Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage

Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 11:37:12 AM)
After making my mark for president in November (where I'll probably get drowned out by the rest of the state), the next biggie I'll be looking at is California's Proposition 8. Since CA allows marriages by out-of-state couples, this one will have a national impact. For those who might have missed it, gay marriage was legislated from the bench in California last spring. The ceremonies kicked off in June (IIRC). Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution that will stop it, and likely invalidate the marriages performed so far. If it passes, the GLBT community takes another nasty setback. If it fails, a door is opened wide to force the Supreme Court to rule on whether a valid contract in one state is valid in another. I have come around on this issue. At one point I dismissed it as a jobs program for divorce lawyers. I didn't think it was a fight worth picking, when civil union laws should be able to accomplish the same things. Well, the fight is on, whether I think it's too soon or not. It is now a fight over equal access to the protection of law, and that is an easy choice for me. http://www.protectmarriage.com/ http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153 How would you vote on it?

Jeffff -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 11:41:41 AM)
My life is full enough without worrying abut gay folks destroying my culture..:) If they want to have a judge tell them they have to give half their shit away like straight people do, they have my blessing. Jeff

DomKen -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 11:42:39 AM)
That's a no brainer. Allowing same sex marriage does no harm to any straight person and should be allowed on the same basis we allow mixed sex marriage.

Briena -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 12:43:28 PM)
Being from California myself, I must say that I was over joyed when the Supreme Court over-turned the vote. I hope amendment 8 gets shit on. I know Ill be voting no on 8 and thats a fact.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 12:58:23 PM)
Frankly, I would rather see the government get out of the practice of regulating unions among consenting adults. Marriage is for many more religious sacrament than civil compact. That is as it is, and as it will be. So be it. As we should not have laws respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, neither should we have government regulating religious sacrament. I would much rather see marriage licenses eliminated than to see them granted to same-sex couples. Why does government merit that power?

TheHeretic -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Marriage is for many more religious sacrament than civil compact. That's a nice sounding ideological position, Celt, but it's nonsense. Marriage is a specific legal status, surrounded by an enormous body of law. It is a legal status denied, based on gender orientation. Are you saying you would cast no vote at all if it was on your ballot?

Briena -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:15:34 PM)
Because according to the 14th amendment of the constitution, same sex couples have the same privlages as straight couples. Marriage is a privlage not a right, but under the constitution every American has the right to enjoy the same privlages. If a state is trying to unjustly take away those privlages without due process, than it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The government holds no power over granting anyone any marriage, as it is a privilage, not a right, they hold the power to make sure that all Americans are treated equally. Gays were not being treated equally, they were not being granted the same privlages, so using the constitution, the Supreme Court fixed it, stating that it was unconstitutional to abridge their privlages.

slvemike4u -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:17:39 PM)
Well CL as long as there are advantages tax and inheritance wise to being married is it not incumbant on our society to allow all to have access.

DesFIP -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:21:43 PM)
I've always thought that banning same sex marriage is denying people civil rights on the basis of sex, in other words a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:22:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Marriage is for many more religious sacrament than civil compact. That's a nice sounding ideological position, Celt, but it's nonsense. Marriage is a specific legal status, surrounded by an enormous body of law. It is a legal status denied, based on gender orientation. Are you saying you would cast no vote at all if it was on your ballot? Honestly, I don't know how I would vote on that particular issue. If voting "yes" moved government closer to a point of no longer issuing marriage licenses at all, then I would likely vote "yes". If voting "no" is the best means towards that same end, then I would likely vote "no." In either case, my personal objective would be the same--the eventual elimination of marriage as a legal structure.

Raechard -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:35:22 PM)
Marriage has to be a legal structure, how are you going to deal with next of kin rights etc. if it isn't written into law what marriage is?

corysub -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:39:25 PM)
Well, I'm married and bi and welcome the idea of gay marriage. Why should gays be denied the privalege of the constant nit picking and whining of a wife.... Hey..according to the theory of "unintended consequences" it might actually make some gay hetero...gosh..hope not... :)

celticlord2112 -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:39:56 PM)
There are wills, powers of attorney, and a slew of other mechanisms to achieve that same end. Let marriage remain in the religious sphere. There are better solutions for the civil sphere than marriage.

Briena -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:42:44 PM)
Ohhh, so youre saying let marriage be taken out of the picture all together? Like, how the government issues marriage licenses and such? You are just saying if a person wants to get married, let it be recognized by the church, but leave the government completly out of it? If thats what you are saying I get it, if not, Im completly confused LOL!

TheHeretic -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 my personal objective would be the same--the eventual elimination of marriage as a legal structure. Kinda throwing the baby out with bathwater, aren't you? And wouldn't that open the door to much greater government intrusion into our lives? What happens to spousal privilege? Who gets to make critical medical decisions? (Given that my positions are very different from most of my biological relations, this matters a great deal to me.) I'm going to let this go, Celt. I see a yes/no question about basic civil rights here. I don't know if you are rationalizing something else, or just bitter about a bad divorce (or whatever). We don't seem to be on the same page, whatever the basis.

Raechard -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:47:35 PM)
People want the one thing that does all that in one go and not to be in constant contact with lawyers making one legal arrangement after another to get the rights that are inherent to being married. Getting married would hold no real value to a lot of people if it didn't come with the ability to be at your wife/husbands side when they are ill or to decide what is best for them in such a situation.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Briena Ohhh, so youre saying let marriage be taken out of the picture all together? Like, how the government issues marriage licenses and such? You are just saying if a person wants to get married, let it be recognized by the church, but leave the government completly out of it? If thats what you are saying I get it, if not, Im completly confused LOL! That's exactly what I'm saying.

Thadius -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 1:59:44 PM)
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute. Would any of this allow 2 men to be married if they are cousins? If not, why not? note these questions are simply meant to make folks think about other restrictions on marriage, under current law, and why they may or may not be in place.

BadJezebel -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 2:10:53 PM)
I'm of the opinion the government should do something like recognize a "legal household" and that household should contain consenting adults that want to be part of their household and dependant children if any. I believe that "legal household" members should not need to define their relationship to the government. So, if two women who are divorced for example, want to raise their children together and share their lives what difference would it make if they were doing it because they are sisters or lovers? If a person doesn’t have children but wants to include their aging parents on their health insurance, why not? If 3 adults decide to pool their resources to make it in a tough economy what difference should it make to the government as long as they are all good taxpaying citizens??? Marriage can be individually defined. Some people want their unions sanctified by an officiant (i.e. priest) and/or hold a public ceremony. I'm sure each individual can find a suitable officiant if, that's what they want to do. --- That shouldn't be regulated by a secular government.

Level -> RE: Elsewhere on the Ballot: Gay Marriage (9/6/2008 2:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic After making my mark for president in November (where I'll probably get drowned out by the rest of the state), the next biggie I'll be looking at is California's Proposition 8. Since CA allows marriages by out-of-state couples, this one will have a national impact. For those who might have missed it, gay marriage was legislated from the bench in California last spring. The ceremonies kicked off in June (IIRC). Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution that will stop it, and likely invalidate the marriages performed so far. If it passes, the GLBT community takes another nasty setback. If it fails, a door is opened wide to force the Supreme Court to rule on whether a valid contract in one state is valid in another. I have come around on this issue. At one point I dismissed it as a jobs program for divorce lawyers. I didn't think it was a fight worth picking, when civil union laws should be able to accomplish the same things. Well, the fight is on, whether I think it's too soon or not. It is now a fight over equal access to the protection of law, and that is an easy choice for me. http://www.protectmarriage.com/ http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153 How would you vote on it? I would vote to support gay marriage, Rich.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125