POL: California Prop 8

[Galaxy]

I didn't want to thread jack Flasch's thread, so I created this. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but the money being spent on this is just eye-popping. The second largest political campaign in the country, behind the presidential races.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/859605.html

I always been curious, do you think that donations should be accepted from non-residents/non-state organizations in states these propositions are being voted in?

[JetsIn06]

It's maddening and sickening that some people are moving completely fucking backwards on this issue.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's maddening and sickening that some people are moving completely fucking backwards on this issue.

:+1:

[Buccaneer]

I always been curious, do you think that donations should be accepted from non-residents/non-state organizations in states these propositions are being voted in?

Labor union organizations definitely say yes.

[Crapshoot]

It's maddening and sickening that some people are moving completely fucking backwards on this issue.

""". Yup. The Mormon church's official backing for it is doing wonders in establishing them as proponents of basic civil rights...

[MrBug708]

I'm torn on this. I believe in the spirit of Prop 8, but dislike the lack of say of when a child can be taught the issue.

[SirFozzie]

I'm hopeful that the no vote's lead will stand up here. Although we really need to seperate marriage the civil right from marriage the religous right. (no pun intended)

[JediKooter]

I voted No on my absentee ballot. ANY law that prohibits a group of people from being able to do what another group of people can legally do is discriminatory, regardless if you 'feel' that it is wrong or what your religious views may be.

Every time I see a proposed law like this, I always have to go back and check the calendar to see if we really are in the 21st century or the 14th century.

[Sun Tzu]

You can't drive through a busy intersection here (just south of San Fran) without seeing people holding "Yes on 8" signs. 95% of the time they are pacific islanders, Tongans, Samoans, etc who I'm guessing belong to the Mormon church. Once in a while you'll see "No on 8" people but unfortunately it seems like they are in the minority. The Wife and I are really wishing we had registered this year just for the sake of being able to Vote for Obama and No on prop 8.

[digamma]

I'm torn on this. I believe in the spirit of Prop 8, but dislike the lack of say of when a child can be taught the issue.

Huh? Prop 8 doesn't mention education at all.

[Galaxy]

Does California have a large Mormon population?

[JetsIn06]

I believe in the spirit of Prop 8

Please enlighten me. I don't understand.

[BYU 14]

For Gods sake, live and let live. George Takai being married to his life partner has not effect on the quality of life in this country. How about issues that really matter like the economy, crime, education, etc.

BTW, don't just single the Mormons out. The Catholic church is behind it as well and FLR, a national christian radio network I listen to at times is speaking out about gay marriage props in several states.

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.

[JetsIn06]

For Gods sake, live and let live. George Takai being married to his life partner has not effect on the quality of life in this country. How about issues that really matter like the economy, crime, education, etc.

BTW, don't just single the Mormons out. The Catholic church is behind it as well and FLR, a national christian radio network I listen to at times is speaking out about gay marriage props in several states.

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.

Great post. +1

[Pumpy Tudors]

I have no idea what Prop 8 is, and it's not just because I don't have an interest in politics. I just saw that it had something to do with California, so I zoned out, since I'm a couple thousand miles from there.

[MrBug708]

Please enlighten me. I don't understand.

Letting anyone marry?

[MrBug708]

I have no idea what Prop 8 is, and it's not just because I don't have an interest in politics. I just saw that it had something to do with California, so I zoned out, since I'm a couple thousand miles from there.

California voted no on gay marriage a few years ago, but a judge voted that they could marry, which prompted the ballot initiative for this election

[Lathum]

Letting anyone marry?

so are you saying you are against gay marriage?

[MrBug708]

so are you saying you are against gay marriage?

I now understand the confusion. I am FOR gay marriage. Sorry

[Lathum]

I now understand the confusion. I am FOR gay marriage. Sorry

yeah, the wording of it is very confusing. If you are pro-prop 8 then you are against gay marriage.


I think.

[JetsIn06]

yeah, the wording of it is very confusing. If you are pro-prop 8 then you are against gay marriage.


I think.

Correct. Sorry MrBug. So I guess we agree. :)

[Sun Tzu]

To make everything crystal clear.

"No on Prop 8" means you support marriage for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

"Yes on Prop 8" means you are against it.

[Sun Tzu]

Dola.

The posters/bumper stickers here that are "Yes on Prop 8" show a silhouette of a man and woman with 2 kids inbetween them. Therefore, inferring that marriage is only ok if it's between a man and woman who plan on or are capable of having children. So, by that logic, if you are a woman who is incapable of bearing children, or you are a man who is sterile, it would be wrong for you to get married.

[JetsIn06]

Dola.

The posters/bumper stickers here that are "Yes on Prop 8" show a silhouette of a man and woman with 2 kids inbetween them. Therefore, inferring that marriage is only ok if it's between a man and woman who plan on or are capable of having children. So, by that logic, if you are a woman who is incapable of bearing children, or you are a man who is sterile, it would be wrong for you to get married.

Exactly. The logic isn't there. That's why I was hoping MrBug (If he were in fact FOR Prop 8) would explain it. I don't get it. How the hell does it impact anyone elses life?

[-apoc-]

We have one here in Florida also but I am pretty sure it will lose for 2 reasons , firstly they included domestic partnerships which are fairly popular in the older heterosexual communities down here between widowers. Also it needs 60% to pass. Most of the polling has it around 51-52%.

I think the people who want these laws passed for whatever reason realize that this next few years is their last chance to get them passed. The younger generation really just doesnt give a damn in general about banning gay marriage or race ect.

[lungs]

I don't get how we can have so many queers in this country while Iran doesn't have any at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How the hell does it impact anyone elses life?

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

As for Prop 8, I'd love to see it pass (would be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal election year) but have little hope that it will do so.

[Lathum]

I don't get how we can have so many queers in this country while Iran doesn't have any at all.

maybe you should move to Iran

[Lathum]

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.



why is it so intolerable and unthinkable?

[JonInMiddleGA]

why is it so intolerable and unthinkable?

C'mon Lathum, I don't believe for a second that has to be explained to you. You aren't 9 years old & you haven't spent your life living under a rock. I simply tried to answer the question Jets06 asked, working from the premise that he was asking in something less than a completely rhetorical manner.

[Lathum]

C'mon Lathum, I don't believe for a second that has to be explained to you. You aren't 9 years old & you haven't spent your life living under a rock. I simply tried to answer the question Jets06 asked, working from the premise that he was asking in something less than a completely rhetorical manner.

I guess what I am asking is why are you against gay marriage? Not trying to bait you into an argument.

I am genuinely curious and would love to have an adult discussion about it, which I know you are capable of having, yet others aren't ( as evidence from lungs' post). So maybe its best to let if go.

[JetsIn06]

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

As for Prop 8, I'd love to see it pass (would be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal election year) but have little hope that it will do so.

That's fucking ridiculous. Do you really, really, believe that? So because I want two competent HUMANS who are of adult age who love each other to have the same rights as I do, you really think that I, or anyone else for that matter, want to move closer to incest, bestiality, etc? I think you are a smart guy Jon...but this is just stupid.

[SirFozzie]

Anyone who didn't expect this level of opposition from Jon on this issue is fooling themselves. Just respect that his worldview is where it is on this issue and don't try to get into an argument.. all it'll do is create more bad feelings.

[Lathum]

Anyone who didn't expect this level of opposition from Jon on this issue is fooling themselves. Just respect that his worldview is where it is on this issue and don't try to get into an argument.. all it'll do is create more bad feelings.

I respect his opinion and have never had any personal issues with him, I am just curious about why he feels the way he does.

[Lathum]

dola- I predict this thread ends badly

[JetsIn06]

Anyone who didn't expect this level of opposition from Jon on this issue is fooling themselves. Just respect that his worldview is where it is on this issue and don't try to get into an argument.. all it'll do is create more bad feelings.

Maybe you are right. I'm not the type to "try" and get into arguments. I actually hate arguing. But this is silly thinking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess what I am asking is why are you against gay marriage?

FTR, that's not how I interpreted your original question exactly.

I am genuinely curious and would love to have an adult discussion about it

In briefest terms possible (because virtually zero good will come of the discussion here overall IMO), my adamant opposition to it is actually more based on the attempt to redefine something that has a long-standing & clear definition than on the more common religious grounds. I find labeling anything other than one man+one woman a "marriage" as absurd on its very face as suddenly decreeing that all dogs are cats. Some (many) things simply are what they are, I believe the definition of the word "marriage" is one of things. Only secondarily do I take issue with it on the basis of religious beliefs.

Hope that answers what you were looking for.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's fucking ridiculous. Do you really, really, believe that?

Absolutely, without the slightest hestiation. And we've got the society to prove it. What was once unthinkable is now not even worthy of an batted eyelash, even when it should be. I don't see the slightest reason to expect this to be any different.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyone who didn't expect this level of opposition from Jon on this issue is fooling themselves. Just respect that his worldview is where it is on this issue and don't try to get into an argument.. all it'll do is create more bad feelings.

The man doth have a point ;)

I will say however, that I hope you'll at least credit me with trying to keep a matter-of-fact tone with my answers to the questions I tried to answer. I don't believe extended discussions would be worthwhile, but Jets06 first question & Lathum's subsequent question (once I understood what he was asking) seemed reasonable enough & readily addressed with clear but brief responses.

[Pyser]

ill be voting no on tuesday

[SirFozzie]

The man doth have a point ;)

I will say however, that I hope you'll at least credit me with trying to keep a matter-of-fact tone with my answers to the questions I tried to answer. I don't believe extended discussions would be worthwhile, but Jets06 first question & Lathum's subsequent question (once I understood what he was asking) seemed reasonable enough & readily addressed with clear but brief responses.

As some would say, True Dat.

[Crapshoot]

For Gods sake, live and let live. George Takai being married to his life partner has not effect on the quality of life in this country. How about issues that really matter like the economy, crime, education, etc.

BTW, don't just single the Mormons out. The Catholic church is behind it as well and FLR, a national christian radio network I listen to at times is speaking out about gay marriage props in several states.

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.

They are - sorry to not be clear on that. That being said, it seems to be when the church officially campaigns for a position, it opens itself up to ridicule like this.

[Karlifornia]

I hope this gets shot down, and completely shits all over anyone's religious beliefs. That's how I feel.

[larrymcg421]

Here's the thing I don't get about the slippery slope argument. So people argue that allowing gay marriage will lead to legalized incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. I think that's a bullshit argument, but let's run with that for a second...

Instead of banning gay marriage, wouldn't it then make more sense to pass an Amendment specifically banning incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?

[DaddyTorgo]

So Jon - are you okay with civil unions then? or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it?

[sterlingice]

So Jon - are you okay with civil unions then? or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it?

Sorry, that just makes me think of South Park :D

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be “butt buddies”.

SI

[Galaxy]

To make everything crystal clear.

"No on Prop 8" means you support marriage for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

"Yes on Prop 8" means you are against it.

They should have it set the other way around.

[sterlingice]

I'm pretty sure those trying to pass Prop 8 did it that way intentionally

SI

[Galaxy]

We have one here in Florida also but I am pretty sure it will lose for 2 reasons , firstly they included domestic partnerships which are fairly popular in the older heterosexual communities down here between widowers. Also it needs 60% to pass. Most of the polling has it around 51-52%.

I think the people who want these laws passed for whatever reason realize that this next few years is their last chance to get them passed. The younger generation really just doesnt give a damn in general about banning gay marriage or race ect.

Don't you think that younger generations care more? They seem more progessive on social issues.

[Galaxy]

Here's the thing I don't get about the slippery slope argument. So people argue that allowing gay marriage will lead to legalized incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. I think that's a bullshit argument, but let's run with that for a second...

Instead of banning gay marriage, wouldn't it then make more sense to pass an Amendment specifically banning incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?

Check out the sex laws in Europe. Much more liberal in comparison to ours. The age of consent is much lower in a lot of European countries.

[AZSpeechCoach]

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic. :)

[lungs]

I guess what I am asking is why are you against gay marriage? Not trying to bait you into an argument.

I am genuinely curious and would love to have an adult discussion about it, which I know you are capable of having, yet others aren't ( as evidence from lungs' post). So maybe its best to let if go.

No need to have an adult conversation since I'll simply agree with you.

[-apoc-]

Don't you think that younger generations care more? They seem more progessive on social issues.

Thats what I meant sorry I wrote that poorly. I meant that they are not going to be supportive of a ban on gay marriage.

[JPhillips]

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic. :)

Just knowing that gay men are married makes man sex almost unbearably tempting. If Prop 8 fails I'd expect to go gay before Thanksgiving.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So Jon - are you okay with civil unions then? or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it?

Funny you should ask, since I originally commented on that in one of my replies & then took it out because I wasn't happy with the way I was working it into the post.

I oppose the recognition of "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" or whatever regardless of the gender of the parties involved. In other words, I think treating a shacked up male & female like they're married is just as ridiculous as same gender marriages.

[Tigercat]

I oppose the recognition of "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" or whatever regardless of the gender of the parties involved. In other words, I think treating a shacked up male & female like they're married is just as ridiculous as same gender marriages.

Should the government even be in the business of recognizing marriage? Of recognizing and awarding "love?" Isn't that the business of one's personal religious/spiritual beliefs?

Shouldn't two old people, for example, regardless of their sexes who want to make a commitment and support each other be able to get the same support and from the Government that we currently give married couples?

[Galaxy]

Just knowing that gay men are married makes man sex almost unbearably tempting. If Prop 8 fails I'd expect to go gay before Thanksgiving.

I hear Clay Aiken is gay now. Maybe you two could hook up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Shouldn't two old people, for example, regardless of their sexes who want to make a commitment and support each other be able to get the same support and from the Government that we currently give married couples?

No, I don't believe so.

[DanGarion]

I'm torn on this. I believe in the spirit of Prop 8, but dislike the lack of say of when a child can be taught the issue.
The spirit of it is to take away peoples rights, and has nothing to do with children...

[DanGarion]

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.
I just want to say you are fricken awesome. And I really mean this. I wish there were more people like us that can understand the difference.

[DanGarion]

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

As for Prop 8, I'd love to see it pass (would be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal election year) but have little hope that it will do so.

So if your child was gay you wouldn't want him/her to have the same rights you have?
(yes I threw out the if you had a child card)

[Kodos]

I got de-friended on Facebook over this. My sister-in-law posted an article in favor of banning gay marriage, and blabbered on about the sanctity of marriage. I posted a link to divorce statistics, and commented something to the effect of "Over 40% of marriages in the United States end in divorce. Straight people aren't exactly doing a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage. It's time to give gay people a shot at it." Today, I logged in and found that I had been de-friended by the sister-in-law and her husband. Which works out okay, because I was tired of seeing her hate-fueled comments anyhow. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

lol that's awesome kodos

[JediKooter]

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

[Galaxy]

I got de-friended on Facebook over this. My sister-in-law posted an article in favor of banning gay marriage, and blabbered on about the sanctity of marriage. I posted a link to divorce statistics, and commented something to the effect of "Over 40% of marriages in the United States end in divorce. Straight people aren't exactly doing a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage. It's time to give gay people a shot at it." Today, I logged in and found that I had been de-friended by the sister-in-law and her husband. Which works out okay, because I was tired of seeing her hate-fueled comments anyhow. :)

And just in time for Thanksgiving and the holidays.

[DaddyTorgo]

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

+1

[Kodos]

By the way, she's divorced once herself. Nice hypocrisy.

[DanGarion]

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

But why does the word used matter?

[Neon_Chaos]

Let me see if I get this straight, the religious people want to stop gays from having the right to be married, not under the eyes of god, but under the eyes of the law?

[JediKooter]

I'm glad we are not back a few decades ago or these people who support Prop 8 wouldn't have allowed me to marry my Mexican wife.

[Karlifornia]

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll314/littledipper_2008/funny.jpg

[DanGarion]

I'm glad we are not back a few decades ago or these people who support Prop 8 wouldn't have allowed me to marry my Mexican wife.

Ding. How dare we be so tolerant!

[Karlifornia]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/articles/marriage-equality.jpg

[Karlifornia]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/202502992v4_350x350_Front.jpg

[Karlifornia]

http://rlv.zazzle.com/against_gay_marriage_shirt-p235774460653463047ki_400.jpg

[JediKooter]

But why does the word used matter?

To be honest, I really don't know when it comes to gay marriage, as I can't speak for gay people. However, this isn't about semantics, it's about discrimination and this proposed change to the California constitution is discriminatory.

What does it matter which water fountain a black person can use, they can still drink water?

Or, what does it matter that we put all Asians in internment camps? They still have a place to live.

It's sad we are in the 21st century and the idea of two gay people getting married still frightens people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So if your child was gay you wouldn't want him/her to have the same rights you have? (yes I threw out the if you had a child card)

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.

[JetsIn06]

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.

This is sad.

[Crim]

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic. :)

:confused:

[EagleFan]

The spirit of it is to take away peoples rights, and has nothing to do with children...

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

[BYU 14]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA http://operationsports.com/fofc/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1876820#post1876820)
In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

To be honest, I really don't know when it comes to gay marriage, as I can't speak for gay people. However, this isn't about semantics, it's about discrimination and this proposed change to the California constitution is discriminatory.

What does it matter which water fountain a black person can use, they can still drink water?

Or, what does it matter that we put all Asians in internment camps? They still have a place to live.

It's sad we are in the 21st century and the idea of two gay people getting married still frightens people.

Well put, when these things changed did they become examples of people accepting the intolerable and making the next unthinkable thing more thinkable?

I would be willing to bet that in 50 years the thought of preventing two gay people from being married seems as prejudiced and ass backwards, as the thought of black people not being allowed to share a water fountain with whites 50 years ago seems today.

[Neon_Chaos]

I find it funny that the conservative religious right-wingers in America have soooooo much in common with the radical extremist terrorists in the middle east. (ideologically, that is.)

[Ajaxab]

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

[DanGarion]

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.
So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

Not sure that's actually relevant to the snippet you quoted to be honest. But regardless of the source, we all choose whether to act on our impulses/predilections/etc.

And believe it or not, something good just came from this thread: I discovered that I had been misspelling predilection for years until doublechecking it just now.

[Lathum]

this thread is now heading down a slippery slope

[Klinglerware]

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

That is actually a sociological argument as to why most societies endorse the idea of marriage (i.e., encourage/enforce the long-term male-female pair bond that will produce children so that the society will be stable and productive into the future).

In the US, you already get a tax break for your children. Society also subsidizes public education for your child. Again, these are really done with the idea that the society will benefit.

The argument you put forth is well reasoned. But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?

[DanGarion]

Where exactly was this defined as a right?
I would figure it's define a right somewhere since my wife and I got married and it wasn't under the church.

Blasphemous I know!

[DanGarion]

Not sure that's actually relevant to the snippet you quoted to be honest. But regardless of the source, we all choose whether to act on our impulses/predilections/etc.

And believe it or not, something good just came from this thread: I discovered that I had been misspelling predilection for years until doublechecking it just now.

So deciding if one is straight or gay is based on acting upon our impulses? I'm really confused with your reasoning.

[Ajaxab]

But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?

I'm not sure I'm following your question. Can you rephrase it?

[Mustang]

So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

*cough* *sniff*

Excuse me boss, I won't be in to work today. I've caught a little bit of the gay and I'm afraid if I come in today, I might try to kiss you so, best if I just stay home today.

[DanGarion]

That is actually a sociological argument as to why most societies endorse the idea of marriage (i.e., encourage/enforce the long-term male-female pair bond that will produce children so that the society will be stable and productive into the future).

In the US, you already get a tax break for your children. Society also subsidizes public education for your child. Again, these are really done with the idea that the society will benefit.

The argument you put forth is well reasoned. But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?
In the perfect world people that get married and/or have children wouldn't get tax breaks since it's unfair to those that choose to remain single or not have children.

[Klinglerware]

I'm not sure I'm following your question. Can you rephrase it?

Sure, to clarify (I hope) a couple of points:

1. Households with children already are awarded subsidies because those households have produced children.
2. Married heterosexuals also are awarded some benefits/entitlements/legal rights/etc that other households do not receive
3. Denying those benefits to other types of partnerships could be considered a net benefit to married heterosexuals--even though married heterosexuals don't "gain" any material benefit from limiting marriage benefits to heterosexuals, in effect they are advantaged relative to other unrecognized partnership types. This does support the idea that society wants to make it attractive for people to enter into heterosexual marriages.

So after all that, my question is, since we already have a separate reward structure for couples who produce children, are the marriage subsidies really going to incent people to have children?

[Honolulu_Blue]

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

There is also the argument that Prop 8 is anti-capitalist. There are a lot of studies out there that show that married people are happier than single people or even unmarried people in a relationship. Happier people are more productive people. They work harder, tend to get sick less often, and therefore are better for our economy. Another thing, married couples make better parents for adopted children. Adopting a child and raising that child to be a productive member of societ is another pro-capalist argument against Prop 8.

Are those the greatest arguments? No. But I think they act as a fair counterpoint to the whole having kids = pro-capitalist thing. That argument also gets into the question of whether people who are sterile should be denied marriage. After all, a sterile man or woman has about as much chance of having children as two men or two women. That slippery slope argument is no more silly than the whole "if we allows gays to marry then next it will be brothers and sisters getting married and polygamy!"

[larrymcg421]

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

Loving v. Virginia

[Mustang]

Loving v. Virginia

What about McLovin v. Hawaii?

[heybrad]

These have been interesting times for me. If you hadn't seen from the other LDS thread, I'm Mormon. Call me a member of a cult or whatever, but that's a whole separate discussion. Imagine being the one guy at church who, when approached, will gladly tell you that opposing gay marriage is wrong and what the church is doing is wrong. As you can imagine, most people want nothing to do with me now. Normally I'd see it as pretty funny if I didn't find the entire thing so sad.

In my opinion, I don't understand why members of the LDS church can't see the distinction between what you believe marriage means from a religious standpoint and what marriage means as recognized by the government. And the LDS church is a good example of how there is a large gap between those two. I was married to my wife before I converted to the church. We had the typical "death do you part" ceremony. According to the church, that's not enough from a religious standpoint. You need to be married and sealed in the temple. It's frustrating to me that nobody seems to be making that distinction. Why does the church care what the state of California recognizes as marriage. In the eyes of God (according to the church) it's not and that would have included my initial wedding ceremony with my wife.

The kicker to this (if you know any of my history on here), is that I've mentioned on this board before that my brother is gay. As a matter of fact, he was married on the day they began to allow gay marriage in California. We've talked multiple times about what we both believe (temple marriage vs. civil marriage) and we're fine with each other. At this point though, I'm pretty embarrased by the actions of my church and how they are not representing me in any way on this.

Anyway... I've babbled enough about this and don't know if I've summed this up very well. I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most of them is a scary thought.

[DanGarion]

These have been interesting times for me. If you hadn't seen from the other LDS thread, I'm Mormon. Call me a member of a cult or whatever, but that's a whole separate discussion. Imagine being the one guy at church who, when approached, will gladly tell you that opposing gay marriage is wrong and what the church is doing is wrong. As you can imagine, most people want nothing to do with me now. Normally I'd see it as pretty funny if I didn't find the entire thing so sad.

In my opinion, I don't understand why members of the LDS church can't see the distinction between what you believe marriage means from a religious standpoint and what marriage means as recognized by the government. And the LDS church is a good example of how there is a large gap between those two. I was married to my wife before I converted to the church. We had the typical "death do you part" ceremony. According to the church, that's not enough from a religious standpoint. You need to married and sealed in the temple. It's frustrating to me that nobody seems to be making that distinction. Why does the church care what the state of California recognizes as marriage. In the eyes of God (according to the church) it's not and that would have included my initial wedding ceremony with my wife.

The kicker to this (if you know any of my history on here), is that I've mentioned on this board before that my brother is gay. As a matter of fact, he was married on the day they began to allow gay marriage in California. We've talked multiple times about what we both believe (temple marriage vs. civil marriage) and we're fine with each other. At this point though, I'm pretty embarrased by the actions of my church and how they are not representing me in any way on this.

Anyway... I've babbled enough about this and don't know if I've summed this up very well. I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most is them is a scary thought.
Hey brad. You rock. I'm glad you can see, understand, and accept the difference.

[Ajaxab]

There is also the argument that Prop 8 is anti-capitalist. There are a lot of studies out there that show that married people are happier than single people or even unmarried people in a relationship. Happier people are more productive people. They work harder, tend to get sick less often, and therefore are better for our economy. Another thing, married couples make better parents for adopted children. Adopting a child and raising that child to be a productive member of societ is another pro-capalist argument against Prop 8.

Are those the greatest arguments? No. But I think they act as a fair counterpoint to the whole having kids = pro-capitalist thing. That argument also gets into the question of whether people who are sterile should be denied marriage. After all, a sterile man or woman has about as much chance of having children as two men or two women. That slippery slope argument is no more silly than the whole "if we allows gays to marry then next it will be brothers and sisters getting married and polygamy!"

Out of curiosity, do you have links to these studies? And do the benefits the studies cite apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples?

I think the pro-capitalist position would also look at productivity long term rather than short term. In the short term, perhaps the typical married gay couple would be equally good for the economy, but long term, without the ability to reproduce, it seems difficult to further economic growth.

[Pumpy Tudors]

this thread is now heading down a slippery slope
WOW TOTALLY DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING

[Lathum]

WOW TOTALLY DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING

fag

[Ajaxab]

Fwiw, the whole pro-capitalist/anti-capitalist argument came from a professor I heard talk about how much she didn't want to see Prop 8 pass. She is a lesbian, anti-capitalist so from her point of view she saw Prop 8 as nothing more than an affront to all the values she holds dear. For her, it represents another brick in the capitalist machine designed to further inequality in terms of sexuality and class. So the extreme left wing would appear to perceive this is as a pro-capitalist bill.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Out of curiosity, do you have links to these studies? And do the benefits the studies cite apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples?

I think the pro-capitalist position would also look at productivity long term rather than short term. In the short term, perhaps the typical married gay couple would be equally good for the economy, but long term, without the ability to reproduce, it seems difficult to further economic growth.

Yeah, but allowing gays to marry doesn't mean that you are all of a sudden banning heterosexuals from getting married. Therefore, the pro-capitalist would be in favor of both.

You get double the short term beneift and you also get some benefit from gay marriages if you assume that married gay couples would make better parents for adopted children than non-married gay couples. There is plenty of evidence to show that a child growing up with parents who have a stable, loving relationship are more likely to be productive members of society, hence, better for future economic growth.

The pro-capitalist wouldn't be opposed to a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married, would he? If so, that's really going beyond reason.

Another pro-capitalist argument for gay marriage would work as follows. One large benefit of marriage is caretaking. This clearly applies to homosexuals. One of the first things many people worry about when coming to terms with their homosexuality is: Who will take care of me when I'm ailing or old? Society needs to care about this, too, as the aids crisis has made horribly clear. If that crisis has shown anything, it is that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion--and that no institution can begin to match the care of a devoted partner. Legally speaking, marriage creates kin. Surely society's interest in kin-creation is strongest of all for people who are unlikely to be supported by children in old age and who may well be rejected by their own parents in youth. Better to have one's devoted partner, husband, or wife caring for the elderly or sick than leaving it up to medicare or medicaid (aka the goverment aka the tax payer).


Finally, same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Americans in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. People come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's makes our country great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for the country. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

[Ajaxab]

Yeah, but allowing gays to marry doesn't mean that you are all of a sudden banning heterosexuals from getting married. Therefore, the pro-capitalist would be in favor of both.

You get double the short term beneift and you also get some benefit from gay marriages if you assume that married gay couples would make better parents for adopted children than non-married gay couples. There is plenty of evidence to show that a child growing up with parents who have a stable, loving relationship are more likely to be productive members of society, hence, better for future economic growth.

Can you point me to this evidence with respect to heterosexual and homosexual couples?

The pro-capitalist wouldn't be opposed to a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married, would he? If so, that's really going beyond reason.

Hence, the qualified argument about normative heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Normative does not refer to those heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children nor to those homosexual couples who decide to adopt. Of course, this claim about normativity could be wrong if it's normal for heterosexual married couples not to have children or it's normal for homosexuals to be adopting (at this point, I haven't seen evidence that either would be the case).

Another pro-capitalist argument for gay marriage would work as follows. One large benefit of marriage is caretaking. This clearly applies to homosexuals. One of the first things many people worry about when coming to terms with their homosexuality is: Who will take care of me when I'm ailing or old? Society needs to care about this, too, as the aids crisis has made horribly clear. If that crisis has shown anything, it is that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion--and that no institution can begin to match the care of a devoted partner. Legally speaking, marriage creates kin. Surely society's interest in kin-creation is strongest of all for people who are unlikely to be supported by children in old age and who may well be rejected by their own parents in youth. Better to have one's devoted partner, husband, or wife caring for the elderly or sick than leaving it up to medicare or medicaid (aka the goverment aka the tax payer).

I'm not following how this applies to capitalism as it would seem the economy would function similarly whether a caretaker or medicare would be paying for the sick partner. That aside, these are certainly fair points, but for the sake of argument, as things stand what is preventing caretaking from occurring already? It could just be my lack of knowledge about how the system works, but why do homosexual couples need the marriage label to do these things better than they already are?

Finally, same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Americans in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. People come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's makes our country great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for the country. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

Your point here gets to the ultimate purpose of marriage and why defining this purpose is so important. Is the normative purpose to further a more stable relationship and a deeper commitment to one another? I don't think anyone could quibble about the value of a normative marriage if this is all there is to it. But it seems there has to be something else involved or we could call a lot of things that further stability and deeper commitments to others marriage. Is the normative purpose to further a more stable relationship and a deeper commitment to one another and to further the perpetuation of society through procreation? It seems the procreative aspect makes marriage in a normative sense different than other stable and committed relationships. This gets back to that capitalist argument. Stable relationships and deeper commitments may grow the economy slightly, but they don't typically add new consumers and new workers to the economy the way procreative couples do. So should these gay couples who normatively do not reproduce be allowed the benefits of those heterosexual couples who do normatively reproduce? As I mentioned before, it's a cold, calculating argument, but I'm finding it hard to get around.

Again, this is qualified by the notion of normativity. We can talk about the exceptions like sterile parents, elderly couples, gay couples who adopt etc., but they are not the norm. Perhaps these exceptions need to be considered, but that would require additional layers of nuance.

[Telle]

Doesn't the capitalist argument only make sense if there was potential for homosexuals to take advantage of the incentives that the government creates for married couples by engaging in heterosexual marriage? Society doesn't lose anything by letting gays marry because they were never going to form heterosexual marriages anyways. So yes while society doesn't benefit from the likelihood of them having children, I also don't see any sort of economic loss. So forbidding gay marriage isn't pro-capitalist, as the economic effect is null.

[Ajaxab]

Doesn't the capitalist argument only make sense if there was potential for homosexuals to take advantage of the incentives that the government creates for married couples by engaging in heterosexual marriage? Society doesn't lose anything by letting gays marry because they were never going to form heterosexual marriages anyways. So yes while society doesn't benefit from the likelihood of them having children, I also don't see any sort of economic loss. So forbidding gay marriage isn't pro-capitalist, as the economic effect is null.

Maybe I've been completely misguided on this thing, but I thought one of the important benefits of marriage was that one receives certain tax breaks the non-married do not receive. I assumed that was one of the reasons why gays and lesbians wanted to be married--to have these kinds of benefits. Of course, if they do not receive these benefits, then you are right and that part of the argument is moot.

I would also have to ask, isn't not having children a potential economic loss? In failing to reproduce yourself, that is one less person contributing to the economy by working or by buying something so I'm not persuaded that the economic effect is null. We're all going to die at some point. We either replace ourselves in the economy, more than replace ourselves by having more than two kids or we die without replacing ourselves.

I had always assumed that one of the major reasons why some are so reluctant to crack down on illegal immigration is that more people in the country leads to increased economic growth. If these people aren't here, then some jobs aren't being done and some products are not being purchased. The same principle would seem to apply here. If people are not procreating, that is a potential economic loss as the population will not be maintained or increasing. Of course I'm assuming that population growth leads to economic growth and that may not hold in every instance, but it seems like a fair generalization.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Maybe I've been completely misguided on this thing, but I thought one of the important benefits of marriage was that one receives certain tax breaks the non-married do not receive. I assumed that was one of the reasons why gays and lesbians wanted to be married--to have these kinds of benefits. Of course, if they do not receive these benefits, then you are right and that part of the argument is moot.

While I can't speak for anyone other than myself, I really doubt that most people, gay or otherwise, consider "tax breaks" one of the "important benefits of marriage." There are dozens of dozens important benefits of marriage that come well before tax breaks or any other kind of economic benefit.

Once you get into economic benefits of marriage advantages like being covered by your spouse's insurance/joint insurance policies, status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medicak decisions, joint leases, benefits to annuities/pension plans, inheritance of jointly-owned proprty through right of survivorship, and other beneifts. Many of these would, again, come well before any tax breaks (though the right of inheritance does provide a one time tax benefit).


I would also have to ask, isn't not having children a potential economic loss? In failing to reproduce yourself, that is one less person contributing to the economy by working or by buying something so I'm not persuaded that the economic effect is null. We're all going to die at some point. We either replace ourselves in the economy, more than replace ourselves by having more than two kids or we die without replacing ourselves.

I had always assumed that one of the major reasons why some are so reluctant to crack down on illegal immigration is that more people in the country leads to increased economic growth. If these people aren't here, then some jobs aren't being done and some products are not being purchased. The same principle would seem to apply here. If people are not procreating, that is a potential economic loss as the population will not be maintained or increasing. Of course I'm assuming that population growth leads to economic growth and that may not hold in every instance, but it seems like a fair generalization.

Sure, not having kids is a potential economic loss, assuming that your kid grows up to be a productive member of society. What if they don't? What if they just grow up to be a drain on the system? What if they grow up to be criminals?

[DanGarion]

Sure, not having kids is a potential economic loss, assuming that your kid grows up to be a productive member of society. What if they don't? What if they just grow up to be a drain on the system? What if they grow up to be criminals?

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

It's like the question from the Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop commercial, the world will never know! :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

It's like the question from the Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop commercial, the world will never know! :)

I've been arguing that point too!

The whole notion that some how banning gay mariage is pro-capitalist or that allowing gay marriage is anti-capitalist just strikes me as absurd. There are just too many factors that play into whether a union between two consenting adults will or will not lead to greater a economic benefit for society.

Not only is that question simply impossible to answer it's also far, far down on the list of what folks are and should be concerned about a marriage and what determines whether or not a marriage is successful, not only for the couple in question, but society as a whole.

[JediKooter]

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

[Crim]

I find it funny that the conservative religious right-wingers in America have soooooo much in common with the radical extremist terrorists in the middle east. (ideologically, that is.)

We can't just disagree? Really? We have to do this, Neon?

[Crapshoot]

We can't just disagree? Really? We have to do this, Neon?

On this? No. I'm sorry. I'll say that about JIMGA's stance - on some issues, I don't buy the moral "equivalance" of compromise - there is a right and a wrong. If you're voting for Proposition 8, you're wrong, and I don't care how you try and couch it. Its bigotry, and in time, we'll look back the same way as we do at civil rights and wonder how such idiocy was ever justified in the name of "tradition".

[Crim]

What about McLovin v. Hawaii?

Har!

[SirFozzie]

*wince* Ok, that's a bit too far. neon.

[Crim]

I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most of them is a scary thought.

Now we have the slippery slope argument, but in the other direction!

[larrymcg421]

I think we need to ban Crim's disturbing signature. That's prop 8 in 2010.

[Lathum]

I think we need to ban Crim's disturbing signature. That's prop 8 in 2010.

:+1:

[Crim]

Ta-daaa!

[Lathum]

Ta-daaa!

jesus christ, I've been avoiding your posts for months. Thank god.

[Neon_Chaos]

*wince* Ok, that's a bit too far. neon.

Yes, it is. I apologize for being an ass.

[larrymcg421]

Oh crap. What have I done.

[Crim]

jesus christ, I've been avoiding your posts for months. Thank god.

Seriously, though, that line of yours was one of the funniest things I've read on this board. It was so... matter-of-fact. I'm almost sad to see it go.

[Telle]

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

I've read somewhere that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.

[Lathum]

Seriously, though, that line of yours was one of the funniest things I've read on this board. It was so... matter-of-fact. I'm almost sad to see it go.

I'll let you know when I say something disturbing about my sister ;)

[Crim]

Okay, so I thought long and hard about it, and I voted NO on Amendment #2, Florida's version of the gay marriage ban.

I really was torn. I am of the opinion that marriage is a one man/one woman institution. But I gave consideration to some of the (non-inflammatory (yes, I'm looking at you, Neon!)) comments here, and some misgivings I always have when a voter initiative basicly mirrors or countermands a law already on the books.

I guess I just decided that a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate mechanism for this issue to be decided. I have a little buyer's remorse, but not a lot.

I actually am struggling more with regret for supporting Ginny Brown-Waite for congress...

[Crim]

Oh, and Lathum, if something disturbing needs to be said about your sister, just ping Karlifornia or Hell Atlantic. No need getting your own hands dirty.

[jeheinz72]

I'll be voting Yes on Prop 8 today.

[Neon_Chaos]

Okay, so I thought long and hard about it, and I voted NO on Amendment #2, Florida's version of the gay marriage ban.

I really was torn. I am of the opinion that marriage is a one man/one woman institution. But I gave consideration to some of the (non-inflammatory (yes, I'm looking at you, Neon!)) comments here, and some misgivings I always have when a voter initiative basicly mirrors or countermands a law already on the books.

I guess I just decided that a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate mechanism for this issue to be decided. I have a little buyer's remorse, but not a lot.

I actually am struggling more with regret for supporting Ginny Brown-Waite for congress...

I apologized! :popcorn:

I'm not going to say what you did was right or wrong, seeing as how people can't seem to agree on that, but you did what was just.

[jeheinz72]

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, registered domestic partners already have every right awarded to spouses under the California Family Code.

So I'm not denying anyone any rights

[fantom1979]

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

The California Supreme Court and the United Nations seems to think it is a right.

"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

[Honolulu_Blue]

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, registered domestic partners already have every right awarded to spouses under the California Family Code.

So I'm not denying anyone any rights

The California Supreme Court and the United Nations seems to think it is a right.

"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Ah, so then heinz did deny some people a right. Does that mean we can get our panties in a bunch now?

[jeheinz72]

But what right am I denying them if they already possess every right that I do as a Married Californian?

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

[Lathum]

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

isn't that then denying them a right?

[Honolulu_Blue]

But what right am I denying them if they already possess every right that I do as a Married Californian?

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

You are denying them the right to get married. Being married, in and of itself, is a right. Being married also means a lot more to many people than simply possesing legal rights. It's a very symbolic and and powerful statement for some people. Why deny gay domestic partners that right?

[jeheinz72]

isn't that then denying them a right?

You are denying them the right to get married. Being married, in and of itself, is a right. Being married also means a lot more to many people than simply possesing legal rights. It's a very symbolic and and powerful statement for some people. Why deny gay domestic partners that right?

No, that's denying them the semantics.

[jeheinz72]

Don't get me wrong though, if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Surely not the end of the world, but by the same token I'm voting with what I believe.

[Lathum]

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

[KWhit]

No, that's denying them the semantics.

Let's take the gay-marriage hot button issue out of it.

Say there are a group of people who want Border Collies to be called People. Let's imagine these Border Collies already possess every right that a person does. Let's say it's a very big deal to these Border Collies, very symbolic and powerful for them to be called people. Should we call them people then?

(Note: this isn't a perfect analogy of course, but if I had more time I could find an equally silly one that illustrates the point)

WTF are you talking about? These aren't dogs we're talking about here, you know?

[Honolulu_Blue]

No, that's denying them the semantics.

Let's take the gay-marriage hot button issue out of it.

Say there are a group of people who want Border Collies to be called People. Let's imagine these Border Collies already possess every right that a person does. Let's say it's a very big deal to these Border Collies, very symbolic and powerful for them to be called people. Should we call them people then?

(Note: this isn't a perfect analogy of course, but if I had more time I could find an equally silly one that illustrates the point)

If there was some law that said being called a "person" was a right that all people and Border Collies were entitled to? Yeah, we should. Why not? From a legal/equal rights perspective most definitely.

Even from a non-legal perspective, why not? I mean, would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

Exactly.

[DaddyTorgo]

would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

this to me is the crux of the issue. and it's why it's not about rights or anything, plain and simple it's about fear and bigotry. who the fuck cares what it's called? does it make YOUR marriage any less powerful to you, or any more or less special in the eyes of your chosen diety if somebody else can't call their partnership a marriage?

Because if it does then you have one shallow-minded, bigoted-diety you're worshipping. :rant:

[KWhit]

Because if it does then you have one shallow-minded, bigoted-diety you're worshipping. :rant:

You're just now figuring that out?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Don't get me wrong though, if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Surely not the end of the world, but by the same token I'm voting with what I believe.

That's perfectly fine. That's what this country is all about. Nobody is criticizing you for that. It's the whole "I'm not denying anyone any rights" claim that we're after. That's a false statement. You are denying people a right. Just accept it and move on.

[Lathum]

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.

that being said, border collies? At least use oompa loompa's or something.

[KWhit]

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.


Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

[lordscarlet]

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

You're kidding, right?

[jeheinz72]

Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

My apologies KWhit, and anyone else I might offended with that example. Horrible choice of analogy on my part.

I wasn't trying to "equate" them, just give an example of another way of looking at it.

Either way, I apologize and will edit the post.

[KWhit]

You're kidding, right?

Why do you think he's kidding?

Do you think that allowing gays to marry is all of a sudden going to cause everyone to turn guy and not have children?

[jeheinz72]

If there was some law that said being called a "person" was a right that all people and Border Collies were entitled to? Yeah, we should. Why not? From a legal/equal rights perspective most definitely.

Even from a non-legal perspective, why not? I mean, would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

No, I wouldn't feel threatened by it, and I don't feel threatened in this case either.

The definition just does not line up with what I believe a marriage is.

[jeheinz72]

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

Given that then, why does it have to be called a marriage (as opposed to what it's called now for same sex couples, a domestic partnership) for that to matter?

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?

[BrianD]

Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

This is one of the big problems with this topic. There aren't many (any?) analogies that work. In comparing rights of gay people and non-gay people, you cover pretty much the whole human population. Any analogy is going to have to involve non-humans which will seem offensive.

[jeheinz72]

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.

that being said, border collies? At least use oompa loompa's or something.

Thanks, and agreed. HORRIBLE example that I didn't think through how it could be taken.

[jeheinz72]

That's perfectly fine. That's what this country is all about. Nobody is criticizing you for that. It's the whole "I'm not denying anyone any rights" claim that we're after. That's a false statement. You are denying people a right. Just accept it and move on.

I disagree that I am.

[Lathum]

Given that then, why does it have to be called a marriage (as opposed to what it's called now for same sex couples, a domestic partnership) for that to matter?

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?

because the term "marriage" is a representation of the institution. "Domestic Partenership" just doesn't carry the same weight.

[Galaxy]

I just find it interesting that those for Prop 8 are fighting over a "word". Really, what is going to stop gays from calling themselves married (regardless of what type of union they have)?

[Alan T]

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Can't have a marriage without a vagina. That's what my dad always said.

[jeheinz72]

because the term "marriage" is a representation of the institution. "Domestic Partenership" just doesn't carry the same weight.

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?

[jeheinz72]

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.




I agree on the whole. I am Catholic, and my definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman in a church.

[JetsIn06]

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

In my ideal world this is what I see too, but for now, with marriage still a legal term, I am all for gay marriage.

[JetsIn06]

I agree on the whole. I am Catholic, and my definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman in a church.

So, when I marry my girlfriend somewhere outside of a church, it's not marriage. Huh?

[heybrad]

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?
Not at all. You should continue to believe from your religious persective that in the eyes of God, it's not a true marriage and it will be judged at the right time when we all stand in judgement (if you believe that). How the government or the state of california defines marriage has no bearing in that.

[larrymcg421]

What about churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies?

[Lathum]

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?

you can have whatever perception of it you like.

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.

I think to say it is just about a word is borderline insulting, it isn't about a word, but what that word represents. It represents being treated as equals with equal rights, including using the term marriage.

[jeheinz72]

So, when I marry my girlfriend somewhere outside of a church, it's not marriage. Huh?

"Officially" no.

For all other intents and purposes I would consider that marriage akin to my marriage akin to a same sex couple who had some sort of ceremony.

But make me say Yes/No on the topic, and the answer would officially be No with respect to what I believe a marriage to be.

[lordscarlet]

Why do you think he's kidding?

Do you think that allowing gays to marry is all of a sudden going to cause everyone to turn guy and not have children?

Do you think that people say, "I would abort this child, but a couple of gay dudes might adopt it, so I'm going to keep it!"

That seems rather far fetched to me.

[jeheinz72]

Not at all. You should continue to believe from your religious persective that in the eyes of God, it's not a true marriage and it will be judged at the right time when we all stand in judgement (if you believe that). How the government or the state of california defines marriage has no bearing in that.

Agreed.

And from my perspective, if No wins, then No wins. That's the way the cookie crumbles and it's not a big deal to me.

But by that same token, I'm not going to vote contrary to what I believe in this situation.

[Kodos]

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?

If it doesn't matter what it's called, then why not call same-sex unions a "marriage"?

[Alan T]

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.



My wife is Catholic and I am Protestant and we did not get married in the Catholic church (I have a laundry list of issues with the Catholic church that this is not the proper place to discuss). As far as I am aware, the Catholic church does not view my marriage as "blessed" either.

I personally could care less and it has not affected me once at all. It has perhaps affected my wife a little at times, but more so due to pressure from her family (who are all for the most part Spanish catholic). I actually don't understand why people let other people or groups that they do not agree with bother them with what they think.

Of course this goes back to my previous thought about why I don't think the government should even be involved in this type of thing (or numerous other things that they get involved in when not needed to as there are no rights to uphold or innocents to protect)

[jeheinz72]

you can have whatever perception of it you like.

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.

I think to say it is just about a word is borderline insulting, it isn't about a word, but what that word represents. It represents being treated as equals with equal rights, including using the term marriage.

If someone said that to me, I'd ask them "In what context?" Unless their answer was "In the eyes of the Church and God", frankly, I wouldn't give two shits.

I don't think it's about a word. My marriage, as you stated as well, goes beyond (well beyond) the civil liberties afforded me by being marriage. By that same token, my marriage goes beyond really anyone else's opinion of it. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. No one more, no one less. That isn't what we're voting on here today.

[jeheinz72]

If it doesn't matter what it's called, then why not call same-sex unions a "marriage"?

If it doesn't matter what it's called, why does it have to be called a marriage?

[Neon_Chaos]

"Officially" no.

For all other intents and purposes I would consider that marriage akin to my marriage akin to a same sex couple who had some sort of ceremony.

But make me say Yes/No on the topic, and the answer would officially be No with respect to what I believe a marriage to be.

But the vote on Prop 8 is not a vote of what you believe marriage to be. It was a vote on whether you want to deprive other human beings the right to call what they have a marriage.

[jeheinz72]

... and what you believe a marriage to be should be law, then.

To be 100% honest, I'm more or less ambivalent. As I said, my marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. I will vote according to that definition. If it wins, it wins, if it doesn't, it doesn't (and for the record I dont' think it will)

This does raise an interesting point, as I type this, there is a gigantic banner ad promoting Yes On 8 and ProtectMarriage.com. I can't imagine that makes some folks here a touch unhappy.

[Alan T]

... and what you believe a marriage to be should be law, then.


I obviously would vote no on Prop 8 if I lived in California, but since I do not, it doesn't matter. I do think this post is unfair to jeheinz.. I don't think he has said what he believes should be absolute law. He says he feels he should vote as he believes and if more people feel the other way, then thats what happens. Not once does he seem to suggest that only his opinion matters here, he only is coming out and admitting to what he believes.

I also think this board has a far heavier liberal slant than conservative slant, so anyone who posts an opinion to the right of center seems to get ganged up on mercilessly. I applaud jeheinz for being willing to admit what he believes and what he voted and try to at least have some discussions about it in a civil tone. (disclaimer: I know there are some very ultra-conservative members of this board that have no problem bashing people with liberal ideas at times too but they seem smaller in numbers)

[Neon_Chaos]

dola

that anyone would go out of their way to constitutionally prevent someone else from having something that won't affect them in any way at all... that's just sad.

[jeheinz72]

But the vote on Prop 8 is not a vote of what you believe marriage to be. It was a vote on whether you want to deprive other human beings the right to call what they have a marriage.

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?

[Lathum]

To me it has nothing to do with civil rights. IT has to do with being able to call ones signifigent other their husband or wife, not their "partrner." The weight of those words carries far mor symbolic meaning.

[KWhit]

Do you think that people say, "I would abort this child, but a couple of gay dudes might adopt it, so I'm going to keep it!"

That seems rather far fetched to me.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that there are plenty of babies being born today, and they will be plenty born tomorrow, no matter the result of this.

In addition, the small amount of gay marriages would still be able to raise a family through adopting unwanted children.

[DaddyTorgo]

You're just now figuring that out?

nah - more like still constantly amazed by it, and enjoy pointing it out

[jeheinz72]

I obviously would vote no on Prop 8 if I lived in California, but since I do not, it doesn't matter. I do think this post is unfair to jeheinz.. I don't think he has said what he believes should be absolute law. He says he feels he should vote as he believes and if more people feel the other way, then thats what happens. Not once does he seem to suggest that only his opinion matters here, he only is coming out and admitting to what he believes.

I also think this board has a far heavier liberal slant than conservative slant, so anyone who posts an opinion to the right of center seems to get ganged up on mercilessly. I applaud jeheinz for being willing to admit what he believes and what he voted and try to at least have some discussions about it in a civil tone. (disclaimer: I know there are some very ultra-conservative members of this board that have no problem bashing people with liberal ideas at times too but they seem smaller in numbers)

Thanks Alan.

And you've put my point correctly.

I'm voting how I believe.

The chips will fall where they may.

If more people think No than think Yes like I do, then the amendment shouldn't be done and life goes on.

But I'm not going to vote contrary to what I believe. If others don't share my beliefs then they should vote how they believe, and that's what it boils down to.

[jeheinz72]

Well, isn't that what his vote is saying?

I know that I will never be supportive of anyone I know getting an abortion. On the other hand, I don't feel its my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

So you think that morally I should vote for a constitutional ban on abortion - because it's my belief that its wrong - even though I don't think I should be telling other people what to do?

My vote is saying my belief. If more people agree with me than don't, then our majority should be the law. Plain and simple democracy.

And as far as the morally catch-22 between what you belief conflicting with not telling people what to do, that's contrarian to the whole democratic process. That process gives us our voice to weigh in on issues. If you don't believe in abortion, you should vote for a ban on abortion.

[Alan T]

Well, isn't that what his vote is saying?

I know that I will never be supportive of anyone I know getting an abortion. On the other hand, I don't feel its my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

So you think that morally I should vote for a constitutional ban on abortion - because it's my belief that its wrong - even though I don't think I should be telling other people what to do?


If you are directing that at me, then I don't understand why you are asking me this question. I feel mostly (but not exactly) the same way you do about abortion.. I think I would have a hard time ever choosing to have an abortion myself, but I would be supportive of anyone that i know if they felt they had to do that themselves, I would be there for them and try to help how I can.

I just think you are unfairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view. All he is saying is he believes X and wants to have his 1 in however many million people voice to say so regardless if that is the end decision. I do believe that is what a democracy is supposed to be even if we do or do not agree with other people's votes.

[DaddyTorgo]

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

for now, with marriage still a legal term, I am all for gay marriage.

These pretty much sum up where I'm at. Alan, you and I are in lock-step on this. Essentially all the legal documents/rulings/etc. need to be updated to say "for everything prior to this point, let the term marriage be = to the current term "domestic partnership. Moving forward, everything will be a domestic partnership in the eyes of the law." And then if people want to go off and get married in churches and agitate about gay people calling themselves married, that's fine, because at that point it's not about civil rights. As it stands right now, it is about civil rights.

[jeheinz72]

To me it has nothing to do with civil rights. IT has to do with being able to call ones signifigent other their husband or wife, not their "partrner." The weight of those words carries far mor symbolic meaning.

And I'm saying that realistically, that meaning is derived at least in my marriage by far more than the simple term I use to refer to my wife.

If a law passed saying all people in California named John had to stop calling their wife a wife and had to call them their partner, it wouldn't effect my marriage. My marriage and relationship with my wife goes well beyond that.

[lordscarlet]

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that there are plenty of babies being born today, and they will be plenty born tomorrow, no matter the result of this.

In addition, the small amount of gay marriages would still be able to raise a family through adopting unwanted children.

You sure?

I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

Looks to me like that is exactly what he is saying.

[JetsIn06]

These pretty much sum up where I'm at. Alan, you and I are in lock-step on this. Essentially all the legal documents/rulings/etc. need to be updated to say "for everything prior to this point, let the term marriage be = to the current term "domestic partnership. Moving forward, everything will be a domestic partnership in the eyes of the law." And then if people want to go off and get married in churches and agitate about gay people calling themselves married, that's fine, because at that point it's not about civil rights. As it stands right now, it is about civil rights.

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick. :)

[jeheinz72]

The point I'm trying to make is centered around your use of the word "unfairly".

He has stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, in a church. That's fine. But I believe that there is a difference between that position and "The state should mandate that marriage is between a man and a woman, in a church." By voting yes, that becomes his position. His belief is that the government should use HIS definition when defining marriage. I have some beliefs that I hold dearly, that I don't want the state to force upon other people.

Honestly, I don't see what was unfair about my post. That is his position. I think I am quite fairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view.

I guess I just look at it like it wasn't my choice that this proposition was on my ballot today, but it was, so through voting I voiced my belief. Given the alternative of not voting at all or voting contrary to what I believe it is a decision that I believe to be correct.

If people don't want the state mandating such a thing, then they should take issue with what the state does and doesn't have the ability to define.

[Samdari]

I don't know where the idea is coming from that marriage necesarily means tax breaks.

I know that when I got married, with my wife and I both working, we paid extra taxes vs both working and just living together. The standard deduction is far less for married filing jointly than for two individuals filing and each taking their standard deduction. Plus, adding our incomes together put us into a higher tax bracket than each of us would have been on our own.

I realize that with only one partner earning income, you pay less taxes being married. But, I would imagine many gay couples, who now both work and file individual tax returns, are not going to like being married very much.

[Neon_Chaos]

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?

To quote what Proposition 8 is:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Ok, you don't believe that what they have is a marriage. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But Proposition 8 is not a direct question as to what your beliefs towards marriage are. It's a direct question as to whether homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals have.

You voted to deny a fellow human being a right that you currently enjoy.

[Alan T]

Honestly, I don't see what was unfair about my post. That is his position. I think I am quite fairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view.

I guess if that is what you are saying, then I am also guilty of saying I know what is right for everyone and am forcing that upon people with my votes too. I just don't view the system in that light is all. I think ideally the system should be everyone voices their thoughts and then the choice that most of the people prefer is what is used. (Yes yes I know in a representative democracy, that things aren't that simple). I think there is a difference between voicing your opinion and forcing your opinion onto others.

[DaddyTorgo]

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick. :)

Hey at least you all have a QB right now.

Man at the beginning of the year - I was like "Favre? LOL!" Now i'm like "Man can we kidnap Favre?" blankity-blanking Cassel blankity-blanking McDaniels conservative offense.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I guess if that is what you are saying, then I am also guilty of saying I know what is right for everyone and am forcing that upon people with my votes too. I just don't view the system in that light is all. I think ideally the system should be everyone voices their thoughts and then the choice that most of the people prefer is what is used.

Things can't, and shouldn't, work that way all the time. There are certain instances where everyone's rights, minorities included, need to be protected.

[heybrad]

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?
Because it might occur to you that other people are allowed to have beliefs that differ from yours and its not up to the government to endorse one over the other. What the government endorses doesn't change your beliefs.

[DaddyTorgo]

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

[jeheinz72]

To quote what Proposition 8 is:



Ok, you don't believe that what they have is a marriage. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But Proposition 8 is not a direct question as to what your beliefs towards marriage are. It's a direct question as to whether homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals have.

You voted to deny a fellow human being a right that you currently enjoy.

Because it might occur to you that other people are allowed to have beliefs that differ from yours and its not up to the government to endorse one over the other. What the government endorses doesn't change your beliefs.

But again, given my options

- Vote Yes, which is in line with what I believe a marriage to be
- Vote No, which contradicts what I believe a marriage to be
- Not vote on that Proposition at all, which contradicts what I think Americans should do in general (I have no sorrow for those that don't vote, if eligible, and I think more people should be eligible to vote)

I agree, it's likely not up to the government to define marriage. As I've said, my marriage as I constitute it, has nothing to do with the government. BUT, some people somewhere wanted it on my ballot, so I voiced my opinion.

[jeheinz72]

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick. :)

If it makes you feel any better, you're still in disagreement with a Dolphins fan.:D

[Butter]

If you don't believe in abortion, you should vote for a ban on abortion.

There are LOTS and LOTS of pro-choice people who would never even consider an abortion (my wife being one of them). But just because she would never have an abortion doesn't mean that she feels that viewpoint should be forced on others who would make a different choice.

[jeheinz72]

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

Thanks DT!

If people want to bash me, that's fine. I don't all that much care, truth be told. I have my opinion, they have theirs, which is fine too.

My best friend voted No, he knows I've voted Yes. We both know why the other is voting the way they are. That's that. Different views coming from different beliefs.

[Neon_Chaos]

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

Intelligently? It's pretty clear that jeheinz doesn't understand the spirit of Proposition 8. It's not about marriage or lack thereof. It's a vote for discrimination.

[heybrad]

But again, given my options

- Vote Yes, which is in line with what I believe a marriage to be
- Vote No, which contradicts what I believe a marriage to be
- Not vote on that Proposition at all, which contradicts what I think Americans should do in general (I have no sorrow for those that don't vote, if eligible, and I think more people should be eligible to vote)

I agree, it's likely not up to the government to define marriage. As I've said, my marriage as I constitute it, has nothing to do with the government. BUT, some people somewhere wanted it on my ballot, so I voiced my opinion.
This is where I think you're incorrect. Here are the options as I see them:

Vote Yes: Agree that its ok for the government to deny rights based on my religious beliefs
Vote No: Understand that, even though I may not believe that marriage is acceptable between a gay couple in the eyes of God, we're talking about the state here and people are entitled to the same right based on their belief

The question I see prop 8 asking from a higher level, is do you think its ok to enact laws and deny rights based on one belief system on a government level.

[jeheinz72]

There are LOTS and LOTS of pro-choice people who would never even consider an abortion (my wife being one of them). But just because she would never have an abortion doesn't mean that she feels that viewpoint should be forced on others who would make a different choice.

Again, that's an issue not with abortion itself though, that's taking issue with what the government can and cannot regulate.

Abortion is a tough issue for me.

[Lathum]

Intelligently? It's pretty clear that jeheinz doesn't understand the spirit of Proposition 8. It's not about marriage or lack thereof. It's a vote for discrimination.

I don't think it's your right to determine what his interpretation of the bill is. Just using the term "spirit" suggests it is open to different interpretations.

[Alan T]

Things can't, and shouldn't, work that way all the time. There are certain instances where everyone's rights, minorities included, need to be protected.


I agree with this. I actually have said this is the only time the government should be stepping in, when it is to protect the innocent, or those whom can not protect themselves.

In this particular case I disagree with Jeheinz, I don't feel the government should be saying what is or isn't a marriage and would personally vote no on Prop 8. I went a step further and said government shouldn't even be in the business of handling "marriages" at all earlier. Just because I disagree with jeheinz doesn't mean that I feel his opinion should be muted or not be allowed. I have just as much a problem with people saying that others don't have a right to voice their opinions or beliefs.

[jeheinz72]

Who is trying to mute heinz? Jesus Christ people, this is a message board. If he posts his opinion, people are going to post about his opinion.

Here's a big slap on the back to jeheinz for having an opinion. Great job. If I was in a position to give out stickers, he would get an opinion expressing one.

Thanks! I shall wear it proudly. :)

While I get what Alan is saying, it's worth noting that I've had zero problem with people taking issue and/or questioning me about a belief they don't share. That's what makes America great.

Frankly, even, I realize I'm in the minority (not just here, I expect Prop 8 to fail) and that's fine. But I do not feel right voting against a proposition which defines marriage the same way I do.

[jeheinz72]

Anyhow, I gotta run. This was a good talk. THIS was a good talk.

Seriously though.

[heybrad]

While I get what Alan is saying, it's worth noting that I've had zero problem with people taking issue and/or questioning me about a belief they don't share. That's what makes America great.
Just to give you a little background of where I'm coming from.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that they must be sealed in a temple by an officiator who has the proper priesthood authority (hint.. in my beliefs you were not married with the proper authority). I am voting no on Prop 8.

Now answer the following question... if I got enough people to support my belief of marriage, you would be excluded. You're ok with that if the majority supports it, correct?

[jeheinz72]

Now answer the following question... if I got enough people to support my belief of marriage, you would be excluded. You're ok with that if the majority supports it, correct?

Yes, I would be. I wouldn't be "happy" with it, but I'd be ok with it if that's how the vote went down. Fact is, my marriage has little to do with the government. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. The rest is essentially, irrelevant.

Again, take the marriage/gay hot-button issue out of the picture.

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

So if some prop passed that your definition of marriage is what the state recognizes then so be it, no skin off my nose.

[Alan T]

Who is trying to mute heinz? Jesus Christ people, this is a message board. If he posts his opinion, people are going to post about his opinion.

Here's a big slap on the back to jeheinz for having an opinion. Great job. If I was in a position to give out stickers, he would get an opinion expressing one.

I guess I just don't like the minorities getting bashed on the message board here and am trying to protect their rights!

In all seriousness though, you don't seem quite as liberal in your beliefs as other people who live in this state and you seem fairly close in several of your beliefs to what I believe. (it sounds like I might even be a bit more liberal than you in some cases based on what you said about not supporting friends who might choose abortion).. so I don't have an issue with your viewpoint at all. I just am glad jeheinz was willing to express his as usually most of what I hear on this board are agenda fueled platforms that people are reciting. His stating of his beliefs were refreshing to read to me even if I feel them to be wrong.

[Galaxy]

Yes, I would be. I wouldn't be "happy" with it, but I'd be ok with it if that's how the vote went down. Fact is, my marriage has little to do with the government. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. The rest is essentially, irrelevant.

Again, take the marriage/gay hot-button issue out of the picture.

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

So if some prop passed that your definition of marriage is what the state recognizes then so be it, no skin off my nose.

I think the problem here is the government, a legal body, crosses with the religious beliefs/body. Do you believe that the government should eliminate the legal term of marriage, and introduce domestic partnerships/civil unions (while still holding all the previous legal attachments of marriage partnerships in the eye of the law), and leave the concept of marriage to religion and individuals?

[jeheinz72]

No, because that's not denying rights to anyone. Let's try this.

You are a HUGE Yanni fan. HUGE. Love him. He is all you listen to.

There's a proposition out there to ensure that the only music people can listen to in CA is Yanni. You love Yanni. This is a no-brainer for you!

Except that, perhaps, you feel that just because you love Yanni, not everyone else should be forced to listen to him.

I wasn't make that analogy to Prop 8 itself, moreso to the scenario heybrad put forth.

[heybrad]

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

The correct analogy in this case would be where the fans of Yanni decided that his music should be the only music, so they attempt to pass a law where you can only listen to Yanni. You'd be denied the right to listen to non Yanni music. Again, you'd be ok with that if it was the majority vote, right? It wouldn't matter what you believed at that point. You could not listen to non Yanni music.

[jeheinz72]

I think the problem here is the government, a legal body, crosses with the religious beliefs/body. Do you believe that the government should eliminate the legal term of marriage, and introduce domestic partnerships/civil unions (while still holding all the previous legal attachments of marriage partnerships in the eye of the law), and leave the concept of marriage to religion and individuals?

Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying that there is no such thing as "marriage" under the law? Like everyone, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman are all deemed domestic partnerships/civil unions, legally and that the term marriage is used in a more personal matter with how one sees fit?

Sure, no problemo with that at all.

[jeheinz72]

The correct analogy in this case would be where the fans of Yanni decided that his music should be the only music, so they attempt to pass a law where you can only listen to Yanni. You'd be denied the right to listen to non Yanni music. Again, you'd be ok with that if it was the majority vote, right? It wouldn't matter what you believed at that point. You could not listen to non Yanni music.

Yes, I wouldn't be able to listen to non-Yanni music.

But under this law, another artist, let's say Neil Diamond could produce something called "audio entertainment" and we could all listen to this "audio entertainment" or any other "audio entertainment" all we wanted and this "audio entertainment" would have the same rights, rules and regulations as Yanni's "music"

[DaddyTorgo]

Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying that there is no such thing as "marriage" under the law? Like everyone, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman are all deemed domestic partnerships/civil unions, legally and that the term marriage is used in a more personal matter with how one sees fit?

Sure, no problemo with that at all.

Yay! You're not a horrible person!

The problem is that right now this scenario is not the case everywhere, and we are therefore left with a patchwork system. Because while California may recognize the two lesbians as essentially "married" for all intents and purposes, if they get in an accident in Nevada and one of them is dying, they have different legal rights in Nevada, as opposed to two people whose "marriage" extends de facto across state lines because of the way that the laws in the other state are written.

And that's also why I think what we really need is a federal court ruling, or even better, another amendment, stating essentially what we are saying in this thread, because otherwise things will continue to be "patchwork" which leads to problems.

[Telle]

Yes, I wouldn't be able to listen to non-Yanni music.

But under this law, another artist, let's say Neil Diamond could produce something called "audio entertainment" and we could all listen to this "audio entertainment" or any other "audio entertainment" all we wanted and this "audio entertainment" would have the same rights, rules and regulations as Yanni's "music"

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

[DaddyTorgo]

Where is that the case, DT?

It's a nice thought, but instituting a national secular replacement for marriage and giving marriage to the churches is not feasible. I also don't think that concept really has the legs. I mean, whats to stop a gay couple from getting a Unitarian marriage and continuing to threaten all we hold dear?

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

Telle says it best.

[jeheinz72]

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

[JediKooter]

You're kidding, right?

Ok, I'm playing catch up here so forgive me if I don't respond completely...

No I'm not kidding. My point was, there will always be enough new Americans to not deplete the tax base if gays can continue to get married.

As far as the unwanted pregnancies comment of mine, that is in response to all the people who are scared that if gays can continue to marry that it will be the end of procreation, traditional values, traditional marriage, etc... quite frankly, people will continue to have kids married or not, planned or not. So that fear from the gay marriage opponents doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

It's certainly not unfeasible. Long time ago people might have said the same thing about people of color. And if they had given up fighting to abolish seperate-but-equal lord knows we'd still be there today. The time for this idea will come - I simply hope it is sooner rather than later.

[Telle]

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

So then you understand how having marriage for heterosexual couples and domestic partnerships for homosexual couples, even with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, is an act of inequality?

[jeheinz72]

I dunno DT, as much as I would have no problem with it, I think that one would be pretty tough to set in motion

[jeheinz72]

So then you understand how having marriage for heterosexual couples and domestic partnerships for homosexual couples, even with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, is an act of inequality?

I see the point, though I think it's largely semantics. As I've said before, my marriage has little to do with the fact that it is or isn't ok in the eyes of the government. I'd presume that an overwhelming majoirty of married/partnered people would say the same thing.

It's not an ideal system, separating the idea of marriage from the government is, but if it's on my ballot, I"m voting for the option that defines marriage in a way that aligns with my belief of what marriage is.

[Telle]

..but if it's on my ballot, I"m voting for the option that defines marriage in a way that aligns with my belief of what marriage is.

So going back to something you said earlier.. if there's a ballot initiative that says that only marriages performed in the Catholic Church are marriages and everything else is domestic partnerships, you'd vote "yes" on it?

[JediKooter]

I see the point, though I think it's largely semantics. As I've said before, my marriage has little to do with the fact that it is or isn't ok in the eyes of the government. I'd presume that an overwhelming majoirty of married/partnered people would say the same thing.


So then are you saying that it is because of your religious beliefs and that trying to ink religious beliefs into the California constitution is ok? Even though I know you voted No on Prop 8, that's what it sounds like to me.

It's comments like that, that cement it for me that this is the religious trying to get religion legislated into the California constitution and not actually based on any type of scientific arguments as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because if it's not that, then it falls into the bigotry/discrimination category, which still makes it wrong.

[jeheinz72]

Yes, I would.

Now as I also said earlier, for practical purposes I wouldn't use that definition. Like I wouldn't go around disparaging marriages that aren't that, just like I don't do that now, but I would vote Yes on that conjured up situation aimed at making me look bad :)

*ducks*

[Telle]

Yes, I would.

Now as I also said earlier, for practical purposes I wouldn't use that definition. Like I wouldn't go around disparaging marriages that aren't that, just like I don't do that now, but I would vote Yes on that conjured up situation aimed at making me look bad :)

*ducks*

Just want to make sure you're consistent :)

[jeheinz72]

So then are you saying that it is because of your religious beliefs and that trying to ink religious beliefs into the California constitution is ok? Even though I know you voted No on Prop 8, that's what it sounds like to me.

It's comments like that, that cement it for me that this is the religious trying to get religion legislated into the California constitution and not actually based on any type of scientific arguments as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because if it's not that, then it falls into the bigotry/discrimination category, which still makes it wrong.

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

[jeheinz72]

Just want to make sure you're consistent :)

And that's fine, and I understand why my viewpoint isn't a popular (or likely to win) one. And that's fine too. I just call it as I see it, and as I also said before, I'm not going to vote against something that defines something in a way I also define it. I didn't ask for that to be on there, I didn't ask for there to be a vote, but there is, so I'm giving my opinion in my vote.

If someone has a problem with my definition, then so be it, that's their perrogative. In an ideal world the government wouldn't be defining things such as marriage, but if they're going to and they're going to have us vote on it, I'm going to vote yes on the one that matches my definition.

[Sun Tzu]

I just saw a banner running at the top of FOFC...it read

"Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. YES ON 8"

[jeheinz72]

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged

[SirFozzie]

I just saw a banner running at the top of FOFC...it read

"Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. YES ON 8"

Yeah, they've been doing the Google thing, one of the Webcomics I read got hit with it. He was... NOT AMUSED. One of the more profane posts I've ever seen on the net.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged

jeheinz: FireFox+AdBlockPlus+NoScript is my friend :)

[Alan T]

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged


The Mormon and Catholic churches are against Firefox with adblocker/noscript! :)

[jeheinz72]

Nah, we're not, we're just way too lazy to care. Or at least, I am.

[DaddyTorgo]

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

I understand your viewpoint on this jeheinz, but I think what you fail to recognize is that by voicing your opinion on it you are indeed participating in the process of trying to ink either religion or bigortry into the constitution of the state of california.

Not to go "there" with the popular analogy in full force, but you can't just wash your hands of it and say "someone asked my opinion and so i voiced it because X=X," and not expect to be called out for the fact that you are contributing to the bigotry/attempt to legislate religion. (aka the "i was just following orders" nazi death camp guards defense)

Just because X=X does not excuse you from understanding and considering the deeper ramifications of what you are doing.

[SirFozzie]

BTW, nothing against Jeheinz. but the tactics used by "Yes on 8" folks (including flat out extortion of people donating to no on 8 campaigns) make me want the propositon to get its ass kicked so hard that the next people who try to bring this up feel it.

[jeheinz72]

No, you're right. It's not fair to say I can completely wash my hands of it, but my justification for how I voted is still that I'm voting for the choice that fits my description of marriage.

Combine that with the fact that my personal opinion that the state's opinion of marriage has zero effect on my actual marriage leads me to a Yes vote.

I understand what you folks have said though and I understand why someone would vote No on 8, even as a Catholic or a Mormon. It makes sense and if that is the decision that voter has come to, then that's great too. I disagree but that's that.

[jeheinz72]

BTW, nothing against Jeheinz. but the tactics used by "Yes on 8" folks (including flat out extortion of people donating to no on 8 campaigns) make me want the propositon to get its ass kicked so hard that the next people who try to bring this up feel it.

Oh I'll agree on this 100%.

Frankly this whole thing where they are tying the issue to kids and education makes me sick. It's a completely outlandish statement on both sides of the fence.

For one, it's just plain untrue that marriage isn't taught in most schools (shame shame No on 8's by having McConnell essentially lie in his ads, I've heard marriage is taught in 96% of schools, though I have no idea if that is actually true)

For two, it's just plain naive if anyone in our society thinks that our children aren't going to learn that same-sex couples exist, whether it's called a marriage or a domestic partnership, at a much much younger age than say my generation (all of 29 years old) was (shame shame Yes on 8's)

I hate that whole political trickery where any side, right or wrong just ties their argument to children (something everyone cares about) just for the sake of winning votes.

[SirFozzie]

it was worse then that, jeheinz: Where the Yes on 8 folks sent mail to No on 8 Donators saying that unless they got at least an equivalent donation to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would list their company as "Not a supporter of traditional marriage".

That.. as I said, is fucking slimy.

[jeheinz72]

it was worse then that, jeheinz: Where the Yes on 8 folks sent mail to No on 8 Donators saying that unless they got at least an equivalent donation to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would list their company as "Not a supporter of traditional marriage".

That.. as I said, is fucking slimy.

Agreed.

It's the crap like that which remind me why I really hate politics.

[JediKooter]

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

I mis-read then, I thought you voted No, my bad. :)

So, correct me then if I'm wrong, you feel it's The church (Catholic) that has governing authority over marriage? What gives the Catholic church the right to dictate what is and what is not a marriage? Or is it a 'in the eyes of God' thing regardless of what church it is?

No church or group has a monopoly on what is and what isn't a marriage.

Hypothetically, if the shoe was on the other foot, a ballot measure to void any and all marriages conducted and/or recognized by any christian/judeo church are to be considered religious partnerships, would you feel that you're being discriminated against?

On a side note, I believe if Prop 8 does pass, it will be overturned like Prop 22 (I think it was 22) by the California Supreme Court more than likely because it will be considered discriminatory.

[jeheinz72]

I mis-read then, I thought you voted No, my bad. :)

So, correct me then if I'm wrong, you feel it's The church (Catholic) that has governing authority over marriage? What gives the Catholic church the right to dictate what is and what is not a marriage? Or is it a 'in the eyes of God' thing regardless of what church it is?

No church or group has a monopoly on what is and what isn't a marriage.

Hypothetically, if the shoe was on the other foot, a ballot measure to void any and all marriages conducted and/or recognized by any christian/judeo church are to be considered religious partnerships, would you feel that you're being discriminated against?

On a side note, I believe if Prop 8 does pass, it will be overturned like Prop 22 (I think it was 22) by the California Supreme Court more than likely because it will be considered discriminatory.

hehe, I've answered these before, but quick hitting

- I don't think the Gov't *should* be defining marriage period, but if it does and the definition matches mine, I'm voting yes. Realistically, anyone who needs the state to rubber-stamp their marriage/union needs to re-think what their marriage really is all about, given their marriage/union affords them the same rights any other "married" couple has.

- I wouldn't feel discrminated against. Or at least, I wouldn't really care. My marriage is about me, my wife, my Church and my God. That's the finite list of the parts that matter. No more. No less. I could frankly care less how the gov't defines it with respect to my actual marriage.

- I don't actually think 8 will pass (nor will I be at all dismayed if it doesn't).

[JediKooter]

For one, it's just plain untrue that marriage isn't taught in most schools (shame shame No on 8's by having McConnell essentially lie in his ads, I've heard marriage is taught in 96% of schools, though I have no idea if that is actually true)


I asked my two step daughters (13 and 15) if there has ever been mention of marriage (any) in their schools that is part of the curriculm(sp?) and the 13 yaer old said, "Pfft heck no. They never said anything" The 15 year old said, "No, not anything that I can remember." So, for an ancedotal example, that's as much as I know about it being taught in school in San Diego.

[jeheinz72]

I asked my two step daughters (13 and 15) if there has ever been mention of marriage (any) in their schools that is part of the curriculm(sp?) and the 13 yaer old said, "Pfft heck no. They never said anything" The 15 year old said, "No, not anything that I can remember." So, for an ancedotal example, that's as much as I know about it being taught in school in San Diego.

Further proof that when it comes to politics, I have no ability to discern true statistics from un-true statistics.

Though it's good to know that it's not being actually taught in school. Though I imagine tangentially some teachers could change references of stories that are Man-Woman to Man-Man/Woman-Woman. Which is fine by me, I could care less about that stuff, kids are going to figure it out sooner or later anyhow.

[JediKooter]

hehe, I've answered these before, but quick hitting

- I don't think the Gov't *should* be defining marriage period, but if it does and the definition matches mine, I'm voting yes. Realistically, anyone who needs the state to rubber-stamp their marriage/union needs to re-think what their marriage really is all about, given their marriage/union affords them the same rights any other "married" couple has.

- I wouldn't feel discrminated against. Or at least, I wouldn't really care. My marriage is about me, my wife, my Church and my God. That's the finite list of the parts that matter. No more. No less. I could frankly care less how the gov't defines it with respect to my actual marriage.

- I don't actually think 8 will pass (nor will I be at all dismayed if it doesn't).

Sorry about asking repeat questions, thank you for answering them though. :)

I don't think it will pass either, but, you never know...

[jeheinz72]

No worries man!

[JediKooter]

Further proof that when it comes to politics, I have no ability to discern true statistics from un-true statistics.

Though it's good to know that it's not being actually taught in school. Though I imagine tangentially some teachers could change references of stories that are Man-Woman to Man-Man/Woman-Woman. Which is fine by me, I could care less about that stuff, kids are going to figure it out sooner or later anyhow.

Yes, all the BS and magical hand waving by politicians is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to politics.

I think if they are teaching it in schools, I hope it is prefaced with, "You should wait until after you graduate college and have a job." ;)

[MrBug708]

Prop 8 is passing so far...

[Lathum]

Prop 8 is passing so far...

that Heinze guy is a real dickhead

[bhlloy]

Is it too early to call this one over? The signs weren't good (or were depending on where you stand) when it only had a 52-48 edge in the exit polls. For such a socially desirable answer (I'm not a homophobe) that's not great.