POL: California Prop 8

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

This is one of the big problems with this topic. There aren't many (any?) analogies that work. In comparing rights of gay people and non-gay people, you cover pretty much the whole human population. Any analogy is going to have to involve non-humans which will seem offensive.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.

that being said, border collies? At least use oompa loompa's or something.

Thanks, and agreed. HORRIBLE example that I didn't think through how it could be taken.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That's perfectly fine. That's what this country is all about. Nobody is criticizing you for that. It's the whole "I'm not denying anyone any rights" claim that we're after. That's a false statement. You are denying people a right. Just accept it and move on.

I disagree that I am.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Given that then, why does it have to be called a marriage (as opposed to what it's called now for same sex couples, a domestic partnership) for that to matter?

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?

because the term "marriage" is a representation of the institution. "Domestic Partenership" just doesn't carry the same weight.

[Galaxy]

I just find it interesting that those for Prop 8 are fighting over a "word". Really, what is going to stop gays from calling themselves married (regardless of what type of union they have)?

[Alan T]

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Can't have a marriage without a vagina. That's what my dad always said.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

because the term "marriage" is a representation of the institution. "Domestic Partenership" just doesn't carry the same weight.

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I agree on the whole. I am Catholic, and my definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman in a church.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

In my ideal world this is what I see too, but for now, with marriage still a legal term, I am all for gay marriage.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I agree on the whole. I am Catholic, and my definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman in a church.

So, when I marry my girlfriend somewhere outside of a church, it's not marriage. Huh?

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?

Not at all. You should continue to believe from your religious persective that in the eyes of God, it's not a true marriage and it will be judged at the right time when we all stand in judgement (if you believe that). How the government or the state of california defines marriage has no bearing in that.

[larrymcg421]

What about churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

So then I should alter what I believe a marriage is because of the perceived weight of a word?

you can have whatever perception of it you like.

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.

I think to say it is just about a word is borderline insulting, it isn't about a word, but what that word represents. It represents being treated as equals with equal rights, including using the term marriage.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

So, when I marry my girlfriend somewhere outside of a church, it's not marriage. Huh?

"Officially" no.

For all other intents and purposes I would consider that marriage akin to my marriage akin to a same sex couple who had some sort of ceremony.

But make me say Yes/No on the topic, and the answer would officially be No with respect to what I believe a marriage to be.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Why do you think he's kidding?

Do you think that allowing gays to marry is all of a sudden going to cause everyone to turn guy and not have children?

Do you think that people say, "I would abort this child, but a couple of gay dudes might adopt it, so I'm going to keep it!"

That seems rather far fetched to me.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Not at all. You should continue to believe from your religious persective that in the eyes of God, it's not a true marriage and it will be judged at the right time when we all stand in judgement (if you believe that). How the government or the state of california defines marriage has no bearing in that.

Agreed.

And from my perspective, if No wins, then No wins. That's the way the cookie crumbles and it's not a big deal to me.

But by that same token, I'm not going to vote contrary to what I believe in this situation.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?

If it doesn't matter what it's called, then why not call same-sex unions a "marriage"?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.

My wife is Catholic and I am Protestant and we did not get married in the Catholic church (I have a laundry list of issues with the Catholic church that this is not the proper place to discuss). As far as I am aware, the Catholic church does not view my marriage as "blessed" either.

I personally could care less and it has not affected me once at all. It has perhaps affected my wife a little at times, but more so due to pressure from her family (who are all for the most part Spanish catholic). I actually don't understand why people let other people or groups that they do not agree with bother them with what they think.

Of course this goes back to my previous thought about why I don't think the government should even be involved in this type of thing (or numerous other things that they get involved in when not needed to as there are no rights to uphold or innocents to protect)

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you can have whatever perception of it you like.

But would you like it if someone told you that you werent really "married?" I know I wouldn't.

I think to say it is just about a word is borderline insulting, it isn't about a word, but what that word represents. It represents being treated as equals with equal rights, including using the term marriage.

If someone said that to me, I'd ask them "In what context?" Unless their answer was "In the eyes of the Church and God", frankly, I wouldn't give two shits.

I don't think it's about a word. My marriage, as you stated as well, goes beyond (well beyond) the civil liberties afforded me by being marriage. By that same token, my marriage goes beyond really anyone else's opinion of it. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. No one more, no one less. That isn't what we're voting on here today.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If it doesn't matter what it's called, then why not call same-sex unions a "marriage"?

If it doesn't matter what it's called, why does it have to be called a marriage?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

"Officially" no.

For all other intents and purposes I would consider that marriage akin to my marriage akin to a same sex couple who had some sort of ceremony.

But make me say Yes/No on the topic, and the answer would officially be No with respect to what I believe a marriage to be.

But the vote on Prop 8 is not a vote of what you believe marriage to be. It was a vote on whether you want to deprive other human beings the right to call what they have a marriage.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

... and what you believe a marriage to be should be law, then.

To be 100% honest, I'm more or less ambivalent. As I said, my marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. I will vote according to that definition. If it wins, it wins, if it doesn't, it doesn't (and for the record I dont' think it will)

This does raise an interesting point, as I type this, there is a gigantic banner ad promoting Yes On 8 and ProtectMarriage.com. I can't imagine that makes some folks here a touch unhappy.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

... and what you believe a marriage to be should be law, then.

I obviously would vote no on Prop 8 if I lived in California, but since I do not, it doesn't matter. I do think this post is unfair to jeheinz.. I don't think he has said what he believes should be absolute law. He says he feels he should vote as he believes and if more people feel the other way, then thats what happens. Not once does he seem to suggest that only his opinion matters here, he only is coming out and admitting to what he believes.

I also think this board has a far heavier liberal slant than conservative slant, so anyone who posts an opinion to the right of center seems to get ganged up on mercilessly. I applaud jeheinz for being willing to admit what he believes and what he voted and try to at least have some discussions about it in a civil tone. (disclaimer: I know there are some very ultra-conservative members of this board that have no problem bashing people with liberal ideas at times too but they seem smaller in numbers)

[Neon_Chaos]

dola

that anyone would go out of their way to constitutionally prevent someone else from having something that won't affect them in any way at all... that's just sad.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

But the vote on Prop 8 is not a vote of what you believe marriage to be. It was a vote on whether you want to deprive other human beings the right to call what they have a marriage.

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?

[Lathum]

To me it has nothing to do with civil rights. IT has to do with being able to call ones signifigent other their husband or wife, not their "partrner." The weight of those words carries far mor symbolic meaning.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Do you think that people say, "I would abort this child, but a couple of gay dudes might adopt it, so I'm going to keep it!"

That seems rather far fetched to me.

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that there are plenty of babies being born today, and they will be plenty born tomorrow, no matter the result of this.

In addition, the small amount of gay marriages would still be able to raise a family through adopting unwanted children.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by KWhit

You're just now figuring that out?

nah - more like still constantly amazed by it, and enjoy pointing it out

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I obviously would vote no on Prop 8 if I lived in California, but since I do not, it doesn't matter. I do think this post is unfair to jeheinz.. I don't think he has said what he believes should be absolute law. He says he feels he should vote as he believes and if more people feel the other way, then thats what happens. Not once does he seem to suggest that only his opinion matters here, he only is coming out and admitting to what he believes.

I also think this board has a far heavier liberal slant than conservative slant, so anyone who posts an opinion to the right of center seems to get ganged up on mercilessly. I applaud jeheinz for being willing to admit what he believes and what he voted and try to at least have some discussions about it in a civil tone. (disclaimer: I know there are some very ultra-conservative members of this board that have no problem bashing people with liberal ideas at times too but they seem smaller in numbers)

Thanks Alan.

And you've put my point correctly.

I'm voting how I believe.

The chips will fall where they may.

If more people think No than think Yes like I do, then the amendment shouldn't be done and life goes on.

But I'm not going to vote contrary to what I believe. If others don't share my beliefs then they should vote how they believe, and that's what it boils down to.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, isn't that what his vote is saying?

I know that I will never be supportive of anyone I know getting an abortion. On the other hand, I don't feel its my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

So you think that morally I should vote for a constitutional ban on abortion - because it's my belief that its wrong - even though I don't think I should be telling other people what to do?

My vote is saying my belief. If more people agree with me than don't, then our majority should be the law. Plain and simple democracy.

And as far as the morally catch-22 between what you belief conflicting with not telling people what to do, that's contrarian to the whole democratic process. That process gives us our voice to weigh in on issues. If you don't believe in abortion, you should vote for a ban on abortion.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, isn't that what his vote is saying?

I know that I will never be supportive of anyone I know getting an abortion. On the other hand, I don't feel its my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

So you think that morally I should vote for a constitutional ban on abortion - because it's my belief that its wrong - even though I don't think I should be telling other people what to do?

If you are directing that at me, then I don't understand why you are asking me this question. I feel mostly (but not exactly) the same way you do about abortion.. I think I would have a hard time ever choosing to have an abortion myself, but I would be supportive of anyone that i know if they felt they had to do that themselves, I would be there for them and try to help how I can.

I just think you are unfairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view. All he is saying is he believes X and wants to have his 1 in however many million people voice to say so regardless if that is the end decision. I do believe that is what a democracy is supposed to be even if we do or do not agree with other people's votes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I actually personally feel that we as a society are pushing things in the completely wrong direction with this and other similar issues. I actually think we should take "marriage" out of the government's hands all together. Many religious groups such as the Catholic Church I believe (I am not catholic but this is what I understand) don't recognize the marriage unless it was performed in the church anyways.

I think the government should be focused on making sure whatever rules or benefits that are given to domestic partnerships (whether married couples, common-law couples, gay couples, or whatever) apply to all domestic partnerships equally. This includes tax benefits, hospital rights (in having the right to dictate treatment in the case of incapacitation), or whatever else currently is involved.

I think you then allow people who want to have a marriage/wedding do so in whatever environment fits their religion/traditions/whatever.. In a church, a secular ceremony, an Elvis presley impersonator, or whatever. If a couple that was gay wanted a wedding ceremony, then fine they can do so in the tradition that best suits them.

Of course I probably haven't thought this all the way through, probably have just insulted everyone on both sides of the issue and probably have some glaring reason why this wouldn't work that I haven't seen.. but I just think the government is involved in too much as it is already.

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

for now, with marriage still a legal term, I am all for gay marriage.

These pretty much sum up where I'm at. Alan, you and I are in lock-step on this. Essentially all the legal documents/rulings/etc. need to be updated to say "for everything prior to this point, let the term marriage be = to the current term "domestic partnership. Moving forward, everything will be a domestic partnership in the eyes of the law." And then if people want to go off and get married in churches and agitate about gay people calling themselves married, that's fine, because at that point it's not about civil rights. As it stands right now, it is about civil rights.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

To me it has nothing to do with civil rights. IT has to do with being able to call ones signifigent other their husband or wife, not their "partrner." The weight of those words carries far mor symbolic meaning.

And I'm saying that realistically, that meaning is derived at least in my marriage by far more than the simple term I use to refer to my wife.

If a law passed saying all people in California named John had to stop calling their wife a wife and had to call them their partner, it wouldn't effect my marriage. My marriage and relationship with my wife goes well beyond that.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't think that's what he was saying. I think his point was that there are plenty of babies being born today, and they will be plenty born tomorrow, no matter the result of this.

In addition, the small amount of gay marriages would still be able to raise a family through adopting unwanted children.

You sure?

I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

Looks to me like that is exactly what he is saying.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

These pretty much sum up where I'm at. Alan, you and I are in lock-step on this. Essentially all the legal documents/rulings/etc. need to be updated to say "for everything prior to this point, let the term marriage be = to the current term "domestic partnership. Moving forward, everything will be a domestic partnership in the eyes of the law." And then if people want to go off and get married in churches and agitate about gay people calling themselves married, that's fine, because at that point it's not about civil rights. As it stands right now, it is about civil rights.

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The point I'm trying to make is centered around your use of the word "unfairly".

He has stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, in a church. That's fine. But I believe that there is a difference between that position and "The state should mandate that marriage is between a man and a woman, in a church." By voting yes, that becomes his position. His belief is that the government should use HIS definition when defining marriage. I have some beliefs that I hold dearly, that I don't want the state to force upon other people.

Honestly, I don't see what was unfair about my post. That is his position. I think I am quite fairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view.

I guess I just look at it like it wasn't my choice that this proposition was on my ballot today, but it was, so through voting I voiced my belief. Given the alternative of not voting at all or voting contrary to what I believe it is a decision that I believe to be correct.

If people don't want the state mandating such a thing, then they should take issue with what the state does and doesn't have the ability to define.

[Samdari]

I don't know where the idea is coming from that marriage necesarily means tax breaks.

I know that when I got married, with my wife and I both working, we paid extra taxes vs both working and just living together. The standard deduction is far less for married filing jointly than for two individuals filing and each taking their standard deduction. Plus, adding our incomes together put us into a higher tax bracket than each of us would have been on our own.

I realize that with only one partner earning income, you pay less taxes being married. But, I would imagine many gay couples, who now both work and file individual tax returns, are not going to like being married very much.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?

To quote what Proposition 8 is:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Ok, you don't believe that what they have is a marriage. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But Proposition 8 is not a direct question as to what your beliefs towards marriage are. It's a direct question as to whether homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals have.

You voted to deny a fellow human being a right that you currently enjoy.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Honestly, I don't see what was unfair about my post. That is his position. I think I am quite fairly making him out to be trying to say he knows right and wants to force everyone on that view.

I guess if that is what you are saying, then I am also guilty of saying I know what is right for everyone and am forcing that upon people with my votes too. I just don't view the system in that light is all. I think ideally the system should be everyone voices their thoughts and then the choice that most of the people prefer is what is used. (Yes yes I know in a representative democracy, that things aren't that simple). I think there is a difference between voicing your opinion and forcing your opinion onto others.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick.

Hey at least you all have a QB right now.

Man at the beginning of the year - I was like "Favre? LOL!" Now i'm like "Man can we kidnap Favre?" blankity-blanking Cassel blankity-blanking McDaniels conservative offense.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I guess if that is what you are saying, then I am also guilty of saying I know what is right for everyone and am forcing that upon people with my votes too. I just don't view the system in that light is all. I think ideally the system should be everyone voices their thoughts and then the choice that most of the people prefer is what is used.

Things can't, and shouldn't, work that way all the time. There are certain instances where everyone's rights, minorities included, need to be protected.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

But if I don't believe that to be a marriage, then why should I be expected to vote any differently?

Because it might occur to you that other people are allowed to have beliefs that differ from yours and its not up to the government to endorse one over the other. What the government endorses doesn't change your beliefs.

[DaddyTorgo]

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

To quote what Proposition 8 is:



Ok, you don't believe that what they have is a marriage. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But Proposition 8 is not a direct question as to what your beliefs towards marriage are. It's a direct question as to whether homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals have.

You voted to deny a fellow human being a right that you currently enjoy.

Originally Posted by heybrad

Because it might occur to you that other people are allowed to have beliefs that differ from yours and its not up to the government to endorse one over the other. What the government endorses doesn't change your beliefs.

But again, given my options

- Vote Yes, which is in line with what I believe a marriage to be
- Vote No, which contradicts what I believe a marriage to be
- Not vote on that Proposition at all, which contradicts what I think Americans should do in general (I have no sorrow for those that don't vote, if eligible, and I think more people should be eligible to vote)

I agree, it's likely not up to the government to define marriage. As I've said, my marriage as I constitute it, has nothing to do with the government. BUT, some people somewhere wanted it on my ballot, so I voiced my opinion.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Man, all this agreeing with Pats fans is makin' me sick.

If it makes you feel any better, you're still in disagreement with a Dolphins fan.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

If you don't believe in abortion, you should vote for a ban on abortion.

There are LOTS and LOTS of pro-choice people who would never even consider an abortion (my wife being one of them). But just because she would never have an abortion doesn't mean that she feels that viewpoint should be forced on others who would make a different choice.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

Thanks DT!

If people want to bash me, that's fine. I don't all that much care, truth be told. I have my opinion, they have theirs, which is fine too.

My best friend voted No, he knows I've voted Yes. We both know why the other is voting the way they are. That's that. Different views coming from different beliefs.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

all that being said though - kudos to jeheinz for expressing his views confidently and intelligently.

doesn't mean that i think that they are right or anything, but at least he had the courage to express them and stand up for them and defend them. and that alone should earn him a reprieve from any bashing that goes on here (otherwise i'd prolly be first or 2nd in line)

Intelligently? It's pretty clear that jeheinz doesn't understand the spirit of Proposition 8. It's not about marriage or lack thereof. It's a vote for discrimination.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

But again, given my options

- Vote Yes, which is in line with what I believe a marriage to be
- Vote No, which contradicts what I believe a marriage to be
- Not vote on that Proposition at all, which contradicts what I think Americans should do in general (I have no sorrow for those that don't vote, if eligible, and I think more people should be eligible to vote)

I agree, it's likely not up to the government to define marriage. As I've said, my marriage as I constitute it, has nothing to do with the government. BUT, some people somewhere wanted it on my ballot, so I voiced my opinion.

This is where I think you're incorrect. Here are the options as I see them:

Vote Yes: Agree that its ok for the government to deny rights based on my religious beliefs
Vote No: Understand that, even though I may not believe that marriage is acceptable between a gay couple in the eyes of God, we're talking about the state here and people are entitled to the same right based on their belief

The question I see prop 8 asking from a higher level, is do you think its ok to enact laws and deny rights based on one belief system on a government level.