Gay marriage banned in California...again

[Guardian]

California voters Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment disallowing gay marriage. The measure, which won 52 percent approval, overrides a California Supreme Court ruling last May that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage


Now, I usually wouldn't care too much about a new law, but this one is OVERRIDING a Supreme Court decision. They tried to pass a law in May to ban gay marriage, which is when the California Supreme Court stepped in and declared the law unconstitutional. Now, they're basically go past the Supreme Court's decision and calling this an amendment. This is going too far. They're trying to break down the way the California government works to stop homosexuals from marrying when the Supreme Court already said it wasn't constitutional.

If you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, you can think that. You can express it, you can protest it, and you can fight for it. But DON'T TRY TO DESTROY OUR GOVERNMENT FOR IT!!! THIS IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF OPINION BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO ERASE A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GET YOUR WAY!!!

What does everyone else think? Is this completely ridiculous, or am I just delusional?

[HawkZombie]

It needs to be reworked.

Religions need to be able to refuse to marry homosexuals, as it's part of their beliefs. However, under the old way, if they did, it was discrimination. That's a little much...it's not intolerance, it's their religion's teachings. They don't hate gay people, just homosexuality.

If they allow civil marriages (Justice of the peace, etc) then that's perfectly fine in my eyes. But the original judgment was the unconstitutional one, hence the proposition. From what I've heard.

[Barbatos]

We really shouldn't allow religions to practice intolerance and discrimination. There are some christian denominations that discriminate against black people (the world wide church of god is one example, they disallow blacks from joining), and almost all protestant denominations discriminate against women (they disallow female pastors). This is the kind of bullshit that pretty much invalidates christianity's existence, along with the intolerance for homosexuality.

If a religion says they don't want to marry gays, so what? Force them to, or disband the religion.

If we had to respect intolerant and bigotful views in christianity, then we'd have to respect the same intolerant, bigotful views in other religions, such as islam, where it's okay to murder 13 year old female rape victims because in their eyes, the girl was an adultress. But nothing would ever convince me to respect such a view. Nothing would ever convince me to respect Iran's view that homosexuals should be executed. And thus, nothing would ever convince me to respect mainstream christianity's view that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry.

[Lyricmaniac]

I think it's sad that there are still acceptable forms of discrimination. I think that at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court should get involved in the matter and throw down the decision. I believe that religious beacons should be allowed to opt out of performing ceremonies if they so choose, but I don't think that states have the right to declare it illegal.

[Lene]

Disagree with Died. It's not government's place to force any religious institution into anything. However, it also goes the other way. I think that certain denominations that go too far in trying to involve themselves in legislation should have their tax-exempt privileges looked into and possibly revoked.

After talking to people, I totally think that if we treat this as a battle on semantics, we can actually see some progress. You'll find a lot of people supporting civil unions, or civil unions with equal rights. When you frame gay marriage as "letting couples visit their loved ones in the hospital" or "being able to buy into family group plans" a lot of people are for that.

But when you throw in the marriage word, then you have a bunch voters, who I will deem moderates, who get uncomfortable. OMG marriage is just between a man and a woman! So if a proposition for same sex civil unions with the same rights as a marriage was put out there, it would probably have a better chance to succeed.

However, I don't want a separate, but equal status quo. If gay couples can't legally have the word marriage, then no one else should either. Strip the word marriage out of the legal system and leave it to social institutions to decide who can get "married" or not.

Either that or we can wait several more years for the electorate to become more progressive. Gay marriage will probably be legalized in the near future. I know that some people can't wait, but a lot of civil rights victories took decades to be realized. MLK Jr. had a quote, the arc of history is long but leans towards justice. He was spot on. Equality may have lost this battle, but we'll win this war.

[Barbatos]

Disagree with Died. It's not government's place to force any religious institution into anything.


It is when they are doing something illegal, such as discrimination. Otherwise, they are free to believe whatever they want as long as they don't hurt people and society in general (part of the reason why I want scientology to be banned as well).

Strip the word marriage out of the legal system and leave it to social institutions to decide who can get "married" or not.

Now this I can agree with. It effectively ends the legal existence of marriage. I for one, would love to see all of the tax benefits and perks afforded only to people who are "married" to be done away with, since that gives them an unfair societal advantage over unmarried people.

[Volrath]

The government should grant civil unions to any couple that wants them.

When you use the word "marriage," a religious context enters into play for most people. I really think it ought to just be up to each individual church. More liberal churches (yes virginia, there ARE liberal churches) should be allowed to do it. If any gay couple is masochistic enough to go to a conservative church, those pastors should have the right to say no.

Why people feel they have to use the law to force their personal opinion on an issue which does not involve any tangible HARM being done to anyone except those being unfairly discriminated against is something I'll never understand. It's like me trying to make tuna fish illegal because I don't like it.

[ccoa]

Most of the legal benefits given to married couples aren't advantages, per se. They allow one to make medical decisions for the other, visit in the hospital, share in health insurance, be the default beneficiary for an estate, etc. These don't really give a married couple a unfair advantage.

Those that are advantages, such as it being easier to finance property jointly and (maybe!) paying lower taxes, are directly beneficial to society as a whole and the government. They help to encourage and provide a stable environment for procreation, which ensures a future generation that is hopefully financially and emotionally stable.

This is good for our species, since the species does need to procreate and a stable environment produces individuals who contribute more. This is good for the government, because new little productive members of society pay taxes.

Back on topic, this is a shameful step back for human rights. It's easy to point the finger at other peoples for racism, sexism, and religious intolerance, then turn a blind eye to it when we write it into a state's constitution. I hope those who voted for it one day feel the shame of their hypocrisy.

[Lene]

An interesting perspective from Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/a-real-threat-t.html).

[Barbatos]

Most of the legal benefits given to married couples aren't advantages, per se. They allow one to make medical decisions for the other, visit in the hospital, share in health insurance, be the default beneficiary for an estate, etc. These don't really give a married couple a unfair advantage.

Those that are advantages, such as it being easier to finance property jointly and (maybe!) paying lower taxes, are directly beneficial to society as a whole and the government. They help to encourage and provide a stable environment for procreation, which ensures a future generation that is hopefully financially and emotionally stable.

This is good for our species, since the species does need to procreate and a stable environment produces individuals who contribute more. This is good for the government, because new little productive members of society pay taxes.


You don't need to be married to procreate, s'all i'm saying.

Besides, as a species, we should be encouraging procreation with multiple partners, much like how every single other animal species does it. Marriage is contradictory to this.

[ccoa]

Of course you don't need to be married to procreate. -_-

However, if you encourage parents to stay together for the raising of the children, ease their financial burden, and provide them with security, you are more likely to end up with stable adults with relatively healthy finances, which leads to more productive individuals and more income for the state.

Also, that is definitely not how "every other species does it." -_- Many species do mate for life. Many only allow a select caste of males to reproduce, with all others being backups or never reproducing at all.

Trying to mimic cats, dogs, or rabbits in our mating patterns, while it could be fun, wouldn't be good for a stable society.

[Volrath]

Check this out:

Melissa Etheridge to California: Forget About My Taxes (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/you-can-forget-my-taxes/)

I hope others follow her lead. Maybe CA should have thought about how many rich gay celebrities live there and pay enormous taxes cause of their wealth. If the state doesn't consider them full citizens, why should they accept the responsibilities of full citizenship?

Seems like a good time for disobedience. Remember that Rosa Parks was violating bus laws when she did what she did. Time to cause some trouble...peacefully, of course. :wink:

[ccoa]

Good for her!

I hope she and thousands more do refuse to pay their taxes or partake in some other form of peaceful civil disobedience. Gays need to stop hiding and graphically demonstrate how many there are and how much they contribute to our country.

[HawkZombie]

I disagree with Died's comments about churches and discrimination.

Religion is tenuous.

Most religions see homosexuality as a sin. They have nothing against the -person- but the act. Why should a church be forced to go against something they feel is against their religion (And no, this isn't as extreme or hate filled as racism) just because the -state- says so?

If that is going to be the case, then the church needs more say in legislature. Separation of church and state is there for a reason. if we can't follow that, then no matter WHAT the topic, it's all a huge step backwards.

I have nothing against gays marrying. I have everything against them being able to sue a church for refusing to perform the service. Religion isn't like a job. Everyone has a right to practice their beliefs, stage peaceful protest, and freedom of speech so long as it does not encroach on anyone else's right to the same, nor cause or entice bodily harm upon others. Refusing to marry someone who's gay isn't the same as saying all gays should be killed.

One is religious belief. The other is sanctimonious hate.

And refusing to pay tax dollars is kinda 'eh' to me in way of protest. 'Let's punish the entire state for what the voters chose in a regular legal election' instead of 'ok, what do we need to do to make ourselves known and heard and listened to?'

I think it's more akin to a child throwing a tantrum in the middle of the store when they don't get their candy, instead of listening and acting properly to get what they want.

Still, it may very well send a much needed message about this issue.

Just...if everyone wants churches and religion out of government, then they need to keep the government out of religion as well.

[Volrath]

I think it's more akin to a child throwing a tantrum in the middle of the store when they don't get their candy, instead of listening and acting properly to get what they want.

If someone passes a law in CT that says I can't get married to Katie, you can bet I'll throw a tantrum. And I won't be the only one. This isn't just denying someone something sweet that they would like to have. It's state-supported discrimination. And if it really is punishing the entire state, the majority of the voters should have thought of that.

[HawkZombie]

If someone passes a law in CT that says I can't get married to Katie, you can bet I'll throw a tantrum. And I won't be the only one. This isn't just denying someone something sweet that they would like to have. It's state-supported discrimination. And if it really is punishing the entire state, the majority of the voters should have thought of that.

We don't like how you voted, so now you'll pay.

See? It sounds a bit ridiculous...the system is only good when it works in your favor?

[Volrath]

"We voters don't like your lifestyle, even though it doesn't actually affect US whatsoever, so now you'll pay."

This is the least of what they deserve. Times like these are when the "system" most needs to be challenged. It's why Rosa Parks broke the rules on that bus. It's why colonial folks threw tea into the river. And why should someone give money to someone who takes away their rights and condemns their personal choices? Especially when they can just go into an evangelical church and get that for free.

[Guardian]

Most religions see homosexuality as a sin. They have nothing against the -person- but the act.
This isn't entirely true. Sure, their main battle is against homosexuality (it's funny that they think they can win that), but they see homosexuals as below them. They see that these people are weak and give in to homosexuality, which makes them somehow lower than straight people on the social scale.

What we need to do is separate the religious and governmental aspects of marriage. Let them keep their precious word so only straight couples can break the vows they've set forth. Make marriage a purely religious aspect that a church can offer to whomever they want. For the governmental benefits and rights, make it equal for everyone. Although breaking the bond between marriage and a union may seem like "giving up", it's really not. With time, less and less people will be "married", straight and gay, and it will eventually phase out. Religious groups are using the leverage they have over the word "marriage" to make sure homosexuals don't have the same rights, so why not pull it out from under them?

And not paying taxes seems foolish. There's a difference between being frustrated and wishing your government harm, and refusing to pay taxes crosses that line.

[Ronove]

They have nothing against the -person- but the act.

I think the Phelps' family would prove you wrong there!

[Anaryu]

It's worth nothing in passing that amending the constitution is one of the checks against the courts; the court upholds the constitution, and if the state agrees (by voting) that it needs to be changed they amend the constitution so the courts then uphold it. By doing what they did they're actually following our democracy to the tee.

The whole thing is a wash; anyone who doesn't want same-sex marriages is nothing but afraid. I grew up heavily Catholic, and I've yet to see ANYONE practicing my religion that actually practices what they taught; we hear one thing but are told to do another... "Jesus educates the people, he teaches them, he does not use force or violence. Now go forth and beat the shit out of people until they agree with us."

Most of these changes will happen when the older generations finally up and die; Gen X and later there's a lot less of the hatred and fear.

51% is actually a pretty even split, they should be happy it got that far.

To those clamoring that "marriage doesn't mean anything anyway;" keep in mind how much simple statements and attitudes from people can change your entire day and mood.

Purely logically at a high-level, yes, it has little meaning beyond the fiscal values, but when you get down to the people level it has a lot of personal value that's cruel to just wash away.

"You can't see people on a map."

[HawkZombie]

This isn't entirely true. Sure, their main battle is against homosexuality (it's funny that they think they can win that), but they see homosexuals as below them. They see that these people are weak and give in to homosexuality, which makes them somehow lower than straight people on the social scale.

What we need to do is separate the religious and governmental aspects of marriage. Let them keep their precious word so only straight couples can break the vows they've set forth. Make marriage a purely religious aspect that a church can offer to whomever they want. For the governmental benefits and rights, make it equal for everyone. Although breaking the bond between marriage and a union may seem like "giving up", it's really not. With time, less and less people will be "married", straight and gay, and it will eventually phase out. Religious groups are using the leverage they have over the word "marriage" to make sure homosexuals don't have the same rights, so why not pull it out from under them?

And not paying taxes seems foolish. There's a difference between being frustrated and wishing your government harm, and refusing to pay taxes crosses that line.

Any religious person who acts like you just said in your first paragraph is NOT following their teachings.

We are all -equal- in God's eyes. Wheter we're homosexual, serial killers, or pious followers of the book. We're all the -same-

At least that's what I take 'We're all Equal in God's eyes' to mean...Anyone who doesn't is doing themselves, and their faith a huge disservice.

[Lyricmaniac]

Most religions teach us to love other human beings. The golden rule of treating others as you wish to be treated is a prime example. Yes, it does also teach that a man who sleeps with another man is wrong. The old testament does speak out against homosexuality. Still, it does not condone the mistreatment of the human being, regardless of the "sin" it attributes to them. Religious people who treat homosexuals poorly go against their religion just as they claim the homosexuals do. Sketch is 100% right in his last post.

[Guardian]

I completely agree that it would be against their teachings to think of someone as below them. That doesn't change the fact that they're humans, though, and subject to such thoughts. If they truly thought of everyone as equal, then gay marriage would have been legalized a long time ago because refusing people certain rights is NOT treating them as an equal.

[Raven The Dark Angel]

I agree with taking marriage out of the goverment all together. If it's just about the word (which I think is SO ridiculous) because it has a religious context to it. Why not change "marriage" to "civil union". I know civil unions have a bit of differnt rights than marriages but they should just swap the words out then. Know what I mean? Get rid of what we call civil unions and make what we call marriage civil unions. That way there's a seperation from the church and state and the religious people that are having a problem with it can't say it's ruining the term anymore and homesexuals can get their equal rights. Then for whatever couple that wants to follow their relgion they can get "married" by their church. So everything is kosher.

But truely if it's over just the word, is it really okay for people to deny people's rights over what something is called? I think the first would be a temp fix to a bigger problem of society. But yeah I agree there is progress, and I agree that it is something from the older crowds. I do strongly believe we're headed in a more positive direction in the future but this is just another hurdle to get over. A while back ago everyone was screaming over inter-racial marriages and how wrong those were and now they are compleatly accepted. It's only a matter of time.

[Thunderclam]

The religion angle is absurd. Christianity only took to being bothered with marriages around 500 years ago.

[Barbatos]

Most religions teach us to love other human beings. The golden rule of treating others as you wish to be treated is a prime example. Yes, it does also teach that a man who sleeps with another man is wrong. The old testament does speak out against homosexuality. Still, it does not condone the mistreatment of the human being, regardless of the "sin" it attributes to them. Religious people who treat homosexuals poorly go against their religion just as they claim the homosexuals do. Sketch is 100% right in his last post.

you know whats funny about the old testament and torah is that they preach out against male homosexuality and say that offenders should be stoned to death, but female homosexuality is only punished by being unclean for a few days. i guess the crazy horny jewish male priests or whatever they were called back then sure knew what they like!

religion is not an excuse to discriminate against homosexuality. any real christian (sketch i'm looking at you) should realize that all of the anti-homosexuality passages were practically inserted into the bible during king james' reign. in fact, homosexuals weren't considered a big deal back then and several characters in the bible themselves were homosexual. king david, ruth, and daniel? all queer. source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

anyway, i never said anything about forcing religions to marry homosexuals (that's what the courts and non-bigoted churches are for). i just said they should make gay marriage legal and they can't use religion as a justification for making it illegal. either that or end the sanctity of marriage in general and get rid of the tax breaks and legal perks afforded it. that way everyone is equal via civil unions.

[ccoa]

On a more positive note, gay marriage is now legal in Connecticut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregion/13marriage.html?em

[Cup o' Wisps]

Go Connecticut :D
... Which I always thought was spelled Conneticut. Stupid "silent" c's.

Also, because I wanted to post here like 12 thousand times, and never sounding like a dead horse... the religious angle... problem is not every one who is gay is seeing this as a BAD thing.

I know relatives of my at the time girlfriend who are a gay couple, who want to be "MARRIED" (not "civil union), and voted with this. They want it done right. They don't want to force the church as the church would have them forced.

There's thousands of sides of gray here, but primarily I have to say that religion is the worse thing to guide your motivations to vote on something you yourself will not be involved in.

Forcing a religion to practice something it holds bad? Not a good idea. I wouldn't force a Jew and an Islamic practitioner to come over and eat bacon, if I did it's incentive. Wrong. Forcing either to marry a couple that, in their religion is wrong - that's just as wrong. Maybe different degrees depending on the severity of the "sin" in the religion, but you get the idea, I hope. Just like I wouldn't force a person to follow a faith they feel is wrong.

Good can actually come out of this. The problem is sorting out the nuts from the general populous - and yeah, both sides have their fair share of mixed nuts mingled about.

Still, let them marry. It doesn't actually hurt anyone. Just do it respectfully to both parties.

[Kojo]

All I have to say is that this was VOTED in California. Whether it is right or wrong, sacrilegious or a bit of bigotry doesn't matter. If this vote is to be overturned by a judge (By being deemed "Unconstitutional") then that is a serious block in the way that Democracy works. If this is overturned by a judge, whether he is right or wrong, we need to rethink our democracy, where it is going, and how much power the people so far removed from the actual wants of the people have.

[Lene]

All I have to say is that this was VOTED in California. Whether it is right or wrong, sacrilegious or a bit of bigotry doesn't matter. If this vote is to be overturned by a judge (By being deemed "Unconstitutional") then that is a serious block in the way that Democracy works. If this is overturned by a judge, whether he is right or wrong, we need to rethink our democracy, where it is going, and how much power the people so far removed from the actual wants of the people have.

No, what was confusing was that the courts deemed the gay marriage ban unconstitutional in the first place. Which caused certain groups to freak out and get Prop 8 on the ballot. IIRC Prop 8 is some back door way to get around the courts and take away the rights that were already granted.

Also, Prop. 8 barely passed w/ a 50+1% type victory. Most amendments to the Constitution need a supermajority of 2/3s of the electorate.

Personally, I think that they should just keep putting gay marriage on the ballot until it passes. It barely passed. 2,4, 8 years from now who knows.

[Volrath]

If there had been a referendum on slavery during the 1860s, how do you think people would have voted?

Sometimes the majority is simply wrong. I don't make judgments like this often, but to me these issues of civil rights are, and forgive the terminology, black and white.