Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.

God has nothing to do with my marriage. My husband and I are atheists, we committed to each other, it has nothing to do with your god.
[/quote]

I’m only concerning myself with the first two sentences of apbt55’s post, as those are the only that I care about.

My understanding, and someone correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure they will), is that the TERM “marriage” is the province of religion exclusively and that “civil union” or legal partnerships are the province of gov’t. Legal partnerships are often called marriages, but they are legal partnerships.

Marriage is by definition a religious term and concept as a spiritual covenant (yes, that has a legal consequence) as far as I am aware, and in this case I am not sure you can legislate the requirement for a church to give services to a couple that the church believes is against its religion. That is against basic religious freedom—you can’t mandate a church hold services for something it deems contrary to its religion.

At the same time, you probably shouldn’t deny legal status or rights to a couple because of the church’s refusal.

I admit I am almost completely ignorant on prop 8, and I would sincerely like someone to explain the proposition, preferably without resorting to rhetoric. I’m asking for the nuts and bolts of the proposed legislation and how it builds on the below family code…

My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So legally they have the same rights as marriages.

Somebody please help me out here.

122

[quote]rainjack wrote:
makkun wrote:
Also, I personally don’t see marriage as a moral issue - it’s essentially a contract between two adults with varying levels of state support. And even if it were one - a poster said earlier to PRCalDude: ‘they don’t want to marry you’, just each other. Consenting adults - whatever makes them happy. I would see other issues as being more important.

Makkun

I don’t have a problem with a contract between consenting adults. I think you are minimizing exactly what the militant gay agenda is about in this country.

They want preferential treatment under the law because of a lifestyle choice. They took it by force with the help of activist judges, which was the reasoning behind Prop 8.

The will of the people is the will of the people - which is the way it should be.

[/quote]

Oh god, the militant gay agenda! The rainbow army attacks!

How is being able to marry the person of your choice a “preferential treatment” under the law? I keep hearing fools talk about how gay marriage would be some “special right” to homosexuals, yet are unable to cite even one reason why it would be “special” unto them.

123

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.

God has nothing to do with my marriage. My husband and I are atheists, we committed to each other, it has nothing to do with your god.

I’m only concerning myself with the first two sentences of apbt55’s post, as those are the only that I care about.

My understanding, and someone correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure they will), is that the TERM “marriage” is the province of religion exclusively and that “civil union” or legal partnerships are the province of gov’t. Legal partnerships are often called marriages, but they are legal partnerships.

Marriage is by definition a religious term and concept as a spiritual covenant (yes, that has a legal consequence) as far as I am aware, and in this case I am not sure you can legislate the requirement for a church to give services to a couple that the church believes is against its religion. That is against basic religious freedom—you can’t mandate a church hold services for something it deems contrary to its religion.

At the same time, you probably shouldn’t deny legal status or rights to a couple because of the church’s refusal.

I admit I am almost completely ignorant on prop 8, and I would sincerely like someone to explain the proposition, preferably without resorting to rhetoric. I’m asking for the nuts and bolts of the proposed legislation and how it builds on the below family code…

My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So legally they have the same rights as marriages.

Somebody please help me out here.[/quote]

No, they do not have the same rights as marriages. Same-sex couples still have no federal benefits even in states that fully recognize them. And this is many all want. They don’t care what word it’s called. They want to be treated the same legally at a state and federal level.

But as far as just California benefits, they did enjoy all the same state benefits as married people as I understand it. So, it was simply a desire to force recognition as equals. But that’s something you can’t force. You can’t force a cultural shift.

124

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So legally they have the same rights as marriages.

Somebody please help me out here.[/quote]

The problem being that using different terminology for the same thing is a rerun of “separate but equal”. If they can reasonably be granted the exact same rights, why not call it the same thing?

125

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So legally they have the same rights as marriages.

Somebody please help me out here.

The problem being that using different terminology for the same thing is a rerun of “separate but equal”. If they can reasonably be granted the exact same rights, why not call it the same thing?
[/quote]

I’m going to bed. But if you haven’t figured out the differences yourself by the time I get home from work tomorrow night, I’ll explain it to you.

126

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

No, they do not have the same rights as marriages. Same-sex couples still have no federal benefits even in states that fully recognize them. And this is many all want. They don’t care what word it’s called. They want to be treated the same legally at a state and federal level.

But as far as just California benefits, they did enjoy all the same state benefits as married people as I understand it. So, it was simply a desire to force recognition as equals. But that’s something you can’t force. You can’t force a cultural shift. [/quote]

Gotcha. That clears things up for me a bit, thanks. I think I agree with your previous post about the state/ constitution amendment process as well.

127

[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Here are some further facts regarding qualification for conservative status:

* An avatar that features either an eagle, the stars and stripes and/or the user stroking a handgun.

* An irrational sexual attraction to Jews and Ronald Reagan's corpse

* Make long rants on how you believe liberals control the entire universe and how they fail at life. Yet, you forget to realize that you were a liberal when you were a young homosexual. This explains why conservatives retain their homosexuality but begin to hide it.

* Go on and on about defending freedom yet masturbate to the arrests of protesters

* Taxing and spending is evil, yet unconditionally support the military which uses over half of all tax money.

* The ability to work Abortion, Gay marriage and no-fault divorce into every conversation

* A stockpile of rifles and firearms to "protect" you from the government military and law institutions that you simultaneously worship and believe can do no wrong, while also believing that your pathetic stockpile would help you if the party van came for you.

* A persecution complex

* An asshole complex

* Hate Islam while supporting most of their policies, as opposed to liberals who love Islam but hate most of their policies.

* Repressed homosexuality, often manifesting itself as blatant and actual gay sex, the memories of which are also later repressed.

* Gaps in immediate memory in conjunction with anal soreness.

* Pedophilia.

* Knowledge of where the best public restrooms to cruise for cock are. [/quote]

Speaking of Pedophilia, YOU look like one of the pedophiles

on Dateline NBC - To Catch A Predator With Chris Hansen.

You seem to be sayin’ the same shit, its fake and its ancient

It’s making me so bored I’m gonna just make a new language

Fubba you cova cubba, ubba you ubba ooba

Youba can subbabick my dadibbabick through a tuba

sum other luma lama

128

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
I like how conservatives say “We need smaller government which stays out of our lives.” Then they vote to regulate the family life of private citizens. LOL

Haha, exactly.

I like how brain dead liberals don’t have a fucking clue about what these referendums were about.

But - then again, you voted for Obama, so knowledge of the issues has no meaning for you.

Aw, he’s so CUTE when he’s mad! What a good little republican!

pat pat

My political affiliation is not an issue.

You don’t know why Prop 8 was even brought to a vote.

You can laugh away my political leanings, but it is just pathetic to be so proudly ignorant of the issues.

[/quote]

I’m not ignorant of anything, friend. I think it’s very telling that you’ve demonstrated your inability to carry on a conversation without cursing at, insulting, or both, anyone who disagrees with you. Much like many other blustery conservatives I’ve met.

129

[quote]rainjack wrote:
[…]I don’t have a problem with a contract between consenting adults. I think you are minimizing exactly what the militant gay agenda is about in this country.[/quote]

Well, that’s because I think the ‘militant gay agenda’ is mostly a conspiracy theory. But we’ve discussed that in the thread by that name before.

Or ‘they’ want what they (and science) perceive as their natural state and constructive relationships to be recognised just as much as the heterosexual ones, by challenging the current laws in court; as everyone else does for their most important issues. A matter of perspective.

Yes, I agree. However ill informed it may be imho.

I find it a bit sad though that this becomes such a big issue in the States.

Makkun

131

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I’m not ignorant of anything, friend. I think it’s very telling that you’ve demonstrated your inability to carry on a conversation without cursing at, insulting, or both, anyone who disagrees with you. Much like many other blustery conservatives I’ve met.[/quote]

Well, in one sense you have to be - you peddled the “if conservatives are for limited government, why do they support any legal privileges of marriage at all?”…which is, definitionally, ignorant.

“Limited government” is not the same as “no laws anywhere ever and private citizens can do whatever they want whenever they want”. The public policy of marriage serves a number of social goals that are quite important, and marriage isn’t regulating the “private life” of citizens so much as it is regulating the “public consequences” of human nature.

“Limited government” isn’t the same as “anti-government” - read up.

132

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I’m not ignorant of anything, friend. I think it’s very telling that you’ve demonstrated your inability to carry on a conversation without cursing at, insulting, or both, anyone who disagrees with you. Much like many other blustery conservatives I’ve met.

Well, in one sense you have to be - you peddled the “if conservatives are for limited government, why do they support any legal privileges of marriage at all?”…which is, definitionally, ignorant.

“Limited government” is not the same as “no laws anywhere ever and private citizens can do whatever they want whenever they want”. The public policy of marriage serves a number of social goals that are quite important, and marriage isn’t regulating the “private life” of citizens so much as it is regulating the “public consequences” of human nature.

“Limited government” isn’t the same as “anti-government” - read up.

[/quote]

Arch-conservatives have never been for limited government on social issues. They’ve always supported coercive, heavy-handed government on all types of social liberties throughout the ages. It’s not a deviation from form. Just wrong.

133

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
My understanding is that California Family Code section 297.5 is already on the books. It says, in section A, that:

(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So legally they have the same rights as marriages.

Somebody please help me out here.

The problem being that using different terminology for the same thing is a rerun of “separate but equal”. If they can reasonably be granted the exact same rights, why not call it the same thing?
[/quote]

Because it is not the same thing and the rights most likely should not be exactly the same, especially in matters of children.

134

Why?

135

Black Greg = masterful lulz

136

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Black Greg = masterful lulz[/quote]

I’m surprised nobody picked up on the over 9000 gag.

137

[quote]NeelyDan wrote:
Why?[/quote]

Because the best situation for a child is a loving father and mother and when all other things are equal this is the situation that should get precedence.

138

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Because the best situation for a child is a loving father and mother and when all other things are equal this is the situation that should get precedence.[/quote]

At the very least, I agree with this. No amount of Political correctness will stop a child from needing both a Male AND Female presence in the developing stages of life.

But what happen when the gay couple want to adopt? There are many unwanted babies out there in need of a loving stable home.

139

If civil unions had the exact same benefits as “marriage” I would be fine with excluding homosexuals from marriage. Of course, thats not the case. Really, all marriages should be “civil unions”–if you want to get a church/religious/cult ceremony or recognition than that should be a separate matter.

The bottom line is that this battle was lost for the gay marriage proponents, but the war was won. The battle for the “hearts and minds” of the under 30 demographic has already been won. Does anyone doubt that gay marriage will be widespread and accepted within 20 years? It’s happening.

140

Children do well in homes where they are nurtured and loved, regardless of their parents’ genders.