Proposition 8 poses ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions

[HydrogenBond]

It all comes down to sensitivity, with the use of the term gay marriage insensitive to what the majority feel. Sensitivity is not a monopoly for only certain special interest groups. This term has a negative impact on the majority, almost like a swear word.

 

Gays don't have a monopoly on feelings, although this is how many pitch it. Their choice of terminology is like a four letter word to many. It has nothing to do with biology or DNA, any more than the choice of a construction worker to swear is equated to DNA. If we censor a construction worker for talking in four letter words, we are only censoring their language. We are not judging the entire person, although this angle is how this special interest group is trying to sell it.

 

If we don't allow the gays to swear (so to speak) and hurt others feelings, we somehow hate the gays. All the gays need is their own word or phrase and almost everyone will be on board. This will prove the swear word is the problem.

[REASON]

It all comes down to sensitivity, with the use of the term gay marriage insensitive to what the majority feel. Sensitivity is not a monopoly for only certain special interest groups. This term has a negative impact on the majority, almost like a swear word.

 

Gays don't have a monopoly on feelings, although this is how many pitch it. Their choice of terminology is like a four letter word to many. It has nothing to do with biology or DNA, any more than the choice of a construction worker to swear is equated to DNA. If we censor a construction worker for talking in four letter words, we are only censoring their language. We are not judging the entire person, although this angle is how this special interest group is trying to sell it.

 

If we don't allow the gays to swear (so to speak) and hurt others feelings, we somehow hate the gays. All the gays need is their own word or phrase and almost everyone will be on board. This will prove the swear word is the problem.

 

I see. So gays and lesbians are simply a "special interest group" that somehow think they deserve the special privilege of a marriage that is recognized legally, and that by doing so, it is hurting the feelings of the majority.

 

Kind of like the majority of whites in the South who's feelings were hurt when those black special interest groups were trying to legally get the right to sit in the front of the bus. What a shame. Blacks don't have a monopoly on feelings either.

 

But for a closer comparison, what about those who wanted to legally marry outside their race? I can imagine the prospect of interracial marriage hurt a lot of people's feelings. Oh no!

 

What is up with these minority groups that think they should have the same rights as the majority in this country? Don't they know they are hurting a lot of people's feelings? :shade:

 

 

While I used to think that homophobic people were opposed to gay "marriage" because they didn't want to show tolerance to homosexuality out of fear that it might lead them to explore their own repressed homosexuality, now I truly think they just want to preserve the word "marriage" as an act betweeen a man and a woman.

 

Fine! Let them have the word. What people want is equal treatment under the law, so let us adopt a new legal term that symbolizes the unification of two people in matrimony that will provide the same legal rights as those given to married couples under state law.

 

Here's some ideas: legally unified, united, promised, partnered, companioned, combined, joined, mated, allied, or wed.

 

Whatever. Call it what you like as long as the law is fair, right HB?

[Galapagos]

It all comes down to sensitivity, with the use of the term gay marriage insensitive to what the majority feel. Sensitivity is not a monopoly for only certain special interest groups. This term has a negative impact on the majority, almost like a swear word.

 

Gays don't have a monopoly on feelings, although this is how many pitch it. Their choice of terminology is like a four letter word to many. It has nothing to do with biology or DNA, any more than the choice of a construction worker to swear is equated to DNA. If we censor a construction worker for talking in four letter words, we are only censoring their language. We are not judging the entire person, although this angle is how this special interest group is trying to sell it.

 

If we don't allow the gays to swear (so to speak) and hurt others feelings, we somehow hate the gays. All the gays need is their own word or phrase and almost everyone will be on board. This will prove the swear word is the problem.

 

What you are suggesting is no different than accommodating the bigoted disgust felt by some at the thought of drinking from the same water fountain as a black person, or touching an untouchable in a caste system.

 

I'm all for choosing legal terms to pragmatically avoid confrontation with the bigoted masses, but a spade needs to be called a spade in this case.

 

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Although it is not clear what the biological influences on sexuality are, I think it is crass to suggest that homosexuality is a choice..

 

edit-misunderstood something

edit2- The phrase "Separate but equal" comes to mind....

[DrQuantum]

I have read with interest the points that have been made by esteemed members of our blog community. The original title for this thread is: “Proposition 8 poses ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions”. While the proposition itself raises some of these types of questions, few of the replies actually address the purpose of the proposition. At the same time, the real concerns of most everyone but the attorneys relates to the underlying issue that prompted the proposition. Several years ago, California voters passed “Prop 22” which was simply a resolution. The words in Prop 22 were exactly the same words that are in Prop 8. Last May, Prop 22 was overturned by the California State Supreme Court as being unconstitutional (since the California constitution has no definition of marriage). Prop 8 actually amends the California constitution by adding 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." While legal-beagles will quickly recognize that these words are not a formal definition – rather they represent a “qualifying statement” – the effect is the same; that is, it effectively defines marriage as being between heterosexual partners.

 

Several or our members attempted to address some of the ethical issues, and some claimed to address the legal and “scientific” questions, but most of the arguments are based on personal feelings or biases – not on real legal or scientific principles. I am a scientist, not a lawyer yet the points that I wish to make, below, are neither scientifically rigorous nor based on legal methodology. However, they are designed to bring out a few facts which will, hopefully, guide the discussion relative to the original intent of the thread.

 

Here are a few points to add to those already presented - these apply primarily to California and Prop 8:

 

(1) Prop 8 is simply an attempt to clarify a definition which is needed as a basis for future legal proceedings (more on this in point 9, below). Prop 8 is, therefore, only words and will not actually affect any practical behavioral activities (see points 2 and 3). Certainly, these words ignite passions and prejudices on both sides but in any situation where legal issues are at stake, terms, definitions, and logical premises must be established in order for any dialogue to proceed.

(2) When Prop 8 passed, it did not overtly change any physical, observable relationship between gay partners. If gays and their supporters really believe the principles that their campaigns, slogans, and signs claimed, they would admit that the day after the election, their love was not diminished, their commitment to a long-term, monogamous relationship was not reduced, their property/visitation/inheritance rights were not eliminated (they are still guaranteed under California law), their ability to maintain a domestic household is not infringed, and nobody will break into their house and tear up their marriage license (notwithstanding the images conveyed by some very mean-spirited, thoughtless and ill-advised TV commercials). However, most gays will not admit that their relationships will remain unchanged because they seem to be tied to a body of belief by a “team mentality” by which they support the “gay community leaders” who apparently have underlying motives are not really related to preserving their ability to have property rights, but rather the minimalization of marriage for everyone – gay and straight. These motives have been publicly stated by gay rights activists on more than one occasion.

(3) Gays who want a life-relationship can still go to sympathetic priests, pastors, rabbi’s, imams, create a contract (prenuptial or otherwise), make vows to each other, pledge eternal fidelity, buy a home together, curl up in front of their fireplace on a chilly evening, and live happily ever after. Since most gays, by their own admission, have contempt for – rather than adherence to – organized religion, they could actually do what an increasing number of heterosexual couples do – just live together. They would still have all of the same rights under the domestic partnership provisions of the law. They have, in every sense, “equal rights under the law.”

(4) Will gays behave as outlined in point 3? Most will not. Why not? During the time between May and November, when gay marriage was legal, only about 10,000 marriages were performed (with many of these involving people from other states). With an estimated population of over 1 million gays in the state, that is barely 2% of the eligible population taking advantage of the opportunity to marry. Why did the other 98% not do it? Because, for the most part they are not interested in marriage or any other form of monogamous relationship. It appears likely that the gay marriages performed between May and November will remain retroactively recognized. So, there are very few, if any, in the near term who really want to have a procedure which they called “marriage” prior to Prop 8 (but will not be called “marriage” after Prop 8). So then, if so few were, or will be, interested in “marriage” as the end result, for who or what are they fighting?

(5) The opponents of Prop 8, generally, are not gays who feel that they are suddenly deprived of some fundamental rights (again, no behavioral rights have changed - the changes are purely semantic). The leaders of the opposition appear to be primarily “victocrats” – those who have a vested interest in maintaining the victim mentality of certain minority groups. The opponents of – or at least the organizers against – Prop 8 are largely the same in-your-face gay-rights activists who have brought us Act-Up (with their repeated desecration of sacred areas and rituals – including, ironically, marriage ceremonies), gay pride parades (with their grotesque costumes and perverted sexual parties), refusals to allow health-regulation of gay bath houses, successful advocacy of deviant sexual practices in college courses, and hate-speech legislation or legal action against anyone who even suggests being opposed to gay marriage.

(6) During the weeks leading up to the election, many groups stood on street corners, both for, and against, Prop 8. Reports were generally recognized that the YES-ON-8 supporters were kind, polite, would honk and give a thumbs-up to the sign-holders. Yet, at the same time, the NO-ON-8 activists, many wielding “No H8” signs and their supporters would scream, shout obscenities, throw objects, and make obscene gestures towards the Prop 8 supporters (who they were accusing of hate?!). Also, there were tens of thousands of YES-ON-8 signs stolen or destroyed during the campaign (with many people actually caught and arrested for sign tampering) while few, if any, NO-ON-8 signs were touched. These facts are all well documented.

(7) The YES-ON-8 campaign was financed exclusively by private, middle-america individuals (the fund raising documentation is very detailed and explicit on this point), though admittedly encouraged by groups with a moral sensitivity to the issue (allegations of funding from major religious denominations are untrue). The NO-ON-8 campaign, which outspent the other side by 2-to-1, received massive contributions from groups such as the California Teachers Association and other union organizations as well as the Hollywood elite who used their celebrity status to promote the message. The state superintendant of education actually lied in his commercial, claiming that elementary educational curricula would not require teaching gay marriage when his own website acknowledged that this is required. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein was recruited to make a commercial against Prop 8. All (except one) of the statements in her commercial were untrue so either she was duped by the activists and was too unsophisticated to know better or else she is fostering the same victocrat mentality that motivated many of the other opponents.

(8) Last May, immediately following the State Supreme Court ruling, there were a flurry of comments, pronouncements, interviews and editorials related to the issues of gay marriage. Some (not many) questions related to the “slippery slope” principle – that is, what about those who come forward wanting to marry their sibling, parent/child, a minor, or even a pet. In response to these questions, some apologists dismissed the issues stating – without challenge – that such extremes would not occur, or that gay-rights activists were against such extensions of the legal logic (without explaining why). Most simply ignored the questions and held to the propaganda position that this was an “equal rights” issue. Yet, some activists, either unwittingly or in their zeal to not miss an “in-your-face” opportunity, gave some revealing responses. Included were one particularly notable statement which was, “I don’t care if someone wants to marry a guppy or their pickup truck – they should be able to marry whomever or whatever they desire!” Any thinking individual can immediately see that such a position can only be a result an overriding conviction that the purpose of the entire movement is to actually trivialize – and thus destroy – marriage as an institution, for everyone – gay or straight. Why destroy marriage? Because it is a very public and pervasive symbol of the attempts of traditional society to maintain a semblance of a moral structure in the face of in increasingly secular-humanistic movement to eradicate all moral judgments, along with all concepts of right and wrong along with any consequences of such distinctions.

(9) And finally, back to the issue alluded to in point 1 and point 5 – the legal concerns. Gays, like other minority groups, increasingly look to the courts for support in their political agenda. The primary motivation – for the activists, if not gays in general - for seeking legalization of gay marriage is not a concern over “equal rights”. It is related to the desire to have legal recourse to go against anyone that they consider to be standing in their way. This assertion is not simply based on a hypothetical, irrational fear. It is based on historical fact. Immediately after the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, gays began to approach traditional religious organizations demanding that they perform gay marriages. When the request was denied – on the grounds that the responding religious group did not permit gay marriage – a lawsuit was filed. In fact, the Catholic church closed all adoption centers in Massachusetts as a result of lawsuits brought based on their views about gay adoption.

 

Conclusion: Most straight people do not care if gays live together in a loving, committed relationship. Most support gay partners having all of the same legal rights as married couples. Most in California do not care if the gay marriages performed before the passage of Prop 8 remain valid. Gays are welcome to love, support, and nurture each other as much as they want. However, most Californians DO care about gay activists having a legal hammer to beat down anyone that says anything against their views or positions. Prop 8 was about only one thing – removing the legal hammer.

[Moontanman]

I have read with interest the points that have been made by esteemed members of our blog community. The original title for this thread is: “Proposition 8 poses ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions”. While the proposition itself raises some of these types of questions, few of the replies actually address the purpose of the proposition. At the same time, the real concerns of most everyone but the attorneys relates to the underlying issue that prompted the proposition. Several years ago, California voters passed “Prop 22” which was simply a resolution. The words in Prop 22 were exactly the same words that are in Prop 8. Last May, Prop 22 was overturned by the California State Supreme Court as being unconstitutional (since the California constitution has no definition of marriage). Prop 8 actually amends the California constitution by adding 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." While legal-beagles will quickly recognize that these words are not a formal definition – rather they represent a “qualifying statement” – the effect is the same; that is, it effectively defines marriage as being between heterosexual partners.

 

Several or our members attempted to address some of the ethical issues, and some claimed to address the legal and “scientific” questions, but most of the arguments are based on personal feelings or biases – not on real legal or scientific principles. I am a scientist, not a lawyer yet the points that I wish to make, below, are neither scientifically rigorous nor based on legal methodology. However, they are designed to bring out a few facts which will, hopefully, guide the discussion relative to the original intent of the thread.

 

Here are a few points to add to those already presented - these apply primarily to California and Prop 8:

 

(1) Prop 8 is simply an attempt to clarify a definition which is needed as a basis for future legal proceedings (more on this in point 9, below). Prop 8 is, therefore, only words and will not actually affect any practical behavioral activities (see points 2 and 3). Certainly, these words ignite passions and prejudices on both sides but in any situation where legal issues are at stake, terms, definitions, and logical premises must be established in order for any dialogue to proceed.

(2) When Prop 8 passed, it did not overtly change any physical, observable relationship between gay partners. If gays and their supporters really believe the principles that their campaigns, slogans, and signs claimed, they would admit that the day after the election, their love was not diminished, their commitment to a long-term, monogamous relationship was not reduced, their property/visitation/inheritance rights were not eliminated (they are still guaranteed under California law), their ability to maintain a domestic household is not infringed, and nobody will break into their house and tear up their marriage license (notwithstanding the images conveyed by some very mean-spirited, thoughtless and ill-advised TV commercials). However, most gays will not admit that their relationships will remain unchanged because they seem to be tied to a body of belief by a “team mentality” by which they support the “gay community leaders” who apparently have underlying motives are not really related to preserving their ability to have property rights, but rather the minimalization of marriage for everyone – gay and straight. These motives have been publicly stated by gay rights activists on more than one occasion.

(3) Gays who want a life-relationship can still go to sympathetic priests, pastors, rabbi’s, imams, create a contract (prenuptial or otherwise), make vows to each other, pledge eternal fidelity, buy a home together, curl up in front of their fireplace on a chilly evening, and live happily ever after. Since most gays, by their own admission, have contempt for – rather than adherence to – organized religion, they could actually do what an increasing number of heterosexual couples do – just live together. They would still have all of the same rights under the domestic partnership provisions of the law. They have, in every sense, “equal rights under the law.”

(4) Will gays behave as outlined in point 3? Most will not. Why not? During the time between May and November, when gay marriage was legal, only about 10,000 marriages were performed (with many of these involving people from other states). With an estimated population of over 1 million gays in the state, that is barely 2% of the eligible population taking advantage of the opportunity to marry. Why did the other 98% not do it? Because, for the most part they are not interested in marriage or any other form of monogamous relationship. It appears likely that the gay marriages performed between May and November will remain retroactively recognized. So, there are very few, if any, in the near term who really want to have a procedure which they called “marriage” prior to Prop 8 (but will not be called “marriage” after Prop 8). So then, if so few were, or will be, interested in “marriage” as the end result, for who or what are they fighting?

(5) The opponents of Prop 8, generally, are not gays who feel that they are suddenly deprived of some fundamental rights (again, no behavioral rights have changed - the changes are purely semantic). The leaders of the opposition appear to be primarily “victocrats” – those who have a vested interest in maintaining the victim mentality of certain minority groups. The opponents of – or at least the organizers against – Prop 8 are largely the same in-your-face gay-rights activists who have brought us Act-Up (with their repeated desecration of sacred areas and rituals – including, ironically, marriage ceremonies), gay pride parades (with their grotesque costumes and perverted sexual parties), refusals to allow health-regulation of gay bath houses, successful advocacy of deviant sexual practices in college courses, and hate-speech legislation or legal action against anyone who even suggests being opposed to gay marriage.

(6) During the weeks leading up to the election, many groups stood on street corners, both for, and against, Prop 8. Reports were generally recognized that the YES-ON-8 supporters were kind, polite, would honk and give a thumbs-up to the sign-holders. Yet, at the same time, the NO-ON-8 activists, many wielding “No H8” signs and their supporters would scream, shout obscenities, throw objects, and make obscene gestures towards the Prop 8 supporters (who they were accusing of hate?!). Also, there were tens of thousands of YES-ON-8 signs stolen or destroyed during the campaign (with many people actually caught and arrested for sign tampering) while few, if any, NO-ON-8 signs were touched. These facts are all well documented.

(7) The YES-ON-8 campaign was financed exclusively by private, middle-america individuals (the fund raising documentation is very detailed and explicit on this point), though admittedly encouraged by groups with a moral sensitivity to the issue (allegations of funding from major religious denominations are untrue). The NO-ON-8 campaign, which outspent the other side by 2-to-1, received massive contributions from groups such as the California Teachers Association and other union organizations as well as the Hollywood elite who used their celebrity status to promote the message. The state superintendant of education actually lied in his commercial, claiming that elementary educational curricula would not require teaching gay marriage when his own website acknowledged that this is required. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein was recruited to make a commercial against Prop 8. All (except one) of the statements in her commercial were untrue so either she was duped by the activists and was too unsophisticated to know better or else she is fostering the same victocrat mentality that motivated many of the other opponents.

(8) Last May, immediately following the State Supreme Court ruling, there were a flurry of comments, pronouncements, interviews and editorials related to the issues of gay marriage. Some (not many) questions related to the “slippery slope” principle – that is, what about those who come forward wanting to marry their sibling, parent/child, a minor, or even a pet. In response to these questions, some apologists dismissed the issues stating – without challenge – that such extremes would not occur, or that gay-rights activists were against such extensions of the legal logic (without explaining why). Most simply ignored the questions and held to the propaganda position that this was an “equal rights” issue. Yet, some activists, either unwittingly or in their zeal to not miss an “in-your-face” opportunity, gave some revealing responses. Included were one particularly notable statement which was, “I don’t care if someone wants to marry a guppy or their pickup truck – they should be able to marry whomever or whatever they desire!” Any thinking individual can immediately see that such a position can only be a result an overriding conviction that the purpose of the entire movement is to actually trivialize – and thus destroy – marriage as an institution, for everyone – gay or straight. Why destroy marriage? Because it is a very public and pervasive symbol of the attempts of traditional society to maintain a semblance of a moral structure in the face of in increasingly secular-humanistic movement to eradicate all moral judgments, along with all concepts of right and wrong along with any consequences of such distinctions.

(9) And finally, back to the issue alluded to in point 1 and point 5 – the legal concerns. Gays, like other minority groups, increasingly look to the courts for support in their political agenda. The primary motivation – for the activists, if not gays in general - for seeking legalization of gay marriage is not a concern over “equal rights”. It is related to the desire to have legal recourse to go against anyone that they consider to be standing in their way. This assertion is not simply based on a hypothetical, irrational fear. It is based on historical fact. Immediately after the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, gays began to approach traditional religious organizations demanding that they perform gay marriages. When the request was denied – on the grounds that the responding religious group did not permit gay marriage – a lawsuit was filed. In fact, the Catholic church closed all adoption centers in Massachusetts as a result of lawsuits brought based on their views about gay adoption.

 

Conclusion: Most straight people do not care if gays live together in a loving, committed relationship. Most support gay partners having all of the same legal rights as married couples. Most in California do not care if the gay marriages performed before the passage of Prop 8 remain valid. Gays are welcome to love, support, and nurture each other as much as they want. However, most Californians DO care about gay activists having a legal hammer to beat down anyone that says anything against their views or positions. Prop 8 was about only one thing – removing the legal hammer.

 

I'm not sure about many of the things you are claiming but I do know that gays in other states are not guaranteed these things. I live in a state where gay marriage is Illegal. Yet my Church marries gay couples routinely so I know that gays have no trouble finding a church to marry in. It might not be the church of their choice but church none the less. To suggest this law is only meant to keep gays from suing organizations who will not bend to their will is disingenuous at best. As for Gay adoption I think it is wrong for anyone to deny gays the ability to adopt. It's especially stupid when it's the Catholic church considering their protecting pedophile priests while they were condemning gays in society. I feel that gays should have the right to a real marriage with all the perks and disappointments everyone gets in the process. To legally deny them marriage is wrong, much like the laws that prevented blacks from marrying whites these laws are simply wrong. The very arguments you raise to prevent gays from marriage could have very well been used to prevent marriage of whites and blacks. Our society survived that hurdle and it can and will survive allowing gays to marry as well.

[Galapagos]

(5)The opponents of – or at least the organizers against – Prop 8 are largely the same in-your-face gay-rights activists who have brought us Act-Up (with their repeated desecration of sacred areas and rituals – including, ironically, marriage ceremonies), gay pride parades (with their grotesque costumes and perverted sexual parties), refusals to allow health-regulation of gay bath houses, successful advocacy of deviant sexual practices in college courses, and hate-speech legislation or legal action against anyone who even suggests being opposed to gay marriage.

Just wanted to highlight your bias and obvious value judgments before carrying on with this post. I am not a homosexual, and am not interested in their pride parades, but I consider their culture to be no more "grotesque" than any other unfamiliar culture, and I do not understand why a student of anthropology or medicine in a college level sex ed class should not understand the sexual practices of all people, including homosexuals.

 

(8) Some (not many) questions related to the “slippery slope” principle – that is, what about those who come forward wanting to marry their sibling, parent/child, a minor, or even a pet. In response to these questions, some apologists dismissed the issues stating – without challenge – that such extremes would not occur, or that gay-rights activists were against such extensions of the legal logic (without explaining why). Most simply ignored the questions and held to the propaganda position that this was an “equal rights” issue. Yet, some activists, either unwittingly or in their zeal to not miss an “in-your-face” opportunity, gave some revealing responses. Included were one particularly notable statement which was, “I don’t care if someone wants to marry a guppy or their pickup truck – they should be able to marry whomever or whatever they desire!”

Have you considered that the revulsion one race feels to another, that most feel towards incest, or some religious people feel towards homosexuality are part of our evolutionary endowment? Xenophobia may have been adaptive in the past, but that says nothing about our value judgments and ethical choices now, which should have nothing to do with tribal demands for purity or sanctity and instead everything to do with freedom and rationality.

Marrying an animal or a truck that cannot reasonably consent is a silly argument to make. I don't think normal people should marry the severely mentally handicapped either(I'm fairly certain the law agrees), because they have a limited subjectivity in a similar way.

Again, the slippery slope is a terrible argument to begin with, and all the examples you have given sound desperate. As Moonman has pointed out above, the slippery slope works just as well for racism and opposition to interracial marriage.

 

Any thinking individual can immediately see that such a position can only be a result an overriding conviction that the purpose of the entire movement is to actually trivialize – and thus destroy – marriage as an institution, for everyone – gay or straight. Why destroy marriage? Because it is a very public and pervasive symbol of the attempts of traditional society to maintain a semblance of a moral structure in the face of in increasingly secular-humanistic movement to eradicate all moral judgments, along with all concepts of right and wrong along with any consequences of such distinctions.

Right, so this isn't a civil rights issue, it is an assault on your tribes vision of purity. I think that denying a certain group of people the rights we all share is oppression and bigotry. Much of the oppression and bigotry in this world is only justifiable in light of dogmatism and delusional certainty about the supernatural, and this issue is a perfect example.

 

 

(9)The primary motivation – for the activists, if not gays in general - for seeking legalization of gay marriage is not a concern over “equal rights”. It is related to the desire to have legal recourse to go against anyone that they consider to be standing in their way. This assertion is not simply based on a hypothetical, irrational fear.

I'd say its based on very real, irrational bigotry and xenophobia. How is depriving one portion of the population a right that all others share for religious reasons not oppression? It is a simple civil rights question and obviously so, and no number of obscurantist rants will change this obvious fact.

 

 

Conclusion: Most straight people do not care if gays live together in a loving, committed relationship. Most support gay partners having all of the same legal rights as married couples. Most in California do not care if the gay marriages performed before the passage of Prop 8 remain valid. Gays are welcome to love, support, and nurture each other as much as they want. However, most Californians DO care about gay activists having a legal hammer to beat down anyone that says anything against their views or positions. Prop 8 was about only one thing – removing the legal hammer.

 

Just curious, what rights of heterosexuals were taken to with a metaphorical legal hammer? You seem to have everything very backwards here.

[HydrogenBond]

The gays can pick anything they want and their union would be recognized. But they want to pick what they know is the forbidden fruit. If they chose anything else we would be discussing how far everyone has matured in our attitudes toward gays. But they consciously chose the singular path that will keep the discrimination song and dance alive.

 

The analogy is the child who is given the choice to go a bunch of places by the parents except this one concert. Instead of choosing any other alternative that would help the relationship, they have to pick that one concert to create controversy. Why would a child do this and what type of tactics would the child use to get their way? The temper tantrum, the guilt trip, anger, I am misunderstood, you don't trust me, you don't love me, run away and do it anyway, etc.

 

Maybe the next question is why chose the forbidden fruit when there are many other fruit or names that would lead to civil equality? Where this particular forbidden fruits departs is it is at the interface between civil law and religion law. They are trying to violate the separation of church and state by trying to force the state to impose and change religious laws. The other names don't enter the realm of religion the same way.

 

Another angle for why other terms are not preferred is that although these will lead to civil equality, these terms will not compensate for their own inner doubt. The hope is eating the forbidden fruit will be able to provide more external compensation.

 

Here is the inner problem. It is based on science theory. If you look at evolutionary theory, the forward progression is based on the blending of male and female DNA. Gay, by its very nature is not part of evolution since according to the theory, there is no genetic forwarding, by default. It is a flash in the pan, by default, that disappears. Traditional marriage is connected to evolution both in terms of procreation and the needs of child raising. Marriage is currently more consistent with evolution. The goal is to remove the science consistency connection using arguments of science. If this works science becomes religion. Once it become religion it is not entitled to funding due to separation of church and state.

[Moontanman]

The gays can pick anything they want and their union would be recognized. But they want to pick what they know is the forbidden fruit. If they chose anything else we would be discussing how far everyone has matured in our attitudes toward gays. But they consciously chose the singular path that will keep the discrimination song and dance alive.

 

The analogy is the child who is given the choice to go a bunch of places by the parents except this one concert. Instead of choosing any other alternative that would help the relationship, they have to pick that one concert to create controversy. Why would a child do this and what type of tactics would the child use to get their way? The temper tantrum, the guilt trip, anger, I am misunderstood, you don't trust me, you don't love me, run away and do it anyway, etc.

 

Maybe the next question is why chose the forbidden fruit when there are many other fruit or names that would lead to civil equality? Where this particular forbidden fruits departs is it is at the interface between civil law and religion law. They are trying to violate the separation of church and state by trying to force the state to impose and change religious laws. The other names don't enter the realm of religion the same way.

 

Another angle for why other terms are not preferred is that although these will lead to civil equality, these terms will not compensate for their own inner doubt. The hope is eating the forbidden fruit will be able to provide more external compensation.

 

Here is the inner problem. It is based on science theory. If you look at evolutionary theory, the forward progression is based on the blending of male and female DNA. Gay, by its very nature is not part of evolution since according to the theory, there is no genetic forwarding, by default. It is a flash in the pan, by default, that disappears. Traditional marriage is connected to evolution both in terms of procreation and the needs of child raising. Marriage is currently more consistent with evolution. The goal is to remove the science consistency connection using arguments of science. If this works science becomes religion. Once it become religion it is not entitled to funding due to separation of church and state.

 

HB, can you honestly say that a person should be denied the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy for no other reason than their sexual orientation? Why do you hate gays so much? Why is it so hateful to you that they could get married? In no way would allowing gays to get married force any church to marry them. There are already Churches that allow gays to marry, all they want is for it to be legal. Why is this a problem for you. All your reasons and excuses simply boil down to you not approving of gays. Years ago it was blacks that couldn't marry white for pretty much the same reasons you point out, even the language you use is reminiscent of those stupid arguments. How would it bring down your world for gays to be married? Would the sun stop rising? Would the universe end? I think not, it's just a prejudice on your part toward something you don't understand and have been taught to hate. Get real HB, look at your motivations a little closer and see if they are just intolerance unchained.

[C1ay]

But they want to pick what they know is the forbidden fruit.

 

Forbidden according to who? And of whomever says it's forbidden, who are they to say such? What makes them right?

[isolinear]

Marriage is speech. It's been used as such for millennium. No other speech says what marriage does. Families join, houses join, wars have ended and wars have begun as a result of marriage. Speech is the final nail in the prop 8 coffin.

 

A small majority of 60 percent of the eligible voters of the state of California have spoken. They said a great deal more than they thought. Prop 8 supports were tricked. Spread the word, marriage is speech.

[jackson33]

Moon; I am addressing you here, rather than elsewhere since its here I know you best;

 

No person under any category or with any sexual orientation (there are plenty) is denied the right to live together and with no restrictions on numbers. No Church is required to marry (join) any two people or the right not to and for any reason they wish. There are for instance satanic Church's, which have require certain procedures for that union to become official and there are rituals performed by most not necessary to the other.There are additional countless that again for reason never seek or acquire official certificate. All this is legal and uniform under US Law. You can legally live and practice most any deviation from a religious norm (however construed), three to a hundred people, the use of animals or whatever, so long as no local laws are broke and age of consent with parental consent are various to the States, 12 in NE to 19 in Georgia.

 

What most States have done over the years was establish the US Code for marriage recognition (for purposes- 1-male/1female) and the peoples of that State, either in their Constitution or under their laws. What your seeing are interpretation of those Constitution and Law at the State Level, not the Federal. The problem is the traditional acceptance of States to the acceptance of other State Law on OFFICIAL STATE recognitions of an Official Union, and that 47 others are not obligated in any manner to recognize, at this time and that the populations even where granted rights are not the wishes of the majority.

 

Since you know my opinions go to the methods for change, not the emotional factors;

The California, Massachusetts and Connecticut Courts have used the 14th A, to interpret individuals rights to include sexual preference, along the lines of a black/white marriage, years ago. However b/w marriage at the time were legal in most places and interracial marriages common well back before the US existed around the world. There was then a base for fairness and acceptability regardless of social acceptance. By the way that social disapproval came from both races b/w, in this case. The human perception of sex, or whats acceptable, though under religious conscience, is not yet acceptable and there is no base to work from, ESPECIALLY worldwide where 2 million Muslims have a very different take on the issue. I don't necessarily agree, but in the US this perception of what goes on in a gay relationship still draws unrest to the religious and quite frankly the fringe elements of the Gay movements are not helping. (SF, Up you alley fair and the violent demonstrations, in todays news).

 

The correct way to change law for the total States, in this case and in my opinion has to come from the top down or an amendment to the US Constitution. Not only would this be fair to BOTH sides the issue, but establish the ground both sides are up against.

IMO again; Even if the Congress Approved and sent an amendment to the States for ratification, it would be 50 years or more to ratify, if ever and those few State JUDGES are trying to subvert the Constitution and US Law which in the end on this issue will never work. I'll add after January with Obama and a very liberal Congress, would be an ideal time for their movement and this could be done. Once done its out there and until ratified, up to the States, Amendments once passed by Congress can be ratified a couple hundred years down the road (27th).

 

By the way, I have two lesbian nieces, both had been married but later chose another life style and both now live in Massachusetts. My own 'first love' when 16 was also lesbian and spent 40 years helping other girls/ladies, with books, literature and until her death (2004) on the web. Think Corner Café in Monroe Wis., is still on the net and we talked for years on the subject. My own 7 kids & 6 others I helped raise, well they have different problem and have over 40 kids between them. I still will hold to my opinions.

[Moontanman]

Moon; I am addressing you here, rather than elsewhere since its here I know you best;

 

No person under any category or with any sexual orientation (there are plenty) is denied the right to live together and with no restrictions on numbers. No Church is required to marry (join) any two people or the right not to and for any reason they wish. There are for instance satanic Church's, which have require certain procedures for that union to become official and there are rituals performed by most not necessary to the other.There are additional countless that again for reason never seek or acquire official certificate. All this is legal and uniform under US Law. You can legally live and practice most any deviation from a religious norm (however construed), three to a hundred people, the use of animals or whatever, so long as no local laws are broke and age of consent with parental consent are various to the States, 12 in NE to 19 in Georgia.

 

What most States have done over the years was establish the US Code for marriage recognition (for purposes- 1-male/1female) and the peoples of that State, either in their Constitution or under their laws. What your seeing are interpretation of those Constitution and Law at the State Level, not the Federal. The problem is the traditional acceptance of States to the acceptance of other State Law on OFFICIAL STATE recognitions of an Official Union, and that 47 others are not obligated in any manner to recognize, at this time and that the populations even where granted rights are not the wishes of the majority.

 

Since you know my opinions go to the methods for change, not the emotional factors;

The California, Massachusetts and Connecticut Courts have used the 14th A, to interpret individuals rights to include sexual preference, along the lines of a black/white marriage, years ago. However b/w marriage at the time were legal in most places and interracial marriages common well back before the US existed around the world. There was then a base for fairness and acceptability regardless of social acceptance. By the way that social disapproval came from both races b/w, in this case. The human perception of sex, or whats acceptable, though under religious conscience, is not yet acceptable and there is no base to work from, ESPECIALLY worldwide where 2 million Muslims have a very different take on the issue. I don't necessarily agree, but in the US this perception of what goes on in a gay relationship still draws unrest to the religious and quite frankly the fringe elements of the Gay movements are not helping. (SF, Up you alley fair and the violent demonstrations, in todays news).

 

The correct way to change law for the total States, in this case and in my opinion has to come from the top down or an amendment to the US Constitution. Not only would this be fair to BOTH sides the issue, but establish the ground both sides are up against.

IMO again; Even if the Congress Approved and sent an amendment to the States for ratification, it would be 50 years or more to ratify, if ever and those few State JUDGES are trying to subvert the Constitution and US Law which in the end on this issue will never work. I'll add after January with Obama and a very liberal Congress, would be an ideal time for their movement and this could be done. Once done its out there and until ratified, up to the States, Amendments once passed by Congress can be ratified a couple hundred years down the road (27th).

 

By the way, I have two lesbian nieces, both had been married but later chose another life style and both now live in Massachusetts. My own 'first love' when 16 was also lesbian and spent 40 years helping other girls/ladies, with books, literature and until her death (2004) on the web. Think Corner Café in Monroe Wis., is still on the net and we talked for years on the subject. My own 7 kids & 6 others I helped raise, well they have different problem and have over 40 kids between them. I still will hold to my opinions.

 

What all this boils down to is this, are gay couples guaranteed the same rights and privileges that straight couples enjoy? In my state the answer is an unequivocal no. Gays have none of the rights and privileges that straight couples have. Marriage is the name of the package of rights and privileges that gays want. Churches here do perform same sex marriages but they have no legal standing. I really don't care if it's called marriage or civil union the idea is for gay couples to have those same rights and privileges. Nothing less will do. Our society will not fall apart if this happens any more than it did when blacks and whites were allowed to marry. No one wants to force a church to marry them, there are churches that are already willing to do that. Gays just want to same package of rights and privileges straights enjoy.

[jackson33]

Moon; Unless your State is Saudi Arabia or Iran, where they are not allowed to even live, then Gays are people and in this country, people are treated equal. Gay or lesbians can marry according to the same rules or limitations any other person and enjoy the same privileges of anyone**. This applies to marriage or anything else and in this case the restrictions are obvious, one man and one woman. Frankly federal law has gone a little over board and now says, a crime against certain people including gays, if can be proved to be hateful in nature, additional sentencing can be applied. Any two people can not get married, be straight, gay or siblings and then not qualify for certain benefits. You might be surprised how many never do use the system and never receive survivors benefits or the death benefit, the only Federal obligations which are in the Marriage Implied Contract and cannot be contracted for. As for State benefits, they very and under common law and some Federal Hiring Requirements can receive most or all their State benefits.

 

**In most States adultery is no longer a crime, even misdemeanor. Two gays can marry two lesbians, live together or not and down the road use those relationships and stay with in the law. This is far fetched, but were talking rights. Also in a Legal Contract between two people (this case Gay) most any legal right can be addressed so long as with in other law, including who makes decisions in event of incapacity. Cremations/burial or whatever decisions granted by the various States to a spouse can be addressed and its almost a standard form for such cases available on line.

 

There are many laws which infringe on SOME people in some way and not always a way around. I like my cigarettes and pay a pretty good tax for the privilege, but in some places could not smoke anyplace other than my home, if then not an apartment or with in 500 feet of an objecting other person. People choose to live in places where kids are not allowed or where flags not allowed or a thousand seemingly small problems, but meaningful to them. School taxes are paid by folks with no kids or ever had kids for a lifetime. Every little injustice can't be corrected nor should most if in the interest of some majority.

[Moontanman]

Moon; Unless your State is Saudi Arabia or Iran, where they are not allowed to even live, then Gays are people and in this country, people are treated equal. Gay or lesbians can marry according to the same rules or limitations any other person and enjoy the same privileges of anyone**. This applies to marriage or anything else and in this case the restrictions are obvious, one man and one woman. Frankly federal law has gone a little over board and now says, a crime against certain people including gays, if can be proved to be hateful in nature, additional sentencing can be applied. Any two people can not get married, be straight, gay or siblings and then not qualify for certain benefits. You might be surprised how many never do use the system and never receive survivors benefits or the death benefit, the only Federal obligations which are in the Marriage Implied Contract and cannot be contracted for. As for State benefits, they very and under common law and some Federal Hiring Requirements can receive most or all their State benefits.

 

**In most States adultery is no longer a crime, even misdemeanor. Two gays can marry two lesbians, live together or not and down the road use those relationships and stay with in the law. This is far fetched, but were talking rights. Also in a Legal Contract between two people (this case Gay) most any legal right can be addressed so long as with in other law, including who makes decisions in event of incapacity. Cremations/burial or whatever decisions granted by the various States to a spouse can be addressed and its almost a standard form for such cases available on line.

 

There are many laws which infringe on SOME people in some way and not always a way around. I like my cigarettes and pay a pretty good tax for the privilege, but in some places could not smoke anyplace other than my home, if then not an apartment or with in 500 feet of an objecting other person. People choose to live in places where kids are not allowed or where flags not allowed or a thousand seemingly small problems, but meaningful to them. School taxes are paid by folks with no kids or ever had kids for a lifetime. Every little injustice can't be corrected nor should most if in the interest of some majority.

 

Not in NC, maybe in California gays have the same rights but here it's up the employer or the individual at eh hospital desk. No inheritance rights, nothing at all is guaranteed.

[jackson33]

Moon; Inheritance Law, varies in every State, is very complex and pertains to ALL people. For example if you have a 'Last Will & Testament' formed by an attorney and under the laws of NC, but move to Oklahoma for a certain period of time (usually 2-3 years), that Will is virtually worthless and your estate will be probated under Oklahoma Inheritance Law. On the other hand, a 'Living Trust' in every State is treated pretty much the same way and your wishes be granted. Being gay has nothing to do with these laws, only individuals and are treated equally under Estate Planning Law. That is your gay partner would be treated, as you dictated and ahead of other family members or interest. Since others may read our discussion, I would strongly advise Legal Counsel, for any person gay, straight or none of the above, especially if they have moved in recent years.

 

Insurance Policy are far more complex, but if you have any life insurance policy, you can list any person the beneficiary to receive the value of that policy, even your dog if you like. Group Health Insurance policy are in general very restrictive, can influence your contribution or prevent you from being on the policy at all. This can be a smoker to overweight to any lifestyle deemed dangerous, not necessarily because you are gay. As for Hospital POLICY, they are to protect their patience's above all else and liable for this service. Even the father of a child is restricted to access to his child (infants ward) and the condition of any person will determine any access, family or law enforcement alike.

 

What your trying to indicate is that normal policy, is restrictive to gays or that because NC is a strongly 'Evangelical" State, gays are discriminated against.

My argument is they are not in any State, by use of already existing law can and do achieve any level of equality TODAY...

[Moontanman]

So what you are saying is that a gay couple automatically has the same rights and privileges under that law that a straight married couple has? With no effort on their part other than being a couple? Or do gay couples have to take extraordinary measures to assure the same things married straight couples get automatically under the law?

[C1ay]

Moon; Unless your State is Saudi Arabia or Iran, where they are not allowed to even live, then Gays are people and in this country, people are treated equal. Gay or lesbians can marry according to the same rules or limitations any other person and enjoy the same privileges of anyone**.

 

Are you saying that any two men that want to marry each other can walk into any state office that issues marriage licenses to men and women and obtain the same license to marry? That would be equal treatment, wouldn't it?