Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman.

Just curious... If the majority eventually decides that same-sex marriage should be allowed, will you be OK with it then?

Yes, actually. I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want. I DO have issues with married people having benefits that are not afforded single people. Like I said before, do away with those benefits and this discussion of same-sex marriage dwindles to a whisper.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, actually. I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want. I DO have issues with married people having benefits that are not afforded single people. Like I said before, do away with those benefits and this discussion of same-sex marriage dwindles to a whisper.

So why are you marrying these unrelated issues together?

Because you don't favor benefits for married couples, you seek to deny a group the ability to get them?

Seems as backwards as wanting the government out of the marriage business while voting for initiatives that have them defining who can and cannot marry.

And no, you're wrong. Some people will want to get married. And some will still not get married even if they can. Different values. Your legislation imposes an answer on all of them.

[billvon 2,426]

>Race is totally different than an emotional connection.

Sexual orientation is also totally different than an "emotional connection." Yet you advocate denying marriage based on sexual orientation and not race, for some reason.

>All of the situations you mentioned could be easily resolved with a provision
>for a "civil union".

Provided it is EXACTLY THE SAME as a marriage, then yes. Until we have that, I will continue to advocate for equal rights for gays. Right now the only way to get the same rights as married couples is to marry.

However, if you want to sponsor your own ballot measure saying that gays can be wed and have every single right that married couples have (with the exception of the word "marriage") then I would not only vote for it, I'd subscribe to your newsletter.

>Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose
>their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their
>desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman.

Yep. We did it back in 1967 even though the majority of the country was against interracial marriages. The Supreme Court "legislated from the bench" and said that marriage could not be denied based on race, even if they had already had the same rights as whites, and even though the vast majority of the country opposed that move.

Personally, I'm glad they did that. Are you?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want. I DO have issues with married people having benefits that are not afforded single people.

OK, but that is a separate issue and one that the majority does not seem to be questioning. As it is right now, married people do have benefits that single people don't have (though single people can get married if they want those benefits - and the responsibilities that go along with them). So it is discriminatory to not allow same-sex couples to get married. (And I believe there is more to marriage than just legal benefits. I think the establishment of a family unit is a fundamental aspect of marriage.)

But if your main issue is that married people receive benefits that single people don't get, voting against same-sex marriage will of course do nothing to change that.

[sundevil777 94]

Obama said that marriage is between a man and a woman. He was unusually clear when he answered the question during the debates. Why are you in conflict with the anointed one?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,426]

>Obama said that marriage is between a man and a woman. He was unusually
>clear when he answered the question during the debates. Why are you in conflict
>with the anointed one?

You must have me mistaken for an Obama worshiper!

[jcd11235 0]

Thanks for taking the time to give that analysis.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family.

That argument is totally fallacious. It just doesn't work that way in the real world, unless someone is intentionally trying to set up a court battle. No doctor or hospital is going to deny visitation in that situation.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Personally, I'm glad they did that. Are you?

No, actually. And that is not because I'm a racist or opposed to inter-racial marriages or something like that.

I am fairly unhappy with the general expansion of government that stems from decisions like that, and that general line of judicial reasoning.

If you want some more food for though, I'm also very pro-choice and think that Roe was utter crap.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

Quote

To elaborate what the DoggieJumper mentioned earlier, (and I have read this proposal in other places):

Marriage as we know it today would be split into two separate parts:
1. A civil union, recognized by gov't which would cover all legal aspects of what we currently call "marriage".
2. A religious ceremony, recognized only by the church chosen by the parties involved.

People wanting the traditional marriage as we know it today, would do both.
People not interested in the religious angle would only do #2 #1.

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.

Doh!
You are correct.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>Obama said that marriage is between a man and a woman. He was unusually
>clear when he answered the question during the debates. Why are you in conflict
>with the anointed one?

You must have me mistaken for an Obama worshiper!

No, but how is it that the President (and Hillary), a result of a mixed race marriage, can very clearly be against a change in the definition of marriage, but not be labeled a bigot/homophobe? He was absolutely clear about it during the debates, no doubt about his opinion, he didn't waffle or qualify his answer at all. When conservatives take the same position, they are assumed to be bigots/homophobes, why is that? Do you agree that the pres and Hillary are bigots/homophobes? For some reason, the pres, and blacks as a voting block, are very definitely against gay marriage, why is it they can't see your lousy analogy to mixed race marriage? Are blacks as a voting block also bigots/homophobes?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, if there was a law that men could only have sex with men and women only with women, it would be equal. Hey, it doesn't require you to be celibate. It's equal, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Are blacks as a voting block also bigots/homophobes?

I think so, yes.

I personally have been pretty disgusted by what I see as blatant hypocrisy of the black community. As a whole, they seem unable or unwilling to make an empathetic connection between their community's historical oppression and the the oppression currently being experienced by the gay community.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Race is totally different than an emotional connection.

Sexual orientation is also totally different than an "emotional connection." Sexual orientation is an emotional reactionYet you advocate denying marriage based on sexual orientation and not race, for some reason. You fail yet again to understand the simplist of concepts. I don't advocate banning anything based on sexual preference, race, eye color, favorite tv program, or any other reason. Gays CAN get married...just not to persons of the same sex!

>All of the situations you mentioned could be easily resolved with a provision
>for a "civil union".

Provided it is EXACTLY THE SAME as a marriage, then yes. Until we have that, I will continue to advocate for equal rights for gays. They have equal rights. You want them to have special rights.Right now the only way to get the same rights as married couples is to marry. That's generally how people get the rights and benefits of marriage, Bill. Doesn't take an MIT grad to figure that one out.

However, if you want to sponsor your own ballot measure saying that gays can be wed and have every single right that married couples have (with the exception of the word "marriage") then I would not only vote for it, I'd subscribe to your newsletter.

>Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose
>their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their
>desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman.

Yep. We did it back in 1967 even though the majority of the country was against interracial marriages. The Supreme Court "legislated from the bench" and said that marriage could not be denied based on race, even if they had already had the same rights as whites, and even though the vast majority of the country opposed that move.

Personally, I'm glad they did that. Are you?

Yes

I repeat myself: I am not opposed in any way to gays marrying each other. Though i would prefer they call it a civil union and leave the word "marriage" to man-woman unions I wouln't feel it's the end of the world if it didn't work out that way.
What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights.
Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[nerd137 0]

> What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights.

Then I guess the point isn't whether gays do or do not have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender; the point is that NOBODY has the right to marry someone of the same gender.

There. Now we're ALL oppressed. Satisfied?

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family.

That argument is totally fallacious. It just doesn't work that way in the real world, unless someone is intentionally trying to set up a court battle. No doctor or hospital is going to deny visitation in that situation.

Right.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[quade 3]

Quote

What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights.

Actually they don't. Read California state law and you'll see numerous instances where the words "marriage" (and its variants) are used and "civil union" is not. Which means very specifically that those laws now ONLY apply to straight people.

Quote

Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative.

How about, the way the laws are defined?

That's EXACTLY what this is all about; a very specific legal definition of the word.

The passage of Prop 8 didn't make civil unions by gay couples "separate but equal" to marriage of straight couples; it very specifically made them separate and unequal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative.

Quit your whining. Unlike the gay couples, you actually have a choice. They do not.

And yet somehow they're the ones looking for special rights? You want the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibility.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

They have equal rights. You want them to have special rights.

How would they have special rights? If same-sex marriage is legal, then it's legal for everyone - even heterosexuals.

Quote

Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative.

Because you have apparently made the choice to not get married.

[billvon 2,426]

>I am fairly unhappy with the general expansion of government that
>stems from decisions like that . . .

Deciding that the government cannot prevent interracial marriages is not an expansion of government. The Loving vs. Virginia decision was a restriction on the powers of government and an increase in personal freedoms.

[billvon 2,426]

>Sexual orientation is an emotional reaction

So is falling in love with someone of another race.

>I don't advocate banning anything based on sexual preference . . .

Yes, you do. You seem to advocate banning marriage for gays.

>They have equal rights. You want them to have special rights.

Nope, I want them to have the same rights I have. I can marry someone I am attracted to, even if that is, in your judgment, just an "emotional reaction." They should have the same rights.

> I am not opposed in any way to gays marrying each other.

Cool! You seem to have changed your mind, which is great.

>What I am opposed to is people saying they don't have the same rights
>as everyone else when they, in fact, DO have the exact same rights.

As I've explained, they do not. But I am glad you now advocate giving them such rights.

>Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my
>girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het)
>even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be
>most appreciative.

You can! Many states still have common-law marriage statutes on the books. All you have to do is live with someone long enough. For example, in Montana, as long as you:

- are competent to enter into a marriage
- mutually consent and agree to a common law marriage
- cohabit and are present yourselves as a couple in the community

then you can accrue all the benefits of marriage.

[billvon 2,426]

>No, but how is it that the President (and Hillary), a result of a mixed race
>marriage, can very clearly be against a change in the definition of
>marriage, but not be labeled a bigot/homophobe?

If he thinks that gays should be denied the same rights that straight people enjoy, then he is indeed a bigot. I have seen no indication of that, but I may be wrong; feel free to point out where he has advocated legislation to ensure that gays cannot marry.

[rhaig 0]

I had the same idea (it's only logical isn't it?) a couple of years ago. It just so happens that pastors get credentials from the state to perform civil unions at the same time they're performing the religious ceremony. And the marriage certificate we have is essentially our document of civil union. just seems that it should be that easy no matter the pairing of the sexes.

--
Rob

[sundevil777 94]

Gay rights advocates know that the same arguments used in favor of same sex marriage also apply to polygamy. Gay rights advocates will do all they can to try to separate the issues, they will say they personally don't care if polygamy is legalized, but their cause should be considered separately - not to be considered establishing a precedent. However, gay rights advocates also know that the general public is not even close to voting in favor of polygamy. So, it is OK to be against polygamy, you won't even be considered a bigot or a -phobe, but you can't be against same sex marriage without that label being applied. If it is OK under the law to deny the 'rights' of polygamists, then it should be OK to do it for same sex marriages.

I say if Obama and Hillary can hold their position without the bigot/phobe label, then anyone else holding that position should also be able to do so without the attack.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>No, but how is it that the President (and Hillary), a result of a mixed race
>marriage, can very clearly be against a change in the definition of
>marriage, but not be labeled a bigot/homophobe?

If he thinks that gays should be denied the same rights that straight people enjoy, then he is indeed a bigot. I have seen no indication of that, but I may be wrong; feel free to point out where he has advocated legislation to ensure that gays cannot marry.

He advocated repealing it, but allowing states to decide for themselves.

Quote

In an interview with ABC News' Jake Tapper, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was asked if he would re-think his pledge to repeal D.O.M.A. in the wake of the recent California Supreme Court decision requiring the Golden State to recognize gay and lesbian marriages.

"No," said Obama. "I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. . . . As president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706