California Approves Gay Marriage Ban :(

[hwbs]

LOS ANGELES (Nov. 5) - Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard, and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.
The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target

But California, the nation's most populous state, had been the big prize. Spending for and against Proposition 8 reached $74 million, the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House. Activists on both sides of the issue saw the measure as critical to building momentum for their causes.
"People believe in the institution of marriage," Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign said after declaring victory early Wednesday. "It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up because they care about marriage and they care a great deal."
With almost all precincts reporting, election returns showed the measure winning with 52 percent. Some provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied, but based on trends and the locations of the votes still outstanding, the margin of support in favor of the initiative was secure.
Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. Blacks voted strongly in favor of the ban, while whites narrowly opposed it and Latinos and Asians were split.
Californians overwhelmingly passed a same-sex marriage ban in 2000, but gay-rights supporters had hoped public opinion on the issue had shifted enough for this year's measure to be rejected.
"We pick ourselves up and trudge on," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There has been enormous movement in favor of full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon."
The constitutional amendment limits marriage to heterosexual couples, nullifying the California Supreme Court decision that had made same-sex marriages legal in the state since June.
Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections, but none were in California's situation — with about 18,000 gay couples already married. The state attorney general, Jerry Brown, has said those marriages will remain valid, although legal challenges are possible.
Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that could have led to sweeping bans of abortion, and Washington became only the second state — after Oregon — to offer terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide.
A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have defined life as beginning at conception. Its opponents said the proposal could lead to the outlawing of some types of birth control as well as abortion.
The South Dakota measure would have banned abortions except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother. A tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, lost in 2006. Anti-abortion activists thought the modifications would win approval, but the margin of defeat was similar, about 55 percent to 45 percent of the vote.
"The lesson here is that Americans, in states across the country, clearly support women's ability to access abortion care without government interference," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.
In Washington, voters gave solid approval to an initiative modeled after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, which allows a terminally ill person to be prescribed lethal medication they can administer to themselves. Since Oregon's law took effect in 1997, more than 340 people — mostly ailing with cancer — have used it to end their lives.
The marijuana reform movement won two prized victories, with Massachusetts voters decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the drug and Michigan joining 12 other states in allowing use of pot for medical purposes.
Henceforth, people caught in Massachusetts with an ounce or less of pot will no longer face criminal penalties. Instead, they'll forfeit the marijuana and pay a $100 civil fine.
The Michigan measure will allow severely ill patients to register with the state and legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea, appetite loss and other symptoms.
Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved a ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action, similar to measures previously approved in California, Michigan and Washington. Returns in Colorado on a similar measure were too close to call.
Ward Connerly, the California activist-businessman who has led the crusade against affirmative action, said Obama's victory proved his point. "We have overcome the scourge of race," Connerly said.
Energy measures met a mixed fate. In Missouri, voters approved a measure requiring the state's three investor-owned electric utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021. But California voters defeated an even more ambitious measure that would have required the state's utilities to generate half their electricity from windmills, solar systems, geothermal reserves and other renewable sources by 2025.
Two animal-welfare measures passed — a ban on dog racing in Massachusetts, and a proposition in California that outlaws cramped cages for egg-laying chickens.
Amid deep economic uncertainty, proposals to cut state income taxes were defeated decisively in North Dakota and Massachusetts.
In San Francisco, an eye-catching local measure — to bar arrests for prostitution — was soundly rejected. Police and political leaders said it would hamper the fight against sex trafficking. And in San Diego, voters decided to make permanent a ban on alcohol consumption on city beaches.
Associated Press writer Paul Elias in San Francisco contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-04 10:19:17

[doradora]

:(

[runamok]

So in California, they love the black but hate the cock? WTF?

[dj4monie]

So in California, they love the black but hate the cock? WTF?

The Moron Chruch and Tony Perkins are behind this...

I voted NO, why are so many people concerned with what "The Gay" do???

Obama supported No on 8, so yes 96% of the Black folk what the fuck where you thinking?

Me as Black man didn't even think twice about voting NO.

[tsntx]

:(

[blckhaze]

smh
live and let be. Gay marriage hurts noone. The bible thumpers who preach "marriage is sacred" kill me, when divorce is over 50%.

[Oli]

Move to Ct.

The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.

Gay marriage is legal here. (And we have a nice, although rocky, coastline on the Sound/Atlantic)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/connecticut_sup.html

[a994]

Two steps forward, one step back. Sigh.

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

Yeah this does SUCKS! Now every gay marriages made back then were NULL and VOID! Thanks uptight blacks and latino voters (read statistics)! :evil:

~Kisses.

HTG

[a994]

Yeah, well not all of us black guys have the social consciousness of a troglodyte whose fossils were recently unearthed in Orange County. I voted against Proposition 8 and am highly disappointed that there are still a bunch of uptight people who are too concerned about who their neighbor loves and marries.

Oh well, one day...

[SF_Julie]

"We must never let popular votes affect our own internal sense of our worth, our equality, our dignity as human beings. Our marriages are real; all that is at issue is whether a majority will recognise them in law. The next generation already does. We shall overcome.
" Andrew Sullivan

[SarahG]

Gay marriage is legal here

For now.

It was legal in CA.


I can't say I am surprised, CA has been a historic, repetitive case study in what happens when you give the people the ability to pass anything into law directly threw ballot initiatives.

The people simply can't handle that level of political power- they need the checks & balances of a system to prevent them from getting what they beseech. At the end of the day, all the CA system CAN give you is stuff like Prop13, Prop8, and all the hypocritical, illogical, odious, asinine bullshit in between (like that year, think it was 92? where two ballot initiatives in CA passed, one requiring a specific type of business insurance and the other outlawing it- if you weren't in violation of one you were in violation of the other- enough idiots didn't know what the fuck they were voting on, that many voted both into law at the same time- and with a smile on their face in the process!).

They don't require passing an IQ test to vote, hell they don't require much of anything. In a state that's had its education system castrated, bond, raped, and tortured multiple times, from the feds, from the state, from themselves (prop13) it is easy for rash short-sighted, bigoted nonsense to permeate into the minds of the voting population. Yet even decent education, knowledge and tolerance is meaningless in the eyes of the mob; wherefore? Democracy is nothing more than three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There is no such thing as a sovereign, independent state in the United States... that's what the civil war was really about in case that point has been missed. What happens in one state has a direct impact on what happens in another (be it through national politics, case law et al.), and in a country where so many of our citizens have been blinded by those who claim to be of righteousness, even state sovereignty if it existed at all (which it doesn't) would not be able to prohibit those who believe something to be wrong from exerting unethical, immoral, and blinded force upon those who simply disagree.

Religious groups virtually never make an argument based on boarders, the sense of using state sovereignty or independence to claim "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" only emanates from social conservatives or a church under fire in need of its own sanctuary. The first estate is, as the name implies- first and foremost a POLITICAL institution, and more often than not a boarderless one. This is, if you think about it- unavoidable. If someone believes abortion to be murder, truly believes that to be so- they are not going to stand by idly while it occurs the next street over (even if the next street over is in another state, or even another country). "the next street over" is just an example, it could be the next river over, county over, mountain over, continent over- it does not matter, they will act out to try to end its practice.

This is why these groups fight as hard as they do to teach creation in schools.... it hasn't been, nor will it ever be a discussion about "their own"- if all they cared about was informing "fellow christians"- then creationism and evolution-debunking would be taught in sunday schools and not the public schools. It's the atheist or agnostic child in school they want to reach out to, just as there are missionaries spread out across the third world to deprogram and re-educate the pagans, religion-less, and superstitious.

"the message"- whatever it is, will change with time. Abortion, homosexuality, sex toys, tattoos, and who knows what else. But rest assured, as long as there will be religious fundamentalism in the United States, as long as there is a "message to get out"- there will be aggressive, proactive, boarderless, unrestricted measures to do so, even if it means trampling on the minority, entering into foreign lands, or sending plane loads of missionaries into some country that only tolerates their presence for the material aid that comes with it in food, medicine, and technology. Christianity has never been a hard sell in a land full of dying, malnourished, impoverished, dying populations (even in cases where the missionaries themselves were the cause of it).

[Coroner]

Very good said, Sarah. I´m dissapointed because it happened in California but it seems like you still got a huge Redneck problem over there. I used to stay awake the whole last night, watching the elections live on Austrian TV with lots of interviews, polls and analyzes. I´m sorry my American friends but 70% of American territory is like 17th century´s Europe to me. Bible-Nazis control towns, cities and states, the Theory of Evoluotion gets banned from schools in some states, millions of people in America militantly believe in a spaghetti monster "who created the world in 6 days" and that the world isn´t older than 6000 years. All this is reality in a Western country who claims to be civilized. I feel sorry for all LGTB activists in California and America and for every reasonable individual.

[Coroner]

Very good said, Sarah. I´m dissapointed because it happened in California but it seems like you still got a huge Redneck problem over there. I used to stay awake the whole last night, watching the elections live on Austrian TV with lots of interviews, polls and analyzes. I´m sorry my American friends but 70% of American territory is like 17th century´s Europe to me. Bible-Nazis control towns, cities and states, the Theory of Evoluotion gets banned from schools in some states, millions of people in America militantly believe in a spaghetti monster "who created the world in 6 days" and that the world isn´t older than 6000 years. All this is reality in a Western country who claims to be civilized. I feel sorry for all LGTB activists in California and America and for every reasonable individual.

[Willie Escalade]

I voted no. I would have gone to the protest in West Hollywood this evening, but I was still at work.

Fuck the law. If you feel you're married in your heart and mind, then you are. If Johnny Law arrests you because you performed a marriage ceremony...and you happen to be the same sex (physicially), something really is wrong with this country.

Man...I thought for sure Cali would strike this one down. :(

[SarahG]

I voted no. I would have gone to the protest in West Hollywood this evening, but I was still at work.

Fuck the law. If you feel you're married in your heart and mind, then you are. If Johnny Law arrests you because you performed a marriage ceremony...and you happen to be the same sex (physicially), something really is wrong with this country.

Man...I thought for sure Cali would strike this one down. :(

In some states, pretending to be married when you're not (in the eyes of the law) isn't just a crime.

Its a sex crime, and a felony.

Meaning it'll eliminate your gun ownership rights, eliminate your right to vote, and throw you on the sex offender lists just for having what the government won't recognize.

Google cohabitation laws and all the shit some states have pulled with those laws. You'd be surprised what states and local governments will do to their citizens.

So far cohabitation law hasn't, as far as I know, been used against LGBT rights BUT it WAS the tool in which government; 1- killed common law marriages, 2- forced straight people to get married to live or rent together. Some states still have these laws on the books, SOME STILL ENFORCE THEM.

[Oli]

Gay marriage is legal here

For now.

While California's Proposition 8 has assumed the national spotlight as far as ballot initiatives go, there are other ballot questions in other states that are getting less attention than they should. We are currently facing one such question in Connecticut.

Now, those of you who are super-savvy on the subject of state laws may be saying to me via the computer screen, "Wait a minute, Connecticut doesn't have ballot initiatives! What gives?" This is true. But what gives is that there is a clause in our state constitution that requires the question to be posed on the ballot every twenty years: "Should there be a convention to amend the state constitution?" The option has never been exercised since the ratification of the current constitution in 1965.

However, there is now an urgent matter that has befallen Connecticut due a serious flaw in our state's most important document that MUST be addressed immediately, even if it requires the most draconian of means, lest our children and our children's children forever pay the consequences.

You guessed it: We forgot to ban gays from getting married.

It was called Prop 1 and it lost 60/40.

Oh well, in 20 years we'll do it again.

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

Yeah, well not all of us black guys have the social consciousness of a troglodyte whose fossils were recently unearthed in Orange County. I voted against Proposition 8 and am highly disappointed that there are still a bunch of uptight people who are too concerned about who their neighbor loves and marries.

Oh well, one day...

Well I'm pretty sure there were some Blacks and Latino voters who are open minded about this. But then again, statistics showed most Black and Latino's voted against it here in California due to their conservative and one sided views about marriage between man and a woman bullcrap when there are Infact a lot of gay, lesbian and transgender folks within their own race. :(

Oh well..Maybe one day.

~Kisses.

HTG

[Willie Escalade]

In some states, pretending to be married when you're not (in the eyes of the law) isn't just a crime.

Its a sex crime, and a felony.

Meaning it'll eliminate your gun ownership rights, eliminate your right to vote, and throw you on the sex offender lists just for having what the government won't recognize.

Google cohabitation laws and all the shit some states have pulled with those laws. You'd be surprised what states and local governments will do to their citizens.

So far cohabitation law hasn't, as far as I know, been used against LGBT rights BUT it WAS the tool in which government; 1- killed common law marriages, 2- forced straight people to get married to live or rent together. Some states still have these laws on the books, SOME STILL ENFORCE THEM.
Geez...that's F.U.B.A.R. :evil:

[Fox]

I voted against it. Like haze said, live and let live. I, too, thought Cali would reject prop 8, you know, seeing as how San Franscisco is the gay capital of country. I guess not though. :/

The slight upside, however, is that the margins were much closer this time. Last time it was a landslide.

[SarahG]

Very good said, Sarah. I´m dissapointed because it happened in California but it seems like you still got a huge Redneck problem over there.


The rednecks have nothing to do with it, its the out of state religious groups that caused the CA incident. The money pouring into CA to try to "end gay marriage" could have fed a country of starving poor.

But since the starving poor, the malnourished, the fatally diseased are more often than not foreign, and more often than not coloured (of some kind)- these religious groups have no problem diverting money away from those causes, to redefine the constitution in a state that doesn't even want their presence.


American friends but 70% of American territory is like 17th century´s Europe to me.

17th century Europe was on the verge of coming into the enlightenment era. Education certainly wasn't ideal, but it wasn't being proactively opposed the way it is often stereotyped.

Anselm not only opposed the idea of faith & knowledge being on opposing sides, but spent a significant portion of his career arguing in support of a merged dialog, in which no talk of the faith could run opposed to science, and no talk of science could run into problems with the realm of faith. He did say, after all- "For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand. For I believe this: unless I believe, I will not understand," and that was some six hundred years before 17th century Europe.

As to the United States? Well, education in recent decades isn't really suppressed by some institutional attempt to force the population into ignorance unless either the religious groups count, or the republicans who feel taxing Americans to pay for public schooling is communism. On the contrary, there is something far more nefarious going on here... a situation in which education is being systematically rejected by everyone in all levels of the society, the people, the politicians, the students. More people could probably list the full line up of American Idol's last season then could accurately state who Anselm was without googling him (and if someone were to google him, my bet is they'd simply go by wikipedia and assume it to be gospel's truth). I would even bet most Americans wouldn't have a clue where Vienna is on a map.

When McKinley took the Philippines from the Spanish, he didn't even know where it was on the globe and publicly stated as much. Think of that, the president of the United States taking a set of islands with military force, and not having a fucking clue where it is in the world- and that was more than a hundred years ago. In justifying conquering the Philippines, McKinley said it was to Americanize and Christianize them... only the Catholic church has been in those islands since 17th century Europe (had to tie this all together somehow LOL), of course McKinley certainly didn't know that part.

Today all we have are our bread & circuses... we're already paying for it, and will continue to do so for generations. Rome had the colosseums and bread (well, until the Teutonics took it back), we have our failed social welfare programs and mass-media circuses to keep us distracted. There is no Anselm in today's America, and if the bible thumpers are anything to go by when talking about stuff like gay marriage or intelligent design, it is clear that there are powerful factions using a level of ignorance, a level of religious fanaticism that even predated Anselm De Canterbury's 11th century Europe.

[blckhaze]

Yeah, well not all of us black guys have the social consciousness of a troglodyte whose fossils were recently unearthed in Orange County. I voted against Proposition 8 and am highly disappointed that there are still a bunch of uptight people who are too concerned about who their neighbor loves and marries.

Oh well, one day...

Well I'm pretty sure there were some Blacks and Latino voters who are open minded about this. But then again, statistics showed most Black and Latino's voted against it here in California due to their conservative and one sided views about marriage between man and a woman bullcrap when there are Infact a lot of gay, lesbian and transgender folks within their own race. :(

Oh well..Maybe one day.

~Kisses.

HTG


Honestly Im not surprised that blacks and latinos voted to repeal.
Like hara said, its the highly "religious" (those are air qoutes BTW) upbringing. Very narrow, very "Ill use the bible/God/Jesus for MY agenda."

[justatransgirl]

This truly was a sad day, not just for transsexuals and the GLBT community, but for all Americans.

Never before that I know of has a civil right been removed from a class of people.

I hope President-Elect Obama realizes that not so many years ago his bi-racial parents would not have been allowed to marry in the US. Could that be the next step in the repeal of past won civil rights if the religious right wing hate mongers have their way?

Our only real hope I think is for a Federal Law to supersede the states passing all these religious based laws and grant real equality to all Americans and uphold the Constitution that this country was founded upon, not the Bible.

As for the black vote situation. While I know there are many black members of the GLBT community and many supporters of color, it has also sadly been my experience that those who most want acceptance are often the least accepting.

The numbers being used in the media do point to a sad fact that because Obama called out higher numbers of black and Hispanic voters - many of whom are feverishly religious - his election cost us our civil rights.

I'm very depressed right now, so goodnight.

TS Jamie :-(

[BrendaQG]

This is unfortunate but this is also what is great about America. We have the god given constitutional right to vote. Instead of calling the people there stupid I will say that they likely searched their hearts and minds.

If people in heavily rural, or black, or hispanic area's voted yes it is OUR fault. We LGBT people have failed to win the hearts and minds of more of the electorate. That is the way to get the rights we want.

This will not be a popular thing to say but I will say it. Any law that grants the right of gays to marry must also explicitly grant the right of refusal to religous establishments. There should also be language which explicitly states that children will not be taught about LGBT issues. Those are the two things that added up to something for many many straight Californian's to resent. Namely some felt that the coercive power of government was being used not to bring mere tolerance of LGBT people, but to enforce acceptance and approval. No legislation can bring that about. (I have relatives in So Cal who have discussed this matter with me over the years and recently.)

What the LGBT community needs to do is reintroduce itself to the rest of California. Stop being those people in the bay area and Hollywood and start being some of those people in Bakersfield and the rest of the central valley. Let them get to know some of you on a personal level. Then in 2 4 or 8 years however long it takes.... instead of voting on the rights of some boogey man/woman they will have to think about taking away the rights of YOU a living breathing person.

My personal point of view. It may be a better if we get the government out of the business of marrying people. Marriage is a religous contract that is only ever as significant as the people taking vows before god think it is. Were I queen for a day I would abolish civil marriage and replace it with universal domestic partnership for any two consenting adults. Leaving those who want to be married to find a clergyman willing to do it. That would be the most fair to the religious, and LGBT alike. That would make too much sense to ever really happen IMO.

[BrendaQG]

This truly was a sad day, not just for transsexuals and the GLBT community, but for all Americans.

Never before that I know of has a civil right been removed from a class of people.

I hope President-Elect Obama realizes that not so many years ago his bi-racial parents would not have been allowed to marry in the US. Could that be the next step in the repeal of past won civil rights if the religious right wing hate mongers have their way?

Our only real hope I think is for a Federal Law to supersede the states passing all these religious based laws and grant real equality to all Americans and uphold the Constitution that this country was founded upon, not the Bible.

As for the black vote situation. While I know there are many black members of the GLBT community and many supporters of color, it has also sadly been my experience that those who most want acceptance are often the least accepting.

The numbers being used in the media do point to a sad fact that because Obama called out higher numbers of black and Hispanic voters - many of whom are feverishly religious - his election cost us our civil rights.

I'm very depressed right now, so goodnight.

TS Jamie :-(

That will not happen. Barrack Obama has said it so many times that he supports domestic partnership and not gay marriage. Which I agree with, because I don't think that the laws of man can define for the religious what a marriage is. It was folly for our secular government to get mixed up in this business in the first place (by way of the so called civil marriage.) He believes as I do that marriage is religiously defined.

You have to remember that people from where barrack lives may be liberal and democrats but that is only in comparison to the total biggots that live in the rest of Illinois. Pull up an electoral map of my great state and you will see what I mean. In this blue letter year for Barrack there were still large parts of western and downstate Illinois that voted for McCain! Some were surprised that Barrack won the County of DuPage (the second most populous county in Illinois I believe) just to the west of cook county. It is usually a republican strong hold. But right now it has Fermi national Laboratory. In 4 years that will be shut down and all the hordes of college educated people who lived there because of that lab will be dispersed. The mortgage crash means that the black and Hispanic democrats that moved into expensive places in Oak Brook, or Elmhurst will not be there either. Dupage had been turning blue I see it starting to turn red again. Which is bad news for Barrack if he want's to be president in 8 years.. The importance of winning in Dupage county, and at least one of the other so called "collar counties" here in Illinois cannot be understated. That makes up most of Illinois polulation. No president has ever won election while losing his home state.

Bottom line is Barrack needs to watch himself politically if he is to survive. There will be no "gays in the millitary" or Hillary's health plan like things from him. Hell he may even be a bit more conservative than GW Bush for the first four years.

My last word on any of this. Yesterday here in Chicago it was 74 degree's. That is not normal for November or October in Chicago. my nephews, both grown men, said that the weather was that way because of Barrack Obama. They seriously believed that his aura, power whatever did that. :-? Everyone needs to quench their excitement and temper their expectations with the cold water of reality. Be happy if Barrack can get us out of Iraq without getting us in a much worse war with Pakistan (they have the H bomb). Be happy if he can get us out of the financial crisis and get us a real sustanable energy economy those three things are HUGE and will help everyone across the board. That is what Barrack will do. Not walk on water, raise the dead, or heal the sick with the laying on of hands.

[Mr. Sinister]

The reason there is little support for Gay marriage is because of the religious right. Americans are very a religious people. Rather than forcing Gay marriage down people's throats, the best thing to do is to have Civil Unions for same sex-partners. Civil Unions are "marriages" without actually being called marriages. President Obama and many of the Democrats in Congress support the idea of Civil Unions, but not Gay Marriage.

[SarahG]

This is unfortunate but this is also what is great about America. We have the god given constitutional right to vote.

Have you ever read The Federalist? The founding fathers despised democracy with every ounce of their existence. There is a very real reason why we have a system to create our laws, and don't have our citizens take a vote every time a bill or measure is being proposed.

When it comes to public support for a proposed legislation, there are certain types of measures that the public are almost always quick to jump behind. The first are crime bills (like mandatory sentencing). The public, probably rightfully wants to be tough on crime, the problem is that this concern isn't kept rational and we're quick to execute people like Davis (google it) who not only was convicted by witnesses without any hard evidence, but while sitting on death row had every one of those witnesses recant.

There is a very real reason why our system would prefer to let a guilty man go, than execute an innocent one. But with such a "get tough on crime" population who feels people shouldn't "get off on technicalities" or "avoid accountibility with an insanity plea," the people and the system are of two different views here. The people are probably closer to countries like China that would prefer to see a hundred innocent men executed before one guilty one goes free. Especially if the crime being alleged was a sex crime.

Another type of legislation the general public usually gets behind are policies that, if enacted into law, would some how regulate sex in relation to minors. I'm not talking just direct sexual contact here but also stuff like clothing, music, television broadcasts. We all saw how the country reacted when Janet Jackson "accidentally" showed her tit on live TV and this is typical of our society. Even the system can't stand up to the public's demand for sex-related censorship, and that's why the state of FL is sending Paul Little to JAIL for 42 MONTHS just for making porn that 12 prudes thought were "too hard core." The last thing we want are ballot initiatives to determine social policy.

[SarahG]

That will not happen. Barrack Obama has said it so many times that he supports domestic partnership and not gay marriage. Which I agree with, because I don't think that the laws of man can define for the religious what a marriage is.

Only we're not talking about the religious institution of marriage, we're talking about the civil institution of marriage.

There's simply no reason why two atheists should be legally barred from marrying. It really doesn't matter what a given religion believes, we have a marriage license system and in a marriage license system everyone can marry regardless their race, ethnicity or religion.

If you were saying religions that do not believe in gay marriage should not be forced to marry two people of the same sex, I would not only agree with you- but wonder why any gay couple would WANT a church with such views to be the setting of the ceremony.

But it's another thing entirely to say "my religion doesn't believe in gay marriage and therefore it should be illegal for the atheist, secular town justice from marrying two atheists of the same sex at Town Hall."

I could invent some new religion that thinks heterosexual marriage is a sin, if I get enough followers the religion would even be tax-free and federally recognized (Scientology and Mormons both went from being fringe American-made religions to recognized formal institutions within the last 300 years). But it would be not only crazy, but unethical and immoral for me to then go with my newly created religion and demand that the state annul all heterosexual marriages that exist, and/or stop the licensing of future heterosexual marriages.

[SarahG]

Rather than forcing Gay marriage down people's throats, the best thing to do is to have Civil Unions for same sex-partners. Civil Unions are "marriages" without actually being called marriages.

For a while, many states had sodomy illegal.

The argument against that practice was that "what people do behind closed doors in their bedrooms isn't the government's business"

But that argument is flawed, anyone who thinks that it should be "behind closed doors"- isn't for LGBT rights. There are no rights if those rights are exclusive to when people are in isolation, and in private. You don't see people saying "you have freedom of speech, but only for stuff said in private, behind closed doors at the dinner table."

Here we have something similar going on. The idea that a religion can dictate the name of a legal, civil contract even for nonbelievers is absurd.

We ARE talking about the legal definition of marriage, not the religious definition of marriage. People aren't required to be married by their religious institutions, and many people wouldn't want to be married in a church. If a religion doesn't recognize gay marriage that's their problem, their power extends to their institution and its members exclusively.

It's forcing the whole population of nonbelievers to follow someone else's religious definition of marriage that's the problem. The churches are the ones forcing this down people's throats, that's why they dumped millions into CA this election, and why they sent busloads of activists to try to push the measure threw.

[BeardedOne]

Fuck the law. If you feel you're married in your heart and mind, then you are. If Johnny Law arrests you because you performed a marriage ceremony...and you happen to be the same sex (physicially), something really is wrong with this country.

This isn't about arrest. This is about parental rights, shared benefits, estate law, spousal visitation rights.

Essentially, all things not available to single people in relationships, 'civil unions', or any other relationship not defined, to the letter, as a 'marriage'.

When I die, my Social Security benefits (Which I have contributed to for my entire working life) dissolve into thin air. And it has nothing to do with who I prefer to fuck or be fucked by.

Fuck marriage. And fuck whoever stands in its way with a splintery broom handle, because they have no right to disrupt an institution that two people choose to commit themselves to.

[SarahG]

Rather than forcing Gay marriage down people's throats, the best thing to do is to have Civil Unions for same sex-partners. Civil Unions are "marriages" without actually being called marriages.

For a while, many states had sodomy illegal.

The argument against that practice was that "what people do behind closed doors in their bedrooms isn't the government's business"

But that argument is flawed, anyone who thinks that it should be "behind closed doors"- isn't for LGBT rights. There are no rights if those rights are exclusive to when people are in isolation, and in private. You don't see people saying "you have freedom of speech, but only for stuff said in private, behind closed doors at the dinner table."

Here we have something similar going on. The idea that a religion can dictate the name of a legal, civil contract even for nonbelievers is absurd.

We ARE talking about the legal definition of marriage, not the religious definition of marriage. People aren't required to be married by their religious institutions, and many people wouldn't want to be married in a church. If a religion doesn't recognize gay marriage that's their problem, their power extends to their institution and its members exclusively.

It's forcing the whole population of nonbelievers to follow someone else's religious definition of marriage that's the problem. The churches are the ones forcing this down people's throats, that's why they dumped millions into CA this election, and why they sent busloads of activists to try to push the measure threw.

[Dinand]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

[Blkmonkey]

i voted no on 8 since its fucked up. Gay ppl dont bother, me as long as they mind their own business.

[broncofan]

i voted no on 8 since its fucked up. Gay ppl dont bother, me as long as they mind their own business.
Quick question, do you mind your own business? And what does it mean to mind one's own business?

Voting no on 8 doesn't mean that you think gays should be able to live a meek, apologetic, and quiet existence whether as married couples or not. It means that they should have the same rights as straights. It's an important step for them in achieving not just equality, but also legitimacy in the eyes of the closet bigot who still sees their behavior as immoral or more delusionally a threat to the traditional family. On the lattter point, it actually troubles me that Republicans think that the gay man is the siren that every happily married suit secretly yearns for. Most of all, it's the attempt of their community to actually foster more responsible, monogamous relationships which should be a positive sign for any right-winger who's ever complained about their so-called "promiscuity".

And finally, I think every guy on a tranny board (at least in Cali) should have voted no out of self-interest because even if you see yourself as straight, the general public is not as willing to make these distinctions.

[menacingmethods86]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?

[lahabra1976]

[
Well I'm pretty sure there were some Blacks and Latino voters who are open minded about this. But then again, statistics showed most Black and Latino's voted against it here in California due to their conservative and one sided views about marriage between man and a woman bullcrap when there are Infact a lot of gay, lesbian and transgender folks within their own race. :(

Oh well..Maybe one day.

~Kisses.

HTG

You are right, according to this article on proposition 8, margin was 69 to 31 in favor of yes for black voters

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

It pointed out that black people attend church more so are more in opposition to gay marriage. So it was the fact that Obama bring many black voters to turn out that increase proposition 8 chances. But than again that is what helped Obama win. We have to take the good with the bad here. So maybe not now gay marriage will be, but maybe next election where black voter turnout maybe won't be as great.

[broncofan]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?
Cause most people will consider you gay for liking trannies whether you do or not. And when it comes to discrimination, a seemingly small issue like marriage can have a lasting impact. The thinking goes, if gays are allowed to marry, people will consider them families rather than just an outside group of sexual deviants (which is how the thinking must have gone for the yes voters).

[SarahG]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?

These gay marriage bans USUALLY don't just say "marriage is between a man in a woman" but say "marriage is between an XY man and an XX woman"- meaning even postops can't marry guys with the bans in place.

When Ohio passed their gay marriage ban in 2004, not only did it outlaw same sex marriage, but it also defined sex in that state based on blood, AND reaffirmed that birth certificates cannot be altered for any reason, even SRS.

Meaning gays cant marry, straight tgirls can't marry, postops can't marry, and postops can't even get papers that say female after SRS.

Many of these ballot initiatives also tried to eliminate parental rights for LGBT citizens, meaning if you're LGBT, you can't adopt.

If you think this only impacts gay couples, you're wrong.

[blckhaze]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?



1) Exact reason why gay should be allowed to get married. So called "christian" or "Straight" marriage rates are so poor, so why do the ones who choose to remarry 8 times have the right to tell someone who choose a different lifestyle be denied that same opportunity.
2) Married yields health benefits and other GOVERNMENT moneys to be able to go to both partners. Think of it this way: If you married a woman, and her company gives a certain healthcare plan, you get added to her policy, therefore you're covered incase anything happens to you.
3) On the "straight" comment, it affect all person who wanna marry a TS. Some states don't allow you to change ALL the paperwork ei. birth certificate, passport, Drivers License. Hence, its a same sex marriage. Im sure there are a handful of girls out there that would be happy to just live like married folks with out the legal marriage, but chances are, if they think like GG's theyre gonna want all the grandeur and pomp of a "Wedding Day".

[Solitary Brother]

They are now reporting that blacks and latinos are the ones who supported prop 8 and voted yes on it.
The newspapers are reporting that the MAJORITY of latinos voted YES and over 70% of blacks voted YES.
Thats why it failed.

NOW....

Anyone who is black or latino doesnt have to have any expert tell them about the homophobia in these communities.
Just thought you should know and I CAN provide links to the proof.

Good evening.

[broncofan]

If you think this only impacts gay couples, you're wrong.
Exactly. It's also a pretty good litmus test for where we are as a society. Some of the regimes most hostile to basic human rights also have the most regressive laws on homosexuality. This is no coincidence. Denying marriage rights isn't the equivalent of criminalizing the act but it's of the same ethos because you're failing to grant their unions legitimacy. You don't have to make their basic sexual nature criminal when you can just ostracize the population.

[SarahG]

They are now reporting that blacks and latinos are the ones who supported prop 8 and voted yes on it.
The newspapers are reporting that the MAJORITY of latinos voted YES and over 70% of blacks voted YES.
Thats why it failed.

NOW....

Anyone who is black or latino doesnt have to have any expert tell them about the homophobia in these communities.
Just thought you should know and I CAN provide links to the proof.

Good evening.

That goes without saying, playing minorities off of minorities has been a very old tradition in this country, in no small part because of how effective it is.

The coal giants almost never had to hire mercenaries (Pinkerton's) to kill labor trouble-makers, usually all they would have to do is find another ethnic or racial group to come in to a given miner-town... and the minorities would eagerly beat each other to death in the streets.

[tubgirl]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?



1) Exact reason why gay should be allowed to get married. So called "christian" or "Straight" marriage rates are so poor, so why do the ones who choose to remarry 8 times have the right to tell someone who choose a different lifestyle be denied that same opportunity.
2) Married yields health benefits and other GOVERNMENT moneys to be able to go to both partners. Think of it this way: If you married a woman, and her company gives a certain healthcare plan, you get added to her policy, therefore you're covered incase anything happens to you.
3) On the "straight" comment, it affect all person who wanna marry a TS. Some states don't allow you to change ALL the paperwork ei. birth certificate, passport, Drivers License. Hence, its a same sex marriage. Im sure there are a handful of girls out there that would be happy to just live like married folks with out the legal marriage, but chances are, if they think like GG's theyre gonna want all the grandeur and pomp of a "Wedding Day".

uh, just so you know, that money starts out as your money, and my money...

the gov't does not make money...

[jesseflo]

i think its ridiculous it is even being voted on. its a descrimintation prop. its like what year are we in? shouldnt even be a big deal. we should all be equal with the same rights not voting on who has rights and who doesnt. if people want to protect marriage then they should ban divorce. i say equal rights for everyone. i hope it gets fixed cause who knows there may be a day i want to get married and technically by law id be considered a male and would not be able to get married ever unless i went all the way which i have no plans on doing so where would i be? just my opinions. :D

[jesseflo]

not cool

[SarahG]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?



1) Exact reason why gay should be allowed to get married. So called "christian" or "Straight" marriage rates are so poor, so why do the ones who choose to remarry 8 times have the right to tell someone who choose a different lifestyle be denied that same opportunity.
2) Married yields health benefits and other GOVERNMENT moneys to be able to go to both partners. Think of it this way: If you married a woman, and her company gives a certain healthcare plan, you get added to her policy, therefore you're covered incase anything happens to you.
3) On the "straight" comment, it affect all person who wanna marry a TS. Some states don't allow you to change ALL the paperwork ei. birth certificate, passport, Drivers License. Hence, its a same sex marriage. Im sure there are a handful of girls out there that would be happy to just live like married folks with out the legal marriage, but chances are, if they think like GG's theyre gonna want all the grandeur and pomp of a "Wedding Day".

uh, just so you know, that money starts out as your money, and my money...

the gov't does not make money...

Just the same blckhaze is factually correct here, the government on both local, state, and federal levels all treat couples differently based on whether or not a given couple is "legally married" with a marriage license.

Even a straight couple where neither individual is trans, if you're not married by a marriage license (say you're married under common law marriage instead), then you're going to be treated differently just because you don't have that secular piece of paper that says "marriage license" on it.

But a straight couple has the means to be married with a marriage license, whereas gay couples and most trans couples cannot (well, unless its a FtM marrying a MtF....). This creates a situation in which the government will treat one couple DIFFERENTLY than another couple. This can mean one couple gets more financial perks (like tax cuts, social security benefits), to stuff that has no financial advantage but nonetheless is important.

To give an example:

When a straight couple are legally married, and one of the partners dies in combat- the government gives the flag to the widow. This is not a financial "perk" by any stretch of the imagination, and yet since a gay couple cannot be married, the life-partner won't get the flag in this situation.

There are countless examples inbetween social security benefits and the giving the flag ritual at funerals. The fact of the matter is that the system cares very much about who is married, and this concern is found in ALL levels of our government from health care to privacy laws, to taxes, to welfare programs and a lot that no one would ever normally think about inbetween.

There is no way "civil unions" could be treated the same in the eyes of the law, it simply is not possible. There are too many ways in which the government cares about marriage. Most basic of all, is that the government cannot force a spouse to testify against the other. It is a focal form of confidentiality in our system- no different from lawyer-client confidentiality, doctor-patient confidentiality, or spiritual leader-follower confidentiality.

Yet even if we somehow managed to find a way to make "civil unions" work in the same way as marriage in all these aspects... then we're left in America where "separate but equal" is once again accepted, practiced, and embraced. It didn't work in 1898, it won't work in 2008.

[blckhaze]

Marriage is overrated anyway. Why do it? I don't see the point.

Yeah. I really don't see many marriages lasting longer than a year now a days. Besides if everyone here is "straight" and only into trannys, why do they care about gay marriage? :?



1) Exact reason why gay should be allowed to get married. So called "christian" or "Straight" marriage rates are so poor, so why do the ones who choose to remarry 8 times have the right to tell someone who choose a different lifestyle be denied that same opportunity.
2) Married yields health benefits and other GOVERNMENT moneys to be able to go to both partners. Think of it this way: If you married a woman, and her company gives a certain healthcare plan, you get added to her policy, therefore you're covered incase anything happens to you.
3) On the "straight" comment, it affect all person who wanna marry a TS. Some states don't allow you to change ALL the paperwork ei. birth certificate, passport, Drivers License. Hence, its a same sex marriage. Im sure there are a handful of girls out there that would be happy to just live like married folks with out the legal marriage, but chances are, if they think like GG's theyre gonna want all the grandeur and pomp of a "Wedding Day".

uh, just so you know, that money starts out as your money, and my money...

the gov't does not make money...

Just the same blckhaze is factually correct here, the government on both local, state, and federal levels all treat couples differently based on whether or not a given couple is "legally married" with a marriage license.

Even a straight couple where neither individual is trans, if you're not married by a marriage license (say you're married under common law marriage instead), then you're going to be treated differently just because you don't have that secular piece of paper that says "marriage license" on it.

But a straight couple has the means to be married with a marriage license, whereas gay couples and most trans couples cannot (well, unless its a FtM marrying a MtF....). This creates a situation in which the government will treat one couple DIFFERENTLY than another couple. This can mean one couple gets more financial perks (like tax cuts, social security benefits), to stuff that has no financial advantage but nonetheless is important.

To give an example:

When a straight couple are legally married, and one of the partners dies in combat- the government gives the flag to the widow. This is not a financial "perk" by any stretch of the imagination, and yet since a gay couple cannot be married, the life-partner won't get the flag in this situation.

There are countless examples inbetween social security benefits and the giving the flag ritual at funerals. The fact of the matter is that the system cares very much about who is married, and this concern is found in ALL levels of our government from health care to privacy laws, to taxes, to welfare programs and a lot that no one would ever normally think about inbetween.

There is no way "civil unions" could be treated the same in the eyes of the law, it simply is not possible. There are too many ways in which the government cares about marriage. Most basic of all, is that the government cannot force a spouse to testify against the other. It is a focal form of confidentiality in our system- no different from lawyer-client confidentiality, doctor-patient confidentiality, or spiritual leader-follower confidentiality.

Yet even if we somehow managed to find a way to make "civil unions" work in the same way as marriage in all these aspects... then we're left in America where "separate but equal" is once again accepted, practiced, and embraced. It didn't work in 1898, it won't work in 2008.


Thanks for backing me up with more facts.
I should have remembered SS, as both of surviving Grandparents are still collecting SS AND other work related benefits after YEARS their respective partner are deceased.

[BrendaQG]

Sarah

The difference between a conservative like me and a liberal like you is that conservatives like me respect your right to your opinion. Liberals like you demean those who even mildly disagree with you.

It's this simple. The way to overturn one voted on proposition is with another and the earliest possible date. start gathering the signatures to put a measure to unban LGBT marriage and let it be voted on. Run a smart campaign.

Ahh your not going to listen. Saying that people who arent queer actually have the right not to like us is hate speech to you. :-/

[LAGent4ts]

I voted no on Prop 8 and was surprised that it passed. I find it depressing that there are
at least 5,417,748 individuals in this state who feel compelled to control the lives of those with whom they fear or disagree, and are so closed minded to deny equal rights to all.

Couples should be joined by a civil union "performed" by the state. A civil union of Any two individuals grants them all the rights, benefits and consequences, etc under the law that are now only available to married couples.

Marriage should be nothing more than a religions ceremony, a option to those who are joined in a civil union. Marriage should not have any benefits under the law. In fact, unless you have gone through a civil cermony, the church cannot perform a marriage. I think this would place everyone on the same playing field.

I suspect, but have no basis to conclude, save the census, that the majority of the yes votes came from the baby boomers. I find this interesting and confusing because based on a gathering of baby boomer mothers, parents of the baby boomers were not supporting Prop 8, and thus are much more opened minded than their children.

I base this on the following: About a week prior to the election, I had stopped in to see my mother, forgetting that this was her bridge day with her possee of spunky blue hairs. Picture 4 tables of 4 woman each, the youngest being 78 and the oldest 85. All but 3 of the 16 gathered are widows, and each one independent, outspoken, churchgoing and generally conservative politically and each having raised a family here in California. When I arrived, there was a lively conversation about the up coming election, the current subject being Prop. 8. I was a bit surprised(and pleased) to find during their conversation that the majority of these ladies were planning on voting NO on Prop 8. The general consensus being that it was not at all an issue about children and education, it was a matter of equality and fairness. "Parents raise children, not the schools", "individuals who live an alternative lifestyle do not generally chose to do so, they do so because that is who they are inside, who in their right mind would chose to take the abuse and ridicule that these individuals endure each day of their lives", "live and let live" were some of the comments that were repeated by these ladies. So much for being set in their ways. There must be some truth to the old adage that Older is Wiser.

The promoters of Prop 8 made this an issue of education and children. There were two (2) other measures on the ballot THAT WERE directly related to children, Prop 3, the Children's Hospital Bond Act (which Passed) and Prop 4, Parental Notification Before Terminating Minor's Pregnancy (which Failed).
Here are the stats:
Prop. Yes Votes % No Votes %
8 5,417,748 52.5% 4,907,867 47.5%
4 4,788,032 48.0% 5,182,918 52.0%
3 5,340,184 54.8% 4,407,752 45.2%

For some reason, I would have thought that those who voted no on 4, Parental notification would have also voted no on Proposition 8. What happened to 275,051 voters? It is dishartening to realize that the public bought the argument that Prop 8 was all about what children would be taught in schools.

I really thought our society had evolved well beyond such close mindedness, especially here in California.

You can also see how the voting broke down geographically in the State by propositon at these links.



http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm Prop 8 map
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000004.htm Prop 4 map
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000003.htm Prop 3 map
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm Results

[SarahG]

Sarah

The difference between a conservative like me and a liberal like you is that conservatives like me respect your right to your opinion. Liberals like you demean those who even mildly disagree with you.

It's this simple. The way to overturn one voted on proposition is with another and the earliest possible date. start gathering the signatures to put a measure to unban LGBT marriage and let it be voted on. Run a smart campaign.

Ahh your not going to listen. Saying that people who arent queer actually have the right not to like us is hate speech to you. :-/

It isn't that simple, I wish it were. The thing is, the majority are just that (the majority). Being in the majority says nothing about whether or not you're correct, whether or not you're ethical, or whether or not you should get what you ask for.

You could put gay marriage up on the ballots in every state, every election- and it won't mean shit if 60% of the general population feels their religious views should dictate secular law.

60% of the population could feel with every breath in their life that Paul Little should do 42 months for making his porn "too graphic"- that doesn't mean it's right, and that doesn't mean it should happen. Even if Little's sentencing was put on a ballot, and if 90% of the population decided to throw him in jail for a couple years, it would still be just as wrong.

Fact of the matter is, we have a secular civic system in which some couples can marry and in doing so, get perks and treatment that differs from couples who cannot. No amount of "public approval" can make that practice ethical; because it isn't. Just as no amount of "public approval" can justify throwing people on sex offender lists for "having a marriage that isn't legally recognized." Just as no amount of "public approval" can justify limiting free speech based on concerns over those whose "feelings might get hurt"

I don't think Paul Little should go to jail for a week (nevermind 42 months). I don't think someone should go to jail for "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is), and I don't even think there would be anything wrong with "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" (that one was just a blatantly bad ruling). I realize this comes off as strange, I am sure in the grand scheme of things it makes me seem to have fringe political views- I realize this fully.

Yet as to who likes who, I really could care less. I could care less if 80% of the country adamantly despised LGBT people. It would be unfortunate, but I've never been the one to give a shit about what others think of me (my posts are probably evident enough of that), or what others think of someone else. But I do very much care about how the system handles its citizens, and no amount of a "mandate from the majority" can enable a system to rightfully abuse those who fall under the majority's footsteps.

If the religious groups don't want anything to do with gay marriage then fine. If those are your views, don't marry someone of the same sex, and don't let your church marry couples of the same sex. Don't let your church recognize same sex marriages.

But to tell a bunch of nonbelievers in another state (or in another town) whether or not they can join into a secular legal contract in their local town hall? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that is right?

[Justawannabe]

I have to go with Sarah hear...

The difference between a conservative and a liberal is not about respect, you don't... or you wouldn't belittle her by saying she's not going to listen.

The difference is where you draw the legal distinction between it being okay not to like someone, and being okay to legally marginalize someone.

The fact that you, or anyone doesn't like me, shouldn't affect my equal treatment under the law.

And as a matter of history, legislation is almost never been the answer to discrimination and civil rights... it almost always starts in the courts, and the greatest gains are usually made there. The law tends to catch up later... and by fits and starts. The one exception to that is directly following the civil war.

Sean

[NYBURBS]

Sarah I like your posts, even when I don't agree with them 100%. Here I agree wholeheartedly about not subjecting people's individual rights to the will of the simple majority. Yet there are two things to consider here. First is that people advocate all the time to regulate behavior that they disagree with, even when that behavior does not violate the rights of another. I don't agree with it but yet it is done.

Further, the state regulates on a regular basis who may enter into contracts and for what purposes. Marriage is nothing more than a contract and thus subject to those regulations so long as we continue to allow the government to interject itself into personal individual matters.

For instance let's look at Mormons. They initially practiced polygamy, which for our purposes here we'll only discuss the bigamy engaged in by consenting adults. The Congress felt that this was outrageous conduct and criminalized it in the territories. A challenge was brought on the grounds that this interfered with their religious freedoms and yet that challenge lost to the government's "right" to enforce good social order.

Now one may argue that this is different because the gay community simply wants to marry one other individual, just like straights. Yet we end up back at the good social order argument. I disagree with it on a fundamental basis, yet too many people want it when they agree with the gov't action but hate it when it negatively impacts them.

On a closing note, I tend to agree with Brenda that the best way to address this is legislatively. Running into court and hoping that a judge twists the intention of an amendment only leads to endless litigation and social debate.

[SarahG]

I have to go with Sarah hear...

The difference between a conservative and a liberal is not about respect, you don't... or you wouldn't belittle her by saying she's not going to listen.

The difference is where you draw the legal distinction between it being okay not to like someone, and being okay to legally marginalize someone.

The fact that you, or anyone doesn't like me, shouldn't affect my equal treatment under the law.

And as a matter of history, legislation is almost never been the answer to discrimination and civil rights... it almost always starts in the courts, and the greatest gains are usually made there. The law tends to catch up later... and by fits and starts. The one exception to that is directly following the civil war.

Sean

I agree with what you're saying but there is another exception; women suffrage was largely a legislative reform on the national scale, and the select states that had it independently for decades before that generally likewise had it due to legislative measures.

Equal treatment/protection really is the core of this if you think about it. There are so many ways in which marriage influences how the system interacts with its citizens; this is normal, and this is unavoidable. The reason why marriage licenses came into existence in the first place wasn't some evil plot to "rid the world of religion" but merely a reaction to the observation that marriages impact just about EVERYTHING in the legal system. With it impacting every level of our legal system, the government HAD to step in and switch the population to using marriage licenses.

It should be obvious why marriage is a legal, secular concern more than a religious one in our system. The religious institutions can't turn around, more than a hundred years later and cry "no fair" as soon as they've found a now demographic to rally against. Marriage as a religious institution in today's America, if it exists at all, exists in churches, temples, masques- NOT the courts, town halls, or legislative bodies.

If anything, today's "xy man, xx women" definition of marriage is a revisionist one. No religious text is new enough, even for the Mormons, to talk about chromosomes. When medical science first started dealing with trans patients, back in the 1930's, no one was going around shouting "oh but you can't let this patient even after a surgery marry because, well- their blood is all wrong!" It was gender roles, not birth genitals, not blood- that dictated who could marry who.

In that same decade, in Germany where homosexuality was explicitly forbidden (except for the high command- long unrelated story there) by law, the social conservatives over there openly embraced the idea of marriage rights for trans citizens. There was no talk about birth genitals, blood, chromosomes, or to an extent even fertility. Fertility got mention, but separately and only because the Nazis had this evil & crazy idea of using medical experiments to try to "cure homosexuality." The idea was that they were going to not only turn (so they thought) gay guys into women, but the idea was to eventually find a way to make them fertile women as well. Most people have no idea what went over there in the camps when Germany had these proposals to "cure homosexuality"- forced, botched surgical transitions were the kinder efforts tried (to put it mildly, and not to trivialize how deplorable it was to force transition gays for some odd, perhaps unexplainable agenda).

Certainly when the issue of postop trans patients came up in the United States in the 1950's, no one was running around screaming "but the blood is wrong!" or "but they're not fertile!" or "look at what genitals they used to have!"

Even Iran under Ayatollah Khomenei (unless I am mistaken with this one) endorsed the idea of postops being allowed to marry. As far as I know, that country to this day does not define sex status based on blood chromosomes.

And yet fast forward to the United States, 2004. Bush needs Ohio to win re-election, and so mysteriously we find a ballot initiative in Ohio that not only banned same-sex marriage, but harshly, and uniquely so- defined sex status based on blood, and then in one final gesture- eliminated the modification of birth certificates, even for postops. A grass roots effort involving untold thousands of religious fundamentalists in that state began, and churches of people arrived at the polling locations by the buss load to vote for the ban. While they were there, they voted for Bush. This was not "a measure to preserve the religious institution of marriage" because there is no such thing in that state- and the fundies didn't even try to end the practice of marriage licenses in that state.

Instead they decided to alter the LEGAL definition to meet their agenda, and demanded it be done based on this unique definition of legal sex status. Not one that originates in their holy texts, not one that was used even in most of the 20th century. Even the social conservatives in Nazi Germany didn't share their views on how to define legal sex status.

Where does this come from? It kind of makes me think they're just making it up as they go along.

[SarahG]

Yet there are two things to consider here. First is that people advocate all the time to regulate behavior that they disagree with, even when that behavior does not violate the rights of another. I don't agree with it but yet it is done.

And often measures like that are overturned until/unless someone can prove that someone's consensual rights are actually being violated. We have to remember the system is not flawless and there will be times where the system doesn't do what its supposed to do. There have been, are right now, and will be in the future- regulations that simply have no need to exist (because either it accomplishes nothing, or worse- tramples on the rights of a specific group).

Just because it's done, doesn't mean its a practice that holds merit.


Further, the state regulates on a regular basis who may enter into contracts and for what purposes. Marriage is nothing more than a contract...

Exactly, and since it is a civil (aka secular, legal) contract- any regulation relating to it has to simultaneously ensure everyone in the system has their civil liberties respected.


Now one may argue that this is different because the gay community simply wants to marry one other individual, just like straights. Yet we end up back at the good social order argument.

However- here these religious groups are claiming that their religious definition of marriage, like the Mormons argued with poly marriages- should supersede any legal definition of marriage that might already exist.

The big thing here is this issue of legal sex status, and that's why so many of these gay marriage bans have also talked about legal sex status (either in defining it, or using it to define what a marriage is). You have these revisionist fundamentalists yelling "xy man, xx women" like we saw in Ohio- and then you have measures like the one in CA which said that marriage is "between a man and a women" without defining what either was. This is particularly important because CA itself is uncertain over how to define legal sex status, and that's why it is possible for some girls out there to go to court and be legally defined female without even getting SRS.

The system, before all these issues became part of the political landscape, generally held marriage to be a contract between two opposing sexes. Yet sex status was not comprehensively defined in the eyes of the law. A lot of this is due to these systems being ones that existed before the science existed to bring up the issue of genital abnormalities (i.e. hermaphrodites), or blood (chromosomes), but since we're talking about a specific type of secular contract, it is a very big issue if there is no definitive way to address the most basic terms used within it.

IF legal sex status cannot be adequately defined, then marriage falls back on being "a contract between two consenting parties"- consenting is the key word here, it insures no minors can marry without even mentioning or defining what an adult or minor is (and age is not the only way in which someone may be unable to consent to a marriage- you can't fall into a coma, and wake up to find you were married against your will to some stranger while asleep... it also means you can't go marry another species, even if you like your dog THAT way, the dog can't consent and therefore can't consent to a marriage).

With a population like CA's, certainly there are "odd cases" thrown into the mix- i.e. people who are XYX, XYY, XXY, XXXY and so on, hermaphrodites (not all of which have chromosomal abnormalities). It would not be hard to find individuals in the state who could not be considered male or female in a system in which blood is the sole defining element in the eyes of the law.

And so you'll see, the cards quickly fall into place in which marriage, especially in CA, HAS to be a system in which it is a contract between two consenting adults, even if those two consenting adults are of the same sex (in terms of gender roles, or genitals, or blood, or all three).

Of course the fundamentalists could always redefine legal sex status next, which is probably the plan all along if we are to use places like Tenn, Ohio, etc as a case study on the subject. But even the XX-women, XY-man definition doesn't cut it in a world where a significant chunk of the growing population is NEITHER. Even Texas, which gave us the Littleton case back in 1998/1999, has yet to figure out what the hell to do with people with neither XX or XY blood.

[NYBURBS]

Sarah in the view point of the vast number of people that oppose gay marriage, your blood chromosome goes way beyond what they are able to conceptualize. To them this is simply that 2 gay men or 2 lesbians should not be allowed to marry. The whole transsexual, hermaphrodite issue is a side note to them.

Back to my good social order stance, measures like that are not often overturned. Generally the government is allowed to pass laws that effect individual rights so long as there is some compelling state interest. I can assure you they will argue that maintaining a good social order that ensures continued reproduction and man/woman family systems fits that. Now I am not saying that is right, rather I'm simply saying the government is allowed to shit on people all the time in the name of social interest.

In court the argument is not going to be that the State is attempting to establish a religious code for marriage. They are going to run back to the history of man and society and show that traditionally it has been viewed as a joining between a man and a woman.

It can be hoped that eventually States see fit to move away from this senseless hysteria.

[SarahG]

The whole transsexual, hermaphrodite issue is a side note to them.

Agreed, but there is something wrong when we're talking about a civil contract, and no one can properly define what its main most terms are.

If you can pick apart (and I argue you can) every one of the major ways one could define legal sex status, i.e. blood, birth genitals, fertility, gender roles, etc.- then marriage is simply a civil contract between two consenting adults, even if the fundamentalists want it to be stricter than that.

If the law is to do anything on this issue at all, it IS going to have to deal with legal sex status one way or another. The fundamentalists might only care about "two guys getting together in a town hall and getting a marriage license", but they're not the ones that are going to have to account for all the odd-ball cases (mentioned in this thread & not).


Generally the government is allowed to pass laws that effect individual rights so long as there is some compelling state interest. I can assure you they will argue that maintaining a good social order that ensures continued reproduction and man/woman family systems fits that.

You mean like the gun-free school zone bans?

The argument with that one was something like "guns scare kids, kids who are scared at school might not do as well in school, kids who do poorly in school limit their earning potential, kids who limit their earning potential are limited in how much they can make and buy, since kids after k-12 would not be able to buy as much as a kid who does well in school, guns in schools harm the country's interstate commerce.... therefore guns should be banned" (not a direct quote). That one was over turned.

I forget if I was reading about it here or elsewhere, but a few years ago in NY there was a group of girls (gg's) who got in trouble in upstate NY for walking topless in some town's mainstreet. In NY, there was that ruling that girls can be topless anywhere where guys can be (dunno if it is still in effect) but this town didn't like what they saw and had them arrested. Again they had to think of something that would impact the town government and so they started arguing that them walking topless distracted customers in the town's stores and therefore impeded the town from collecting the county sales tax. I don't know if that one was later over turned or not, I haven't been able to find it in googling it (would help if I could remember the town... sigh).

There would be two ways to get passed an argument of "well this impedes___", the first is to succeed in arguing that civil rights trump the government task, the other is to prove that the action in question does not really impede a government task.

If the purpose of having marriages strictly for straight couples was say, stability- then the system would somehow have to account for the massive amount of divorce, adultery, domestic violence, and std transmission that straight couples are responsible for. Again, it's not a very strong argument.

[Justawannabe]

The reproduction argument doesn't hold much water currently.

Gay folks can already have children of their own, and straight folks have kids out of wedlock as often as in it. You would have to outlaw divorce in which children factor is you want this argument as well.

- back a step real quick to the civil rights issue and access through the courts... even in the case of a woman's right to vote, there were a number of court cases that laid much of the groundwork socially for the eventual legislation. It's the primary access for a minority to put pressure on a majority. And to be honest, women were a majority, just a dis-empowered one, having home access to the majority of power brokers allows for much more pressure than an isolated minority like the gay culture can muster.

Sean