California passes prop 8

[theCryptofishist]

Churches aren't the problem--I've been to numerous gay weddings that didn't have the 'blessing' of the state but were done in the eyes of God. Isn't that the important part of marriage?.

As a widow, and of a very "queer" man, I have to say that the legal part is very important.

If I had had to fight with his family over burial or ceremony or anything when I was still in the first blush of losing the love of my life...

Take my word for it, that mere piece of paper is very important, more important than you may know when you sign it.

[Ugly Dougly]

Full disclosure: I voted No on 8. Now that said, call back the lawyers and get back to work. You people are sore losers, get over it. I've never seen a bigger bunch of babies and whiners than the people who are upset that this proposition passed. So gays can't marry in California. Oh no, what next, we're going to repeal the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery? Jesus, you people need to either get a life or find something truly important to stand up to. Domestic partnerships. It could be a whole lot worse.

Could we pass a proposition that says that crippled people cannot marry, or dwarfts or people with downs syndrome should not be able to marry like "normal" people.

At one point it was illegal for people with Down's syndrome to marry. And I wouldn't be surprised that they still face a lot of opposition.


Hey Doc, how do you feel about eugenics?

Izn't zis how it shtarts?!

[Dr. Pyro]

Jesus Fishy, we have known each other for years and you would play the eugenics card on me? How's this: I'm against it.

I just don't see why it seems to be The Left that goes for the Gloria Allreds of this world when things don't go their way. I mean, Prop 8 passed fair and square; just as Obama won fair and square. But you don't see The Right calling out their lawyers to overturn the election. Call me a crazy heterosexual, but I don't understand why these people just can't get over both it and themselves.

[chiefdanfox]

It is about basic rights, and not the meaning of the word. My wife worked with the AIDS Project back in the early 1990's (hospice care) and on more than one occasion she saw couples soon to be forever parted denied access to each other in the final hours.

Put yourself in this spot: the most cherished and important person in your life cannot come into your hospital room and say good-bye as you lay dying, because of the "definition" of a word.

For those who think this is not a big deal, I beg you to try it. Next time you are visiting a dying loved one, like your spouse or your child, handcuff yourself to the rail down the hall, out of earshot, but perhaps within distant line of sight, and stay there until they have died. If that agony isn't enough to change your mind, then I suggest you are not actually human.

[MozyBonz]

well said dan.

[theCryptofishist]

How about this, Doc, once you define one group of persons as not deserving basic human rights, you can define others in the exact same way.

And that was the third time the right put that on the ballot. So, they took it on the chin when they lost? I don't think so.

[wedeliver]

How about this, Doc, once you define one group of persons as not deserving basic human rights, you can define others in the exact same way.

And that was the third time the right put that on the ballot. So, they took it on the chin when they lost? I don't think so.

Can we expand the thinking above "once you define one group of persons as not deserving BASIC AND EQUAL human rights"

Some are not "equal" to others? Are homosexuals not equal with hetrosexuals? Are blacks equal to whites? Are Women equal to Men. Are short women equal to tall men? Should tall women get more rights then short men? Are clowns very scary?

[joel the ornery]

How about this, Doc, once you define one group of persons as not deserving basic human rights, you can define others in the exact same way.

And that was the third time the right put that on the ballot. So, they took it on the chin when they lost? I don't think so.

whoa... are you saying marriage is a basic human right?

i'm with Doc... all the hysteria isn't required, or effective.

in regards to Prop 8... it appears the opponents got lazy and lost.

[wedeliver]

How about this, Doc, once you define one group of persons as not deserving basic human rights, you can define others in the exact same way.

And that was the third time the right put that on the ballot. So, they took it on the chin when they lost? I don't think so.

whoa... are you saying marriage is a basic human right?

i'm with Doc... all the hysteria isn't required, or effective.

in regards to Prop 8... it appears the opponents got lazy and lost.

How can the state tell me who I can or cannot marry? If everyone else can get married (defined as the lifelong union of two people) and marry who they chose, why can't gay people?

It makes sense if you can accept that being gay is not a choice. That being gay is not immoral.

It seems that alot of the people that object to gay rights do so on what seems to be reliqious grounds.

[Elderberry]

in regards to Prop 8... it appears the opponents got lazy and lost.

I think is more because of people with attitudes like yours that it lost. You and the Mormon Church. I hope this causes them to lose their tax exempt status.

We did some more wining on that and got enough signatures to have the IRS re-examin their status. What the hell "right" did all of these people and organizations from "Outside" of California have in giving all the millions and millions of dollars to make sure the measure past?

The measure was well on its way to defeat until they sent in all the bucks to produce commercials that were all lies to scare people in to voting yes.

JK

[theCryptofishist]

I got it wrong. It was prop 4 that we had for the third time.

And, Doc, if you haven't heard the 35 year whine about abortion, then my imagination is living in penury.

Joel, you've been married, what, 3 times? Even though they didn't work out, isn't it your experience to have, your "mistakes" (if that's what they were) to make.

Again. As a widow, marraige is very important, regardless of the sexuality and parentage issues that the right wants to reduce it to.

[ygmir]

Is part of the issue the gov telling someone they "can't" get married,
or,
not recognizing it in the sense of legal duties, responsibilities and benefits?
I'm not real clear if it's against the law, or, not recognized within the laws.....

[thirt33n]

It is about basic rights, and not the meaning of the word. My wife worked with the AIDS Project back in the early 1990's (hospice care) and on more than one occasion she saw couples soon to be forever parted denied access to each other in the final hours.

Put yourself in this spot: the most cherished and important person in your life cannot come into your hospital room and say good-bye as you lay dying, because of the "definition" of a word.

For those who think this is not a big deal, I beg you to try it. Next time you are visiting a dying loved one, like your spouse or your child, handcuff yourself to the rail down the hall, out of earshot, but perhaps within distant line of sight, and stay there until they have died. If that agony isn't enough to change your mind, then I suggest you are not actually human.

Although I'm kinda with Doc on this...
I totally understand this view.

You mean to tell me that if I had a list of people who I deemed worthy of being with me on my "death bed" and had it notarized or in some way legalized, it wouldn't hold up?

just a naive question.

[ygmir]

It is about basic rights, and not the meaning of the word. My wife worked with the AIDS Project back in the early 1990's (hospice care) and on more than one occasion she saw couples soon to be forever parted denied access to each other in the final hours.

Put yourself in this spot: the most cherished and important person in your life cannot come into your hospital room and say good-bye as you lay dying, because of the "definition" of a word.

For those who think this is not a big deal, I beg you to try it. Next time you are visiting a dying loved one, like your spouse or your child, handcuff yourself to the rail down the hall, out of earshot, but perhaps within distant line of sight, and stay there until they have died. If that agony isn't enough to change your mind, then I suggest you are not actually human.

Although I'm kinda with Doc on this...
I totally understand this view.

You mean to tell me that if I had a list of people who I deemed worthy of being with me on my "death bed" and had it notarized or in some way legalized, it wouldn't hold up?

just a naive question.

I think that is a good question.
How do they legally deny anyone entrance to visit? Unless the person or their representative, specifically say to exclude people? or persons in particular.

I don't get the legality of that?
I can see, for safety, not letting to many people in a room or whatever, but.......if it's ok with the patient, et al, how can the hospital say no?

[unjonharley]

in regards to Prop 8... it appears the opponents got lazy and lost.

I think is more because of people with attitudes like yours that it lost. You and the Mormon Church. I hope this causes them to lose their tax exempt status.

We did some more wining on that and got enough signatures to have the IRS re-examin their status. What the hell "right" did all of these people and organizations from "Outside" of California have in giving all the millions and millions of dollars to make sure the measure past?

The measure was well on its way to defeat until they sent in all the bucks to produce commercials that were all lies to scare people in to voting yes.

JK

Those TV adds don't change peoples minds.. Or do they.. Could I run an add in Ca. for everyone to eat shit enough times to get them to do it?

[chiefdanfox]

I think you would need to have more than a notarized note. You would need someone with power of attorney, and if you had family that disagreed with that POA, I think it could be successfully challenged in court.

In the cases of the individuals my wife saw go through this, the bed-ridden ones were dying, and basically incapacitated, so the family, specifically the parents assumed power of attorney, and forbade the partners' access, largely because of their non-acceptance of their sons' homosexuality. This is not a rare occurrence. One of my brothers, who is gay, also saw this happen aplomb, as he watched many of his friends die back then.

I suppose that special, separate, but certainly not equal arrangements could be made between partners, but the division is unequal inherently, and probably why this law will ultimately not pass the sniff test, regardless of what the public wants.

So yes, my wife could stop someone from coming to see me at the end, whereas my brother's partner nor my brother could not, if either of them were on their death bed. I would not want to try to say which one of us deserves the right to that dignity more, but he has been with his partner longer than my wife and I have been married, and now the public has said that I deserve that dignity, but my brother does not. We are both white, middle-aged males born into the same family. I think of my brother's partner as a brother, just like I think of my other brother's partners as sisters.

Not only does this law treat heterosexuals and homosexuals differently, it implies different treatment of unions formed. It would be a little like saying a man and a woman cannot form a corporation together, because they are of the opposite sex, or that women cannot form corporations because they are women.

Then there is that "smacks of the pulpit" thing, which I find personally offensive. My wife and I have talked about having one of us legally declared a man or woman, her or me respectively (just in case you were wondering), just so we can get this thing on the hump in court.

[Tiahaar]

On the positive side, you think maybe half or so of the $70 million spent on this Prop 8 fight filtered back into the California economy? True that's not much of a dent in the $4700 million ($4.7 billion) in tax hikes being proposed to close up the state deficit, but run the thing through enough times and it could add up. The nice Mormon and Evangelical folks will be happy to throw more money at the state to keep us all safe from same-sex life partners.

I give good odds for success on the recent challenge filed to contest the legality of changing the state constitution through majority vote without legislative review first.

Oh and by the way you can be a perfectly happy male couple and never do anal sex...that is an association perpetrated by the porno industry and the religious folks and even gay groups themselves in order to be all-inclusive. Really, there needs to be more emphasis on healthy relationships and healthy sex lives in both straight and gay couples. Humans sometimes seem to be afraid of their own bodies, hiding behind morality issues and not wanting to spoil the innocence of youth, which breeds ignorance and intolerance. Far better for everyone to come to grips with the reality that yes two people of the same sex do fall in love and commit to each other their lives and do indeed deserve to seal that commitment with marriage.

[theCryptofishist]

I give good odds for success on the recent challenge filed to contest the legality of changing the state constitution through majority vote without legislative review first.

Wow. That sounds like it could change the proposition landscape some. (not a bad thing.)

And cheif, nicely put.

[Elderberry]

Those TV adds don't change peoples minds.. Or do they.. Could I run an add in Ca. for everyone to eat shit enough times to get them to do it?

They do, and you probably could. Look at the crap you can get people to buy that is sold on informercials. Most of the comercials for diet suppliments are based on lies too. PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SEE ON TV!

JK

[Elderberry]

Oh and by the way you can be a perfectly happy male couple and never do anal sex.

That reminds me about that old joke about the girl that was married twice and was still a virgin--her first husband was greek and her second husband was french.

ba dum bum

JK

[unjonharley]

By the way< Why is a state involved in a religious contract? Married under the eyes of god and all. State and church? When a clergy says " by the power vested in me" is he licensed by the state? Church and state? Sounds like a higher court needs to look at this. This should make Pat Robinson run in cycles.

Or how is it that a court clerk can preform a religious rite.

This makes for a lot of folks living in sin..

Another thought. How can a state break a religious contract. Church and state aaagain?

[Elderberry]

" by the power vested in me"

I'm pretty sure that this means "by the state", hence the objection that it is being denied to all people. You can't get married in a church unless you get a license "from the state".

JK

[Ugly Dougly]

By the way< Why is a state involved in a religious contract? Married under the eyes of god and all. State and church? When a clergy says " by the power vested in me" is he licensed by the state? Church and state? Sounds like a higher court needs to look at this. This should make Pat Robinson run in cycles.

Or how is it that a court clerk can preform a religious rite.

This makes for a lot of folks living in sin..

Another thought. How can a state break a religious contract. Church and state aaagain?

Some research regarding the history of marriage would be worthwhile. It isn't even always a religious ceremony.

[Elderberry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.[1][2]

Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy – in which a person takes more than one spouse – is common in some societies.[3] Recently, some jurisdictions[4] and denominations[5][6][7] have begun to recognize same-sex marriage, uniting people of the same sex.

A marriage is often formalized during a marriage ceremony,[8] which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular State authorised officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved and, in many societies, their extended families.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.

Continues here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

And the important part, and why the courts will rule to strike down Prop 8:

Some countries – such as Belgium, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Turkey[10] – require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries – notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain – both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) – the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognised by government under the law.

JK

[unjonharley]

By the way< Why is a state involved in a religious contract? Married under the eyes of god and all. State and church? When a clergy says " by the power vested in me" is he licensed by the state? Church and state? Sounds like a higher court needs to look at this. This should make Pat Robinson run in cycles.

Or how is it that a court clerk can preform a religious rite.

This makes for a lot of folks living in sin..

Another thought. How can a state break a religious contract. Church and state aaagain?

Some research regarding the history of marriage would be worthwhile. It isn't even always a religious ceremony.

Marriage as it stands today is a reigious ceremony.. >Prop8 was religion driven< The question is: How can the state licene/preform a religious ceremony..

[thirt33n]

yeah, thanks for you points and input chiefdan.

I'd say that if the power of attorney/notarized thing would indeed work, then given the current laws, I think it's every "non legal" partnerships personal responsibility to take care of the attaining of this means of making sure the gut wrenching situations that you've shared with us here do not happen.

(that was a long saturday morning sentence)

I guess that I think that this point in the argument could be greatly remedied by preparation.


on another note, does anyone know of a few loopholes that same sex couples have been exploiting or trying to exploit through official marriage?
in other words.
what are the main reasons why the government would not want to allow same sex marriages?(other than religious belief, fear or ignorance.)

..i've never really paid enough attention to this heated subject..
..too busy feeding cattle

thanks for your input in advance, homeys and homos!!

love you all

[Elderberry]

Marriage as it stands today is a reigious ceremony.. >Prop8 was religion driven< The question is: How can the state licene/preform a religious ceremony..

I believe you are half right. Marriage is wrongly 'considered' a religious ceremony. This is because of what I posted above--the civil (legal in the eyes of the law part) is permitted to be done simultaneously with the religious (recognized by god or whatever part).

You are correct that it was totally driven by religious zealots.

JK

[Elderberry]

what are the main reasons why the government would not want to allow same sex marriages?(other than religious belief, fear or ignorance.)

There are none, other than religious beliefs. Oh, and that some think it is the slippery slope to being able to marry some of those farm animals you've been tending to.

JK

[unjonharley]

Marriage as it stands today is a reigious ceremony.. >Prop8 was religion driven< The question is: How can the state licene/preform a religious ceremony..

I believe you are half right. Marriage is wrongly 'considered' a religious ceremony. This is because of what I posted above--the civil (legal in the eyes of the law part) is permitted to be done simultaneously with the religious (recognized by god or whatever part).

You are correct that it was totally driven by religious zealots.

JK

Driven by reigious zealot/mob rule

Then this should be taken up by a higher. Sue the state of Ca.

[Elderberry]

Driven by reigious zealot/mob rule

Then this should be taken up by a higher. Sue the state of Ca.

All that can be done from a legal perspective is being done as we speak. CA is one of the few states that have a "take it to the people" proposition statute. Sometimes the will of the people isn't exactly in-line with the law and the constitution. (Prop 8 would amend the CA constitution). So, it is now up to the court to determine if what the Proposition calls for is legal under the Constitution. (Federal constitution, I believe.) I'm not totally familiar with all of the technical legalities, so if I have erred in my assumptions, maybe there is a legal eagle here that can properly educate me.)

JK