Printable View
The California Supreme Court hands down its decision on whether or not Prop 8 violates the California State Constitution today. I hope California makes me proud today and rejects Prop 8, but I'm going back to bed until the decision.
The expectation is that they will upload Prop 8 so new same sex marriages will not be legal, but same sex marriages from prior to Prop 8 will still be recognized.
What do you think will happen with Prop 8 today? In an ideal world, what would happen?
Hopefully they will realize how gay it is from them to ban same sex marriage.
I hope for the best! It's better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life.
They upheld it, grrrrrr
It's really f! up and sad/pathetic that California isn't leading the charge for marriage equality.
Lameness level 9
Hardly a surprise - Cali's so conservative it hurts. It may have the image of radical, free-thinking 'town' types, but they're a microscopic part of the vote. The masses who count, literally, are the ones who think Palin was a pinko liberal.
I'm not sure marriage is a good thing.........................for anyone
Free thinking. The enemy of ultra conservatives everywhere!!!
actually, it is good for people who make money from weddings:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
Well, it didn't help that the Mormons in Utah contributed
45 million dollars towards prop 8...
But the bottom line is that the people voted for it.
There are other states where the majority of the voters are
voting to allow gay marriages. Our state didn't. But I think
that was mainly because of how the clause was written.
If you asked people:
"Should gays be prevented from getting married?"
or
"Should gay people be able to marry?"
Most people would be fine with it.
But if you ask people:
"Is a marriage defined as between a man and a woman?"
Then a lot of people say "Yes".
They weren't intending to take away people's rights.
They are just answering it like a true-false question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
You are like two billion percent right on the wording being a giant issue. I mean, I personally know people who are very strongly in favor of same sex marriage being legal and they thought of the ballot question as:
Gay marriage, yes or no?
So they voted yes, as in, yes, gay marriage is fine . . . only yes did not mean, yes, thumbs up for gay marriage.
I also know some religious people, who aren't especially anti-gay, fairly liberal, but still Christian, and when faced with the question: "Is marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman?" They responded by saying, "Yes, that is what I personally believe." But when questioned further, they had nothing really against gay marriage. They were just standing behind their personal religious opinion on the topic. If it were worded in a harsher way, like "Shall all gay marriages be prevented?" they probably would not have voted for it... They don't want to take rights away from other people, or prosecute people for their sexuality. But if you ask them if marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, pretty much any Christian person is going to feel that it is. So considering the number of Christians in this country, it wasn't surprising that prop 8 passed... Even Jews and Muslims feel marriage is male/female. So no matter how liberal people in CA are, there are still a lot of people with religious beliefs, and if you ask them their opinion, they will state it. In this case on the ballot...
well, as i've said before, the concept that marriage as a trademark of christianity and that only their moral values which are derived from a book that was ordered into english translation by a promiscous flamingly gay king (james) should matter is ridiculous.
i always thought marriage was when one person loves another person no matter what their gender is.
as for upholding a moral religous value which is the standard argument naysayers have against legalising gay marriage, i have but to ask where so in the good book does it permit bigomy? divorce? second marriages? hm.............
it doesnt really now does it? i think it's ridiculous that they would even fathom the idea of letting some marriages stay legal while denying others the right to do so. they should just get over this crap and allow it. it hasnt hurt massachusettes one bit at all from what i've heard. and as far as other not so noble points? the state of massachusesttes has seen a HUGE increase in revenue from gay couples flocking down there still to get legally married even in this economic recession. turns out alot fo the couples going down there have been wanting to go all out for their weddings whereas most hetero couples have actually scaled back in costs to their big day. makes you wonder.......is all im sayin.
I know that Christians are stupid, but I don't think that they are dumb enough to think that voting is just a survey and that saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't excluding gays.
Meh. I still say it's a silly thing to want, a fight for validation from an imaginary authority that should have little to no bearing on the real joys of romance.
Fuck the government, fuck marriage, fuck your boyfriend in the ass regardless.
Oh this is a whole horrible can of worms. You're never going to win some people over, but I was thinking this morning that the money angle might work. You know, the extra income generated from the marriages and taxes and such. Hey, in this shitty CA economy we can use all we can get!
Isn't one of the things about getting married paying less taxes from beneficial shared administration rules?
You'd think so, but its been a money pit for me.
All people have the right to a free life. If they choose to restrict themselves or follow a certain discpline then they have that freedom too.
This whole issue with disallowing gay marriage is a religious one and should therefore be void from existing in my opinion. However this country is run by people elected by the populace. Its obvious that the religious groups that oppose gay-marriage are much more organized and dedicated to eliminating it then the gay people are for allowing it.
In my opinion if you want gay marriage then you need to get just as organized and motivated as your enemies are if not more so and campaign, campaign, campaign. Yes gay marriage does not sit well in many people's stomach but you have to give them a dose anyway.
Hence the gay pride parades, gays on tv/movies. We've been so inundated by the subculture that its become tolerated if not accepted by most people. You just have to keep going.
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident. --Schopenhauer."
Keep going. And you'll get what you want once your opponents have been either exhausted, crushed, or turned to your side. Just remember they have their religious belief that they're undoubtedly correct and backed by God; so it's going to take awhile.
My idea if I was in charge of it all would be to make some commercials showing normal, non-flamboyant gay people living normal lives. Show the heart ache that comes from not being allowed the legal right of marriage. What you want to do is show how absolutely similar a gay couple is with normal white-bread america. Pull at the nations heart strings instead of calling everyone an evil racist pig. Acknowledge their point of view and show emepathy, but also show your own side in a rational manner.
Raise alot of money and aire the commercials, go on tv and without doubt remain rational, intelligent and gentle. No screaming queens or un-educated people shouting "LOL CHRIST, REPUBLICANS, GAY DAY EVERYDAY" or rolling around in thongs and leotards to shock the "normies". Act like mature adults, present your reasons as mature adults and don't -ever- give up and you'll win.
**What I said above about remaining rational/mature is the reason why alot of conservative groups are winning the gay marriage issue as well as the anti-abortion issue.
I've seen plenty of anti abortion rallies/parades with the anti people walking quietly, dressed normally, not yelling and remaining calm with their signs. While the Pro-Choice people stand on the side lines with posters of bloody fetuses, yelling curses, screaming and generally being jackasses.
I'm without a doubt pro-choice, but it makes my stomach sour to be associated with people who would throw "fake fetuses" at the anti-abortion people and generally glorify the act as some kind of rebellion.
Whenever a side gets too stupid it is publicly ridiculed, fringed out and loses momentum. Look at the tea-party stuff. An endless, ignorant shouting/babble of stupid comment/signs and loss of reality. People that have no concept of politics or the economy beyond what a spam e-mail or a friend told them. That whole tea-party rally did nothing but slam another nail into the coffin of their politics.
Well, the word "marriage", and the ceremony itself, has always been religious, and cultural, and for hundreds and hundreds of years has always been about a man and a woman. It's a totally new thing to throw same-sex into the mix. There has always been homosexuality, but gay marriage is pretty damn new. So I can see why a lot of people claim that marriage has never been about homosexual unions. Especially if they are religious. But the easy answer is to make marriage a totally religious thing. Go to a church, and get married. And that's it. When you want "partnership" legal status, then go to the court. And that legal "partnership", and all the legal rights that go along with it, in terms of taxes, etc, should be available to people of any sex, race, etc. Gay couples, straight couples, etc... Make the legal side just about the law. And keep the religious "marriage" out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
A lot of people think so, but that is actually a popular misconception. Getting married means paying fees to the government and married people pay higher taxes than single people.
According to United States tax code, you get a break on your taxes, if you work, when you marry someone who either does not work or makes significantly less than you. According to United States welfare code, if you do not work, you get a reduction in your benefits, when you marry someone who works.
Most people marry people who make around the same $ they do. Marry someone who makes a similar amount of money and your U.S. taxes go up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
Amen.
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
If marriage is a purely religious/cultural thing and distinct from legal benefits though, there ought not to be any laws defining it, period. Any church, cultural community or individual should then be able to declare whatever they see fit to be 'marriage', and people that want a legal partnership should have to apply for it legally regardless of whether a big church already acknowledges it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
I don't want to speak for DeathKnight, but I think that is exactly his point. In the U.S., we've confused the matter by calling heterosexual legal unions marriage. If we want to consider marriage a religious term, that is fine, but that should not prevent same sex couples from being able to visit one another in the hospital, make burial arrangements, or inherit from one another etc.
Yeah, I see that he definitely didn't say otherwise. Just didn't necessarily gather those particular details from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Yep...
The vows and "rules" of marriage are different in every religion.
And they have no legal binding force in most states.
So if you fail to "honor and obey", you aren't hauled off
to jail for breaking the law, because you broke a religious "vow".
Same way nuns aren't sent to jail if they break a vow of chastity.
So depending on the kind of church, or religion, people of all kinds of races and sexual orientations should be able to go through religious ceremonies, and get "married". But it should be a private thing. Not a legal thing.
If our society feels that people in "partnerships" should get some kind of special rights, or special tax benefits, (Which seems kind of unfair, actually), then it should be a legal status that *anyone* should be able to apply for. Just like a multi-person business "partnership" gets different tax status than an individual. Same thing. If you want to give someone legal right to inherit your property, or visit you in the hospital, then you should be able to go to court and set that up. But you should be able to set that kind of thing up with ANYONE. Even a friend. If you want to give someone the right to make medial decisions, that should be able to be a close friend, not just a parent or a spouse.
it's sooo frustrating...it's like it's NEVER going to get passed..but whatever, i don't really care about getting married but probably because I'm still young, though I'm sure once I'm older I'll be wanting those rights. Right now I just don't really pay attention to this, I just hope it does pass even though I'm not all active on this like most of my friends are. bleh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thistle Harlequin
In California, it is more a matter of principle in most cases, than the pragmatic issues in other states.
For example, lot of people in California do not realize that it would be harder for same sex couples to get taken care of on their partners' insurance, if same sex marriage was 100% legal and recognized. As it is, in California, same sex couples who are dating only have to fill out some forms to get insurance from work, but opposite sex couples have to actually get married.
I feel like things like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050501618.html
are a good sign towards gay marriage eventually being recognized, actually. I know that California is a very large, influential state, but if even our capitol is recognizing it then it seems like we're on the right track.
I'm trying to remain optimistic. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Evans
I'm very optimistic.
Within living memory, it was illegal in many places in America for a white woman and a black man (or vice-versa) to marry or have children and our President of the United States is the product of what was embarrassingly enough called miscegenation and legislated against in the United States not that long ago.
If that has changed so drastically for the better within one generation, I believe same sex marriage will go the same way.
I guess it might be partly because I see recognizing same sex marriage as inevitable that I find the bigots whining about a fait accompli so frustrating.
The silly thing is that even at a constant rate of one eliminated sexual/romantic tabboo per generation, we're still gonnna have stupid laws like this a hundred years from now.
Rome wasn't built in a day. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza
Too true.
Things can also move backwards in terms of progress.
Rome was very advanced, very sexually open, and had tons of education, philosophy, culture, technology, etc...
A couple centuries later you have the crusades, the inquisition, etc....
Ah Christianity!
Without some church saying the earth was the center of the universe, we might have moved forward much faster with science...
See, whenever you party too hard, like they did in Rome, there is always a backlash, where people want to take it back to a very uptight, very controlled religion. They blame the wild partying for the demise of the society and the culture. So if some big pandemic sweeps the earth, I would not be surprised to see people blame it on our "sin" and consider it a punishment from god for our ungodly ways, and send our society back a few centuries in terms of social progress...
I've been partying like a Roman Senator but now I feel bad that the collapse of civilization is going to be my fault.
I am disgusted by this hate "crime".
wow. i hate to sound like a bush basher but......you pretty much just nailed the whole bush administration's effect on this country in a nutshell.:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
It's interested what DK said about the wording putting off people that may have otherwise been in favor of gay marriage. The problem is not the way that the anti-gay marriage groups worded it, because it worked in their favor. The problem is that pro-gay marriage groups are not wording it the right way to work in their own. They think that being simple and honest is the way to go. wrong.
disinformation and propaganda are the best form of politik.
I always cite a genius "anti-smoking" bill that was passed here banning smoking in restaurants. The thing was that it had already been banned in restaurants so the main clause of the bill had no effect, but the fine print, which no one reads, was to actually loosen the restrictions in other places and the bill was sponsored and drafted by the tobacco companies.
If I was going to put up forth a pro-gay marriage bill I would campaign it as "our fiscal and social liberties should match our civil liberties" and make the wording about non-discrimination and freedom of information with equal access to government forms such and such (whatever the number is for the forms that grant people the rights by marriage). And not mention gays or marriage at all in the text.
That way all of the liberals would still vote for it and a good deal of the stupid conservatives that would interpret it as the government denying them services and they'd vote it too.