D Day in California!
By Pat Racimora on May 24, 2009 at 6:30 PM in Civil Liberties & Rights, Current Affairs, Disenfranchisement, GLBT, Gay Rights
(Bumped up from Saturday evening.)
California!. What a state! We are known for our whacky politics and all-around open-minded, fun-loving, Hollywood-inspired ways. Calling us “yogurt-loving, latte drinking, text-messaging, vegetarian neurotics” is taken as a compliment. If you have a pulse, you are a friend and deserve a big hug.
So you would think that we would welcome giving people who love and are committed to each other their due civil rights.
Well, we did, and then it got taken away by the proponents of Proposition 8. These sour people ran a slick, homophobic, and highly misleading ad-campaign that would have even made David Axelrod blush. They scared enough voters—those who don’t bother to look beyond the hype to learn the facts—into backtracking.
Now comes the critical test. Was Proposition 8 constitutional? May 26th is D (for DECISION) Day. The California Supreme Court will either negate it, recognizing equal protection under the law for all, or maintain discrimination and the taking away of fundamental civil rights from a minority.
So many friends’ lives are affected by this vote. One friend, who did get married during the window when gay marriage was legal here, has been with her now-wife for 30 years. That’s more than most heterosexual marriages last. And that is just one example of many who have experienced a lot of pain along the way and now pray that their marriages will hold up. Other couples are waiting for the word that they, too, can marry the person they love.
So let’s see what happens. In the meantime Iowa, of all places (among others), got it right. How embarrassing to us Californians who thought we were on the forefront of every right idea.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
heads up on Obama the dictator fixing the NYS senatorial primary.
http://annienyc.blogspot.com/2009/05/click-here-to-watch-obama-do-his-best.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Obama_clears_field_for_Gillibrand_in_New_York.html
The people voted on this. Obviously, if the courts don’t like your answer, then you have to vote again and again until you get it in the politically correct frame of mind.
So if gays are allowed to marry , what’s to stop polygamy from being illegal, or any other union between consenting adults?
Let Americans have their say, not the courts !
The voters were really duped–you should have seen the ads.
Yes, the ads were really over-the-top. Also, the bill was confusing (especially for dyslexic people like me!); if you wanted gays to be able to marry, you had to vote No. If you wanted them banned from marrying, you voted yes. I knew several people who were constantly getting it mixed up.
Californians didnt vote no on 8 because they were confused at the polls. They did it because they dont like gay marriage. Most voters dont. Courts sometimes overturn this, but voters almost never do.
The question is, should the mob make decisions for you personally. Clearly Americans think so, in spite of the Bill of Rights. Americans are moving towards socialism and collectivism at an alarming rate. Soon you wont have one transaction in your life not blessed by the government.
For the record, I am against all government sponsored marriage. Gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamous marriage - these are contractual arrangements between consenting adults. Find a church that will marry you with a ceremony and cake, but that should have no standing in law. State marriage is an overstep, and today its being used and abused as a political tool.
I wonder, will it be OK with everyone here when groups of 5 Americans can get married? Approximately one billion humans believe that this is what a marriage looks like - specifically one man and four women, but we can remove the gender if we allow gay marriage. I dont think this sort of thing would work for me, but why should my opinion stop others from living the way they like?
Marriage is a mess and the state needs to get out of it.
I had several people tell me they didn’t vote on this measure at all because…whether you like this answer or not…they were confused. A lot were probably swayed by the creepy ads that were run at the time. In Western culture (mormon polygamists aside) marriage is a covenant between two people who love each other. Letting women marry women and men marrying men does not mean that multiple person marriages or animal marriages are next on the horizon.
By the way, my teenage son, who has CP, was constantly asking me to clarify the No on 8, Yes on 8 bumperstickers. I’m dyslexic (have to think about right & left for a second) and sometimes mixed it up myself. I’m happy for you that you are/were clear about the whole campaign, but it to me it looked as if it were a massive distortion campaign, funded by out of state interests with their own agenda.
I had several people tell me that they didn’t vote on Prop 8 at all, becuz (you won’t like this, but its true) they were confused about the bill in general & probably slightly paranoid from all the weird ads we had here, paid for by wealthy out of staters with their own agenda. I’m happy for you that you are/were clear on this issue, but for a lot of people, that aren’t political junkies like we all are, it wasn’t that easy. My teenage son was constantly confusing the “No on 8″ “Yes on 8″ bumperstickers; and being dyslexic, I would have to think about it for an extra second or two myself.
In Western culture, marriage is a covenant between two people who love each other. Allowing same-sex marriage between two people is not going to lead to group marriages, animal marriages or whatever. This is a simple matter of basic human rights. Voters should not have the right to take away the rights of other people because “they don’t like it”.
I think also that may also be a convenient way of deflecting discussion of how they voted. I am skittish to comment on these threads because if you take the opposing side for any reason, people then make the jump that you are somehow anti-gay. My opinion, since I am inviting this is personally, I don’t care what people do, so long as no innocent people are hurt. If two men want to be life mates, I could care less. But, when it gets to activism, i.e. Miss California and when people who have traditional families are referred to disparagingly as breeders and when it always deteriorates into attacks on religion… then innocent people are being hurt, and it is no longer about the rights of gays. When the people of California have voted twice and their opinion means nothing, then we are there. Californians can do what they want in California. This is activism, not for gay rights but against traditional marriage, against religion and everything else
in a word - bullsh*t. not everything is about you.
My opinion is my opinion. This is a forum. I am giving it in advance, because you can’t disagree with anything doing with gay anything here without being labeled anti-gay. Note the same logic gave us Obama. You can’t disagree with anything Obama without being racist. It is the unwritten rule. I don’t think this is even about gay rights. It is more about deconstructing traditional family rights. The gay people are just the vehicle to get there. Used and abused like every other special interest out there.
Docelder, if you could just expand on your opinion a little since I’m having trouble following. Who is trying to deconstruct traditional family rights and can you include a definition also? I know a woman who was divorced from her first husband and her second husband lost her job. The woman and her new husband moved in with the first husband and the second husband worked for the first husband. Her daughter (from her first husband) lived in the same house, The daughter of the first husband from his first wife lived with them and when she had a son with her second husband, he also lived with them. This situation didn’t last a few days. It lasted four years. All the marriages were legal, ceremonies performed in a church, all of the children were legitimate. If anyone was damaged by this arrangement, it wasn’t obvious. Our next door neighbors are a lesbian couple. They are raising four children. They home school the kids, the kids and their mothers do yard work together, they laugh together, the kids do their chores, they are polite, responsible and happy. The last two vacations my husband and I took were made so much easier because the two oldest children took care of our pets, watered the plants, brought in the mail and took care of the yard. They are the best neighbors we have ever had and one of the happiest families I have ever seen. Why would allowing them the rights other Americans take for granted be a threat to what you call a traditional marriage? If there is someone or a group of people who are trying to deconstruct my marriage and family by permitting people of the same sex to have legal rights in a relationship, I would like to know who they are and why this is part of their agenda.
I work with a lot of young people (late teens, twenties). Several of them asked me more than once, “So if I want to vote for Gay marriage, I vote no?” Ditto for some of my middle-aged soccer Mom friends. My husband was confused about it at first and he’s a genius who works 60 hours per week. people are busy. Also the big thing then was the historic presidential race. I don’t know why people think I’m making up the confusing issue. If you were Pro Gay marriage, you voted No; if you were Against it, you voted Yes. You guys are all politically savvy. For other people, it was c o n f u s i n g.
Lisa:
Suppose that the people voted that everyone with the name “Lisa” couldn’t get married. Would you conclude that all Lisas shouldn’t be allowed to marry and that we should “Let Americans have their say, not the courts”?
So, if we take away the rights of gays to marry, what’s to stop people from taking away the rights of Lisas to marry?
Democracy is more than just majority rule. If it was only majority rule, then Nazi Germany would have been a democracy. Democracy also involves the protection of the minority — in this case gay Americans — from the tyranny of the majority. That protection is accorded minorities in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment, among other places in our Constitution. It is the duty of the court to serve as a check and balance on voters who may vote to take away those rights.
I for one hope that they make the correct decision and protect the rights of all Americans.
This point is too often lost on our citizens; I so wish we paid more attention to our history before we lose sight of what the founding fathers intended by inventing the checks and balances that preserve our democracy.
Not on whether i disagree or agree on the topic at hand but this is a dumb comparison because people can simply legally change their name to something other than lisa and marry anyway and people would stop naming their children Lisa. But you can’t stop being gay or black. Being name Lisa is a choice, some other things are not.
kgirl…
good point. did you CHOOSE to be straight (assuming by your comments that you are)? i mean, was there a point where you said, hmmm… choices, choices… oh, heck, i think i’ll be straight. probably not, i’d guess.
i was just wondering, because i sure didn’t pick my gender, my skin, hair or eye color, and i sure didn’t CHOOSE to be gay. it’s who i’ve been since my earliest memories. it is so incredibly arrogant to me that too many straight people get to DECIDE that the only way we’re born is straight and anything else is a choice and therefore affords no merit.
I do not know what would be wrong with adult people being able to make their own decision as to how they want to live together. In the days before it became illegal, those who were very religious had more than one wife and in fact were obligated to take the wife of a dead brother into their home. I am not sure it worked the same if a wife had to take the husband of a dead sister. I would be happy to know your response keeping in mind that marriage in the way it is practiced now is a relatively new concept.
Rich
Rich, in the Book of Ruth, Boaz took Ruth as his wife after the death of her husband, his brother, although he had a wife. Polygamy almost always occurs in the context of a religious belief doesn’t it?
IMO it is always unfair to women and results in a kind of servitude. The religion is too often used to justify forcing young girls into marriage and that is always repugnant, denying them of their rights. However, if consenting adults agree to this arrangement is it unconstitutional to deny them the right?
BTW, the only time I have ever seen the opposite situation (a woman with more than one husband) was in “Paint Your Wagon”. which is fiction. In reality there would be all sorts of legal complications resulting from that kind of arrangement when children are involved. The main reason for the establishment of marriage as a legal contract was to insure progeny the right of inheritance.
My parents have been married for 38 years and i would deny that misery to no one no matter what my religious beliefs are. It is truly a curse from God. Woe be unto all who enter.
Rich: I think your argument is one point in favor of civil unions as opposed to gay marriage. If you call something marriage that is not traditional marriage in OUR society (the U. S. Supreme Court outlawed polygamy in the 19th century), then you do run the risk of non-traditional relationships of many kinds getting into the realm of marriage.
I would think Gays would want to have their own unique traditions.
people who care about each other choosing to spend their lives together is hardly a uniquely heterosexual tradition. and btw, gays can already get “married” in religious ceremonies by any religious group that wishes to perform such a ceremony. the civil union part of it is what gives it the force of law, and it would seem pretty silly to allow gays that part, and then say “but you can’t call it marriage.”
LOL Lisa, with all due respect….GIVE ME AN F’IN BREAK! If you would have been in CA INSTEAD of NY during the run up to the election then maybe you’d have a leg to stand on with your comment… I was there on a regular basis working on a project. I saw Obama’s little play friends from the clergy Donnie McClurkin, etc running their bus tours through CA courting the black Democrats to vote for Prop 8. Best of all they were using literature with Mr. Obama’s face on it… as if he was endorsing their cause… Obama knew what was going on and did nothing / said nothing…. In the end it wasn’t the Republicans that passed Prop 8… it was the black Democrats that followed like lemmings to the polls and voted as they were told… I’ve noticed that a lot of the black community has a hard time dealing with gay rights because they see it as taking away from their own causes. I’m sorry but civil rights extends to everyone!
ScottVA: if you pay attention it becomes obvious that every minority group in this country is actually working to DOMINATE, not equate. The Christian Right, Blacks, hispanics, gays, etc. They all hope to take over the society, not get an equal footing.
After years of teaching diversity, I’m about to believe the only way any society can be of high quality is if that society is homogenous. We have totally lost the idea of assimilation in this country and now every group that gets a voting bloc is fighting to make their culture dominant.
how exactly are gays going to “take over society?” seriously, it doesn’t seem possible. what you refer to as “taking over” is probably just bigots being prohibited from (legally) discriminating against gays.
Wow, are you off base.
I’m gay. I’d like to marry my partner, have fulfilling work (by the way, my work directly supports straight families), and raise my ten year old daughter to be a strong, self-respecting woman.
Yep, that’s trying to “take over” all right.
tek, What’s that you say? Mult-cultralism has run amuck?
So if enough people voted for slavery to be re-instated that would be okay with you too?
Let the people have their say? Just because it’s a majority doesn’t make it right. A majority of the “people” have been in favor of all kinds of foolish/studpid/illegal things.
Civil rights are not something we are supposed to “leave up to the people”. Civil rights are granted under our Constitution. Anything less than the same rights for everyone is Unconstitutional. All the homophobes voting otherwise doesn’t change that.
Very well put and let there be no doubt supported by The 14th Amendment-equal protection clause.
right on Marge..
Lisa:
If we had left Cilvil Rights and “Brown vs The Board of Education” up to each individual state, the South would still be segregated today and people would be saying that we “have to move slowly”.
Pull your head out of your ass. There is a little thing called the Constitution that allows for equal protection under the law (14th and 4th in tandem)
As for your stance on Polygamy I agree. Do I think it should be legal? No! But then ask yourself why Fundamentalist members of the Church of Latter Day Saints are allowed to live in places like Hilldale Utah and Colorado City Arizona and have circumvented the law for YEARS without arrest. What about an entire town in Texas which sprung up with only polygamists as inhabitants. The kids got taken and then put back into that sick situation because of so-called “parental” rights. Gays can’t adopt children in Florida but polygamists have rights to their kids and the kids can’t answer a simple question like “who is your mommy and daddy”!
It seems to me that people are allowed more freedom to hate and discriminate if they wave a “religious freedom” card around then two consenting adults who want to commit to one another. Is that fair?
And non-southern states would have integrated their schools and workplaces without these laws?
As I recall after 1971, our southern city, and county, school integration plan and execution was held up as a national model.
Please — let up on southern examples of this ilk.
Hey
I use the south as an example merely as it relates to Brown vs. the Board of Education case. And please spare me the outrage when the south virtually changed public education by overnight creating private schools and thereby keeping segregate schools a given fact for another 14 years after the Brown case decision was handed down.
Was the north any better especially in areas like Boston in the 70’s. No.
Are you going to come back and have a problem with my examples of Polygamy run amok in places like Arizona, Utah, and Texas
Please spare my the moral outrage!
If consenting adults want to be polygamists, who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to complain? It doesn’t escape me that there are many, many people out there trying to run the lives of everyone else while their own lives are in tatters (and please understand that I don’t mean you, in this instance).
I always reply to comments that stomp the South with regional stereotypes. I believe I made that clear.
Arran:
please find me a friend of yours from Arizona, Utah, or Texas so that at least I am equal opportunity in pissing people off!
euroXXX, what a simpering, idle minded comment full of hubris, destain, and arroance up the arse! shame on you! who in the hell do you think you are? don’t answer! i don’t care to put the language laughting call writing into my “beautiful mind”.
euroXXX, what a simpering, idle minded comment full of hubris, destain, and arrogance up the arse! shame on you! who in the hell do you think you are? don’t answer! i don’t care to put the language laughting call writing into my “beautiful mind”.
euroXXX, what a simpering, idle minded comment full of hubris, destain, and arrogance up the arse! shame on you! who in the hell do you think you are? don’t answer! i don’t care to put the language laughingly called writing into my “beautiful mind”.
I agree with you, Arran. I am so glad to be back in East Tennessee after 7 long years in southeastern Washington State. I don’t care what my company needs in the future, I’m not moving away from here again.
What a great comment this is eurogirl70!
Yes let’s vote on people’s civil rights that’s the American way - NOT!
I’m waiting with baited breath to vote on which civil rights YOU get to enjoy!
Poligamy? So change the wording to two consenting adults!
Yes, let’s vote on slavery again while we are voting on minority rights.
I don’t know why everyone seems to be surprised about Iowa. I lived there. It is not podunkville.
I’ve lived in the capital and visited rural areas (generally because I got lost). I’d stop to ask for directions and the farmers and ranchers were friendly and quite sophisticated.
The voters there are quite smart and don’t tolerate misbehavior from politicians of either party.
Now California and Prop 8 did surprise me.
I lived in Indiana and spent time in Iowa. I agree the people are smart–but I did’t see a lot of tolerance for gays in Indiana anyway. So I am still trying to figure out why Iowa was that much different.
Who knows - maybe it wasn’t different. Maybe one day we’ll learn it was his caucus shenanigans that won him Iowa.
It seems like most people were betting on Hillary being the favorite. Then when he won Iowa, the first contest, everyone claimed there was a new world order or something. Then, when Hillary won New Hampshire, the second contest, there were all those accusations that she only won because she “cried”, etc. - even though she had recently been considered the overall favorite.
It always amazed me that if there was going to be claims of a false win, that it was about the previously favored person winning the second contest, instead of the unknown black man with the shady friends who won the first race, in a really white, rather conservative state.
But an aside about Iowa’s smarts (I used to live there and love it) - they have the highest reading level in the country. Unfortunately, it’s a sixth grade reading level. Pretty sad statement for the rest of the country!
I guess is the price you have to pay in a democracy. 50% plus 1 will decide things every time even if 50% minus 1 can’t stand that decision.
It is not the courts decision if the constitution of the state is correct or not. They just have to figure out if anybody is violating it. So I doubt the courts will over turn prop 8.
One of the issues in the case is how to consider Prop 8 in terms of whether it revises or amends the CA Constitution. A major change to the constitution requires more than a simple majority.
What an irony if a person’s rights can be taken away in CA by a simple majority but just passing a state budget requires a super majority!
Yea should be that way in any state. California would be in much less of a pickle if they had it that way from the beginning. The recall should have had the same rule.
Sam, your comments are right on!!
I hope the courts axe Prop 8. It is a civil rights issue, pure and simple.
For the NQ political junkies: Prop 8 was not expected to pass. The reason that it passed is that Obama turned out larger than the expected number of African-Americans and Latinos. Both of these groups oppose gay marriage. Obama’s tepid repudiation of Prop 8 in the late night of the Friday before the vote did little to change these dynamics.
Lesson learned #1: If you are a political strategist, always pay attention to the segments of voters in planning your campaign.
Lesson learned #2: If you are a citizen who respects the rights of all of your fellow citizens and your leader (in this case Obama) is playing both sides of the issues, then don’t expect that things will turn out the way you want them to.
Yep!
California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court’s May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.
I expected that of the Latinos. That 7 in 10 blacks were against it speaks volumes about their commitment to equal rights other than their own and, indeed, about their agenda, IMO. It is rather hypocritical of those who voted against the measure, I would have to say.
I was surprised at how surprised were everyone else but people of color at this vote against gay rights. The strong identification of blacks with the church perhaps explains the deep seated homophobia in the black community, forcing black gays to be on the ‘down low.’
Maybe so, but that is no justification for denying gays equal rights. A couple of hundred years ago these churches were against giving rights to blacks. Where is the commitment to basic human rights?
Many black people think that “civil rights” literally only refers to blacks’ rights. Donna Brazille (*&%$%^!) wouldn’t let gay people into some equal rights group of the DNC (sorry, can’t remember the details now) because she said that “civil rights” was only meant to refer to blacks. And it’s my understanding that she is gay, so the hypocrisy you are aluding to is ten-fold with her.
That hasn’t gone unnoticed by me. The term racist apparently is often thrown in the wrong direction.
ferd, you might be interested in googling, “New Haven firefighters’ reverse discrimination case”, if you don’t already know about this 6-year-old law suit.
There, you will find a variety of articles which will explain the case in detail as well as offer lower court and appeals court rulings, and Supreme Court members’ comments at their hearing.
It heats up now that 0bama’s DJ is stepping in.
i still find it amazing that if black votes for black it is supporting your brother/sister. and if white votes for white, you are a racist. there is no excuse or explanation i’ll accept by the way because there is none. also i have voted for both depending on character and basic politics.
You’re spot on–it is all about character.
yep, and didn’t you every tortured explanation imaginable from the Obots as to why race-based voting by blacks was completely acceptable.
For one black politician, I voted for him 3 times — he won the mayor seat, but lost his two runs for the US Senate against an entrenched far right conservative republican.
He would have been a far better Senator than the one that was re-elected for decades.
Indeed!
Don’t include the Latinos in this. They were split about 50/50.
Sam: I believe we are seeing the Tyranny of the Majority in the U. S. It’s not very pretty.
tek, it just might be the tyranny of the minorites!
Obama could have told his voters where he stood on this initiative and we would not be in this mess now.
He did not show LEADERSHIP, just provided gay groups lip service during the primaries. Blame Obama for the ballot initiative passing.
I’d say he basically did tell them where he stood. He likes to play both sides of the fence, but he has said he’s against gay marriage. He’s not Mr. Light and Equality - he just plays one on TV.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. He did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, too.
He is not by nature a leader. He’s a weather vane; he turns whichever way the wind blows him, because he has no true principles to guide him.
Bill Clinton didn’t make a move until the rooster on top of the cupola pointed which direction the polls told him to go. Or was that his crouch-pointer-intern-finder???
Give to Mikey …he’ll eat it.
WTF does the FACT that BO is an immoral person have to do with Clinton’s sex organ?
For your info BO has a blackberry for his “weather vain” and he needs to swallow many bottles of ‘hero tab’s just to read TOTUS.
teakwoodkite
Dems don’t bust a move until they know which way the people, which includes those outside the US, lean.
And that includes Sec. Clinton, except when she is apologizing to the world and Afghans that the US Mil. was guilty right after the incident without waiting until the truth was found!
I think you answered your question reference BO and Bill within your question: immoral; on both accounts and both while in office.
Take your selective indignation elsewhere, troll.
Mikey: Get off Bill Clinton, you turd. Jealous, are you?
mike put a sock in it, a real dirty one.
spin spin which ever way the wind blows..
Sam Copeland’s Best Political Strategy of 09 Award
While I do not like it when other people’s rights are taken away, such situations do prompt the very best among us to rise to the occasion and to do the right thing.
I want to recognize the Quaker Church for not only doing the right thing but doing it in a politically smart and effective manner.
The Quakers have argued that a ban on gay marriage violates their freedom of religion to marry those who belong to their church.
This is a morally just argument and a politically sound one.
In politics, you always attack your opponent’s strategy, and the Quakers attacked the notion that it is someone’s religious freedom to take away another person’s rights.
Three cheers for the Quaker Church. I am glad someone is reading their Bible.
What an excellent point, Sam, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. And Kudos to the Quakers.
Brilliant!
My home town was founded by Quakers in 1653. They are the first, to my knowledge, to free black people in bondage. Although segragated, (living across the Indian trail) they were free from bondage to pursue what ever means of survival and sustanance close at hand.
Three cheers for them for many years.
Teak: Not to burst your bubble, but if you go far enough back in history you’ll see that Quakers dominated the early slave trade. After they got wealthy they decided to work for abolition of slavery. This was especially true in England.
AMAZING GRACE? Written by a Quaker slave trader. He saw the light after his fortune was made.
Uh, no. John Newton (the writer of “Amazing Grace”) was an Anglican, not a Quaker.
He adopted Evangelical Christianity (not a specific denomination, but rather a style of Christianity which was in line with many Protestant denominations) in 1748 and would become a full priest in the Church of England in the 1760s.
JozefAL, Thank you . I had known this as well.
Be well.
…got to love this site.
had not..(type much Teak?)
No big Tek, Thanks for the info.
California is a very diverse, melting pot state with its large immigrant population who tend to be very conservative in values and concentrate in Southern California and the more liberal Northern California with its vineyards, ex-hippies and leftist radicals. That creates a volatile mix when it comes to social engineering as in the case of trying to get gay marriage legalized. I moved here from the Midwest and thought at first that I had landed in a totally different country.
You did.
But our country isn’t much of a melting pot anymore - that’s why it seemed like a foreign country to you. When it was predominately European immigrants during most of our history, we were a melting pot. They adopted a lot of the American culture, and the American culture grew to incorporate part of their culture. Now it’s mostly non-European immigrants, and they seem to want to keep their own culture almost totally, and not assimilate - often even past the first and second generations.
I honestly do not know why the religious people or some straight people are so upset about this issue. What do they think will happen? That more people will want to have weddings and the churches will be overwhelmed? That once-straight people will see that gay people will marry that this will turn a straight person gay or cause them to want to have a gay wedding? That maybe gay people’s marriages might last longer than straight peoples’ marriages do? That God will punish straight people for allowing gay marriages? Because if God did not want them to get married God either he should not have created gay people or God can do the punishing on his or her own, since “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” I believe there was similar fear when blacks and whites wanted to marry, and I do not see how the world or religions are worse off for condoning this.
Rich
Rich: I think you got it when you said people believe God will punish them for letting gay people marry. It says a lot about the Christian god–if he would punish innocent people for what he says is a sin in others, but the Bible is full of those stories.
This idea is one of the most potent weapons in the Pat Robertson arsenal. During Bush’s reign, the religious right wanted to put everyone else in concentration camps or drive us from the country because the wingnut preachers had them all convinced 9/11 was because EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA was not a Christian. Bizzare.
I still say, fight for legal civil unions, have a marriage ceremony in your church. If the Christian church won’t do it, go over to you local neighborhood Unitarian church or the Church of Christ–Barry Lynn’s denomination.
From a pragmatic point of view - we Californians could use the income from more weddings right now. It is a sizeable industry with no downside.
Plus married couples pay at a higher income tax rate than 2 singles filing separately.
For me, this gay marriage thing is win across the board.
1. We maintain the integrity of our constitution by eliminating a form of discrimination.
2. Gay married folks pay a higher income tax rate than do single filing separately thereby helping to balance government budgets.
3. The love that gay couples express to each other strengthens our community and builds families. My hope is that many gay couples will express their love by raising children and through their love for their children further strengthen our nation.
What a lovely comment, Sam.
You’re a cool guy, Sam.
Somewhat related to your post, I’ve always heard people talk about how gay men are so promiscuous and never settle down. These same people never stop to think that, to whatever extent this might have some truth, that not being able to marry might have something to do with it. The more society recognizes and validates their relationships, the more likely it is that many gay guys will settle down in a relationship.
It’s quite a catch-22 when society faults a group for not settling down, when that same society doesn’t allow any recognition of that settling down!
Gay men are promiscuous? At least they don’t produce children with no fathers like the promiscuous heterosexual population.
Very thoughtful comments, Sam!
Plus married couples pay at a higher income tax rate than 2 singles filing separately
Huh? It certainly doesn’t look that way to me when I look at the tax tables.
Granted, I use the 1040EZ form when filing my tax return, but the tables are the same regardless of which form is used.
The tax brackets for 2008 were 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%.
For “single”, the ranges for those brackets were $0-8025, $8025-32550, $32550-78850, $78850-164550, $164550-357700, and $357700+.
For “married filing jointly”, the bracket ranges were $0-16050, $16050-65100, $65100-131450, $131450-200300, $200300-357700, and $357700+. (Note the bottom two brackets are exactly double the “single” filer rates, but until reaching the top bracket, “married, joint” filers can earn more money than their “single” counterparts and not be penalized.)
For “married filing separately”, the brackets were $0-8025, $8025-32550, $32550-65725, $65725-100150, $100150-178850, and $178500+. (Note here that the “married, separately” filer rates are exactly half the “married, joint” rates. The two lower brackets are identical to the “single” rates and only start showing a disparity in the higher rates, but, again, this is something that MARRIED couples get to choose from. Obviously if each person has a separate income, the couple can look at the overall tax rates and see which is more beneficial to them. A couple in which one person makes $45000 a year and the other makes $25000 a year would probably find the “married, separately” a better deal from a financial viewpoint than “married, jointly” as the separate incomes will be in the 25% and 15% brackets respectively, while their combined income would be taxed in the 25% bracket. More astounding would be if the couple had an even greater disparity in income–say, $150000 and $50000. In this case, separate returns would be taxed at a 33% and 25% rate, respectively, the combined income of $200000 would be taxed at the 28% rate.)
For “head of household” filers, the rates were $0-11450, $11450-43650, $43650-112650, $112650-182400, $182400-357700, and $357700+. (Sexual orientation doesn’t matter; only marital status does. This filing status is reserved for unmarried people who have IRS-designated dependents. A single gay man or lesbian who’s raising a child can qualify just as a widowed heterosexual man or divorced heterosexual woman.)
So, I don’t get how you arrived at that comment.
Actually, you made the point in your calculations. As you note there are cases where filing as married filing jointly or as head of house pays more tax than filing as married filing separately or as separate individuals.
This is what is known as the marriage tax that hits couples where both members work in and outside the home.
The problem in your analysis is that it isn’t as ease to switch among the different ways of filing as you suggest. Believe me, if I had a choice, I wouldn’t be filing as married filing jointly.
wow..thats beautiful………
California needs to be divided into 4 states:
North Cali
SOuth Cali
East Cali
West Cali
ENd of debate
Don’t you dare divide up my country, California. I love all the parts. BTW - everyone thinks of San Fran as the quintessential Northern Cal but there is a heck of a lot further north of them - Mount Shasta etc.
It’s a big state and it’s beautiful.
I would wish we could divide the country into the Northeast, West and the USA. But wishing would require hope. We just passed a climate bill that nobody including the chairman has read. That means lobbyists wrote it and our “representatives” just did what they are paid to do. Here we are, worrying if men can marry men and women can marry women in California just months after it was voted on by the people… again as Arnold fiddles and California is going broke. Brilliant.
Yeah–rather like the last refuge of scoundrels…Patriot act. Brilliant
There should be a law that they have to read what they sign - no snark, I’m serious. I’m thoroughly disgusted with this not reading crap.
All of us are held responsible for what we sign - whether it be credit card rates or loan rules or even how much we have to pay if we return a library book late.
If they don’t have to read what they sign, we should start being able to say “It doesn’t matter that I signed it, I didn’t read the fine print, so you can’t hold me accountable”.
Docelder: don’t worry about it. By 2016, the entire U.S. will be Mexico North. They have calculated the year they will become the majority in this country.
Can’t we at least separate from LA? lol
I’d like to say here and now, Democrats need to look at their own skeletons in their closet.
What happened in Cali was do to the overwhelming Obama supporters that turned out to vote for him and vote for Prop 8, periiod and they better deal with that reality, Perez and Sean.
I have dear Republican friends that have the same position as me. Of course there should be marriage by all loving partners, gay or straight. After all, it is the belief of committing to each other and loving that we are talking about.
It seems to be a certain group of Democrats that are being hypocritical and bigoted of a certain group that feel threatened for some strange reason.
So take that you holier than thou lefties and deal with your problems if you want this fixed.
But I don’t think they get it. Look at all the outcry about that beauty contestant who said she didn’t believe in gay marriage - what she said was no different than what Obama believes. But that Perez guy and others all jumped on her, and said nothing about Obama. Do they just not get it? Or are they just so used to jumping on “the other side” - in other words, it’s just about dem vs. repub, and not REALLY about the principle? Because if it were about the principle (allowing all to marry), then they should be calling out Obama. So I agree with what you’re saying, but it all makes no sense - are they that hypocritical or that clueless? Either one is unbelievable…
I’d say hypocritical. And yes, I believe, considering the media and H’wood support, was to take advantage hammering another Repub.
They have the tv spotlight.
Sorry, the entire argument that gays don’t have equal rights to marry is a joke. First of all, marriage is not a “right.” Second, persons who identify themselves as gay do indeed have a “right” to marriage, in that they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. All persons of legal age have this “right” to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman, so persons of the same sex can’t be married by definition. And the state has no interest in sanctioning a sexual union between classes of individuals who cannot procreate. Indeed, marriage came into existence on the basis of procreation, and the state’s interest is in the public good that heterosexual couples produce, namely children. Persons of the same sex cannot procreate. Period.
Now notice the argument is a “class” of dyadic relations. It is true that not all heterosexual couples can or want to produce children, but the rare exception does not negate the rule. The rule is that the great majority of heterosexual couples can procreate. For the small percentage that cannot, society has developed a functional alternative called adoption.
On the other hand, the class of diadic relations involving persons of the same sex–two men or two women–can never procreate, so the state has no interest in these relationships. I mean, does the state have an interest in my relationship with my best male buddy? (I’m a guy.) No? Why not? Think about it. Also, if you start from 0% of this class of dyadic relations able to procreate, extending adoption to this class of couples who entail a special benefit, since they sit at 0% procreation. There is no functional alternative for x when x starts at 0% and can never get higher.
People who advocate for marriage either does not know the evolution of human history, or they choose not to confront it. For eons beginning with the primitive savage horde, there was no marriage or family to speak of. The human species was trapped in a war of all against all where men fought viciously and sometimes to the death against other men to gain access to women for purposes of sexual intercourse. Once gaining this access, men did not hang around, and so they could not be counted on for help or support. This is wht the earliest human societies were matriarchal, as women banded together in mutual support against the sexual aggressiveness of men. The idea of a committed man or father only arose through the cultural innovation known as the norm of legitimacy. It is easy to connect a child to a mother since she gives birth, but not necessarily to a father. If there are no negative consequences for men to seek out women to impregnate and then disappear, you will never arive at the concept of marriage. But if children are punished–you know, the b-word–because they cannot be connected to a father, and if a father stands to pass on inheritance to his children, then he’s got a lot invested in ensuring that those children are actually biologically his. A whole new cultural apparatus emerged around this new idea that men as fathers should be accountable to the children they sire, and marriage became a public and political spectacle to proclaim, publicly, that this man and this woman are sanctioned to live together and raise children. Marriage has always been connected to two vital functions of the human species: the order reproduction of the species, and the socialization of children. Marriage makes sense functionally only in relation to procreation. Without its possibility, marriage has no meaning, and the state is agnostic toward these kinds of relations (again, talking in terms of classes of such relations).
Anyway, think about this stuff. The gay marriage argument is wacky in the context of human evolution.
I’m not even going to bother responding to most of this - it’s pretty archaic reasoning. But I will continue your logic - sex exists for the production of children, so we should pass a law banning sex which isn’t meant to create a child.
But don’t worry - sex won’t be taken away from you - you’ll have the same right as anyone else to have sex - only you have to produce a child every time.
Lorac, your argument is disingenuous. Just because some heterosexual couples either cannot or choose not to procreate does not negate the overwhelming reality that only heterosexuals can procreate. Your argument is not logical or reasonable. And sure, people can have sex outside marriage. So what? Studies clearly show that many heterosexual couples who are having sex, eventually decide to marry to raise a family, that is, to bring children into the world.
I believe that your argument is disingenuous. You can keep saying that people have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but you are distorting the equation to favor your point of view.
People want to marry the person they love - for some, that person is the opposite gender, and for some, that person is of the same gender.
People do not have a equal right to marry the person they love.
We don’t need a lot more kids. G*d said, “Go forth and multiply.” Well, we did and then some.
give it up gianni; one of your buddies here claims that gays regularly insult straights as “breeders,” and now you’re claiming “breeder privilege” for straights. make up your mind.
pass law banning sex which isn’t meant to create a child. But then again, it is caled abortion.
Good luck enforcing that one.
“And the state has no interest in sanctioning a sexual union between classes of individuals who cannot procreate. ”
Gianni, I think your premise in wrong. The state has an interest in all its citizens fulfilling their potential. Committed loving relationships help citizens to fulfill their potential to contribute to society.
My doctor is lesbian. She has a child with her partner (adopted or biological, I don’t know.) Without her lover grounding her life, she may never have become a doctor, or she might not be as good a doctor. We don’t want her running around singles bars every night getting drunk looking for some pussy and losing her medical license.
Her lesbian relationship serves the public interest. It makes her a more productive citizen. Promoting stable relationships like hers is one of the functions of marriage, apart from procreation — that’s why the state doesn’t annul childless marriages.
Why do you think we want gay marriage in the first place? To fix some of the dysfunctional promiscuity that comes from the closet. You can have gay marriage or you can have crystal meth orgies. The public interest is obvious.
By the way, the public does have an interest in your friendships with your male buddies. We don’t want our citizens turning into alienated nuts who walk into McDonald’s with a machine gun. That’s why the state funds baseball stadiums and parks — so we can hang out with our buddies.
But as I said below, these legal arguments are secondary. When we come out of the closet everywhere, Americans won’t care enough about gay marriage to even launch a campaign like Prop 8.
So those who marry and don’t have kids are breaking the law?
The blazing cowpies does it say on my marriage certificate that I MUST procreate??
—-
What ever happened to the notion of LOVE?
Lighten up on your stranglehold on poor ol’ King James!!
Imagine if as much attention was given to marriages that fail, and the deadbeat parents who abandon their duty and their support.
…half of our federal legislative body would be behind bars…
yawn.
‘We the People’ have the right to amend the constitution. That’s part of the checks and balances. But it takes a huge movement to pass an amendment. There is no national movement to ban people named Lisa. Unfortunate Fact: there is a national movement to ban gay marriage. Unfortunate Fact: 29 states have constitional bans on gay marriage. Fact!
I’d give gays marriage tomorrow if I could. What is the point of repeating arguments that have failed? Going to the courts before people were ready blew up in our faces. We need to change people’s minds.
What did Harvey Milk say? “The vote for us 4-1 when they know one of us?” Come out in Texas. Come out in Utah. That should be our #1 priority.
Why are we pouring millions into California when this is still happening?
Everyone in the Bible Belt has a close relative who is gay — they just don’t know it. When they find out, this can happen. We need to support kids like this young superhero in Oklahoma with everything we’ve got. We need millions more like him. He’ll get us gay equality long before Perez Hilton or the courts ever will.
The recent history of banning same sex marriage in California is gaining ground. Twice it has been voted NO, twice it will be overturned.
The Initiative process in California is FUBAR.
I would like see a law that all money in support or against is funding a proposition come from with in the state.
Great point, Teak!
Gianni
I am so glad to hear someone articulate the inherent importance of biology and the natural ability to procreate that is the foundation of the institution of marriage.
I am in California and voted for Proposition 8 because I am very concerned about the “social engineering” impact that gay marriage will have and the risks of the following negative effects on society: 1. It will encourage even greater numbers of gay partners to seek out sperm banks or surrogate mothers to have children knowing that those children will never know either their mother or their father depending on whether they are raised by a lesbian couple or by two gay men. I know that heterosexual couples do this as well but it is usually restricted to those cases where they are not able to have children biologically and the child, even though not biologically related to one parent, is usually brought up in a home with a female mother and male father.
Raising children in a home without a mother or father has not resulted in such great outcomes for kids in this society and I do believe that even if being gay is essentially determined by genetics, that children do develop a better sense of gender identity when raised with a male and female parent. Young men learn to be good husbands and fathers by watching their dads and girls learn how to be good wives and mothers from watching their mothers. I also believe that young girls and boys both learn to value good male and female personality traits through their relationship with the opposite sex parent. This helps them later when seeking out a mate for themselves.
I am not anti-gay. I am not one to believe that gays should “stay in the closet” and I do believe they have the same rights as anyone else not to be discriminated against in housing, jobs, etc. However, I don’t believe they have the right to redefine marriage and to so radically change the fundamental building block of society–the two parent family raising biological children. Just because we now have the reproductive technology that allows gay couples to “have” children through sperm donors and surrogates, doesn’t mean we should accept it as a first choice viable option for any gay couple wanting to “create” a family. Yes, single parenting situations are quite common today but they have had a serious, adverse effect on society and they should not be the starting “first choice” for raising children. The gay couples perceived “right” to “have” children, in my mind, does not override the right of every child to be born into and to be raised by their heterosexual, biological parents.
I know that many of you will say–”But there is research showing that children raised in gay families shows that they are not different.” But, if you really look at the research, there are no well designed studies that look at the long term effects on children and the studies that were conducted compared children raised in lesbian or gay male families with other children raised by single mothers or single fathers. We already know that children raised in single families don’t do as well as those raised in heterosexual two parent families on a host of measures so that is not a good control group for comparison.
I know this website is heavily pro-gay marriage and those who hold the more conservative views like Gianni and myself are in the minority here but I am asking you, just for a moment, to put aside your fervent push for your rights to be “married” and your rights to “have children” and think. For those of you who were raised by your biological parents and who have good memories of that relationship, wouldn’t you have wanted to stay with them? Doesn’t every child have the right to at least start with the premise that their biological parents are the starting point?
Restricted? I have not heard of anyone being restricted from sperm donors, etc. How do OctoMom’s of the world fit into your theory?
I know people raised in dysfunctional traditional families that are totally screwed up; and the reverse can be true with single parent families. Children want to be in homes where they are loved and nurtured. That’s the most important thing. If Gays & Lesbians want to have loving families and celebrate their commitments with a marriage, why shouldn’t they? Who are we to take away their rights to the same lifestyle that we choose for ourselves? I’m a fairly religious person myself, but I have never understood this fear of same-sex marriage. It isn’t going to affect my family life.
And what does this mean:
Are kids in danger of being taken away from their biological parents or something? No offense, Marie, but I don’t get your post at all.
I am a step-dad of three … I took on that responsibility in part because the earned respect and love of children is pricless.
Marie, repesctfully, since you feel you’re in the minority; Sperm and parenting have nothing to do with each other. Bioloical is a navy term for whales and a human term for ??
I agree with socalannie, it matters not how Oliver Twist came to be. Just that he was brought into a loving family.
Personally, as a man, I abhor other males that can not take responsibilty for the lives they bring into this world.
Still relize, that on the whole you are not in the minority. BO sat in a church for 20 years and who pastor railed against gays. His own church music director was murdered execution style… You think BO as POTUS would keep that investigation alive, but not a peep.
How’s the Granddaughter Teak?
She says “Dab dab dab” and nana nana” and LOVES to play!!
Thanks for askin.
Awww. They’re so precious at that age. Lucky Teak!
TeakwoodKite
I respectfully disagree about the importance of the biological connection. There was a time that I would have agreed with you but I have two adopted children and one natural born. I love them all equally and am thrilled to have them in my life. I am giving them a wonderful life but over the years, I’ve heard so many stories of adopted children who found their bio parent or parents and instantly had a sense of belonging they hadn’t quite felt before even though they may have had a wonderful, loving relationship with their adoptive parents. I don’t feel insulted by this fact. I do believe that the very best situation for my two adopted children would have been for them to start life in a family of loving bio parents with bio siblings. Since both of my adoptive children came from orphanages, that wasn’t possible, so I am giving them the next best thing which is an intact adoptive family with a loving female mother and male father. It is two separate but related issues–children having the opportunity to be raised by bio parent, if possible, and to be raised by a male father and female mother, if possible. If those two things are not possible, and the child of a previous marriage or relationship is with a bio parent who enters into a gay relationship then it is the “third best thing”. I’m not trying to disparage gays, I’m just saying that children need bio parents and a male and female parent. For instance, I would never have advised my adoptive children’s bio parents to have them just so they could give them to me. I’m thrilled and honored to have them but that wouldn’t have been fair to them to do that. I know this is complex but I really think people need to stop being so worried about their own rights and start thinking of the to-be-brought-into-this-world child’s rights and what is best for them.
I understand Marie what you say about a biological connection in that Kirlian energy is a connective tissue and as an example, a buddy of mine is adopted and is a talented artist.
At age 21 he was found by his bio mom…turns out the bio dad was an artist and taught it at University.
start thinking of the to-be-brought-into-this-world child’s rights and what is best for them.
While I personally I am dealing with a situtation that comes under the heading of what is best for the child, I would never wish to dictate what is best for an “unborn Child”.
Having two daughters, I have raised them to understand it is thier body, no one else can tell them what it is they should do.
Be well.
Socalannie
When I said “restricted”, it was a poor choice of words. I only meant that heterosexual couples rarely, if ever, resort to reproductive technology to get pregnant unless they they realize they are unable to get pregnant without it. Actually, Octomoms fit into my theory quite well. Just because something is legal and technically possible–as is the octomom scenario–doesn’t mean it is a good thing. Society is not well served by having single women having babies like Octomom. Children from intact, two parent families do better in a wide range of metrics including grades, relationships with peers, income over their lifetime, criminal behavior, and much more. Just because single moms are common, doesn’t mean it should be encouraged and held up as a good thing. I also know people raised in heterosexual, two parent dysfunctional families but that doesn’t mean it is ok to change societal norms to encourage more children to be raised without a mother or without a father. Apparently, there are more single parent family situations that are “dysfunctional” than two parent heterosexual parent families or the data in favor of the latter wouldn’t be so strong.
You said:
You’re right, you missed my point. My point is that most people, if given the choice, would prefer to be raised by a loving biological mother and father. Yes, things go wrong sometimes and that isn’t possible and that is why we have single mothers and adoption but that doesn’t mean we should modify our societal institutions to ensure that a great many more children are deliberately brought into this world to be raised by non-biological parents and deprived of a relationship with a father or a mother due to having two parents of the same sex.
You better get your society to ban heterosexual divorce first before muttering about same-sex parents “depriving” their kids of anything.
KC
This is the same old tired argument that because there is a negative event occurring in society (heterosexual divorce) then we should just throw in the towel and ignore the ideal which is to set societal norms so to encourage having children raised in two parent, biological, heterosexual families. It’s true that this situation isn’t always possible but, it is the best situation for a child to be brought into and every child should have the right to make that their starting point. Remember, it should be about the kids–not the parents. We have become so “my rights are paramount” oriented that we forget the children’s rights.
And how exactly does one “mutter” using text?
I believe that any person, who was raised by two loving mothers, or two loving fathers, would never want anything different.
You, I presume, have had two loving parents, one female, one male. Would you throw one of them overboard if you found out they weren’t really your biological parent? So why would a kid raised in a loving gay home throw out one or both of her/his parents, the only parents they have known, the people who have cared for them their whole life, in order to bring in a “parent” of the opposite sex?
Our parents are the people who raise us, who provide for us, who encourage us to succeed, who pick us up when we fall, who teach us our values, who teach us how to become the best we can be. We become strongly attached to our children, and they to us. Kids wouldn’t be dumping someone they love in order to get a stranger/surrogate parent of the opposite gender.
They’ve done a lot of interviews with kids raised by gay parents, and those kids would never do that. They don’t feel incomplete or denied at all.
And it’s certainly not necessary to have opposite gendered parents so that kids can see how girls and boys are “supposed” to behave. First of all, a huge number of families are headed by a single parent. Secondly, there are always “role models” in the family or the neighborhood or the school. Thirdly, I suspect this boils down to a desire to keep gender roles very mutually exclusive - when in reality, women and men are far more similar than they are different. Pictured as a Venn diagragm, two overlapping circles, women and men are mostly overlapped.
Marie, if you and gianni and your like think that YOU are model parents and gay people are not, you need to seriously get your ego under control. many of us DO NOT WANT more gay-haters in the world, so please do us a favor a do not reproduce.
i might add that many of us do not see rigid gender roles as a good thing, and the values that children need to be taught do not depend on what is between the parents legs. i’m sorry that you are so obsessed with “proper” gender roles.
You are making the opposing argument a lot more harshly than they ever did. Now can you see why some see this whole movement as a candy coated attack on the traditional family unit?
With 50% of the hetero marriages breaking up, I wouldn’t tout them so much. Children who have horrendous, violent relationships with their parents want to remain with them. I believe that love between parents and between parents and children binds a family.
I will cite studies of children parented in gay families being as well cared for and happy as those in hetero families. I was reading recently about two gay men who had adopted a little boy and the story warmed my social worker (teacher, counselor, maternal) heart. There would be these adoptions as well that would remove these children from foster care.
In my research, I found the gay population was less than 10%, somewhere around 4% to 8%. How can this small a number of gays accomplish “social engineering”, whatever negativity that would foist on society.
I don’t understand how gay marriages threaten traditional ones. In fact, I might have liked two moms rather than a mother and a little involved in child rearing father that I had.
I can only shake my head at all the uproar. Jeez!
Since we have exchanged only our e-mail addresses and she’s not replying, I can’t get in touch with my gay friend whom I’ve known on another blog for over a year. She has been in a relationship for about 30 years and she and her partner would like to marry.
She said that the Miss California contestant’s answer could have been offered 60 years ago to continue discriminating against blacks; that is, “In my family I was taught that blacks don’t intermingle with whites, and don’t have the same rights as whites, and that society has these racial divisions. Other people may disagree, but that is what I believe.” In other words, I have been taught to discriminate against blacks (gays) and I’ll continue to do so.
Marie, may I suggest that you are using biology as an excuse to discriminate as none of your argument holds up to scrutiny?
Arran
I am not using biology as an “excuse” to discriminate against anyone. On the contrary, it is your argument that fails to hold up to scrutiny. It is the height of arrogance to assume that in the grand scheme of things, the sex of a parent is irrelevant when, since the beginning of mankind, parents have been male and female unless something went “wrong” with the bio parent-child relationship and other arrangements had to be made for the child’s best interest–but the ideal has always been and will always be, for a child to be raised by his or her natural, biological parents.
I understand that gays and lesbians chafe at that fact but the knee jerk arguments like “well you better outlaw divorce” and “you are just a bigot”, and “heterosexual relationships have a 50% divorce rate”, etc. are all red herrings.
BARF.
“I would like see a law that all money in support or against is funding a proposition come from with in the state.”
I think that law would hurt the gay rights movement. It would paralyze ACLU and Human Rights Campaign. They’ll never, ever reverse any of these other Red state bans without outside help.
I do think California’s constitutional amendment process is wrong. Prop 8 wouldn’t be possible in NY. To amend our constitution, the state legislature has to pass the amendment twice, then it goes to popular referendum. The state legislature wouldn’t pass an amendment reversing a law passed by the very same legislature.
But the time to challenge Prop 8 on procedure was before the vote. A state court reversing a constitutional amendment? No thanks, not even for gay rights. I think it would make life even more miserable for gays in the Bible Belt.
Did our team not challenge before because they were sure they were going to win? Then we need a new team.
Interesting point about the Red States, I definitely didn’t think of that. I know I read & heard that a lot of the Prop 8 $ for the weird commercials came from out of state. I agree with you about Cali’s const. amend. process.
Whoframedrudy, While I understand your point, is it not the will of the people of the “several states” that matters?
As expressed by their state house and executive branch or by proposition, the people of California voted, but the funds that opponents of prop 8 were heavily funded by out of state entities.
This is repeated in every state in many cases against the better interest of the people with in those states.
I also think the ACLU is corrupt and has been co-opted. My opinion. Current attitudes in California would have evolved but a certian element wants to force the issue and jumped the gun, politically.
I say this a person who thinks if two people gay or straight want to be “married” they can have at it as it does impact on my civil liberties.
Only 53% of Latinos voted for prop 8 so they are moving in the right direction. Blacks, however, were oppressed for so long and treated like second class citizens so how can they do the same to gays by a 70+% margin? What about gay black people? How does the black community view them?
Many black gay men indulge in gay sex on the down low because of the prevailing negative black attitude toward gays promoted by many black religious ministries.
Oh please. You’re blaming the church for promiscuity? That is just being trashy and having no values. You don’t have to go to church to have values and morals.
Gay marriage is going to be legal in more states but I seriously doubt it will ever be legal nationwide in all 50. Like affirmative action, gay marriage will not make us all equal. Living your life right, being a good, honest, responsible person who takes care of theirself and then helps others is what counts. Having values…most straight people do not give a rats ass about someone being gay. They may not approve but beyond that, they could care less.
I don’t personally care one way or the other about marriage between anyone. I think it’s a big “to do” about a piece of paper. If you love someone and want legal rights, fine, you should apply to get them and they should be granted. But a marriage certificate sure isn’t going to keep your union together. I think it’s an overrated misconception
Instead of beating this issue to death maybe they should make all unions civil unions including straight people and just do away w the “marriage” thing…just an idea. What many people call a “marriage” is a friggin’ joke.
I concur.
it’s a misconception and a strawman. who ever said that?
wodiej. I thought in this instance that wodiej was correct.
I think the relation of a state-sanctioned union and gays is about more than a piece of paper - at least at this point. That piece of paper would be the beginning of societal recognition of gays’ lives, loves, commitments, families. And that societal recognition would have great reverberations - gays no longer internalizing negative societal stereotypes, gays’ families being supported as just another neighbor on the block, the emergence of open, healthy role models for gay youth (and also for those who might otherwise grow up into gay bashers).
Heterosexual one woman/one man relationships are the most recent form of marriage. Many straights think that the marriage license is nothing more than paper. I think it could be said that this is a “luxury” viewpoint. Maybe one day gays will feel that way, too - once society accepts, encourages, and supports gay unions as much as it does straight unions.
It’s not the paper - but the paper is the first step to what *is* important - societal acceptance of gays and their unions and families. IMHO.
I understand your point and it will no doubt make some more accepting and tolerant. But a piece of paper has nothing to do w how someone lives their life. Either someone wants to live a life of value, respect and responsibility or they don’t. I don’t care if someone is married or not. Like I said, most of the straight people I know don’t care if someone is gay or not. They care if someone lives a decent life. The people who think a person needs to be married to be worthy are not worthy of my time.
This was a concentrated effort by the religious right. It’s possible that in a very liberal state like CA, there can be a backlash where people turn to conservatism. Not all of California is liberal, either. San Diego comes to mind, the Imperial Valley, and the mountainous areas, also Orange County are all Republican. That’s a lot of people.
Perhaps the Hollywood stars overplayed their hands trying to dictate to everyone in the country how things are going to be. Who knows?
The only answer to all this propaganda in America is for Americans to get educated well enough to think critically. With the population exploding with uneducated, ignorant people that prospect seems more unlikely everyday. Maybe that’s why the federal government wants millions of uneducated people coming in here.
No matter how ignorant and conservative some Californians are, marriage for all is the future. As more gay people live openly, accumulate wealth and power, they will assert their rights as equal in this society. That is a truth. No religious or philosophical objections can stand up to this reality.
I agree, KC; it’s just a matter of time. People can only be denied equal rights for so long. I don’t know, however, whether the California Supreme Court can be relied on to do the right thing.
Ha! the Ca supremes? What a joke. Don X, “doing the right thing” in California depends on your point of view and who is the recipient of it.
Keep in mind that the case before the supremes has nothing to do with gay rights. It is an arguement about how the California Constitution can be amended. It does not matter if I am for or against “Gay Marrage”, that is not the issue.
The State Supreme court has a bad habit of over turning “the will of the people” as expressed via the proposition.
I do agree that if two humans want to live in the spirtual state of “matrimony” …let ‘em. I do not want to witness another human be denied visitation in a hospital when their loved one is dying or not have communal property rights etc.
i support civil rights for all, however i remind many that their rights ends where my nose begins. this is not meant for any blogger here. i just remember that sometimes foks get carried away with their support for different causes. and the point being made by others that different groups go overboard in pushing their rights in our faces is appropriate. by the way i support gay marriage. all this hoopla all the time about this right and then that right while the typical american gets shoved to the side says big time backlash to me. it is worth pondering.
Like a hemarroid hangin’ out on the west coast.
i have always felt that the gay members of our society should have equal rights including marriage. however, the right of free speech is also included for those who don’t agree. that is their right. when i see the other side whether on the side of the angels or whatever take on themselves to castigate, insult and call names of those who don’t agree then i hang my head in shame not only for the wrong done to the original offended party but to those who dared to disagree. two wrongs don’t make a right. some might feel very superior and self righteous, but i want to point out the same thing i pointed out to many on the far right in times past. that judging and insulting is just as great a “sin” as those you condemn. i fear for the future of my country with all this partisan self righteous bull. the far left and the far right have more in common in their attitudes than they would like to belive in their self imposed grandiosity.
sure, anti-gay marriage folks have the right to voice their opinions; they do not have the right to demand that all who disagree with them remain silent in the the face of their comments. it’s pretty simple.
however, i do think that the pro-gay marriage people should always take the high road and be polite and respectful while presenting their opinions.
Then we might be getting somewhere!
I agree w stodgie.
I support gay marriage so I hope the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8. The people of California will vote again and they will vote to support marriage rights. Forcing this on people who don’t want it, when in a couple of years the people will vote for it anyway,is counter-productive and will make people angry at the court and less likely to support marriage rights. Come to New England and get married! We welcome you, we respect you, we will honor you! Screw the haters!
human rights for all..
Maybe there will be a higher success rate(more than 50%) in marriages between same sex partners than heterosexual couples; perhaps there is a concern that generates a fear over this combined with a volume of non-married couples having many, many non-supported children which has caused severe problems regarding the “structure” of marriage and parenting… to the tune of millions of tax dollars being spent to hunt down deadbeat parents. We already have the marriage front not doing so well on its own. I imagine it would be stroke material for anyone delving in strict biblical interpretation if same sex marriage succeeded. Kind of like women voting, dontcha know.
i believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
homosexuality is wrong
anal sex is wrong
________________
certain parts go togeather other parts dont…i believe in nature