Gay Marriage

[daleduke17]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

[guywithashovel]

Thing is, most of these people don't think there is or should be a separation between church and state. Many of them want mandatory prayer in all of the public schools, and heck, I think they'd even go for compulsory church attendance laws if they could do it (or maybe that's a bit too much even for them).

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

[Boozy]

"...Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

Well, in that case, I don't see why the government needs to recognize those Christian marriages at all. Separation of church and state and all that.

If we accept that "marriage" is solely a religious institution, there's no reason for the state to marry anybody. Everyone, gay and straight, can have "civil partnerships." Your church can call your partnership a "marriage" if it wants, but the government doesn't need to call it that.

Let's see how that goes over.

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha ha ha! Marriage as a sacrament didn't even get instituted until the 16th century. Historically marriage in the Western world was a business contract. It could also be a way of gaining status for families. It sure as hell wasn't what marriage is today.

Never mind the fact that marriage originated many places, not just societies that were Christian.


Having said all that, it's not just religious people that are responsible for this. Religion can be used an excuse, but there are many areligious people that voted this in just because they are bigoted against gays. Eew, buttsecks and all that.

[guywithashovel]

To an extent, it upsets me that so many people seem to think it's okay to vote away someone's else's freedom. And to top it off, many of them justify it with their religion, and many of them even go as far as trying to make their position look like one of love, compassion and understanding. The sheer smarminess and utter contradiction can be infuriating.

However, I only stay angry with them for a few moments. I soon come to the realization that they are on the losing side of history. If you study the past, you will quickly realize that bigotry never prevails. Sometimes it takes a long time to extinguish it, but it is never the victor. We're already seeing this in the gay rights arena. So far, several states have already given the green light to same sex couples, and more states are considering it. Soon, it will spread throughout the country. Unless there is a law or supreme court ruling or some other federal action that says that marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples, I'm sure that it will be a long time before the Bible Belt (The Southeastern US) gives them equal rights, but soon, it will come.

And if I could go back to what I was saying in my first paragraph, I'd like to remark on something I read on another web site. Remember how I talked about the nature of people who use religion to justify discrimination? Well, here's an example. Below is a paraphrased comment that I read in the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers. It was written by an Evangelical Christian who was opposed to giving gays equal rights.

"I understand, and most other Christians understand, that same sex couples want the right to be together and get married. Most of us also understand that not everyone considers homosexuality a sin like we do. And most of us don't have a problem with gay people having gay relationships if they want to. All we ask is that they don't call their relationships 'marriage.' Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

That has got to be one of the most ignorant and most contradictory statements I have ever read.

[Boozy]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

The United Nations does not have any jurisdiction over sovereign nations.

Besides, that asshole Mugabe is still in power. If the UN is planning on doing anything (which of course they aren't), they should be dealing with that.

[Slytovhand]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

After all, there is this document - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which quite clearly indicates that Prop 8 is 'illegal' (or is it legal? I keep mixing the 2 up.. ) Certainly, any form of discrimination is out... and New York has a director who reports directly to the Commissioner!

[AFPheonix]

T

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

Well hell, the California Supreme court didn't even have the balls to comment on the constitutionality of Prop 8. All they did was to make an extremely narrow ruling that stated that according to the rules in place, Prop 8 was worded and put into the constitution legally as an amendment.
Another amendment can be introduced to overturn, at least. It's going to have to, social conservatives cannot hide their heads in the sand any longer. Their numbers are slowly dwindling.
This is a blow to the gay movement and that saddens me that the court couldn't be brave and overturn the measure. That's why they get to be independent jurists who don't have to rely on popular opinion, so they can make calls that are right but not always popular.

It also just reinforces how California needs to have their current constitution scuttled and redone. If you can put in amendments that directly conflict with the rest of the document, then what's the point of having the original document in the first place? The whole point of a constitution is to prevent mob rule in our democracy. That clearly did not happen here.

[Boozy]

To clarify for those who haven't heard of the case: Virginia had anti-miscenagation laws at the time of the case (1967), which banned interracial marriage. Virginians were overwhelmingly A-OK with that.

Richard Loving was a white man who married a black/Native American woman (in Washington). They were arrested when they returned to Virginia. (In their bedroom. Seriously. Government agents literally stormed into their bedroom.) Loving went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld the laws.

The case was accepted by the United States Supreme Court, however, and they did the sensible thing and ruled Virginia's anti-miscenagation laws unconsitutional.

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

[anriana]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

75% of Americans were on the side of Virginia in Virginia vs. Loving (the Supreme Court case about interracial marriage.)

[Boozy]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.
...Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke.

Actually, the United States is not run by mob rule. The constitution makes sure of it. Your system has a series of checks and balances to ensure that when the majority rules for something that is a violation of civil rights, the Supreme Court steps in and overturns it.

Which they refused to do here. So you could definitely argue from that side of things... but just saying that "Prop 8 passed by a majority, therefore Prop 8 is infallible" is incorrect.

[Greenday]

How does this affect someone not in California? Proposition 8 only affects Californians. Nothing happened here when Vermont, Iowa and Massachusetts allowed it.

Because California is one of the biggest states, and by making a ruling, not allowing it, other states will now be less likely to do it. And even though I truly believe eventually it will be legal everywhere, it's rulings like these that push it further into the future.

[daleduke17]

How does this affect someone not in California? Proposition 8 only affects Californians. Nothing happened here when Vermont, Iowa and Massachusetts allowed it.

[smileyeagle1021]

Does it affect me?

It does now. The Cali Supreme Court just confirmed that it is Constitutional to have the majority vote on minority rights and I guarantee you are in a minority in one way or another, everyone is. If it's not because of the color of your skin or your gender or your orientation, it will be for something else. It could be because of your faith (no one denomination has enough to outvote every other denomination combined... so while it may be more or less likely you'll get allies from other faiths, it still could be an issue), it could be your education level, it could be for any number of reasons. And if it's now Constitutional to discriminate on orientation, why not discriminate based on educational level, why not discriminate on faith? After all, it will be the will of the people.

So, whether or not you realize this, you have been affected because the court has just removed your protection from the majority on any issue in which you are in a minority (at least if you want to take this court ruling to it's ultimate extreme).

ETA- even if everything I've said ultimately turns out to be a moot point... you may be a straight person who has lost absolutely no rights... but you have friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors who are affected, and I would pray that you consider inequity against those you care about to be something that affects you.

[AdminAssistant]

Does it affect me? Nope.

So...what you're saying is that you believe in stripping away rights from American citizens based on the circumstances of their birth? And that doesn't affect you? Well, hell, let's have votes and see if we can pass measures that keep blondes from marrying brunettes....or Arkansans from marrying people from Illinois? After all, if the "people" decide it, then it must be okay. Actually, let's just go back and make interracial marriages illegal and reinstate segregation in the South - after all, when those things were passed down from the courts, the majority of people didn't want it...so we should just go back to discriminating against anybody the majority doesn't like or understand.

Quite frankly, this whole thing makes me sick. It doesn't AFFECT you? I'm straight. I can legally get married to any person of my choosing. One of my best friends is not allowed to do the same, because she would choose to marry a woman. And that sure as hell affects me. American citizens are being deprived of their rights for no reason other than a lot of Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians don't want to deal with gay people. I saw an interview yesterday with one of the Prop 8 supporters and she said that she wanted to make sure her children understood that a family was one man, one woman, and children. So, she wanted to legalize discrimination so she would have an easier job parenting her children. Of course, she didn't explain how she would teach her kids about single parents.

What the majority wants is NOT always morally, ethically, or CONSTITUTIONALLY right. Now, let's take a quick look at our very own Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal and are endowed with their Creator certain inalienable rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please explain to me how denying homosexuals basic civil rights gives them liberty or the pursuit of happiness.