California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
No I haven't. I doubt my gay friends would get married anytime soon! They are quite enjoying the single life... :) I really do support gay marriages. If I were gay, I'd want to be married just like the straight couples (minus churches since it's not my thing). But I'm also realistic. I have great insurance and I want my partner to be able to have my benefits. I want us to be able to adopt. I want us to be recognized as a married couple. I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital during "family only" times. Weddings or the word that describes what we have (marriage or whatever) would not be my number 1 priority. To me, the legal aspect is more important. I don't give a jack squat if people socially accept my marriage/civil union or not, as long I have my rights.

But that's the whole point, civil unions don't give you those rights. And even in states where they come close (at the state level, at least), there is a certain level of understanding that is conferred to a marriage and not a civil union. If your partner were in the hospital, and you walked in and said "We're married." You would automatically be allowed in and given power of attorney, no questions asked. Even couples with civil unions aren't given those rights because the hospital staff doesn't know what to do with them (see my posts about how civil unions were invented about 8-9 years ago). First of all, it's not taken as a given. You will legally be kept out of the room unless you carry your paperwork around with you. Have you ever seen someone say they were married and then have to present their marriage certificate? A civil union will get you nowhere unless you actually carry it around as proof. Same with power of attorney.

I read an article for a presentation I gave last year about a woman whose partner died in the hospital after being trapped in their house while it flooded. All of their paperwork was destroyed in the flood, and she spent hours being denied entry to the room until she could finally contact her partner's family and have them grant her access. The hospital staff wouldn't let her in because, legally, they had no proof that she should have been allowed. And in this situation, her partner's family accepted her and their relationship. That's not always the case.

In a more ideal world, sure, maybe civil unions and marriages could be the same (even though they would still be separating an entire group of people for no reason). But even if on paper you made everything equal, the way that society perceives them won't be.
 
I read an article for a presentation I gave last year about a woman whose partner died in the hospital after being trapped in their house while it flooded. All of their paperwork was destroyed in the flood, and she spent hours being denied entry to the room until she could finally contact her partner's family and have them grant her access. The hospital staff wouldn't let her in because, legally, they had no proof that she should have been allowed. And in this situation, her partner's family accepted her and their relationship. That's not always the case.

I remember that story as well. It happend in Seattle. The woman that drowned was a well known author.
 
No I haven't. I doubt my gay friends would get married anytime soon! They are quite enjoying the single life... :) I really do support gay marriages. If I were gay, I'd want to be married just like the straight couples (minus churches since it's not my thing). But I'm also realistic. I have great insurance and I want my partner to be able to have my benefits. I want us to be able to adopt. I want us to be recognized as a married couple. I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital during "family only" times. Weddings or the word that describes what we have (marriage or whatever) would not be my number 1 priority. To me, the legal aspect is more important. I don't give a jack squat if people socially accept my marriage/civil union or not, as long I have my rights.

I'm assuming that these friends live in Alabama?

Isfoster's post saids it all.
 
:topic: It's actually "L" as in "Lsfoster", for Leigh. :)

Okay, back to the real conversation. :gossip:
 
If the gay movement is clamoring for equality for all things in life, a properly written legal proposal (some of you say past proposals "almost" get it) will give it that: a civil union. I fail to comprehend the rioting in the streets ver the "marriage" word.

I do not want any degradation of the traditional definition of marriage. If the movement succeeds, then it would be a transgression of my definition. MY MARRIAGE CONTRACT SAYS THAT I AM WEDDED AND BOUND BY THE HOLY BONDS OF.....", the simplest basis in contract law. The contract that I and my wife signed would no longer be recognizable. Arguments about the divorce rate is nothing more than a smoke screen and is not applicable.

Please do not invalidate my marriage as I knew it the day we signed it. I do not have a problem with a well written civil union proposal. I have much more to say about this hot button issue and I recognize that, no matter what opinion I have, there are always others who will throw the arguments back in my face; no matter the issue, it is always the same: to attack, be sarcastic, to denigrate. If you know me at all, it is the rare occasion that that becomes so important that being silent is not acceptable.
 
If the gay movement is clamoring for equality for all things in life, a properly written legal proposal (some of you say past proposals "almost" get it) will give it that: a civil union. I fail to comprehend the rioting in the streets ver the "marriage" word.

I do not want any degradation of the traditional definition of marriage. If the movement succeeds, then it would be a transgression of my definition. MY MARRIAGE CONTRACT SAYS THAT I AM WEDDED AND BOUND BY THE HOLY BONDS OF.....", the simplest basis in contract law. The contract that I and my wife signed would no longer be recognizable. Arguments about the divorce rate is nothing more than a smoke screen and is not applicable.

Please do not invalidate my marriage as I knew it the day we signed it. I do not have a problem with a well written civil union proposal. I have much more to say about this hot button issue and I recognize that, no matter what opinion I have, there are always others who will throw the arguments back in my face; no matter the issue, it is always the same: to attack, be sarcastic, to denigrate. If you know me at all, it is the rare occasion that that becomes so important that being silent is not acceptable.

You fail to comprehend that their right to marry was taken away from them?!
 
You fail to comprehend that their right to marry was taken away from them?!


No, I did not! You are too blind with rage and as long as you stay in that channel, we will not have civil discourse.
 
Democratic leaders file brief against Prop. 8Sacramento Business Journal - by Kathy Robertson Staff writer
Proposition 8 passes, heads back to court [11/05/2008]

More than 40 state legislators filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday to support legal efforts to void Proposition 8, the ballot initiative approved by voters Nov. 6 that bans gay marriage.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, incoming Senate President Darrell Steinberg and Speaker Emeritus Fabian Nunez are among top state Democrats to sign the brief. It claims the measure should be invalidated because it did not follow proper procedures for changing the state constitution.

“The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities,” the group said in a prepared statement.

The group urged the high court to prevent the “momentary passions of a bare majority from compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law.” A change of this magnitude should require a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature, they said.

The brief supports a petition filed in California Supreme Court last week by six same-sex couples who are seeking to preserve their right to marry by halting enforcement of Prop. 8.

Democratic leaders file brief against Prop. 8 - Sacramento Business Journal:
 
Then why say what you say? :)

Seems pretty simple to me as to why; maybe you should re-read what I said. Funny how those who oppose this see only the idea that marriage is being denied to a class of citizens..participated in by people who otherwise get along just fine. I see an infringement of a sacred civil right of mine and another group wants to trample upon it when they can make their own because to allow it destroys and would become something I didn't sign up for. I think this whole issue takes root in the word, "diversity", something I do not necessarily embrace at certain junctures in life and, for me, there are not many of those because I take care not to judge. This issue is one such that I cannot be silent about. Look, I didn't have to come forward here, right?
 
Why is everyone so upset? Allowing gay marriage does not require everyone else to be gay. How does it hurt anyone?
 
Yes, thank you, California for making me lose a little more faith in this country. (Although we at least got the election right).
Some of the same voters who elected Obama in California voted to pass Prop 8. Ironic, isn't it? :)
 
Seems pretty simple to me as to why; maybe you should re-read what I said. Funny how those who oppose this see only the idea that marriage is being denied to a class of citizens..participated in by people who otherwise get along just fine. I see an infringement of a sacred civil right of mine and another group wants to trample upon it when they can make their own because to allow it destroys and would become something I didn't sign up for. I think this whole issue takes root in the word, "diversity", something I do not necessarily embrace at certain junctures in life and, for me, there are not many of those because I take care not to judge. This issue is one such that I cannot be silent about. Look, I didn't have to come forward here, right?

No you didn't have to come forward here. I understand where you are coming from--loud and clear.

But understand where I am coming from....

Is it really fair for me to announce to the ER doctor's and nurse's that "so-and-so" is my other half and have to produce proof whereas a husband and wife go into the ER and state their relationship without question?

Believe it or not--in this state, Washington, same-sex people have "domestic partnership" status which is supposedly equal to a marraige certificate and yet.....same-sex couples still have to produce their "Domestic Partnership" card to show proof that they are indeed a couple

By the way--that really happend to me when I told the ER docotr (because of my back) that "so-and-so" is my other half. They denied his right to visit me in the ER.

Even after producing the "Domestic partnership" card, the doctor still question our relationship. It was not until I told the doctor that he "was fired" and got another ER doctor that didn't question our relationship status.

Why is everyone so upset? Allowing gay marriage does not require everyone else to be gay. How does it hurt anyone?

Exactly.

Some of the same voters who elected Obama in California voted to pass Prop 8. Ironic, isn't it? :)

Actually it is interesting especially when they broke down who the voters were. A majority of African Americans vote for Proposition 8 which makes sense as it's known that African Americans attend church on weekly basis and have an on-going love/hate relationship with the GLBT community due to socio-economics.
 
Why is everyone so upset? Allowing gay marriage does not require everyone else to be gay. How does it hurt anyone?

Botti, maybe you posted this before reading what I said. I answered your question very clearly; it would be an infringement on the contract I signed when we got married.

Byrdie, I have things to do but will get back to you and to say, "yes, I understand you" will need to suffice until I return.
 
If the gay movement is clamoring for equality for all things in life, a properly written legal proposal (some of you say past proposals "almost" get it) will give it that: a civil union. I fail to comprehend the rioting in the streets ver the "marriage" word.

I do not want any degradation of the traditional definition of marriage. If the movement succeeds, then it would be a transgression of my definition. MY MARRIAGE CONTRACT SAYS THAT I AM WEDDED AND BOUND BY THE HOLY BONDS OF.....", the simplest basis in contract law. The contract that I and my wife signed would no longer be recognizable. Arguments about the divorce rate is nothing more than a smoke screen and is not applicable.

Please do not invalidate my marriage as I knew it the day we signed it. I do not have a problem with a well written civil union proposal. I have much more to say about this hot button issue and I recognize that, no matter what opinion I have, there are always others who will throw the arguments back in my face; no matter the issue, it is always the same: to attack, be sarcastic, to denigrate. If you know me at all, it is the rare occasion that that becomes so important that being silent is not acceptable.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Okay, seriously? The "traditional definition of marriage"? What would that be, exactly?

Here's a pretty old one.
Chapter V. The Women of Athens. Athenian Marriage Rites.
Was your wedding like that? Because if not, I think it might fly in the face of the traditional wedding.

Or maybe we should go back to Rome?
Catullus and His Wedding Songs
Seems like your marriage contract isn't much more than a facade, in that case.

Or let's just stay in America, up through the 20's a 12 year old could still get married. Is that our traditional definition of marriage? Because, actually, the original "traditional" definition in this country might ruin your marriage. Did you have a ceremony performed by a religious figure? Or was it held anywhere other than in a civil building? Hate to tell you this, but according to marriage as it was when our country was founded, your marriage isn't valid at all.

I'll find more, if you want, but you might want to be more specific about this "traditional" definition of marriage. Do you really mean "your personal definition"? Because that's a whole different story, and sadly I don't think you have a copyright on the word.

I'm pretty sure that atheists are still allowed to get married, so you can't be focusing in on the "holy bonds" part. Plus I happen to be Christian, so the holy part fits just right for me. How exactly would your marriage contract be invalidated if I married my girlfriend?

I promise I won't throw your arguments back in your face if you can actually explain them in a logical way.
 
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Okay, seriously? The "traditional definition of marriage"? What would that be, exactly?

Here's a pretty old one.
Chapter V. The Women of Athens. Athenian Marriage Rites.
Was your wedding like that? Because if not, I think it might fly in the face of the traditional wedding.

Or maybe we should go back to Rome?
Catullus and His Wedding Songs
Seems like your marriage contract isn't much more than a facade, in that case.

Or let's just stay in America, up through the 20's a 12 year old could still get married. Is that our traditional definition of marriage? Because, actually, the original "traditional" definition in this country might ruin your marriage. Did you have a ceremony performed by a religious figure? Or was it held anywhere other than in a civil building? Hate to tell you this, but according to marriage as it was when our country was founded, your marriage isn't valid at all.

I'll find more, if you want, but you might want to be more specific about this "traditional" definition of marriage. Do you really mean "your personal definition"? Because that's a whole different story, and sadly I don't think you have a copyright on the word.

I'm pretty sure that atheists are still allowed to get married, so you can't be focusing in on the "holy bonds" part. Plus I happen to be Christian, so the holy part fits just right for me. How exactly would your marriage contract be invalidated if I married my girlfriend?

I promise I won't throw your arguments back in your face if you can actually explain them in a logical way.

You are bordering on being placed on Ignore. One man, one woman. Clear enough?
 
You are bordering on being placed on Ignore. One man, one woman. Clear enough?

No need to get upset, I'm just asking. No, it's not clear at all. If your marriage says that "[name] and [name] are wedded and bound by the holy bonds of..." how does that contract fall apart with different names in it?

You also didn't answer any of the questions I asked, so all of those issues are still not clear to me either.
 
Botti, maybe you posted this before reading what I said. I answered your question very clearly; it would be an infringement on the contract I signed when we got married.

Byrdie, I have things to do but will get back to you and to say, "yes, I understand you" will need to suffice until I return.

How does "my marriage" infringe on your marriage?
 
You are bordering on being placed on Ignore. One man, one woman. Clear enough?

*smh*

I am disappointed in you Tousi. I thought you were more intelligent than that, but I guess I was wrong.

That is an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. :roll:

*smh*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top