Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:25 AM Back around 1963 or '64, a guy running for sheriff in Wisconsin published the "rumor" that his opponent had "weird sex" in "unnatural positions." He was quite handily defeated when the opponent asked: "How would he know - is he a peeping Tom or somethin'?" (There was also a logo resembling "Kilroy was here," with very big eyes that appeared mysteriously on a few building walls, power poles, and other "public information" outlets, bearing the complainant candidates name ...) When the CIVIL registration and licensing of CIVIL MARRIAGES first began to become common in the US, it was LOUDLY PROTESTED by the churches, to whom keeping the records of THE SACRAMENTS OF MARRIAGE had previously been left. It was necessary to explain that the MARRIAGE LICENSE was only concerned with the CIVIL UNION by which persons could join together for the joint ownership of property and the obligation to accept JOINT CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY for obligations pledged by either - just as is done for "registration" and "licensing" of a business partnership. And then to explain again. And then to explain again. And .... Under the US Constitution and the laws of this nation, any religion that would willingly ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT to require a license for ANY SACRED RITE "ain't worth a squirt of piss in a tin cup." If people in this country would cease half the effort now devoted to their demands to "punish everybody not like me" and devote it instead to learning and understanding the meanings, significance, and proper observance of the rites and rituals of their OWN FAITHs, and the limitations placed on the civil governments authority and obligation to regulate their observance of their own faith there would be NO ARGUMENT about allowing ANY PERSONS qualified and willing to make agreements between them having the SAME CIVIL FORMS OF AGREEMENT as all other persons are permited (or required) to observe. If you can't state an objection without using the words "Holy Matrimony" or "Sacred Covenenants" or "The Bible Says ..." - in matters of CIVIL LAW - then you are a bigot.1 1 But of course, no one is born that way. It's just something they choose to do. That makes it okay to despise them. (They're probably an abomination to somebody's god(s). And they're not like me, so they should be punished.) John |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ruth Archer Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:43 AM "You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life?" Exactly. the other thing that bewilders me is the oft-repeated "they can do what they like as long as they're not rubbing my face in it." I fail to comprehend why two people getting married is rubbing their sexuality in anyone's face, unless of course they are having a post-wedding sex party, in your house, and inviting you to join in. It seems unlikely. In fact, i think most of the people who express these sentiments are unlikely to even receive an invite to the wedding. :) |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:40 AM It's already happening Guest, anyone who even questions the homosexual agenda is painted as a bigot. Only ones who are safe are the completely illiberal "liberals"!! |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Dec 08 - 06:23 AM From: Amos Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM 'Jerry Brown is right...............' Since when is denying the public due process of law, right!!!??? If the situation was reversed, you'd be screaming bloody murder, and think, perhaps we are living in a totalitarian state!...Well guess what? As I've posted before, the duopoly is doing just that. Let's not forget the rights we still have, and that is of due process(among others), and uphold those,....or the structure, which (used) to guarantee your freedoms, will be further taken away. Just think, what could be next?..Freedom of speech....and even on here, what you are doing,..NOW!! Regards, GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:22 AM The insults don't bother me Amos, I've had worse on the "Gay parents" thread, but for fuck sake try and get the Scots accent right!...Ya daft auld gommerel......:0) |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM You may not have an axe to grind politically, Ake, but you certainly have an inflated view of what other people think is disgusting or not. I suspect your "vast majority" is a delusion. Furthermore, the core question is not how many, but what the fuck business is it of theirs? Why should it be any of your business whom another chooses to love or how? Who gave you the right to be "disgusted" at someone's private life? Or are you actually reacting to a bunch of false images about it that was drummed into your puir haid by child-molesting Fathers or crucifix-abusing nuns? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:33 PM So now Jerry Brown, California's AG, is refusing to allow his staff to defend challenges to the proposition in court. It would seem to me--and I'm no attorney--that his course of action would give the pro-Prop-8 factions grounds for immediate appeal. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM Just in case anyone mistakenly believes that I have a political axe to grind on this issue, I am far to the left of any Mudcat "liberals"...excluding Bobert of course, who has all the makin's of a mighty fine revolutionary........If he can shake this bloody Obama thing!! |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM McGrath is of course right. This is all about definition and the "normalisation" of homosexuality. How many times have we debated this... and when will you so called liberals get it through your thick heads that homosexuality will never be normalised while the vast majority view it as a disgusting practice. Homosexuality is "tolerated" in this society and all "liberals" and homosexual activists should remember not to push the silent majority too far. Strident promotion of homosexuality has gone just about as far as it should, if homosexuals want to live together with all legal safeguards, let them form a civil union and not attempt to reconstruct the world in their image....Ake |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 Dec 08 - 04:13 PM Personally, I know a man who does have two wives, and he seems relatively okay to me. None of my business. But the matter of choosing an individual spouse is surely a different question than the polyamory versus monogamy issue. One is the right to choose "whom" and the other the right to choose "how many". It is not the case that this is "the minority telling the majority what o do". It is a case of a minority desiring the same rights as the majority under the civil code of law. This, as Jerry Brown points out, is a case of rank discrimination. You can bet your boots that the majority of voting Virginians would not have voted to end slavery; yet it was an abomination viewed from the point of view of fundamental human rights. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:23 PM The name of this thread is, 'Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban'...what about, 'MORE Californians don't oppose 'Prop 8', Gay marriage Ban'? Call the Wah-bulance! |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: pdq Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:18 PM Will someone who says it is OK for two men to get married please explain why it is illegal for a man to have two wives. It seems like the latter constitutes telling others who they can and cannot marry. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Dec 08 - 02:07 PM I think one very important thing is being overlooked. The will of the people has spoken now twice in California in regards to this matter, and it has been voted down. Speaking about a minority forcing their will on the people... doesn't that matter anymore????..or do we make exceptions based on....ummm.. what? Personally, I don't care how a person takes their sex....but that should be a personal matter..and not rub it in all our faces, and force us to accept it as law!!...even when it goes against the majority will of the people. Have more thoughts on the matter, ....but this is just one point. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:38 PM Jerry Brown is right; we cannot afford a civil institution that draws its definition from one or two religious groups and ignores the rights of individuals to the civil status as other citizens. It plants the seeds of mighty fractures in the national spirit. If Congress were to make a Federal law defining marriage in terms of civil benefits and identity, as a common civil right, it would leave the churches to bless or condemn whom they please, as they have always busied themselves doing. The whole thing is a bunch of ugly noise in a teacup. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: kendall Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:59 PM I wish someone would explain to me why they care who marries who. It's none of my friggin' business.I married whom I chose, for love of another human being, not because she has the opposite plumbing setup! Control freaks, screw them all. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 20 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day. In a brief filed with the high court, the state top's lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded" by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now. "There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty." |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM The foodchain is exempt--food is the one religion which must be obeyed by all. Oh, and the High Temple of Space-Time, also exempt, whose commandments include Thou Shalt Heed Gravity, Entropy Wins, and Thou SHalt Not Unconserve Energy. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Dec 08 - 12:28 PM "You can't slaughter animals" - but surely doing that is a major industry. So evidently it's OK to kill animals, but not if you call it sacrificing them. But religious rituals associated with the slaughter are OK (kosher/halal). Evidently another of these linguistic issues which people,seem to regard as so desperately significant. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:45 AM Amos is correct. You can't have human sacrifices - but only because all of the people, regardless of their religious belief, are prohibited from committing murder. You can't slaughter animals (in most cases) because that violates both health laws and animal cruelty laws that apply to all of the people, regardless of their religious belief. You can't force anyone to marry against their will, because slavery is prohibited for everybody. You can't smoke that funny stuff and chaw on them fungi in your rituals because -- oops, I think there's an exemption there (for some religions). [We gotta look at whether that's fair to the rest of us.] John |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Wesley S Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM What a joy to find out that there is another follower of Kwandazoomuckalot and his scrolls here. Amos - when did you find the One True Path? And have you reached level 3.144 yet? |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:06 AM Thanks for the link, Joe. We've watched that on msnbc and I wondered if anyone would post it here. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM ABout time. But, there are limits. The practice of religion in a ccommunity IS subordinate to the boundaries of civil conduct imposed by the community in some respects. You cannot slaughter roosters in public places and for hygeine reasons even in some private places even if Kwandazoomuckalot requires it in his scrolls. A |
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 |
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: 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 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Riginslinger Date: 09 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM Still, it's a good idea, Dave! |
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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." |