Gay Marriage

[pclayton]

Prop 8

 

In California, the topic of gay marriage has reached the ballot again. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed which recognized marriage as only between a man and a women. It passed 61/39. Earlier this year, the CA supreme court overturned Prop 22 on a 4-3 margin and determined it was legal for gays to be married.

 

Undeterred, another proposition is on the ballot for November, Proposition 8 (largely re-affirms Prop 22) and both sides are very mobilized. The race is tight.

 

I stayed at my Dad's on Wednesday and Thursday night. He lives in a very Republican area (near Palm Desert, CA) and he has a McCain sign in front of his house. He is very much for Prop 8 and was amazed I was voting against it.

 

What say you?

[crazy4hoop]

I really don't see how same-sex couples getting married threatens opposite-sex couples or anyone else for that matter. If straight couples feel that gays being allowed to marry makes their marriage less meaningful, then there is something wrong with that marriage to begin with. I get the feeling that the same people who are against this have little if any problem if a 23 year-old marries a 95 year-old for money as long as they are of different sexes, or the case of someone marrying for citizenship. Don't these things make the whole institute of marriage seem a little less sacred, at least more so than a same-sex couple deeply in love for years trying to marry would? I bet divorce lawyers actually would love to see gays be allowed to marry given the divorce rate in the U.S. as even more people could be potentially divorcing somewhere down the road...

[sceptic]

Why should they not have the same rights as you or I, opposition to this is like living in the dark ages, live and let live

[skjaeran]

A decent society treat all citizens with respect. And doesn't humiliate anyone.

 

I'm heavily in favour of same-sex marriages.

[awm]

The Pro-Prop 8 lobby is running some very misleading ads, saying things like schools will be required to teach small children about homosexuality and churches which refuse to marry gay couples will lose their protected status.

 

None of this is really true, but it does sway public opinion.

[PassedOut]

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

[Lobowolf]

The Pro-Prop 8 lobby is running some very misleading ads, saying things like schools will be required to teach small children about homosexuality and churches which refuse to marry gay couples will lose their protected status.

 

None of this is really true, but it does sway public opinion.

I've only seen one of the Yes On 8 ads that referenced one of these things, but the one I saw said not that schools would be required to teach small children about homosexuality, but that if a school chose to teach about gay marriage, parents wouldn't be able to stop it. The ad cited some case I wasn't familiar with and didn't get the name of, apparently for the porposition that teaching about marriage and family with within the province of schools, or school districts or boards or whatever.

 

 

 

With respect to Phil's original post, on my general philosophical (largely small-L libertarian) principles, I think this is a WTP? Interestingly, much of the gay marriage debate seems to be about whether there should be a "gay marriage amendment" that would prohibit gay marriage nationwide, or whether states should be allowed to permit it or not as they see fit (the position I believe Obama ascribes to). I actually adhere to neither of these positions; rather, I don't think states should be permitted to prohibit it, largely on the same 14th Amendment grounds that ended bans on interracial marriage. I think the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as unconsitutional as well, in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. I'm generally a small government/local government guy, but I don't see this issue as a remotely close call.

[helene_t]

To me it is more crucial what real rights couples have than whether they are called "marriage" or something else. I have not so much troubles with a civil union which effectively is the same as marriage. I have more troubles with gay marriages that do not actually mean the same as a straight mariage (for example, if a woman married to a man in the Netherlands gives birth to a child, her husband is automatically a legal parent of the child, even if it's obvious to everyone that he is not the biological father; while a female spouse would have to apply for adoption).

 

But of course to some people it is important that their partnership is called marriage, and I see no reason to deny them that since it doesn't harm anyone.

 

In Netherlands and France (probably also in many other European countries), clerical marriage has no legal function. Weddings are legalized by local government which allow same-sex couples. Religious institutions can bless (or whatever they call it) the union between two people, and whether they have different criteria than the government doesn't matter since it's just symbolic (although I suppose it can have consequences for the parties' position within the religious community).

 

I think such a separation of legal marriage from clerical marriage helps to clear the issue. I have personally no interest in forcing bigotic churches to be progressive.

[sceptic]

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against

[Lobowolf]

Undeterred, another proposition is on the ballot for November, Proposition 8 (largely re-affirms Prop 22)

Also worth noting that although the immediate effect is the same (no gay marriage in California), a key difference is that unlike Proposition 22, Proposition 8 proposes to change the California Constitution. Proposition 22 was shot down because a small majority of justices chose to interpret the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage bans; should Proposition 8 pass, there won't be any such leeway -- the state constitution will explicitly say "No gay marriage."

[Lobowolf]

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against

IMO, in 21st century USA at least, churches are the subject of at least as much bigotry as they direct outward.

 

FWIW, I am not a theist.

[han]

In California, the topic of gay marriage has reached the ballot again.

 

What say you?

Why don't these people go find themselves some other hobby.

 

[edit to clarify: with "these people" I mean the people putting this on the ballot, not homosexuals or Californians in general]

[PassedOut]

In Netherlands and France (probably also in many other European countries), clerical marriage has no legal function. Weddings are legalized by local government which allow same-sex couples. Religious institutions can bless (or whatever they call it) the union between two people, and whether they have different criteria than the government doesn't matter since it's just symbolic (although I suppose it can have consequences for the parties' position within the religious community).

 

I think such a separation of legal marriage from clerical marriage helps to clear the issue. I have personally no interest in forcing bigotic churches to be progressive.

Ideally marriage in the US would work the same way. However, many church groups here would strongly oppose that change, I expect.

[pclayton]

The Pro-Prop 8 lobby is running some very misleading ads, saying things like schools will be required to teach small children about homosexuality and churches which refuse to marry gay couples will lose their protected status.

 

None of this is really true, but it does sway public opinion.

I've seen these same ads.

 

One of the primary issues they are raising is a New Jersey adoption agency that wouldn't let homosexual parents adopt. As a result they are in jeopardy of losing their tax exempt status. I think a concern is that if gay couples are legally recognized as married, that churches will have to recognize them the same as hetero couples.

[Gerben42]

I think homosexual couples should get exactly the same rights that heterosexual couples have. It doesn't matter much to me if you call this marriage or not.

 

A decent society treat all citizens with respect. And doesn't humiliate anyone.

 

Exactly my feeling.

 

Sorry, but I cannot really respect someone who feels that homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It's simply intolerance, and for me tolerance is the #1 virtue. Treat others as you want them to treat you.

 

Voting in favour of this proposition does not help anyone, it just makes other people unhappy. I can't see the good in that.

[kenberg]

I seriously doubt that churches would be forced to do anything regarding recognition of marriage.

 

For example:

 

Some years back a friend contacted me. We had been out of tough for a while but he needed some help. He was a non-churchgoer who had been married to and divorced from a non-churchgoer. He was now planning to marry a Catholic who had been married to and divorced from a Protestant. In order for the Catholic Church to recognize this marriage, he needed an annulment. His intended bride did not need an annulment. The logic was that since she was Catholic and had married a Protestant, this was not a true marriage, the couple had simply been living in sin, and no annulment was necessary. The non-churchgoers however had a marriage (I had some difficulty with the logic here but never mind) that the church recognized and so he needed an annulment. Since they had a child, they could not claim the marriage was non-consummated (actually the bride had been pregnant so it had been pre-consummated but theoretically it might not have been post-consummated, but again never mind) so they needed a letter from someone who knew them and would say that they did not know what they were doing when they got married. I wrote this letter, saying that my friend had never known what he was doing and probably still didn't. This, together with a substantial donation to the church, provided him with the desired annulment. I will not express any cynical view I may have about the relative importance of the letter and the donation. Then the happy couple decided not to marry after all.

 

The above relationships were all heterosexual.

 

If churches are allowed to preserve the policy above regarding marriage, I imagine they will be able to refuse to grant recognition to gay marriage, or any marriage, if they so choose.

 

 

As to my position on gay marriage: Generally I think that in all issues of conflicting moral views the state must present clear and convincing evidence that it needs to intervene, else it should butt out.

[matmat]

This, together with a substantial donation to the church, provided him with the desired annulment.

That, to me, is repugnant. In any other context this would be considered extortion or blackmail.

 

anyhow,

I think the Right would have no foot to stand on if, instead of "marriage" the state(s) would give out "civil union" licenses to everyone. the churches can keep their "marriages" but from a legal rights perspective everyone would be treated equally.

 

I really do think that a lot of religious folks simply don't want to see other people happy.

[PassedOut]

This, together with a substantial donation to the church, provided him with the desired annulment. I will not express any cynical view I may have about the relative importance of the letter and the donation.

Constance's first husband got an annulment to marry a Roman Catholic woman from a wealthy family in Minneapolis. In that case, too, a large donation from the prospective bride's family seemed to provide the necessary grounds. Perhaps things are different now though.

[pclayton]

I think homosexual couples should get exactly the same rights that heterosexual couples have. It doesn't matter much to me if you call this marriage or not.

I believe the US affords gays the right of a Civil Union.

 

Doesn't this extend all rights to a gay couple that a married couple would have, including tax filing status, social security and pension benefits and the like?

[Elianna]

I believe the US affords gays the right of a Civil Union.

I thought civil unions were state-by-state.

 

On a different note, I heard one of the pro-Prop 8 ads on the radio claiming that churches would lose their tax exempt status if they refused to marry same-sex couples. I'm sure that the drivers around me thought I was insane because I started yelling at the radio. That ad defied all possible logic.

 

Besides the argument KenBerg made, churches are not required to marry, say, Adam and I, and we're legally allowed to marry. If they don't lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to marry us, why should they lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to marry same-sex couples?

[kenberg]

This, together with a substantial donation to the church, provided him with the desired annulment. I will not express any cynical view I may have about the relative importance of the letter and the donation.

Constance's first husband got an annulment to marry a Roman Catholic woman from a wealthy family in Minneapolis. In that case, too, a large donation from the prospective bride's family seemed to provide the necessary grounds. Perhaps things are different now though.

Actually my case comes from Minneapolis also. Maybe it's a Minnesota thing.

[luke warm]

Of course churches should be free to set their own rules about marriage without government interference. But the government is a different matter, and should not discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against

wow, wayne... that sounded ... well, bigoted

[han]

I believe the US affords gays the right of a Civil Union.

I thought civil unions were state-by-state.

I think Elianna is correct, in Wisconsin anything resembling civil unions were banned four years ago.

[TimG]

Why should they not have the same rights as you or I?

You make it sound like none of us are gay, like the discussion involves people that never show up here.

[matmat]

Why should they not have the same rights as you or I?

You make it sound like none of us are gay, like the discussion involves people that never show up here.

everyone knows gay people can't read or write.