Proposition 8 passes in California

[DavidMn]

This has me so worked up! Its unbelieveable to me that as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America I cannot by law choose to marry someone cimply because they are the same sex as I am.:confused::confused: There's no other way to put this, IT MAKES NO SENSE and I'm damn pissed off by it! I was happy about what happened Tuesday, but there's still a long way to go believe me!:mad: I also heard that the marriages already performed there may be challenged in court as not valid.

[shackin'up]

It's ridiculous, Dave. It's a complete nobrainer.
Move to the Netherlands, you can marry anyone you love!

As a principle, this should be a common human right. On the other hand: who wants to marry anyway....? I love my girl to death, but marrying her? what's the point? We are happy together for 18 years. Unmarried.

[DavidMn]

It's ridiculous, Dave. It's a complete nobrainer.
Move to the Netherlands, you can marry anyone you love!

As a principle, this should be a common human right. On the other hand: who wants to marry anyway....? I love my girl to death, but marrying her? what's the point? We are happy together for 18 years. Unmarried.You know what Gerald, you make a very good point. Even though I'm currently single, when I was with my ex Derek for 3 years the thing that mattered most to me was how I felt about him which is something no amendment or anything else can take from me no matter what!

[mylittledemon]

This is such a touchy subject. Until the definition of marriage gets changed, nothing is going to change. Not only that, BUT, it's always going to come up as a vote...and if even the Californians have voted it down..? Makes you wonder.

[strandinthewind]

This is such a touchy subject. Until the definition of marriage gets changed, nothing is going to change. Not only that, BUT, it's always going to come up as a vote...and if even the Californians have voted it down..? Makes you wonder.

I do not get how it is touchy. Looking at the situation objectively, the only issue is the religious people in the US want automatic legal rights for themselves and not other people who go against their religion.

Again, I have yet to hear one reason other than the religious argument against same sex marriage.

But and despite the clear mandate for the separation of church and state in the US Const. -- people are loathe to admit that they are forcing their religion down peoples' throats.

Put it this way, the majority of blacks and hispanics in this country (and likely many whites and Muslims) set aside their religious objections to abortion to vote for Obama. Yet, these same people hypocrticially stood on alleged piety and voted to ban gay marriage. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

[chiliD]

Let the litigation begin. I believe Prop 8 will be overturned in the courts...just like Prop 22 was after the last election.

[estranged4life]

surprised that it passed to tell ya the truth, being that Californ-ie supposedly is the hotbed for 'liberalism'...Seems something's amiss on this vote if ya ask me.

I have, and will always, take my Mom's point of view and that is "unless someone is actually sleeping with you, it is NONE of your business what their sexual preference is - so who gives you the right to keep them from enjoying a happily married life? If you find someone to love and grow old with, isnt that what we all want? Mind your own business and allow gays/lesbians to marry..." - I think the citizens of this country should adhere to my Mom's words.

Brian "My Mom was asked once about her thoughts on lesbianism, and her reply was "I could easily be a lesbian, since most men are cheating, wife-beating scumbags...But I would have to give up the d*ck, can't do that" - I proceeded to spit my soda out on my windshield with her reply" j.

[cratesok6]

Let the litigation begin. I believe Prop 8 will be overturned in the courts...just like Prop 22 was after the last election.

The litigation process has already started. This is the 2nd or maybe 3rd time this initiative has been voted on in CA. over past few years.

[mylittledemon]

I do not get how it is touchy. Looking at the situation objectively, the only issue is the religious people in the US want automatic legal rights for themselves and not other people who go against their religion.

Again, I have yet to hear one reason other than the religious argument against same sex marriage.

But and despite the clear mandate for the separation of church and state in the US Const. -- people are loathe to admit that they are forcing their religion down peoples' throats.

Put it this way, the majority of blacks and hispanics in this country (and likely many whites and Muslims) set aside their religious objections to abortion to vote for Obama. Yet, these same people hypocrticially stood on alleged piety and voted to ban gay marriage. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Well you're deluded, that's why you dont get why it's touchy (big wink!)

haha...you forget that you can still get married in this country with no "religious" aspect to your wedding or the ceremony officiant...

No the abortion/gay marriage thing doesnt make me wonder. It's all part of what I was saying in another thread that America seemingly has gone down a path of making the wrong choices. We continue to do so. I think sometimes we take our freedom for granted. Freedom in America doesn't necessarily mean "anything goes."

[BTFLCHLD]

David, wouldn't a thread inclusive of the Arizona and Florida bans on same-sex marriage be apropos or are you are you just focusing on California's PROP8?

[strandinthewind]

. . . haha...you forget that you can still get married in this country with no "religious" aspect to your wedding or the ceremony officiant . . . .

Well, no. Same Sex couples cannot do that. Without the ability to do that, same sex couples are ineligible for the legal rights automatically accorded hetero couples regarless of whether the hetero couple is married in a religious ceremony.

Moreover, same sex couples cannot contract into many of the rights automatically given to hetero couples.

Can't you see that is unfair and, more to the point, it is promoting religion as law, i.e., the establishment of a theocracy. That is just fukced up.

No the abortion/gay marriage thing doesnt make me wonder. It's all part of what I was saying in another thread that America seemingly has gone down a path of making the wrong choices. We continue to do so. I think sometimes we take our freedom for granted.

I think the "path of wrong choices" is cramming reilgious ideals down the throats of all Americans. There is no law that says you have to have any religious faith to be entitled to the protection of the law or even a good American citizen. We all pay the same taxes - so why shouldn't we all get the same legal protections? Again, that is just fukced up.

I do not think you would like it if the govt. made you do cr*p based on someone else's ideals or beliefs that you did not believe in :shrug: Yet, most cannot see that from any angle other than their own and most are in the power in charge.

Freedom in America doesn't necessarily mean "anything goes."

No - freedom in America means be a Christian or be a second class citizen and take and be happy with the scraps of liberty the Christians offer you :shrug: That's just fukced up :shrug:

The black community got over this same prejudice by rioting in the streets, save for MLK, who encouraged peaceful protest :shrug:

In the end, I have yet to hear of one non religious reason why hetero married people should get special rights.

[Richard B]

David, wouldn't a thread inclusive of the Arizona and Florida bans on same-sex marriage be apropos or are you are you just focusing on California's PROP8?

I thought the very same thing. It's just not California.
Also, this is not the first time this has been put up to vote. 4 years ago the voters of California stopped same sex "marriage."

Gay couples have all the same rights, they just can't use the word "marriage." Personally, I could care less who anyone marries, including other forbidden taboos, such as cousins, siblings and polygamists. Equality for all.

[BTFLCHLD]

The black community got over this same prejudice by rioting in the streets, save for MLK, who encouraged peaceful protest :shrug: Curiously, CNN's reporting "supporters of same-sex marriage may have been hurt by the enthusiastic turnout among African-Americans for president-elect Barack Obama. CNN exit polls found black voters affirming Proposition 8 by a 70-to-30 margin. Whites and Latinos, however, were nearly evenly split."

Obviously, I am among many to find interesting that Barack wins by landslide, yet there is the conservative vote on other issues.

OT - When I watched Barack's acceptance speech, his walk along the stage and his exit, I noticed his shoulders...he now carries the loaded weight of americans hopes/dreams/expectations for the future...he is 'just a man' and, as he said, he will need the continued support/loyalty of those he carries to back him, his policies, etc.

[strandinthewind]

I thought the very same thing. It's just not California.
Also, this is not the first time this has been put up to vote. 4 years ago the voters of California stopped same sex "marriage."

Gay couples have all the same rights, they just can't use the word "marriage." Personally, I could care less who anyone marries, including other forbidden taboos, such as cousins, siblings and polygamists. Equality for all.

That is just not so, though the California civil unions go, I believe, way further than most states' civil unions.

As for the comparison to "cousins, siblings and polygamists" - give me a break regarding the first two as there are medical reasons for prohibiting that. As for polygamists - I could care a less, though there is empirical evidence showing women are abused in many of these relationships - somewhat negating the consenual aspect of the relationship.

[BTFLCHLD]

I thought the very same thing. :xoxo: we meet again... ;)

[Richard B]

That is just not so, though the California civil unions go, I believe, way further than most states' civil unions.

As for the comparison to "cousins, siblings and polygamists" - give me a break regarding the first two as there are medical reasons for prohibiting that. As for polygamists - I could care a less, though there is empirical evidence showing women are abused in many of these relationships - somewhat negating the consenual aspect of the relationship.

Yes, California allows all benefits to a civil union that it does for marriage.

As for your other comment, it was a point, nothing more. Your answers don't make sense. You can't pick and choose who gets married if the fight was always about "equal rights for everyone." You could use the same medical excuse for gays, as they can not procreate naturally. Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple.

[Richard B]

:xoxo: we meet again... ;)

:blob2:

Hello dollface!

[strandinthewind]

Yes, California allows all benefits to a civil union that it does for marriage.

You ought to know better than to argue that BS around here:

A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts

—Holly Hartman

Definitions

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.

* Massachusetts (since 2004) and California (since 2008) issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.

* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples.

Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.

* Statewide laws in Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Again, that is just fukced up.

As for your other comment, it was a point, nothing more. Your answers don't make sense. You can't pick and choose who gets married if the fight was always about "equal rights for everyone." You could use the same medical excuse for gays, as they can not procreate naturally.

So, a hetero couple that cannot reporduce should be barred as well?

The bottom line is if they are consenting adults and there is no risk to an unborn child a la the married cousins, who cares if people marry? What do people care if I want to marry ten women at one time if we are all consenting. But, people cannot stand that notion - the notion of someone doing something they do not approve of even though it hurts no one. Gladys Kravitz anyone :rolleyes:

Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple. [/QUOTE]

Yes, it is. If they are consenting adults, there should be no issue.

But, if you want to go that route, then let's take away the automatic legal benefits granted to hetero couples. Let the hetero couples be subject to the same constraints listed above. Let them, like everyone else, spend thousands of dollars to contract into some of those situations. Let them spend thousands defending those contracts in court when they are challenged. That is the sole issue in this whole matter. No one would really care if the law recognized hetero marriages if hetero marriages were not automatically granted benefits based solely on a religious ideal. But, they are while others are not. Are you actually arguing this is fair from a legal perspective or that it satisfies the sentence:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

U.S. Const., Art. 14, Sect. 1.

I think you know better than that.

I mean Art. 14, Sect. 1 does not have a final clause that says "unless we think Jesus wouldn't like it" :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Here is a post I made in the "election results" thread. It is relevant here.

This is why Obama was such an important win. What will now happen is same sex couples who marry in a state that allows it will try and make non allowing states recognize their marriages.

Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Const. states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

What this means is twofold:

1. Each state must recognize a marriage performed in another state as is what happens now in hetero marriage. The plain language of the Constitution must override the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, which states:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

DOMA will be found Unconstitutional and overturned.

2. If a state that disallows a same sex marriage but allows a hetero marriage without providing a legitimate and, perhaps, compelling reason essentially with, perhaps, no less restrictive alternative (See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) - the state disallowing the marriage will likely be seen as violating Article XIV, Sec. 1 (the so called "equal protection clause" ) - which states in relevant part that:

. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
____________________________________

Once The Supreme Court makes these findings, the R's most def. will then push to amend the U.S. Const. to make marriage solely between a man and a woman. Within that lang. will also be the prohibition of civil unions, which really have nothing to do with marriage.

I'd love to get Heather's (Mad4stevie) opinion on this rather fascinating Constitutional argument and the effect of the Obama justices on it.

In the end, I just cannot see why it is so important to deny same sex couples the same benefits accorded automatically by law to hetero couples. But, the majority of Christians in this country cannot let others choose their own paths. They want to impose their widely different versions Christian principles on the masses no matter the Const. prohibition against doing so.

[DavidMn]

David, wouldn't a thread inclusive of the Arizona and Florida bans on same-sex marriage be apropos or are you are you just focusing on California's PROP8?Good point. I just thought that the California situation was the most well known of the 3 so thats why I started the thread that way. It's no problem though if you wanna discuss the otehrs here too.`

[GoS]

Here's my thoughts on this subject: Why do I care what you want/ do in your free time as long as you aren't pushing it on me? America is supposed to be "open-minded," that is what we are founded on, and we can't just give equality to people who only look/think like us, equality is for everybody!

[mylittledemon]

Well, no. Same Sex couples cannot do that. Without the ability to do that, same sex couples are ineligible for the legal rights automatically accorded hetero couples regarless of whether the hetero couple is married in a religious ceremony.

Moreover, same sex couples cannot contract into many of the rights automatically given to hetero couples.

Can't you see that is unfair and, more to the point, it is promoting religion as law, i.e., the establishment of a theocracy. That is just fukced up.



I think the "path of wrong choices" is cramming reilgious ideals down the throats of all Americans. There is no law that says you have to have any religious faith to be entitled to the protection of the law or even a good American citizen. We all pay the same taxes - so why shouldn't we all get the same legal protections? Again, that is just fukced up.

I do not think you would like it if the govt. made you do cr*p based on someone else's ideals or beliefs that you did not believe in :shrug: Yet, most cannot see that from any angle other than their own and most are in the power in charge.



No - freedom in America means be a Christian or be a second class citizen and take and be happy with the scraps of liberty the Christians offer you :shrug: That's just fukced up :shrug:

The black community got over this same prejudice by rioting in the streets, save for MLK, who encouraged peaceful protest :shrug:

In the end, I have yet to hear of one non religious reason why hetero married people should get special rights.

You're bringing religion and faith into it, I said nothing regarding that.

When I said you can still get married in this country without a religious connotation or officiant to your ceremony I was referring to male/female marriages. I was trying to imply that though marriage GENERALLY has a religious aspect to it, it's doesnt necessarily have to if you don't want it to.

The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term.

That may be unfair, but life isn't fair. And honestly, every single gay person I know in my life (including my brother) has no desire to get married. It's a small minority that actually want to marry, and for now, that right is denied to them by the majority.

Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it.

And no, I wouldn't like it if the government forced me to do something based on their sets of "ideals"...but we live in a nation where luckily, that hasn't happened yet. Many places in the rest of the world don't even have the freedom we have. Again, freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.

This is a selfish nation we live in. Thousands of people that deserve life die each day, and we sit here in our arrogance trying to refute the very definitions of words that have existed for eons. For what? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals want to marry purely for the tax breaks? No, it's nothing more than a middle finger to what some believe is a "traditional value."

[strandinthewind]

You're bringing religion and faith into it, I said nothing regarding that.

Once more - tell me one non-religious argument for disallowing same sex marriage, civil unions, whatever - as long as one does not get automatic rights over the other.

The answer is there is no reason other than that. So, despite what you say, it is a religious argument.

When I said you can still get married in this country without a religious connotation or officiant to your ceremony I was referring to male/female marriages. I was trying to imply that though marriage GENERALLY has a religious aspect to it, it's doesnt necessarily have to if you don't want it to.

So what exactly does this have to do with one set of Americans getting automatic legal rights to the exclusion of another based solely on religion :shrug:

The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term.

You can call it whatever you want as long as the rights are the same at the Federal a and other levels. But, the religious right and apparently most religious people hate it no matter what it is. To prove my point, I believe the majority of the state Const. Amendments also expressly prohibit any effects from civil unions as well. So, this argument mostly is BS.

For example, the Fla. one "invalidates any 'legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.'" That is just wrong.

That may be unfair, but life isn't fair. And honestly, every single gay person I know in my life (including my brother) has no desire to get married. It's a small minority that actually want to marry, and for now, that right is denied to them by the majority.

What kind of fukced up logic that. It is okay to deny equal rights to people because you and the gay people you know, which I submit may be 100 in total, do not want to get married. Come on. I am sure I could round up as many straight people who do not want to get married. Based on that, we should get rid of marriage? Give me a break.

Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it.

Tell that to Matthew Shepphard when he was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die -- all for being gay. The person who found him thought he was a scarecrow.

That you defend this bigotry at all is beneath you.

And no, I wouldn't like it if the government forced me to do something based on their sets of "ideals"...but we live in a nation where luckily, that hasn't happened yet.

That is because you are white and heterosexual. The ruling class' hubris when talking about the government's generosity is laughable most of the time.

But, to your point, it is happening now. Gay people are paying taxes on their unions that straight people do not have to pay based solely on a religious ideal. That is just wrong.

Many places in the rest of the world don't even have the freedom we have. Again, freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.

It also does not mean that religious tyranny should be allowed to happen. America was founded to get away from that. And, you can do "whatever the hell you want" as long as you are not breaking a law.

This is a selfish nation we live in. Thousands of people that deserve life die each day, and we sit here in our arrogance trying to refute the very definitions of words that have existed for eons. For what? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals want to marry purely for the tax breaks? No, it's nothing more than a middle finger to what some believe is a "traditional value."

I cannot believe you actually think this. Moreover, that you think you know what all homosexuals think about marriage much less their intent in wanting equal protection is ridiculous and patently BS. I suspect you know this. In the end, if you believe this, then you are a religious bigot. If you are that, wear it proudly and do not hide behind the subterfuge of caring. And, I hope when you are treated with his level of BS, you remember that "this is a selfish nation we live in."

By the way, I am still waiting for that one non-religious reason.

[mylittledemon]

Once more - tell me one non-religious argument for disallowing same sex marriage, civil unions, whatever - as long as one does not get automatic rights over the other.

The answer is there is no reason other than that. So, despite what you say, it is a religious argument.



So what exactly does this have to do with one set of Americans getting automatic legal rights to the exclusion of another based solely on religion :shrug:



You can call it whatever you want as long as the rights are the same at the Federal a and other levels. But, the religious right and apparently most religious people hate it no matter what it is. To prove my point, I believe the majority of the state Const. Amendments also expressly prohibit any effects from civil unions as well. So, this argument mostly is BS.

For example, the Fla. one "invalidates any 'legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.'" That is just wrong.



What kind of fukced up logic that. It is okay to deny equal rights to people because you and the gay people you know, which I submit may be 100 in total, do not want to get married. Come on. I am sure I could round up as many straight people who do not want to get married. Based on that, we should get rid of marriage? Give me a break.



Tell that to Matthew Shepphard when he was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die -- all for being gay. The person who found him thought he was a scarecrow.

That you defend this bigotry at all is beneath you.

And no, I wouldn't like it if the government forced me to do something based on their sets of "ideals"...but we live in a nation where luckily, that hasn't happened yet. Many places in the rest of the world don't even have the freedom we have. Again, freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.

This is a selfish nation we live in. Thousands of people that deserve life die each day, and we sit here in our arrogance trying to refute the very definitions of words that have existed for eons. For what? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals want to marry purely for the tax breaks? No, it's nothing more than a middle finger to what some believe is a "traditional value." [/QUOTE]

Your defense of this whole matter is completely skewed, my friend. You're using religion as your reason to fight against the definition of marriage, when all you're doing is swinging at air.

Gays have just as equal rights as they did today and yesterday. They are not being denied any basic freedoms. What you are failing to mention is that gay, and lesbian couples (civil unions) have EXACTLY the same protections under the law as married couples.

Again, you can't change the definition of something (marriage) because you simply don't like it, or it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. Let's take Christ out of "Christmas" because you don't believe in Jesus' birth. That's the logic you're using.

Now you're bringing up matt sheppard? That was a hate crime, and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage or the topic in general.

At the end of the day, the people of California (who are generally labeled the "libs" and more than likely would've been against this proposition) have now voted TWICE on this matter now; both times with the same effect. Get the people on board, and you might make a change. Otherwise, deal with it. Like I said, life ain't fair my friend. It just ain't.

And I gave you a reason. The DEFINTION of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. THE VERY word defines what it is. That is non religious my friend. And I never said I wanted to deny homosexuals any rights. I never once said that...so labeling me a religious bigot is a little presumptuous, and frankly childish.

[GoS]

[QUOTE=mylittledemon;783349]
The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term./QUOTE]

Marriage generaly means just a connection or bond. I think that over time we have just naturally come to accept it as the way you defined it, but I don't think that it is limited to that.

I once heard AjMcCarrell defend his opposition as more than religious by saying something about adopted children by gay couples have a higher crime rate, but you can choose whether or not you want to count that Strand.

[mylittledemon]

[QUOTE=mylittledemon;783349]
The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term./QUOTE]

Marriage generaly means just a connection or bond. I think that over time we have just naturally come to accept it as the way you defined it, but I don't think that it is limited to that.

I once heard AjMcCarrell defend his opposition as more than religious by saying something about adopted children by gay couples have a higher crime rate, but you can choose whether or not you want to count that Strand.

Well you know what? I agree with you there, too. I know a **** ton of straight couples who have never been married...but they are married in their hearts. There's THAT kind of marriage to. Don't confuse what I'm saying with me being a proponent of man/woman unions ONLY.

[strandinthewind]

Your defense of this whole matter is completely skewed, my friend. You're using religion as your reason to fight against the definition of marriage, when all you're doing is swinging at air.

What is that non-religious argument again :wavey:

But and again, I am using the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which you have yet to refute.

Gays have just as equal rights as they did today and yesterday. They are not being denied any basic freedoms. What you are failing to mention is that gay, and lesbian couples (civil unions) have EXACTLY the same protections under the law as married couples.

Utter BS --

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

If you have facts to the contrary, let's see them :shrug:

Again, you can't change the definition of something (marriage) because you simply don't like it, or it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. Let's take Christ out of "Christmas" because you don't believe in Jesus' birth. That's the logic you're using.

Again, I don't care what you call it as long as equal rights are given to all Americans.

As for Christ in Christmas, I agree. I think people should say Merry Christmas all they want. Some people say Happy Holidays to be inclusive of other religions as Christmas is not the only holiday at that time of year. Are you actually arguing that is a bad thing? Obviously you do not want to be inclusive.

Now you're bringing up matt sheppard? That was a hate crime, and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage or the topic in general.

You said my analogy to the civil rights progress of blacks was comparing apples to oranges. This shows it is not.

At the end of the day, the people of California (who are generally labeled the "libs" and more than likely would've been against this proposition) have now voted TWICE on this matter now; both times with the same effect. Get the people on board, and you might make a change. Otherwise, deal with it. Like I said, life ain't fair my friend. It just ain't.

Again, I hope when someone takes a shiitte all over you in the name of God, you have the same attitude :rolleyes:

[mylittledemon]

What is that non-religious argument again :wavey:

But and again, I am using the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which you have yet to refute.



Utter BS --

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

If you have facts to the contrary, let's see them :shrug:



Again, I don't care what you call it as long as equal rights are given to all Americans.

As for Christ in Christmas, I agree. I think people should say Merry Christmas all they want. Some people say Happy Holidays to be inclusive of other religions as Christmas is not the only holiday at that time of year. Are you actually arguing that is a bad thing? Obviously you do not want to be inclusive.



You said my analogy to the civil rights progress of blacks was comparing apples to oranges. This shows it is not.



Again, I hope when someone takes a shiitte all over you in the name of God, you have the same attitude :rolleyes:

haha...oh Jason. I don't know what else to say to you my friend. I can argue about it until I'm blue in the face, but you'll never see it my way. Just so we're clear...my thoughts on the matter are not to imply that I would take rights away from homosexuals, blacks, or any other race or creed. I think we're all equal. I just will never call a union between a man and a man a "marriage." I can with 100% honesty tell you that my gay brother will tell you the same thing right now to your face. He would tell you "that's silly, because that's not what marriage is." So what then? Different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, marriage will have to be redefined. Get that done and then find a way to move forward.

[strandinthewind]

haha...oh Jason. I don't know what else to say to you my friend. I can argue about it until I'm blue in the face, but you'll never see it my way. Just so we're clear...my thoughts on the matter are not to imply that I would take rights away from homosexuals, blacks, or any other race or creed. I think we're all equal. I just will never call a union between a man and a man a "marriage." I can with 100% honesty tell you that my gay brother will tell you the same thing right now to your face. He would tell you "that's silly, because that's not what marriage is." So what then? Different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, marriage will have to be redefined. Get that done and then find a way to move forward.

Again, you can call it whatever you want as long as everyone gets the same rights. That is not happening now, which is my beef with what you said.

[mylittledemon]

Again, you can call it whatever you want as long as everyone gets the same rights. That is not happening now, which is my beef with what you said.

Ok fine, I'm wrong about that. I have no problem with admitting being wrong about something. I'm not one of those guys that can't stop and ask directions. Remember, I'm not the enemy here champ.

PS...wasnt the 14 Amendment in reference to slaves and African Americans?

[strandinthewind]

PS...wasnt the 14 Amendment in reference to slaves and African Americans?

It was. But, it applies to all Americans and to many other issues than that.

Here is what it says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For those interested - here is a fairly good discussion on the 14th Amend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[markolas]

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

[mylittledemon]

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

Whew...is that worth the strife?

And you changed your avatar!!

[markolas]

Whew...is that worth the strife?

And you changed your avatar!!

Well, there's no strife if I just don't have anything to do with them. :D

Somebody else on here took my avatar, so I switched it. I think this one suits me so much better anyway. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

About all I'm going to say to this is that if I found out that anyone I personally knew voted for one of these amendments, my relationship with them would be over.

I tend to agree.


It is rather hard to ignore that someone you call a good friend (have over to your house, etc. ) considers you a second class citizen. I am not saying it can't be done. But, it would be hard to reconcile that bigotry unless you thought you could make them see that this is bigotry, writing hate into the Const., etc. Most people think it is just gays being uppity. They do not get the second class citizen part and/or think gays can contract into the same level of protection, etc. - which, of course, they cannot.

[Johnny Stew]

Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it.

Brandon, one of these days ask your brother if he prefers to be gay, or if he just IS.

Sexual orientation isn't a preference. Yes, some people "dabble" or "experiment," but those of us who truly are gay didn't choose to be.

[mylittledemon]

Brandon, one of these days ask your brother if he prefers to be gay, or if he just IS.

Sexual orientation isn't a preference. Yes, some people "dabble" or "experiment," but those of us who truly are gay didn't choose to be.

I meant to say sexual orientation...I can see how that sounded wrong. And I also didn't mean to imply that my brother's stance represents everybody that's gay. My apologies there, too.

[strandinthewind]

I meant to say sexual orientation...I can see how that sounded wrong. And I also didn't mean to imply that my brother's stance represents everybody that's gay. My apologies there, too.

We may have to flog you before you go :wavey:

[mylittledemon]

We may have to flog you before you go :wavey:

I love your signature. God, strand, you make me smile.

[strandinthewind]

Also --

New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.

On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey.[1] Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.

During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.[2]

On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

:wavey:

[mylittledemon]

Also --

New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.

On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey.[1] Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.

During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.[2]

On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

:wavey:

well then maybe you should come with us. *wink*

[strandinthewind]

well then maybe you should come with us. *wink*

Well, I have certain demand that I have not checked the legality of in NZ :cool:

[estranged4life]

Take it for what it is, but according to exit polls shown on NBC tonight, 70% of African Americans who voted in support of Obama in California also voted in favor of Proposition 8...Whereas Hispanics who supported Obama were less likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8 (I believe the stat for Hispanic voters was 56% in favor and 44% against) .

[Tellurium]

^ I dislike breaking homophobia down into race categories. The implications of that are really problematic. There is only one reason people voted for Prop 8 and skin color has nout to do with it. There are reasons for correlations such as the above stats, but it's not really causal or practical information, IMO. But I guess people can't help but report the stuff. *shrugs*

Same-sex marriage is an inevitability in America. Most under-30s are completely for it. It's the over-60 crowd that's opposing it strongly. So you can see a generational shift in attitudes. In time it will pass, and these bans will be looked on as historic embarassments.

That said, glad I live in Canada where it's legal now. ;)

[markolas]

That said, glad I live in Canada where it's legal now. ;)

It's a real shame that the only places where this is legal now all have like 10 months of winter.

[estranged4life]

^ I dislike breaking homophobia down into race categories. The implications of that are really problematic. There is only one reason people voted for Prop 8 and skin color has nout to do with it. There are reasons for correlations such as the above stats, but it's not really causal or practical information, IMO. But I guess people can't help but report the stuff. *shrugs*

(Disliking homophobia being SUPPOSEDLY decided and linked by race - which is why I posted the results shown and said "Take it for what it is" - in other words sounds like an excuse to me) but when NBC news had that segment on why Prop 8 failed, they showed these exit polls, but for some reason none where shown for white voters or voters by age... :shrug:

When the law that defines marriage between only a man and woman passed here in 2006 it had ZERO to do with race, but I remember exit poll results showed that religion and 'protecting family values' had ALOT to do with the passing of that law - and of course the older the person the more likely they voted for that measure.

I see gay marriage happening sooner than later, and each election where such a law appears on the Oklahoma ballot I will vote in FAVOR to ALLOW it (Hopefully OTHERS in this state will give up the homophobic ideals too and SUPPORT those who want happiness with one they love)

[jbrownsjr]

This has me so worked up! Its unbelieveable to me that as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America I cannot by law choose to marry someone cimply because they are the same sex as I am.:confused::confused: There's no other way to put this, IT MAKES NO SENSE and I'm damn pissed off by it! I was happy about what happened Tuesday, but there's still a long way to go believe me!:mad: I also heard that the marriages already performed there may be challenged in court as not valid.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand... Neil Peart...


dont give up David.. I certainly won't

[BombaySapphire3]

Naturally I voted no on 8 but I'm personally glad that gay marriage was not legal 25 years ago when I embarked upon the first of 4 failed long term relationships.The thought of the attorny's fees, alimony and divorce court from all that gives me a chill even now.I know when enough is enough so I have no plans to marry ,cohabitate ,or engage in a civil union with anyone.:lol:

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^^^^^

Bitter - party of one :xoxo::xoxo:

[estranged4life]

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand... Neil Peart...


dont give up David.. I certainly won't

"Witch Hunt" by Rush, a song whose lyrical content STILL resonantes in this modern era of hate.

[Dreamz19]

Take it for what it is, but according to exit polls shown on NBC tonight, 70% of African Americans who voted in support of Obama in California also voted in favor of Proposition 8...Whereas Hispanics who supported Obama were less likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8 (I believe the stat for Hispanic voters was 56% in favor and 44% against) .

That exit poll was a CNN poll that only asked about 2,200 people about this. When they broke it down by the gender and race...black males were listed as N/A. It seems to be the only poll out there regarding prop 8 so I have a hard time putting much stock in it. It's a very small sample when you think of the millions of voters in Cali who voted. Some folks I talked to thought this was based on every single vote that was counted in Cali.

[strandinthewind]

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27652443#27652443" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Food for Thought

[estranged4life]

^^^I agree WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!!!

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, exactly. I'm still dumbfounded that Californians voted that way, I did not think they would.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, exactly. I'm still dumbfounded that Californians voted that way, I did not think they would.

I just don't get the black hate out there. I mean about 40 years ago, these same exact arguments were being made to keep whites and blacks from marrying each other. In fact, their precious Obama would not have occured under that line of thinking. I mean, I am sort of like "how fukcing dare you - if it weren't for a few free thinkers out there who dared to buck the self centered, bigoted, money hungry religious leaders, you'd still be at the back of the bus - but, you can't apply that logic to others - fukc you" :mad:

Note - I fully realize not all black voters voted for Obama or for Prop. 8. But, the vast majority did.

Again, apparently, these same highly religous black people were not similarly moved by Obama's extremely pro abortion stance so that their faith prohibited them from voting for Obama. Rather, they, who had few rights about 40 years ago, apparently are loathe to give equal rights to other people who are hated for what they are. To add insult to injury, these same black people are still getting extra rights via Affirmative Action to right a wrong solely based on the color of their skin as opposed to anything they ever did. They see Obama as the beacon of hope that the effect of that bigotry is greatly lessened. Yet and again, Obama would not have existed because the definition of marriage right up until the time Obama was born considered a biracial marriage unholy, against God, etc. See Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.) Note - biracial marriage was not addressed in the Civil Rights act of 1964 - rather, judicial activism got rid of this abomination for us because the American public likely would have never voted to get rid of it. Again, rank hypocrisy on behalf of the majority of the black sommunity some 40 years later. Anyway, here is trial judge's reasoning in Loving:

The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

Sound familiar :rolleyes:

In its decision, The Supreme Court (those still hated and maligned by the religious right for judicial activism mind you) held:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforced, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage.

Thus, I conclude the majority of the balck vote for Prop. 8 in California is rank hypocrisy and those voters ought to read a history book and be ashamed of themselves rather than hide their prejudice behind some pathetic faux religious reason they do not have the conviction to apply to themselves.

[BTFLCHLD]

Let's take a look at the numbers.


California Proposition 8:
Yes 5,979,087 52%
No 5,457,949 48%
100% of precincts reporting


Arizona Proposition 102:
Yes 1,157,979 56%
No 900,185 44%
100% of precincts reporting


Florida Amendment 2:
Yes 4,755,789 62%
No 2,913,740 38%
100% of precincts reporting

[StandbackStevie]

In connecticut now we are the second state to legalize gay marriage in the nation the other state i believe is Massachuesetts. It was passed here in october sometime and then they had a question when we voted on Nov. 4th it was Question #1 it was if you voted no your for it if yes you were against it and The No won so as of today it is official to be married in Connecticut if you gay I am gay and partnered and so excited and hopefully down the road my partner and I will do the same one of these days but he doesn't want to get married or civil union right now I hope sometime in the future we will.:xoxo::wavey:

here is the results that of the question #1 related to gay marriage in connecticut


2008 General Election - Nov. 4, 2008#1 - Constitutional Convention
Statewide Question
Yes 546,660 41% if yes passed it would mean here that if they did pass gay marriage church's and other organizations have a right to appeal that decision and fight for it not to pass.
No 799,107 59% wins and passes as of today 11-12-08 gay marriage is officially legal here in connecticut



here is the actual quiestion # 1 below




This November, voters will be asked: "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state?"


Holding a convention in Hartford isn’t change, it’s politics as usual. State legislators decide who goes to the convention, not the taxpayers. It will be a convention of lobbyists, politicians and special interests.

The public has no say on what the lobbyists propose to do to the constitution. The political group pushing for the convention will use it to ban marriage for gay people, outlaw abortion and take away people’s rights. Big businesses will use it to give themselves special tax breaks, overturn environmental laws and take away workers’ rights and benefits.

So vote no on the Lobbyist Convention – and vote for leaders who will bring us real change.

[BTFLCHLD]

I find curious that states voted to allow the marriage only to lateron vote against the marriage...really sux.

[DavidMn]

In connecticut now we are the second state to legalize gay marriage in the nation the other state i believe is Massachuesetts. It was passed here in october sometime and then they had a question when we voted on Nov. 4th it was Question #1 it was if you voted no your for it if yes you were against it and The No won so as of today it is official to be married in Connecticut if you gay I am gay and partnered and so excited and hopefully down the road my partner and I will do the same one of these days but he doesn't want to get married or civil union right now I hope sometime in the future we will.:xoxo::wavey:

here is the results that of the question #1 related to gay marriage in connecticut


2008 General Election - Nov. 4, 2008#1 - Constitutional Convention
Statewide Question
Yes 546,660 41% if yes passed it would mean here that if they did pass gay marriage church's and other organizations have a right to appeal that decision and fight for it not to pass.
No 799,107 59% wins and passes as of today 11-12-08 gay marriage is officially legal here in connecticut



here is the actual quiestion # 1 below




This November, voters will be asked: "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state?"


Holding a convention in Hartford isn’t change, it’s politics as usual. State legislators decide who goes to the convention, not the taxpayers. It will be a convention of lobbyists, politicians and special interests.

The public has no say on what the lobbyists propose to do to the constitution. The political group pushing for the convention will use it to ban marriage for gay people, outlaw abortion and take away people’s rights. Big businesses will use it to give themselves special tax breaks, overturn environmental laws and take away workers’ rights and benefits.

So vote no on the Lobbyist Convention – and vote for leaders who will bring us real change.Well, there's hope yet. Thank you for this good news.:nod: