[pclayton]

TimG, on Oct 13 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

I think it is a matter of not being allowed to take the sacrament; you are welcome in the church, you just aren't welcome to participate in all of the ceremonies.

Even the sacraments are a personal choice. You can choose to participate or not. I've never heard of a priest refusing communion to a divorcee or a gay.

[Gerben42]

Quote

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).

[sceptic]

Quote

2. What is a marriage about in your mind?

a Voluntry union of two people (some may think more, I have no gripe with that, as long as they are happy) marriage does not mean a vehicle to breed, so why should gay couples be excluded

Quote

3. What is a marriage in the mind of your church, if you have one?

I don't care for their views, I am a bigot

[kenberg]

Calling marriage a contract is a bit reductionist for me. A marital breakup is more consequential than dumping Comcast for Verizon. It is this greater regard for marriage that is, I think, at the foundation of the push to legalize gay marriage. I will not attempt to speak for gays, or for anyone, but I have heard statements from gays that being accorded visiting rights in hospitals and such is important but it is not the whole story. They (and yes of course I know that "they" means some not all) wish to have the respect and social standing for their relationship that marriage confers.

Of course it is also this regard for marriage that leads some to oppose gay marriage. Many in the opposition (again many means a sizable number) are fine with gays having all legal rights that go with marriage, but they oppose calling it a marriage.

To my mind, this opposition really should give way. I hope that you, Phil, will reconsider. I gather you are open to this, hence your post. To vote in favor of legalized marriage for gays does in no way mean that you have to regard it as a union approved of by God, your church, or your own instincts. It probably would mean that over time society on the whole would come to a favorable regard of gay marriage.


Here is a question we can all ask ourselves: Someone close to you is living as half of a couple. The relationship is showing signs of strain. Do you say "Hooray, s/he now can get straight" or "I wonder if I can help them hold this together"? If the couple is in a heterosexual marriage, it is likely that friends, family and society will look toward helping the couple hold it together. A gay couple would like to have the same expectation of society. Legalizing gay marriage would provide that, in time at least. I believe this would be good for them and good for society.

[Echognome]

kenberg, on Oct 13 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

To my mind, this opposition really should give way. I hope that you, Phil, will reconsider. I gather you are open to this, hence your post. To vote in favor of legalized marriage for gays does in no way mean that you have to regard it as a union approved of by God, your church, or your own instincts. It probably would mean that over time society on the whole would come to a favorable regard of gay marriage.

If you are in favor of Proposition 8, then you are in favor of banning gay marriage.

If you are opposed to Proposition 8, then you want to continue to allow gay marriage.

It seems that is your source of confusion.

[mike777]

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.

If you want a license you should be able to just go down to the corner drug store and buy one. If you want some legal contract, go to a lawyer. I have no idea why in Europe only the government can only marry people. Why in the world should the taxpayers be in that business?

I cannot find a link to prove this but my guess is this all about politicians being able to hand out tax cuts to one group of people and not another. That is discrimination.

If a business gives benefits to someone just because they are married, that sure sounds like discrimination to me.

At least if the Democrats come into power Universal Health Care for all will help overcome some of the effects of this discrimination. Add in getting rid of tax breaks just because someone is married with money may be another one to look at.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Oct 13 2008, 02:35 PM, said:

They (and yes of course I know that "they" means some not all) wish to have the respect and social standing for their relationship that marriage confers.

A law will not change people's minds -- perhaps the discussions that go with passing laws will have some beneficial results -- but the laws themselves are unlikely to change anyone's mind. Maybe attitudes will change more quickly over time once the laws are in effect, but I rather think the laws going into effect are a reflection of changing attitudes than the other way round. Attitudes will continue to change over time with or without the laws. Laws are just a step in the process, perhaps marking a significant threshold.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Oct 13 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

If you want a license you should be able to just go down to the corner drug store and buy one. If you want some legal contract, go to a lawyer. I have no idea why in Europe only the government can only marry people. Why in the world should the taxpayers be in that business?

Indeed. I would go a bit further. Why should anyone need a license from the government to exercise their individual rights? Who one associates with, and in what way, is for me a matter of individual rights, so long as the rights of others are not violated. The government has no business sticking its nose into it.

If the individuals involved see a need for some kind of contract, that's a matter of contract law, and is still none of the government's business (except insofar as the courts may be requested to adjudicate disputes).

[kenberg]

Echognome, on Oct 13 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 13 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

To my mind, this opposition really should give way. I hope that you, Phil, will reconsider. I gather you are open to this, hence your  post. To vote in favor of legalized marriage for gays does in no way mean that you have to regard it as a union approved of by God, your church, or your own instincts. It probably would mean that over time society on the whole would come to a favorable regard of gay marriage.

If you are in favor of Proposition 8, then you are in favor of banning gay marriage.

If you are opposed to Proposition 8, then you want to continue to allow gay marriage.

It seems that is your source of confusion.

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.

People in Cali have to make sure that they understand which way the proposition reads. I am assuming they do understand this. I was advocating voting in the direction that favors gay marriage.

[Echognome]

kenberg, on Oct 13 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

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:

pclayton @ Oct 12 2008, on 10:20 AM, said:

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

Your next post stated:

kenberg @ Oct 13 2008, on 11:35 AM, said:

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.

[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]

cherdano, on Oct 13 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

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]

Echognome, on Oct 13 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 13 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

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:

pclayton @ Oct 12 2008, on 10:20 AM, said:

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

Your next post stated:

kenberg @ Oct 13 2008, on 11:35 AM, said:

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]

cherdano, on Oct 13 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

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.u.../uk/7373302.stm

[Codo]

Gerben42, on Oct 14 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

Quote

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]

mike777, on Oct 13 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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.