Gay Marriage

[cherdano]

Come on Californians, this should be an obvious one - you can't have the Mormons from Utah decide a question like that?

Most of the volunteer effort in favor of propsition 8 comes from Mormons, the LDS church is urging its members (including those outside of California...) to support it with money and volunteer time, and a Mormon group claims that a third (5 Millions US-$) of the donations for the proposition 8 campaign comes from Mormons.

 

This all seems very weird to me. What is the motivation to try to deny a minority rights in a different state??

 

Greetings from the "gay capital of the bible belt" (Salt Lake City), where the days of the annual LDS conference are always the busiest days for gay clubs in the whole year...

[pclayton]

Come on Californians, this should be an obvious one - you can't have the Mormons from Utah decide a question like that?

Most of the volunteer effort in favor of propsition 8 comes from Mormons, the LDS church is urging its members (including those outside of California...) to support it with money and volunteer time, and a Mormon group claims that a third (5 Millions US-$) of the donations for the proposition 8 campaign comes from Mormons.

 

This all seems very weird to me. What is the motivation to try to deny a minority rights in a different state??

 

Greetings from the "gay capital of the bible belt" (Salt Lake City), where the days of the annual LDS conference are always the busiest days for gay clubs in the whole year...

Wow. I think part of the reason is the LDS church has more money than it (obviously) knows what to do with.

 

Catholics used to push our weight around plenty (like 200 years ago). Now we are the poor churches, struggling to raise a few mil for a new parish center.

 

Mega churches like Saddleback, Calvary Chapel and Mariners can raise 10 mil with one good sermon from Rick Warren.

 

They are also the ones pushing the Yes on 8. Had some honey come by the house Saturday stumping for it. When I told her I would be voting against 8 she looked at me like I had a 3rd eye.

 

I thought Missoula was the only gay city in Mountain Standard Time.

[kenberg]

I wasn't confused, but what i said perhaps was unclear. By "opposition" I meant opposition to gay marriage, not opposition to Proposition 8. I favor legalizing gay marriage.

 

Phil's original post stated:

He is very much for Prop 8 and was amazed I was voting against it.

 

Your next post stated:

To my mind, this opposition really should give way. I hope that you, Phil, will reconsider.

 

This seems that you are asking Phil to reconsider voting against Proposition 8, which is at odds with you favoring legalizing gay marriage. Hence I was confused.

You are right, very right, I was confused. I had reversed Phil's position with his father's. Careless reading.

 

OK! Phil: Don't revere your position.

 

I will not jump into what your father should do. I do not believe my father would have been interested if I brought him a note from you saying what he should do.

[DrTodd13]

People just don't understand government and long ago when there was a majority of one mind on some topic that majority lobbied to get the government to ban or tax or regulate or whatever what it is they didn't like. As soon as they did this they said "Government, you're in control of this area." Once in control, the government can change its mind later and decide in the exact opposite way. Of course, these people have a short memory and later when the gov. has reversed its position they cry foul and now say the gov. shouldn't be in this area at all. Too late. These are the people who wanted marriage laws to stop certain people from marrying. They got their wish but now the situation is almost reversed where soon not only will anyone or any number of people be able to marry each other but it will be a crime to personally discriminate based on others' living arrangements. Let the government mandate that children must be schooled and little by little the government inches towards banning homeschooling (a California judge recently ruled homeschooling unconstitutional because the state has an interest in seeing that children are endoctrinated with obedience to the state), giving parents no say in what their children are taught in schools, and eventually it will become criminal for parents to attempt to subvert what the government wants the schools to teach the kids to believe.

[Lobowolf]

This all seems very weird to me. What is the motivation to try to deny a minority rights in a different state??

One of the variety of instruments used by federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, in constitutional interpretation is something like "well established in American tradition," or something to that effect. I'm forgetting the exact phrase, but it came from a Supreme Court ruling in a particular case, and became one of the benchmarks that the Court refers to. Essentially, the number of states in which something is either prohibited or permitted can be used as leverage in prohibiting or permitting it in other states. I may be misremembering, but I think this analysis was used as partial justification for the ban on capital punishment for people under 18 when they committed their crimes. Essentially, most states banned it voluntarily, then in one of the states that didn't, a 16 or 17 year old was looking at the death penalty, and his lawyer makes an argument that it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and part of the decision is the fact that 42 of the other 49 states have banned (or whatever the case may be).

 

So, part of it may just be to make what the people in the other state perceive as a better country, but another part of it may be that legal gay marriage in California may eventually undermine the ban on gay marriage in Utah.

[1eyedjack]

Talking of protecting minority interests, here in the UK we have a bizarre rule that means that the survivor of two aged sisters who have lived together all their lives will have to sell their shared home to pay the inheritance tax on the first death. Had they not been sisters they would have been entitled to form a civil partnership and escape it. They would not even have to be gay or engage in any activities normally associated with marriage.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7373302.stm

[Codo]

I wouldn't be so harsh with people who have another idea about what is good and right.

 

If someone is against something basic like same rights for same-sex couples = making innocent people unhappy, because they don't fit in the personal world view. This is a terrible thing, and yes I will be harsh to those supporting this discrimination.

 

The first law of the Dutch constitution forbids discrimination, and as such it makes me extremely sad that it is so widespread (also silent discrimination, even in the Netherlands).

Sorry Gerben this is too shortsighted.

 

Each society makes it rules about what they tolerate, what they accept and what they support.

 

In Germany:

F.E.: To be gay is tolerated here and mostly accepted. And it gets more and more support.

 

F.E.: To live in polygamy is tolerated in the sense that you are allowed to live together with more then one partner. But it is not accepted and gets no support.

 

F.E.: If a man loves a teen, this is not tolerated, not accepted and gets no support.

 

But if a man loves a woman, this is not just tolerated, but accepted and supported.

 

I belive that it is right this way. I belive that gays should have the same rights then heteros, but polygamists should not. But I cannot prove it. And I doubt anybody can.

And I am very sure that in most muslim states, they have a very very different view.

 

I must accept and tolerate their different view. How can I claim that they are wrong and we are right? It is just a belive, no facts.

[sceptic]

My daughter just started uni this year, she was in the halls of residence, she is now sharing with, two Muslim girls (actually I may be a bit unfair here, they are definately not jewish, so I am assumimg they are Muslim), that speak little english, she was given instructions, that she is not to place any pork products in the communial fridge or have any pork products in the communial kitchen and she had to remove the bacon from the fridge, failure to do this would result in her removal from the Halls of residence.

 

Please, discrimination or just common sense?, my daughter loves bacon and eggs for breakfast, why is she being denied this basic right to eat how she pleases, surely this is more of an important issue, than denying gay marriage, which , I fail to see is anything other than bigotry on the part of those voting for prop 8.

 

Personaly this issue is a bug bear of mine, But , the fact she has to share with these girls is not an issue, I personally object to segregation and that is what would happen if they resited her in the HOR

[helene_t]

I still see no  reason why the government is in the marriage license business. I see no reason why governments should be in the business of making marriages legal or illegal.

I think it is very practical that there are government-sanctioned marriage contracts (or civil union or whatever you want to call it).

 

As long as marriage is a legal concept, obviously the government needs to decide under which conditions two people are considered married in case it becomes relevant in a legal dispute.

 

For example, I believe in most (all?) countries, if one spouse assumes a financial liability, it automatically extends to the partner (yeah, this is a simplification). This does not hold for unmarried couples. One could have a system in which no such solidaric liability existed (but solidaric liability is a practical thing for couples who share economy and the (financial) responsibility for children), or one could imagine the courts on a case-by-case basis decided if a couple was considered to share a particular liability (but that would create a lot of uncertainty, and legal expenses).

 

Finally, one could imagine that couples made tailored contracts, e.g. shared responsibility for children but a more limited shared economy. Actually such contracts exist and are quite popular in the Netherlands where some couples think the legal implications of marriage go to far. However, at least in more conservative areas than the Netherlands, I suspect the vast majority of couples would opt for a complete contract which would just be marriage with another name.

 

I am all for quite liberal criteria for honoring a couples wish to have such contracts (whether we are talking about marriage, civil union, or more limited contracts). But:

- Phil cannot legally marry his gulf club. Sorry. The golf club is not a legal person who can sign a contract, and besides, it would be unclear if Phil would have to file for divorce before buying a second golf club etc.

- You cannot marry a minor. Your partner needs to be in a position to legally sign such a significant contract.

- Polygamy? I am sure it could be dealt with, but in a culture with no legal practice for it, it is problematic because not all elements in a monogamic marriage contracts easily extrapolate to polygamy. For example, what are the obligations of the first wife towards the second wife's children after one, or both, got divorced from their common husband?

[Gerben42]

Sorry Gerben this is too shortsighted.

 

Each society makes it rules about what they tolerate, what they accept and what they support.

 

I don't think so. Being gay is something that you cannot choose or change. What right do we have to deny same-sex couples the same rights opposite-sex couples have? Exactly none.

 

Should we automatically accept all rules in all societies and say they are reasonable? I don't think so. I think it's possible to comment on what seems wrong to me, and make efforts to change them. I am very glad to live in a part of the world where it is possible to suggest changes to society, rather than in a part of the world where you will be "taken care of" if you step out of line.

 

I ask myself: If I would live somewhere else, would I feel differently? The answer is no.

[Codo]

I don't think so. Being gay is something that you cannot choose or change. What right do we have to deny same-sex couples the same rights opposite-sex couples have? Exactly none.

 

Should we automatically accept all rules in all societies and say they are reasonable? I don't think so. I think it's possible to comment on what seems wrong to me, and make efforts to change them. I am very glad to live in a part of the world where it is possible to suggest changes to society, rather than in a part of the world where you will be "taken care of" if you step out of line.

 

I ask myself: If I would live somewhere else, would I feel differently? The answer is no.

That you have no choice whether you are gay or not is no valid reason to accept gay marriage.

 

We have rights to deny polygamy, marriage to kids and to dogs. So why don't we have the right to deny marriage to gay?

 

We just define what is right or wrong. We cannot prove that being gay is better or worse then being hetero. And we cannot prove that polygamy is better or worse. We simply have to decide for our own according to what we learned. There are no facts, just opinions.

 

So your descission is: Gay marriage is fine.

But there is simply no reason why your descission should be true for anybody else.

[TimG]

So your decision is: Gay marriage is fine.

But there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

So your decision is: women should have the right to vote.

 

But, there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

[kenberg]

It seems to me that the views Codo expresses must be taken seriously. With hope that I am not again confused, I see his view as: Yes adults have a right to live their sex lives as they choose, yes they have a right to legal arrangements involving sickness, death, property and so on, still society has a right to decide what we will call a marriage. I do favor accepting a homosexual union as a marriage, but I do not see it necessarily as bigotry to decide otherwise. When it comes to polygamy or polyandry, we do not accept this as legal and Codo is right: We don't accept it because we don't accept it. It would be tough to prove that we should not accept it, societies through the ages have, but we don't.

 

I imagine everyone on the Forum objects to gay bashing, physical or otherwise. That is not being debated. Exactly what should be given the social and legal status of marriage is a fair question for debate.

 

Whether or not I have fairly stated Codo's position, my own position is that I favor legalizing gay marriage. I favor not legalizing polygamy or polyandry. I do not claim that I can offer an air tight proof that every non-bigoted person must agree with me on this distinction.

 

The fact that marriage confers social status beyond tolerance and legal rights seems to me to be the heart of the matter.

[kenberg]

My daughter just started uni this year, she was in the halls of residence, she is now sharing with, two Muslim girls (actually I may be a bit unfair here, they are definitely not jewish, so I am assuming they are Muslim), that speak little english, she was given instructions, that she is not to place any pork products in the communal fridge or have any pork products in the communal kitchen and she had to remove the bacon from the fridge, failure to do this would result in her removal from the Halls of residence.

 

Please, discrimination or just common sense?, my daughter loves bacon and eggs for breakfast, why is she being denied this basic right to eat how she pleases, surely this is more of an important issue, than denying gay marriage, which , I fail to see is anything other than bigotry on the part of those voting for prop 8.

 

Personally this issue is a bug bear of mine, But , the fact she has to share with these girls is not an issue, I personally object to segregation and that is what would happen if they resited her in the HOR

Obviously this strays a bit off topic, but it seems to me that if the University wants to offer a pork free room to the two girls then how to do so should be their problem, not your daughter's. Governments and other organizations often get very overbearing, I would say idiotic, in their claim that they are protecting someone's rights by restricting the rights of others.

[sceptic]

I don't think so. Being gay is something that you cannot choose or change

 

it can be

[sceptic]

My daughter just started uni this year, she was in the halls of residence, she is now sharing with, two Muslim girls (actually I may be a bit unfair here, they are definitely not jewish, so I am assuming they are Muslim), that speak little english, she was given instructions, that she is not to place any pork products in  the communal fridge or have any pork products in the communal kitchen and she had to remove the bacon from the fridge, failure to do this would result in her removal from the Halls of residence.

 

Please, discrimination or just common sense?, my daughter loves bacon and eggs for breakfast, why is she being denied this basic right to eat how she pleases, surely this is more of an important issue, than denying gay marriage, which , I fail to see is anything other than bigotry on the part of those voting for prop 8.

 

Personally this issue is a bug bear of mine, But , the fact she has to share with these girls is not an issue, I personally object to segregation and that is what would happen if they resited her in the HOR

Obviously this strays a bit off topic, but it seems to me that if the University wants to offer a pork free room to the two girls then how to do so should be their problem, not your daughter's. Governments and other organizations often get very overbearing, I would say idiotic, in their claim that they are protecting someone's rights by restricting the rights of others.

yes slightly off topic, but all the same pork issue or gay marriage, who am I or any of us to say they don't have the rights to thier beliefs or life style choices, with the pork issue, something is being forced upon my daughter, with the gay marriage, that is not being forced upon anyone, it is thier choice and we should as a tolerant society accept others ways, as long as that does not impact directly on us, I will never be involved in a gay marriage, but quite feasable, I could be invited to one by a friend.

 

I really think that the pro 8 supporters should define exactly why they are supporting it, I can't think of a valid reason that is not bigotted.

 

The only person, I can see that it effects any great amount is the actual vicar who is asked to perform an actual ceremony to wed the couple, maybe if a priest and a choir boy wanted to wed, they would not have any strong objections

 

I can not see the Muslims objecting to this, well only 50% of them, I believe the other 50% are not allowed an opinion on any thing

[helene_t]

Maybe it's bigotry, too, to oppose polygamy, or interspecies marriage, or adult/child marriage (or human/gulfclub marriage). That is a separate issue. I think that a case can be made that all those four cases deserve a different legal status, so even if it's bigotry to oppose people in polygamic relations calling themselves married, it is not necessarily bigotry to insist that their legal status is different from monogamic relations

 

But it cannot be argued on a non-bigoted basis that gay married couples deserve a different legal status than straight couples, anymore than it can be argued that special rules should apply to interracial marriages.

[matmat]

Maybe it's bigotry, too, to oppose polygamy, or interspecies marriage, or adult/child marriage (or human/gulfclub marriage). That is a separate issue. I think that a case can be made that all those four cases deserve a different legal status, so even if it's bigotry to oppose people in polygamic relations calling themselves married, it is not necessarily bigotry to insist that their legal status is different from monogamic relations

 

But it cannot be argued on a non-bigoted basis that gay married couples deserve a different legal status than straight couples, anymore than it can be argued that special rules should apply to interracial marriages.

I don't really see that big of a problem with polygamy or polyandry, so long as all of the parties involved are well informed of the situation.

 

"interspecies" marriage and adult/child marriage are different issues. One of the two parties involved does not have the capacity to consent (either never will or not yet) and as such could very much lead to that party being exploited and abused by the other.

[ASkolnick]

Interesting topic.

 

I don't think I am in favor of gay marriage, but I do believe that a gay couple should have the same protection and rights as any married couple (civil union). I think you may want to keep the distinction. The government has been known to be wishy-washy when it comes to separation of church and state. As I like to point out, it talks about separation of church and state, but on every bill the US government prints it says "In God We Trust". When you go to court, you swear on a bible, etc. So, as much as there is some separation, there is still some puritan law behind the basis.

 

As for the teaching in schools, there was a controversial book in NYC about 5 years back called "Heather has two mommies." While I do believe tolerance of all types of people should be taught, I am not sure that should be part of the curriculum, any more than ebonics should be taught as a language. As in the case of the one person's daughter, you need to make sure that you aren't stepping on one person's right by infringing on another.

[kenberg]

I pretty much agree about the schools. Unless schools are different from when I grew up they are virtually never willing to introduce truly open debate. The message of Heather has Two Mommies, I would guess, is that this is fine and dandy (excuse the expression). Unless the school is prepared to let those who disagree have their say on this, I think it is better for them to stay out of it.

 

 

I started high school in 1952. In one of my classrooms the teacher had set on a shelf some books designed to help us thirteen year olds learn about the changes we were experiencing. I learned that nocturnal emissions, as they were then called, were a normal part of puberty. This I knew. But I did learn something from the book that hadn't occurred to me. Apparently, according to the book, their were unscrupulous phony doctors who would tell boys that such emissions could be cured by having relations with a girl and for a price the doctor would provide the girl. Well now! Despite some effort, I was unable to locate such a doctor. Probably just as well. I doubt that my earnings setting pins at the bowling alley would have covered the tariff.

 

Anyway, I think that unless schools are prepared for a no holds barred discussion they might want to stay away from sexual indoctrination, no matter the pov.

[TimG]

Exactly what should be given the social and legal status of marriage is a fair question for debate.

I think you are half right. The social status of marriage is up for debate, or for personal opinion if you choose. But, the legal status of marriage should not be up for debate. Call it equal protection or anti-discrimination or what have you, but gay couples and heterosexual couples who choose to have their union sanctioned by the state should have equal standing under the laws of the nation (or state).

 

I really don't care whether you call this a marriage or a civil union, but the state sanctioned form ought to be called the same thing for all couples and mean the same thing for all couples. If any couple wants to have their union sanctioned by a house of religion, too, that is a matter for them to take up with their chosen house of religion.

[mike777]

"For example, I believe in most (all?) countries, if one spouse assumes a financial liability, it automatically extends to the partner (yeah, this is a simplification). This does not hold for unmarried couples. One could have a system in which no such solidaric liability existed (but solidaric liability is a practical thing for couples who share economy and the (financial) responsibility for children), or one could imagine the courts on a case-by-case basis decided if a couple was considered to share a particular liability (but that would create a lot of uncertainty, and legal expenses). "

 

 

This is not true in the USA and I would expect this to not be true in many other countries.

 

If one spouse assumes a financial liability it does NOT automatically extend to the other partner. For example buying a house or a car or stocks or bonds, etc.......

 

As for children....the financial responsibility is there whether you are married or not! In fact many if not yet most children are born out of wedlock. In fact the children may be born out of a rented womb.

 

So I still see no huge reason why governments should be involved in whether a marriage is legal or not. If you want some legal contract, see a lawyer! IF people come to some meeting of minds, fair enough they have formed a civil contract, that can fall under civil contract law. I still do not understand why taxpayers need to be involved in weddings or marriages. Let the private sector handle it!

 

OTOH for those that view marriage as a holy sacrement I can understand religions that may very well have rules for what a legal or illegal marriage is.

 

 

OTOH if you want to define what a marriage is so you can give them tax breaks....and discriminate against those who are not married, ok. :)

I can only see the government getting involved in what a legal marriage is if they want to discriminate!

 

If businesses are going to discriminate against those who are not married, sue!

[mike777]

Exactly what should be given the social and legal status of marriage is a fair question for debate.

I think you are half right. The social status of marriage is up for debate, or for personal opinion if you choose. But, the legal status of marriage should not be up for debate. Call it equal protection or anti-discrimination or what have you, but gay couples and heterosexual couples who choose to have their union sanctioned by the state should have equal standing under the laws of the nation (or state).

 

I really don't care whether you call this a marriage or a civil union, but the state sanctioned form ought to be called the same thing for all couples and mean the same thing for all couples. If any couple wants to have their union sanctioned by a house of religion, too, that is a matter for them to take up with their chosen house of religion.

But this is not a convincing argument why the state should sanction any marriage, unless the state is going to discriminate! Once the state is going to give benefits soley on the basis of whatever the state wants to call "legal marriage" fairness goes out the window! It now becomes a political issue and matter of political power, which today means getting the "correct" judges elected.

[mike777]

"Anyway, I think that unless schools are prepared for a no holds barred discussion they might want to stay away from sexual indoctrination, no matter the pov."

 

 

If you are going to have public schools teach morality in some version, and values that the country feel are important then I think the issues of gay rights will become a common subject of public school education over the next few decades.

I think this will follow a similiar curve to the teaching of the rights or lackthere of for blacks or women over the decades.

[luke warm]

So your decision is: Gay marriage is fine.

But there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

So your decision is: women should have the right to vote.

 

But, there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

which is why society makes decisions that affect society... the question to me is, should it be a states' issue or the fed gov't's?