Proposition 8

I think we all know what the institute of marriage is! Its been the way it is since the beginning of time. I have no problem with same sex relationships but allowing marriage an institute under God NO., thats taking it a little far. I do beleive same sex couples should be able to take part in their partners benefits as far as health insurance, retirement and so on but not a legal under God marriage

Oh no ... what happened to sugarpie ... she changed her nickname to a whole lot of numbers, removed her avvy and has disappeared.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Well, as much as I hate taxes (and actually think they're nothing more than theft in most cases) I can't support her doing this. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of laws on the books of my state and country that I vehemently disagree with. That doesn't give me the right, however, to just stop paying taxes. That's tantamount to disobeying laws that you, personally, don't feel are just, and that kind of attitude will lead to serious problems, IMO.

Basically, I agree with her stance that we shouldn't have to pay most of the taxes we are forced to do, but I disagree with her tactics and reasoning in this instance.

The protest is not based on the innate fairness of taxes. The complaint is that she refuses to give money to a government that relegates her to an inferior and less privileged class of human being based on her sexuality. If your government started stripping away your civil rights because of your gender or religion or race, would you feel obliged to continue paying taxes to that government? I wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal.

The majority of people in this state passed the measure. Will it be respected? No. I doubt it. Everyone and their mother is suing over this trying to get prop 8 tossed. Its amazing to me, when the majority of people enact legislative change by vote, it can be thrown out later. THEN WHY THE FUCK DID WE VOTE ON IT?

Laws have hierarchies. Propositions cannot run counter to state constitutions, and the US constitution in turn takes precedence. Even if a proposition theoretically passed with 100% of the vote, it would still be legally invalid if it directly contradicted the constitution.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal.

Anyways, that's my take. Hopefully you can respect my values for my own kids, I know a lot of people voted for prop 8 just because they don't like gays, or felt marriage is strictly between men & women, but that wasn't me. I know what the next response will be... "They weren't being taught gay curriculum, just a simple book." My response to that is yeah, that's today... What about tomorrow? When some teacher feels he/she has to take it upon themselves to start their own curriculum?

These kinds of teachers will take matters into their own hands regardless of the law. I have a problem with the second grader thing, not because the book was about homosexuality, but because a second grade teacher is injecting adult politics on small children and is also probably breaking curriculum because the typical school doesn't start introducing sex education until a few years later. This isn't only a liberal issue, though, because there are just as many teachers that clamor for school prayer and other conservative issues as there are liberals on the flip side.

And in any case, homosexuality is perfectly legal here in California anyway, and homosexuality encompasses so much more than simply the question of marriage. A teacher could say all kinds of things about homosexuality to a second grader without even addressing the subject of marriage. Disallowing gays to marry has no legal ramifications on public school curriculum whatsoever, and you could never portray such discussions as promoting an illegal act either because this particular law is inherently unbreakable as it deals with the way the law views the validity of a state issued contract. It's not a prohibition on a certain action that can be perpetrated in violation of law, but a policy governing the issuance of a certificate.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal.

Again, I'm not saying kids would have been taught any differently the day after the election had prop 8 failed, but it leaves my kids at risk of some teacher deciding to do this, or some gay activist, or the ACLU, deciding to sue and force same sex marriage to be taught in districts where they are taught man/woman marriage.

Again, there's frankly nothing stopping a teacher from stating an opinion about the morality of gay marriage, regardless of whether it is actually allowed in this state. The simply says that the marriage license can't be issued to two people of the same sex, not that it can't be discussed in the classroom.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

I haven't been able to find an actual ballot, but according to the link above (post 43), this is the language approved by the California Attorney General to appear on the ballot. If indeed this is what appeared on the ballot, I re-affirm my assertion that the question WAS NOT confusing, and further assert that those arguing that it is/was confusing are either uninformed, or trying to muddy the waters.

Quote:

PROP 8
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.

It's not confusing to any moderately intelligent person with a decent grasp of the facts, no, but there is no IQ test required when you register to vote. If you've followed any of the Al Franken recount business recently on TV, you'll have seen that some adults apparently still don't know how to fill out a scantron form correctly, despite the fact that damn near every scantron form in existence has directions for filling the form out printed directly on the form. As Bill Maher might say, that's powerful stupid.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal.

I have a RIGHT to send my kids to receive an education. I pay my taxes, and I am entitled for them to go to a school to receive an education of language, arts, sciences, math.

Technically speaking you don't have this right; your children have a legal obligation to attend school. Their receiving an education is not contingent upon you paying your taxes, but upon their being US citizens. You also don't have a right to set public school curriculum, although you do have a right to protest or take legal actions to try to affect changes indirectly. Your right as a parent is basically limited to deciding which school they attend and your legal obligation is to ensure that they attend said school.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

is it obvious? go back 10 or 20 years and it was obvious that marriage was between a man and a woman ONLY. what if I really love my dog, or my dog really loves my cat, why should you stop them from getting married. Someone said it before, who cares as long as they love each other...

Dogs and cats are not recognized by law as being able to give informed consent to enter a legally binding contract, nor are they commonly known to be able even to sign their names on a piece of paper in the first place. Gay humans are.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

for many reasons, but how about because it is against my religion for that to ever happen. How would you feel if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork even though some religions clearly say they cant, just like mine says only man and woman can be together.

Allowing gays to marry and forcing people of the same gender to marry against their will are two entirely different situations. The proper analogy is to ask how you would feel is the government said NOBODY of any religion could eat pork because SOME religions think it's immoral.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Just curious

If same sex couples were given the option to file taxes jointly, share insurance, death benefits, and have all the other benefits as "traditional" married couples, but a name other than "marriage" was assigned to this type of union, would that be agreeable, or does it have to be referred to as "marriage"?

It doesn't have to be marriage, it just has to be the same term regardless. Why? Because this is the same argument that racists used to justify segregation: "separate but equal". In the end, it turned out that separate but equal really didn't mean equal, it meant separate and inferior. There's no way this is just an argument about nomenclature; because really, if they're truly considered equals, why fight so hard to maintain separate labels for the same thing?

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

for lack of a better word, you will see more societal pressure on gays to get married just like straight people get and you will see more BS marriages just like straight people. Gays are not immune to the same BS straight have.

Not in all cases, no, but at least in one area they will be immune to social pressure. Gays are inherently safe from accidental pregnancy (except in certain rare circumstances), and there are a whole lot of marriages that take place due primarily to avoid the stigma of having children out of wedlock. Seems to me that these kinds of marriages are probably less stable than those between people who truly love one another.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Men and women belong together because it must be that way. There is no ambiguity about why a male has a penis, where it's located, and what happens at the height of sexual arousal, just as there is no ambiguity about why a female has a vagina, where it's located, and why that thing happens every month during her sexually prime years. Gay couples can never "fit together" as heteros can. There's no denying that men and women are "supposed to" have sexual contact with each other, it's obviously "normal", and the same can not be said of gay couples.

No matter how much you want it to be, it can never be the same type of relationship that a man and a woman can have. Gay couple can never complete the most basic human instinct on their own... reproduction. At a minimum they'll still need the assistance of a 3rd party of the opposite sex (and probably a 4th party if they're monogamous) The only other option is adoption, in which case neither would a direct connection to the creation of a new life.

Re-defining marriage will not make homosexuality more acceptable, anymore than redefining "short" will make someone taller. IMO, the best any of us can do make them most of what we have, demand fair treatment, and not be concerned about what others do unless it directly impacts our lives.

If modern marriage were primarily about reproduction (and by that, I mean a tool that actively promotes and eases reproduction) then you might have a point. However, I think if you were to have a second poll here asking people what their primary reason for having sex was, the overwhelming majority would answer either "because it feels good" or "because I love the person" while "I am following my biological urge to procreate" would get a pretty meager showing. Likewise, if you polled a group of people asking what their primary reason for getting married was, the overwhelming majority would say "because I love the person" with some variation of socio-religious pressure in a distant second. Some would say "because I got (or I got her) pregnant", but that is truly a social motivation, not a biological one.

If you want marriage to be primarily about reproduction, then what we really need to do is go back to the truly traditional form of marriage: arrange marriage, complete with dowries. Yes, the original form of marriage from the time when it was a property transaction: the purchase of a highly prized commodity (woman) at a steep price (cattle, land, etc) that would allow you to breed heirs to continue your legacy and bloodline. Somehow, though, I don't think many women would be keen to return to the days of being a piece of property without any rights or legal recourse or even the ability to own property independently of a man.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

do I have a town or community that says this is a "straight white town".

Yes, you do. About 99% of the towns in the south and midwest are straight and white. There are just so many of them that they don't bother naming them individually. You have the luxury of being able to take it for granted that they are straight and white because they are so common it becomes unremarkable.

Quote:

Originally posted by assman3

I have no problem with same sex relationships but allowing marriage an institute under God NO., thats taking it a little far. I do beleive same sex couples should be able to take part in their partners benefits as far as health insurance, retirement and so on but not a legal under God marriage

This is ultimately the crux of the problem. If marriage is inherently a religious institution (and most people agree that it is), then what business does the state have in recognizing it in the first place? To truly adhere to the concept of separation of church and state, there should be no such thing as "legal under God marriage" regardless of your sexuality. If this country was truly independent of religion, churches would issue marriage certificates/proclamations/etc and the government would issue nothing but civil union certificates equally and fairly to all people who want these fiscal benefits for their loved ones.

Quote:

Originally posted by DFS3

...

About 99% of the towns in the south and midwest are straight

You forgot about the east and west coasts, the rocky mountain states, Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia ... I believe over 99% of towns in those regions would qualify to be straight as well.

I don't disagree with your point. Yes, he does have his own "community" all over the place. No need to sneak in a cheap shot at the south or midwest while arguing your point though.

Quote:

Originally posted by DFS3

The protest is not based on the innate fairness of taxes. The complaint is that she refuses to give money to a government that relegates her to an inferior and less privileged class of human being based on her sexuality. If your government started stripping away your civil rights because of your gender or religion or race, would you feel obliged to continue paying taxes to that government? I wouldn't.

And if you didn't, you'd go to jail.

Feeling obliged to pay taxes and actually doing it are two separate issues. I personally don't feel obliged to pay taxes now, considering my opinion that the government is just throwing away tax dollars, basically giving them to their cronies, which is, in essence, judging one group of people superior to another. I can't, however, actually stop paying them. I'll end up in the pokey.

Working women and black people were taxed before they became voting-eligible citizens, and didn't have any choice. The point is that disagreement over your personal treatment, legislation, etc. is not justifiable grounds for choosing to not pay taxes.

Quote:

Originally posted by DFS3

...If this country was truly independent of religion...

L-O-L

I don't expect to see that during my lifetime.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

You forgot about the east and west coasts, the rocky mountain states, Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia ... I believe over 99% of towns in those regions would qualify to be straight as well.

I don't disagree with your point. Yes, he does have his own "community" all over the place. No need to sneak in a cheap shot at the south or midwest while arguing your point though.

It's no cheap shot. The towns in coastal and metropolitan areas are straight by default simply as a matter of population demographics. The central parts of the country are more aggressively conservative, particularly on social issues, and anyone who watches the news during election season is no stranger to the "red state/blue state" charts that illustrate this difference in no unclear terms.

Also, I didn't forget about the rest of the world, I was simply speaking about one particular country.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

And if you didn't, you'd go to jail.

Feeling obliged to pay taxes and actually doing it are two separate issues. I personally don't feel obliged to pay taxes now, considering my opinion that the government is just throwing away tax dollars, basically giving them to their cronies, which is, in essence, judging one group of people superior to another. I can't, however, actually stop paying them. I'll end up in the pokey.

Working women and black people were taxed before they became voting-eligible citizens, and didn't have any choice. The point is that disagreement over your personal treatment, legislation, etc. is not justifiable grounds for choosing to not pay taxes.

You absolutely can, it's just a question of your dedication. Muhammad Ali was arrested for protesting the Vietnam war by refusing to acknowledge the draft. To him, some jail time was worth his cause. History remembers him as a hero for this.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

L-O-L

I don't expect to see that during my lifetime.

Hence the hypothetical.

As far as taxes go if the gays/lesbians want to marry it's fine with me because in about 2 years they'll get to enjoy the "Marriage Penalty Tax" as the upcoming Adminstration and Congress will be more than happy to let the current tax codes expire and go back to a former tax code. So you might want to rethink the gay marriage issue as it will cost you more.

Marriage is a privilage of the state and thus it's should be up to the people to decide what they want for their community.

Don't blame the Mormons for the CA vote either. Most Mormons that I know don't care one way or the other about gay marriage. It was the black and hispanic voters that carried the water for the Prop 8 vote (Obama voters) so blame the responsible group(s).

Personally I don't believe nor want gay marriage but am willing to accept a "Civil Union" provision with a binding arbitration system for final separations.

And yes, I have a family member that is a recently discovered lesbian and wants to marry her girlfriend in
TX (ceremony) and then travel to Canada for a legal (in Canada) marriage. Of course we do hope that she will divorce her current husband first.

Quote:

Originally posted by DFS3

...

You absolutely can, it's just a question of your dedication. Muhammad Ali was arrested for protesting the Vietnam war by refusing to acknowledge the draft. To him, some jail time was worth his cause. History remembers him as a hero for this.

No, you apparently remember him as a hero for that. History remembers him as a great boxer. History doesn't remember every draft-dodger and teenager who fled to Canada as heroes. If Ali weren't a prolific boxer, nobody would care whether he did or didn't agree with being drafted.

Beside, being given two options, one of which is loss of natural human rights as acknowledged in the US Constitution, is actually not being given a choice at all.

Further, every time you purchase anything you're paying taxes, so you really can't avoid paying them.