USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[renaissance]

So really the only problem some people have is the word assigned to the institution?

[Larry]

So really the only problem some people have is the word assigned to the institution?

You'll see in these threads, a whole bunch of people objecting to posters proposing "civil unions", because that phrase has been used for years by people who were proposing a different idea:

One in which the government will "marry" straight people, will "civil union" gay people, and will claim that they're the same.

In short, the phrase "civil unions" is strongly associated with the people advocating a "separate but equal" system.

So, people use the phrase "civil unions", and people are violently opposed to the idea of "separate but equal".

It's an effect of the fact that this debate has been going on for so long that people have developed reflex responses to sound bites, and the fact that we are now (at least in Tailgate) seeing two different proposals, both using the same phrase.

Although I do recall one person who actually objected to the concept of the government "civil union-izing" everybody. For him, the term had to me "marriage".

And I can see something to his point. If the government drops the entire term "marriage", then there's going to be elements of "Well, if we can't keep those dirty gays out, then we'll just cancel the whole thing", and "everything was fine until those gays showed up and made us change everything".

But, IMO, those are minor nits. Certainly points that don't rise to the level of Constitutional Rights. They aren't worth "making a federal case out of it".

IMO, the gays should stick to demanding equal rights, and not quibble about what name those rights have on them.

"Equal rights" is an idea that resonates with a lot more people than "I want that word, and nothing else is good enough."

[twa]

So really the only problem some people have is the word assigned to the institution?

Obviously quite a few on both sides....it tends to happen that way when a simple word has means different things to different folk.(along with the historical religious baggage)

Make it purely secular and I think a lot of contention vanishes.(the battle will still go on in religious circles naturally,but they tend to argue over a lot of things;))

There is of course the faction that opposes the granting of equal rights,but that one is significantly smaller from what I see.

[Bang]

So really the only problem some people have is the word assigned to the institution?

That is what they're blaming it on.

But you can bank if the word wasn't an issue there'd be some other reason to be against it.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

I'm responding to the claim that if what, 1%? of the population are allowed the same rights as everybody else, then the mere presence of this tiny minority will utterly destroy the pristine sanctity of this institution of perfection.

Personally, I think that argument is comparable to claiming that if blacks are allowed in the swimming pool, their mere presence will taint the water, destroying it for everybody else. I counter that argument by pointing out that people pee in the pool, right now.

a much better metaphor, thanks

---

on a related note, that sort of thinking sickens me. How does a gay man getting married to another gay man, probably no where near your community, affect you? It doesn't, so who are you to even think its your business? People who invoke 'God's Will' are even dumber. God gave us free will, what we do with it we'll answer for good or bad on judgment day before the almighty. Christians are called on the prevent sin, and certainly not to prevent sin through legal humiliation.

[skinfan133]

I'm going to attempt to speak for all of the people using the phrase "take the government out of it", and I think that what all of them are proposing is:

1) Separate the "marriage license" and the "church wedding" into two separate entities.

(They already are, anyway. Lots of people get married by the government, right now, who can't get married in their own church, for one reason or another.)

2) The churches retain the rights to the word "marriage"

("Mawwiage if whot vrings uf togevver, today.")

3) The government "marriage license" gets a different name. ("Civil Union" is proposed.)

The churches get to set whatever rules they want, to decide who can and can't get married in their church. (They already do it now, anyway.)

The government will "civil union-ize" whoever fills out the proper form, and pays the fee.

My exact position more or less for the last two or three years. And any law proposal that incorporates the Princess Bride is a winner

[twa]

That is what they're blaming it on.

But you can bank if the word wasn't an issue there'd be some other reason to be against it.

~Bang

Never know till ya try...what's the cost?

Want to bank on some outrage from the other side over the changing of a simple word?

We could even give it a celebratory name in honor of changing the definition to being inclusive and equal and removing any church/state taint.

how about Freedom Unions...or FU's if ya prefer

[Smoot Point Really]

I'm responding to the claim that if what, 1%? of the population are allowed the same rights as everybody else, then the mere presence of this tiny minority will utterly destroy the pristine sanctity of this institution of perfection.

Personally, I think that argument is comparable to claiming that if blacks are allowed in the swimming pool, their mere presence will taint the water, destroying it for everybody else. I counter that argument by pointing out that people pee in the pool, right now.

While I agree with much of what you have said in this thread, this is the one point I will choose to object to.

It is a crude and imperfect example, but it is more like changing the definition of shoes just because someone who is born without feet can't wear them.

If homosexuals inherently had the ability to procreate (as blacks and whites are both able to swim), then you might have a point.

Without procreation, what is the point of marriage?

Whenever people disagree on stuff like this, it doesn't have to always imply bigotry.

[Smoot Point Really]

That is what they're blaming it on.

But you can bank if the word wasn't an issue there'd be some other reason to be against it.

~Bang

They'd probably also have an issue with how many times a day you are probably touching yourself... However, you aren't trying to change the culture to get a tax credit.

Seriously, if homosexual rights activists really wanted to solve this issue, they would pursue the three points Larry suggested. It's not about creating a solution, it's about calling other people bigots.

[Larry]

If homosexuals inherently had the ability to procreate (as blacks and whites are both able to swim), then you might have a point.

And if marriage had anything to do with procreation, you'd have a point.

But it doesn't.

Without procreation, what is the point of marriage?

Ask my Grandmother. She seemed to think it was kind of important.

Whenever people disagree on stuff like this, it doesn't have to always imply bigotry.

Nope.

But when they're advocating that people have their rights taken away from them, and they can't come up with a reason other than bigotry, then it's bigotry.

Society has a right to punish rapists, because rapists infringe on other people's rights.

There is no such justification for legislating different treatment for gays.

In fact, it's hard to even discuss the subject without people announcing that they're opposed to gays having equal rights "because I don't want the government to be treating them like everybody else".

That, to me, is the definition of discrimination: Treating a group of people differently without a valid reason.

(Well, actually, I think the term "apartheid" is the one that fits best, since we're dealing with legislated discrimination by the government.)

If there's a good reason for it, then it's not discrimination.

But there isn't such a reason. The closest people can come up with is "find some way in which gays are different, and claim it's because of that".

You don't want to ban marriage to people who can't have kids. It's a standard that you made up, to try to hide the fact that you don't have one.

[Smoot Point Really]

And if marriage had anything to do with procreation, you'd have a point.

But it doesn't.

You are clearly making up stuff to support your argument... There is a sacrament and liturgical tradition spanning nearly two millennia that refute this point you are making. Why would the Church or synagog need to bless an unproductive relationship?

[Larry]

You are clearly making up stuff to support your argument... There is a sacrament and liturgical tradition spanning nearly two millennia that refute this point you are making. Why would the Church or synagog need to bless an unproductive relationship?

Got a proposed law for you: No one should be permitted to marry unless the bride is pregnant with the husband's child.

After all, that's the only way we can protect this sacred institution from homosexual activists who might get married and then fail to conceive.

We must protect the sanctity ot the shotgun wedding!!!

For or against?

[JimboDaMan]

You are clearly making up stuff to support your argument... There is a sacrament and liturgical tradition spanning nearly two millennia that refute this point you are making. Why would the Church or synagog need to bless an unproductive relationship?

You have now departed from the shores of reason.

[Smoot Point Really]

Irrelevant... Try staying on topic. This was in response to Larry.

[Smoot Point Really]

You have now departed from the shores of reason.

That all you contribute?

I'll add to this. Departing the shores of reason would be ignoring history, language, and culture in my book... I just don't believe the Government should be using the word marriage and then redefining the word.

[Larry]

That all you contribute?

I'll add to this. Departing the shores of reason would be ignoring history, language, and culture in my book... I just don't believe the Government should be using the word marriage and then redefining the word.

He said, while digging with both hands to attempt to redefine the word.

[Smoot Point Really]

He said, while digging with both hands to attempt to redefine the word.

Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, but so has the word marriage. You should easily be able to defend your position using something more than an anecdote.

[IHOPSkins]

And if marriage had anything to do with procreation, you'd have a point.

But it doesn't........

Maybe you want to divorce creating children from raising them? (you know that stable environment thing)

Remember when Obama called it "PUNISHMENT: to have a Baby?

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.

Are Homosexual relationships more stable than heterosexual ones?

[Riggo-toni]

It seems to me people who hate gays should be all for allowing them to get married - why not make them as miserable as the rest of us?

[jb4348]

You are clearly making up stuff to support your argument... There is a sacrament and liturgical tradition spanning nearly two millennia that refute this point you are making. Why would the Church or synagog need to bless an unproductive relationship?

Me and my wife got married knowing that we wouldn't be able to have children. So should we have not been aloud to get married? Why do you even care anyway. Who are you to judge other people because they are in love and want to marry their partner. I think its easy to hate something I guess then it is to take the time to understand the real issue. Everyone talks about freedom in this country but yet the government gets to decide who you get to marry how much sense does that make.

[Larry]

Are Homosexual relationships more stable than heterosexual ones?

Don't rightly know.

I've seen lots of people pointing at studies that claim to have a position. (And every one I've seen is comparing apples to oranges.)

Although, on the subject of gay marriages, I'd assert that it's impossible to even attempt to answer the question until gay marriage has been a steady factor in our culture for at least a generation, if not several.

[Larry]

Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, but so has the word marriage. You should easily be able to defend your position using something more than an anecdote.

And you should be able to actually defend your position without running away from reality and pretending that it doesn't exist.

Do you support prohibiting marriage to straight couples who can't (or do not intend to) have children?

[IHOPSkins]

.....Although, on the subject of gay marriages, I'd assert that it's impossible to even attempt to answer the question until gay marriage has been a steady factor in our culture for at least a generation, if not several.

Valid point

as an example, here is a homosexual couple getting married for all the WRONG reasons...

Rosie O'Donnell Admits She Got Married in S.F. Merely As Act of 'Defiance' Against Bush

http://newsbusters.org/node/40642/print

An Institution is further eroded

Rosie is a little hard on the Bush.....:yikes:

[Fergasun]

I haven't commented on this thread.

I voted for Prop 8 to save the word "marriage". I'm ticked off that the State of California is ignoring its own voters. If we want "marriage" to stay between a man and a woman, than why not come out and simply say that the state will no longer perform "marriage" ceremonies and everyone will not have "domestic partnerships".

I have no interesting in denying any rights and privileges to homosexuals. As far as this decision goes, I don't see how California's definition of marriage impacts whether other states recognize that marriage due to their own state-DOMA or Federal DOMA. I don't agree this is a case of "separate but equal". The harm comes not from the state or state activities, but because people believe homosexuals are inferior people in some way and stigmatize them, causing emotional harm.

In spite of my personal beliefs (or because of them), I no longer thing its important to battle in such a way over the term "marriage". I think the rational thing to do is get such arguments outside of the public realm. If we continue down this path every state is going to wage its own battle over the term. These battles have been acrimonious, bring forward blatantly bigoted and fearful views of homosexuals, and bringing forward hatred of religions.

I see a stalemate. Folks like myself believe that the redefinition of "marriage" is against God and completely illogical given that we believe marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Homosexuals believe that the battle over "marriage" is for certain rights and privileges. The judge in his ruling even admitted that in California there is no legal difference between "domestic partnership" and "marriage", they are parallel and equal (note the absence of any clear harm done, there are not dual bathrooms, domestic partners don't have their tax returns slowed by the state). The harm results because other states don't recognize California's "domestic partnership" as equal to "marriage" like California itself does.

If we now establish that there are two equal institutions, the battle simply becomes over the word "marriage". I voted for Prop 8 because I believed it was worth saving. I was conflicted, but didn't believe I was voting against people's rights and privileges, and still don't believe that would happen. I feel like homosexuals are intentionally trying to inflict harm and damage against religions.

For a number of reasons I now don't think I can hold this position anymore. First, Christians like myself need to admit that "marriage" has been appropriated and perverted by the state. By law the state can't recognize the religious beliefs I hold dearly regarding marriage and its origins. Admitting and embracing that puts Christian weddings and marriages in a whole different realm, already unrelated to the government institution. Christian's should think of their "marriages" or unions differently than everyone else. Second, and also important to me is that this battle seems intentionally drawn to divide gays and folks like myself, the perfect illustration of a "wedge issue". I honestly don't wish to deny them any rights. Although I can't see what harm California is doing, I'm fully willing to concede the term "marriage". It's not so important that it's willing to rip up the fabric of the country and have acrimonious debates and elections over in all 50 states. Third, given the fact that this issue is viewed differently by the camps, I think it is more Christian to "yield" than to stick to our guns. The fact that voters can't define terms for their state seems more ridiculous to me and another issue to deal with somehow altogether. But, you can't admit the debate over Proposition 8 has been ugly and is not even being fought on level grounds. When one side believes they are fighting over A, and the other side over B... there's no means for a good solution.

If people think the judge's ruling will stand up in the Supreme Court, I'm not so sure. The effect of allowing it to stand would be an instant imposition on all states of same-sex "marriage". The Supreme Court cannot pass down a 5-4 decision on this but that's the path things look like they are taking. I'm going to start printing "Impeach Justice Kennedy!" bumper stickers now, because whichever side loses will buy them up in a flash.

[Smoot Point Really]

And you should be able to actually defend your position without running away from reality and pretending that it doesn't exist.

Do you support prohibiting marriage to straight couples who can't (or do not intend to) have children?

Why does it matter? Your arguments are faulty from the start. You seem to believe that the sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with having children. I'm talking about real biological impossibilities and you are bringing up stupid, meaningless anecdotes...

To answer your question (though you don't deserve an answer). Yes... It doesn't change the fact that the sacrament is there to bless a union for procreation. If a couple doesn't want children, they can always change their mind. It doesn't matter if homosexuals change their mind or not. Honestly, if people don't want to create children together, there isn't much point in them getting married. However, that doesn't mean they are disqualified from participating in the sacrament. I may have to pull out actual liturgical text if you continue with this point. If you actually read the text, why would people who do not want children want a Priest to pray before an altar that God multiply their children?

The problem is that the Government started using the word and stripping it of it's original meaning... I like the idea of using other language to define a government "sanctioned" union.