workingmom
enthusiast
Posts: 1052
Loc: Allen, TX
Reg: 06-03-04
|
08-05-10 11:33 PM - Post#115995
In response to Michael
What you don't seem to understand - nor do the people who rallied for Prop 8 - is that basic civil rights should never have come up for a vote in the first place.
The problem is, as evolved as we like to think we are, we as Americans, as Humans continually have to have a debate on civil rights and what that means for any group that is different from "the we who are created equal" - for women, for african-americans, for LEGAL immigrants, for people with disabilities and for gays & lesbians.
I hope one day to live in a WORLD where the debate would be over and everyone - no matter their sex, race, religion, ability or disability, or sexual orientation - could enjoy, without vote or debate, basic civil rights.
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1187
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-05-10 11:37 PM - Post#115997
In response to Michael
Michael:
I agree completely.
If it were up to me (and it is not up to me, and who am I to tell others what to call their personal arraingements), I would like the term "union." But it is just a word after all. So, I am not gonna get worried about a word.
As to 7 million Californians...in our system voters do not determine what is, or is not, constitutional.
And, as I said, the SC will, for good or ill, support prop 8--in my opinion....the court is split with a majority being conservative.
Oh! And another prediction...in 40 years this entire conversation will look as odd, to people then, as the debate over the overturning of the bans on inter-racial marriages....I am old enough to remember the debate.
Edited by Aolain on 08-05-10 11:39 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
workingmom
enthusiast
Posts: 1052
Loc: Allen, TX
Reg: 06-03-04
|
08-05-10 11:43 PM - Post#115998
In response to Aolain
I really really hope you are wrong about our Supreme Court. I'd like to think, liberal OR conservative, SCOTUS would come down on the side of supporting the Constitution and basic civil rights for U.S. citizens...Even if this is a "hot button" topic and not all Americans can presently see past their own prejudices and fears and support the idea that every U.S. Citizen - yes, even ones different from themselves - are entitled to the same basic civil rights.
|
JasonKA
enthusiast
Posts: 173
Reg: 04-04-07
|
08-06-10 06:35 AM - Post#116001
In response to workingmom
Like Aolain, the government should not be in the "marriage" business anyway. "Union" should be the appropiate term for contractual purposes only.
Let the churches determine the definition of "marriage" and deal with it as they see fit.
I could care less who wants to get married, and feel all citizens should be provided equal protection.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3149
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-06-10 07:39 AM - Post#116004
In response to Aolain
Michael:
I agree completely.
If it were up to me (and it is not up to me, and who am I to tell others what to call their personal arraingements), I would like the term "union." But it is just a word after all. So, I am not gonna get worried about a word.
As to 7 million Californians...in our system voters do not determine what is, or is not, constitutional.
And, as I said, the SC will, for good or ill, support prop 8--in my opinion....the court is split with a majority being conservative.
Oh! And another prediction...in 40 years this entire conversation will look as odd, to people then, as the debate over the overturning of the bans on inter-racial marriages....I am old enough to remember the debate.
Aolain, I thing this is an example that proves words really DO matter. A good amount of people who support measures like Prop 8 actually agree with the GLB community in their fight for the same civil rights as all other Americans. The only hang up in many of their minds is the word MARRIAGE. Right or wrong, good or bad, stupid or not...marriage in many peoples eyes is not to be messed with. It a spiritual event in the eyes of many people that cannot be left up to govt interpretation with. The word marriage itself is losing the battle for GLB rights.
Now, poll the supporters of Prop 8 and see if the GLB community should have equal rights under the LAW, and I am sure there would be a ton of support.
In this situation, words matter. They actually matter more than the actual facts. Words are getting in the way of what many actually want to have happen. If the end goal of this whole debate is to get equal civil rights to all (including the GLB community), then the simple act of creating a contractual UNION equivalent to the contract of MARRIAGE would have accomplished this years ago.
I actually have many friends and family in the GLB community that I care about. I have spoken with all of them on this subject. Those close to me feel that their own community is hurting their cause for equal rights by not understanding that the end goal is what matters, not the wording that gets you there. They actually wish the emphasis was on equal rights, not equal words.
That's just my opinion on the matter. I do hope that whatever happens in the long run, the end result opens the door to the same basic rights being available to all involved.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
08-06-10 08:18 AM - Post#116005
In response to mgrayar
Michael:
I agree completely.
If it were up to me (and it is not up to me, and who am I to tell others what to call their personal arraingements), I would like the term "union." But it is just a word after all. So, I am not gonna get worried about a word.
As to 7 million Californians...in our system voters do not determine what is, or is not, constitutional.
And, as I said, the SC will, for good or ill, support prop 8--in my opinion....the court is split with a majority being conservative.
Oh! And another prediction...in 40 years this entire conversation will look as odd, to people then, as the debate over the overturning of the bans on inter-racial marriages....I am old enough to remember the debate.
Aolain, I thing this is an example that proves words really DO matter. A good amount of people who support measures like Prop 8 actually agree with the GLB community in their fight for the same civil rights as all other Americans. The only hang up in many of their minds is the word MARRIAGE. Right or wrong, good or bad, stupid or not...marriage in many peoples eyes is not to be messed with. It a spiritual event in the eyes of many people that cannot be left up to govt interpretation with. The word marriage itself is losing the battle for GLB rights.
Now, poll the supporters of Prop 8 and see if the GLB community should have equal rights under the LAW, and I am sure there would be a ton of support.
In this situation, words matter. They actually matter more than the actual facts. Words are getting in the way of what many actually want to have happen. If the end goal of this whole debate is to get equal civil rights to all (including the GLB community), then the simple act of creating a contractual UNION equivalent to the contract of MARRIAGE would have accomplished this years ago.
I actually have many friends and family in the GLB community that I care about. I have spoken with all of them on this subject. Those close to me feel that their own community is hurting their cause for equal rights by not understanding that the end goal is what matters, not the wording that gets you there. They actually wish the emphasis was on equal rights, not equal words.
That's just my opinion on the matter. I do hope that whatever happens in the long run, the end result opens the door to the same basic rights being available to all involved.
You underestimate the activists and their goals. I would not be surprised in the least to see some sort of lawsuit against a church in the not-too-distant future demanding that they marry a same gender couple.
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 08:31 AM - Post#116006
In response to chf
To no one in particular.
Here's where it gets dicey ....
Now that this has been ruled as it has, what's next? Will the next step be demanding that churches perform these ceremonies? Let's say, for example, that a same gender couple happens to be Mormon, or Catholic, or some other faith that does not honor these unions wants to get married in that faith. Will the law then force the church to do so? Can they legally do that?
I think a larger can o' worms has now been opened.
OK, let's say I'm a male Buddhist, and my (female) fiance is Jewish. For some reason we want to be married in a Catholic church by a priest, but we have no desire or intention of converting to Catholicism. I'm assuming the priest would refuse to perform the ceremony. Can/would the government force him to do so, because we have the civil right to get married as a heterosexual couple?
The situation is a bit different, but the principle is the same. The 1st Amendment would prevent the situation you describe.
What church has ever been FORCED to marry a heterosexual couple? I've seen churches refuse to marry nonmembers, followers of other brands of christianity, etc. I cannot see the day anyone id forced to marry anyone. There are enough compassionate churches to cover this as well as the county clerk.
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 08:37 AM - Post#116007
In response to Al C
Michael:
I agree completely.
If it were up to me (and it is not up to me, and who am I to tell others what to call their personal arraingements), I would like the term "union." But it is just a word after all. So, I am not gonna get worried about a word.
As to 7 million Californians...in our system voters do not determine what is, or is not, constitutional.
And, as I said, the SC will, for good or ill, support prop 8--in my opinion....the court is split with a majority being conservative.
Oh! And another prediction...in 40 years this entire conversation will look as odd, to people then, as the debate over the overturning of the bans on inter-racial marriages....I am old enough to remember the debate.
Aolain, I thing this is an example that proves words really DO matter. A good amount of people who support measures like Prop 8 actually agree with the GLB community in their fight for the same civil rights as all other Americans. The only hang up in many of their minds is the word MARRIAGE. Right or wrong, good or bad, stupid or not...marriage in many peoples eyes is not to be messed with. It a spiritual event in the eyes of many people that cannot be left up to govt interpretation with. The word marriage itself is losing the battle for GLB rights.
Now, poll the supporters of Prop 8 and see if the GLB community should have equal rights under the LAW, and I am sure there would be a ton of support.
In this situation, words matter. They actually matter more than the actual facts. Words are getting in the way of what many actually want to have happen. If the end goal of this whole debate is to get equal civil rights to all (including the GLB community), then the simple act of creating a contractual UNION equivalent to the contract of MARRIAGE would have accomplished this years ago.
I actually have many friends and family in the GLB community that I care about. I have spoken with all of them on this subject. Those close to me feel that their own community is hurting their cause for equal rights by not understanding that the end goal is what matters, not the wording that gets you there. They actually wish the emphasis was on equal rights, not equal words.
That's just my opinion on the matter. I do hope that whatever happens in the long run, the end result opens the door to the same basic rights being available to all involved.
You underestimate the activists and their goals. I would not be surprised in the least to see some sort of lawsuit against a church in the not-too-distant future demanding that they marry a same gender couple.
There isn't a mean spirited activism related to this. These people simply want to live and love like the rest of us. I do not know of any gay activist who would even wish to go there. Once they are able to meld into our society, they'll simply be our neighbors with their own lives like all our other neighbors. It will take some time for the disinformation put out by scared, misled religious right to wear off, but it too will.
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1187
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-06-10 08:41 AM - Post#116008
In response to mgrayar
Mgrayar:
Interesting. You know, I have often thought much the same thing.
If the goal is a legal recognition of the contract, then the name does not matter.
I have thought that if the term "union" was applied, they would have that already. It is the term "marriage" that gets people's dander up....we see that here. People are not raving about "get them *expletives*," they are worried about a concept that is fundamental to them--and as I have said, I understand completely their postion.
Watching this debate years ago, I think there was some discussion of the word "union" vs "marriage."
I think the GLB community decided (or at least a significant portion) "we are equal, we will not use another word for our equality." I believe the point was that "union" would denote 2nd class status.
Now, as mgrayar points out, however, this may have hurt their cause...even if it is, as I conceptualize it, just a word--but as pointed out, words have, at least, emotional meaning.
Edited by Aolain on 08-06-10 08:45 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Allenite
enthusiast
Posts: 302
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 06-18-01
|
08-06-10 08:44 AM - Post#116009
In response to mgrayar
I think gays deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us 
I believe "marriage" is a religious term, and that our legal system should develop some sort of "civil union" for couples of any mixture.
Not very crazy about gays or single people being on equal footing with male/female couples regarding adoptions. It's preferrable if kids have two parents (one female, and one male). But, there's probably not that many U.S. adoptions of U.S. children.
Some people are concerned that with this ruling (if it stands) that the door may be opened to people being able to have more than one spouse. But, hey, this just means that they get to be TWICE as miserable as the rest of us!
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1969
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 08:48 AM - Post#116011
In response to workingmom
I hope one day to live in a WORLD where the debate would be over and everyone - no matter their sex, race, religion, ability or disability, or sexual orientation - could enjoy, without vote or debate, basic civil rights.
Absolutely.  
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 08:56 AM - Post#116013
In response to Allenite
I think gays deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us
I believe "marriage" is a religious term, and that our legal system should develop some sort of "civil union" for couples of any mixture.
Not very crazy about gays or single people being on equal footing with male/female couples regarding adoptions. It's preferrable if kids have two parents (one female, and one male). But, there's probably not that many U.S. adoptions of U.S. children.
Some people are concerned that with this ruling (if it stands) that the door may be opened to people being able to have more than one spouse. But, hey, this just means that they get to be TWICE as miserable as the rest of us!
I know two children adopted by gay parents. Honestly, the kids are better adjusted than most around them. Think about it, a gay couple lives exactly as they feel inside, "real". That "real" element makes for honest, loving parenting that benefits the recipient of that love. Heterosexual marriage breaks up more than 50% of the time in this country, I cannot imagine how that could be better in any way for a child. Once time passes and we can see the end result in this country, that argument will not hold water just as it has not in any other society.
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1969
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-06-10 08:58 AM - Post#116014
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Honestly, from a personal liberty standpoint, I sort of resent that I have to deal with others' definition of "marriage" through *their* traditional religious or even cultural/societal point of view... one that I mostly don't share or even recognize at all.
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 982
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
08-06-10 09:08 AM - Post#116015
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
This isn’t really a hot button issue for me, but I do have a cynical take on this. I suspect that there may be other factors and motivations that are being considered by political and social leaders that aren’t being discussed openly. I’m not really slamming one side more than the other. Here’s a cynical view, and a peek at some issues that may arise out of this. My cynicism is toward the leadership, and not necessarily the average Joe on the street.
What difference does it make whether gay couples can engage in a civil union and refer to it as “marriage?” Civil unions already exist, and many in the pro-Prop 8 crowd support the rights that are given with civil unions. So what’s the big deal with being able to legally call it a “marriage?” What’s the difference?
Cynical Answer: Money, entitlements, and the right to sue.
Issue: If a business offers health benefits to the spouses of hetero employees, can a gay employee sue if their spouse isn't offered benefits?
Does a small business owner have a right to extend health benefits to hetero spouses, but not gay spouses? I suspect that there will be a flurry of lawsuits regarding this issue, as well as for issues related to tax benefits extended to hetero couples. Does a state have the right to extend tax benefits to only hetero couples?
Again, I am not slamming one side over another. I suspect that political and social leaders on both sides have this in mind, but don’t want to discuss it openly for fear of appearing greedy. I suspect that many non-leaders who have strong feelings about this issue have compassion and principles in mind, rather than greed.
Is this really a non-issue? Is my cynicism unwarranted? Will we be seeing these issues in courts soon? Should we be subsidizing those who are fortunate to have found a soul mate anyway? If we want to help out those who are less fortunate, should we be helping those who haven’t found a soul mate?
Please, let’s not start slamming one side over this. I’ve appreciated the civil discussions in the thread, and I’d like to be able to address this issue while remaining polite and civil.
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 09:20 AM - Post#116018
In response to nomoon
This isn’t really a hot button issue for me, but I do have a cynical take on this. I suspect that there may be other factors and motivations that are being considered by political and social leaders that aren’t being discussed openly. I’m not really slamming one side more than the other. Here’s a cynical view, and a peek at some issues that may arise out of this. My cynicism is toward the leadership, and not necessarily the average Joe on the street.
What difference does it make whether gay couples can engage in a civil union and refer to it as “marriage?” Civil unions already exist, and many in the pro-Prop 8 crowd support the rights that are given with civil unions. So what’s the big deal with being able to legally call it a “marriage?” What’s the difference?
Cynical Answer: Money, entitlements, and the right to sue.
Issue: If a business offers health benefits to the spouses of hetero employees, can a gay employee sue if their spouse isn't offered benefits?
Does a small business owner have a right to extend health benefits to hetero spouses, but not gay spouses? I suspect that there will be a flurry of lawsuits regarding this issue, as well as for issues related to tax benefits extended to hetero couples. Does a state have the right to extend tax benefits to only hetero couples?
Again, I am not slamming one side over another. I suspect that political and social leaders on both sides have this in mind, but don’t want to discuss it openly for fear of appearing greedy. I suspect that many non-leaders who have strong feelings about this issue have compassion and principles in mind, rather than greed.
Is this really a non-issue? Is my cynicism unwarranted? Will we be seeing these issues in courts soon? Should we be subsidizing those who are fortunate to have found a soul mate anyway? If we want to help out those who are less fortunate, should we be helping those who haven’t found a soul mate?
Please, let’s not start slamming one side over this. I’ve appreciated the civil discussions in the thread, and I’d like to be able to address this issue while remaining polite and civil.
It sounds as if you disagree with the notion they should have equal rights and equal access. Perhaps I'm misreading your post, however this is exactly what they want and should have. Spousal representation just as any heterosexual couple would have. The civil union has never been looked upon as equal to marriage and therefor cannot be the same.
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 982
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
08-06-10 09:24 AM - Post#116019
In response to MissingChico
Perhaps I'm misreading your post
Yes.
|
Michael
enthusiast
Posts: 1981
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-20-02
|
08-06-10 09:26 AM - Post#116020
In response to Aolain
If the goal is a legal recognition of the contract, then the name does not matter.
I have thought that if the term "union" was applied, they would have that already. It is the term "marriage" that gets people's dander up....we see that here.
Watching this debate years ago, I think there was some discussion of the word "union" vs "marriage."
I think the GLB community decided (or at least a significant portion) "we are equal, we will not use another word for our equality." I believe the point was that "union" would denote 2nd class status.
Now, as mgrayar points out, however, this may have hurt their cause...even if it is, as I conceptualize it, just a word--but as pointed out, words have, at least, emotional meaning.
I think this is VERY true. If they had gone for a "civil union" or just "union" it would be over and done with by now.
On forms that ask married/single/divorce etc. They could just add union or civil union. Kind of like they ask parent/legal guardian on forms now.
After they got this (which I think would pass in a heart beat) they could go to get the "legal" (government) name changed for all couples to "civil union". This name would include different sex couples and same sex couples.
They would achieve their goals MUCH faster taking this approach.
| I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it! |
|
MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
08-06-10 09:34 AM - Post#116021
In response to Michael
If the goal is a legal recognition of the contract, then the name does not matter.
I have thought that if the term "union" was applied, they would have that already. It is the term "marriage" that gets people's dander up....we see that here.
Watching this debate years ago, I think there was some discussion of the word "union" vs "marriage."
I think the GLB community decided (or at least a significant portion) "we are equal, we will not use another word for our equality." I believe the point was that "union" would denote 2nd class status.
Now, as mgrayar points out, however, this may have hurt their cause...even if it is, as I conceptualize it, just a word--but as pointed out, words have, at least, emotional meaning.
I think this is VERY true. If they had gone for a "civil union" or just "union" it would be over and done with by now.
On forms that ask married/single/divorce etc. They could just add union or civil union. Kind of like they ask parent/legal guardian on forms now.
After they got this (which I think would pass in a heart beat) they could go to get the "legal" (government) name changed for all couples to "civil union". This name would include different sex couples and same sex couples.
They would achieve their goals MUCH faster taking this approach.
I do not recall off the top of my head, however there are very valid reasons for wanting "marriage". I'll have to find that and post it. It all seems like a matter of semantics on the surface.
I'll bet if a Muslim cleric proposed we apply Sharia Law to ban gay marriage based on Muslim teachings, we'd have enough outrage generated to pass gay marriage nationwide.
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
08-06-10 09:48 AM - Post#116022
In response to MissingChico
To no one in particular.
Here's where it gets dicey ....
Now that this has been ruled as it has, what's next? Will the next step be demanding that churches perform these ceremonies? Let's say, for example, that a same gender couple happens to be Mormon, or Catholic, or some other faith that does not honor these unions wants to get married in that faith. Will the law then force the church to do so? Can they legally do that?
I think a larger can o' worms has now been opened.
OK, let's say I'm a male Buddhist, and my (female) fiance is Jewish. For some reason we want to be married in a Catholic church by a priest, but we have no desire or intention of converting to Catholicism. I'm assuming the priest would refuse to perform the ceremony. Can/would the government force him to do so, because we have the civil right to get married as a heterosexual couple?
The situation is a bit different, but the principle is the same. The 1st Amendment would prevent the situation you describe.
What church has ever been FORCED to marry a heterosexual couple? I've seen churches refuse to marry nonmembers, followers of other brands of christianity, etc. I cannot see the day anyone id forced to marry anyone. There are enough compassionate churches to cover this as well as the county clerk.
No ... not yet. But it's already been attempted.
again
A sign of things to come, I'll bet.
|
Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
08-06-10 09:49 AM - Post#116023
In response to MissingChico
Michael:
I agree completely.
If it were up to me (and it is not up to me, and who am I to tell others what to call their personal arraingements), I would like the term "union." But it is just a word after all. So, I am not gonna get worried about a word.
As to 7 million Californians...in our system voters do not determine what is, or is not, constitutional.
And, as I said, the SC will, for good or ill, support prop 8--in my opinion....the court is split with a majority being conservative.
Oh! And another prediction...in 40 years this entire conversation will look as odd, to people then, as the debate over the overturning of the bans on inter-racial marriages....I am old enough to remember the debate.
Aolain, I thing this is an example that proves words really DO matter. A good amount of people who support measures like Prop 8 actually agree with the GLB community in their fight for the same civil rights as all other Americans. The only hang up in many of their minds is the word MARRIAGE. Right or wrong, good or bad, stupid or not...marriage in many peoples eyes is not to be messed with. It a spiritual event in the eyes of many people that cannot be left up to govt interpretation with. The word marriage itself is losing the battle for GLB rights.
Now, poll the supporters of Prop 8 and see if the GLB community should have equal rights under the LAW, and I am sure there would be a ton of support.
In this situation, words matter. They actually matter more than the actual facts. Words are getting in the way of what many actually want to have happen. If the end goal of this whole debate is to get equal civil rights to all (including the GLB community), then the simple act of creating a contractual UNION equivalent to the contract of MARRIAGE would have accomplished this years ago.
I actually have many friends and family in the GLB community that I care about. I have spoken with all of them on this subject. Those close to me feel that their own community is hurting their cause for equal rights by not understanding that the end goal is what matters, not the wording that gets you there. They actually wish the emphasis was on equal rights, not equal words.
That's just my opinion on the matter. I do hope that whatever happens in the long run, the end result opens the door to the same basic rights being available to all involved.
You underestimate the activists and their goals. I would not be surprised in the least to see some sort of lawsuit against a church in the not-too-distant future demanding that they marry a same gender couple.
There isn't a mean spirited activism related to this. These people simply want to live and love like the rest of us. I do not know of any gay activist who would even wish to go there. Once they are able to meld into our society, they'll simply be our neighbors with their own lives like all our other neighbors. It will take some time for the disinformation put out by scared, misled religious right to wear off, but it too will.
I hope you're right. We'll see ....
|
|
