We are having religion imposed on us -- and so long as the religious word is used, the religious people will continue their hate and attempts to control us through the government.

"It's written in U.S. law" is an empty argument: a black person being less than a person was written into U.S. law, too. Just because a religious position was written into law doesn't excuse it. You want equality? Get the religious freight out of the law, and the word that lets religious people think they have a hold on the law of the land.

 

[FirmaFan]

It's a government matter only by import: the government definition is a religious definition. We are having religion imposed on us -- and so long as the religious word is used, the religious people will continue their hate and attempts to control us through the government.

"It's written in U.S. law" is an empty argument: a black person being less than a person was written into U.S. law, too. Just because a religious position was written into law doesn't excuse it. You want equality? Get the religious freight out of the law, and the word that lets religious people think they have a hold on the law of the land.

What better way to go against the religious freight than to change the meaning of their religious practices in our laws? That will really show them how little hold they actually have on the law. Prop 8 keeps it they way they want it, and actually exemplifies their feeling of control in our government. I like your idea of eliminating all church influence and instead establishing a national "unionship," if you will, between those who so choose, but I believe we are so far from such a thing, and we must first establish that everyone's rights are equal when it comes to unions, marriage, or whatever, and that first means that taking the "unionship" equivalent in our laws at present and establishing that they are equal for all. Babysteps. Black people being equal to white people in US law didn't happen overnight, and neither will this, but you must admit, that equal marriage laws is a critical step to a national "unionship" law that treats everyone equally. "Written into US law" is not an empty argument, it's a statement of fact, it is written into US law, making it a US law matter, and as such, can be changed, as the system was designed to accommodate, but the change that prop 8 seeks to make is a change to further integrate religious teachings in governmental matters, not lessen it, as you and I both agree needs to happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

What better way to go against the religious freight than to change the meaning of their religious practices in our laws? That will really show them how little hold they actually have on the law. Prop 8 keeps it they way they want it, and actually exemplifies their feeling of control in our government. I like your idea of eliminating all church influence and instead establishing a national "unionship," if you will, between those who so choose, but I believe we are so far from such a thing, and we must first establish that everyone's rights are equal when it comes to unions, marriage, or whatever, and that first means that taking the "unionship" equivalent in our laws at present and establishing that they are equal for all. Babysteps. Black people being equal to white people in US law didn't happen overnight, and neither will this, but you must admit, that equal marriage laws is a critical step to a national "unionship" law that treats everyone equally. "Written into US law" is not an empty argument, it's a statement of fact, it is written into US law, making it a US law matter, and as such, can be changed, as the system was designed to accommodate, but the change that prop 8 seeks to make is a change to further integrate religious teachings in governmental matters, not lessen it, as you and I both agree needs to happen.

So are you working to get polygamists their rights, too? And those who believe in group marriage, or other forms?

If Prop 8 passes, then my strategy becomes the best option: let them have that definition of "marriage"... and pull the rug out by taking it out of the law, period.

And yes, if anyone asks if I want to law to go 'past' gays and right on to polygamy, I'll say, "What part of 'freedom of association' don't you understand?"

 

[Kulindahr]

I am a realist not a utopian. For one reason or another each human on earth is advantaged or disadvantaged. I don't understand why gay people and straight people can't compromise, let them keep marriage and all of it's historical value as an instrument of one man and one woman and let gay people keep civil unions. If america were banning gays from voting, freedom of speech, or from freedom to assemble or right to bear arms or not allowing them access to education I wud get the battle. But I don't get the battle over marriage when all practical rights for gay couples already exist in Cali.

Insufficient -- and the last statement isn't true, anyway.

If they get "marriage", and we get "civil unions", then the government, to be religiously neutral, is obligated to come up with a single term that includes both while mentioning neither -- and to include people with other forms that aren't included in those two pairing forms.

 

[Kulindahr]

All practical right for gay couples do not already exist in California. And I'd really love it if you'd stop saying that.

How about a link showing the differences?
Then I'll join in pounding on his head.

 

[MystikWizard]

The Hannity Forum said that it looks like Proposition 8 is going to Pass. They didn't post a link or any numbers though.

Does anyone have any info on the current status?

 

[FirmaFan]

So are you working to get polygamists their rights, too? And those who believe in group marriage, or other forms?

If Prop 8 passes, then my strategy becomes the best option: let them have that definition of "marriage"... and pull the rug out by taking it out of the law, period.

And yes, if anyone asks if I want to law to go 'past' gays and right on to polygamy, I'll say, "What part of 'freedom of association' don't you understand?"

I am not working to get polygamists their rights, and never was. I'll let other people attempt that. That's not my fight. Mine is with same sex marriage.

I am fine with letting the church have their definition of marriage, why then is it so wrong for the government to have one too? Since you can't take marriage out of the law, with its entanglement in so many other facets of legislation, we simply need a new definition. We "pull the rug out" and things fall down. You can't expect a drastic change in virtually every civil law by eliminating the facet of marriage from the government, it just doesn't work that way. You must first be able to understand what steps are necessary to achieve such action. What's the first logical step towards your goal? It's not pulling the rug out and eliminating marriage from government, so, what is it? Logically, we must first modify our understanding of what marriage means, if we are ever even going to be able to conceive the notion of what you have been proposing. If marriage is changed, if our understanding of it changes enough, maybe one day it will be changed so much that it holds no relation to its religious foundations, in name or any other association. But prop 8 is step back, a step that forgoes a new found understanding of marriage and puts it right back where it was 50 years ago. If prop 8 passes, your strategy will be the best option, but you'll be further away from it than you were when gay marriage was legal.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am not working to get polygamists their rights, and never was. I'll let other people attempt that. That's not my fight. Mine is with same sex marriage.

I am fine with letting the church have their definition of marriage, why then is it so wrong for the government to have one too? Since you can't take marriage out of the law, with its entanglement in so many other facets of legislation, we simply need a new definition. We "pull the rug out" and things fall down. You can't expect a drastic change in virtually every civil law by eliminating the facet of marriage from the government, it just doesn't work that way. You must first be able to understand what steps are necessary to achieve such action. What's the first logical step towards your goal? It's not pulling the rug out and eliminating marriage from government, so, what is it? Logically, we must first modify our understanding of what marriage means, if we are ever even going to be able to conceive the notion of what you have been proposing. If marriage is changed, if our understanding of it changes enough, maybe one day it will be changed so much that it holds no relation to its religious foundations, in name or any other association. But prop 8 is step back, a step that forgoes a new found understanding of marriage and puts it right back where it was 50 years ago. If prop 8 passes, your strategy will be the best option, but you'll be further away from it than you were when gay marriage was legal.

Thanks for being clear that you're not fighting for equal rights, but for a privilege.

The starting point isn't modifying the meaning of the word marriage, but to let go of it and let the churches have it! That will pull the rug out from under them; if the word isn't in the law, there's nothing for them to grab at.

Logically, we shouldn't try to change the meaning of a word with thousands of years of history. Rather, we should step back to basic principles and remind everyone that this country is about equal rights for all people, since "all men are created equal". Since we are using a word with a religious meaning, in order to have equality, we give them back that word and find one that is neutral, that no one can argue over because no one has used it.

Nothing falls down, there's no drastic changes, we just quietly replace one word in the law with another -- one that applies to all people, so that religion doesn't impinge on it, and applies to them equally, apart from any consideration of race, religion, creed, color, gender... or number.

The reason Prop 8 is passing, btw, is that there is no "new found understanding of marriage". Even many who are voting for it really believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but they don't see clearly enough to realize that the way to change is to make things simpler, not more complicated.