Proposition 8: Who Needs Civil Rights Anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

Believe what you want. History proves who is correct.

You're right. Just like 50 years ago when the hot button issue was interracial marriage. I don't suppose you need a history lesson about what happened with that one, do you?

I was thinking later that it had to be something like that. Helps me remember why I would NEVER take my kids to a rally (assuming I'd take myself to one in the first place) of any sort. You never know what their smiling faces will end up on top of.

Legal or not, however, I find the idea that someone would take the smiling faces of children and put them on political propoganda to be absolutely appalling, and to re-use that in a thread like this shows lack of taste. Those kids don't fully understand what they are standing up for and how they can be used. Imagine running across that one ten years from now, all grown up?

I don't care what lack of judgement the parents were showing, it bothers me that WE have an image of kids on a piece of propoganda as part of our debate. To the OP: Can't we find another one WITHOUT KIDS?

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 20 Aug 2010, 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Congratulations! How exciting! Don't let the legal stuff stop you from having an amazing day.

I've been to two committment ceremonies (the term used by the couples at the time) held in churches; not all faith communities refuse to embrace the diverstity in their populations. What I found most interesting were the readings chosen ... many that could be interpreted to support same-sex unions.

Already changing or changed. And what is so bad about it? Even the Catholic Diocese in San Francisco felt there was a MORAL reason to extend health benefits to unmarried cohabitants, for the simple benefit that it meant more people would have health coverage, which is something the church believes in. They carefully crafted wording to do that without implying anything about the sex lives of those covered; they don't approve of sex outside of marriage, either. I think the final policy extends coverage to any de-facto dependent person. And, seriously, shouldn't a landlord rent to ANY qualified renter? It's not like he has to live WITH that person. What the heck is one afraid of there? I'm honestly flabergasted.

The issue is being compelled to do something that you consider morally repugnant.

Taking state or federal money has always brought about the snag of having to comply with rules and standards promulgated by the state or federal government. Your opt out was to not take their money.

When some things reach a given legal status, even that option does not remain. It empowers one group to compel those who can not agree with their position to submit or face the wrath of law.

I believe Islam can not be tolerated because it in and of itself teaches that all outside of Islam must either be enslaved or killed. Everything is fine if all Muslims reject that teaching, but we know that is not the case. You can't be tolerant of something that would show no tolerance for you. This is not an issue of high road or low road...it is about the right to survive.

Same sex marriage isn't about the right to marry. The end goal is much, much larger than just that. All the smoke and mirrors to say it isn't will be proven to be just that as within 10 years of it being passed you'll see efforts to criminally charge against anyone unwilling to acknowledge same sex marriage as legal, moral and equal as conventional marriage for the commission of "hate crimes."

You ARE being deliberately obtuse, Zero.

It is legal for people to marry those of other faiths (although there was a time, early in this nation's history, when that was not so). There are, currently, NO laws requiring a cleric of any given faith to perform a marriage ceremony for an interfaith couple.

This is, in part, due to the fact that in this country, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL. There are churches that want the marriages to be solemnized by their own clerics (most notably the Roman Catholic and Latter-Day Saints faiths), but you can be legally married in this country and never see the inside of a church. Heck, you don't even have to be religious!

Now, the state does, for historical reasons, extend to clergy the right to perform marriage ceremonies; however, this right is not exclusive, as the same right pertains to judges, justices of the peace, and captains of ships at sea. What's more, in order to be as inclusive as possible, in order to be a "clergyman" for the purposes of marriage, all you need is to have filed the correct paperwork. For a nominal fee, there are several online "churches" that will certify me to be one of their priests tomorrow; file a notarized form with the state government, and I can start performing marriage ceremonies for whomever I wish.

Remember that the marriage will be recognized by the state only if those involved have also filed their paperwork and paid their fees. You and your significant other of the opposite gender can love each other as fiercely as you like, and go before, say, a parish priest and undergo a religious ceremony; but this ceremony will have no force under law unless you have first gone to the county clerk's office, paid the fee for your marriage license, and waited whatever period is required (in my county, that's three business days).

You know what? It sounds to me like we pretty much have "civil marriage"; it's just that so many people have hung it about with their own religious beliefs that they think it has to pass muster with the Pope, or the Missouri Synod, or the Elders, or whomever they see as in charge of things.

The tl;dr edition - no matter how you slice it, Prop 8 and other such bans are denying to a select group one of the "privileges and immunities" commonly available to US citizens, for no better reason than because that select group does things that some people find distasteful. This is not a good enough reason to abrogate the Constitution, nor to vilify a judge for pointing out that the ban fails to pass Constitutional muster.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

The sky is not going to fall, Chicken Little.

Marriage is the end boss of the gay rights movement. Once we get it (and we will) there won't need to be a gay rights movement. Game Over. We can go back to our wine tasting and poodles after that. We don't give a s**t whether you or anybody else acknowledges same sex marriage as legal, moral or equal. We only care whether the GOVERNMENT does.

Believe whatever you want to believe. Just remember that your right to believe ends where my right to get married begins.

OK, zer0netgain, here is the realization that was the deciding factor for me on this issue. I have to admit it wasn't that easy for me, because of my religious beliefs, and inspite of all my friendships and relatives of various stripes. I have a pretty traditional view of marriage, when it all comes down to it.

BUT.

Much has changed. That was the question that gnawed at me; if it isn't a civil rights issue, then what is it? And what, if anything, is different today than it has been for the past thousands of years during which our current values have evolved?

Something very fundatmental to the institution IS different today. First and foremost is the ability of same sex couples to form families and bear biological children. Science has blurred so many lines. Regardless of the fact that having kids was never necessary to being married, that whole concept has long been part and parcel to the whole instituation. Marriage provides constructs for raising children, and a role for a non-working spouse.

All of that now applies to same sex couples, as well.

I've also watched as the experiment took off, looking for any evidence of the ill effects the opponents were worried about.

I've seen none.

Instead, it's almost renewed a belief in the institute of marriage, and charged new life into the concept of family. I see really cool things happening in my community; it is nothing but positive. It's like the world got weary of the same old, same old, was starting to think of chucking it as irrelevant, and then along comes a group of people so eager to part of something so basic, that it let us see once again why it is considered good. There are no (or few) weary mom's in same sex couples, wondering if life just dragged them along for the ride; they are fully engaged and excited about it.

It is time for this change.

I hope you don't mind, but I really love this line

When two divorced people successfully get an order compelling a Roman Catholic Church to marry them, then I will start to take the compulsion threat seriously.

If the Roman Catholic Church is free to deny the sacrament of marriage to two people who have a perfect legal right to marry, I do not see that extending that legal right will in any way change the Church's (or any other church's) immunity from compulsion.

As for landlords and employers, cry me a river. Landlords and employers are prohibited from discriminating against a wide range of classes of people. Landlords are not free to refuse to rent to unmarried couples, regardless of their moral view of unmarried cohabitants.

If you find homosexuality repugnant, or if you don't like renting to/hiring black people, you are perfectly free to take yourself out of business.

I don't expect this debate to go anywhere meaningful (as in, this thread). We aren't going to be the ones to decide anything.

This breaks down to the fundamental question of if there is such a thing as absolute truth. If you believe that, then same sex marriage is unnatural, and no amount of reasoning will change that absent changing the premise of the argument.

I don't doubt that gays and lesbians do love each other and some want to spend their lives together, but if there is a such thing as absolutes, then arguably they are on the wrong side of the equation. It's not fair, but life isn't fair. Get over it.

To women can not bear a child without insemination by a donor. Two men can not procreate without a surrogate to bear the child. While I'm sure some kids raised by homosexual couples turn out perfectly well-adjusted, I know there are cases that don't get talked about. In a world where the media is co-opted by politics and political correctness, getting the truth is harder with each passing year. With as messed up as family life has become with drugs, alcohol, abuse, divorce, etc. certainly one can question if a gay couple is any more "unfit" than half the human trash allowed to make babies (spend some time observing family court and tell me that a part of you doesn't think the issue of forced sterilization needs to be reconsidered....you need a license to drive a car but any common trash can have a baby).

Same sex marriage is all about redefining what constitutes a "family," both socially and legally. In a society where several generations of broken homes and broken marriages has changed the norm from the nuclear family (which lasted for how many centuries), I can see why people see the issue as so much gray and not black and white.

Still, if there is such a thing as absolute truth, the issue is clear...it's the thinking of the populace that has become corrupted.

Fairness is such a silly concept. Life is not fair. Life owes you nothing. If anything, in the ebb and flow of life we often are the benefit of life being unfair in our favor in that we don't always reap what we've sown. It's nice to think that life can be made to be fair and equatable to everyone, but it doesn't work that way. Heck, each of us with AS knows as much as anyone that life isn't fair and you can't legislate fairness. It will always favor some groups over others.

You can deny that there are darker political agendas behind the subject of same sex marriage. The proof is there if you're willing to look for it. It's not really that hidden. It's so easy to get popular support by just listing the bullet points that most people would find to be the least objectionable.

I'm going to bow out of this at this point. I've said what needs to be said. Time will prove who is correct.

The statement on which we can all probably agree.

Nor do I, I just enjoy arguing with bigots on the interwebs. Call it a hobby.




Recycled argument. Proof:

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always
productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of
civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by
positive law and subject to no evasion.”
(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that
Court's decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in
Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))




Gay marriage is going to happen, whether you like it or not. Its not fair, but life isn't fair. Get over it.




If you use the ability to create new children as the litmus test for marriage, then you'll have to void the marriages of a few million heterosexual couples who have either chosen not to have children, or are unable. But I'm sure that isn't what you had in mind when you used this argument. Certain marriages are okay as long as they're acceptable to you.

I'm not sure whether to be offended or amused that you would associate the gay lifestyle with drugs, alcohol and abuse. Either way, you're running out of straws to grasp at.

Also, the fact that you would even consider the forced sterilization of people is quite Christian of you. (that was sarcasm by the way, I know better than to think that all Christians think this-- though I've never heard an atheist suggest such a deplorable thing).




The "nuclear" family is an artifact of post-WWII culture. It wasn't the norm. Before then, families lived in extended units, with several generations living under the same roof. The reason they call it the nuclear family is because they didn't start popping up until after we entered the Nuclear Age in 1945.

In case you didn't understand that, allow me to put it into numerical terms: the nuclear family lasted for exactly 0.65 centuries.




I was going strong until this point. Your well reasoned, logical arguments have finally worn me down. You're right. There is a darker political agenda here. As well as an overarching Gay Liberal Conspiracy. I'm it's leader in fact.

We've taken control of such a wide swath of power in this country that I feel that I can make this admission without betraying my fellow queers and destroying everything we've worked for the past 40 years. In the interest of disclosure, I shall list the bullet points that most people would find to be the most objectionable:

-The National Anthem will be changed from "The Star Spangled Banner" to "It's Raining Men"

-All national televised sports events will be banned. Their time slots will be replaced with reruns of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

-The only officially allowed clothing colors will be Pink, or Mauve . This only applies to outer-wear. Underwear will be permitted to be pink, mauve *or* rainbow-colored.

-All beer and hard liquor will be banned. The only allowed alcoholic beverages will be wine, and wine coolers.

-The only permitted social activities will be wine tastings, cat shows, dog shows, drag shows and Gay Pride Parades.

-Thought Crime against Gays will be eliminated. Private thoughts will be monitored at all times. If any anti-gay thoughts enter an individuals mind, they will immediately detained and sent to reeducation camps.

Not at all. It was meant to be loved. I put it in there because i consider humor a powerful weapon. It's fun to play w/ stereotypes too.

While I'm replying to you, I'd like to thank you for all your kind words you've given in this thread. It's refreshing to know that all people don't think the same way as Zero, although it certainly does seem that way a lot of the time.