Do you support the 2010 California Defense of Marriage Act

[JediMindTrick]

Do you support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act? As you all are probably aware just last year California voters voted in proposition 8 in order to defend the sanctity of marriage. Now people are trying to get that overturned so we need to further protect marriage by getting this amendment on the ballot. It will further protect the sanctity of marriage from those who would attack it ensuring that no one can further erode this important institution.

[nortman]

If the people of the state pass it, then I support it. Marriage definition is, in my opinion, up to the residents of the states in which they live. If they want to call it marriage, fine. If they want to allow homosexuals civil unions, but fall short of calling it marriage, fine. If they want to ban the practice, fine. But, it should be up to the residents of the states, not the federal government, to decide.

[slick_trip]

those who truly support the sanctity of marriage would work harder to make those married stay married prior to working so hard to exclude others from becoming married...

[slick_trip]

If the people of the state pass it, then I support it. Marriage definition is, in my opinion, up to the residents of the states in which they live. If they want to call it marriage, fine. If they want to allow homosexuals civil unions, but fall short of calling it marriage, fine. If they want to ban the practice, fine. But, it should be up to the residents of the states, not the federal government, to decide.

the difficulty here is marriage is a contract - and the need to recognize a legal contract from state to state.

boil it all down and it's really only an argument around the word 'marriage' - it's not about the actual practice of two people coming together to form a bond. some want to maintain ownership of the word and say they can define it's parameters. i think that's quite arrogant, but it matters little, really. the problem is the actions/privileges/'rights' that is bestowed, without additional effort, upon a spouse in the eyes of the state. the state should not be in the position of deciding which 'couples' are allowed said actions/privileges/'rights' and which are not.

to that end, i support the state getting out of 'marriage' entirely and support civil unions for all couples and leave 'marriage' up to the church. which, ironically, would only increase the number of gay marriages....

[Koushi Shinigami]

why defend the indefensible?

[Stardust]

Government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage existed before governments even came into being, and God ordained and defined it: Genesis 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body”.

Gay marriage is an intrusion into other people’s religions because you have a government redefining and “mangling” a sacrament that is held sacred within their religions.

[uncledoom]

The majority said no...how many times will the minority keep asking?

[slick_trip]

Government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage existed before governments even came into being, and God ordained and defined it: Genesis 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body”.

Gay marriage is an intrusion into other people’s religions because you have a government redefining and “mangling” a sacrament that is held sacred within their religions.

what happens when one religion doesn't consider gay marriage an intrusion? if your argument is applied, the gov't shouldn't be redefining the sacrament for any religion, including the ones that do support gay marriage.

does one religions sacraments trump another religions sacraments?

[slick_trip]

The majority said no...how many times will the minority keep asking?

the bill of rights was established based on the need to protect certain rights against the intrusion of 'majority rules'.

the application of privilege/'rights' to those that are married i find offensive. that some are denied said privilege/'rights' because of their sexual preference is not an act the gov't should be supporting.

[johnrocks]

Should individual rights be voted on by majority vote, personally, I don't think so.

[Stardust]

what happens when one religion doesn't consider gay marriage an intrusion? if your argument is applied, the gov't shouldn't be redefining the sacrament for any religion, including the ones that do support gay marriage.

does one religions sacraments trump another religions sacraments?

There are few religions out there that accept gay marriage. Notice the word "few". These "religions" are considered "fringe" religions that have been on the most part, have been outcast from their own denominations. The Bible is so clear about homosexuality, mentioning it is a sin a number of times. One just has to look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah to get a glimpse at how God feels about this issue.

Again, I feel the government has no right in re-defining what my religion holds as sacred and as a sacrament.

[WorldWatcher]

Do you support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act? As you all are probably aware just last year California voters voted in proposition 8 in order to defend the sanctity of marriage. Now people are trying to get that overturned so we need to further protect marriage by getting this amendment on the ballot. It will further protect the sanctity of marriage from those who would attack it ensuring that no one can further erode this important institution.


I'm sorry, unlike those in Congress I can't vote on legislation until I've read it.


Got a link?



>>>>

[slick_trip]

There are few religioins out there that accept gay marriage. Notice the word "few". These "religions" are considered "fringe" religions that have been on the most part, have been outcast from their own denominations. The Bible is so clear about homosexuality, mentioning it is a sin a number of times.

all of which is a moot point in the eyes of the state. you said, the gov't shouldn't be trampling on a religions sacraments. that there are only a few that accept gay marriage, that you consider them fringe means absolutely nothing.

those 'fringe' religions are as viable to those that follow said religion as yours - and as equally protected under the first. so, again...how does the state allow for the sacraments of ALL religions? what happens in an example like this where the sacraments of two religions are at odds - what position, aside from neutrality, can the state take?

[Stardust]

all of which is a moot point in the eyes of the state. you said, the gov't shouldn't be trampling on a religions sacraments. that there are only a few that accept gay marriage, that you consider them fringe means absolutely nothing.

those 'fringe' religions are as viable to those that follow said religion as yours - and as equally protected under the first. so, again...how does the state allow for the sacraments of ALL religions? what happens in an example like this where the sacraments of two religions are at odds - what position, aside from neutrality, can the state take?

Unlike yourself, I put all my trust in God and what the Bible says - not in "what the state" feels is right. If you are going to put your trust "in the state or government" you are in a sad state of affairs.

Again, the government has no right in intruding on the definition of what so many churches hold sacred.

Are we going to argue the same points over and over?

[slick_trip]

There are few religions out there that accept gay marriage. Notice the word "few". These "religions" are considered "fringe" religions that have been on the most part, have been outcast from their own denominations. The Bible is so clear about homosexuality, mentioning it is a sin a number of times. One just has to look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah to get a glimpse at how God feels about this issue.

Again, I feel the government has no right in re-defining what my religion holds as sacred and as a sacrament.

problem is - your religions view based on your religions book only applies to those that follow said religion. i'm not bound by your rules. the gov't shouldn't be basing laws on the sacraments of any one religion.

and you still haven't addressed the conflict - what stance should the gov't take when two religions have conflicting sacraments?

[Stardust]

problem is - your religions view based on your religions book only applies to those that follow said religion. i'm not bound by your rules. the gov't shouldn't be basing laws on the sacraments of any one religion.

and you still haven't addressed the conflict - what stance should the gov't take when two religions have conflicting sacraments?

I just told you, most of these "fringe" religions are "outcasts" from most of the mainline religions.

And you just answered your own question, governments don't get involved in "religious divisions" - they only get involved in religion when they want to intrude on their sacred sacraments.

[slick_trip]

Unlike yourself, I put all my trust in God and what the Bible says - not in "what the state" feels is right. If you are going to put your trust "in the state or government" you are in a sad state of affairs.

the state is the only law that can be enforced by man. in this country, said laws can't intrude on religious freedom. your religions isn't the only one represented here. how is the state to act when other religions do support gay marriage?

Again, the government has no right in intruding on the definition of what so many churches hold sacred.

so many....but not all. you can't discount other religious views without having your own religious view discounted equally. you're asking the state to take an official position based on the beliefs of only some religions. that's not in line with the first amendment.

Are we going to argue the same points over and over?

you have yet to address how the neutral party - the state - should act related to an issued that has opposing religious opinions. does the beliefs of one religion trump the beliefs of another?

[Stardust]

the state is the only law that can be enforced by man. in this country, said laws can't intrude on religious freedom.

What is "religious freedom" when you have a government intruding on the meaning of one of its most holy sacraments?

your religions isn't the only one represented here. how is the state to act when other religions do support gay marriage?

I just answered your question. Governments don't get involved in "religious divisions" - they only get involved in religion when they want to intrude on their sacred sacraments

[slick_trip]

I just told you, most of these "fringe" religions are "outcasts" from most of the mainline religions.

who cares? 'fringe' 'outcast'....doesn't matter. those that follow have their beliefs and those beliefs are as valid as yours - pure and simple. that you want to discredit their position by limiting their religion to 'fringe' is worthless at a minimum and incredibly arrogant in practice.

And you just answered your own question, governments don't get involved in "religious divisions" - they only get involved in religion when they want to intrude on their sacred sacraments.

i believe it is against the catholic churches sacraments to divorce. should the state outlaw that practice based on the idea that allowing non-catholics to divorce is an intrusion on the catholic sacrament?

the state allowing for a practice that your religious beliefs does not allow is not infringing on your beliefs...

[slick_trip]

What is "religious freedom" when you have a government intruding on the meaning of one of its most holy sacraments?

i hold a different belief as to what marriage means than you do. my belief is as valid as yours. what does the state do now?

you're wrong. the state allowing for me to act is not an infringement on your religion.

the jewish religion doesn't allow for the eating of shellfish - should that be enforced towards all? or is it left to the individual to follow their own religious beliefs even if the state allows otherwise?

the end of all this is the same - the state shouldn't define what i believe based on your sacraments.

[Stardust]

i believe it is against the catholic churches sacraments to divorce. should the state outlaw that practice based on the idea that allowing non-catholics to divorce is an intrusion on the catholic sacrament?

First off, the Catholic church does allow annulments.

THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOWED ATROCITIES SUCH AS ABORTION TO BE LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE THESE THINGS RIGHT. The following is very warped thinking: “well, the government has allowed this atrocity – why not let it allow more?”

[Stardust]

i hold a different belief as to what marriage means than you do. my belief is as valid as yours. what does the state do now?

you're wrong. the state allowing for me to act is not an infringement on your religion.

the jewish religion doesn't allow for the eating of shellfish - should that be enforced towards all? or is it left to the individual to follow their own religious beliefs even if the state allows otherwise?

the end of all this is the same - the state shouldn't define what i believe based on your sacraments.

You are going over the same questions and I am giving you the same answers.

[slick_trip]

First off, the Catholic church does allow annulments.

THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOWED ATROCITIES SUCH AS ABORTION TO BE LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE THESE THINGS RIGHT. The following is very warped thinking: “well, the government has allowed this atrocity – why not let it allow more?”

gay marriage is not an atrocity - and certainly not equal to the taking of a life.

and my point still stands - not all marriages can be annulled and those that can't are allowed to divorce - regardless of the catholic church's position.

[slick_trip]

You are going over the same questions and I am giving you the same answers.

we live in a country that has established as the first protection the right of every citizen to practice their religious beliefs. you are trying to state that allowing me to act in accordance with my beliefs is an infringement on your beliefs if said act is a conflict of beliefs.

this is patently untrue.

[Stardust]

gay marriage is not an atrocity - and certainly not equal to the taking of a life.

Explain "the taking of life"? I could see it as the corruption and ultimate destruction of someone's soul.

[Stardust]

we live in a country that has established as the first protection the right of every citizen to practice their religious beliefs. you are trying to state that allowing me to act in accordance with my beliefs is an infringement on your beliefs if said act is a conflict of beliefs.



Please read my former responses slowly because you are asking the same questions and I am giving you the same answers over and over.

The government has no right intruding into my religion and meddling with the meaning one of its sacred sacraments.

[slick_trip]

Explain "the taking of life"? I could see it as the corruption and ultimate destruction of someone's soul.

you said abortion, i changed that to 'taking a life' - admittedly, this change could radically alter the conversation, which isn't entirely fair on my part or accurate.

to be brief, i was trying to speak to abortion as the taking of a life without getting mired in the whole abortion debate. in that vein, the state allowing for gay marriage is not on par with the state allowing for the taking of a life - which was the point i wanted to emphasize.

[Stardust]

to be brief, i was trying to speak to abortion as the taking of a life without getting mired in the whole abortion debate. in that vein, the state allowing for gay marriage is not on par with the state allowing for the taking of a life - which was the point i wanted to emphasize.

I think you are missing something here. I said "explain "the taking of life"? I said, I could see it as the corruption and ultimate destruction of someone's soul - which homosexuality does.

[slick_trip]

Please read my former responses slowly because you are asking the same questions and I am giving you the same answers over and over.

The government has no right intruding into my religion and meddling with the meaning one of its sacred sacraments.

and i counter with the point that the state allowing me to act is not infringing on your beliefs.

marriage has meaning to me too - and my belief is 100% as valid as yours. i believe the state is wrong in denying marriage to it's gay citizens. that my belief conflicts with yours does not create an infringement.

my examples prove as much.

that you believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is your belief. that i belief otherwise is equally as valid.

allowing for my belief is not an infringement on yours.

[slick_trip]

I think you are missing something here. I said "explain "the taking of life"? I said, I could see it as the corruption and ultimate destruction of someone's soul - which homosexuality does.

that is only your opinion. i don't believe in a soul, don't believe there is anything to be corrupted. i believe homosexuality is a normal derivative of our complex sexual being and to exclude or deny those that feel that way is akin to denying rights to those that don't like chocolate.

[Stardust]

and i counter with the point that the state allowing me to act is not infringing on your beliefs.

marriage has meaning to me too - and my belief is 100% as valid as yours. i believe the state is wrong in denying marriage to it's gay citizens. that my belief conflicts with yours does not create an infringement.

my examples prove as much.

that you believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is your belief. that i belief otherwise is equally as valid.

allowing for my belief is not an infringement on yours.

It is an infringement because the state has no right to try and redefine something held sacred within my religion.

Shall we ask each other the same questions over and over here another 50 times?

[Stardust]

that is only your opinion. i don't believe in a soul, don't believe there is anything to be corrupted. i believe homosexuality is a normal derivative of our complex sexual being and to exclude or deny those that feel that way is akin to denying rights to those that don't like chocolate.

You are lost my friend.

[slick_trip]

It is an infringement because the state has no right to try and redefine something held sacred within my religion.

Shall we ask each other the same questions over and over here another 50 times?

you're not allowing for the fact that other religions don't hold the same sacrament. allowing for an act is not an infringement.

[slick_trip]

You are lost my friend. i am neither lost nor blinded by religious rhetoric and dogma. feel free to label someone else, my friend.

[DLaw911]

Do you support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act? As you all are probably aware just last year California voters voted in proposition 8 in order to defend the sanctity of marriage. Now people are trying to get that overturned so we need to further protect marriage by getting this amendment on the ballot. It will further protect the sanctity of marriage from those who would attack it ensuring that no one can further erode this important institution.Get WHAT on the ballot? Are you talking about a US constitutional amendment?

[DLaw911]

Anyone coming to hannnity.com for the first time would think it was primarily a gay bashing board. One thread after another --- bad gays, they want this, they want that, no marriage, no adoption, no "special rights", no, no, no.

I've never seen such a group of DIVIDERS as I do in the conservative religious community. With all the important things to worry about in this country, it's a wonder people can write with such negativity and still have a conscious.

[BrittleBullet]

It is an infringement because the state has no right to try and redefine something held sacred within my religion.

Shall we ask each other the same questions over and over here another 50 times?

Fine.
Your religion doesn't have to marry gays then.

[slick_trip]

Anyone coming to hannnity.com for the first time would think it was primarily a gay bashing board. One thread after another --- bad gays, they want this, they want that, no marriage, no adoption, no "special rights", no, no, no.

I've never seen such a group of DIVIDERS as I do in the conservative religious community. With all the important things to worry about in this country, it's a wonder people can write with such negativity and still have a conscious.

i'd expect those that truly want to defend the sanctity of marriage would first address how heterosexuals mis-treat the institution before getting on their high horse about who they'd prefer to exclude...

[Pudge]

Do you support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act? As you all are probably aware just last year California voters voted in proposition 8 in order to defend the sanctity of marriage. Now people are trying to get that overturned so we need to further protect marriage by getting this amendment on the ballot. It will further protect the sanctity of marriage from those who would attack it ensuring that no one can further erode this important institution.

If it's a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8, then I support it. Since Prop 8 was upheld, I see nothing further that Californians can do to really really uphold it.

[badkarma]

Again, the government has no right in intruding on the definition of what so many churches hold sacred.
Please link to anywhere that any government law has been written saying that your church (or any church) must recognize and perform gay marriage.

[johnrocks]

You are lost my friend.

That's not your call to make...unless your God.:eek:

[Pudge]

Government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage existed before governments even came into being, and God ordained and defined it: Genesis 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body”.

Gay marriage is an intrusion into other people’s religions because you have a government redefining and “mangling” a sacrament that is held sacred within their religions.

It's only an intrusion as you describe if the government forces your church to wed gay couples.

A civil contract of marriage has zip to do with god or religion.

[Pudge]

The majority said no...how many times will the minority keep asking?

As long as it takes.

The majority kept saying 'no' when they wanted to abolish slavery, or extend to women the right to vote, or to allow mixed-race couples to marry. Think they just packed it in and went home?

[Pudge]

I feel the government has no right in re-defining what my religion holds as sacred and as a sacrament.

Are you married, and if so, do you have a marriage license?

[Pudge]

It is an infringement because the state has no right to try and redefine something held sacred within my religion.

But the state does have a right to create a civil status based on what your religion holds sacred as long as they confine it to what you believe in?

If you're saying the state should not be involved in marriage at all, then at least you're consistent, but if you think the state should be involved but only on your terms, then you're not.

[slick_trip]

If you're saying the state should not be involved in marriage at all, then at least you're consistent, but if you think the state should be involved but only on your terms, then you're not.

well said

:clap:

[DLaw911]

i'd expect those that truly want to defend the sanctity of marriage would first address how heterosexuals mis-treat the institution before getting on their high horse about who they'd prefer to exclude...Being gay I have a lot of gay friends. Most of my friend, however, are not gay. Ironically I find more support for same sex marriage amoung my straight friends than my gay friends for one simple reason: just like all straight people don't want to get married, neither do all gay people.

This has been a big issue for me since the 1970's although I had no personal interest in getting married. My friendship with the Reverend Troy Perry (http://www.revtroyperry.org/photoAlbum/index.htm), who began the first Metropolitan Community Church which performed same sex marriages, was not only a gay rights leader, but also the lead inspiration for the founding of the post-Stonewall gay pride movement. Gay activism and gay pride are entirely different concepts although the latter does feature some participation from the former.

Reverend Perry (now retired but still active as ever) is an inspiration to me and countless others. His biggest goal was to help create an environment in which gays and lesbians could feel good and secure enough about themselves to come out of the closet. When he helped plan the nation's firt gay pride parade in Los Angeles he went to then Police Chief Ed Davis who told him, "As far as I'm concerned, granting a permit to a group of homosexuals to parade down Hollywood Boulevard would be the same as giving a permit to a group of thieves and murderers!" And quite frankly, given that LAPD cops back then took delight in beating up gay men on the streets and in bars, it Davis's comments were no surprise. Well Davis lost and the parade went on and it was quite successful.

When asked about why gay pride events are important his most complelling comment was, "When gay people come out and see these events they know they don't have to be afraid anymore."

I only say this because the right WANTS gays and lesbians to be afraid. They want them to be afraid to be honest about their sexual orientation (DADT, etc). They want them to know that they can become crime victims if they come out. They want them to lose jobs, lose retirement benefits, lose their friends and families, and in the case of some conservative religious leaders be wished death and AIDS. In the 1980's there was well documented push among Christian groups to boycott San Francisco because, "You can catch AIDS in the air."

When gays and lesbians congregate for events such as gay pride and gay activism they look entirely diferent than what you see in daily life. Most people would not know an average gay or lesbian person is they saw one. Even I have guessed wrong many times. Point being that gays and lesbians are, for the most part, just like everyone else except for their sexual attraction to members of the same sex. It's not something they asked for. Many a gay and lesbian have committed suicide simply because THEY could not accept being homosexual. Others committed suicide because of the torment they suffered from others. And many turned to the old fashioned way of self-punishment -- -alcohol and drugs, depression, withdrawl, gay bath houses and anonymous sex, etc. Back in the 1960's and 1970's being gay was dangerous everywhere and the only safe places to be were the "closet" and gay bath houses. EVERYPLACE else was a risk. Even gay bars were risky because of cops on a mission to bust the places. Such was the basis for the Stonewall riot where NYPD cops, known for taking bribes to NOT bust gay clubs, raided the Stonewall Inn for not paying up and learned the hard way you don't mess with drag queens.

Prior to Stonewall I did not have a single friend who was openly gay. The best advice was to be a really good liar. There were even advice books on how to not let your eyes give you away. I remember one person said, "If you see a good looking guy DON'T look away because that's a dead giveaway." The advice was to look past the person rather than away. And there were entire lists of how to avoid being outed as gay, all with the common theme of being a really good, sick liar.

Now for me there is nothing more important between two people who love each other than being able to express that love and be commitment to each other and to NOT have to keep it a secret. On one side you have the proponents of same sex marriage who say to deny marriage to same sex couples is discrimination and wrong. On the other side are the bible thumpers who predict a catastrophe and an end to the institution of marriage.

So with all the above as a long preface I can only say this -- I'm sick of all the gay bashers in the world and especially in our own nation who want us back in the closet. I have norespect for them. The fact that they are so worried about the 3-5% of the gay population that might want to get married (that's 3-5% of 3-5% -- you do the math) is like a germaphobic - washing their hands every minute to get rid of that little germ that might be there. When people are THAT worried about an issue that has no effect on their own lives, never has and never will, that is only an issue because some nutjob religious leaders and preachers make it their life's work, then I can only categorize this phobia as homophobia. There is no other rational explanation for it.

So a message to all the gay bashers, the gay haters, those who simply don't like gays and lesbians, those who want them to go back into the closet. A simple message - GO AWAY! Your hatred is getting very tired. In a few years same sex marriage WILL be legal and you will realize what creeps you were before and now. You will realize that gay people are an integral part and fabric of society and to even suggest they should not have full faith and credit, that they should not be able to serve our country, that they should not be able to adoptand raise children, or even be able to hold hands in public or get married, is really ridiculous.

[slick_trip]

DLaw

well said. i don't understand the fear or hatred towards the gay community. further, i'm bothered with a group that leverages their constitutional right as a basis to deny rights to others....

[Lima India Bravo]

Government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage existed before governments even came into being, and God ordained and defined it: Genesis 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body”.

Gay marriage is an intrusion into other people’s religions because you have a government redefining and “mangling” a sacrament that is held sacred within their religions.

Then let them get "married" within their religion, and don't call anything not a religious ceremony "marriage". Pretty simple. There was a civil unions law in California, and when a bunch of religion-damaged whackos tried to get it overturned as being "too much like marriage", the state supreme court ruled that gays could get "married". From that decision was born Prop 8. Same thing is going on in Washington state. There was law about to go into effect allowing civil unions. It granted the partners of civil unions, regardless of their sex, the same legal rights and privileges of "marriage" without callling it that. A bunch of religious nuts said it was "too much like marriage" and have started a petition drive to vacate the new law. :rolleyes: For the most part, gays are satisfied with civil unions. It's the religion damaged idiots that aren't.

[ChaosControl]

I don't think government should be involved in marriage.
I would support legislation that would completely eliminate government involvement. This means there would be no such thing as a marriage license and no such thing as married person in the eyes of the law.

For things such as hospital visitation rights and other related "benefits" of marriage, there could be substitute contracts. The government has no business knowing who decides to pledge their life together and has no business in saying who can do so. Legal marriage is pointless.

If there is to be legal marriage though I suppose it should be open to any and all consenting parties just as any contractual agreement should be. This means if three cousins and their sister's ex wife all want to "marry", they should be able to.

Personally I oppose anything other than male-female relationships/marriage, but it isn't my life and therefore it isn't my say in what others do nor is it the government's say.

[WorldWatcher]

There was a civil unions law in California, and when a bunch of religion-damaged whackos tried to get it overturned as being "too much like marriage", the state supreme court ruled that gays could get "married". From that decision was born Prop 8.


L.I.B.

I've seen you make this claim before. My memories of Prop 8 are that is resulted from the consolidation of cases made by same-sex couples challenging the ban on Same-Sex Civil Marriage.

Here is the link from the CSC for "re:Marriages" -->> Link (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF)


Could you show us the part concerning case history where the challenges were brought by those challenging Domestic Partnerships and not by Same-Sex Couples?



Thanks,


WW


>>>>

[gpd®]

I voted yes, but it is obvious that we are loosing momentum.

Jesus said it would be this way in the final days.

[JediMindTrick]

LOL

Funny how an act that no one knows anything about can stir up emotions. You see I was purposely a bit vague on details just to see how this would go. I am disappointed that this didn't get more yes votes though. I don't even know if this is a serious act or not or just a joke (it does have its own website).

Here is a link to a PDA that says everything you need to know about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LnIDwx9M_s

"Hell is eternal, just like your marriage is supposed to be."

"You said til death do us part. Your not dead yet."

"Jesus still loves you if you get divorced. Just not as much as before."

P.S. In fact I'm very much pro gay marriage. I just don't like the hypocrisy of the right. If the actually cared about the sanctity of marriage then they would be all in favor of this act.

[DLaw911]

.....For things such as hospital visitation rights and other related "benefits" of marriage, there could be substitute contracts.These issues are governed by HIPAA and other federal and state laws AND HOSPITAL POLICY. The issue is not "contract". One cannot contract a visitation, but I'm sure you made the civil attorneys sout there very happy because they would love to charge $1,000+ for theses documents which, for the most part, are ineffective and, in the best scenario, generally expire after 5 years and even sooner if there are changes in state law effecting their legality. For example, a law could change requiring them to have a doctor witness, maybe two doctors, maybe also notarized, maybe an acknowledgement, maybe a jurat. Of course when you're legally married to gain the same thing can be as cheap as the cost of a marriage license.
The government has no business knowing who decides to pledge their life together and has no business in saying who can do so. Legal marriage is pointless.The business of government involvement is to make sure (1) only persons of legal age get married, (2) that the relationship is legally binding and one side only walks away at his or her peril, (3) to encourage the stability of marriage. You think we have a 50% divorce rate NOW. Imagine if there was nothing "legal" holding a family together. Technically if you take government out of marriage you also have to get rid of community property laws. If the government was not involved the incentive to NOT get a divorce would be gone, and you would see the rate increase a lot higher than 50%. Let me put it another way (speaking of heterosexuals) --- when THEY get married and are asked to recite the vows of marriage, in over 50% of the cases either the man or the woman is LYING).
If there is to be legal marriage though I suppose it should be open to any and all consenting parties just as any contractual agreement should be. This means if three cousins and their sister's ex wife all want to "marry", they should be able to.Silly argument. Not worth responding to. Like saying if you make "milk" legal you also have to legalize having sex with cows.
Personally I oppose anything other than male-female relationships/marriage, but it isn't my life and therefore it isn't my say in what others do nor is it the government's say.Your probloem, and it IS A problem, is that male/female is not the magical ingredient in a successful marriage. In over 50% of cases THAT very relationship is a ticking time bomb doomed to failure. So I don't know why you have this blanket approach. The better would be to say you favor two people getting legally married who really do love each other, who are serious about their commitment, and that they will love and cherish each other until death! But, instead, you have this easily shot down presumption in your head that male/female marriage is so wonderful and everything else is to be opposed.

[Koushi Shinigami]

"Hell is eternal, just like your marriage is supposed to be."


I've said something similar in the religion forum.

There are more similarities between marriage and Hell than there are differences.

[Stardust]

I only say this because the right WANTS gays and lesbians to be afraid. They want them to be afraid to be honest about their sexual orientation (DADT, etc). They want them to know that they can become crime victims if they come out. They want them to lose jobs, lose retirement benefits, lose their friends and families

Conservatives don't want gays legally marrying for several reasons:

First and foremost, homosexuality is considered an abomination in God's eyes and is stated so in the Bible. They know that from the very beginning God created a man and woman and ordained that they "be one" - not two men, not two women.

There are distinct differences between men and women - physically, emotionally, psychologically, socially, etc. It was meant to be that children be reared by a father and a mother (male/female). This has been the course of nature from the beginning of mankind.

Just like almost every other abomination, when you allow one loathsome practice to happen, it normally opens up the floodgates to other loathsome practices. By allowing gays to legally marry, what's to stop polygamy, polyandry (women having several husbands), incestuous marrying, etc.? It has to stop somewhere, and it should stop at one man and one woman.

As I mentioned in my other thread, there should be no intrusion by the government by means of deciphering the meaning of a sacred sacrament that has been upheld in churches for thousands of years.

Folks get a great deal of monetary benefit from marriage. Fill out your next year's tax form and see the differences between what you pay in taxes if you are married, compared to being single. Why should these people get these types of benefits (not only taxes, but life insurance, etc.) And who do you think is paying for these extra benefits? The rest of us share the burden.

If I am raised in a certain religion and have my own religious beliefs, how dare you tell me that "I am old-fashioned or not with it" or tell me that my child should be taught that this is normal? Pick up a Bible, folks, and read about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Let's face facts here, there are, as we speak, almost entire societies out there dying of AIDs (i.e., in sub-Saharan Africa 30% of the population has AIDs). This disease has originated in the gay community and predominates there.

Most of all, I think what people resent, is this, continual "pushing of this type of lifestyle on others" about how "normal this is", "how right we are", "we are the rainbow", etc. I think what most people feel is "get out of my face", "leave me, my family, my child, and my religion alone".

[Lima India Bravo]

L.I.B.

I've seen you make this claim before. My memories of Prop 8 are that is resulted from the consolidation of cases made by same-sex couples challenging the ban on Same-Sex Civil Marriage.

Here is the link from the CSC for "re:Marriages" -->> Link (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF)


Could you show us the part concerning case history where the challenges were brought by those challenging Domestic Partnerships and not by Same-Sex Couples?



Thanks,


WW


>>>>

From Wikipedia (I know the cons hate Wikipedia unless it supports their side):

Opponents of legal recognition for same-sex couples filed two lawsuits in the Superior Court of California. In the first case, state senator William “Pete” Knight sued Governor Gray Davis (later substituting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) on the grounds that A.B. 205 impermissibly amended Proposition 22, which Knight authored. Randy Thomasson (an opponent of gay rights and head of the Campaign for California Families) filed a similar lawsuit, which challenged both A.B. 205 and the earlier domestic-partner expansion in A.B. 25. Both lawsuits, consolidated into a single action, failed at the trial and appellate courts. In the wake of those decisions, opponents of legal recognition for LGBT families launched at least two recall efforts against Judge Loren McMaster, who presided over the trial-court hearings. The recall efforts also failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

I have more information concerning this on another computer, and when I can get to it I will post it.

The issue mentioned here is that Pete Knight was opposed to any changes to Prop 22 (such as AB 205), because the proposed changes made Prop 22 "too much like marriage".

[WorldWatcher]

From Wikipedia (I know the cons hate Wikipedia unless it supports their side):

Opponents of legal recognition for same-sex couples filed two lawsuits in the Superior Court of California. In the first case, state senator William “Pete” Knight sued Governor Gray Davis (later substituting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) on the grounds that A.B. 205 impermissibly amended Proposition 22, which Knight authored. Randy Thomasson (an opponent of gay rights and head of the Campaign for California Families) filed a similar lawsuit, which challenged both A.B. 205 and the earlier domestic-partner expansion in A.B. 25. Both lawsuits, consolidated into a single action, failed at the trial and appellate courts. In the wake of those decisions, opponents of legal recognition for LGBT families launched at least two recall efforts against Judge Loren McMaster, who presided over the trial-court hearings. The recall efforts also failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

I have more information concerning this on another computer, and when I can get to it I will post it.

The issue mentioned here is that Pete Knight was opposed to any changes to Prop 22 (such as AB 205), because the proposed changes made Prop 22 "too much like marriage".



However none of those actions resulted in lawsuits which were consolidated into "re: Marriage" which then spurred the Prop 8 referendum.

The lawsuits were brought by Same-Sex couples as a challenge to the effects of Prop 22 on statutory law.



I'm not denying the efforts cited above did not happen, but according the the CSC decision in "re: Marriages" there is not indications in the actual court documents that the suits were brought by individuals or groups trying to deny Domestic Partnerships.



>>>>

[WorldWatcher]

First and foremost, homosexuality is considered an abomination in God's eyes and is stated so in the Bible. They know that from the very beginning God created a man and woman and ordained that they "be one" - not two men, not two women.

Then they should not marry someone of the same sex.

Other than that an individuals religious beliefs are not a factor in secular law.

There are distinct differences between men and women - physically, emotionally, psychologically, socially, etc. It was meant to be that children be reared by a father and a mother (male/female). This has been the course of nature from the beginning of mankind.


Fine, show us any State in the Union where children are a requirement of marriage.

Also show us any State in the Union where pregnancy is outlawed outside of marriage.


Just like almost every other abomination, when you allow one loathsome practice to happen, it normally opens up the floodgates to other loathsome practices. By allowing gays to legally marry, what's to stop polygamy, polyandry (women having several husbands), incestuous marrying, etc.? It has to stop somewhere, and it should stop at one man and one woman.

Homesexual relationships – Not Illegal
Polygamous relationships – Illegal
Polyandrous relationships – Illgeal
Incestuous relationships – Illegal

Actually I’m surprised you didn’t throw in the marrying your goldfish and your screwdriver examples also.


As I mentioned in my other thread, there should be no intrusion by the government by means of deciphering the meaning of a sacred sacrament that has been upheld in churches for thousands of years.

I agree, the government should have no intrusion into the sacraments of a religion. That’s Religious Marriage and outside the preview of government.

However, Civil Marriage exists under Civil Law and has no bearing on what a Church does and other than that an individuals religious beliefs are not a factor in secular law.



Folks get a great deal of monetary benefit from marriage. Fill out your next year's tax form and see the differences between what you pay in taxes if you are married, compared to being single.


Actually do to the marriage penalty, IIRC, we would have paid less taxes being single then being married.

Now in the past we’ve had a tax advantage because of the kids, but those deductions exist the same whether people are married or single.


Why should these people get these types of benefits (not only taxes, but life insurance, etc.) And who do you think is paying for these extra benefits? The rest of us share the burden.


I think if homosexuals can be expected to pay for benefits for heterosexuals, then they should be allowed to be treated equally under the law. I don’t think it’s fair for us to dip into the pockets of homosexuals to fund our benefits then deny them equal access.


If I am raised in a certain religion and have my own religious beliefs, how dare you tell me that "I am old-fashioned or not with it" or tell me that my child should be taught that this is normal? Pick up a Bible, folks, and read about Sodom and Gomorrah.


And you are welcome to your religious beliefs.

However that has nothing to do with secular law.


Let's face facts here, there are, as we speak, almost entire societies out there dying of AIDs (i.e., in sub-Saharan Africa 30% of the population has AIDs). This disease has originated in the gay community and predominates there.


Yes lets face facts.

1. AIDS/HIV did not originate in the gay community, it actually originate in Africa in the heterosexual community only after originating there did it spread here.

2. That most of those infected with AIDS/HIV in Africa are heterosexual.



>>>>

[Kelzan]

I support same-sex marriage. But the people of California spoke last year and the only reason prop 8 should be overturned is by a vote of the people, not by judicial fiat.

[JDGreen]

Doesn't matter... The California courts will overturn any decision they don't like..

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter... The California courts will overturn any decision they don't like..


Prop 8 has already worked it's way though the California court system and the California Supreme Court has ruled...


In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights” theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must “find its expression at the ballot box.” (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)

In each of the three cases before us, the request for a peremptory writ of mandate is denied. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Link (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S168047.PDF)



>>>>

[WorldWatcher]

>


I actually found the proposed amendment and yes it is real -->> http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i823_initiative_09-0026.pdf

It protects marriage by limiting the cases in which Marriage can be dissolved, the effect of which is basically the elimination of all types of divorce under Civil Law.




It references the California Family Code Division 6 which is "DIVISION 6. NULLITY, DISSOLUTION, AND LEGAL SEPARATION", Part 2 which is "JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF VOID OR VOIDABLE MARRIAGE".


Under that section of the Code a Marriage is voidable if...

1. The party bringing the action was unable to consent do to age. However after reaching the age of consent they must bring the action withing 4 years of reaching the age of consent or by a parent/legal guardian prior to the age of consent.

2. One of the parties in the marriage was already married to a living spouse.

3. One of the persons was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage unless after becoming sound they continued with the marriage.

4. An act of fraud was used to get a party to consent to marriage unless the person against whom fraud was committed continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years following the discovery of fraud.

5. An act of force was used to get a party to consent to marriage unless the person against whom force was used continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years.

6. If one of the parties was physically incapable, at the time of the marriage, of consenting to the marriage and remained in that condition (incurable) or continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years after the incapability passed.

Link (http://www.supportcourt.com/california_family_law_code.htm)




>>>>

[merickson]

Doesn't matter... The California courts will overturn any decision they don't like..
Looking at this timeline, I doubt your conclusison

Ca. Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is legal.
Voters pass Prop 8.
Ca. Supreme Court upholds Prop 8

It seems that the Ca. Supreme Court is interprting the law rather than expressing their likes and dislikes.

[JediMindTrick]

>


I actually found the proposed amendment and yes it is real -->> http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i823_initiative_09-0026.pdf

It protects marriage by limiting the cases in which Marriage can be dissolved, the effect of which is basically the elimination of all types of divorce under Civil Law.




It references the California Family Code Division 6 which is "DIVISION 6. NULLITY, DISSOLUTION, AND LEGAL SEPARATION", Part 2 which is "JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF VOID OR VOIDABLE MARRIAGE".


Under that section of the Code a Marriage is voidable if...

1. The party bringing the action was unable to consent do to age. However after reaching the age of consent they must bring the action withing 4 years of reaching the age of consent or by a parent/legal guardian prior to the age of consent.

2. One of the parties in the marriage was already married to a living spouse.

3. One of the persons was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage unless after becoming sound they continued with the marriage.

4. An act of fraud was used to get a party to consent to marriage unless the person against whom fraud was committed continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years following the discovery of fraud.

5. An act of force was used to get a party to consent to marriage unless the person against whom force was used continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years.

6. If one of the parties was physically incapable, at the time of the marriage, of consenting to the marriage and remained in that condition (incurable) or continued with the marriage for a period of 4-years after the incapability passed.

Link (http://www.supportcourt.com/california_family_law_code.htm)




>>>>

If you watch their PDA videos though you realize this whole thing is a parody against Prop 8. I linked to one of them in my last post and pulled actual quotes from it.

[WorldWatcher]

If you watch their PDA videos though you realize this whole thing is a parody against Prop 8. I linked to one of them in my last post and pulled actual quotes from it.


I know that, but it will be interesting to see if the proposal gets enough signatures and if it actually gets on the ballot how many of those screeming "we have to protect marriage" will actually vote to "protect marriage" buy limiting the ability to get a divorce. A bigger damage to marriage then Same-Sex Civil Marriage will ever be.



>>>>

[Calibabe]

You know this is a bs argument.

First off you can have civil unions. What is wrong with that? People regardless of sex get married by the mayor or their representative all the time. If you want to make it a religious ceremony then you have to take that up with the church that you worship at.

Secondly, all the argument about "well I can't leave my assets to the person I love" is bs. You can leave anything to anyone, if you have a will. If you have a government job you can make anyone the beneficiary of your pension that you want. My mom and dad who got divorced after 35+ years of marriage, put myself and my daughter as their beneficiaries of their deferred compensation plans that my father had gotten through his job with the State of New Jersey. He could have named anyone he wanted. That was done in 2003. Secondly with an advanced directive you can name whom you wish to be your representative on making the decision regarding your health if you become incapable of doing so.

So what I don't get is why all this fuss? If one takes the time to legally get things in order they will be fine. So why the push to demean marriage. I voted for Prop 8 and would do so again, if it has to go for a third vote. See it seems that we keep putting stuff up to vote until we get the desired result. To me, one a proposition is voted on and approved or disapproved then that is the end result and that is how it should stay.

[K Lags]

Just to clear one thing up Calibabe, Defined Contribution plans can have any beneficiary. These are more commonly called an Annuity, or 401A,B,K depending on the plan you have. But a true Pension plan, or a defined benefit, only your legal spouse can be the beneficiary of the Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity options.

The difference, Annuity plans normally are your money and the companies money just put into an account with your name on it, it gains and loses in the market. Pension plans are based on the general fund, if you complete enough hours to meet the vesting requirements you will be given a monthly income for your life. If you live to be 300, you will get a check every month for the same amount. Meaning if you put 100,000 dollars in the plan, you can get more or less than that out depending on how long you live.

So you wouldn't be able to have the pension continue to your children or it would bankrupt the plan, so plans normally only allow you to use a QJSA option on a spouse. Of course, actuaries will rate things based on their ages, so if you have a 20 year old wife/husband, you're going to get less in your monthly pay out anyway.

[WorldWatcher]

You know this is a bs argument.

First off you can have civil unions. What is wrong with that?


The SCOTUS ruled many years ago on the whole idea of "Separate but equal". Didn't work out to well the last time.


People regardless of sex get married by the mayor or their representative all the time.


Very true which is why the use of the word "marriage" is kind of a misnomer as there are actually two types of marriage: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is up to the individual and their respective religious institution. You can have a religious marriage without being civilly married.

Civil Marriage is obtained under secular law. You can also be civilly married without being religiously married.


If you want to make it a religious ceremony then you have to take that up with the church that you worship at.


Correct again, Same-sex couples have already done that and in some cases are being religiously married at the church (Synagogue, temple, shrine, etc...) they worship at.


Secondly, all the argument about "well I can't leave my assets to the person I love" is bs. You can leave anything to anyone, if you have a will.


Correct again, you can leave anything you want to anyone in a will. However under the United States Code how that transfer of property is treated for tax purposes may be different for single people executing a will and a married couple where the spouse dies.


If you have a government job you can make anyone the beneficiary of your pension that you want. My mom and dad who got divorced after 35+ years of marriage, put myself and my daughter as their beneficiaries of their deferred compensation plans that my father had gotten through his job with the State of New Jersey. He could have named anyone he wanted. That was done in 2003.


Not necessarily, I'm a retired federal employee (veteran) who has survivor benefits elected in the event I die. Those benefits are transferred to my spouse on my death, I cannot transfer them to anyone else.


Secondly with an advanced directive you can name whom you wish to be your representative on making the decision regarding your health if you become incapable of doing so.


Tell that to the lesbian couple who had an advanced directive from Washington State who went on a vacation to Florida, the hospital denied access based on the fact they were a gay couple and would not acknowledge the advanced directive or visitation of the woman partner or children.

The difference being that "marriage" status is recognized universally and not challenged. Advanced directives are not mandatorially (sp?) observed under the law, the hospital can still refuse.


So what I don't get is why all this fuss? If one takes the time to legally get things in order they will be fine.


A same-sex couple can spend thousands of dollars to try to recreate only some of the benefits automatically bestowed by enactment of a $50 marriage license. In addition that marriage license is permanent (unless a divorce occurs), however many of those instruments that a same-sex couple would require are limited in scope in terms of jurisdiction and time. Where a married couple would incur no addition requirements a same-sex couple may have to have them renewed. Different treatment in terms of both time and cost.



So why the push to demean marriage.


Joan and Jane who have been together for 20-years doesn't demean Civil Marriage.

Brittany's 56-hour fling, now that demeans marriage.



I voted for Prop 8 and would do so again, if it has to go for a third vote.


Actually you didn't vote for Prop 8 multiple times. The first time was Prop 22 which was a statutory law that was found to be in conflict with the equal treatment clause of the California Constitution. Since it was subordinate law it was invalidated (correctly so). That resulted in Prop 8 which ended in a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment was already upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of Strauss v. Horton.


See it seems that we keep putting stuff up to vote until we get the desired result. To me, one a proposition is voted on and approved or disapproved then that is the end result and that is how it should stay.


To bad for you that's not the way it works.

Prop 22 was on the ballot in 2000 and passed with (IIRC) a 23% margin of victory.

Prop 8 was on the ballot 8-years later with only a 4% margin of victory.

Attitudes are changing which probably is why you don't want people to have a chance to vote on something again.

But the reality is that votes to repeal Prop 8 will be on the ballot in the future and given the change in voter demographics is likely to pass. Prop 22 passed with 23%, Prop 8 passed with only 4%. That's a shift of 2.875% per year over the 8 years. With Prop 8 only passing by 4%, then that means it will be only a couple of years before it could potentially be repealed by the voters.

Don't you think that if the voters say "Yes" to Same-sex Civil Marriage that that is the way it should be?



>>>>

[Sacres]

In the black community a defense of marriage movement started in the late '60s in response to what grew into todays 70+% out of wedlock birth rate.
Supporters argued traditional marriage and family (TMF) is the undisputed best option loving parents can offer their children of all the options entering main stream acceptance. We still argue the supremacy of TMF over all competing options, that it is worth the struggle and sacrifice.
Recently Same Sex Marriage SSM was elevated to a Civil Right (and most of our struggles, heros and accomplishments co-opted), and at best TMF was redefined as one option amongst equals, though increasingly many consider it out dated. Those who defend the supremacy of TMF became bigots, haters, homophobes. If you are black you are also a hypocrite no better than the racists who opposed inter racial marriage, to be ridiculed, discredited and marginalized.
If you have family, friends, community leaders who were TMF advocates decades before SSM became an issue and have trouble with their being labelled bigots, haters, homophobes, hypocrites and equated to racists, if you defend those who resist the redefinition of TMF, you too are to be ridiculed, discredited and marginalized.
So how in a community with a 70% out of wed lock birth rate, do 70% of us support the defense of and defenders of traditional marriage? Lie to and about us and ours, dare us to not go along to get along or else, and see how many don't go along. This is the same arrogance and bigotry used against the Tea Party community, and helping cement our solidarity.
Supporters of TMF argue the supremacy of TMF over all alternatives, supporters of SSM a.k.a. the marriage equality movement argue that TMF is one option, with at least one equal.
When arguing for the supremacy of TMF is sanctioned as hateful and ignorant, what makes TMF better than the easier and popular 'equal' options of not marrying, or common law polygamy ( kids with multiple partners never married)?
If you struggle to redefine TMF supremacy, what new and equal do you propose to replace this tool in the fight against rising out of wedlock birth rates with?
Or are the problems with high and rising OWBR acceptable collateral damage?
If redefining marriage harms no one, but you are destroying a primary tool in the fight against high and rising OWBR, what new and equal are you replacing it with?
If you can not come up with anything new and equal and just suggest we emphasize some other arguement we have always had, you have still left us down a valuable tool, and done a lot to undermine and discredit us and our efforts.

[Pudge]

I support same-sex marriage. But the people of California spoke last year and the only reason prop 8 should be overturned is by a vote of the people, not by judicial fiat.

The people did not speak. It was a fairly even split. Even still, a majority vote should never negate the civil rights of any minority. Dangerous thinking, supporting blind democracy.

[Pudge]

First off you can have civil unions. What is wrong with that? People regardless of sex get married by the mayor or their representative all the time. If you want to make it a religious ceremony then you have to take that up with the church that you worship at.

When a man and a woman marry before a Justice of the Peace it's a marriage. When a gay or lesbian couple does, it's called something else. Domestic partnership, civil union. When a man and a woman get married in one state it's automatically valid in all 50 states. When a gay or lesbian couple get married or DP'ed or civilly united, it's only valid in a handful of other states. The case of a lesbian who was barred from seeing her dying partner in a Florida hospital whose lawsuit was dismissed is an example of how little protection gay & lesbian couples have outside of the area where their domestic partnerships, civil unions, or powers of attorney are in force.

Secondly, all the argument about "well I can't leave my assets to the person I love" is bs. You can leave anything to anyone, if you have a will.

In a male-female marriage, if there is no will, property goes to the surviving spouse without a tax levied against it. In a same-sex union with a will, the inherited property is still taxed, and if the deceased had no will, it goes to their legal next of kin- brother, sister, parents- not the partner.

If you have a government job you can make anyone the beneficiary of your pension that you want.

Not everyone works for the government.

Secondly with an advanced directive you can name whom you wish to be your representative on making the decision regarding your health if you become incapable of doing so.

That didn't work for Janice Langbehn (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flrxgaysuit0626sbjun26,0,3396801.story).

So what I don't get is why all this fuss? If one takes the time to legally get things in order they will be fine.

Why should it take same-sex couples weeks and months to obtain shaky legal status when a straight couple can do it in 5 minutes in Las Vegas?

So why the push to demean marriage.

Why do you believe that gay couples marrying is demeaning to marriage?

I voted for Prop 8 and would do so again, if it has to go for a third vote. See it seems that we keep putting stuff up to vote until we get the desired result. To me, one a proposition is voted on and approved or disapproved then that is the end result and that is how it should stay.

Doesn't work that way. In 2000, Californians voted 62% of the majority to ban same-sex marriage. In 2008 it was a mere 52%. People are shifting on this, I don't think you'll win a third ballot initiative. How many times are the Mormons and the Catholics going to bankroll these things? Sure, spend $20 million to make sure gay people can't get married, never mind the hungry, the homeless, the families in need. Protecting your exalted status and stepping on gay people is far more important, right?

[ChaosControl]

These issues are governed by HIPAA and other federal and state laws AND HOSPITAL POLICY. The issue is not "contract". One cannot contract a visitation, but I'm sure you made the civil attorneys sout there very happy because they would love to charge $1,000+ for theses documents which, for the most part, are ineffective and, in the best scenario, generally expire after 5 years and even sooner if there are changes in state law effecting their legality. For example, a law could change requiring them to have a doctor witness, maybe two doctors, maybe also notarized, maybe an acknowledgement, maybe a jurat. Of course when you're legally married to gain the same thing can be as cheap as the cost of a marriage license.
If you can obtain these privileges via "marriage", you should be able to obtain them through some other legal means. If we can't currently, that means that is something we need to change. The answer is NEVER more government involvement, like most things the answer is available options but less actual involvement.

The business of government involvement is to make sure (1) only persons of legal age get married, (2) that the relationship is legally binding and one side only walks away at his or her peril, (3) to encourage the stability of marriage. You think we have a 50% divorce rate NOW. Imagine if there was nothing "legal" holding a family together. Technically if you take government out of marriage you also have to get rid of community property laws. If the government was not involved the incentive to NOT get a divorce would be gone, and you would see the rate increase a lot higher than 50%. Let me put it another way (speaking of heterosexuals) --- when THEY get married and are asked to recite the vows of marriage, in over 50% of the cases either the man or the woman is LYING).

And none of that matters. It is the individuals involved decision on whether to "marry" or divorce. Government should not be involved and not provide incentive one way or another. Marriage should be about love. If there is no love involved, they shouldn't be together. If there is love involved, government's blessing shouldn't matter.

Silly argument. Not worth responding to. Like saying if you make "milk" legal you also have to legalize having sex with cows.
Uh, you don't follow at all. It is simply that IF there is to be legal involvement. It shouldn't be restricted. Otherwise you're being the very type of person you are now fighting against for your cause. Should there be a limit? Yes. That limit should be consenting persons. Government shouldn't be able to restrict it to two persons or to non-related persons any more than it should be able to restrict it to persons of opposite sex or persons of same race.

Your probloem, and it IS A problem, is that male/female is not the magical ingredient in a successful marriage. In over 50% of cases THAT very relationship is a ticking time bomb doomed to failure. So I don't know why you have this blanket approach. The better would be to say you favor two people getting legally married who really do love each other, who are serious about their commitment, and that they will love and cherish each other until death! But, instead, you have this easily shot down presumption in your head that male/female marriage is so wonderful and everything else is to be opposed.

You completely fail at reading comprehension. I mean seriously. You completely misread everything I said if you believe that is what I said. I specifically said I OPPOSE government involvement in marriage AT ALL. I never said man/woman marriage is the exception. I never said I suppot man/woman marriage having government involvement while all else being banned. I said I want NO government involvement. I even went on further to say if there is government involvement it should be fully open to any and all consenting parties. If anything, my view is the most "progressive", most liberty based approach one could even take on this matter. But perhaps that is because I care about freedom for all and not in this just for some personal reasons.

I understand things happen in steps though, first this will be allowed and that is fine. Eventually we will, hopefully, advance to the level that "marriage" is allowed to all consenting parties and not limited to two non-related people. I would prefer there of course be no involvement since this isn't an issue that requires government, but if I have to have it then I want the most liberty and choice possible.

[DLaw911]

You know this is a [profanity snipped] argument.

First off you can have civil unions. What is wrong with that?
1. It is second class (for example http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html)
2. It's only valid in the State of issue and only covers about 5-10% of the rights automatically conferred at the instant of marriage
3. It's a public record. People have to essentially register as being gay or lesbian.
4. More answers http://www.equalitymaryland.org/pdfs/marriage_cu_differences.pdf
People regardless of sex get married by the mayor or their representative all the time. If you want to make it a religious ceremony then you have to take that up with the church that you worship at. No marriage is legal without a license. Deos not matter who marries you. The Pope could marry a same sex couple in California and that marriage would have no legal significance.
Secondly, all the argument about "well I can't leave my assets to the person I love" is bs. You can leave anything to anyone, if you have a will.Every hear of will contests. Maybe you have never experienced one, but it has happened to many members of my immediate and extended family. Community property (by marriage) cannot be modified or willed away. Further, the average person cannot afford to pay a lawyer to write a will, get it witnessed, and keep checking to make sure the witnesses are still alive (a huge ground for challenging a will). I don't practice estate, will and trust law but let me assure you I know a bit about it and it can be VERY nasty.

If you have a government job you can make anyone the beneficiary of your pension that you want. My mom and dad who got divorced after 35+ years of marriage, put myself and my daughter as their beneficiaries of their deferred compensation plans that my father had gotten through his job with the State of New Jersey. He could have named anyone he wanted. That was done in 2003. Secondly with an advanced directive you can name whom you wish to be your representative on making the decision regarding your health if you become incapable of doing so. I really doubt your statement is correct. You can make a person a beneficiary of a fixed financial amount, but my understanding is that pension benefits can only be passed to spouse or immediate close relative. I don't think you can chose any Tom, Dick (no pun) or Harry to be a beneficiary.
So what I don't get is why all this fuss?You don't get it because you're a straight guy. Do you think for a second you can put yourself in our shoes and know what it's like. Don't pretend you can.
If one takes the time to legally get things in order they will be fine. So why the push to demean marriage.If you want to talk about demeaning marriage then looking to gays and lesbians is the wrong idea. You have a big problem iwth YOUR marriage. Allowing gays and lesbian same sex couples to marry is not demeaning marriage. I'm just curious if you support a marriage test based on general intellectual functioning (e.g. should persons with mental retardation be able to marry).
I voted for Prop 8 and would do so again, if it has to go for a third vote.It was opposed by the Governor of California, the Attorney General, the Superintendent of Education, the Majors of most CA cities, the California legislature. The campaign in favor of Prop 8 was (predictably) riddled with sickening lies and distortions.
See it seems that we keep putting stuff up to vote until we get the desired result. To me, one a proposition is voted on and approved or disapproved then that is the end result and that is how it should stay.Well that's not the way the initiative process works..... that is, if you believe in the "will oft he people." Populations change, thinking changes, people change their minds and future generations have a right to have THEIR say as well.

[JediMindTrick]

The people did not speak. It was a fairly even split. Even still, a majority vote should never negate the civil rights of any minority. Dangerous thinking, supporting blind democracy.

Exactly. It took the courts to override the will of the majority on the issues of school segregation and interracial marriage.

[johnrocks]

The people did not speak. It was a fairly even split. Even still, a majority vote should never negate the civil rights of any minority. Dangerous thinking, supporting blind democracy.

+infinity and beyond!