California Proposition 8

[ProbeX]

I am very pleased with Barack Obama's win.... but I have to say my exuberance is tempered with a good bit of sadness for the passage of Prop 8 in California.

The sadly ironic part. The gay community was almost completely behind Barack but in the end, from the poll numbers I have heard, it was mostly the African American vote that got Prop 8 passed adding a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage in California.

More ironic perhaps, Barack ran on a message of unity and inclusion. Of all the electorate Black American's should understand how it feels to be excluded. "Inclusion" was the underlying message that attracted them to Obama in the first place.

Even in my joy and relief at Obama's win, as a white straight male, today I am truly sad for my gay friends.

We do have much work to do still in our nation.

My apology if any of my comments are repeats. Didn't yet read the whole thread as I'm fairly busy right now, but would like to add a response:

Like you I have mixed feelings. Wish Prop 8 weren't even an issue. 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.

It's not just the Blacks who are to blame for Prop 8 passing. It is any culture - including many Latinos/Whites/Asians - who are homophobic and hide behind their religion to justify such sentiments.

But if your argument is that more Blacks voted for Prop 8 than others, then that may be a result of Blacks being stripped of everything years ago, and pressured into converting - by Whites - to a homophobic model of Christianity that obviously still exists today.

Also, gay people have harbored prejudice against, and wrongfully treated, Black people throughout history, too. I've heard gay people use interesting words to describe Black people, even in liberal, present day San Francisco. So this is not such a Black-or-White issue.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The gay community was almost completely behind Barack...[/I]

[Jack Benny]

Now cut that out!

[/JB]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

1) I’m a Canadian citizen

< clip >

It all started when the girls moved in next door around 1 ½ years ago.

< clip >

No problem. Until one day when I was outside working on my yard and one of the girls started talking to me about hockey. Turns out she’s an avid hockey fan, as am I...

Two Canadians, living next door to each other, who also love hockey? What are the odds!

 

[Meadmaker]

I can’t speak to how your marriage has caused harm to those around you but I can speak to my particular situation and how it has caused harm to me and my “traditional marriage”.[/FONT] ....
That was over a year ago and I haven’t had a decent beer since.

I’m sure you now see the harm gay marriage can cause. Baby jeebus may not have cried but I sure as hell did and still do.

I’m not against gay marriage. I just think gay people should but better beer.

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage. When Michigan had one of those "ban gay marriage" ballot propositions, I voted against it.

However, some of the arguments I hear in support of gay marriage really make me cringe. Chief among those are the variations on saying that our limitation of marriage to one man and one woman is somehow "abitrary".

Really, I think that the concepts of "man" and "woman" are pretty meaningful distinctions, and the interactions between one of each of those is pretty significant. I am told that it could even affect your taxes in numerous ways. I'm not talking just about tax breaks for engaging in those interactions, either. Someone once told me that it could even somehow change the number of dependents you can claim. I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I think he may have been right.

Whether one thinks it is a good idea to regulate, recognize, or reward such interactions is a subject for debate, but it's hardly "arbitrary".

I was somewhat abstractly in favor of same-sex marriage for a long time, but I didn't really understand why it was any different from civil unions. Until I got married. Then I understood why it's such a huge deal for gays and lesbians.

In strictly legal terms, restricting marriage to one man/one woman is a rational position. But it's also an archaic one that leaves a substantial population of Americans out of reach from America's ideals and falls short of the More Perfect Union.

 

[Meadmaker]

The definitions of man and woman certainly are arbitrary.

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

I will also add that the fear that many people have of gay marriage actually has very little to do with gay marriage, but rather they fear that this view may become more commonplace if gay marriage is accepted.

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.


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?

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.

"What do we want?"

"NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Well, I disagree. Strongly. I have never met (virtually or physically) anyone who saw gay marriage as a step towards ending biological differences. I have found that most people making that argument are seeing marriage as a procreation issue, rather than a financial/contractual/personal issue.

I agree that the word "arbitrary" has been misused in this dialogue, but I cannot agree with the conclusion as you have described it here.

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?

I completely agree. This is why it is such a hairy issue to blend the governmental position with the religious/moral one.

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.

"What do we want?"

"NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"

Eh, that sounds to be a bit of a strawman, but I am sure you can find people who think this way.

 

[Meadmaker]

Eh, that sounds to be a bit of a strawman, but I am sure you can find people who think this way.

The chant at the end is not a strawman. It's a parody. The responses that government has no business telling anyone what marriage is is quite common. My guess is that we will see it come up quite soon.

 

[Thunder]

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.

 

[Hokulele]

The chant at the end is not a strawman. It's a parody. The responses that government has no business telling anyone what marriage is is quite common. My guess is that we will see it come up quite soon.

Mmm, I meant a strawman on the part of the people claiming the government is telling them what marriage is. The government can state what benefits accrue from marriage/domestic partnerships/common law/whatever, but it can never state what marriage is to the participants.

Sorry if my point was unclear.

 

[Hokulele]

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?

Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

If a water fountain offers the same refreshment, does it matter if it is labeled "whites only" or "colored"?

 

[Thunder]

Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

If a water fountain offers the same refreshment, does it matter if it is labeled "whites only" or "colored"?

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.

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?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I was somewhat abstractly in favor of same-sex marriage for a long time, but I didn't really understand why it was any different from civil unions. Until I got married. Then I understood why it's such a huge deal for gays and lesbians.

Yeah, They should have an opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us.

{rimshot}

 

[Hokulele]

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".

Odd, I was referring strictly to the water fountains. Was there any tangible difference there?

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.

Yes. What images go through your mind when you hear the term "marriage" and the term "domesitc partnership"? Is there a difference?

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?

In several countries, yes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, that gets back to the point I am discussing with Meadmaker. Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

Even if there are intangibles, people seem to be reluctant to discuss exactly what sort of intangibles are involved. There is this relationship that the state has decided to define and recognize called "marriage". It defines certain legal status, and the state puts limits on the number of people who can enter it, the age of the people who can enter it, the genetic similarity of people who can enter it. In most jurisdictions, both in America and worldwide, the state restricts the relationship to existing between one man and one woman, although many jurisdictions now allow two people of any gender. In ages past, there were restrictions on religion, and I'm sure those restrictions still exist in places.

Why does the state create and/or recognize such a relationship? Why bother? What good can come of it? And, if some good can come of it, which of those restrictions are relevant in creating that good? Are there benefits to society that come from creating that institution? If so, can the benefits to society be created if we drop some or all of those restrictions?

It appears that society thinks there is some benefit, because, as you noted, certain benefits accrue to those who enter that relationship. However, I must correct something in your post. I'm sure you felt it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. In addition to certain benefits accruing to those who enter into marriage, society also defines certain responsibilities on those who enter into marriage. As I said, I'm sure that you omitted any mention of responsibility because you thought it was so obvious that it need not be mentioned, while discussion of the benefits was much more important to point out. It's so easy to forget, amid all the discussion of the burdens and demands of marriage, that it is considered sufficiently important that society actually encourages marriage by providing some measure of benefit to those who become married.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are the benefits of marriage/domestic partnerships all there is to marriage, or are there other intangibles involved?

To answer this more directly, the legal definition of marriage is a set of legally binding agreements that define benefits and obligations between the partners themselves, and between the partners and society.

The intangibles are motivating factors, but, as far as ballot propositions are concerned, they aren't all that relevant.

 

[Thunder]

Yes. What images go through your mind when you hear the term "marriage" and the term "domesitc partnership"? Is there a difference? .

um, considering that Ive heard the term "partner" used by Australians and New Zealanders all the time to refer to their spouse or fiance, I honestly don't see any real difference anymore between domestic partners and married folks. domestic partners just sounds a little more technical and legalistic, while married sounds old fashioned.

but, like i said, if anyone can show me evidence of ANY difference in rights, privelages, freedoms, etc., between married folks and domestic partners, then i will support same sex marriage.

 

[chipmunk stew]

To answer this more directly, the legal definition of marriage is a set of legally binding agreements that define benefits and obligations between the partners themselves, and between the partners and society.

The intangibles are motivating factors, but, as far as ballot propositions are concerned, they aren't all that relevant.

Equality, recognition, validation, acceptance. Of course these are relevant. They go to the heart of "all men are created equal."

 

[eeyore1954]

So you support incest.

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

 

[MattusMaximus]

You gotta love those religious zealots who haul out the Bible at the drop of a hat.

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".......HA!

Seriously, why not get a proposition on the ballot to make it a capital crime for a child to be disobedient to a parent? Or how about a proposition to make it punishable by death to work on the Sabbath?

These people make me sick.

I think we should start ballot initiatives stating that all Mormons no longer qualify for U.S. citizenship. Then we should deport them.

** Waits for some loser of a religious nut to whine about how I'm just discriminating against good, honest Christian folk and how it's not fair! Wah!!! **