[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Good point. The exit polls showed that blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8 while all other groups opposed it by a fair (but less overwhelming) margin. And it barely passed. Interesting.

Wait, source please, as I've been hearing all day (OK, OK, it WAS from Fark) that it was the African-American vote that allowed Prop 8 to pass (Something like 69-31).

[TheWOAT]

It really doesnt matter... so lets say California only issues civil unions to everybody... Same gender couples would still get married by some universal life church, and still refer to themselves as married, and everyone would consider them married...

[lpkmckenna]

Bizarre: a plebiscite over the definition of a word. What next, classification protections for prime numbers?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I don't get why it's become the role of government to decide what is and is not a marriage, period. My church married my wife and I, not the government. To me the government should only have civil unions, which only exist for legal purposes, and they should leave marriage to the religious institutions.

If two homosexual individuals want to enter into the same legal agreement that my wife and I have, why should I care? If they want to get married, in a church, that's a question the government needs to stay the hell away from.

When I brought that same concept up to people in Berkeley, I thought I was going to be tarred and feathered.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So all this really comes down to is that you are offended by same-sex unions being called a marriage.

Essentially, yes.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Essentially, yes.

Ugh... all this drama and money wasted over the definition of the word marriage. What complete and utter silliness.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

It's time for gays and lesbians to realize that mainstream America still sees homosexuals as a huge threat. It's very sad. Pathetic really.

I guess President-elect Obama views them as a threat too, since he's against gay marriage.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I guess President-elect Obama views them as a threat too, since he's against gay marriage.

Obama views them in whatever manner he thinks will elicit the most votes.

[deedar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I guess President-elect Obama views them as a threat too, since he's against gay marriage.

Maybe so, but he was also against Proposition 8 because he is very much against discrimination.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I guess President-elect Obama views them as a threat too, since he's against gay marriage.

Are we supposed to agree with him on everything just because we voted for him?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by deedar 

Maybe so, but he was also against Proposition 8 because he is very much against discrimination.

So he's against gay marriage but he's also against the "discrimination" that Prop. 8 represents. How does that work?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So he's against gay marriage but he's also against the "discrimination" that Prop. 8 represents. How does that work?

It doesn't, he's a rat bastered liar.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So he's against gay marriage but he's also against the "discrimination" that Prop. 8 represents. How does that work?

I'm against rudeness but for free speech. How does that work?

[sek929]

You're a bastard, obviously.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm against rudeness but for free speech. How does that work?

Bad analogy. Free speech is broad - this is a specific topic. If he's against gay marriage, then he shouldn't be opposing Prop. 8. It's only logically sound for him to be against Prop. 8 if he's a proponent of gay marriage. If he's an opponent of gay marriage (as he and Joe Biden claim), then it's nonsensical for him to oppose Prop. 8. I don't know how much clearer I need to make this, but let me know if I need to break out the symbolic logic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Bad analogy. If he's against gay marriage, then he shouldn't be opposing Prop. 8. It's only logically sound for him to be against Prop. 8 if he's a proponent of gay marriage. If he's an opponent of gay marriage (as he and Joe Biden claim), then it's nonsensical for him to oppose Prop. 8. I don't know how much clearer I need to make this, but let me know if I need to break out the symbolic logic.

Let me spell it out: There are a lot of things I oppose that I do not believe should be forbidden in the Constitution. Obama personally opposes gay marriage, but does not believe the law should discriminate based on his religious beliefs.

It's like saying, "If you're against rudeness, then you should be in favor of a Constitutional amendment forbidding speech that's rude to the President." I believe as a rule that people should be kind to each other, but I don't believe the law should force them to do so. Are you seeing the analogy here?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

At least there's one thing I get to gloat about.
(...)
How very tolerant of you, Chuck. I like Mormons a lot.

IRONY ALERT!!
By God you are a hateful person.

[hyteckit]

I disagree with 80 year old men marrying 18 year old girls.

Let's banned that.

Big Mac fails again and again to understand what equal treatment, equal protection, and equal rights mean.

[Big Mac]

Chuckit, I don't think they were talking about their personal convictions on the topic while campaigning. The question was, from a public policy perspective, whether or not Obama-Biden supports or opposes gay marriage. The answer was no. If you're against gay marriage from a public policy perspective, then you should have no problem with legislation that precludes gay marriage from its definition. If the debate moderator who asked Biden the point blank question on gay marriage wanted to know Biden's personal opinion, he would have had lunch with him instead of asking him that question on a televised forum viewed by 10s of millions of people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Ugh... all this drama and money wasted over the definition of the word marriage. What complete and utter silliness.

I'm on your side here, and I believe we share the same big issue with the situation as it stands (immigration), but it takes two people to argue a definition.

From a solely practical standpoint, I don't understand why there isn't a bigger push towards civil unions for everything. This seems to have the support of the majority.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Chuckit, I don't think they were talking about their personal convictions on the topic while campaigning. The question was, from a public policy perspective, whether or not Obama-Biden supports or opposes gay marriage. The answer was no. If you're against gay marriage from a public policy perspective, then you should have no problem with legislation that precludes gay marriage from its definition. If the debate moderator who asked Biden the point blank question on gay marriage wanted to know Biden's personal opinion, he would have had lunch with him instead of asking him that question on a televised forum viewed by 10s of millions of people.

The times I've heard Obama say he was against gay marriage, it seems like he's always been clear that it was his personal belief.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I disagree with 80 year old men marrying 18 year old girls.

You won't when you're 80.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The times I've heard Obama say he was against gay marriage, it seems like he's always been clear that it was his personal belief.

That wasn't the context of Biden's answer at all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That wasn't the context of Biden's answer at all.

I honestly don't remember Biden's comment, so I'll have to take your word for it. I was just talking about Obama, since I remember thinking that his view was reasonable.

[deedar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So he's against gay marriage but he's also against the "discrimination" that Prop. 8 represents. How does that work?

Its simple - he is personally against gay marriage, based on his religious beliefs, but he is also against a constitutional amendment that is clearly divisive and discriminatory. Prop 8 doesn't "represent" discrimination, it makes it constitutionally acceptable. That's how it works.

[OldManMac]

I believe the San Francisco city or county attorney is already getting ready to file a lawsuit, claiming the restriction against gays marrying is unconstitutional, which is true. Apparently it's going to take more time to get the intolerant, the ignorant, and the busybodies to realize that they need to concern themselves with what they do, and not feel threatened over something that doesn't affect them.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I believe the San Francisco city or county attorney is already getting ready to file a lawsuit, claiming the restriction against gays marrying is unconstitutional, which is true.

Count me in with those who find this result disappointing, but wouldn't the whole idea of this proposition amending the state constitution preclude it from being unconstitutional? Or are you talking about the US Constitution, which is silent on the matter?

[olePigeon]

I hope the Supreme Court overturns it. This is in regards to the State Constitution by the way.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I believe the San Francisco city or county attorney is already getting ready to file a lawsuit, claiming the restriction against gays marrying is unconstitutional, which is true. Apparently it's going to take more time to get the intolerant, the ignorant, and the busybodies to realize that they need to concern themselves with what they do, and not feel threatened over something that doesn't affect them.

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. It's disappointing that so many people have so little regard for others, but it's a pyrrhic victory. The old supported Prop. 8 and the young opposed it, with a smooth grade between them. Even in the racial demographics where the proposition got a lot of support, the majority of the young still voted no. So regardless of whether some lawsuit is successful today, in 10 years we'll have gay marriage by popular vote.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Count me in with those who find this result disappointing, but wouldn't the whole idea of this proposition amending the state constitution preclude it from being unconstitutional? Or are you talking about the US Constitution, which is silent on the matter?

I think the contention is that the initiative itself was unconstitutional, so any votes for it were invalid.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The old supported Prop. 8 and the young opposed it, with a smooth grade between them.

This is what I was thinking, and goes back to my civil union question.

Take the civil unions, or wait for enough people to die. Them's the choices.

[hyteckit]

Some people just don't understand that just because you don't support it, doesn't mean you want it banned or made illegal.

I don't support Republicans. Do I want banned Republicans from getting married or having kids? No.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. It's disappointing that so many people have so little regard for others, but it's a pyrrhic victory. The old supported Prop. 8 and the young opposed it, with a smooth grade between them. Even in the racial demographics where the proposition got a lot of support, the majority of the young still voted no. So regardless of whether some lawsuit is successful today, in 10 years we'll have gay marriage by popular vote.

I want to be optimistic that you are right, in that eventually we'll reach that point, but I must admit I have a vested interest in this issue. I've walked one daughter down the aisle, because she married a man (and is now divorced); I want nothing more than to do the same for my other daughter, who, because of nosy busybodies and people who won't remove a plank out of their own eye while trying to remove a speck out of another's, make mountains out of molehills.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I want nothing more than to do the same for my other daughter

Does something happen to you if you forego the piece of paper from the state and walk her down the aisle anyway?

The piece of paper from the state is essentially worthless. That you would get all up in arms over not having one seems the precise definition of making a mountain out of a molehill.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: if BHO is a "left wing radical", what is somebody like Nadar, Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich? Certain outspoken PETA/environmental/Hollywood/San Francisco types?

In comparison to Obama? Honest about their positions on the issues.

His apparently "stance" on this issue is a perfect example. He says one thing out of one side of his mouth, and another on the other.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does something happen to you if you forego the piece of paper from the state and walk her down the aisle anyway?

The piece of paper from the state is essentially worthless. That you would get all up in arms over not having one seems the precise definition of making a mountain out of a molehill.

The legal and financial benefits are definitely not worthless.

In fact, IMHO that's the whole point. I couldn't give a chit about the religious implications for some couples, and I don't really think the gov't has any role in that anyway, nor should they have much of a role in its emotional implications. However, the legal and financial implications are very significant, and thus the ability to get that 2¢ piece of paper is very important.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does something happen to you if you forego the piece of paper from the state and walk her down the aisle anyway?

The piece of paper from the state is essentially worthless. That you would get all up in arms over not having one seems the precise definition of making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, nothing happens to me, but she still can't legally enjoy a civil union with her partner, and that's the point. The piece of paper from the state is far from worthless, if she had to visit her partner in the hospital, and attempt to make a medical decision on her behalf, or even to see her in the hospital, or if something happens to one of them, and the remaining partner watches as the wishes and decrees of the deceased are nullified, or when they don't enjoy many, many, of the rights enumerated to married couples. The push towards civil unions also does not have the support of the majority in many states; most of the constitutions were amended to disallow them as well as marriage (because those who want to prevent the word "marriage" being used also want to make sure you can't join in a civil union). Their goal isn't simply to prevent gay marriage; it's to prevent any union between same-sex couples. You need to be up to date on this issue if you're going to talk about it.

Nice try, though, on the attempted spin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The legal and financial benefits are definitely not worthless.

My understanding is that the legal benefits can be attained through other means (not ideal, but certainly not impossible), and that in the US you pay more in taxes if you're married.

Don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage, but there's a difference between "I don't have this right" and "I need to fill out more paperwork to have this right".

However bad the latter is, the former is much worse, and it's the former which (I believe incorrectly) is being claimed.

[Eug]

OldManMac,

Interestingly, locally the hospitals adopted a policy allowing same-sex partners to make those medical decisions, long before the government approved same-sex marriages.

However, the decisions were likely based on the fact that common-law partners were already allowed to make those sorts of decisions. No such marriage licence was required.

That said, it's a heluvalot easier for some emerg doc to know if someone is a wife/husband than it is to verify that someone is a common-law spouse.

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is that the legal benefits can be attained through other means (not ideal, but certainly not impossible)

Yes, most of the time, but not all of the time. And even when you can, it often can be a big headache. See above.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

OldManMac,

Interestingly, locally some of the hospitals adopted a policy allowing same-sex partners to make those medical decisions, long before the government approved same-sex marriages.

However, the decisions were likely based on the fact that common-law partners were already allowed to make those sorts of decisions. No such marriage licence was required.

That said, it's a heluvalot easier for some emerg doc to know if someone is a wife/husband than it is to verify that someone is a common-law spouse.



Yes, most of the time, but not all of the time. And even when you can, it often can be a big headache. See above.

And therein lies the problem; it's up to some local individual or institution to decide how they want to treat a situation. That's fine and dandy if a couple happens to be in that local area when they need that institution's assistance, but that's not codified, and it only helps certain people, and it's at the whim of something other than law. As an example, Michigan has common-law partners, but they are not legally recognized as married, even if they are opposite sex. The same rights that legally married couples have need to be recognized by law for homosexual couples, whether you call it marriage or a civil union. I am of the belief that the state has no business being in the marriage business, but it in fact is, and that's not likely to change soon, because couples are taxed, via a marriage license, by a local authority when they want to marry. The state isn't going to give up that revenue, so they need to allow marriage licenses for homosexuals as well.

I'm not the one making a mountain out of a molehill; less than 10% of Americans are homosexual (and even that's probably an inflated number), yet a vastly larger number of Americans allow this extremely small minority to control their actions and beliefs, because they irrationally feel threatened, and they react with emotion, and not logic. That doesn't say much about the control most Americans have over themselves.

[Eug]

Well, the hospitals adopted that because it was law, not just because they felt like it. However, it was based on the extension of common-law rights by the government to same sex couples. It's just taken some hospitals longer to update their forms, etc. than others.

I'm not saying that common-law is everything. I'm just saying that the specific example of substitute decision making in medical matters might be covered in certain jurisdictions, by law, even if the couple doesn't hold a marriage certificate.

Mind you, around here, same-sex marriages are (now) officially approved by the govt. so in some ways it's moot, if they want to get married that is.

P.S. Michigan is just a hop, skip, and a jump from Toronto. Tell them to come visit the CN Tower and Niagara Falls, and get married in the meantime.

P.P.S. If I understand it correctly, the term is "civil marriage" here, not "civil union".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In comparison to Obama? Honest about their positions on the issues.

His apparently "stance" on this issue is a perfect example. He says one thing out of one side of his mouth, and another on the other.

stupendousman, I think it would be a worthwhile exercise for you to share with us something positive about Obama, the Left, our arguments, or anything that perhaps helps settle some really intense and hostile feelings you seem to have.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't know why this surprises anyone. This has come up time and time again, and the result is always the same. Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly back in 2000.

And really- I can already see people looking for scapegoats.

EVERY district in the state had a majority vote in favor of Prop 22 back in 2000- I think San Francisco was the single exception. That means every demographic in perhaps the most liberal state had a majority in favor of the definition of marriage being a man and a woman. Can't pawn it off on conservatives (hardly a majority in Cali) or anyone else- it's pretty much the societal 'norm' viewpoint, even if a good many of us don't share it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't know why this surprises anyone. This has come up time and time again, and the result is always the same. Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly back in 2000.

And really- I can already see people looking for scapegoats.

EVERY district in the state had a majority vote in favor of Prop 22 back in 2000- I think San Francisco was the single exception. That means every demographic in perhaps the most liberal state had a majority in favor of the definition of marriage being a man and a woman. Can't pawn it off on conservatives (hardly a majority in Cali) or anyone else- it's pretty much the societal 'norm' viewpoint, even if a good many of us don't share it.

I'm actually a little surprised myself. Maybe it's because the societal norm viewpoint is quite different where I live, at least according to polls.

I guess it's really true that the US in general seems to be more conservative than many other western countries.

It will be interesting to see what will change in the coming 4 years.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I guess it's really true that the US in general seems to be more conservative than many other western countries.

Probably true.

But I'd like to know how many other countries have actually held a public vote on this issue. (I have no idea, just interested to know).

[- - e r i k - -]

Here's a good resource to keep you up to date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_...e-sex_marriage

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, nothing happens to me, but she still can't legally enjoy a civil union with her partner, and that's the point.

Assuming we're talking about two US citizens, what they can't enjoy is a consolidation of the legal benefits of marriage into a singular, simplified, bureaucratic procedure.

I don't support this situation, and as such I don't support people blowing the issue way out of proportion. I'm wary someone less sympathetic than me might use different terminology to describe blowing it out of proportion... I dunno, "bullshit" comes to mind.

IOW, as someone who's on your side, I'm telling you the melodramatic claim the situation is so dire that one is precluded from walking down the aisle isn't helping.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The piece of paper from the state is far from worthless...

Allow me to rephrase. Assuming both parties are US citizens, the piece of paper is worthless except for the aforementioned consolidation and simplification of bureaucratic process.

As I said, this is not a situation I support, and as I said, it does not preclude one from walking down the aisle.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You need to be up to date on this issue if you're going to talk about it.

I am, and the conclusion I've come to is that the people affected by the gay marriage issue are suffering consequences like having to move out of the country.

From that perspective, I find the "I can't walk down the aisle because I don't have a consolidated bureaucratic process" argument to be exceedingly petty.

Calling it petty, of course assumes one is ignoring that it's false.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman, I think it would be a worthwhile exercise for you to share with us something positive about Obama, the Left, our arguments, or anything that perhaps helps settle some really intense and hostile feelings you seem to have.

I'm not sure why that would be necessary. If you need these forums as a way to settle your own personal issues - sort as a public group therapy, you're welcome to do as you like though. I'll just tell it as I see it.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I really fail to see how this is "getting it right". It doesn't advance, preserve or otherwise improve anything about our society to restrict two people who love each other from getting married. Your religious beliefs or your bigotry are the only reasons to support such things. Neither should have any bearing at all in the issue. Grow the f*ck up America.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

From that perspective, I find the "I can't walk down the aisle because I don't have a consolidated bureaucratic process" argument to be exceedingly petty.

I disagree. That piece of paper is quite useful. As far as I'm concerned, walking down the aisle and not getting that piece of paper at the end is in many ways a waste of time.