BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

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

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 02:45 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 - 02:51 PM

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


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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 04:26 PM

The LDS Church does have its own state and that is Utah. Of course anyone can live there, but speaking from experience, if you want to own a business there and make a living at it, you'd be a lot better off if you have some connection to the LDS. They didn't just start some cities there, Salt Lake City is the international headquarters of the Mormon Church and its building, holdings, etc. dominate the downtown landscape and beyond.

Times may be changing there, too, though. Wonder of wonders, I was really pleasantly surprised to read the following (FULL ARTICLE):

Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage
By Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
    More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
    A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

Traditional marriage in some parts of our culture DID ban divorce, up until WWII. It was a social black mark to be divorced. Much looked down upon by the very best people.

Civil rights include equal treatment. If the state is going to offer a different name to their couple-blessing, such as "civil union", they will have to apply it uniformly, to hetero AND homo-sexual marriages. That would leave the various religious organizations to do what they want with the label "marriage".

But this is unlikely since the term is so deeply established.

Which leaves the only outcome that is conscionable to have the civil event labeled marriage, and let the churches and temples have the problem of calling their something else if they wish to do so.

The only REAL difference between the two is the sanctification by religious authorities, which is, really, insignificant to most people. But when the civil recognition gets bullied about by moralizing religious loudmouths, it's time to draw a line. It is unconscionable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 05:11 PM

All a bit like arguing about "what is folk" as if anyone was going to take any notice of how the argument went...

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe_F
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 09:38 PM

This whole controversy seems to me to miss the point. It should not be within the power of government to define or dilute the notion of marriage. The real way to protect the sanctity of marriage is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

When church & state were separated, marriage got stuck on the boundary. At the time, that was probably reasonable: marriage had existed longer than the state, everybody knew more or less what it meant, and it made sense for government to recognize, certify, and take into account that status. But by now there is quite a variety of cohabitation deals between & within the sexes, and it makes no sense for the state to discriminate among them. Where the state has a legitimate interest in making a distinction (e.g., in defining dependence for tax purposes), it can do so without reference to marriage. If a couple or larger group want to stiffen their cohabitation agreement with legal guarantees, let them write a contract (by & with the advice of their church, if they choose) on a par with any other partnership, subject to reasonable public-policy restrictions, and let the courts enforce it according to its terms.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me, then for you it is God who makes a marriage valid, and you should not give a hoot what the state of California says about it, one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:26 PM

The root of trying to define marriage probably has a lot to do with the rights and proper care for minor children under the law. I would think religious interests would take a back seat to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM

Actually, Joe F, Christianity is the foundation for this country's laws on marriage and how it is defined. And homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, stealing, not respecting your parents, and the other Ten Commandments.

As a Christian I have not been able to understand why folks get so spun up about gays. We ALL have our cross to bear. But as one who does his best to be a Christian, walking as Jesus did, in my own failing way, I am impacted by all sins that are legalized.

God sanctifies my marriage. But the ceremony is under civil law. Jesus was quite clear when he said, "Render under ceaser what is ceasers and unto God what is Gods." And civil law should not, in my opinion, be changed to accomodate a sin.

So to gently bump back, why would gays give a hoot about what I think and go ahead and form a union legally, get an attorney (we have lots of those) and draw up a contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 11:23 PM

Well, Steve, it is a sin in your opinion and that should not govern the rest of us who may disagree with you. Seems to me there was something about judge not lest ye be judged, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:25 AM

The church & the state should be totally seperate & both should stay out of the public's bedroom. If you want to follow some church doctrine, you're free to do so but you don't have a choice about following the law of the law & that's where the church is trying to build power to influence the law. The church has no right by law to influence law one way or another that is up to the governing system & the citizens of that republic. A civil Union does not grant all the same rights under law that a legal marriage does, I maybe wrong here & feel free to correct me. Civil Unions in all cases is not the same by the IRS everywhere (state & federal), by insurance companies, by adoption agencies, by international commerce, by credit companies & credit rating companies, by real estate law (just look at the difference in common law between states & feds) & by confict of state & federal law. Well, I'm not sure about ALL of that but look it up see.
It was once said that in this nation we were all created equal, well, we weren't but we are by law supposed to be ALL treated equal, not matter what any religion or church declares, that was the basis of the founding fathers. Free from religions & religious zelots.

We've always kept someone out of the loop, First Nation people, Blacks, Women, bfore that it was Irish, Jewish, waht's next, Alaskan Hockey Moms?
If abortion is a sin by someone's religion either jion & agree if you are religious or find one you can agree with but it's legal as long as the law allows & that's the way it stays as long as that's what the nation's peolple want. Because a religion or religious people want it different doesn't matter, it only matters what the people pass into law & the church by law needs to refrain from gathering & using power to influence the law. The law doesn't interfere with religion or it shouldn't. If a church sees fit to violate the seperation of church & state then they should forego all rights as a no profit & start paying taxes & lose their tax exempt status, they may feel a bit more charitable towards those they're fighting in the courts & polls with now.
I have no beliefs in churchs or religions at all, why should they govern me & my family with their beliefs as long as I obey the laws of the land. I don't seek to influence how they operate but if they want to push why shouldn't I push back. Demand that they operate only on Saturdays & Sundays, the rest of the week they need to earn their tax exempt status by manning the homeless shelters & food banks full time, start working in the VA's as nighingales - full time & not just the Sisters of Mercy all of them. If you are a prest or Nun & you are supported by the church you need to perform 40 hrs a week public charity & your retirement plan will equal the state or the federal plans.
If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then as they have been, espically these last 8 yrs then

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 02:37 AM

The above should've ended with
"If the churchs & religions want to try to dictate law then THEY SHOULD BE RULED BY THE SAME LAWS" as everyone one else because they put themselves on equal footing as the rest of US.

When they claim to serve & be held accountable to a higher "whatever" then they can continue to act & behave as if they they are seperate from government, that is their 'granted' freedom to practice as they preach!

Sorry, I hit some button that deleted the rest of it. By that & my even worst than usuall spelling I know it's way to late

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:55 AM

Barry, I guess I was misinformed about Civil Unions. I thought they did work to allow the couple to take advantage of tax exemptions and deductions, and did allow for the working member to insure the non-working member (if there was one), and so on.
                I'm not sure about the adoption of children. It certainly wouldn't bother me personally. I would think the child would be better off with decent people than in an institution, by I can see why the religious folks get worked up over that.
                The other element of the whole discussion that keeps coming to mind, and I don't see a lot in print about, is the Civil Rights element of same-sex-marriage. If I own a string of motels, for instance, and I'm a member of one of these religious groups, and I mandate that my places of business cannot rent rooms to same-sex couples, can I be brought up on civil rights charges for that? Or can I stand on my rights as a member of a church?

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM

The state has an interest in many contracts and transaction of a civil nature, because they are the basis of torts and offenses.

The state has an interest in preventing abuse of unsuspecting victims, in this case, children.

The state has an interest in public health and in some states marriage used to require blood tetsts under civil law,

The state also regulates who is responsible for children, the nature of dependence, the duty of child support, etc. It also maintains public records of birth, death, marriage, etc.

So for all these reasons, the state gets involved with these things and with marriage.

The fact that the traditional heterosexual form of marriage has been outmoded by a higher order of honesty about relationships that could once not even be named, means that any definition of marriage in terms of the sex of the participants is a simple act of discrimination on those grounds. Which,, by rights, should be illegal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM

Well, so much for the Dems wanting to "kill yer babies, burn yer flag and make yer kids marry 'a queer'"???

Guess the Repubs are down to just killing babies and burning flags when it comes to the Dems...

Who would have thunk it???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 10:51 AM

Amos, you said,

Arkansas, voted to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt children, widely seen as a way to prevent gay couples from adopting.

"Widely seen as"?? Of course; that's exactly what it is. Where does "widely seen as" come in? How could it be seen otherwise? On its face.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:19 AM

Maybe someone else has said essentially this (I skipped part of the thread, mea culpa) but here's my thought:

The State--ANY AND EVERY state--ought to stop issuing "marriage licenses". Instead, they issue "civil union licenses" to all couples.

If Johnny and Suzy are to join under State sponsorship, they would apply for a "civil union license". They'd go before an appropriate state-authorized individual (they could choose a preacher, judge, etc., just like now), who would join them pursuant to the license. But if they want religious sanction, presumably they'd have a preacher do it, so that they get two-for-one, so to speak.

Any two individuals, of whichever sex or combination thereof, if they wanted to have the legal support of the State rather than shacking up, would have to get and exercise their civil union license. The officiating individual, as now, would certify to the State that on such and such a date Johnny and Suzy (or Tom and Dick or Laura and Mary) came before him/her in the presence of witnesses representing the community and got officially stapled together (I'll avoid the familiar phrase "tied the knot" because it's so associated with past practice and understanding).

Under this scheme, the distinguishing word "marriage" is separated from State recognition, but different churches may attach the word and concept to the happy couple, of whatever mix, if that church sees things that way.

YMMV.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 11:23 AM

Good luck with that idea, Dave...

Rational thinkin' ain't gonna be part of the discussion on this issue until it's time has come which it clearly hasn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM

Still, it's a good idea, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:58 PM

Exactly, Dave. When I mentioned that idea earlier, I commented that because the roots of the "marriage" notion run so deep, it is unlikely the Churches will want to adopt a different name for their version. So the STate should.

The differentiation between the civil and "sacred" versions is really, really important and the Godmongers should be, by rights, pushed out of the corridors of civil administration.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM

I think I read most of the above with reasonable comprehension, but I had the dial turned up to "Sped reddin" on accounta it's "Are you ready for some footBALL?" time.

Seems to me that a BIG deal is the fact that the accountants don't want Jack to share John's employee benefits... health insurance and the like. No?

Oh yeah... I have said this on other threads. I don't care what gay people do regarding marriage, but I definitely have a problem with their parades. Call me a prude, but public displays of sexuality irritate me, no matter what sexuality. It confuses small children and dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Californianas Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 01:30 PM

I rather hope we never have Straight Pride rallies along similar lines...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:59 AM

Somebody in our song circle said they saw a big banner ad in this thread, promoting the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage in California. Must have been something in this discussion that prompted a Google ad about the measure. Just so you know, Mudcat is not in the business of promoting any political cause. It's just a coincidence that most of us are liberal.....
Just now, the Google ad is one that promotes gay marriage, published by the Unitarians.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:49 PM

This is not going to go away - there are protests planned in all fifty states, tomorrow. There is also a petition folks can sign which may help. Here's the scoop, I thought Olbermann's comment was terrific:


Have you seen Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" about Prop 8? Keith eloquently expresses why the passage of Prop 8 is so tragic, and he addresses supporters of the proposition directly.

Here is a link to watch a YouTube video of Keith's comments. Please check it out and then join me and over 100,000 other people in signing a pledge from the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to repeal Prop 8 and restore marriage equality to California:

Click Here

Usually, discussions of political issues wind down after elections, but Prop 8 is not about politics. It is about love, equality and civil rights. That's why we cannot let the passage of Prop 8 stand.

We all need to talk to our family and friends about the importance of restoring marriage equality to California.

That is why I am asking you to watch what Keith Olbermann said and then sign the pledge to repeal Prop 8.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

So how can the LDS church give money to a political agenda like Prop. 8, and still maintain a tax exempt status, or are the reports wrong? Did they not do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:24 AM

A good question, Rig.

A recent commentary makies an interesting argument for the complete privatization of marriage.

"...When the Supreme Court did away with sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, Justice Antonin Scalia objected in his dissent:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.

"Scalia may disapprove, but he agrees that court decisions of the past have set the stage for recognition of gay marriage in the future.

"But ... There are those majority votes against gay marriage in states including California of all places. Majorities capable of passing state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage may well be capable of sparking a federal constitutional battle that might even culminate in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A favorable Supreme Court decision in a year or two might well turn into yet another culture war that produces a very unfavorable legal environment thereafter.

"What to do? Well, how about taking marriage entirely off the table as a legal issue?

"In the New York Times, last year, Professor Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State College wrote:

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state's permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn't, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

That may provide a road map to an approach for defusing the passionate battle over same-sex marriage, involving as it does deeply emotional issues of religion and personal life. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government and turn it into a purely private matter among people who love each other, their families, their friends, and whatever religious institutions to which they might belong?

Writing in Slate in 1997, the Cato Institute's David Boaz said of marriage:

So why not privatize marriage? Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep their assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Marriage contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world. For those who wanted a standard one-size-fits-all contract, that would still be easy to obtain. Wal-Mart could sell books of marriage forms next to the standard rental forms. Couples would then be spared the surprise discovery that outsiders had changed their contract without warning. Individual churches, synagogues, and temples could make their own rules about which marriages they would bless.

"As a private institution, marriage would no longer need to be a matter of public debate. The legal aspects of marriage, such as inheritance and child custody could be handled by simply filing a simple civil union form with the state that has no romantic connotations. It could as easily involve friends or relatives who want to share assets or ease child care. Such arrangements could be boilerplate or tailored-to-fit, as the parties prefer.

And people with deeply held beliefs about what marriage really means could join religious institutions that extend their recognition only to traditional arrangements. They'd be free to turn up their noses at anything else, without actually compromising non-traditional marriages made by others.

Not everybody would be made happy by a solution that doesn't involve cramming a victory down the other side's throat. But privatized marriage could bypass years of legal battles and heartache.

If marriage had been privatized a decade ago, social conservatives would today be free to roll their eyes at Beth Bye's and Tracey Wilson's long-ago formalized relationship.

And we could find something else to fight about."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: olddude
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 11:32 AM

Amos
as always you speak the truth, clearly and thoughtfully
We can only hope that the people do the right thing. Maybe today that is asking too much. Somehow right thing to do seems to be falling through the cracks. I can only hope and pray they get their hearts and minds in gear and start thinking of others.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Opposing 'Prop 8' Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

If you would like to join thousands of people who are refusing to accept a California in which legal discrimination is embodied in the State Consittution, add your signature here. Every voice helps.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:43 AM

The fight isn't over yet. Sooner or later (probably sooner), gay marriage will be legal in California. My friend Mrs. Lev sent a link to this video (click).
Moderately clever, eh?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:54 AM

There are only two options:

1. The "marriage" licensed by states is a protection of a sacred rite.

2. ALL "MARRIAGES" licensed by the states are "civil unions."

If 1. applies, then all marriage licenses are in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, ...."

If 2. applies, then there is no valid reason, that has been shown, that justifies that "only heterosexuals" (or only white couples, or only Republicrats) are entitled to the equal protection of the law that regulates CIVIL UNIONS, accidentally called "marriage" in state statutes.

Any two citizens who wish to join into any form of lawful CIVIL contract should have the same right to do so as any other two citizens. The states have (or should have) NO interest in the sex, belief, or INTENT TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE SEX, of the persons entering into such an agreement.

I do not believe it is TO THE ADVANTAGE of any religion, in the US, to have "sacred rites" come under the control of civil statutes, since that places the belief and practice of one's religion SUBSERVIENT TO the CIVIL LAW.

Rather than demanding that civil law must "protect their sacred rights," persons of "true religious conscience" should be SCREAMING that the requirement to get any kind of license to engage in any rite held "sacred" within their belief is a VIOLATION of their right to the free and UNRESTRICTED practice of ther religion, and (if they're really that ignorant) should be DEMANDING the repeal of all requirements that "sacred marriages" of any kind be licensed.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:04 AM

John, you and I are pretty close in our assessment, you just said it better than I did earlier. The State shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning anything other than a civil union. And the State has no business as to whether or not a religious group sanctifies it according to their own beliefs. The legal ability to join one's life with another legally is the only thing the State has a say in. And it should not discriminate on matters that are none of its business, such as who one has sex with, provided said folks are of legal age to make such decisions.

Solid piece of analysis, buddy.

Mick