Prop 8 upheld: Seriously California, I expected better from you.

[Mister_Prophet]

Because, while marriage has an obvious place in legal terminology, that's not the only place it has meaning. The word game has been in place longer than any of us have been alive. On that basis, shouldn't there be an option for an alternative anyway?

EDIT: This was in response to Poker's.

I say again: either gay marriage should be recognized as legal nation-wide, or the legal benefits of marriage should be removed. Either confer the same rights on everyone, or remove those rights from everyone.

And it's not that simple. It's not something you can just glaze over. It's a nice sentiment, for sure. In a perfect world, it would be ideal. But it has no basis for application in reality. You can keep citing reform in racial equality, like the civil rights movement. You can bring up women's suffrage. You can do this all you want. But you cannot make an accurate correlation between that and what's happening now.

 

[Kaligraphic]

I think part of the problem is that we spend too much time thinking about homosexuality and to little time thinking about the proper role of the State in regards to marriage. Now, philosophically speaking, what is a marriage? It is a particular relationship between individuals, traditionally involving commitment, cohabitation, and sexual relations. This relationship does not require the approval or consent of the State to be created or destroyed. People can live as married without the recognition of the State for their marriage, and they can live as divorced without going through the legal procedures for a divorce.

What legal marriage does is it creates a legal recognition of the relationship that already exists or is to be created. In terms the technical people will understand, it creates a logical representation of the physical reality. As law is a purely logical construct, this essentially results in the creation of a new legal entity encompassing all (both) parties to the marriage. In a sense, it is similar to the creation of a general partnership in business.

Viewed in such terms, one may conclude that any person who can legitimately be party to a contract should be able to be legitimately party to a marriage - or at least, to the legal representation of a marriage. Moral judgments as to who should be able to marry are not properly the domain of civil government. Rather, the government's role as recorder of marriages simply stems from its position as a central and relatively reliable maintainer of records.

As to variations not commonly recorded in California - say, gay marriages, or polygamous marriages - the government has no need to restrict such forms. If two men marry, there is no great harm to society in recognizing that fact. If an old-school Mormon or an inner-city playa wishes to record multiple wives, there is no great harm to society in recognizing the nature of their relationship. Indeed, it is better to recognize, and grant the associated legal protections to those involves, than to deny recognition of the reality of the situation. Public policy must deal with reality in order to be of any benefit - there is no virtue in refusing to see reality.

While it is true that there are many who do not wish marriages outside of the "one man, one woman" form to exist, the fact is that they do exist. Denying legal recognition will not make them go away. Still, whether viewed as a matter of religion or of personal conscience, it would be both harmful and impolitic to force churches, ministers, celebrants, or what have you to perform marriage ceremonies for those whom they do not wish. Just as one church has the right to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, another church has the right to refuse.

The solution to the dilemma, therefore, is this: The government should recognize all marriages involving those old enough to enter into such contracts, but no priest, minister, celebrant, or other officiant of marriage should be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony that they, for any reason, do not wish to perform. Those who do wish, however, should not be prohibited.


Those who are pro gay marriage can have it, those who are anti gay marriage don't have it shoved down their throats - everybody should be happy, right? (lol)

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

meanwhile...

 

[Kazimira]

I think part of the problem is that we spend too much time thinking about homosexuality and to little time thinking about the proper role of the State in regards to marriage. Now, philosophically speaking, what is a marriage? It is a particular relationship between individuals, traditionally involving commitment, cohabitation, and sexual relations. This relationship does not require the approval or consent of the State to be created or destroyed. People can live as married without the recognition of the State for their marriage, and they can live as divorced without going through the legal procedures for a divorce.

What legal marriage does is it creates a legal recognition of the relationship that already exists or is to be created. In terms the technical people will understand, it creates a logical representation of the physical reality. As law is a purely logical construct, this essentially results in the creation of a new legal entity encompassing all (both) parties to the marriage. In a sense, it is similar to the creation of a general partnership in business.

Viewed in such terms, one may conclude that any person who can legitimately be party to a contract should be able to be legitimately party to a marriage - or at least, to the legal representation of a marriage. Moral judgments as to who should be able to marry are not properly the domain of civil government. Rather, the government's role as recorder of marriages simply stems from its position as a central and relatively reliable maintainer of records.

As to variations not commonly recorded in California - say, gay marriages, or polygamous marriages - the government has no need to restrict such forms. If two men marry, there is no great harm to society in recognizing that fact. If an old-school Mormon or an inner-city playa wishes to record multiple wives, there is no great harm to society in recognizing the nature of their relationship. Indeed, it is better to recognize, and grant the associated legal protections to those involves, than to deny recognition of the reality of the situation. Public policy must deal with reality in order to be of any benefit - there is no virtue in refusing to see reality.

While it is true that there are many who do not wish marriages outside of the "one man, one woman" form to exist, the fact is that they do exist. Denying legal recognition will not make them go away. Still, whether viewed as a matter of religion or of personal conscience, it would be both harmful and impolitic to force churches, ministers, celebrants, or what have you to perform marriage ceremonies for those whom they do not wish. Just as one church has the right to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, another church has the right to refuse.

The solution to the dilemma, therefore, is this: The government should recognize all marriages involving those old enough to enter into such contracts, but no priest, minister, celebrant, or other officiant of marriage should be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony that they, for any reason, do not wish to perform. Those who do wish, however, should not be prohibited.


Those who are pro gay marriage can have it, those who are anti gay marriage don't have it shoved down their throats - everybody should be happy, right? (lol)

Well I think your mostly right.

A cople of things I may have to say. Mormons dont have multiple wives its a split off church. Also on that subject multiple partners need to be regulated. The splitoff church has some od rules to the children of the multiple partnrs the guys have. They seem to think that the children of the diffrent mothers can marry even if the father is the same guy.It's enough to make most Mormons sick. In these cases something really needs to be odne to prevent that if posable. Also an imagrant can bring in thair famaly os whats stopping him bringing in multiple wives and haveing the leagal benifits of ten extra women livieng with him plus all thair children.

But I agree mostly with your post that it is a leagal contract and thats how it should be vewd if it isnt a church dealing with it. Then also churches can say what happens in marrages of thair own church.

 

[kiff]

Also on that subject multiple partners need to be regulated.

so what happened to the 14th amendment? anyone that argues the 14th should also support triads and polygamy.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

The solution to the dilemma, therefore, is this: The government should recognize all marriages involving those old enough to enter into such contracts, but no priest, minister, celebrant, or other officiant of marriage should be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony that they, for any reason, do not wish to perform. Those who do wish, however, should not be prohibited.


Those who are pro gay marriage can have it, those who are anti gay marriage don't have it shoved down their throats - everybody should be happy, right? (lol)

But that's the rub: it was already like this. There is not one case of government agents, local or federal, walking into a church and forcing that church to marry a gay couple. This is not about churches protecting themselves from governments forcing them to marry gays. This is specifically about denying people the right to get married, regardless of how it is done.

Again, civil unions and marriage are not equal. If they were, it would be impossible to distinguish between them to enforce things such as Prop 8. So the question obviously arises: What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

Is it process or ceremony? If so, then you now have laws denying people religious ceremonies and peaceful gatherings, which are not constitutional (US Constitution overrides California). Even aside from that, marriage itself has no standardized ceremony. You can go to a church and have a big traditional wedding, or you can go to a drive-thru in Vegas, or you can just waltz down to the courthouse and have some papers signed.

Is it quibbling over the word? If so, then you now have laws dictating usage of language, which is restricting free speech, which is not constitutional. This is equivalent to amending a state constitution to define parties as only amongst a certain Group X. Group Y is only allowed to have 'jubilant gatherings'.

The point is that, with this amendment to the constitution of the state of California, you now must enforce it. And to enforce it is to make laws regarding one of the above, which are on their face unconstitutional according to the superior US Constitution. In order to specifically deny gay people marriage in the Constitution of California, you have to have cops arresting people for having gay marriages -- at which point you have to clearly demonstrate the difference between a civil union and a marriage.

Do you see the point here? It is not possible to say they are equal while simultaneously enforcing a difference between them. And in any case, government has no place regulating either religious ceremony or language and speech -- it was specifically denied the ability to do so in the US Constitution.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

I think part of the problem is that we spend too much time thinking about homosexuality and to little time thinking about the proper role of the State in regards to marriage. Now, philosophically speaking, what is a marriage? It is a particular relationship between individuals, traditionally involving commitment, cohabitation, and sexual relations. This relationship does not require the approval or consent of the State to be created or destroyed. People can live as married without the recognition of the State for their marriage, and they can live as divorced without going through the legal procedures for a divorce.

What legal marriage does is it creates a legal recognition of the relationship that already exists or is to be created. In terms the technical people will understand, it creates a logical representation of the physical reality. As law is a purely logical construct, this essentially results in the creation of a new legal entity encompassing all (both) parties to the marriage. In a sense, it is similar to the creation of a general partnership in business.

Viewed in such terms, one may conclude that any person who can legitimately be party to a contract should be able to be legitimately party to a marriage - or at least, to the legal representation of a marriage. Moral judgments as to who should be able to marry are not properly the domain of civil government. Rather, the government's role as recorder of marriages simply stems from its position as a central and relatively reliable maintainer of records.

As to variations not commonly recorded in California - say, gay marriages, or polygamous marriages - the government has no need to restrict such forms. If two men marry, there is no great harm to society in recognizing that fact. If an old-school Mormon or an inner-city playa wishes to record multiple wives, there is no great harm to society in recognizing the nature of their relationship. Indeed, it is better to recognize, and grant the associated legal protections to those involves, than to deny recognition of the reality of the situation. Public policy must deal with reality in order to be of any benefit - there is no virtue in refusing to see reality.

While it is true that there are many who do not wish marriages outside of the "one man, one woman" form to exist, the fact is that they do exist. Denying legal recognition will not make them go away. Still, whether viewed as a matter of religion or of personal conscience, it would be both harmful and impolitic to force churches, ministers, celebrants, or what have you to perform marriage ceremonies for those whom they do not wish. Just as one church has the right to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, another church has the right to refuse.

The solution to the dilemma, therefore, is this: The government should recognize all marriages involving those old enough to enter into such contracts, but no priest, minister, celebrant, or other officiant of marriage should be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony that they, for any reason, do not wish to perform. Those who do wish, however, should not be prohibited.


Those who are pro gay marriage can have it, those who are anti gay marriage don't have it shoved down their throats - everybody should be happy, right? (lol)

:tup: This was basicly what I think minus the polygomy thing (I see a few legal issues their). But everybody got off on a oooo he called homosexuality a 'mental illness' tangent. Even if it is by deffinition except that they changed the deffinition back during the insanity of the everything has to be PC craze, and that means it's not because they arbitrarily redefined something due to 1 group of people who where uncomfortable with the term and another who was using it as a sort of license to be jerks.



Some research concludes that the behavior stems from psychological stimuli but there is research to suggest a genetic link or chemical imbalance in the brain also. I personally think it's probably a bit of both though one more likely being the result of the other. Our brain is a very powerful thing, it may be that if an individual undergoes a psychological change their brain sees it as a directive for change and tries to take corrective steps to realign physicly much like certain species of fish can go from male to female and back. We just don't have polymorphic genitalia. (I am glad of that, though I am sure some wish we did.)

My orrigonal statement however was basicly that I have heard the arguement made that because homosexuality is not a normal status for our species, (the exact referances used the term mental illness in there terminology and I have no problem with that term since by definition it fits fine), that the law could not validate it by creating a legal status of approval. I didn't say I agree with it or that I disagree with it. Not really sure what to think of it actually as it seems kinda off in many little ways.

Like it or not homosexuality is viewed as a mental illlness and the legal system is generally very hesitant to do anything that could be construed as validating the continuation of said mental illness. Though only a complete @$$hat would label a homosexual mentally ill. As that implies they need locked in rubber room by the common conception of mental illnesses.

That first sentance is was the premiss the rest I suppose should have been a seperate paragraph as it was my thoughts on it. I heard that on the local news, they were speaking to a california judge at the time. I couldn't find any links so I couldn't site it.
It's obvious that there is a dislike of that view here, but the majority of the world couldn't care less about how or why it was redefined. Sorry to break the bad news. When asked to explain what I meant I thought they were asking about what I was saying about the perceptive differances between having a mental illness and being mentaly ill.

What I am saying is that it is a fact that homosexuality is a mental illness, but a grossly missinterpreted 1. Just because you have a 'mental illness' doesn't make you insane or mentally unstable. As a majority of the worl often presumes. I for instance am an adreniline junkie and love dirt bikes. This is also considered a mental illness. Yes homosexuality is a mental illness and I have met many people that get irate over that. I have also met many people who try and use the misnomer about what a mental illness is as a arguement against gay marriages. I merely contend that the arguement is invalid because people don't understand the term 'mental illness' corectly.

I still contend that the redefinement was in error. The term mental illness needs some clarification homosexuality being reclassified. You can have a physical abnormality and still be a functional part of society, why should a mental abnormality be any different.

Now in my very first post I anticipated this reaction because everytime I post in one of these sort of threads the digital lynch mob gathers and passes out the tourches and pitch forks.

Time for the confligratory point of view.

So far in just about every thread I am amazed at what part of things people will latch onto (be it something I said or someone else). Metaphoricly waving a sign that says 'Open minds will save us', all the while bashing people over the heads with a club that has the words 'closemindedness was here' on it. Most befuddling of all, it's not consistant. To me it's the same attitudes.

We don't like the term mental illness. We'll reclassify for comfort. vs We don't like homosexuality, we'll reinterpret the law for our comfort.
Same stupidity different stupid people.

 

[togmkn]

The only reasonable explanation for people not wanting civil unions is that their goals lie somewhere beyond "getting marriage". If that's true, it's better that it stay the way it is.

What would those goals be?

I hear time and time again that it's unequal, but I've never heard of any specific examples of what bad might happen if we took the civil union route.

True, and I've never heard any valid arguments as to what bad things would happen if they were allowed to get married. The civil union route could lead to being separate and unequal, though. Congress could increase the tax breaks on married couples, but not those under a civil union.

So there's an example of something that could go wrong with civil unions. Well, that and the fact that allowing any degree of "separate but equal" policy is unacceptable.

I've heard a lot of anti-gay marriage people saying they don't want to "redefine" marriage, so I think I have a solution. Why don't states just view all couples as being under a civil union? That way religions could define who can be "married" and who can't, but the state has no business categorizing people like that. Everyone would still use the term "married," of course, since "civil unioned" doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Officially, though, the state would view everyone as being under a civil union, and marriage would simply be a religious matter.

I'm really wondering if anyone objects to that, as I (naively) think that it wraps up the problem.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

What would those goals be?

It doesn't really matter, frankly. If they have motives beyond what they are working for, there is no reason to change things. Some of the things they have done in states where same-sex marriage has been recognized is appalling to me, and, yes, that does concern me.

True, and I've never heard any valid arguments as to what bad things would happen if they were allowed to get married. The civil union route could lead to being separate and unequal, though. Congress could increase the tax breaks on married couples, but not those under a civil union.

So there's an example of something that could go wrong with civil unions. Well, that and the fact that allowing any degree of "separate but equal" policy is unacceptable.

This is as slippery slope as the people that say it opens the door to animal marriage or whatever.

The thing is, if the government offers some benefits to couples who can, theoretically, have children (as opposed to just adopting them), how is that a bad thing? Tax code, by design, is as discriminatory as any other product of the government (don't get me started on how "discriminating" things like welfare are).

No matter what happens, there will always be a difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions simply by nature of the fact that one involves two people of the same gender and the other involves people of different genders and what those people can PHYSICALLY do together.

 

[Angel_Mapper]

Then, like others have said, you'd have to ban marriage for women past menopause, and people otherwise infertile. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical and looking for whatever excuse you can find.

 

[TWD]

What would those goals be?

True, and I've never heard any valid arguments as to what bad things would happen if they were allowed to get married. The civil union route could lead to being separate and unequal, though. Congress could increase the tax breaks on married couples, but not those under a civil union.

Perhaps I should clarify my scenario a little bit more. Let's say that civil unions and civil unions only receive the legal privileges and so forth that we're talking about. Then if you so choose you can have a marriage on top of that. The only thing that happens when you are married is that the government acknowledges that you are married. The government cannot confer any privileges upon married couples, and hence they could not do something like tax married couples differently.

Now I bring this up because not only do I think it would be a good compromise, but I think it simplifies things down to the real core issue here. This is not about legal rights or anything about that. This is 100% about society putting it's seal of approval on your relationship by simply recognizing it. It doesn't have to treat you differently under the law or anything like that. What people want is simply for the government to acknowledge that they are married. This is why I think Kaligraphic's post is so insightful. He turns the government's roll in this matter to a simply matter of recording it and nothing more.

I am willing to concede that they are unequal if you want to look at it that way. I just don't think it really matters. It's unequal in the same way that a couple dating / living together is different from a couple that is married. They simply aren't the same thing. Similarly a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship have fundamental differences. I fail to see how the government acknowledging this difference is somehow a serious infringement upon your human rights. I don't think that simply having your relationship called a marriage by others is a human right.

So of course then there's the question "what is so bad about the government saying these are marriages". No offense but this is a stupid question. It's a stupid question because you know exactly why people such as myself think it would be a bad thing. I think it creates many of the same problems that the increase of sexual promiscuity has created over the past 30 years. It leads to less traditional families which I believe are absolutely essential to society's success. Such homes have the greatest chance of raising successful children. We're also forcing issues upon children that they simply aren't ready to handle yet. Now we have to have discussions about how these issues are handled in school. I just don't think that's a positive thing. It's just not the culture that I believe will lead to a successful society.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Then, like others have said, you'd have to ban marriage for women past menopause, and people otherwise infertile. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical and looking for whatever excuse you can find.

No, this is simply a strawman argument. Are you really going to sit there and say that even if it's a one in a hundred trillion chance, that a gay man could impregnate another gay man? It is literally impossible.

Frankly, what I was getting at in my last post, was that EVERY tax code is social engineering, so the government rewarding people for doing what they want them to do is not surprising even for things that DON'T relate to marriage.

And also frankly, I'm not saying it should be done one way or the other even if gay marriage started to be recognized. My point was two-fold: 1) IF they slid down the slippery slope you're suggesting, there wouldn't really be "equality issues" unless you mean to say that there is some heavy handed discrimination going on between single people and married people in tax benefit law, and 2) No matter what you say, there will always be at least one difference between same sex couples and hetero couples, and that is the chance, however miniscule, of a hetero couple impregnating, carrying and bearing a child that is genetically theirs. That will NEVER, EVER happen for same gendered couples, and you can't get around that with any amount of legislation.

(I should also note that my last post wasn't talking about restricting who can get married, but who gets certain tax benefits regardless of marital status)

 

[SlayerDragon]

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Say it again, Penn!

 

[SlayerDragon]

ok

 

[KaL976]

ok

^^QFT

edit // i can't leave it alone...

the only reason for opposing gay marriage is bigotry.
i don't have a problem with that that per se provided you're man enough to admit it.

 

[togmkn]

Some of the things they have done in states where same-sex marriage has been recognized is appalling to me, and, yes, that does concern me.

I haven't heard about any of these things, since Fox News isn't on my RSS feed BA-DUM TISH. What are some examples?

This is 100% about society putting it's seal of approval on your relationship by simply recognizing it.

I disagree with that; society can think what it wants to think, and while allowing civil unions would help, I believe this (should) be all about the government viewing gay and straight people the same. I think I agree with your first paragraph, I just don't see any reason for the government to acknowledge a marriage, as their only business is with the civil union.

No, this is simply a strawman argument. Are you really going to sit there and say that even if it's a one in a hundred trillion chance, that a gay man could impregnate another gay man? It is literally impossible.

No one said that a gay couple could get pregnant. You didn't respond to what Angel said: if we are giving tax breaks to couples that can get pregnant, why don't we revoke those breaks from infertile couples?

I see what you're getting at, I just think that it's a stupid practice. You believe (and correct me if I'm wrong here,) that straight, married couples should get tax breaks because they have the potential to PERPETUATE THE MASTER RACE reproduce. However, we already give tax breaks to people that have children, so that seems a little redundant.

I believe that tax breaks should be given to anyone who forms a couple -- usually based on a romantic relationship -- since people who support each other financially and emotionally tend to be more stable and contributing society members. I'm no sociologist, but I'm pretty sure there are studies to back that up.

It leads to less traditional families which I believe are absolutely essential to society's success.

This ties in with what I said above. Plus, legally recognizing gay couples won't create more of them or lead to fewer straight families.

Now we have to have discussions about how these issues are handled in school. I just don't think that's a positive thing.

I don't see why children should be sheltered from gay people, especially since there's nothing wrong or inherently immoral about homosexuals. Really, I don't even see why the sexual side of it would need to be brought up in school before children are ready to handle the issue. In sex ed, it'll become obvious to them why gay people can't have kids, and in 20th century history they'll learn about the gay pride movement. Just like how they already do.

On a side note, I know I've just been mentioning tax breaks, but of course I think that hospital visitation rights and the whole smorgasbord should go along with this.

 

[SlayerDragon]

 

[Larkin]

I believe that tax breaks should be given to anyone who forms a couple -- usually based on a romantic relationship -- since people who support each other financially and emotionally tend to be more stable and contributing society members. I'm no sociologist, but I'm pretty sure there are studies to back that up.

You are missing the point why the tax breaks exist. They exist for the simple reason to encourage reproduction and make it easier for them to support the children. Which imo, is allot better reason for tax breaks then your idea of just being a couple. Although only the second reason for how it is now is good enough, imho.

Sorry penn, I'll shut up now.

 

[KaL976]

oh hai deja vu

are you a gay person wanting to get officially recognised as a couple possibly in your church of choice?
no?
well stfu then. seriously.