In California, there is a proposition to ban gay marriage. Right now I am pretty neutral on the issue, but I have been reading some strong arguments against this proposition, as well as the names of those who oppose the proposition. So I can't make up my mind one way or the other yet. :-\\


Edit: I'm leaning towards a yes vote. If gay people want to marry, that's perfectly fine with me


then you want to vote No on prop 8  a yes vote on prop 8 is a vote against Gay marriage. 

I still don't understand how gay marriage threatens hetero marriages

then you want to vote No on prop 8  a yes vote on prop 8 is a vote against Gay marriage. 

I still don't understand how gay marriage threatens hetero marriages


My cousin sent me this on MySpace today.  I thought it was amusing. :D

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong, according to its opponents:

1) Being gay is not natural.
​And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicone breasts.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next. I love lamps.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
Isn't there a separation between church and state???  How does this have anything to do with it being on the ballot?
(Did you know that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality?)

​9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
​Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

My cousin sent me this on MySpace today.  I thought it was amusing. :D

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong, according to its opponents:

1) Being gay is not natural.
​And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicone breasts.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next. I love lamps.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
Isn't there a separation between church and state???  How does this have anything to do with it being on the ballot?
(Did you know that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality?)

​9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
​Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.



that's hilarious! I am posting in as a bulletin right now!  ;D

My cousin sent me this on MySpace today.  I thought it was amusing. :D

Very amusing.  :)

then you want to vote No on prop 8  a yes vote on prop 8 is a vote against Gay marriage. 

I still don't understand how gay marriage threatens hetero marriages

yeah me neither.

I suppose it won't help to say at this point some of my best friends are gay...

In other words, I meant only to poke fun at homophobes and the homophobes' stereotypes of gays.  However, your point is indeed well taken.  Karma +1 to you.


This is a youtube video, done by a friend of mine (whom I've never met), talking about his beliefs on the stereotypes of gays and transexuals and transgendered within the gay community itself (stereotypes perpetrated by gay individuals themselves).  I thought it was very well stated.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQU1kYu7VAs Gay Elitism? Yuck! by Sign543

Really good points in that vid. ^


My cousin sent me this on MySpace today.  I thought it was amusing. :D

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong, according to its opponents:

1) Being gay is not natural.
​And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicone breasts.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next. I love lamps.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
Isn't there a separation between church and state???  How does this have anything to do with it being on the ballot?
(Did you know that Jesus never once condemned homosexuality?)

​9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
​Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


:D :D :D :D :D

LOL

The gay flamer stereotype is relatively few in numbers.  I saw a bunch of them at the John Cage thingie I went to in Chelsea last night.  The last thing they're interested in is you or your kids or your values.  They're interested in....well, themselves primarily!
::)

The gay flamer stereotype is relatively few in numbers.  I saw a bunch of them at the John Cage thingie I went to in Chelsea last night.  The last thing they're interested in is you or your kids or your values.  They're interested in....well, themselves primarily!
::)



When I was a teen, I used to babysit for a guy who had a flamer boyfriend. I tried very hard not to crack up every time I saw the guy.



Cat

When I was a teen, I used to babysit for a guy who had a flamer boyfriend. I tried very hard not to crack up every time I saw the guy.



Cat


Was it a "Daddy's Roommate" situation?  I see that sometimes around here, though it is more common for women to figure out they're gay after they've been married and had kids. 

I should clarify earlier remarks about flamer stereotypes.  I was referring to a wine-and-sushi reception at the Chelsea Art Museum, which is where you're going to find the extreme of that stereotype.  This thing was exactly what Sarah Palin wants you to think of when you think of Manhattan!
::)

Was it a "Daddy's Roommate" situation?  I see that sometimes around here, though it is more common for women to figure out they're gay after they've been married and had kids. 

I should clarify earlier remarks about flamer stereotypes.  I was referring to a wine-and-sushi reception at the Chelsea Art Museum, which is where you're going to find the extreme of that stereotype.  This thing was exactly what Sarah Palin wants you to think of when you think of Manhattan!
::)




When I first started babysitting for him, he did have a "roommate" but they split up and then he started dating "Bob-the flamer". The guy had full custody of the kid (who was a really good kid, btw). I'm not too sure what was the situation with his mother-I never asked because it wasn't my place. I know she was still around.



Cat

Was it a "Daddy's Roommate" situation?  I see that sometimes around here, though it is more common for women to figure out they're gay after they've been married and had kids. 


That's true. My mother is a lesbian, but she totally knew and was honest about it with my dad before they hooked up. She was genuinely in love with him. They were together for 7 years.

My aunt (my mum's sister) was with her husband for like 11 years before she came out and divorced him.

Looks like Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will pass.    >:(

A few other states have gay marriage ban proposals that are passing as well. 

Sucks. 

Looks like Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will pass.    >:(

A few other states have gay marriage ban proposals that are passing as well. 

Sucks.   



this pisses me off.... and no one has been able to tell me exactly how gay marriage is a "threat" to 'traditional' marriage  >:(

this pisses me off.... and no one has been able to tell me exactly how gay marriage is a "threat" to 'traditional' marriage  >:(






I thought that in all places, it would be acceptible in California.  I am quite disappointed that this is going to pass. 

I thought that in all places, it would be acceptible in California.  I am quite disappointed that this is going to pass. 


yeah its something like 53% - 47%  Like you I thought CA was more progressive

I hear the Proposition is not retroactive.  There's going to be court battles over this for years.  If those who wanted it passed think it's over, it's not by a long shot.

Looks like Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will pass.    >:(

A few other states have gay marriage ban proposals that are passing as well. 

Sucks.   



this pisses me off.... and no one has been able to tell me exactly how gay marriage is a "threat" to 'traditional' marriage  >:(





same here...I voted against it. I don't see how it could be considered a "threat" either. :-\\

yeah its something like 53% - 47%  Like you I thought CA was more progressive


There are a lot of progressives who are still uncomfortable with gay marriage.  It might take 20 years more for the institution to gain general acceptance, but it will.

That's true. My mother is a lesbian, but she totally knew and was honest about it with my dad before they hooked up. She was genuinely in love with him. They were together for 7 years.


Wow, your mother was in love with a man, even though she was a lesbian? That's so great, that she could look past the physical exterior of a person and see what he was like on the inside. For anyone who ever wondered if true love could overcome all boundaries and see through to a person's soul, here's proof.

yeah its something like 53% - 47%  Like you I thought CA was more progressive


I did too.  It just kills me that it passed.  I could talk about the issue for hours but really can't say anything that other people haven't said already.  I just don't understand how people can be so hateful.  Love is love. 

:\'(

Fla too, but that was no surprise to me. Redneck asshats.  8-P

I read in the newspaper this morning that there are a number of celebs who are disappointed over the passing of Prop 8 as well.

Wow, your mother was in love with a man, even though she was a lesbian? That's so great, that she could look past the physical exterior of a person and see what he was like on the inside. For anyone who ever wondered if true love could overcome all boundaries and see through to a person's soul, here's proof.


It's not that uncommon. What barriers were there really? My mum preferred women, sure, but preferring women doesn't make it impossible to love men, and vice-versa.

People misunderstand homosexuality. They have come to treat it practically as some kind of ethnicity. People who entertain or even prefer sexual rapports with someone of the same sex do not (or at least should not) constitute a separate group. If someone self-identifies as homosexual, it doesn't necessarily mean they have no attraction at all to opposite sex, just more of one to the same sex or a preference for it.

Supposedly, Proposition 8 passed in California largely due to the black vote.

It's always funny watching one minority discriminate against another one.  Whites actually tended to be more against this ban than any other race in California.

Supposedly, Proposition 8 passed in California largely due to the black vote.

It's always funny watching one minority discriminate against another one.  Whites actually tended to be more against this ban than any other race in California.


I actually heard it was more the Latino vote than anything, and that was because of "machismo"  (macho bullsh*t) and the Catholic Church.  I'll see if I can find the article on it.

I actually heard it was more the Latino vote than anything, and that was because of "machismo"  (macho bullsh*t) and the Catholic Church.  I'll see if I can find the article on it.

It might actually be both.

The funny thing is...  whites tend to be the most tolerant toward gays.  A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that a higher percentage of the white population is made up of secular people than any other race.

There aren't many atheist blacks or latinos.

That sucks, hopefully they'll fight it.

Supposedly, Proposition 8 passed in California largely due to the black vote.

It's always funny watching one minority discriminate against another one.  Whites actually tended to be more against this ban than any other race in California.


Yep, the black and Latino vote.  Then there's the Mormon's who have seem to have forgotten the Mormon War and being threatened with lynching.  Once a minority makes it they have a tendency to abuse those who have yet to.

Yep, the black and Latino vote.  Then there's the Mormon's who have seem to have forgotten the Mormon War and being threatened with lynching.  Once a minority makes it they have a tendency to abuse those who have yet to.


Sad but true...  although it makes you wonder who the homosexuals will discriminate against when they finally are accepted by mainstream society.

Sad but true...  although it makes you wonder who the homosexuals will discriminate against when they finally are accepted by mainstream society.


Bisexuals, probably. :D

Maybe mishomothrope would be a better term...


Yeah, I can buy that...

I actually heard it was more the Latino vote than anything, and that was because of "machismo"  (macho bullsh*t) and the Catholic Church.  I'll see if I can find the article on it.


Can't blame this one on the Catholics.

As the stats that I read in the news today...

-"Whites" were slightly against Prop 8
-Latinos were split about 50/50
-Blacks were about 70% for, 30% against

Seeing as how there really are not that many black catholics in the scheme of things, hard to pin this on the Catholic Church.  Likewise the Mormons have been blamed for it, but there are not that many Mormons in California either.

So if the Catholics did some sort of "get out the vote" campaign, you would have expected the Latino vote to have been hugely Pro-Prop-8.  But it was not.

Can't blame this one on the Catholics.

As the stats that I read in the news today...

-"Whites" were slightly against Prop 8
-Latinos were split about 50/50
-Blacks were about 70% for, 30% against

Seeing as how there really are not that many black catholics in the scheme of things, hard to pin this on the Catholic Church.  Likewise the Mormons have been blamed for it, but there are not that many Mormons in California either.

So if the Catholics did some sort of "get out the vote" campaign, you would have expected the Latino vote to have been hugely Pro-Prop-8.  But it was not.


Actually the Knights of Columbus gave a few million and the Mormons gave a huge chunk of change to it.  Focus on the Family sent out of state people to help peddle the proposition.  There was quite a bit of out of state aide.

Can't blame this one on the Catholics.

As the stats that I read in the news today...

-"Whites" were slightly against Prop 8
-Latinos were split about 50/50
-Blacks were about 70% for, 30% against

Seeing as how there really are not that many black catholics in the scheme of things, hard to pin this on the Catholic Church.  Likewise the Mormons have been blamed for it, but there are not that many Mormons in California either.

So if the Catholics did some sort of "get out the vote" campaign, you would have expected the Latino vote to have been hugely Pro-Prop-8.  But it was not.


Then the earlier article I read was wrong.

I thought the Mormons had just given money to help push Prop 8, so I'm not sure why they're getting all the blame for it.  Convenient scapegoat because of said money, perhaps?

And there are more Mormons in California than you think.  Not on par with Utah or Arizona or Idaho, but enough that I had about five or six friends that were Mormon in our small town.  Very laid back people, though.

I am not sure why the Mormons are the scapegoat either.

I think the Latinos were the deal-breaker for Prop 8.  Because they are GENERALLY conservative with their beliefs.

I am not sure why the Mormons are the scapegoat either.

I think the Latinos were the deal-breaker for Prop 8.   Because they are GENERALLY conservative with their beliefs.


It's not just the Mormons it was the whole religious right.  I think it was the African American vote.  70% for.

I am not sure why the Mormons are the scapegoat either.

I think the Latinos were the deal-breaker for Prop 8.   Because they are GENERALLY conservative with their beliefs.


I just checked the stats.  Latinos voted 53% FOR Proposition 8, or more or less in line with the overall vote.  Non-Latino "Whites" voted against it 48/52, and as mentioned before, Blacks voted 70% for it.

So it is hard to say that the Latinos were the deal breaker all that much, since their vote alone could not have reversed the pattern of the "White" voters. (Nevertheless in total voted FOR the proposal)

Bottom line is that lots of voters... Black, white, latino... voted for the proposition.  People may not like that, but that is what the vote results were, slim overall margin though it was.

So now I guess people will go to the courts to try and reverse the will of the voters.

I just checked the stats.  Latinos voted 53% FOR Proposition 8, or more or less in line with the overall vote.  Non-Latino "Whites" voted against it 48/52, and as mentioned before, Blacks voted 70% for it.

So it is hard to say that the Latinos were the deal breaker all that much, since their vote alone could not have reversed the pattern of the "White" voters. (Nevertheless in total voted FOR the proposal)

Bottom line is that lots of voters... Black, white, latino... voted for the proposition.  People may not like that, but that is what the vote results were, slim overall margin though it was.

So now I guess people will go to the courts to try and reverse the will of the voters.


I've read where some claimed the language of the proposition was confusing.  There's also some uncounted votes.  It's just one thing after another.

I've read where some claimed the language of the proposition was confusing.  There's also some uncounted votes.  It's just one thing after another.


Gimme a break.  Everybody knew that Propositon 8 was the "Gay Marriage Ban", whether one was for it or against it.

That is a problem with elections these days.  No matter what the outcome or how big the vote spread, people come out of the woodwork to file a lawsuit against the results.

I'm surprised somebody has not asked for an Obama recount yet.

Gimme a break.  Everybody knew that Propositon 8 was the "Gay Marriage Ban", whether one was for it or against it.

That is a problem with elections these days.  No matter what the outcome or how big the vote spread, people come out of the woodwork to file a lawsuit against the results.

I'm surprised somebody has not asked for an Obama recount yet.


So it's okay for people that don't like the idea of gay marriage to file lawsuits and put such a horrible thing on the ballot, but it's NOT okay for homosexuals and their supporters to file discrimination lawsuits and call for recounts and protest? ???

The California courts OVERTURNED a ban on gay marriage because they declared it unconstitutional.  That should have been enough, but it wasn't, and now all kinds of merry hell is going to rain down on that state.

So it's okay for people that don't like the idea of gay marriage to file lawsuits and put such a horrible thing on the ballot, but it's NOT okay for homosexuals and their supporters to file discrimination lawsuits and call for recounts and protest? ???

The California courts OVERTURNED a ban on gay marriage because they declared it unconstitutional.  That should have been enough, but it wasn't, and now all kinds of merry hell is going to rain down on that state.


The court overturned the previous ban and I presume because they saw it as a violation of the state constiitution.  I will not quibble with that decision and I imagine that the Stete Supreme Court had ample reason to make that decision based on the California constitution.

So the people who organized the first "ban vote" then went to the people again, this time to have the constitution itself changed.  Which they did, successfully.

It is not like the vote was some sort of fluke.  it was the second time that the voters of the State of California weighed in on this subject, and now it is engraved in the State Constitution, as it has been for quite a few other states.

The difference here, of course, is that (in this particular case) one group relies on the power of the people and the other runs to the courts for redress.  I am not an expert in legal matters for the state of California, but usually when something is engraved in the State Constitution, the only redress is usually an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or a subsequent ballot effort to have the amendment repealed.

The vote count spread makes it PROHIBITIVELY unlikely that a recount will change the results.  And as for discrimination, there is in fact no law against general discrimination.  There are only laws against discrimination of legally protected classes (sex, age, race, etc).  Proposition 8 states in the CA Constitution that banning gay marriage is not an illegal form of discrimination.

My suggestion to those who do not like Proposition 8 is to use "The Power of the People".   Don't like it?  Organize a repeal to the amendment.  Go out to the electorate and convince the majority of voters to change the law.  We did not see Obama go to the courts to win the Presidency... he went out and took it the old fashioned way... at the ballot boxes.

If a black man can become the POTUS, then legalizing gay marriage in the State of California should be a cake walk by comparison.  Convince the people, not the courts.

I'm starting to think that maybe only gays should be heard on this...

I really really like this point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

Disclaimer:  Yeah, I know the mainstream Mormon church has officially renounced its earlier positions on polygamy.

But having said that, the irony of a religious movement known for polygamy, now spending tens of millions of dollars of its members' money "defending" the "sanctity of marriage" is... well, the thought of breathing in an atmosphere composed of pure hydrogen fluoride doesn't even begin to describe how bitter the irony is.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.  If I were a more ornery sort, I'd suggest that Californians get together, donate enough money to (read: bribe) the right legislators, buy enough ad space to (read: bribe :) buy some spaces in the Utah legislature, and introduce legislation that permits the brewing and sale of real beer (3%?  PAH!  5%? FEH!  In Californistan, we can get anything from 6-11% for good beer, and I've had a barley wine at 18% that tasted as good as it drunked me) in Utah. 

Fair's fair.  If a Utah-based religious sect wants to influence California's legal system, let's see how the Mormons feel about Californians influencing the outcome of their state's laws.

Now, we're up to our long-distance dedication.  And this one is about co-workers, and their partners, and a situation that we can all understand, even if you don't have kids, partners, or either.  (I've got no dog in this fight; solid fence-sitting asexual here.  I'm only embarassed because I thought California was cooler than this, but about 5% of my co-workers are directly affected, and they're pissed.)  That's Steve Vai and Frank Zappa, F*bleep*k Yourself, and it's going out to the management of the religion founded by failed sci-fi author Joseph Smith. 

Disclaimer:  Yeah, I know the mainstream Mormon church has officially renounced its earlier positions on polygamy.

But having said that, the irony of a religious movement known for polygamy, now spending tens of millions of dollars of its members' money "defending" the "sanctity of marriage" is... well, the thought of breathing in an atmosphere composed of pure hydrogen fluoride doesn't even begin to describe how bitter the irony is.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.  If I were a more ornery sort, I'd suggest that Californians get together, donate enough money to (read: bribe) the right legislators, buy enough ad space to (read: bribe :) buy some spaces in the Utah legislature, and introduce legislation that permits the brewing and sale of real beer (3%?  PAH!  5%? FEH!  In Californistan, we can get anything from 6-11% for good beer, and I've had a barley wine at 18% that tasted as good as it drunked me) in Utah. 

Fair's fair.  If a Utah-based religious sect wants to influence California's legal system, let's see how the Mormons feel about Californians influencing the outcome of their state's laws.


I don't understand how they convert anybody to LDS without LSD, but I don't live next to a lake of salt in the middle of the desert either!
:D

I don't understand how they convert anybody to LDS without LSD, but I don't live next to a lake of salt in the middle of the desert either!
:D


That's the depressing part.  I'm not big on Mormonism, but I know a couple of Mormons, and they're actually damn nice folks.  I wouldn't have a beer with 'em, but I'll happily have a soda with 'em (actually, they've got no problem with my having a beer or a glass of wine, and I've got no problem with them not indulging, no matter how awesome the burgers or steak happens to be). 

Their religion's senior management, on the other hand, well... you quoted my pre-edited post, and my edited version's up there for all to read, and I stand by it too :)

That's the depressing part.  I'm not big on Mormonism, but I know a couple of Mormons, and they're actually damn nice folks.  I wouldn't have a beer with 'em, but I'll happily have a soda with 'em (actually, they've got no problem with my having a beer or a glass of wine, and I've got no problem with them not indulging, no matter how awesome the burgers or steak happens to be). 

Their religion's senior management, on the other hand, well... you quoted my pre-edited post, and my edited version's up there for all to read, and I stand by it too :)

Hey, same goes for all organized religion.  I know some damn nice Catholics, kindest and most decent folks you'll ever meet and they are devout Catholics.  Catholic church senior management, on the other hand...
::)

I don't understand how they convert anybody to LDS without LSD, but I don't live next to a lake of salt in the middle of the desert either!
:D



I live by this lake of salt in the middle of the desert.  It isn't too bad.  I love the mountains, but the people leave something to be desired.  I was babtised mormon when I was 8 because it was the thing to do, but I dont believe in any religion.  The lake is actually pretty at times, but smells terrible and the flies are mean b@sturds.  LoL.  I think its just the people.  The majority here are Mormon, they think their religion is the only true religion, and that leads to a feeling that they are better than everyone else.  It can be quite frustrating because the majority of lawmakers here are of the LDS religion. 

I know other religions took part in trying to get Prop 8 passed, especially because a similar vote was cast in 2 other states.  However, members of the Morman Church donated over 20 million to the cause, by far the most of any religion.  They also used that money to create ads and spread lies.  Why was this such an important issue that they had to put that money into?  Why couldn't they spend it on hunger, poverty, research?  There are bigger battles to fight than this one.  Doesn't surprise me.  A lot of these people are the same who will wave the flag, support a war, but would rather send their children on missions than serve.   

   

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.  If I were a more ornery sort, I'd suggest that Californians get together, donate enough money to (read: bribe) the right legislators, buy enough ad space to (read: bribe  buy some spaces in the Utah legislature, and introduce legislation that permits the brewing and sale of real beer (3%?  PAH!  5%? FEH!  In Californistan, we can get anything from 6-11% for good beer, and I've had a barley wine at 18% that tasted as good as it drunked me) in Utah.

I agree with you here, the liquor laws here in Utah are the sh!ts.  Please create these ads.  Help us out here.  LoL.



I have heard people claim that they hate the gays trying to force their agenda on them.  They have no right to protest?  Get real.  There was a propostion passed that was previously deemed unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.  These people have the nerve to say that gays have no right to protest something that directly affects their lives?  Its easy for a majority to tell a minority to just get over it. 

We need to protect Traditional Marriage and the Traditional Family?  It is the building block of our nation?  Not really, because the reasons to be married back in the 1700's really doesn't apply today.  Most of us dont need 8 children to help run a farm.  Most of us can't afford 8 children anyway.  Do they think that by not allowing gays to marry it will somehow lower the number of divorces and save the "sanctity" of marriage.  None of the problems with marriage today are the Gays' fault.   

Do they think that by not allowing gays to marry it will someone lower the number of divorces and save the "sanctity" of marriage.  None of the problems with marriage today is the Gays' fault. 
Well said :)

So, you're a politician and you need to get re-elected.  Which is easier: Tackling a deep social problem such as poverty, or, say, ranting about the Traditional Family and the Sanctity of Marriage? 

The answer is obvious.  You can ban gay marriage but you can't ban poverty; you might make a dent in the problem, but it's a hell of a lot of work, and not much fun.  There are far more poor people than gay people. 

Left alone, gays mind their own business, live productive lives, and don't make trouble. 

Then why is it so easy to demonize them? 

Because they do sex different from the majority. 

Oh, is that all?

What do you mean, "Oh, is that all"?  The Bible says it's an abomination and they should be stoned to death!!!
 
::)

People misunderstand homosexuality. They have come to treat it practically as some kind of ethnicity. People who entertain or even prefer sexual rapports with someone of the same sex do not (or at least should not) constitute a separate group. If someone self-identifies as homosexual, it doesn't necessarily mean they have no attraction at all to opposite sex, just more of one to the same sex or a preference for it.

Good point. I imagine lots of people might be just the teeniest bit Bi, not necesarilly with being attracted to both sexes, but being curious about stuff. I started reading Seventeen and Cosmo when I was 14/15 (it was because I wanted to hear the girls' perspective but still). ;D There's still homophobia, like if a guy admits he thinks another guy is attractive, which is pretty stupid imo.

Full mainstream gay acceptance is really alot like the Civil Rights of the '00s.

Like I've said before I'm of the idea that people are born with their sexuality or who they're interested in, so it's pointless to try and fight that. You can't help what's in your heart - it's not what you are that matters, it's how you behave and life your life. That's one reason I actually think the overly flamboyant image is offensive, since it does a disservice and makes certain people think all gays must be like that. I wish the "everyday living" ones who are responsible (say with raising kids or having a great career) would get more of the attention. Maybe that would erase some of the negative stereotypes.

The first gay marriages happened this week in Connecticut

The first gay marriages happened this week in Connecticut


Thats cool.  Hope it doesn't get overturned.

Thats cool.  Hope it doesn't get overturned.



Well, the people who were trying to overturn it attempted to do it by asking for a constitutional convention.  That received a No vote on November 4th!

Gimme a break.  Everybody knew that Propositon 8 was the "Gay Marriage Ban", whether one was for it or against it.

That is a problem with elections these days.  No matter what the outcome or how big the vote spread, people come out of the woodwork to file a lawsuit against the results.

I'm surprised somebody has not asked for an Obama recount yet.



actually it was a bit confusing...
Yes on Prop 8 is a vote against Gay Marriage  No on Prop 8 is a vote in favor of Gay Marriage but a lot of people thought the reverse was true.

Karma is a bitch.

Focus On the Family Lays Off 200 Workers

Karma is a bitch.

Focus On the Family Lays Off 200 Workers


Now if they'd just lay off the rest of us!
:P

As far as I can see it is just a name for something that is already happening.  If someone can explain the difference between a marriage and a civil union then I might be able to form an opinion.

At the moment I would say yes, because I think the civil union is a good thing


One has it's roots in religious traditions and ceremony.

The other is more or less a political term for the same thing, simply without all of the religious undertones removed.

To give an example, in many countries a Marriage is the term if the ceremony is performed by a religious figure.  A Civil Union is the ceremony if performed by a Judge, Captain of a ship, or a Justice Of The Peace.

And to show how it works in England, Charles & Dianna had a Marriage.

Charles and Camilla had a Civil Union.

Same thing, but with a distinct difference:  It keeps all of the religious nutcases away.  It also keeps all of the Zealots from trying to sue Churches because they are violating their "civil rights" for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Personally, I care about homosexual couples having the same rights as other couples.  I do not give a damn what it is called.  To me the past 10+ years has evolved from a battle for civil rights into a battle against organized religion.  And with the mass attacks and protests in California, it is only making it more clear to me.  Many of these people really do not care about the rights, they want the word.  And they are willing to attack anybody who they think opposes them.

Which is funny, because the majority of people in California have said repeatedly they oppose Gay Marriage.  In this, one of the most Liberal states in the nation.

And yet, the vast majority on this board support it.  Not much question here which way this site is leaning.  ::)

Civil Unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed.  Marriages are recognized by all jurisdictions.  Although marriages are performed in Massachusetts and are recognized as such, they are still not recognized by other states, so they really aren't true marriages, and won't be until they are recognized throughout the whole of the U.S.

People still confuse the religious ceremony of wedding with the legal term marriage.  The wedding is the religious ceremony that recognizes the marriage of two people.  There aren't to many who dispute the fact that religions cannot be forced to perform weddings. You can have a legally recognized marriage without a wedding.  A wedding without a marriage is only recognized by the religion in question, but to be legally recognized by the state their must be a marriage license.

Civil Unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed.  Marriages are recognized by all jurisdictions.  Although marriages are performed in Massachusetts and are recognized as such, they are still not recognized by other states, so they really aren't true marriages, and won't be until they are recognized throughout the whole of the U.S.


You are talking current US law.  Talk to people in the UK and you find it very different.

The situation you are talking about is largely the fault of gay groups in the first place.  California once had a great Civil Union law, which gave gay couples almost 100% equality under the law.  But it is gone now.

Why?  Because it came under constant attack by groups saying it was "Not Enough".  And they did not care that a lot of heterosexual couples used the law as well.

To me, this is plain silly and stupid.  It is like watching the Civil Rights movement on crack.  If every time MLK had won a concession from somebody he then threw it away because he thought it was "not enough", Jim Crow would still be alive and well.  You take each advance a piece at a time, building as you go.

Instead, modern "Liberals" in my eyes today seem to be an "All Or Nothing" movement.  Either they get 100% of what they want, or they throw a temper tantrum like little children.  Oh, and call everybody that did not agree with them a "Homophobe", "Racist", "Nazi", or any other name they can think of.

You are talking current US law.  Talk to people in the UK and you find it very different.

The situation you are talking about is largely the fault of gay groups in the first place.  California once had a great Civil Union law, which gave gay couples almost 100% equality under the law.  But it is gone now.




Did that give them recognition across state lines?

Which is funny, because the majority of people in California have said repeatedly they oppose Gay Marriage.  In this, one of the most Liberal states in the nation.



If the news articles are correct, so far 30 states have conducted ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, most of them passed with huge margins, the California initiative was probably one of the "closest calls".  (I have seen some articles that claim 36 states, but maybe the difference of "6" are votes that were voided by the courts).

There are also prolly a handful of states which have not voted on it because their state legislatures would not allow the issue to get on a ballot.

Oh, and call everybody that did not agree with them a "Homophobe", "Racist", "Nazi", or any other name they can think of.


You forgot "hater" and "fur hag".  ;D

And to show how it works in England, Charles & Dianna had a Marriage.

Charles and Camilla had a Civil Union.



Whilst technicaly that may be the case I bet most people would just say that Charles and Camilla married in a registry office.  Really (in the UK) there is no difference where the marriage ceremony takes place the people concerned are still married, talk about their marriage/wedding and not their civil union.

Instead, modern "Liberals" in my eyes today seem to be an "All Or Nothing" movement.  Either they get 100% of what they want, or they throw a temper tantrum like little children.  Oh, and call everybody that did not agree with them a "Homophobe", "Racist", "Nazi", or any other name they can think of.


They will keep fighting for all because they do no have to settle for less. Why should they settle for 50% of what heterosexuals have? This issue is about their lives, their relationships and it is nobody's business but their own. Let them be free to marry and i assure the world will go on as usual. What are people so afraid of anyway?

If a straight person is against gay marriage it is because they don't see gays and lesbians as their equals. Homophobia is "a widespread fear of,aversion to,or discrimination against homosexuality",so yes they are homophobic. If someone doesn't want to be call that then they should stop acting like one.

You are talking current US law.  Talk to people in the UK and you find it very different.

The situation you are talking about is largely the fault of gay groups in the first place.  California once had a great Civil Union law, which gave gay couples almost 100% equality under the law.  But it is gone now.

Why?  Because it came under constant attack by groups saying it was "Not Enough".  And they did not care that a lot of heterosexual couples used the law as well.

To me, this is plain silly and stupid.  It is like watching the Civil Rights movement on crack.  If every time MLK had won a concession from somebody he then threw it away because he thought it was "not enough", Jim Crow would still be alive and well.  You take each advance a piece at a time, building as you go.

Instead, modern "Liberals" in my eyes today seem to be an "All Or Nothing" movement.  Either they get 100% of what they want, or they throw a temper tantrum like little children.  Oh, and call everybody that did not agree with them a "Homophobe", "Racist", "Nazi", or any other name they can think of.


Why shouldn't they get 100%?  If someone who you didn't know voted to destroy your family and make your children bastards you'd be pretty upset too.  Oh, I'm sorry maybe I shouldn't bring emotion into this.  That's the last thing you want to hear. ::)

I think this whole thing is a waste of time and money :P  Let the people get married if they want to!

You forgot "hater" and "fur hag".   ;D

  I love it when they say I'm not homophobic but I am against gay marriage.  That and they usual add that they have gay friends and relatives to make themselves sound less discriminatory.

  I love it when they say "I'm not homophobic but I am against gay marriage."  That and they usual add that they have gay friends and relatives to make themselves sound less discriminatory.




I got confused for a moment there, so I added in some quote marks to de-confuse myself ;D 

I think I'm ambivalent, I think of it as a total non-issue.

If we just allowed gay marriage across the board, the average person would be shocked by....just how little things would change!

BTW, we're a society that loves weddings, not marriage.

::)

  I love it when they say I'm not homophobic but I am against gay marriage.  That and they usual add that they have gay friends and relatives to make themselves sound less discriminatory.


I am not homophobic.  And I am against Gay Marriage for many reasons that I have stated before.  Personally, I would love to see a Civil Union law recognized nationally.  Because to me, it is the rights that matter, not the word.  If dropping a single word makes the crazies of both sides shut the frack up, then I am happy and both get what they want.

To me what is often missing in politics today is compromise.


They will keep fighting for all because they do no have to settle for less. Why should they settle for 50% of what heterosexuals have?



Why shouldn't they get 100%?  If someone who you didn't know voted to destroy your family and make your children bastards you'd be pretty upset too.  Oh, I'm sorry maybe I shouldn't bring emotion into this.  That's the last thing you want to hear. ::)


Exactly what I mean, no compromise.  People tend to forget that every "Civil Rights" progress in this nation was built up one step at a time.  If the Sufferage Movement and the Civil Rights movements in the past went by this "all or nohing" approach, women would still be barefoot and pregnant, and blacks would be condemned to no education working in the fields.

Progress in things like this occur one step at a time.  And the more people like me see that one side (even one we agree with in principle) acting like children, the more they end up alienating us in the end.

I am a huge believer in compromise, because that is what "Democracy" and "Republicanism" really means.  Reaching a concensus that the majority can live with.  Instead, what I see increasingly on both sides is more and more people saying "if you are not 100% with us, you are against us".  And it is making me sick.

Let me ask this again, since it has been a while.

If a bill was proposed that would give homosexual couples 100% of the rights, privlidges, and responsibilities of mariage but was called another name for legal reasons ("Civil Union", "Domestic Partner", etc), would you support it or oppose it?

Personally, i would support it 100%.

And gays can throw a party too,so ???


Yes, quite!

My point is, I see all this candyass pop culture infatuation with weddings (sentimental cinema, bridal mags, etc.) but the divorce rate is 50% and adultery is rampant, and it's not any better among the Christian devout always spouting off about the "sanctity of marriage" (more like the sanctimony of marriage, if you ask me).   It reminds me of the way most people who are against abortion are also against social welfare programs.  

The anti-gay marriage movement is a feint for an anti-gay agenda.
::)

I am a huge believer in compromise

I'm like most people.  I'm in favor of compromise...as long as I get my way!
;)

I am not homophobic.  And I am against Gay Marriage for many reasons that I have stated before.  Personally, I would love to see a Civil Union law recognized nationally.  Because to me, it is the rights that matter, not the word.  If dropping a single word makes the crazies of both sides shut the frack up, then I am happy and both get what they want.

To me what is often missing in politics today is compromise.

Exactly what I mean, no compromise.  People tend to forget that every "Civil Rights" progress in this nation was built up one step at a time.  If the Sufferage Movement and the Civil Rights movements in the past went by this "all or nothing" approach, women would still be barefoot and pregnant, and blacks would be condemned to no education working in the fields.

Progress in things like this occur one step at a time.  And the more people like me see that one side (even one we agree with in principle) acting like children, the more they end up alienating us in the end.

I am a huge believer in compromise, because that is what "Democracy" and "Republicanism" really means.  Reaching a concensus that the majority can live with.  Instead, what I see increasingly on both sides is more and more people saying "if you are not 100% with us, you are against us".  And it is making me sick.

Let me ask this again, since it has been a while.

If a bill was proposed that would give homosexual couples 100% of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage but was called another name for legal reasons ("Civil Union", "Domestic Partner", etc), would you support it or oppose it?

Personally, i would support it 100%.


So, what you're saying is Gays can have something "like" marriage but just not marriage.  Ranks right up there with "Separate but equal".  The only reason why I would not support gay marriage is because it is a religious institution.  Most gay people of religious persuasion have been shunned from their religion.  Yes, I do understand were you're coming from.  Progress takes time.  You shove someting down peoples throats it's going to backfire. 

So, what you're saying is Gays can have something "like" marriage but just not marriage.  Ranks right up there with "Separate but equal".  The only reason why I would not support gay marriage is because it is a religious institution. 


You both understand, and are missing the point.

"Marriage" is both a civil and a religious institution.  And the religious aspect of it is far older then the civil one.

By removing the word "Marriage", you remove all religious aspects.  By calling it something like "Civil Union", you make it a purely civil institution.

And i is ironic, that you appear to be against the idea, yet oppose the phrase of "marriage" for the exact same reason.  ::)

And the biggest problem with "seperate but equal" was that it was not equal.  And it was seperate.  Black students could not go to a White school, no more then White students could go to a Black school.

To me, a "Civil Union" law should be entirely devoid of sexual orientation.  If a heterosexual couple choose this over "Marriage", that is perfectly fine with me.  Mostly I want to emulate the system in England.  Where you have 2 different classifications, with the only real difference basically being where it is performed.  If done by clergy, then Marriage.  If done by government official, then Civil Union.

And to go with it, protection to any religious group that chooses to refrain from performing Marriages to people they choose to deny such privlidge.

You both understand, and are missing the point.

"Marriage" is both a civil and a religious institution.  And the religious aspect of it is far older then the civil one.

By removing the word "Marriage", you remove all religious aspects.  By calling it something like "Civil Union", you make it a purely civil institution.

And i is ironic, that you appear to be against the idea, yet oppose the phrase of "marriage" for the exact same reason.   ::)

And the biggest problem with "seperate but equal" was that it was not equal.  And it was seperate.  Black students could not go to a White school, no more then White students could go to a Black school.

To me, a "Civil Union" law should be entirely devoid of sexual orientation.  If a heterosexual couple choose this over "Marriage", that is perfectly fine with me.  Mostly I want to emulate the system in England.  Where you have 2 different classifications, with the only real difference basically being where it is performed.  If done by clergy, then Marriage.  If done by government official, then Civil Union.

And to go with it, protection to any religious group that chooses to refrain from performing Marriages to people they choose to deny such privlidge.

If there was no legal difference between civil union and marriage and both were to be recognized universally, then I would have no problem with it. 

I'm not convinced it's a good idea to compel churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.  This is where the "bi-racial marriage" argument usually comes in.  Hey, it's tough to be a liberal!
::)

One has it's roots in religious traditions and ceremony.

The other is more or less a political term for the same thing, simply without all of the religious undertones removed.

To give an example, in many countries a Marriage is the term if the ceremony is performed by a religious figure.  A Civil Union is the ceremony if performed by a Judge, Captain of a ship, or a Justice Of The Peace.

And to show how it works in England, Charles & Dianna had a Marriage.

Charles and Camilla had a Civil Union.


Actually, Charles and Camilla had what is called a "civil marriage":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales_and_Camilla_Parker_Bowles

A "civil marriage" is a marriage that is legally recognized by the state without the blessing of any religious organization, but it is still called a "marriage." Just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

Interesting point about that article: According to it, in some countries like France and Germany, civil marriages are the only ones that are legally recognized. A religious ceremony can be held later at the option of the couple, but this has no legal meaning(which is really the only way to go, if you truly want to achieve a separation of church and state).

Interesting point about that article: According to it, in some countries like France and Germany, civil marriages are the only ones that are legally recognized. A religious ceremony can be held later at the option of the couple, but this has no legal meaning(which is really the only way to go, if you truly want to achieve a separation of church and state).


This is actually true in the US as well.

While any clergy can perform a "Marriage" in accordance with his/her faith, the State only recognizes it if there is a License filed for before the ceremony, and then placed on record afterwards.  Otherwise, the "Marriage" is not legal.

I am recognized in many states as a member of the Clergy, and have performed Weddings in California.  In fact, if I choose I can perform a marriage between a god and a cat.  But it will not be legally binding or recognized.


If there was no legal difference between civil union and marriage and both were to be recognized universally, then I would have no problem with it. 

I'm not convinced it's a good idea to compel churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.  This is where the "bi-racial marriage" argument usually comes in.  Hey, it's tough to be a liberal!
::)


Your last point is the biggest reason I am against the use of the word "Marriage".  As has happened in every state that has tried to legalize "Gay Marriage", you have had homosexual couples file lawsuits against churches that refused to perform the ceremonies.  In particular, the Catholic and LDS churches have been hard hit by these suits (but also many others, including Baptist and even Synagogs and Mosques).

Personally, I have no problem if a church refuses to perform a ceremony.  In fact, most tend to have requirements to be fulfilled before they will even consider performing the ceremony in the church (both people be members, pre-wedding counseling, etc etc etc).

And while in the "eyes of the law" such a ting would be a "Union", I will still call it a "Marriage".  Because that is what it is.  And this would keep the Religious Zealots from having a reason to deny the rights that such couples deserve.

This is actually true in the US as well.

While any clergy can perform a "Marriage" in accordance with his/her faith, the State only recognizes it if there is a License filed for before the ceremony, and then placed on record afterwards.  Otherwise, the "Marriage" is not legal.

I am recognized in many states as a member of the Clergy, and have performed Weddings in California.  In fact, if I choose I can perform a marriage between a god and a cat.  But it will not be legally binding or recognized.

Your last point is the biggest reason I am against the use of the word "Marriage".  As has happened in every state that has tried to legalize "Gay Marriage", you have had homosexual couples file lawsuits against churches that refused to perform the ceremonies.  In particular, the Catholic and LDS churches have been hard hit by these suits (but also many others, including Baptist and even Synagogs and Mosques).

Personally, I have no problem if a church refuses to perform a ceremony.  In fact, most tend to have requirements to be fulfilled before they will even consider performing the ceremony in the church (both people be members, pre-wedding counseling, etc etc etc).

And while in the "eyes of the law" such a ting would be a "Union", I will still call it a "Marriage".  Because that is what it is.  And this would keep the Religious Zealots from having a reason to deny the rights that such couples deserve.

But what if a church refuses to perform a biracial ceremony on the grounds of freedom of religion?  The Loving v. Virginia precedent still stands and the church would lose in court.  Provided the biracial marriage is between one man and one woman, there is an obvious case of discrimination.  However, same-sex marriage advocates would have to demonstrate in their own "Loving v. Virginia" that barring a man and a man or a woman and a woman from getting married would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which I don't see the current Supreme Court favoring.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure they will favor universal recognition of Massachusetts/Connecticut same-sex marriages nor legal parity with marriage for same-sex unions.
:(

You both understand, and are missing the point.

"Marriage" is both a civil and a religious institution.  And the religious aspect of it is far older then the civil one.

By removing the word "Marriage", you remove all religious aspects.  By calling it something like "Civil Union", you make it a purely civil institution.

And i is ironic, that you appear to be against the idea, yet oppose the phrase of "marriage" for the exact same reason.   ::)

And the biggest problem with "separate but equal" was that it was not equal.  And it was separate.  Black students could not go to a White school, no more then White students could go to a Black school.

To me, a "Civil Union" law should be entirely devoid of sexual orientation.  If a heterosexual couple choose this over "Marriage", that is perfectly fine with me.  Mostly I want to emulate the system in England.  Where you have 2 different classifications, with the only real difference basically being where it is performed.  If done by clergy, then Marriage.  If done by government official, then Civil Union.

And to go with it, protection to any religious group that chooses to refrain from performing Marriages to people they choose to deny such privilege.


Oh, I see.  Yeah, I can live with that.  Don't you find it a bit disturbing that some people don't want homosexual couples to have any rights?  At least you have a secular understanding of it.

I think during the time of segregation down south most southern whites would tell you it was far for African Americans.  It was the insistence that anything short of slavery was equal.

Some religions won't marry anyone who isn't of their faith be they gay or straight.

Some religions won't marry anyone who isn't of their faith be they gay or straight.



But what if a church refuses to perform a biracial ceremony on the grounds of freedom of religion? 


Reyonalds is exactly right.  Most churches will not perform a ceremony if the people are not members of the church.  And while I would be against a church that refused a couple the right to marry based on race, I have no problem agreeing with them if they refuse based on the fact that they are not members of the church.  Reguardless of any other circumstances.

If I and my wife tried to get married in a Mosque, it is their right to refuse since neither of us is Muslim.  However, I am sure that if I looked, I would find a Mosque that would do it simply for the sake of the money or the publicity this would get them.

Religion is non issue. We're talking about civil marriages in the eyes of each country's law. Religion has a totally different set of rules that shouldn't be even taken in consideration for those who don't have a faith.

Religion is non issue. We're talking about civil marriages in the eyes of each country's law. Religion has a totally different set of rules that shouldn't be even taken in consideration for those who don't have a faith.


I wish religion were a non issue, however in the U.S. it is.  Civil Law and religion have always been intertwinned.  Until society become fully secular it will have to be dealt with as an issue.

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gaymarriage.gif

"Marriage" is both a civil and a religious institution.  And the religious aspect of it is far older then the civil one.

er.. no it's not.

There were marriages, weddings and all the trappings of ceremony long before any of our current lot of religions were around.  Turning marriages into religious institutions is something religions have done intentionally to aid their own survival (which is another way of saying that the religions who didn't try and force themselves into all the different parts of life and death by and large haven't survived).

You both understand, and are missing the point.

"Marriage" is both a civil and a religious institution.  And the religious aspect of it is far older then the civil one.

By removing the word "Marriage", you remove all religious aspects.  By calling it something like "Civil Union", you make it a purely civil institution.




A marriage, in the civil sense, in the United States, is recognized in all 50 states.  A civil union is only recognized by the state it is performed in.  That is a huge difference.

We're wasting how many $$$$ on SEMANTICS?  ???

*sigh*