The California State Supreme Court listened to arguments today to determine if Proposition 8 was a legal amendment to the State Constitution or if it was a major revision. They are also considering the fate of the approximately 18,000 people that got married while gay marriage was legal in California. The lawyers in support of Proposition 8 are arguing that these families should be treated differently under the law and that their marriages should be legally voided.
Whatever the courts and lawyers argue the issue is to me a religious issue. If your religion doesn't want to acknowledge love between two men or two women as essentially the same, then so be it. To my friends that were married before Proposition 8 passed you should know that the power that validates your love isn't a court of law. The power is your friends, your family, and from a much higher power.
In these of all times it is wrong that people would seek to invalidate the marriages of two people that love each other. Marriage is more than some rights. If it was just some legal rights we wouldn't be debating it so much. Marriage is also focused on responsibility and duty. At the center of marriage is love.
With the shape of the world tonight we should be encouraging duty, responsibility, and love. We need to support more love and to find ways to help it to flourish. Marriage is a building block of our civilization and we should encourage two people that love each other to create a stable and beneficial partnership that will reward themselves and our communities.
The ultimate question over marriage is if love is essentially the same between two people of the same gender. If you believe it is the same then you likely believe in marriage equality. Same gender love is not like love between two friends nor is it the same as love between parent and child. It shares traits, but it isn't the same. It is no different then love between man and woman and therefore shouldn't be treated any differently.
The dream might be deferred but in the long run it is likely best if marriage equality is supported in an election and not only by courts. I will be there on the street corners and on the internet to push for that day. I was inspired by seeing so many young people come out to rally in Simi Valley for themselves and for their families. I met people I didn't know were directly impacted or cared so passionately for justice on this issue. Regardless of the court ruling know that we will organize again, this time with better resources and a better plan. The campaign was so negative from both sides last time, but next time we will focus on the families involved.
Do you remember the ad above from the Courage Campaign? It was one of the more controversial ads that went directly after the Mormon Church for their involvement in the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. It sparked outrage and news coverage on the internet and on television. One of the creative minds behind it, David Atkins, is now going to be involved in a local progressive radio show.
Two other bloggers have already reported it but in case you missed it there is a new Democratic radio show in town. I like to post entire press releases to help give you a closer look at local politics. Click on continue reading for the press release.
Who would you like to see the Dynamic Democratic Duo interview in the near future?
Click here to read Timm Herdt's blog.
Click here to read Marie Lakin's blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Local Democrats, Independents and Progressives have a voice on Ventura County radio station KVTA starting March 6, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Brian,
Radio talk shows in Ventura County have long been dominated by Neo-Conservative Republican talking heads. Beginning tomorrow, March 6, 2009 local Progressives, Independents and Democrats will have a weekly platform to voice their views on station KVTA, 1520 AM. The radio show "Locals Only", is aired daily from 11:00 a.m. to noon hosted by Kelli McKay. Every Friday McKay will be joined by Progressive political activists David Atkins and Brian Leshon.
Atkins' and Leshon's inaugural show will have California State Assemblymember for the 35th District, Pedro Nava as their guest. They will address the State budget crisis, its ramifications for Ventura County, and focus on how the 2/3 vote required for annual budgets and raising revenues gives a small minority of Republicans the ability to hold the state hostage. They will discuss California's initiative process - which mandates spending - and cannot be adjusted in tough economic times removing control of more than a one third of the budget from the legislature. The Republicans blame Democrats from uncontrolled spending, when it is the voters who mandate the spending and then are deterred from raising taxes by the Republicans to pay for the services they want and need.
Podcasts of the shows are available on KVTA.com for download. Progressives, Independents and Democrats are encouraged to join the KVTA VIP club and to email, or call, the station at 805-289-1400. Tell them you are joining because the station is beginning to cater to Democratic majority in the county.
David Atkins is the founder and President of The Pollux Group, Inc., a qualitative research consulting firm based in Ventura, California. He has served as consultant and strategist to corporate and political clients including Fortune 500 companies, non-profits and congressional campaigns. He is co-producer of BlogTalkRadio's progressive hub "Heading Left", and co-host of multiple shows on ePluribusRadio. Posting under the name "thereisnospoon", Atkins is a contributing editor at "MyLeftWing" and "Booman Tribune", and writes regularly for the DailyKos on policy framing and other issues. Recently he started the Ventura County Young Democrats club and is its President. He co-wrote and co-produced the No on Prop 8 Home Invasion advertisement for the Courage Campaign.
Brian Leshon is the President of CyberAd Media, Inc. a Ventura-based Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Website Development consulting company serving large and small companies nationwide. Leshon is the Chair of the Ventura County Democratic Party's Communications Committee, elected in July 2008. Last September he began rebranding the party with President Obama's progressive vision while also implementing cutting edge communications techniques and technologies to the clubs and the party. He was among the people instrumental in turning Ventura County blue.
Leshon's media and communications career spans 30 years in television, radio, music, publishing, national lecture series and the Internet. He and his wife, Sandra Kinsler, hosted their own show "Road Test Radio Magazine" on a 50,000 watt clear channel station in Nevada reaching 6 states. They appear regularly on other radio and television shows. Brian has worked as a Recording Engineer developing records for well-known acts including Kansas, Devo, Beatles (three out of four), David Bowie, Rod Stewart, Barbara Streisand, and many more etc.
I don't have any problem with your fight against Prop 8, but I find that ad horribly offensive. As I've said may times before, singling out and stereotyping religious groups is a counter-productive strategy that has already backfired. It also ignores that fact that a wide range of other demographic groups, including 70% of African Americans, voted in favor of Prop 8. You may disagree with the views of Mormons and other religious groups, but the attacks I have seen directed at them is in itself a demonstration of intolerance and bigotry. If someone made a similar video attacking and stereotyping homosexuals you would denounce it, yet you give this video a free pass because you agree with its political message.
There will be enormous backlash resulting from this highly offensive video. These guys are digging their hole ever deeper every time they turn around. No sympathy from the public for launching attacks on well-established, well-financed, well-respected church organizations.
They will be banished as wacky, perverted, violence-prone maniacs. They're losing ground by the day.
It is an offensive ad created by blowhards that must believe their own publicity. Looks like the left is cursed with their own local versions of Limbaugh.
Bubba Kidd:
I did not say that I agreed with it and I rightfully pointed out that it is incendiary. I also previously posted it and added more thoughts that time. Just because you forgot doesn't give you the right to not give the benefit of the doubt. I didn't say it was effective or would mobilize voters against Proposition 8. I didn't add any editorial comment one way or another besides labeling it controversial because it was an old video from a past election and I was using it to introduce David Atkins to readers again.
Typical right wing knee jerk behavior by you to ignore everything else written and only comment on something that was added as an after thought to connect the blog topic to a new radio show.
You said you voted No on 8, but so far instead of lending a hand of support it seems you just want to be critical of your own side. If you truly believe in Marriage equality why not add your arguments ever or actually commenting on the personal and detailed thoughts I did provide?
Your numbers are also likely wrong:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL
I haven't seen you try to win over voters to your viewpoint on this issue.
Bubba Kidd:
If you wanted to know my thoughts on the ad you could have asked instead of launching into your typical attack mode.
But truth be told I don't see the point in debating an old ad from a past campaign. I'd rather discuss the essential nature of love or my support for pursuing change at the ballot box, both of which are much more important.
If you don't want to discuss the ad why do you keep posting it? If you want to discuss "the essential nature of love" or your "support for pursuing change at the ballot box" it would be a more effective message if you did it without continually relying on a video that promotes intolerance and bigotry.
Should we legalize marriages between family members (father, son...brother, sister...brother, brother, etc)? Two women, one man? One woman, five men? One man, three other men? Etc?
I recognize the resistance to these slippery slope arguments but I often hear the "consenting adults" or "why limit love?" justification for gay marriage. Why should we recognize gay marriage and not the others I listed?
If you don't support one or all of the types of marriage listed, does that mean you hate those people?
Brian, the SFGate article that you provided was from a far-left source that decided to ignore exit poll data because they didn't like the results. They never provided any evidence that the exit poll data was inaccurate. Instead they created their own statistical sample by limited their analysis to more liberal urban areas to re-calculate the supposed "real" level of African American support for Prop 8. You don't need a degree in statistics to realize that their methodology is seriously flawed. Yet even with their cherry-picked data their own numbers still showed 58% of blacks supporting Prop 8 in their sample pool, a percentage that is still well above that of the general population. And from this skewed data they, amazingly, conclude, "The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8". Yeah, right. The clear purpose of that "study" was not to do objective analysis, but rather to re-write history because some people don't want to accept a truth that challenges some of their basic assumptions. Furthermore, I think that it is ridiculous for an educator such as yourself to actually cite such an obviously flawed, biased source.
To answer your other question, I will not lend a hand to groups who engage in intolerance and bigotry, even if I support the overall goals of their cause. By the same token, I am opposed to illegal immigration, yet I will not support the agenda of racist or skinhead groups that target illegal immigrants. Nor will I participate in activities with groups that promote intolerance and bigotry toward religious groups, which, unfortunately, has become the norm among a large percentage of Prop 8 opponents.
Bubba, I have a lot of very dear friends who are Mormon. They have felt the sting of persecution for many years. It is a very misunderstood religion. I was unhappy to see the church involved in this issue because I knew it would even further inflame the intolerance directed toward it.
This video is the result of those actions taken by the leadership of the Mormon Church. Could they have anticipated the backlash? I do not know. But perhaps they felt strongly enough about the issue that it did not matter to them.
Prop. 8 was an unnecessary and divisive measure which distracts from the many other important issues of the day.
Bubba, I have a lot of very dear friends who are Mormon. They have felt the sting of persecution for many years. It is a very misunderstood religion. I was unhappy to see the church involved in this issue because I knew it would even further inflame the intolerance directed toward it.
This video is the result of those actions taken by the leadership of the Mormon Church. Could they have anticipated the backlash? I do not know. But perhaps they felt strongly enough about the issue that it did not matter to them.
Prop. 8 was an unnecessary and divisive measure which distracts from the many other important issues of the day.
Should we legalize marriages between family members (father, son...brother, sister...brother, brother, etc)? Two women, one man? One woman, five men? One man, three other men? Etc?
I recognize the resistance to these slippery slope arguments but I often hear the "consenting adults" or "why limit love?" justification for gay marriage. Why should we recognize gay marriage and not the others I listed?
If you don't support one or all of the types of marriage listed, does that mean you hate those people?
Got that, 60% of California? Prop. 8 was unnecessary and not important.
Bubba,
I didn't ask you to become a dues paying member but you could make an argument on behalf of marriage equality if you really believed in it.
I posted the video to show you the work of someone with a new radio show. Marie Lakin and Timm Herdt already wrote an entry on the radio show but since we don't have all the same readers it was an easy transition. Somehow that is the only thing you want to discuss and you refuse to debunk the attack on families that equates them all sorts of other stuff.
Hate,
You didn't discuss at all if you think love between two people of the same gender is essentially the same. What do you think?
My previous comments:
A liberal activist group put together this ad that singles out the Mormon Church, without mentioning other religious groups, for supporting Proposition 8.
Do you think it goes too far or is it just humor? Either way it doesn't seem like it would be an effective tactic to win over voters. But maybe that is the part of me that grew up in Simi Valley, where there are many Mormons.
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/gay-marriage/
Decider,
I didn't see that argument being made here. I didn't say anything at all on whether it was a constitutional amendment or a revision. Try to respond to what I wrote if you are looking for an actual discussion instead of repeating talking points.
Also, your numbers are off.
Since gay marriage (as a religious endeavor) is not what prop 8 was about, what is the compelling reason for the State to recognize with a marriage license these types of arrangements? And what exactly do gay's expect to obtain from the state if the SC strikes down prop 8?
Civil unions are recognized in cali and convey similar legal and medical rights to the partners. So what extra is there between a civil union certificate and a marriage license?
---
About the churches that actively supported prop 8 - should we now start forcing churches to shut-up about the tenets of their faith? What about the churches that were anti-prop 8? would you have asked them to shut-up too?
I think love between two men or two women is just as special as love between a man and a woman. Nonetheless, I voted for Proposition 8 because "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman.
Gay couples can engage in civil unions, which have the same force of law as marriage, particularly regarding sharing of employment benefits and the like.
KoeJoes,
There are other benefits to marriage, besides legal protections.
Do you support federal recognition of civil unions?
Love,
You believe in separate but equal?
If the love is essentially the same why do you want to treat it differently? You agree that is it essentially the same and different than other forms of love.
If churches want to marry two people of the same gender why do you want to stop them?
Brian, nobody is proposing that churches not be allowed to marry two people of the same gender. If a particular church is OK with that then it is within their rights to do so.
With regard to the ad that attacks the Mormon church, it goes too far. First of all, there were many groups that supported Prop 8, yet only one is bearing the brunt of the attacks. Those that single out Mormons do so because they are a relatively small, misunderstood group. It's always easy to pick on those who are odd or different. The irony is that gays and lesbians have been singled out and attacked in similar ways for many years, which is why it is particularly disappointing to see many of them now engaging in this type of despicable behavior against another group. While I don't personally agree with the Mormon belief system I support their right to have their own beliefs. The same equally applies to gays and lesbians, others don't have to agree with their lifestlye but should support their right to live their lives how they choose.
And yet you keep questioning whether I really do support gay rights. My response to that is that I support the rights of gays and lesbians just as much as I support the religious freedoms of Mormons. I would not tolerate bigoted attacks against gays any more than I would accept bigoted attacks against Mormons. I've spoken out numerous times against bloggers who engage in gay baiting, just as I am now speaking out against attacks directed against Mormons. Both are equally offensive. Had the ad resorted to negative stereotypes directed against African Americans I seriously doubt you would continue to post links to it. Just because few people rush to the defense of Mormons doesn't make them fair game.
I also support the right of both groups to participate in the political process. In the case of Prop 8 I voted based on my personal beliefs, however the outcome of the election was different than how I voted. But I also believe in our democratic process, which means that once the ballots have been counted we accept the results and move on. There will be another time to fight this battle, but the last election is over and we need to accept the results. Though I may not agree with the choice made by voters, the truth is that there are lots of laws I don't agree with that are passed by voters. But since we live in a democracy I accept the outcome of the election. Those that seek to overturn the will of the voters are misguided. I'd rather endure unjust laws (which there are many) than undermine our democracy. Because at the end of the day we live in a nation of people who have lots of fundamental disagreements on a wide range of issues, but it is our democratic form of government that binds us together.
Bubba,
Yes Proposition 8 does ban churches from marrying gay people. At the end of the service would the two people be legally married? The answer is no, the state has said that by law it isn't marriage.
I didn't so much question how you voted as much as I asked why you don't ever put up arguments to support gay rights. I posted a long entry with a tie in at the end to a local radio show. I did post my thoughts on the video. I didn't say I supported it. In fact, I said it was ineffective at winning votes. Here is my quote again ( the one that somehow you interpret as an endorsement and free pass):
"A liberal activist group put together this ad that singles out the Mormon Church, without mentioning other religious groups, for supporting Proposition 8.
Do you think it goes too far or is it just humor? Either way it doesn't seem like it would be an effective tactic to win over voters. But maybe that is the part of me that grew up in Simi Valley, where there are many Mormons."
That isn't a free pass but it is a clear statement that targeting Mormons isn't an effective political tactic and that my opinion is influenced because of my high opinion of the Mormons I know.
I posted it again as a tie in to a local radio show that was just launched, nothing more.
I also linked to a sermon from Pastor Francis Chan in the past. Look at the youtube video and see the serious number of readers directed to that video. I did it because it was interesting, provocative, and topical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9AdoyhuKeE
Anyways, you didn't address my argument in the original post. Do you think love is essentially the same between to same gendered people as it is with a straight couple? For some reason that is the debate that many people avoid.
Prop 8 does not ban churches from marrying people. A church can marry anyone, and some churches have been marrying gay couples for many years. But a wedding in a church is different than the legal marriage certificate issued by the state, and that applies to both gay and straight people. It has always been that way and is not affected one way or the other by Prop 8.
I also have to wonder why you keep asking me these inane question about gay marriage when I have made my position on the issue perfectly clear over and over again. It must somehow conflict with your apparent stereotypes of conservatives as a bunch of gun toting bigots who hate gays, women, the environment, science, minorities, and children. If I have repeatedly told you that I support gay marriage why on earth would you ask whether I think that love is the same for gay people as it is for straight people? I don't see you asking liberals who support gay marriage that same question. Do you really believe that liberals have a monopoly on fairness, understanding and compassion for others? You must, otherwise you wouldn't ask me such a stupid question.
Bubba,
Churches cannot issue proof that people were married that is recognized by the state. Call it what you want, but it isn't the same. Sounds like more separate but equal to me.
I want you to make an argument to support your position and try to convince other people to support the position we both share. This has nothing to do with your other beliefs.
It isn't a strange request to ask someone that supports your political cause to explain why in the attempt to win over other people with their arguments.
It isn't a stupid question, it is a profound question. Notice how people avoid answering it and instead launch into their talking points? Koejoes, Love, Hate, and others above avoided that discussion and went off on tangents.
I support overturning proposition 8 at the ballot box. To do so requires challenging people to think and putting forward convincing arguments.
Bubba,
I am not a lawyer but if this is the applicable code it would seem it would stop churches from marrying gay people in the same way they marry straight people:
421. Before solemnizing a marriage, the person solemnizing the
marriage shall require the presentation of the marriage license. If
the person solemnizing the marriage has reason to doubt the
correctness of the statement of facts in the marriage license, the
person must be satisfied as to the correctness of the statement of
facts before solemnizing the marriage. For this purpose, the person
may administer oaths and examine the parties and witnesses in the
same manner as the county clerk does before issuing the license.
The State of California has provisions to allow for a civil union license, so a church is free to perform a marriage ceremony with either. There is nothing that prevents churches from marrying gay or straight couples, so I do not believe that this is an issue.
Personally I think that the solution is for the state to get out of the marriage business entirely by calling all marriages legal unions. Then it would be up to individual churches to decide which of those unions they want to recognize as a marriage. But since neither side wants to pursue that option I think it is an unlikely outcome.
I do think that the government has a vested interest in promoting families. Some who oppose gay marriage try to use the argument that gay couples cannot have children, therefore to not qualify as a "family". But that is not so since gay couples in many states can adopt children, just as childless straight couples can adopt children. Plus many marriages remain childless by choice, so I don't think that is a valid argument. Though I do believe that children who grow up with both a mother and a father are better off emotionally, and there is plenty of scientific research that indicates that the different social roles of motherhood and fatherhood play a vital role in childhood development. But I have more of a complaint with the plague of single motherhood in our nation than with a gay couple raising a child. Plus there are plenty of dysfunctional families headed by heterosexual couples, so while having a nation of families modeled after Leave it to Beaver is a charming concept, it simply isn't the world in which we live.
If the complaint against gay marriage is an issue of morality, then you can make the same moral arguments against things like divorce or adultery. I would suspect that a large percentage of families break up because of adultery, yet there is no movement in this country to make committing adultery illegal. Some argue that gay marriage would open the door to truly depraved behaviors in our society, but the ability of individuals to get a certificate of marriage has no impact on how people conduct their lives in private. On that basis I reject the morality argument since it cannot be selectively applied.
The strongest argument against gay marriage is the slippery slope argument. The government does limit marriage in many areas. There are, for example, laws that limit the ability of minors to get married, laws against incest, and laws against polygamy. The issue regarding minors is one of consent, so I don't believe that is an issue here. The same would apply to bestiality, since an animal cannot give consent. But a valid claim could be made that incest or polygamy could be a choice between consenting adults, and that recognition of gay marriage would take us one step closer to allowing other types of marriage as well. But if there comes the day that our nation wants to have a discussion about allowing first cousins to marry, or to allow a man to have multiple wives (or vice versa) then it is a debate that will have to occur at that time. Some view polygamy or incest as an immoral choice, but there are many societies throughout history that have embraced those sorts of practices, including examples in the bible itself. Its not to say that I agree with polygamy (since I think that any man who wants more than one wife is out of his mind), but I do believe that a society has to decide what behaviors it wants to allow and what behaviors are not allowed.
In that respect, I also think it is up to our democratic process to decide whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. Which is why, while I support gay marriage, my opinions on the topic are often still at odd with other supporters. I do not see gay marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, unless we as a people decide to amend our constitution to grant that right. I accept the will of the people in making the decision on gay marriage, just as we have lots of different laws that regulate morality and human behavior. It was once against the constitution to consume alcohol in this country during a time what many thought that it was an immoral behavior. So if voters have rejected gay marriage, at least for the time being, then I accept that decision. It doesn't mean the issue will go away, just that we need to accept that it isn't allowed at this time.
Since gay marriage (as a religious endeavor) is not what prop 8 was about, what is the compelling reason for the State to recognize with a marriage license these types of arrangements? And what exactly do gay's expect to obtain from the state if the SC strikes down prop 8?
Civil unions are recognized in cali and convey similar legal and medical rights to the partners. So what extra is there between a civil union certificate and a marriage license?
---
About the churches that actively supported prop 8 - should we now start forcing churches to shut-up about the tenets of their faith? What about the churches that were anti-prop 8? would you have asked them to shut-up too?
KoeJoes,
1. No, I don't support censorship or restrictions on religious freedom.
2. Marriage is more than legal and medical rights.
3. You asked what's the difference. Does that mean you don't think there is a difference? Then why not allow people the freedom to marry who they want.
4. If the Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 people expect to be able to get married again. But I would prefer if voters supported marriage equality.
5. You didn't address if you think love is essentially the same between two people of the same gender as it is between two people of different genders.
Bubba,
I don't understand what you mean by people should accept the will of the voters. I accept the final numbers as a proper count of the vote. I am more interested in pushing for a new election at some time in the future and to win over people or get more people to vote. Is that not accepting of the election? If it isn't, then I assume that there are many issues you want politicians to stop supporting or trying to change minds on because we have already voted on it.
Brian,
1 - good
2 - what exactly "more" is there to marriage that the "state" should involve itself with above and beyond legal and medicinal rights?
3 - There is currently no restriction an how many or who can get "married" in a religious sense. There are religious groups - including Mormon offshoots that still condone polygamous marriage right? Although there's been arrests of leaders of these groups lately, the charges have involved child endangerment, not polygammy.
Again, I have to ask, where is the compelling reason for the state?
4 - even if prop 8 is struck down, gay marriage will not be truly equal since children cannot be a direct product of the union.
5 - Love and sex can be thought of as different sides of the same coin, but one doesn't require the other. Many people are in love and not married, many people are married or committed and are not in love.
Look at nuns and most priests; their love of their faith precludes them from sex - and obviously sex sure doesn't require love - just ask any teen-age boy.
All that being a prelude to what I think your really asking - I think two gay people can be just as in love as two straight people. I also believe that 3 or 4 or 10 people can be just as in love with each other too.
-
You asked earlier if I thought that the US govt should support recognition of civil unions. In all aspects except tax breaks/obligations yes.
Through history all people fighting for civil rights have been met with ignorance, paranoia, and hatred. The comments by Koejos and Bubba Kidd are proof those hurdles for liberty still exist.
The Republicans think they can put religion on the end of anything and it will be just. To them if you believe in Jesus you can torture, kill, and take old people's money you can do no wrong.
Nobody,
Bubba Kidd supports marriage equality.
KoeJoes,
You think the love between two people can be the exact same as true love between a man and a woman?
You want gay people to pay more taxes than straight people? Why?
nobody. You have no idea what my and my family's history is and calling me names because I present arguments you don't agree with only makes you sound ignorant, paranoid and hateful.
You presume in your post that I voted for prop 8 right? That I'm religious - maybe even LDS or Christian or ?? - oh and Republican of course.
I'm thinking you're a bitter 45 year old living in your mother's guest room that has never had to work a day in his life and dreams of that one sexual experience you had when you were 15. Am I close? Well if not, that's about as close as you are to who I am.
In my mind this is not a matter of liberty. I have no problems with gays, straights or whatever marrying whomever they wish. Sexual orientation is not a state matter.
I'm asking what "right" is being denied? No one on the pro gay marriage license side has been able to describe exactly what difference there is between marriage and civil unions. Is it all about not being able to pay what used to be the marriage penalty?
My understanding is that Civil Unions provide all the legal and medicinal rights as a marriage license does.
-
Brian,
1) yes of course, but what does love have to do with anything we're discussing here? Do you not think that people that lived (and still live) in communal "families" love each other any less than couples?
2) The state has a compelling reason to promote production of more people (or else you don't have a state) and have a method to pass along property to offspring.
Marriage contracts/licenses have done this through history in most cultures.
I don't think gays should pay more or less taxes than straights except that taxes have historically been used to promote particular behaviors and since one thing we know is that gays can't reproduce together (short of cloning themselves) the marriage tax break/tax hike should not be given/taken from gay couples.
All that being said, I really don't care. The amount of money we're talking about is minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
Why should gays pay less or more in your opinion?
By the way, state in this context is the country not just California.
And for you and "nobody" I do side with the fiscally conservative, I think paying taxes is a privilege but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm middle of the road on social issues; including gay marriage and abortion.
I believe that the gay community has reached for something that has been ingrained in society far longer than pretty much any other social institution and that in this case "separate but equal" is appropriate, because you can't make it equal.
And no one has answered my question about what is missing from a civil union license/contract that is in a marriage license/contract.
Bubba,
Thanks for posting your thoughts on why you support marriage equality.
KoeJoes,
I support marriage equality and gay people paying the same taxes as everyone else. Marriage is much more than a contract with rights. Marriage has been proven over and over to help families, communities, children, and the married couple. Gay people often have children from previous relationships, adoption, and other means. Their families deserve the same benefits of marriage.
Do you support the current law that allows gay people to adopt? If so, then you should consider allowing the adopted children to have married parents.
Brian, I think I was perfectly clear when I referred to the will of the people. California voters passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. That means that the issue is decided, at least until some future election when the issue may possibly be re-visited. So while I am personally in favor of granting same sex couples the right to marry, I also respect the outcome of our democratic process and disagree with efforts to overturn the will of the people. The people have the right to amend the constitution. It is not for me or anybody else to override the will of the people, as we are all bound to abide by constitution as the supreme law of the land. Our forefathers set up a system of government that empowers the people to revise the constitution, as evidenced by the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and over 500 amendments to the California Constitution.
Whether those decisions are wise or foolish, our democratic form of government is designed to empower the people to shape their own constitution. Our founding fathers never intended for a panel of judges or group of intellectuals to make these decisions for the rest of us. Which is why I oppose any attempt at overturning Prop 8 through the judicial system, as it would set a dangerous precedent. The only way same sex marriage can be now legalized in this state would be through another constitutional amendment.
It is my expectation that the California State Supreme Court will uphold the legality of Prop 8, which I believe is the right decision. Not because I agree with Prop 8, but because we all have to respect our democratic process whether we agree with the outcome or not.
KoeJoes and Bubba Kidd,
Do you think gay people should have the same civil rights as everybody else? If not why?
BK, you do realize what you're espousing is the abandonment of a republic, in favor of an unlimited democracy? Majority Rule vs Rule of Law?
In a republic the Courts act to mitigate the worst effects of decisions made by the majority. Without that check on the majority we have mob prejudice dressed up as something noble.
Brian, where is your proof that gay marriage has these same assertions? I ask, what benefits are we talking about that civil unions don't provide?
And a marriage license/civil union license is all about a contract. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't need one.
I think adoptees should be placed in whichever environment would be most beneficial to them.
Do you think that gay couples should have preference over straight couples?
Brian and nobody - do you believe that polygamy and polyandry and communal unions should be licensed as marriages?
gs
California is closer to an unlimited democracy than the nation and the US Constitution allows for this in the 10th amendment.
Since Hiram Johnson's administration the people have had the ability to propose and vote on propositions and referendums, and recall elected officials at any time.
Do you think we shouldn't have these?
The CA Sup Ct decides cases based on the CA Constitution, which is why Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution and why they are the final arbiter in the matter.
Also, this is why the original ruling allowing gay marriage was not appealed to the federal courts.
I'm not arguing the constitutional merit of Prop 8. I'm calling into question a lot of people's beliefs that the final authority in law are the voters and that a majority view should always become the law of the land.
in CA this belief is already law - even with Supreme Court judges - we can recall anyone and through props and initiatives, we can pass any law without the need of any of the 3 branches of state government approval.
it's a different question whether this "should" be the case
Koejos,
Your question was:
"nobody - do you believe that polygamy and polyandry and communal unions should be licensed as marriages"?
No.
Koejos,
Would you be so kind to answer my question?
KoeJoes,
I support marriage because it has many benefits for the individuals involved directly and for our communities. Family and marriage is the building block of our civilization and I want to encourage and support it. Marriage is something that most people aspire to when they are young. Children don't grow up planning and imagining that one day they will enter into a contract or civil union, they dream of marriage because of the many tangible and intangible benefits.
The only consideration in an adoption should be the health and welfare of the child or children.
You do agree that gay people should be able to adopt children but you don't want them to get married?
Many times adoptive parents bring children into their home from their own family members. Sometimes that adopt through the state, or even from other nations. All of these kids deserve to have their parents treated equally under the law and they their parents deserve the right to be married.
I know that love is essentially the same between two gay people as it is between two straight people. There are other relationships and forms of love that are not the same, including the love might feel for a friend. That influences me to support marriage equality. Do you really see love in other relationships like those you posted as essentially the same as between two people?
Bubba Kidd,
I don't agree with the vote and I will work to win over voters in a new election. Does that meet your definition of being respectful? What The Supreme Court does or does not do is not in my control.
But did you see the references to a 1960's fair housing law that voters passed and the Supreme Court invalidated? Would you have disagreed with them for the same reason?
Brian, there have been may unjust laws in this nation over the years. Many still exist. It wasn't until recent history that many law have been passed to prevent discrimination against the disabled, the elderly, gays, and even non-smokers. Sometimes it takes a long time for these issue to be resolved and for our society to be ready to adopt change. But that doesn't make it proper for the constitution to be ignored, even if it is done with good intentions. In 1968 Congress passed the Fair Housing Act which would have rendered the issue moot. So no, I don't agree with granting our state supreme court the ability to throw out constitutional amendments enacted by the people, even if it is a bad law. It puts too much power into the hands of a small group of people. It is always a mistake to concede so much power because eventually you will come to regret it. That is usually how democracies transform into dictatorships.
I agree it is a moot point but I was bringing up a case where the state supreme court overruled the voters. Would you have also opposed that using the same principles?
We need a strong Court, without it Bush and the GOP would have transformed our Nation into a dictatorship! OVERTURN PROP 8!!!!!!!!!! By Bubba Kidd's logic if the people of California voted to bring back slavery the big bad scary court should not overturn it!