If prop 8 passes...

[Kulindahr]

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.

No.
If gay marriage remained legal, no one would care that they were infringing on, indeed tromping on, other people's rights. Gays would celebrate "equality", when what they really have is superiority. And when those left being discriminated against asked when their turn would be, everyone what laugh.

The problem has to be looked at in its process: how did we get to a place where religious discrimination was enshrined in the law (even before 8)? We got here by taking some things for granted, like that everyone was a Christian, or at least someone who followed at least part of the Bible. That was an understandable blindness, back before there were even any significant numbers of Catholics in the country. But it's a blindness we can longer afford, and the solution isn't to change the condition of blindness, but to end it -- and we end it by excising the whole mass at its root, which is religion.

Prop 8 may turn out to be a step forward, because it helps clarify the issue -- if proponents of gay marriage step back and take a look at the big picture, if they realize that fighting only for themselves has been wrong, if they turn to include all people.

 

[FirmaFan]

Prop 8 may turn out to be a step forward, because it helps clarify the issue -- if proponents of gay marriage step back and take a look at the big picture, if they realize that fighting only for themselves has been wrong, if they turn to include all people.

Prop 8 certainly does clarify the issue. It says that under governmental law, not everyone is equal, we grant rights only to a certain individuals, not all, and that's the law. It in now way is a step towards "giving marriage back" it simply integrates their belief systems further into our government, for the government would be obeying their rules about marriage. That's not giving anything back, that's allowing them to metastasize even more into governmental laws.

I never said I was fighting for a privilege, and never implied that. I am fighting for the rights of gay marriage, because that is what I have chosen to fight for. That in no way implies my opinions of any other fight in any other proposition, election, or hypothetical (i.e. polygamy). People fight for what they believe in and that's how changes are made. If everyone fought for everything, nothing would get done. Everyone chooses their battles. You seem to want change just as much as everyone, but your goals to overthrow the entity of marriage in government because of its origins is not something that can be done in any sort of time frame that you might like. But allowing people of the same sex to be married under the law is within grasp, and you should be fighting for it as much as the rest, because right now, it's the closest you can get to your Utopian fantasy of marriage being replaced by some union type thing that would treat everyone equally, and if they want to call that thing that treats everyone equally "marriage" in our laws, so be it. Why would you choose to allow something to discriminate when your ultimate goal is equality? That's not a step forward. That in no way furthers your goal. Prop 8 is just as bad for you as it is for me.

 

[Kurn]

Firma, what I've sensed from the supporters is that what they're voting for is their idea of what "Marriage" is and for them it begins and ends with that.
Some of them also believe that "gay" people are really "gender confused," that we really are in the dark about our experiences, that it's a bad habit or something.

We probably need an education campaign.
Even if we get a NO as we hope.

 

[Kulindahr]

Prop 8 certainly does clarify the issue. It says that under governmental law, not everyone is equal, we grant rights only to a certain individuals, not all, and that's the law. It in now way is a step towards "giving marriage back" it simply integrates their belief systems further into our government, for the government would be obeying their rules about marriage. That's not giving anything back, that's allowing them to metastasize even more into governmental laws.

I never said I was fighting for a privilege, and never implied that. I am fighting for the rights of gay marriage, because that is what I have chosen to fight for. That in no way implies my opinions of any other fight in any other proposition, election, or hypothetical (i.e. polygamy). People fight for what they believe in and that's how changes are made. If everyone fought for everything, nothing would get done. Everyone chooses their battles. You seem to want change just as much as everyone, but your goals to overthrow the entity of marriage in government because of its origins is not something that can be done in any sort of time frame that you might like. But allowing people of the same sex to be married under the law is within grasp, and you should be fighting for it as much as the rest, because right now, it's the closest you can get to your Utopian fantasy of marriage being replaced by some union type thing that would treat everyone equally, and if they want to call that thing that treats everyone equally "marriage" in our laws, so be it. Why would you choose to allow something to discriminate when your ultimate goal is equality? That's not a step forward. That in no way furthers your goal. Prop 8 is just as bad for you as it is for me.

No.
I will continue to fight anything called gay marriage, because it is just a matter of trying to get the same discriminatory privileges held by a religiously-defined group now. It is not a battle for human rights, but a battle for privileges that are unconstitutional. Far better to seek to address the constitutional wrong than to muddle matters further.
If it is fought my way, it may take another generation -- but when the victory comes, it will be for everyone. Fought the other way, there will be no victory at all for half a century or more -- and I will not be party to a strategy that sells the freedom of some to gain it for others.

 

[FirmaFan]

Firma, what I've sensed from the supporters is that what they're voting for is their idea of what "Marriage" is and for them it begins and ends with that.
Some of them also believe that "gay" people are really "gender confused," that we really are in the dark about our experiences, that it's a bad habit or something.

We probably need an education campaign.
Even if we get a NO as we hope.

Unfortunately for us, it's not about what they believe marriage is, it's about what the law is, which needs to be equal for all.

And to those that believe I am gender confused, or have some misunderstanding about what I should be, or that's it's some fad or a bad habit, I don't even feel the need to acknowledge their opinion, much like I ignore the opinions of people who say the world is flat. We have gone beyond the days of thinking that homosexuality is some sort of problem and can now see that me being gay is as much of a problem as me having blond hair and blue eyes. Everything is genetic (I repeat, everything). Everything we are comes from our genes (where else will it come from?) and even actions and traits that might seem completely unrelated to genetics are actually closely related. The reactions we have to every experience we encounter and how it changes and modifies who we are is genetically based. Homosexuality is not a disease and can not be cured. Some may say they have been cured (bisexual?), but I can put coloring in my hair and say I am a brunette just as easily. There has never been anything wrong with me, and I will never acknowledge the opinions of people who believe otherwise. And if any happen to engage me in any conversation leading in that direction, I simply throw them off the edge of the earth.

 

[FirmaFan]

No.
I will continue to fight anything called gay marriage, because it is just a matter of trying to get the same discriminatory privileges held by a religiously-defined group now. It is not a battle for human rights, but a battle for privileges that are unconstitutional. Far better to seek to address the constitutional wrong than to muddle matters further.
If it is fought my way, it may take another generation -- but when the victory comes, it will be for everyone. Fought the other way, there will be no victory at all for half a century or more -- and I will not be party to a strategy that sells the freedom of some to gain it for others.

Even though our opinions differ, I am happy our ultimate goals our the same. Race you to the finish line.

 

[Spensed]

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.

That doesn't follow. A number of countries around the world have gay marriage without "begging for religious persecution".

I'm not clear what "rights of others" you have in mind. But if it's some theoretical notion about various alternatives forms of marriage relationships you've broached before, that's all it is and my guess is that it's of little, if any, relevance to the reality of people's lives.

 

[Kurn]

Unfortunately for us, it's not about what they believe marriage is, it's about what the law is, which needs to be equal for all.

And to those that believe I am gender confused, or have some misunderstanding about what I should be, or that's it's some fad or a bad habit, I don't even feel the need to acknowledge their opinion, much like I ignore the opinions of people who say the world is flat. We have gone beyond the days of thinking that homosexuality is some sort of problem and can now see that me being gay is as much of a problem as me having blond hair and blue eyes. Everything is genetic (I repeat, everything). Everything we are comes from our genes (where else will it come from?) and even actions and traits that might seem completely unrelated to genetics are actually closely related. The reactions we have to every experience we encounter and how it changes and modifies who we are is genetically based. Homosexuality is not a disease and can not be cured. Some may say they have been cured (bisexual?), but I can put coloring in my hair and say I am a brunette just as easily. There has never been anything wrong with me, and I will never acknowledge the opinions of people who believe otherwise. And if any happen to engage me in any conversation leading in that direction, I simply throw them off the edge of the earth.

Once upon a time many, many white people held erroneous beliefs about black people.
That has changed. Some people still have these false beliefs, but far fewer do.
If 8 passes, we will have x% of people in California that we will need to educate; at a minimum.
We'll know tomorrow what sort of work we have to do.
If you don't want to deal with "those people" then deal through whatever Gay community resources, local or web- that we can.
As you said, if it passes -- or if it almost passes--- it means there are a lot of ignorant people.

[By the way: Here's a link to the recent court decision that opened the door to the false campaign that engendered 8. It expresses the basic issues that an educational campaign might embrace: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF ---skip the footnotes and skim through the citations--and take two days or more if you have to. It's educational--maybe organize a group reading]

 

[construct]

Once upon a time many, many white people held erroneous beliefs about black people.
That has changed. Some people still have these false beliefs, but far fewer do.
If 8 passes, we will have x% of people in California that we will need to educate; at a minimum.
We'll know tomorrow what sort of work we have to do.
If you don't want to deal with "those people" then deal through whatever Gay community resources, local or web- that we can.
As you said, if it passes -- or if it almost passes--- it means there are a lot of ignorant people.

[By the way: Here's a link to the recent court decision that opened the door to the false campaign that engendered 8. It expresses the basic issues that an educational campaign might embrace: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF ---skip the footnotes and skim through the citations--and take two days or more if you have to. It's educational--maybe organize a group reading]

I agree with you about the education campaign. I agree that actually reading In re Marriage Cases is a good thing. Of course if Prop 8 passes, the principle holding in the case will no longer be good law. I guess one could substitute the Kerrigan case from Connecticut.

In a way, much of the gay presence in media is a start in that direction, but it really needs to be focused on gay families. A gay Full House or a gay Two Men and a Baby--something like that might be a useful follow-up to Will and Grace.

 

[Spiff]

There's still hope. CNN is now reporting prop 8 is losing, albeit by a small margin. Although sadly this is based on exit polls only. I don't know why CNN isn't looking at the actual poll results, as this article was just updated.

 

[future_boy]

If Prop 8 passes then what??? Gay rights to marriage immediately eliminated or still undergoing Supreme Court of California???

 

[construct]

If Prop 8 passes then what??? Gay rights to marriage immediately eliminated or still undergoing Supreme Court of California???

Yes. Gay rights to marriage immediately eliminated.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unfortunately for us, it's not about what they believe marriage is, it's about what the law is, which needs to be equal for all.

I'm not clear what "rights of others" you have in mind. But if it's some theoretical notion about various alternatives forms of marriage relationships you've broached before, that's all it is and my guess is that it's of little, if any, relevance to the reality of people's lives.

Oh, wondrous!

Two people basically saying, "We don't give a shit about anyone else".

That's what will be heard by the people you both refer to, on receipt of such statements.

That one of you is dismissing offhand tens of millions of people, and the other is dismissing mere millions, makes no difference. If there is a minority of one out there, if you dismiss his or her concerns, you show you aren't interested in human rights, but in getting things for yourselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with you about the education campaign. I agree that actually reading In re Marriage Cases is a good thing. Of course if Prop 8 passes, the principle holding in the case will no longer be good law. I guess one could substitute the Kerrigan case from Connecticut.

In a way, much of the gay presence in media is a start in that direction, but it really needs to be focused on gay families. A gay Full House or a gay Two Men and a Baby--something like that might be a useful follow-up to Will and Grace.

Or even a Two and a Half Men with a gay brother in there.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. Gay rights to marriage immediately eliminated.

And what of those already married under the (old) law?
Does an amendment trump ex post facto?

 

[FirmaFan]

And what of those already married under the (old) law?
Does an amendment trump ex post facto?

It renders their marriage license unrecognizable under California constitutional law.

 

[FirmaFan]

Oh, wondrous!

Two people basically saying, "We don't give a shit about anyone else".

That's what will be heard by the people you both refer to, on receipt of such statements.

That one of you is dismissing offhand tens of millions of people, and the other is dismissing mere millions, makes no difference. If there is a minority of one out there, if you dismiss his or her concerns, you show you aren't interested in human rights, but in getting things for yourselves.

You still don't get that I am not trying to change the meaning of marriage in religion, I don't care at all about any religion, they mean absolutely nothing to me whatsoever, so I care not how they view marriage, because it has no effect on me. The law, however, I do care about and does effect me, and that is what needs to change, the law, not the religion. Marriage is a written law, and changing the meaning of a law does not change its meaning to people of religion. Murder laws have just as much religious basis, but no matter how any religion defines murder, it's got one definite definition under governmental law, and I don't hear you complaining at all about how a governmental definition of murder intrudes onto religious definitions, or that the laws of murder should be "given back to religion". Marriage laws are not going anywhere, no matter how much you think they should, they just aren't, so please, if you are to respond, don't discuss such nonsense, it is not applicable to this country. The only thing that is applicable is the change in what those laws dictate, a change that can either encompass all, or merely a select few. I've made my choice. What's yours?

 

[Kulindahr]

You still don't get that I am not trying to change the meaning of marriage in religion, I don't care at all about any religion, they mean absolutely nothing to me whatsoever, so I care not how they view marriage, because it has no effect on me. The law, however, I do care about and does effect me, and that is what needs to change, the law, not the religion. Marriage is a written law, and changing the meaning of a law does not change its meaning to people of religion. Murder laws have just as much religious basis, but no matter how any religion defines murder, it's got one definite definition under governmental law, and I don't hear you complaining at all about how a governmental definition of murder intrudes onto religious definitions, or that the laws of murder should be "given back to religion". Marriage laws are not going anywhere, no matter how much you think they should, they just aren't, so please, if you are to respond, don't discuss such nonsense, it is not applicable to this country. The only thing that is applicable is the change in what those laws dictate, a change that can either encompass all, or merely a select few. I've made my choice. What's yours?

I get that you have no comprehension of what marriage means to people. If you spoke that first sentence in a church, what they would hear is, "I support the definition of marriage as one man and one woman". And to most Americans, that's what it means. You for some reason view the laws as reality, when all they are is a game we play amongst ourselves to get along. In the law "marriage" is just a set of letters with an assigned meaning, but that's a concept that will never get through to the religious folk. To the religious who turn out determinedly to vote down "special rights" for gays, marriage is religious -- period; the fact that the government issues a marriage license is commonly viewed as an intrusion on religion that is unconstitutional but tolerated.

So when you say you just want to change the meaning of a word, what they hear is "I'm going to steal something precious from you". And when you say it doesn't matter what their view of marriage is, that says, "I don't think you're worth shit, or your god".

You see a word that could be any other word, but to them marriage is more real than ecology or dark matter.

And the way to settle issues like this isn't to stomp on other people and kick them aside, but to ask what can be done to address their issues, to make peace. And in this, a simple but huge step would be to just surrender the word -- because to you that's all it is, but to them it's far, far more. You don't even need the word, in a legal sense; any word will do, so long as it is assigned the proper meaning.

Your approach quite deliberately insults and disdains millions upon millions of Americans, in order to get something for a select few and ignore the whole.

My approach says that we can grant dignity to everyone, and address liberty for all.

 

[FirmaFan]

I get that you have no comprehension of what marriage means to people. If you spoke that first sentence in a church, what they would hear is, "I support the definition of marriage as one man and one woman". And to most Americans, that's what it means. You for some reason view the laws as reality, when all they are is a game we play amongst ourselves to get along. In the law "marriage" is just a set of letters with an assigned meaning, but that's a concept that will never get through to the religious folk. To the religious who turn out determinedly to vote down "special rights" for gays, marriage is religious -- period; the fact that the government issues a marriage license is commonly viewed as an intrusion on religion that is unconstitutional but tolerated.

So when you say you just want to change the meaning of a word, what they hear is "I'm going to steal something precious from you". And when you say it doesn't matter what their view of marriage is, that says, "I don't think you're worth shit, or your god".

You see a word that could be any other word, but to them marriage is more real than ecology or dark matter.

And the way to settle issues like this isn't to stomp on other people and kick them aside, but to ask what can be done to address their issues, to make peace. And in this, a simple but huge step would be to just surrender the word -- because to you that's all it is, but to them it's far, far more. You don't even need the word, in a legal sense; any word will do, so long as it is assigned the proper meaning.

Your approach quite deliberately insults and disdains millions upon millions of Americans, in order to get something for a select few and ignore the whole.

My approach says that we can grant dignity to everyone, and address liberty for all.

It's sad to think that people still believe that it is justifiable for religion to intrude into the lives of others who do not believe what they believe (i.e. making marriage an opposite sex right only under the law) but when, under the law, their definitions are challenged (i.e. marriage can be between the same sex), it's somehow a personal attack that is in now way justifiable. I want equal rights under the law, and I don't care if that conflicts with their beliefs, because for those millions of millions of Americans you speak of, there are 10 times that many who don't follow and believe what they believe. The only way to treat everyone fairly is to COMPLETELY ignore EVERYONE'S (mine and yours included) religious beliefs and establish a system of laws that apply equally to EVERYONE, religious or not. Right now, marriage is not ignoring the religious influence, and people like me who have no affiliation with any religion are those that suffer at the expense. Keep god out of marriage laws, because it is law, and religious beliefs, no matter how popular and extensive, have no place in it.

As far as you saying I think don't think god is worth shit, if you want this conversation to go in the direction of the validity of religions and people's beliefs, I'll tear every last one of them to the ground and leave them as nothing but the deranged delusions of a people that blindly follow books written by linguists and scholars who continually mistranslate the musings of people who lived over 2000 years ago, finding it a means to justify the absolute worst kinds of hate, bigotry, violence, terrorism, and discrimination this planet has ever known.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's sad to think that people still believe that it is justifiable for religion to intrude into the lives of others who do not believe what they believe (i.e. making marriage an opposite sex right only under the law) but when, under the law, their definitions are challenged (i.e. marriage can be between the same sex), it's somehow a personal attack that is in now way justifiable. I want equal rights under the law, and I don't care if that conflicts with their beliefs, because for those millions of millions of Americans you speak of, there are 10 times that many who don't follow and believe what they believe. The only way to treat everyone fairly is to COMPLETELY ignore EVERYONE'S (mine and yours included) religious beliefs and establish a system of laws that apply equally to EVERYONE, religious or not. Right now, marriage is not ignoring the religious influence, and people like me who have no affiliation with any religion are those that suffer at the expense. Keep god out of marriage laws, because it is law, and religious beliefs, no matter how popular and extensive, have no place in it.

As far as you saying I think don't think god is worth shit, if you want this conversation to go in the direction of the validity of religions and people's beliefs, I'll tear every last one of them to the ground and leave them as nothing but the deranged delusions of a people that blindly follow books written by linguists and scholars who continually mistranslate the musings of people who lived over 2000 years ago, finding it a means to justify the absolute worst kinds of hate, bigotry, violence, terrorism, and discrimination this planet has ever known.

I said nothing about the validity of religious beliefs: I described your communicated attitude toward those who are between you and your goal. Rather than treat them with respect, you deliberately insist on tromping on them.

Your facts are wrong, btw: there simply aren't ten times as many Americans "who don't follow and believe what they believe". In fact, a majority of Americans believe what they do: that marriage was instituted and ordained by God, and is a sacred thing, therefore. Evangelicals alone account for a fifth or more of Americans; then there are the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, and others.

The situation really is simple: the word in law at the present time represents a religious position. The simplest and most constitutional way to fix that is to get rid of word and definition both, to pick a religiously neutral term so that there is no question at all of entanglement.


Oh -- WRT your comments about the validity of religion, you're expressing right there the same kind of bigotry you condemn, indeed the same kind which fuels this conflict: the kind that thoroughly despises the other person, and gives not a whit about their dignity, their personhood, or anything else... the same kind of bigotry that fuels the discrimination you want to end.
But you don't end it by indulging in it.