BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:58 PM

In many respects, "Civil Unions" in California are very similar to marriage - but there are many areas where it's unclear how a civil union should be treated. I suppose a huge part for the reason for wanting same-sex marriage is psychological - wanting the respectability that marriage gives to a union. Opponents often say, "they can have all the rights they want, as long as they don't call it 'marriage.'" I don't know how often I've heard people say, "Why can't they just call it by another name?"

I think the main reason for opposing gay marriage is the same as the main reason for supporting it - the term "marriage" gives respectability, and helps to ensure that society treats a married couple like a family, not just partners in a legal relationship.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

This whole thing is a matter of semantics and definition. I get tired of splitting hairs on it, I am tired of the religious fundies trying to control others, and I am tired of the LGBT fundies trying to force their will on religious communities. Before you start jumping, let me take those one by one.

Semantics/definition - All marriages that are legally recognized are civil unions, whether they are performed in a church or on the courthouse steps, by a member of the clergy or by a Justice of the Peace. The civil union confers upon the parties rights of survivorship, transference of estate, responsibilities for debt, sharing in gained/earned wealth, etc. The marriage rite, as performed by various churches, simply is that religious organization putting it's stamp of approval on the union. This is an important distinction.

Religious/LGBT fundamentalists - Religious fundamentalists are trying to keep their religious beliefs codified under law. Since they don't believe in the marriage of two folks of the same sex, and since it is not legal, they are trying to keep it that way. It is my opinion that they should live their lives as they choose and according to whatever code they choose, but they shouldn't have the right to force others to accept that "religious" code. They are not making the distinction between the civil, which confers rights as in any other union, and religious. I have never been able to understand how my marriage, and the love and respect it is founded on, is threatened by other folks living as they choose.

LGBT fundies are just as bad. They simply will not be satisfied until everyone accepts their belief that they have a right to be "married". Same thing applies. It depends on your definition of "marriage". If you are saying the Roman Catholic Church must accept your marriage as in keeping with their faith, that is none of your business. You have no right to enforce on the church that which flies in the face of the dogma of the church. If, on the other hand, your definition of "marriage" is that you have all the same legal rights and recognition by the State, I am with you all the way. But you may not tell a Priest that he cannot hold views, based on his religious beliefs, that it is wrong. And in the civic arena, he may not discriminate. But he has every right to not recognize the marriage within his church. The concern is that someone would then bring suit to force a church to conduct a ceremony against their will.

I believe that clarity in the law, and a full granting of the same protections that any other couple has in their "civil union/marriage" is entirely possible and should happen.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM

But surely people in California still have the perfect right to refer to their relationship as marriage if they choose to. So if the legal status is the same, what's the real issue?

It's a bit like arguing about whether it's a musical instrument should be called a quattro or a four-string guitar... What matters is what kind of music it makes, not what you call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM

People criticize the Mormons as "outsiders from Utah" who interfered with a California election. I suppose you could pin the same thing on Catholics, "outsiders from Rome" who interfered. But this page (click) shows that there were half a million Mormons in California in 1990 (I couldn't find more recent statistics). This page says that in 2005, 11.1 million of California's 36.6 million people were Catholic.

Like the Mormons, the Catholic Church in California took a fairly strong stand in favor of Proposition 8. As stated above, the Catholic Knights of Columbus gave $1.25 million in support of the measure, and I think the Catholic bishops gave $200,000. I see I'm in a very small minority, with my "Another Christian Voting NO on Proposition 8" bumper sticker. This week the Sacramento Bee's poll says 32% of the California electorate attend church services weekly, like I do - and only 16% of us voted "No" on Propostion 8. Guess I should feel lucky my car didn't get vandalized in the church parking lot.

I work with a number of nuns, at a women's center and at a retreat house - all of the nuns I know joined me in voting "no" on Proposition 8. I'm sure many of the priests I know also voted "no." One Irish-born priest who's an old friend gave his sermon last week and explained what the bishops had instructed him to say in support of Proposition 8, and then ended his sermon saying, "But I don't think it's right for me to tell you how to vote, so you make your own decision." Catholics don't applaud sermons very often, but my friend got applause for that sermon. [But hey, that parish applauded ME for a sermon once.]

On election night, I had dinner with about six nuns and our newly-appointed bishop, who is Hispanic and just over 50 years old, and an outspoken proponent of Proposition 8. Before the bishop arrived, we agreed it might not be a good idea to dicuss the election, so we didn't.

In our parish, we have a priest from Rwanda who's about 40 years old. He is a very fair-minded and gentle person, but he told gay marriage was something he couldn't accept at all. He said the taboo against homosexuality is very deeply ingrained in his culture, and homosexual marriage is completely unthinkable in Rwanda.

It seems to me that homosexuality is not well-accepted in African-American and Hispanic culture in the United States. I suppose you could write this off as narrow-minded prejudice, but I think I'd prefer to call it a cultural taboo. When I've heard people talk against homosexuality, it usually doesn't seem to be from a position of hatred. It's more a deep sense that "something just isn't right" about homosexuality. Oftentimes, people seem to have a fear for their children mixed in with their own feelings.

I can't say I'm all that comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but my sense of fairness tells me I don't have a right to interfere with the right of people to do what they believe they should do. A gay marriage has a profound effect on the two people getting married, but I can't see how it has any significant effect on society as a whole. But other people seem to have a real dread of the effects of gay marriage, and I think we need to have an understanding of that deep-seated fear if we are to have any hope of changing the cultural taboos that brought about this ban on gay marriage.

Personally, I don't think it will be long before gay marriage is legal again in California - but I think it's important for us to understand that those who oppose gay marriage may not be horrible bigots. It may just be that they're afraid and uninformed, and understanding and patience may be a far better way to win their votes than aggression and condemnation would be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:55 PM

In the UK "Civil Unions", as the legal term, with completely equivalent legal status to "marriage" seems to have been accepted generally, so far as I know.

So far as talking about it, people can of course use whatever words they prefer to use anyway, and do so. If gay couples prefer to say they are getting married, and send out "wedding invitations", as they sometimes do, that is entirely up to them. And I would assume that the same would apply in California, whatever happens in the way of "propositions".

As for the matter of church weddings, churches do what churches do. I'd imagine that trying to impose rules like that on a church in the States would be perilously close to overstepping the constitutional division between state and church.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

"Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"


             McGrath - That's an interesting dilemma. Some efforts were made to establish "Civil Unions," which it seemed to me gave gay couples all of the advantages of marriage without calling it that. But the gay community contiues to press for the right to "marry," period, and they simply won't have it any other way.

             Where I see this getting sticky is, if a church has in its doctrine that it will not recognize gay lifestyles of any kind, and a gay couple comes to that church to be married, can the pastor of that church refuse to perform the ceremony?
             I can see litigation coming down the road where gay couples will demand that ordained ministers marry them under the same mandate of law that prevents a resteraunt from seating a black customer, or refusing to rent a minority couple a motel room.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: pdq
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 01:11 PM

"...this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word 'marriage', rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?"

essentially correct statement

"The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy?"

no, not for a hundred years or more (if I recall corectly)

"The Mormons? ...Don't they have their own state?"

of course not...anyone can live in any state the choose, although Utah has a large Morman population because some cities there were started by Mormans

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:53 PM

The Mormons? Don't they believe in polygamy? Don't they have their own state?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM

Am I wrong in understanding that this is a tussle about changing or not changing the meaning of the word "marriage", rather than about ensuring equal rights for gay and straight couples?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM

I thought youse fellers voted by secret ballot, no??

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 12:18 PM

The odd thing they were talking about on NPR--on more than one program, it seems--was that the black vote went for Proposition 8 by over 70 percent, and the Hispanic vote was even higher than that. Apparently civil rights is very selective in some quarters.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:39 AM

On Tuesday, California, Arizona, and Florida voted to ban marriage equality. A fourth state, Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting. The success of such prejudiced ballot measures on Tuesday was a narrow, but significant victory for the radical right and constituted the "most potent ingredient making Tuesday's election bittersweet" for the progressive cause. Of the four measures, the most high-profile was California's Prop. 8, which for the first time in state history repealed a previously-recognized right. Californian's voted 52 percent to 47 percent in favor of amending the state constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." The measure, while initially opposed by a majority of Californians, attracted enormous amounts of money from out of state. The well-funded "Yes On 8" campaign flooded the state with misinformation and false claims about the effects of gay marriage on communities, children, and the economy. It is unclear whether the measure will survive a series of fresh legal challenges, which argue that Prop. 8 violates other provisions of the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

LGBT RIGHTS IN AMERICA: Gay couples can marry in just two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut. New York recognizes marriages from couples married in other states, and New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington all offer gay couples the ability to form civil-unions that grant couples varying rights and benefits under the law. With the passage of Tuesday's ballot measures, 30 state constitutions now ban same-sex marriage, while a total of 37 states have passed legislation defining marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage equality is needed to establish for gay couples the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples are given. Unfortunately, legalizing gay marriage at the state-level offers no rights or benefits to couples at the federal level. Indeed, at the federal level same-sex couples are unrecognized as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which "defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws" and "provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex." Gay couples are prohibited from adopting children in six states: Michigan, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida. In 30 states, employers are allowed to fire employees just because of their sexual orientations.

BUYING PREJUDICE: California's Prop. 8 overturned the California Supreme Court ruling that "declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection." According to polling, California's Prop. 8 was initially opposed by a majority of the state's residents. Just 40 percent of Californians in May 2008 believed the state should ban gay marriage via Constitutional amendment. But as Nov. 4 approached, enormous amounts of money supporting the ban poured into California. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, gave $1.25 million, while James Dobson's Focus on the Family contributed more than $400,000 to the Yes On 8 campaign. The Mormon Church dedicated millions more, giving an estimated 40 percent of the $15.4 million dollars raised for the effort by June of 2008. In all, the "Yes on 8" campaign raised $35.8 million. The funds went to disseminating misinformation through the Internet, TV ads, and direct mailings. The supporters of the ban falsely claimed that if it did not pass, gay marriage would be "taught in schools," churches would lose their non-profit status, and people could be sued for their "personal beliefs." The Yes on 8 campaign masked its bigoted efforts, claiming, "I think we won because we stuck to our guns of being pro-marriage and not anti-gay." 

THE WAY FORWARD: The one bright spot is that Prop. 8 was opposed at significantly higher rates among California's youth. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, a poll taken before the election showed that 59 percent of likely voters aged 18 to 34 opposed the anti-gay measure. Indeed, young Californians "from high schoolers -- some of them not even old enough to vote themselves -- to college students" worked to educate the public about the discriminatory effects of Proposition 8. It's unclear, however, exactly what will happen to California's gay couples who already married. The state's attorney general maintained yesterday that their marriages would still be valid, but others are not so confident. Despite its narrow approval, Prop. 8 is not final. Yesterday, "gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday -- including one by the ACLU -- asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8." The suits claim, "Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection," the LA Times notes. (The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:45 AM

Good grief! The Google ad is pro-8, here and on the main forum page.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:25 PM

My point exactly, MAG, and I agree with you.

I will never contest the right of a church to marry whom they please.

But to bleed their moralisms into the lives of others is entirely discreditable and a violation of our deepest propositions as a country.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM

I guess my point, Amos, is that I hope people vote for what's right, and not what they perceive to be in their (short term) self-interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:51 PM

Awww, thank you so much. Made my day, you did!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM

I agree, but eloquence depends equally on knowing how to craft your own words to make your point and on knowing how to support your point of view with just the right quotes.

You can be marvelously adept at both, and I salute you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:40 PM

Thanks so much, Claire, but the eloquence belongs to St. Paul and his elegant translators from the days of King James! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: ClaireBear
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

Amos, your eloquence often astounds in its clarity and simplicity, never more so than this morning. Bravo.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:43 PM

I don't see the connection, MAG--as far as I know prop 8 has no fiscal impact on the state except perhaps increasing reveues from marriage licensing.

Far more important is the impact Prop 8 has onthe hearts and minds of Californians and Americans.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love,
I am but a sounding gong, a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of all prophecy,
And understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith,
so that I could remove mountains,
Yet have not love,
I am nothing.
And though I share all my good among the poor,
And though I give my body to be burnt,
But have not love,
It profits me nothing.

Love is patient and kind;
Love is not envious, nor vain,
She does not behave herself unseemly,
Seeks not her own good,
Is not easily provoked,
Keeps no account of her wrongs,
Rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth,
Always charitable, always trusting,
Always hopeful, always steadfast.

Love shall never pass away,
But prophesy shall cease,
The gift of tongues shall end,
And knowledge shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Faith, Hope and Love,
These three abide;
And the greatest of these is Love.

I Corinthians Chapter 13

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: MAG
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

I'm nowhere near California by choice, Amos.

I do think it would behoove Californians to remember the upshot of Pros 13: mental patients dumped out on the street, cahos in social services which gets blamed on Latinos ("illegal" or not), a state where the infrastructure is in serious trouble.

Your current governor, campaigning on a NO TAXES rhetoric, I believe has floated bonds to "solve" the financial crisis -- i.e., postponing the problem and helping rich people make money off the state.

Good luck, Californios. Let's hope the current anti-republican sentiment gets some good results all over.

P.S.: the rest of my family is staunch republican, and they are horrified at what has happened to the GOP. The right-wingers really have split the party. (hurrah.)

Subject: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:25 PM

IF there is any chance yoou will be voting in California this election, please review some these videos (they are short) as to why the proposed rightwing Ban on Gay Marriage should be opposed by every voter at the polls.

This could have a serious, even life-changing impact on someone you love.

Or someone you could learn to.

A