GamingMaiden
This is my favorite forum on the Citadel.
I'm just wondering when gay rights are won over. How long will people have to fight for it? This is ridiculous. We don't need to fight for our rights in a free country...
California Prop 8
- Thread starter creepindeth04
- Start date
stealth toilet said:
It is more about government recognition, and, most importantly, receiving the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. It depends on the state, but most of the time, civil unions offer much less in the way of benefits. Same-sex marriage usually tries to extend the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.
GamingMaiden said:
you will be extremely surprised how many times something similar has happened before....African Americans, Deaf community, blind people, yep this country has a history of people fighting for their rights.... now those ones listed above succeed i hope same-sex rights succeed as well
Mai Valentine
Moderator
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
That is also correct. Civil unions don't always cover all the rights that marriage does.
Civil unions are like the idea of "separate but equal" that was common in the days before racial equality. It is separate and it's not equal.
GamingMaiden
This is my favorite forum on the Citadel.
Man...I've been watching CNN and wow...there is a big crowd of activists in LA. This is terrible... 
People shouldn't have to protest for marriage.
People shouldn't have to protest for marriage.Amazing. Your idea is equal to completely dismantling the representative democracy and installing a dictatorship in it's place. Only a few would be in power and that few would make the decision. In a representative government, the majority makes the decisions. The minority are left with either pitching a fit like a crybaby, or mount a more convincing case to sway people to their sides. Welcome to the world of politics. Get used to dissapointment because you will never get your own way all of the time.
The bold quotes answer your questions. In my religious beliefs, I don't bend to anyone. I don't have to. "Marriage" carries a religious undertone. Again, I could care less if the federal government recognizes a "civil union." But the federal government will not force any law or agenda that modifies a marriage to suit their needs. Remember, the very same people who demand the right for gay marriages are the ones who demand a separation of church and state.
creepindeth04
Moderator
Dart said:
Not sure if you're saying this is a bad thing. I personally would like a separation between church and state even more so. And I respect your stance on "marriage". But that doesn't mean that marriage is strictly used for Christian matrimony. The word can be used to describe a union between two individuals. That's why Prop 8 is just wrong on so many levels. Here is what I said earlier in the thread.
CreepinDeth said:
Mai Valentine
Moderator
From what I understand, people who supported Yes on 8 manipulated a lot of the African-American vote by bringing attention to the fact that Obama doesn't personally support gay marriage. But, Obama was also against Prop 8, a fact which was conveniently ignored by Yes on 8 supporters.
Also, going with what Creepin said earlier, the passing of Prop 8 makes all the same-sex marriages that happened between May 15 and Nov 4 null and void, even though when the ceremony was performed, same-sex marriage was legal. So they are all now unmarried against their will.
Also, going with what Creepin said earlier, the passing of Prop 8 makes all the same-sex marriages that happened between May 15 and Nov 4 null and void, even though when the ceremony was performed, same-sex marriage was legal. So they are all now unmarried against their will.
No, my idea is equal to making certain things inalienable, regardless of what the majority thinks. Things like freedom of speech and religion should not be left up to popular vote, and making those rights inalienable does not equate to making a fascist dictatorship.Dart said:
I don't suggest destroying democracy completely. I suggest not allowing the people to vote on everything, an impure form of democracy (we currently practice an impure form of democracy, actually).
Marriage is not just a religious institution anymore. No one plans to tell religions how they must define and perform marriages, but the federal aspect of marriage is in no way shape or form religious. Federally recognizing gay marriage is not changing the sacrament of marriage or the Christian definition of marriage. It is on the whole detached from religion.
Marriage itself just isn't inherently religious. The word is derived from Latin, and the general ideas themselves predate almost every modern religion. The ceremony and many other smaller details of marriage as we know it today are rooted in Christianity, yes, but there is nothing that makes marriage strictly Christian or religious.
I too would have no problem with gay civil unions, marriage being "separate but equal" if separate was actually equal, and it isn't in this case.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
I disagree. Without writing a long treatise on the matter I will say that religion and politics are, always have and always will, remain inexorably intertwined. Distinguishing between the two can only be done artificially, and the result is an increase of pseudo-tolerance with an increase of an amoral public sphere. There has to be a better way, because, as someone else wrote, "religion is about how we should live, and politics is about deciding together how we will live." In many ways our current political system is a reflection of our religion. And the changes we have made since its inception reflect our changing religion, not our changing attitude towards religion. So trying to separate the two into distinct parts of society that never intersect is not only impossible, but incredibly dangerous, as societies cannot organize themselves into functioning bodies if they don't first agree on the basic fundamentals of that society, i.e. its religion.
Saying that marriage isn't inherently religious is to debate semantics based on unstated terms. First tell me the defining criteria you're using to determine whether or not a thing, act, or event can be considered religious, and once those terms have been agreed on we can then move into determining what criteria you're using to define a "marriage." Once we've agreed on that we can then move into determining whether or not historical "marriages" of different time periods and locales can be considered "religious." But that still wouldn't help the present situation. For all intensive purposes marriage always has been religious, and even forgoing that it has undeniably been a Christian practice for nearly 2000 years, so its origins at this point are of no consequence because they have little to no bearing on the current and popular understanding of the term and concept, particularly in our specific geographical location. So saying "marriage is not a religious institution" or that it "isn't inherently religious" is a tad inane, as it neither contributes to nor detracts from the current context in which it is being discussed. It is neither defensible nor relevant.
I'm not saying that your conclusions about Prop 8 are wrong, but I do think your reasoning (and a few others, didn't mean to pick on you Cherry but you articulated exactly what I wanted to respond to) has gaps. And rather than attempting to fill in those gaps I think the discussion would be much better served if that line of reasoning, which I am nearly certain would lead to a dead end, was left by the wayside and a new one was pursued. If you're talking about separating public marriages from Christian ones (separating church from state and not religion from state) you may have more of a leg to stand on. Though, be advised, I will probably scrutinize that line of reasoning as well. :lol
Mai Valentine said:Wow, this is a hot topic.I'll chime in here with some of my thoughts.
Proposition 8 is not about religious freedom. Religious institutions that oppose same-sex weddings will not be forced to perform them. There are already legal precedents. Catholic churches are not required to marry people who had previously gotten divorced. Orthodox Jewish temples are not required to perform weddings between Jews and non-Jews. Both of these institutions are allowed the freedom of their beliefs. If anything, Proposition 8 would result in less religious freedom, because it would force the entire state to conform to one specific religious doctrine.
Proposition 8 is not about education. The Yes on 8 campaign has tried to scare people with horror stories of a couple in Massachusetts who were powerless to stop the school from teaching their child about same-sex marriage. But the laws governing educational content are different in California. They tried to scare people with stories of an elementary school class being taken to a same-sex wedding in San Francisco. But it was their own teacher's wedding, several of the parents went along, and parents who objected were allowed to keep their kids from going. Besides, if you want to keep discussion of same-sex marriage out of the schools, then you control the educational content of the schools. Keeping same-sex marriage out of schools by banning same-sex marriage is like preventing the kids in your neighborhood from having wild parties by burning down all the houses.
Proposition 8 is not about "judicial activism." The California legislature actually passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Twice. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it both times, saying he wanted the Supreme Court to weigh in. Well, the Supreme Court weighed in, and the Governator accepted their decision. Proposition 8 is an attempt by the conservative minority to bamboozle the public into declaring some people as less equal than others.
Some helpful links
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/who-opposes-prop-8
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1ed18top.html
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/581251.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129641.html
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/Marriage_QA.pdf
Additionally, if you didn't already know, this does affect me personally. I am in a same-sex relationship and I live in California. The passing of Prop 8 basically makes me a second-class citizen. I am now prevented from having the same rights as a straight woman.
No matter what anyone tells you, gay rights are civil rights.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally, it's the former.
Thank you Mai, I found that to be quite informative. Although I must admit, I only skimmed through some of the articles you posted. What I'm not wondering about is, again, the need for such law making bodies to rule in this matter one way or the other. Are Christian institutions feeling threatened by such a precedent leading to more law-making on what have traditionally been matters dictated by their organizational body? What exactly are the differences, at the federal or state level, in terms of how governments view hetero-marriages and same-sex marriages, and which ones would pro same-sex marriage groups like to see changed? I guess I'm asking, what is the current state of same-sex civil unions (I guess Prop 8 kind of determines that) and what would have to change in order for it to be equal in your eyes?
If you could point me towards the specific article that deals with those questions, or you want to answer them yourself, I'd be interested in reading the response.
Yes. I'd say so. Chtristians are no longer going to tolerate the demands of the government. And if the governments say yes to same-sex marriages, and Christians just fall over and say "okay", then in my eyes it would be appeasement that only leads to desaster. If a same-sex couple wished to get married, and comes to a church to do so, and the church says absolutely not, then they'd feel that their "rights" are being denied. It would only lead to a court battle. In the end, churches would be forced by the government to do what they see as wrong. It's not speculation. It would happen.
Representative governments are in place to find a common ground between divided groups. Yet what everyone seems to throw out the window or otherwise ignore is your rights end where mine begin. Civil unions can be handled by a justice of the peace in a secular setting. Marriage should be between a man and a woman based on the fact that someone will use it as a means to stiff-arm the Christian Church into something that is against their beliefs.
@ Stealth, No on 8 says there are 9 differences between marriage and domestic partnership, but I wasn't able to find what they were. The state recognizes civil unions and domestic partnerships performed in another jurisdiction (Vermont, Connecticut, NJ) as a legal domestic partnership. However, it does NOT recognize same-sex marriages performed in another jurisdiction either as marriage or as domestic partnership. (i.e. if you had a legal same-sex marriage as a resident of Massachusetts and then moved to CA, you would have nothing.)
It's less expensive to enter a civil union than a marriage. There is no ceremony required, just notarized signatures. Getting it undone is virtually the same as getting a divorce. All of this makes it look nice and simple, doesn't it? But it isn't marriage. To me marriage is not about the religious aspect - then again I am not a religious person to begin with. I personally don't care if individuals or churches recognize same-sex marriage, all I care about is that the law recognizes it. I won't ask someone to go against their beliefs - I respect that they have their opinions on it. All I ask is to be treated equally and have my rights respected too.
It's less expensive to enter a civil union than a marriage. There is no ceremony required, just notarized signatures. Getting it undone is virtually the same as getting a divorce. All of this makes it look nice and simple, doesn't it? But it isn't marriage. To me marriage is not about the religious aspect - then again I am not a religious person to begin with. I personally don't care if individuals or churches recognize same-sex marriage, all I care about is that the law recognizes it. I won't ask someone to go against their beliefs - I respect that they have their opinions on it. All I ask is to be treated equally and have my rights respected too.
I think Keith Olbermann summed up my own personal views on his Special Comment last night on Countdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04wYfgWxeA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04wYfgWxeA
Fr0dus Maximus said:
That is honestly exactly how I feel 100%. I just can't believe this gay marriage thing is still such a big deal. It is frustrating how close minded people can be. Will it really affect your life that badly if gays get married??? I mean c'mon, we're talking about human beings here, put your beliefs and fears aside and have a soul! And people talk about "sanctity" of marriage...oh bologne, that's just an easy out...You can go get married at a frikkin' drive through in Vegas in 20 minutes, there is nothing holy about that...Frustrating...