Straw poll on gay marriage

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<em>Unless, of course, I need to send some champagne Troop?s way, as she has been elected the Decider for All Things Gay. wink</em>



I like it !



Thanks for your thoughful responses all.
 
[quote author="SoCal78" date=1222922271][quote author="T!m" date=1222921356][quote author="SoCal78" date=1222853008]

but if a domestic partnership or civil union gave you those things i.e. pension, etc (without calling it "married") then would you consider it a sufficient version of marriage for you?</blockquote>


So, if a domestic partnership or civil union gives the same things as marriage, why not just have marriage? Why have separate terms? What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? You can't use religion here because we don't require religious beliefs of straight couples. I just don't get the hang up on the word. Let's just have one word for everyone.</blockquote>


Hi, Tim... errr... T!m.



Well I'm just trying to imagine for a second if I were a lesbian in a relationship... I honestly think I would be okay being in a civil union. It is still a recognition of the couple and doesn't take away any of their rights. I would not expect to be called "married" since the two unions are different... just as being in a common-law marriage is different from having been married. Each union has different characteristics. You know what's funny is this discussion got me thinking about a grey area -- you know - with hemaphrodites? (Maybe that is not the P.C. term anymore, not sure.) They are people that have XXY or XYY chromosomes and/or ambiguous genitalia. I wonder how they marry. It does not seem to be a very common occurance but I have seen a few people in this situation on tv before. I'm not even sure what the conservatives would think of that union - approve or not -- although I am sure the liberals would be fine with it. Interestingly, some of them side with one gender or the other and some do not... they select no gender. It was very interesting!</blockquote>


Hermaphrodites??? "YOU cannot be serious?" Your going off on a big Tangent here.
 
Trooper, I remember the HBO movie you mentioned. That was a terrific program. The segment you brought up made me so angry - it was just so wrong what happened to that woman when her partner died. Unfortunately, it's not so rare, which is very sad.



That's a perfect example of what needs to change. There should absolutely be no difference in rights and benefits between two people, no matter what their sexual preference.
 
Troop,

Just wondering if you feel a bit like the dems (or Biden) sold you out in the debate. Personally, I was very disappointed that the Democrats don't have the guts to admit that equal rights except for marriage isn't really equal, but I guess it's an election thing.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1222923509]When you tell me you would like me to call it a Civil Union instead of marriage, it makes me feel as if you don't think I'm as good as you....not worthy of marriage....so I get relegated to some 2nd class "Union" status. Trust me, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth with our CA. Civil Union protection.....but I want equality. Perhaps you will understand more when I tell my story.



And no, gays don't move in with each other any faster than straights. That's a lesbian stereotype.



You also asked me if I considered my (hypothetical) relationship different than yours....and I say no. For me, it's not about spirituality at all. It does have something to do with legal and financial protections....



<strong>But mostly it has to do with love</strong>.</blockquote>


And of course, that's all it should boil down to.



If IR is busy, might I suggest Peter Cook as an excewwent wepwacement at youw mawwage cewemony?



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1223027522]Troop,

Just wondering if you feel a bit like the dems (or Biden) sold you out in the debate. Personally, I was very disappointed that the Democrats don't have the guts to admit that equal rights except for marriage isn't really equal, but I guess it's an election thing.</blockquote>


I can't speak for Troop, but this position is not new for Obama. That said, he has come against against Prop 8.
 
I've never heard of Bolthouse, but thanks for the info.



That's where the donation will hurt them....the info about it being spread around the internet.....and a semi-boycott of their products.



For instance: I haven't bought Coors beer for 20 years, nor will I drink it. I also refuse to fill up at Exxon/Mobil because they do not offer domestic partner benefits and job protection to their gay and lesbian employees. I'm too lazy to Google for links right now.



We've got lots of money to spend, or withhold ! ;)



So donate away, but watch it eat into your profits.



** edited for clarification.
 
You may kiss the bride.......



<span style="font-size: 16px;"><strong>High Court Grants Marriage Rights For Same-Sex Couples</strong></span> (Connecticut)



<a href="http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story">My home state makes me proud !</a>



3 down, 47 to go.



<em>The state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry swept through the state with the force of a cultural tidal wave.



While lead plaintiff Beth Kerrigan and her partner -- soon to be wife -- embraced and sobbed after learning of the ruling, opponents vowed to pursue a long and complicated route to change the constitution to ban gay marriage.



The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."



"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles <strong>leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry </strong>the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "<strong>To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.</strong>"

</em>

<img src="http://www.weddingannouncer.com/pictures/32786/diary/full-size/ring.jpg" alt="" />
 
Trooper, Thanks for all that you do for this blog. Congrats on the coming move up in this blog. I hope California can also move up during this election and vote NO on 8.
 
This is an intensely emotional news conference in which San Diego Mayor Sanders announces his overnight change in his position against gay marriage.



I see my father in this man, and I'm quite certain the thought of supporting a cause that makes his daughter a second class citizen...finally ceased to make sense to him.



He hits all the points and says it better than I ever could.



Thank you Mayor Sanders.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
vid debunking the lies and scare tactics being used by the other side of prop 8.....organized religion. Well, some religions more than others.....cough.....Mormons.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
While we were down in SD, we got to watch all the "Yes on 8" commercials and I was laughing so hard I almost pissed myself. If scare tactics is all they have to rally people, then Prop 8 will go down in flames.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1223787965]While we were down in SD, we got to watch all the "Yes on 8" commercials and I was laughing so hard I almost pissed myself. If scare tactics is all they have to rally people, then Prop 8 will go down in flames.</blockquote>


Gawd... I hope you are right, but we do have a lot of ignorant people who can't think for themselves and are easily brainwashed here in Cali.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1223790020][quote author="Nude" date=1223787965]While we were down in SD, we got to watch all the "Yes on 8" commercials and I was laughing so hard I almost pissed myself. If scare tactics is all they have to rally people, then Prop 8 will go down in flames.</blockquote>


Gawd... I hope you are right, but we do have a lot of ignorant people who can't think for themselves and are easily brainwashed here in Cali.</blockquote>
Maybe. But we were in Disneyland for Gay Day '08 and the only people getting dirty looks were the women wearing "Read my Lipstick" t-shirts from the Palin rally. More people were bitching about Mylie Cyrus's 16th birthday party than about the number of boys holding hands.
 
[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1222940283]

Some additional thoughts. Prop 22 had the effect of changing a statute. Statutes are ranked lower (sorry for the lazy terminology, but I'm trying not to do "lawyer speak") than the Constitution. So when the recent California Supreme Court case on gay marriage came out, the Court essentially said: "This statute conflicts with the equal rights provision of the state constitution. Where a statute conflicts with the constitution, the statute loses." What Prop 8 is trying to do is rewrite the state constitution. If Prop 8 passes, then the recent case is no longer valid (but I think the interim marriages will be). Does that make sense?



So I know you're against judges making big decisions and all (paraphrasing), but the remedy to that is to change the thing (statute or constitution) that was the subject of the decision. So while I don't agree with the Yes on 8 folks, their choice of remedy is correct.



To take another example, the US Supreme Court recently interpreted an equal pay law that requires the effected person to file their claim within 6 (I think) months of the pay disparity. I don't know how often you compare your salary to your coworkers, but a lot of people don't. Some people believed that the 6 months should run from the time you <em>find out</em> about the pay disparity. What's the solution (if you think the Court was wrong)? Get Congress to change the law.



My point is, while some people believe that judges are <a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell121603.asp">dictators in black robes</a>, people still do retain the power to change the rules they live by.</blockquote>


If prop 8 is trying to change the state constitution to remove the right of gays to marry.

Would that not conflict from the federal constitution on equal rights?

Would it then not be valid because the federal constitution takes precedence?
 
halfnote.....this is exactly why the gay marriage debate will eventually land in the United States Supreme Court. And we will win as long as Obama is elected. If McCain wins, we will lose.



I know a Supreme Court decision other than Roe V Wade !! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas">Lawrence v Texas</a>



Lawrence v Texas overruled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick">Bowers v Hardwick.</a> and <em>decriminalized gay sex.

</em>

Want to know what year I finally became "legal"?



2003.



Are you shocked ?



This really is the social justice issue of our time.
 
<a href="http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/catholic_priest_defies_church_over_antig.php">Catholic Priest defies Bishop and preaches from the pulpit against Prop 8</a>



<em>Add to that list now Father Geoffrey Farrow, a Catholic priest at California State University/Fresno, who Sunday defied his Bishop and preached from the pulpit against the antigay marriage initiative on the California ballot this November that would eliminate what the California Supreme Court called the "fundamental" right of same sex couples to marry. <strong>In so doing, Farrow knowingly gave up his 23-year career as a Catholic priest.</strong></em>



<em>"This single FAX threw my whole summer, and in fact, my whole life into a turmoil. Recently, I was speaking with some of our parishioners who advocate for the ordination of women. In the course of our conversation, a question arose which has haunted me: "<strong>At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?</strong>" By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament.... In directing the faithful to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the California Bishops are not merely entering the political arena, <strong>they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements made by the Church itself that homosexuality is innate (i.e. orientation). In doing this, they are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today... </em></strong>



<em>I do not presume to tell you how to vote but I do ask that you pray to the Creator of us all...<strong>The act of casting a vote takes you a few minutes but it can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime. It can grant them hope and acceptance, or it can cause them to lose civil rights.</strong> It can be a rebuff to bigotry and hatred, or it can encourage bigotry and hatred. Personally, I am morally compelled to vote "NO" on Proposition 8. It is my hope that the people of California will join with those others around the world such as Canada, Europe and South Africa who welcome their gay and lesbian family members fully into society by granting them the civil right to marry.



I know these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them, would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights <strong>but of their human dignity as well</strong>. Jesus said, "The truth will set you free." He didn't promise that it would be easy or without personal cost to speak that truth."

</em>

This man is a hero to me....and perhaps it helps you understand my absolute abhorrence to most organized religion.
 
<strong><span style="font-size: 15px;">California Gay Marriages Surpass Massachusetts

</span></strong>

<em>More same-sex couples have married in California since it was legalized in June than married in the four years since Massachusetts began marrying gay couples in 2004, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.



An estimated 11,000 same-sex couples have married in California, with five counties accounting for nearly 80% of the matrimonies: Los Angeles (2,719), San Francisco (2,708), San Diego (1,689), Riverside (1,247), and Alameda (475). California is home to 14% percent of the country?s same-sex couples, the largest percentage nationwide.



Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, partially attributed the nuptial rush to the imminent vote on Proposition 8, which if passed, will constitutionally outlaw same-sex marriage in the state.



<strong>?After November 4, it?s possible the door to having that experience of a legally recognized marriage will be closed,? Kendell told The New York Times. ?And faced with that, many couples have, to some degree, rushed to get married in order to assure that they are legally recognized.</strong>?



<strong>Demographically speaking, Williams Institute researchers have found that about 25% of gay couples in California are raising more than 52,000 children. Lesbians are more likely to be living with partners but gay men have longer lasting relationships. Among couples who sought official recognition either through domestic partnerships or marriage, men had been together an average of 12 years while lesbian couples average nine years. (The Advocate)</em></strong>



<a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid63250.asp">link to story</a>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top