California Proposition 8

[MattusMaximus]

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Damn, I read through that whole thing waiting to find the part about the hot girl-on-girl action

 

[Travis]

My own new religion, the Church of the Fractional Genius, declares that men named Roger marrying women named Lucy is an abomination before our unwhole Lord the Decimal Genius. We expect an initiative to allow the "will of the people" to stop this blasphemy sometime soon. Don't doubt that we will find numerous references in our new "discovered" Holy Books to back our need to protect marriage from this type of perversion.

Expect TV ads showing how if this doesn't happen our children will be taught they have to adopt the names of Roger and Lucy "whether they like it or not."

Expect radio pundits to explain that if this isn't outlawed people will start being able to marry their dogs.

Expect information pamphlets explaining how this Roger and Lucy menace will lead to the end of religion and the rise of our anti-Christ the Whole Number Single Digit Retard Satan.

We must protect marriage from all these imagined threats people!

I expect tens of millions of dollars to see this happens unless those damned Judges get all Activist on us and protect civil rights or something.

 

[Thunder]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

if someone can show that domestic partner status...and marriage status are inherantly and in practise unequal...then heterosexual and homosexual unions should be the same.

but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.

 

[Meadmaker]

How many here are against incestuous(sp?) marriage between two consenting adults?

I am. Anyone else?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I am. Anyone else?

I'm more interested in what is relevant to the discussion. Such as the intangibles you said were not.

 

[mhaze]

IMO, it's destined to go before the US Supreme Court eventually.....

Maybe, maybe not. SCOTUS would have to accept that an issue was within it's areas of concern.

Unrelated, but it occurred to me that one solution to this mess would be for "civil unions" state level law to be passed with the exact rights as "marriage", and for such relations to be specifically named "merriage".

 

[Travis]

Maybe, maybe not. SCOTUS would have to accept that an issue was within it's areas of concern.

Unrelated, but it occurred to me that one solution to this mess would be for "civil unions" state level law to be passed with the exact rights as "marriage", and for such relations to be specifically named "merriage".

Brilliant! We'll use the dumb rednecks lack of spelling ability against them. They can be off protecting "merriage" from whatever threats they've dreamed up when they aren't busy chugging moonshine or fondling their cousin and gay people can be content with their "marriages."

 

[NobbyNobbs]

My question is, if the rights of marriage and domestic-partnership in California and several other states are literally identitical, then whats the big deal about the term "married"?

If this was just about rights and privelages, domestic-partnership with all the rights of married couples would be okee dokee. But for some reason, it ain't. Why is that?

The people of California, have given same-sex couples the right to domestic partnership, which includes ALL the rights and privelages of married couples. And rightfully so.

I think this should be good enough.

but, if it cannot be shown that domestic partner and marriage status are unequal..but instead share literally the same rights, privelages, obligations, etc..then I see no reason to change a thing.

Conversely, if there is no difference at all, whatsoever, between civil unions and marriage, then what harm in categorizing them under the same name?

Separate but equal, huh? We've seen that before.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To me it seems like just as much a civil rights violation that gay ppl can't get married, than it was when Black ppl couldn't legally get married.

There is no such word as “ppl”.

 

[Coffee]

I still want these ******** to look me in the eye and give me one tangible piece of harm that my marriage has done them. And yes, it has to be real actual harm, not just making baby Jeebus cry.

They can't. They will use their religion to "justify" their irrational fear, ignorance and bigotry. That is all they can do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I will not try to persuade you otherwise, but simply note that many people, including me, disagree.

Then explain how your views relate to intersexed individuals. You need to come up with definitions of what is a man and what is a woman, and deal with the people who do not fit into either of the definitions you create.

I once read a great column on the subject by John Derbyshire, one of my favorite columnists. It was called "The End of Sex" if I recall correctly. In the column he explained that by "sex" he was referring to biological sex, i.e. the distinctions between men and women, and he felt that ending the recognition of such distinctions was a primary motive for many of the leaders of the gay marriage movement.

End of gender would be a more accurate description, because this is the social realm of gender not the physical realm of sex.

BUt in what ways do you want the laws to descriminate on the basis of sex?

For example ideas of what sex defined was used for unfair discrimination for centuries.

You would be rewriting the marriage laws far more than those who are for gay marriage, you want to change marraige to have rights for the husband and rights for the wife, that are different. Seem to be argueing for explicit sexual discrimination.

As for gay marriage, specifically, I think the key to deciding who should be allowed to enter into such an agreement should begin by asking exactly what sort of agreement is being entered. What does this "marriage" thing mean, anyway?

Easy, it is a legal status that has many broad effects on laws, such as civil and criminal law. It effects property enheritance and a host of other things.

It's a question I find surprisingly little interest in answering, considering how adamant many are about expanding the right to enter it. The most common response is to indignantly insist that government cannot tell people what it is.

That is because marriage is not some nebulus concept, it has precise definitions in the laws of this country.

 

[ponderingturtle]

haaa!!..funny analogy.

we all know that white bathrooms, lobbies, stores, offices, doctors, schools, etc etc...were 1,000,000 times better and higher quality then black ones. thats why segregation was wrong..because "seperate but equal" was really "seperate but UNequal".

now, if someone can prove to me that domestic-partnership is in ANY WAY unequal to marriage in terms of rights, privelages, freedoms, etc etc...I will utterly change my view and support same-sex marriage.

Well there are no extant domestic partnership laws in the world that are unequal. But I don't expect this to be about debateing facts.

and by the way, women and men have seperate bathrooms. they DO NOT have the right to use the other sexes' bathroom. is seperate bathrooms for men and women inherantly unequal? why not?

So we must now get into the transgendered/transexual bathroom issues?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why does the state create and/or recognize such a relationship?

So you agree with the state department then, that homosexual partners are worth less than dogs. Lets them know their place.

Why bother? What good can come of it?

My Gradfather remarried at 75, you can say all the samethings about his marriage.

 

[Swagomatic]

Brilliant! We'll use the dumb rednecks lack of spelling ability against them. They can be off protecting "merriage" from whatever threats they've dreamed up when they aren't busy chugging moonshine or fondling their cousin and gay people can be content with their "marriages."

I believe in true redneck, it's properly spelled "merridge."

 

[ponderingturtle]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

Which is why there is nothing wrong with racial segregation in theory, but in practice it was never fair.

Well for marriage and domestic partnerships to be equal you need to force the world to rewrite its laws everywhere to make them equivalent everywhere.

NY state recognises Canadian homosexual marriages, I would be very supprised to learn if it recognised british domenstic partnerships.

This is because marriage has a lot of long standing legal precidents around it, something that domestic partnerships do not have.

So in NY you are better going to canada and getting married than going to Vermont and getting a civil union.

So any talk about them being equal in theory is just like talking about racial segregation being equal in theory, just talk.

So you have to simply force the world to accept any legal marriage precident as being aplicable to homosexual unions.

 

[Meadmaker]

So you agree with the state department then, that homosexual partners are worth less than dogs. Lets them know their place.

You have remarkably keen insight. Not many people would have found that particular hidden meaning in a question about why the state recognizes marriage.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm more interested in what is relevant to the discussion. Such as the intangibles you said were not.

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I said that the intangibles were motivating factors, but not really relevant to the ballot initiatives.

What I meant was that the ballot proposition defines law, i.e. tangible things. It is tangible to say that a pair of people can have something called a "marriage license", an official government document. It is tangible to say that a couple can have a "civil union license", and say that a "civil union license" is treated, by law, exactly the same as a "marriage license".

The associated intangible is saying that, since there are two different things, they are inherently "unequal". The first intangibly you noted was "equality".

I think that's the most important of the intangibles, and the one that motivates people to vote as they do. The people of California said that while they were willing to grant people the legal benefits (and responsibilities,,,there are some, aren't there?) of marriage, they are not willing to say that a homosexual union is "equal" to a marriage.

That might be a difficult thing for many to accept, but it is the opinion of the electorate. Are they wrong?

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

The Ick factor. Genetic arguments fall short because we have so much better ways to determining who falls into catagories that should not marry each other, but that is not used to prevent people from marrying geneticaly incompatable people.

 

[Vic Vega]

Segregation was found to be unconstitutional because it was very clear that black resources and white resources were highly unequal and the best solution to this inequality of treatment and resources was integration.

You are absolutely incorrect. It is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court found in Brown vs. The Board of Education that separate could not be equal.

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

 

[Hokulele]

Meanwhile, though, why is it that you duck eeyore's question? What is so hard about saying yes or no to that question? Do you think we should allow incestuous marriages? If not, why not? It's a fairly simple question.

Some people might object to the question because there is no one trying to legalize incestuous marriages, so who cares? Well, that's true. Certainly anyone trying to say that gay marriages will lead to incestuous marriage is almost certainly wrong, but why are they wrong? Why is it that people oppose incestuous marriages?

And this is the main intangible I was thinking of in my earlier post. If marriage/domestic partnerships is solely a contractual arrangement, then I have no problem at all with incestuous marriages. But, marriage is clearly associated with sex (reproductive issues aside, as non-fertile couples are allowed to marry, provided they pass the gender test). If the sex is "icky" for whatever moral reasons, people are opposed to calling it marriage.

I personally think this is wrong.

To expand just a bit on the incest question, in the most extreme cases (mother/son, brother/sister), marriage is irrelevant, as the birth relationship already guarantees most of the rights and privileges of marriage, which is why most people justifiably ignore that issue. Many places already allow first cousins to marry. Would you consider that incestuous?