70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not gay but I'm not sure why that means I don't have a vested interest in the results.

My point was asking if anyone in this thread was going to enter a gay marriage, but will be kept from doing so in California by this vote. Of course, you don't have to be gay to have an interest. I'm making the assumption that everyone in this discussion is smart enough to figure that out, but maybe I'm making a mistake in that assumption.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Indeed. As if everyone who wanted slavery to end had to be a slave themselves.

That wasn't my point, but feel free to make up a prejudice that simply wasn't there.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'll make the assumption that the way you worded this question, then, was unintentionally ambiguous. Seeing as how most people's reaction was that you were insinuating you had to be gay to have a vested interest, I certainly don't feel "stupid" for assuming that was your point.

Well, ignorance is what brought this issue to the forefront, so why not keep it going in the thread.

I was the one that first posted the hypocracy of the black vote on this board in the presidential election thread. Any assumption that you have to be gay to be involved in a human rights discussion is ignorance at its finest.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I would have voted prop 8 down on those grounds. If they want to call it a civil union I'm all for it.

Separate but equal? Or are you saying that all references to marriage in our law would change to civil union as well? If you're saying the latter, I am on board.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

Maybe because a marriage certificate can protect those rights when an accident may happen in another state, where the protections granted by this "civil union" type arrangement has no equivalent. That is speculation on my part.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This issue is all about religion. If they really want this stuff passed, call it a civil union and pass legislation that makes civil unions = marriage in the eyes of the government.

in point of fact this is my position too, but i also don't believe that just because that legislation has yet to be passed that we have the right to discriminate against them until that point.

if that legislation isn't going to be proposed then i'm going to vote in favor of whatever other legislation i can to protect their civil rights. giving them the right to be "married' maybe isn't the BEST solution, but it is the solution that is presenting itself AT THIS MOMENT, and just because it is not perfect does not mean that they should be discriminated against until somebody gets the best solution enacted into law.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I really don't know. If it does, then I would argue that they are trying to undermine religion to a certain extent. If a civil union gives them all the rights that a married couple has, why do they need to have a marriage?

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Doesn't the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 do this already?

only for the state of california though. as i pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, what if you're on vacation in nevada and your domestic partner gets hit by a bus and put into a coma and can't be moved from nevada - you don't have the right to "pull the plug" even if that would be his wish.

(that's just one example)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

A lesson which should have already been learned in this nation.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

only for the state of california though. as i pointed out in the Prop 8 thread, what if you're on vacation in nevada and your domestic partner gets hit by a bus and put into a coma and can't be moved from nevada - you don't have the right to "pull the plug" even if that would be his wish.

(that's just one example)

Power of Attorney and Medical Power of Attorney (I think the latter is the correct term) aren't state-specific, are they? If you don't have those papers, you may or may not have that right if you're married or not, barring the law in that state allowing for "closest living relative" which marriage may make you.

If I wanted to, I could assign those rights to anyone on this board with the correct paperwork without involving a discussion of marriage. Marriage just sets up some defaults.

[CU Tiger]

I didnt read every reply, because some of it went down tangets I dont really care to discuss.

But what restrictions are placed on marriage?

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Marriage just sets up some defaults.

Precisely. Defaults, under the law, that they do not have access to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

+1

I got very heated in my discussion with my parents over this last night too (my parents who are pretty damn liberal). I've declared a zero-tolerance policy for this issue in my life, extending so far as our family-friend the Jesuit priest (although I hope for his sake he doesn't engage me in discussion about it - i don't want to yell at an 80 year old guy).

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

The fact that they would likely pay more in taxes?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Call me ignorant all you want, MBBF, it doesn't change the fact that what you wrote, "Is anyone in this thread actually gay and has a vested interest in the results?", is at best ambiguous. Perhaps you are arguing that you should be given the benefit of the doubt, but based on your past posts on this board I think you may be hoping for a long time on that one.

I think gays have the right to be married and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be removed from their ignorance pulpit. I was just trying to find out if anyone in the thread was actually gay to get a further take on the issue and was making no statement that you had to be gay to understand the issue.

I thought the statement where Jon had to clarify in another thread that the use of the word 'good' and 'Fred Phelps' was sarcastic in nature was funny at first. I now know why he did that. There's a lot of people on this board that will take an assumption and run like the wind with that assumption rather than asking about the context of the statement.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I didnt read every reply, because some of it went down tangets I dont really care to discuss.

But what restrictions are placed on marriage?

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

I think the biggest deterrent from 'marrying' your roommate for tax purposes would be the legal costs involved in both filing for the marriage and then the divorce?

I don't know, but it seems like that sort of fraud could be dealt with pretty easily if legislators wanted/need to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Power of Attorney and Medical Power of Attorney (I think the latter is the correct term) aren't state-specific, are they? If you don't have those papers, you may or may not have that right if you're married or not, barring the law in that state allowing for "closest living relative" which marriage may make you.

If I wanted to, I could assign those rights to anyone on this board with the correct paperwork without involving a discussion of marriage. Marriage just sets up some defaults.

There are likely plenty of other examples - I'm sure one could google for them and find a ton, but I have yet to do that (although maybe I should).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Because if there are none (as some suggest) what keeps "room mates" from filing taxes as married, or other such loopholes.

What keeps a male/female roommate from doing that right now? They could run down to the courthouse and save a buck doing the same thing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think gays have the right to be married and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be removed from their ignorance pulpit.

yay for you!

common ground!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What keeps a male/female roommate from doing that right now? They could run down to the courthouse and save a buck doing the same thing.

The marriage may be cheap, but the divorce will be more expensive. Just the filing fees alone cost more than the marriage license in most places, right?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a lot of people on this board that will take an assumption and run like the wind with that assumption rather than asking about the context of the statement.

There are also a lot of people who have gone past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to borderline crazy comments. I'm guessing Quiksand or someone else less controversial might get a little more leeway than you (or perhaps even myself, assuming I have a reputation beyond 'the guy with the name like oral sex').

[DaddyTorgo]

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair? If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The marriage may be cheap, but the divorce will be more expensive. Just the filing fees alone cost more than the marriage license in most places, right?

Why the need for the divorce? Male/female roommates could 'get married' and live together for 5+ years and get all the benefits. When they go their separate ways, you can file for divorce for as little as a couple hundred dollars if there are no strings attached. The financial benefit would far outweigh the small cost of 'divorce'.

Point being, the argument about 'roommates' doesn't hold much water when male/female already can expose that loophole right now without issue.

[Sun Tzu]

I heard about this on the radio on the way to work today.

The Star Report: Melissa Etheridge reacts to Prop. 8 '” no more taxes


From Mercury News wire reports

Article Launched: 11/06/2008 04:50:52 PM PST


Melissa Etheridge probably should get some good tax advice, but you have to admire the brazenness of her logic on this one. She wrote a post on the blog the Daily Beast in reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage that essentially says, I'm gay, so I'm not paying taxes.

Etheridge declares that if she's not "allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. "... I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen."

"OK," she continues. "There is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California.

"Oh, and I am sure Ellen (DeGeneres) will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad."

The controversial constitutional amendment, which overturns a California Supreme Court decision that allowed for same-sex marriages, may retroactively invalidate the unions of thousands of couples, including the celeb ones, like DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, who tied the knot in August, and George Takei and Brad Altman, who married in September.

Etheridge ends her blog with a message for Prop. 8 supporters: "Gay people are born every day. You will never legislate that away."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

There are also a lot of people who have gone past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to borderline crazy comments. I'm guessing Quiksand or someone else less controversial might get a little more leeway than you (or perhaps even myself, assuming I have a reputation beyond 'the guy with the name like oral sex').

I'm a fan of oral sex, so you will receive full leeway from me.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this

Some good points.

[flere-imsaho]

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Some good points.

Agreed, and actually a good reason why marrying your roommate for tax purposes might not be such a great idea. Saving a few hundred bucks in taxes each year might not be so great if your roomie dies and you're stuck with all his debt.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

More egregious than the ability is the desire to do so. I can't imagine treating the partner of my child that way, regardless of my feelings about their relationship.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm making the assumption that everyone in this discussion is smart enough to figure that out, but maybe I'm making a mistake in that assumption.

You have it all wrong. The incorrect assumption you have is that we think you're smart enough to figure that out.

[DaddyTorgo]

lil piece from a CNN article that was talking about the Latinos in CA heavily voting YES on Prop 8.
The examples he gives of taking away rights are things that have happened to Latinos.

Once you start the process of taking away other peoples' fundamental rights -- like food and water in a jail cell, or the right to drive and listen to whatever music you like -- you must ask yourself where to draw the line, and who will draw it? What -- and whose -- rights will be next on the chopping block?

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

[SFL Cat]

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

We are talking about under the laws of this nation, not the laws of nature.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The ability of estranged parents to prevent a domestic partner from visiting the bedside of an incapacitated partner is particularly egregious, I've always felt.

Yeah, that's disgusting behavior.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So, why should infertile people be allowed to marry again?

Old peoples too. They ain't makin no babies.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.

Besides, married gay couples can just as easily use artificial insemination or surrogates when the time comes to have children. Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

Another reason to outlaw those practices, I suppose.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Subby

Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.

Besides, married gay couples can just as easily use artificial insemination or surrogates when the time comes to have children. Just like countless thousands of married hetero couples do.

Even using AI, a third party sperm or egg must be used, and in the case of males, a surrogate must be found to carry the child to term.

[heybrad]

Please explain what procreation has to do with marriage.

[Sun Tzu]

I can't believe someone here actually believes the entire purpose of marriage is to procreate. By that logic, then nobody who has intentions of having children should by law be allowed to marry. That's absolutely rediculous...in that case I feel sorry for your children, because they probably have to listen to that grovel and may actually believe it.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

gstelmack - just for starters a quick google found this

That's some very interesting information. It's too bad that other states don't at least reciprocate the "home" state's laws in situations like this.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

And why is that argument bullshit? Because it totally disproves your statement? My wife and I are married, but probably aren't going to have kids. Does that mean our marriage is some how less equal than a "fruitful" marriage?

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I wouldn't oppose civil legal protections for same-sex partners, but to try and make the argument that it is in every way equal to the traditional union between a man and woman is ludicrous.

Here's an interesting piece on this notion of "the 'traditional' union".

Marriage's lineage a bit convoluted

To opponents of same-sex marriage, it seems so simple. Let's just preserve marriage the way it has always been.


"OK,'' says feminist biblical scholar Mary Ann Tolbert. "What is that?''
The fact is from issues of divorce, race, religion and the role and rights of the partners, the concept of marriage has always been in play. And it continues to be today, including in this country.

Many would be surprised to know that as recently as 1967 in many states it was illegal for a mixed race couple to be granted a marriage license. An even bigger surprise, given current debate over same sex marriages, is that when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the "freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides in that individual.'' Note that Warren wrote "person,'' and refers to "persons'' -- not man or woman -- throughout the opinion.

So, when President Bush said yesterday that the country needed a constitutional amendment to beat back attempts to redefine marriage in this country, at least some legal experts suggested he was far too late. The institution of marriage has changed and morphed constantly through the years, and almost always to a hue and cry from those who worry about the structure of traditional marriage.

As the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in last year's ruling to allow same-sex marriage in that state, "alarms about the erosion of the 'natural order of marriage' were sounded over the demise of anti-miscegenation (mixed race marriage) laws, the expansion of rights of married women and the introduction of no-fault divorce.''

Or perhaps you would be safer going with the strict biblical definition. That gets a little tricky too.

"It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''

Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn't even become a sacrament of the church "until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.''

Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.

"Marriage is not a sin,'' says Paul in First Corinthians, "but it is better to be unmarried.''

"The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,'' says Tolbert. "But I just think a lot of people don't read it.''

Although same-sex marriage will be the subject of sermons and a source of debate in churches, the real battle as the president has framed it will be in the courts. His point, he says, is that "local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.''

If so, it won't be the first time.

The roles of the people in a civil union have changed dramatically over history, including the recent history of the United States. It begins in the 1700s and 1800s, when married woman actually lost many of their legal rights when they agreed to get married. After marriage, they were not allowed to own property, pay taxes or sign a contract. Any money women earned outside the home was to be turned over to their husbands.

"You go back to the early years of this country,'' says Joan Hollinger, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley specializing in child welfare and family law, "and you find that the wife became a kind of possession of the husband." It was not until the latter half of the 19th century, she said, that married women reacquired the rights they had when they were single.

As recently as 1920, the states of Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and New Mexico hadn't changed their laws.

A far greater change in marriage law came in 1948, when California was the first state to make it legal for a couple of mixed race to be married. It took another 19 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to make the same ruling. So until 1967, in many states, a couple of mixed race could not get a marriage license, and if they went to another state and were married, when they returned home they could be arrested.

"When I tell my students that was in 1967,'' said Hollinger, "they sort of gasp.''

And if you think the commotion over at City Hall is something, Hollinger says you should have been in the South when attempts were being made to overturn the anti-miscegenation laws.
"I hear Gov. Schwarzenegger talking about riots,'' she says. "I was in Mississippi in 1964. Compared to that, this is a lovefest.''

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Subby

Since when has procreation been part and parcel of marriage? That's a red herring, my friend.

To be fair, I actually decided to try to research what the origin of "marriage" was once all of these conversations came up. (since as I mentioned several times my suggestion for how I thought the government should get out of the "marriage' business all together and have civil unions for everyone. Then leaving marriages for people to do however they wanted - within a church, in front of an elvis presley impersonator, in a wiccan celebration or whatnot)...

Anyhows, there did seem to be some references to marriage early on in the Old Testament of the Bible, but the earliest references to "marriage" that I could find in my limited chance to do research had to do with a man purchasing a woman (or women) for the purpose of procreating and creating offspring. It evidently was more a legal contract than anything to do with love.

Of course those same laws or "codes" also supported multiple wives, slavery and to some extent treated a wife like a slave in some sense as marriage was the ownership of the wife.. So not sure that any of these are good examples to base modern civilization or culture upon

Anyways.. figured I would just throw all of this out there just to feel smart, or sound smart, or whatever.. not that it really has much of any impact on this conversation!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. The only reason to find a different name for gay marriage, such as civil union, is to communicate it’s inferiority to straight marriage.

Edit: Tekneek made the point before I could submit

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household. A civil union does the same thing, or should do the same thing.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Here's an interesting piece on this notion of "the 'traditional' union".

I wonder how many that voted yes on prop 8 were just ignorant of the history of marriage and civil rights issues in this nation, rather than outright bigots. Reminds me of how Palin thought the "Founding Fathers" wrote the Pledge of Allegiance (nevermind adding "God" to it!).

[lordscarlet]

My wife read this book and it has a lot information about how "marriage" has changed throughout the centuries.

Amazon.com: Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage: Stephanie Coontz: Books

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

No, this is not separate but equal at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government recognizes as two people uniting into a single household. A civil union does the same thing, or should do the same thing.

That is the very definition of separate but equal. If a marriage is purely religious, how does the government have anything to do with it?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Gay unions can never be equal to heterosexual unions for one reason, procreation - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about hetero couples who aren't able to conceive.

Joey Harrington is a Hall of Fame quarterback - and please don't try shoveling the bullshit about all his interceptions and inaccuracy.