California Prop. 8-- Gay Marriage

[MyrddinsPrecint]

For a long time, polling was looking so good on prop 8 that people weren't that worried about it. A lot of local work was going on, but it wasn't getting a lot of national attention

Well, the polls aren't looking great. And Since I'm nowhere near California, and don't have much money, I'm talking to you.

What are we talking about again?

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

Now, lots of conversations here have shown that we all pretty much agree that government should be taken out of the "marriage" business, and that governments should give civil unions to any two consenting adults, as a package of civil rights and tax incentives or disincentives as it chooses--- easy inheritance of property, being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital, health insurance, etc... And then churches should be able to bestow marriages using whatever criteria they see fit. Most of us agree that these two things should be entirely separate, rather than entwined and emeshed as they currently are.

But that's not the question we've got. It's not short answer, it's not fill in. There are two choices-- yes, or no.

By your religion, gay people very well may be going to hell. Sure. Whatever. Lots of straight people are going to hell too, and they still get to visit the people they love in the hospital. They don't have to worry about whether or not their will will be carried out without extra provisions. Straight sinful people get married, and many of these right are just given. Gay people, without marriage, have to fight and pay for each one individually, and it adds up. It's about human rights. And humans have the right to make bad decisions, as long as their not hurting other people. And this is one of those circumstances.

I've never lived in California, but from what I've heard, the proposition system is out of control, and lots of people either don't even bother, or get confused. Please, if you're from California, vote on this issue. Read it carefully. Vote "no". If you're not, call or email a friend. If it means something to you, consider a contribution. Brad Pitt did : )....

[Purple Fencer]

I'm voting this one down....bigotry and hatred should not be codified.

Frankly, we all have MUCH more important things to do than worrying about gays intruding into the rights of straights to f### up the institutionn of marriage.

[JackOfHearts]

Agreed. The government has no place deciding who should, or should not, marry. In this instance, the question isn't being brought before the "government" per se, but the people. So I guess this will show the true face of Californians.

I was actually faced with this at work the other day, working the return counter. There was a couple there who were trying to set up a wedding registry. Apparently they set it up under partner but were looking under bride or groom, hence the trouble finding their registry. Yet they were really apprehensive about asking for help. Congratulating them did a lot to relieve the tension, and they informed me a lot of their friends were rushing to get hitched to beat out the vote. Not much confidence that the measure will get defeated, it seems.

Hm, a commercial just came on supporting the proposition. This little girl brings home a story book entitled "King & King" and tells her mother about her teacher saying "A boy can marry a boy and I can marry another girl". I don't know about anyone else, but I don't recall being taught anything about marriage in school, let alone have a teacher tell me who I can marry. Perhaps that's the case in the more well off neighborhoods. Regardless of what the teacher is saying, it's up to the parents, first and foremost, to inform their children about such an important rite. Granted, such discussions can and will come up in school, and the teacher has to say something. So are we to tell our children they can marry whoever they wish (reasons are a whole other discussion, but let's just hope its for love), or that they can only choose their partner according to state mandated guidelines? Guidelines which have the potential to become increasingly narrow if this sets a precedent.

[I_luv_saber]

I've always said I prefer civil unions for all, marriages nothing more than a religious ceremony.

BUT, if someone comes up to me and says, "Nope... one or the other. Either gays get the right to marry, or they get no rights whatsoever"... then the former most definitely, without hesitation, is my choice.

I'll be voting no.

(And personally, I don't think it'll pass anyways....).

[Gav]

Not another Gay Marriage thread... <rolls eyes>

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Not another Gay Marriage thread... <rolls eyes>

How many threads are there right now--- active threads--- about Sarah Palin?

As far as I can tell there are 12 propositions on the California Ballot. That means that after voting for president and congress and school board and whatever else is being elected in this cycle, California Voters have the option on 12 separate complicated issues, and some people have been confused on this one.

If this was an opinion thread, sure, it's not necessary. But it contains new information about how to preserve human rights.


if they can take away a gay person's right to marry, can't they take away a straight person's right to marry?

If they can take away the right to marriage for gay people, can't they take away other rights?

You can't go into the search function and find this information. And you sitting on your ass across the pond isn't going to help me guarantee that I'll be able to marry whoever I want.

You're just trolling. For shame.

[the ancient one]

The voters guidebook in my county is only ~20 pages this time. That is way down from many 100+ page books I have received in the past.

I saved the Gray Davis recall election booklet that put the Terminator in power.
It has 135 candidates for Governor. Maybe later I will donate it to a museum.

[Sean Butler]

It's about human rights....

Hmm, is it? Does everyone have a right to marry anyone they choose? Could siblings marry? Could someone already married get married again?

The answer is that we can marry whomever we like but the government does not have to recognize that marriage within its laws. That the government chooses carefully whom can be married is then a statement about the morality of certain marriages.

Would you be opposed to a sister marrying her brother? Even if you aren't, you probably understand why such marriages are against the natural order of things. Further the question is not whether the two can claim they are married, live like they are married, and so on. It's about whether the government has to recognize it, and whether these siblings can claim a right for that government to recognize it. Since there is no such right, they simply can't claim it. The same holds true for same-sex marriages. Until some law has given them the right, they simply don't posess it, since, they have no natural, fundamental human right on which to base that claim. Such rights are given by law, not by nature. Having a government recognize a union is not an "unalienable" right. Allowing that union is another story and should not be confused with the former.

My point is that this is often held to be a case about human rights violations, and the reality is that it's simply a moral decision which we as a people must make.

[tchwojko]

Hmm, is it? Does everyone have a right to marry anyone they choose? Could siblings marry? Could someone already married get married again?

There are already explicit laws that our society has already agreed upon regarding incest and bigamy.

The proposition in question makes an explicit statement regarding same-sex marriages.

The word "marriage" in legal context is a shorthand word encompassing a whole set of laws, rights and responsibilities, that have been agreed upon (I think, not being a lawyer).

The word "marriage" morally is a shorthand word encompassing a whole set of morals and ethics that many define differently. (Some say it's possible to become divorced, others say, nope, for example.)

While everyone free to individually decide whether people are married in the spiritual/moral sense, why explicitly prevent a distinct group of people from getting the same reasonable set of legal rights and responsibilities? What's the point? I can't think of a single way same-sex marriage affects my heterosexual marriage in any way whatsoever. What problem does such a law solve? Are proponents of restrictions looking for a legal way of keeping you from giving into something tempting them?

Conversely, explicitly allowing same-sex marriages is a huge help in deciding legal issues regarding visitation, property rights, health care, legal decision making, etc.

Don't we have better things to worry about than preventing a committed couple gets to see each other in the hospital? Or share insurance?

[Inquartata]

...government should be taken out of the "marriage" business, and that governments should give civil unions to any two consenting adults as a package of civil rights and tax incentives or disincentives

You do realize that those two statements are inconsistent, do you not?

if they can take away a gay person's right to marry, can't they take away a straight person's right to marry?

The state has already arrogated that right to itself. It's implicit in the whole licensing concept...

If they can take away the right to marriage for gay people, can't they take away other rights?

Um...yes?

Your point?

[keith]

My point is that this is often held to be a case about human rights violations, and the reality is that it's simply a moral decision which we as a people must make.

Is there a meaningful difference between moral decisions and rights?

Some might suggest that the later flows from the former.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

First off, Inq--- the idea as espoused by many in many previous threads is that "marriage"- the cultural and often religious bits of "to have and to hold, sickness health, forever and ever" stuff should be in the hands of religious groups, and that tax policy/legal rights/etc ought to be a "civil union", and administrered by the government to any two consenting adults that want it, that may or may not have any romantic/sexual implication. I realize that the current usage of "marriage" refers to both, I don't think it should.

To make this more clear for Sean, since he hasn't been around for this particular thread as most of us have--- the oft agreed upon thing is that the cultural/religious idea of "marriage" means a lot of different things to a lot of different groups. Some groups are pretty lax about the whole thing. Other groups, like the Catholics, have much more strict rules. There's already a discrepancy that leads to at least some confusion-- the Episcopal church will often marry people who can't have state marriages, the Catholic church will refuse to marry two people who already have state marriages sometimes. By separating the two, many religious people who support this believe that then the word "marriage" can actually mean something significant again.

When states take away the right to marry, I worry that states may take away other rights of gays, like the right to allow your partner to inherit. Or breathe. Or take away the rights of straights, like remarriage. Some of these are much more likely than others. Most of them aren't that likely right now.


I agree that based on what your religious and moral beliefs are, certain sexual practices may be immoral, and having religious and moral communities advocating certain values is good. But the branding on "marriage" that the state has tried to offer is so muddled and useless that I don't believe it's currently working for anyone--- It's not working for gay people who usually can't get one, it's not working for half of all marriages at all, it's not working for the particularly religious who feel that the half that got divorced are ruining the concept. If half of all Oreos were crappy, the government and the market wouldn't be trying to save the other half of Oreos, they would be scrapping it to try something new.

[Philistine]

What, no mention of the Connnecticut Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage?

My guess is the timing wasn't really the best for opponents for Prop. 8.

--Philistine

[Sean Butler]

Is there a meaningful difference between moral decisions and rights?

Some might suggest that the later flows from the former.

Human rights flow from moral decisions? Quite the contrary. Human rights are those which every human has and are inalienable. They can neither be granted nor revoked by any person, not even the person whose rights are in question.

Were I to say, you have the right to decapitate me, you would not have that right, for though I might have abrogated it by voice, it does not grant the right for you to take it. That is because life is one of those human rights which can never be lost and have justice be done.

On the other hand, the decision you make whether to decapitate me or not, is independent of my right to life. You must either conform your will to what is just and not perform the deed, or choose to follow through with the injustice.

[Philistine]

{snip} That is because life is one of those human rights which can never be lost and have justice be done.
{snip}

So, you're against capital punishment, then?

Do you consider "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" inalienable rights?

If so, are you also against prison?

--Philistine

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The United Nations Universal Declaraton of human rights lists marriage as a human right. They don't speak to sexuality, but they certainly do leave the door open on that one.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

[Inquartata]

When states take away the right to marry, I worry that states may take away other rights of gays, like the right to allow your partner to inherit.

I think there are two flaws to your reasoning there.

1) The state can hardly take away a right that does not exist, and marriage for gays is something which is only just now emerging into the status of "right". IOW, it does not yet exist.

2) It has not been demonstrated that it is a "right" for anyone. Like everything else the state licenses, it is rather a privilege than a true right. The fact that it is a privilege which is granted almost as a matter of course does not change its basic status.

Or breathe. Or take away the rights of straights, like remarriage. Some of these are much more likely than others. Most of them aren't that likely right now.

This is slippery-slope reasoning. Absent real evidence that the slide to the mentioned other consequences is inevitable, or at least probable, it isn't a convincing rationale for me...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I've never lived in California, but from what I've heard, the proposition system is out of control, and lots of people either don't even bother, or get confused. Please, if you're from California, vote on this issue. Read it carefully. Vote "no". If you're not, call or email a friend. If it means something to you, consider a contribution. Brad Pitt did : )....

As someone with Californian heritage and who has voted in its elections once, this caught my interest. It is too late for me to get registered this time around, and it would cause anger between my mom and aunt anyway - did so last time. So no voting from me, either way.

This is how I take your threadstart: You demand that someone who is more affected by a political decision than you should vote according to your wish. Yet, you do not offer anything in return. That might be simple forgetful mistake on your part, but the omission really stood out to me.

If someone who is in favor of your opinion sees this, then that might not matter so much. However, if the polling numbers are so bad as you imply, then you should be wanting to get votes from those who are presently undecided on the matter, or leaning against (your preference) but still winnable.

Why should those people comply with your wish, when you do not explicitly offer them anything in return? Let me be more specific: what elections are going on this cycle in your jurisdiction that you are not already dead set upon how you will vote? Which election, in which you have a vote and you can live with voting either way, are you offering to vote according to their preferences in return? If you are not willing to do something for someone else, I have a hard time seeing why someone should vote against their preferences for your sake.

Back in 1988, a county in Sweden held a special vote among its citizens on the topic of whether refugees should be accepted within the county (The county really had the power on that issue, believe it or not). The national refugee placement organization (a politally appointed organization) had asked the county to take a share of all the refugees coming to Sweden, and this county was expected to answer in the affirmative as did all other asked counties. All other counties had made the decision at the town hall level. This county had the gall to actually ask its citizens, and national media went berserk. They tried to shame the locals (some 20000 or so) into voting according to what the national papers demanded of them. Yes, demanded of them. National media put up local centers to monitor the county and how the campaign was going. This backfired big time, and the anti-refugee platform won by a huge margin. The county major was then promptly kicked out of his national party.

Something to mull about when chosing to word a wish as either a demand or a pleading. Your call to do.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[MyrddinsPrecint]

If someone who is in favor of your opinion sees this, then that might not matter so much. However, if the polling numbers are so bad as you imply, then you should be wanting to get votes from those who are presently undecided on the matter, or leaning against (your preference) but still winnable.

That's not my goal.

In this particular election, based on the way Californian voting happens on propositions compared to much of the rest of the country.....

My goal was primarily to remind California voters who are already for gay rights that their vote matters, and that they might want to mention it to their friends and families. Many don't vote on propositions at all, or know people who don't. People on this board from California know more Californians than I do, and are thus in a better position to advocate against this than I am. Other people here also possibly have money, or know people who have money and might be interested in this cause, especially if they knew the polls were down for the first time.


It would be great if I could convince a few people not on my side, but it's not my primary goal.

[Hauptman]

Hmm, is it? Does everyone have a right to marry anyone they choose? Could siblings marry? Could someone already married get married again?

The answer is that we can marry whomever we like but the government does not have to recognize that marriage within its laws. That the government chooses carefully whom can be married is then a statement about the morality of certain marriages.

Would you be opposed to a sister marrying her brother? Even if you aren't, you probably understand why such marriages are against the natural order of things. Further the question is not whether the two can claim they are married, live like they are married, and so on. It's about whether the government has to recognize it, and whether these siblings can claim a right for that government to recognize it. Since there is no such right, they simply can't claim it. The same holds true for same-sex marriages. Until some law has given them the right, they simply don't posess it, since, they have no natural, fundamental human right on which to base that claim. Such rights are given by law, not by nature. Having a government recognize a union is not an "unalienable" right. Allowing that union is another story and should not be confused with the former.

My point is that this is often held to be a case about human rights violations, and the reality is that it's simply a moral decision which we as a people must make.

I would state that morality has no place in government (all obvious jokes aside!).

Morality is a constant changing landscape varying over time and geography, but rights are something that should not change so easily. It is very libertarian viewpoint where really law should only be implemented to prevent one person's freedom from violating someone else's rights. Otherwise gov't should stay out of our lives, and there should be no such thing as a victimless crime.

Obviously, murder can be seen as immoral, but it can just as easily be seen as violating someone's rights. The claim by heterosexuals that gay marriage will somehow effect them is just plain wrong; there is no violation of heterosexual rights by giving homosexual's their freedom.

This ridiculous argument that keeping marriage for heterosexuals only somehow "protects" marriage is completely repudiated by the fact that divorce rates and teenage pregnancy rates are highest in the most conservative, bible-belt, parts of this country.