[Eug]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...against-t.html

That settles it. The PC people are right. Mac users are teh ghey.

$100000 really is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but OTOH, their declared opposition to Proposition 8 is a pretty strong statement for a consumer electronics company.

[tie]

Good for Apple. Prop. 8 is downright evil and it is good that a lot of companies are standing up against it. Apple, Google, PG&E, AT&T, Levi Strauss that I have seen listed. The latest poll shows it as 44% against, 52% in favor (+-3%). The fact that it is so close should draw a lot of Californians to the polls.

Needless to say, McCain/Palin support it and Obama/Biden oppose it.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by tie 

Needless to say, McCain/Palin support it and Obama/Biden oppose it.

I remember quite clearly that Biden and Palin agreed on the issue of extending all rights to same sex partnerships. Govm't shouldn't go into the dictionary business by defining a word (what the proposed law would do), but we should be making laws to treat gay families justly.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

I remember quite clearly that Biden and Palin agreed on the issue of extending all rights to same sex partnerships.

The Associated Press: Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage amendment

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a break with John McCain who has said he believes states should be left to define what marriage is.

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.
McCain, an Arizona senator, is supporting a ballot initiative in his state this year that would ban gay marriage. But he has consistently and forcefully opposed a federal marriage amendment, saying it would usurp states' authority on such matters.

As governor, Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In a debate with Democratic rival Joe Biden, Palin said she was "tolerant" of gays and said she supported certain legal protections for same-sex couples, like hospital visitation rights.

Summary:

McCain: Opposes same sex marriage, but feels it should be a state matter, not federal.
Palin: Opposes same sex marriage, and feels it should banned federally.

[tie]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

I remember quite clearly that Biden and Palin agreed on the issue of extending all rights to same sex partnerships.

That is the PC thing to say right now, so they have to say it. But what have they actually done to extend rights to all same-sex partnerships? Anything? And yet they support measures that would deny equal rights.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

McCain: Opposes same sex marriage, but feels it should be a state matter, not federal.
Palin: Opposes same sex marriage, and feels it should banned federally.

Let's not forget that Barry's position on this is virtually identical to McCain's.

[hyteckit]

Down with Prop. 8.

Equal treatment for all.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's not forget that Barry's position on this is virtually identical to McCain's.

From what I understand, you are correct.

The main difference is between Biden and Palin. Biden specifically states that if he lived in California, he'd say no to Prop 8, despite the fact he's said he opposes same sex marriage.

[The Godfather]

So, Palin will fight to ban gay marriage, yet she will fight for homosexual partnership rights. Does this not add up to anything logical, or I am missing something?
Funny how she being a heartbeat away from the presidency makes a vote for McCain actually a vote for "Palin for President".
Where can I get a replacement for the homophobic widget that Apple gave me?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Eug 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...against-t.html

That settles it. The PC people are right. Mac users are teh ghey.

$100000 really is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but OTOH, their declared opposition to Proposition 8 is a pretty strong statement for a consumer electronics company.

I'm not a big fan of companies publicly supporting political or religious causes, unless it's specifically a political or religious company (e.g. Focus on the Family).

If a major corporation had publicly donated money to a conservative or Republican fund/cause, it would destroy them. Can you imagine if a company donated a hundred grand to the Yes On Prop 8 fund (or whatever it's called)? They would be decimated by mainstream media.

Considering that most corporations have quite strict regulations against "treatment of others violations" and other similarly politically correct actions and ideas, they should probably follow their own rules and stay neutral.

It'd be one thing if it was Jobs personally doing this out of his own pocket. It's an entirely different thing when it's his company doing it.

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

So, Palin will fight to ban gay marriage, yet she will fight for homosexual partnership rights. Does this not add up to anything logical, or I am missing something?
Funny how she being a heartbeat away from the presidency makes a vote for McCain actually a vote for "Palin for President".
Where can I get a replacement for the homophobic widget that Apple gave me?

It has gay relationships in there...

Not to mention what a misnomer the term "homophobia" is. It's not an irrational terror of homosexuality.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

So, Palin will fight to ban gay marriage, yet she will fight for homosexual partnership rights. Does this not add up to anything logical, or I am missing something?
Funny how she being a heartbeat away from the presidency makes a vote for McCain actually a vote for "Palin for President".
Where can I get a replacement for the homophobic widget that Apple gave me?

Wow, even apple's dictionary widget has gone pro-gay.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Wow, even apple's dictionary widget has gone pro-gay.

It is still a secondary definition. Non pro-gay.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

It is still a secondary definition. Non pro-gay.

It's not anti-gay, either. Dictionaries always list the most common or primary definition of a word first. Currently "marriage" primarily refers to the legal institution, which is between a man and a woman.

If/when gay marriage is federally recognized, I imagine new dictionary revisions will say something along the lines of "the formal union of two people, usually legally recognized".

[Mithras]

The definition also doesn't account for polygamy, which as far as I know constituted the most common form of marriage in most human cultures until a century or so ago.

Well, actually, maybe it does, in the sense that it doesn't specify that a man can only enter into one such arrangement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not a big fan of companies publicly supporting political or religious causes, unless it's specifically a political or religious company (e.g. Focus on the Family).

If a major corporation had publicly donated money to a conservative or Republican fund/cause, it would destroy them.

As the press release said, Apple doesn't publicly support political causes either, but sees this as a human rights issue rather than a political issue. So from Apple's perspective, this is more akin to donating money to Save Darfur.

I think corporations being socially responsible is a very good thing.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As the press release said, Apple doesn't publicly support political causes either, but sees this as a human rights issue rather than a political issue. So from Apple's perspective, this is more akin to donating money to Save Darfur.

I think corporations being socially responsible is a very good thing.

Apple can call it whatever they want. It is a political issue. There is not a mass genocide against homosexuals because they want legal marriage rights.

While I support gay marriage, it's a political/social issue far more than it is a "human rights" one.

We've really twisted the concept of human rights into a giant monster. We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do. This, for instance, would be a human rights situation if the government were contemplating prohibiting homosexuality as a practice and lifestyle. However, that is not the case. Whether or not the government legally recognizes a union has nothing to do with human "rights".

[vmarks]

I'd like to temper your remark "We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do." by saying instead

We have far more rights than we've been taught to believe we actually have.

Rights are what we can do without requiring anything of anyone else.

My free speech doesn't compel anyone else to pay up, provide a microphone, auditorium, or audience.

But my healthcare, if mandated, would. Therefore, healthcare cannot be a right.

Rights do not stem from government.

[tie]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple can call it whatever they want. It is a political issue. There is not a mass genocide against homosexuals because they want legal marriage rights.

I think these companies are really getting involved in this because their employees strongly want them, too. Plus, it is very good for Apple's bottom line if it becomes more attractive to get skilled workers to move to California. (I don't have any data to back this up, but it is my impression.)

Originally Posted by Doofy

Let's not forget that Barry's position on this is virtually identical to McCain's.

I don't see how. Obama opposes and McCain supports Prop. 8. I can't see how anyone would say that their positions are "virtually identical." Their rhetoric is very similar, perhaps even virtually identical, but their positions are actually very different.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple can call it whatever they want. It is a political issue. There is not a mass genocide against homosexuals because they want legal marriage rights.

While I support gay marriage, it's a political/social issue far more than it is a "human rights" one.

We've really twisted the concept of human rights into a giant monster. We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do. This, for instance, would be a human rights situation if the government were contemplating prohibiting homosexuality as a practice and lifestyle. However, that is not the case. Whether or not the government legally recognizes a union has nothing to do with human "rights".

I agree with you. This is not a matter of rights. The basic human rights include life, liberty, property, and "The pursuit of happiness" (which is in my mind really connected to liberty)
The trouble is that Government should really not ever be involved in marriage, as marriage has been traditionally a religious institution. Government however decided to use the classification for other purposes, and that is how we've ended up with a mess.

I don't think companies should be supporting or opposing political philosophies. It rarely represents all involved parties' interests.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple can call it whatever they want. It is a political issue. There is not a mass genocide against homosexuals because they want legal marriage rights.

While I support gay marriage, it's a political/social issue far more than it is a "human rights" one.

We've really twisted the concept of human rights into a giant monster. We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do. This, for instance, would be a human rights situation if the government were contemplating prohibiting homosexuality as a practice and lifestyle. However, that is not the case. Whether or not the government legally recognizes a union has nothing to do with human "rights".

How do you feel about governments recognizing opposite sex marriages? Do you think they should do that? And if so, how is recognizing opposite-sex marriage, but not same-sex marriage, anything but a discriminatory practice on the part of government? There are two classes of people who want to be treated equal in the eyes of the law and the government will not allow it. And it is because government is endorsing the religious practice of marriage.



As for me, I don't think the government should recognize anyone's marriage. That practice is religious in nature and should stay in the realm of religion. I would like the government to stop recognizing marriages and instead recognize only civil unions between two adults (gay or straight). I would like the government to invalidate all current marriage certificates and issue certificates of civil union as replacements. If a couple then wanted a certificate of marriage to recognize their relationship within a religious context they could go to their religion of choice and get one (or get it re-issued if they already had a church service to recognize their union).

And in NO way do I want to force religions to change their beliefs on what constitutes a marriage. I think religious faiths should be able to define a marriage however they want within the context of their faith. And if two people don't meet the requirements for being married within that faith the government should have NO ability to force the religion to change. (i.e.: a same-sex couple granted a civil union by the state should have NO recourse from the state to force a particular faith to also grant them a marriage certificate.)

[Big Mac]

Apple could have spent its money on far worthier causes. $100,000 could probably help some cancer children instead of the gay "marriage" farce. I'd prefer Apple respect the will of the voters of California who already voted on the definition of marriage.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple could have spent its money on far worthier causes. $100,000 could probably help some cancer children instead of the gay "marriage" farce. I'd prefer Apple respect the will of the voters of California who already voted on the definition of marriage.

I'd prefer the state of California and all the rest of the states in this country recognize that marriage is a religious institution and as such should not be participated in by the state.

Now, if you wish to argue that the citizens of California have a right to choose to have their state participate in religious institutions, I would agree with you. They do have that right to try and change the state Constitution to allow for the state to participate in religious institutions. But this is not what they are doing with Prop 8. This is not a referendum on allowing the state to participate in religious institutions. This is a referendum demanding the state take a specific legal stance on a religious practice that it has no reason to care about.

Again, I am all for letting religious faiths determine who, what, and how their adherents can get married. I have no problem at all with that and would vigorously oppose any attempts by the state to interfere with a religion's right to self-determination in regards to their precepts regarding marriage. At the same time, I expect religion's to recognize that their beliefs must stay within the realm of their faith and should not be promoted as universal to people of all faiths (or with no faith).

That last little bit seems to me to be the problem here. A segment of the religious population in California wants their specific religion's views on marriage--views based on their religion's belief systems--to be enforced across the whole of the state. And that is not acceptable as religion beliefs of one faith should not be used to determine laws that apply to believers of different faiths.

Laws should be indifferent towards the beliefs of all religions. And when state start issuing certificates of civil union instead of certificates of marriage, we will go a long way toward having state get out of the business of religion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple can call it whatever they want. It is a political issue. There is not a mass genocide against homosexuals because they want legal marriage rights.

Genocide isn't the only violation of a person's rights. Do you not believe everybody is entitled to equal protection under the law? Not a believer in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as human rights?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

While I support gay marriage, it's a political/social issue far more than it is a "human rights" one.

The proponents of slavery viewed it the same way. Human rights issues often happen to be closely intertwined with political and social issues.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

We've really twisted the concept of human rights into a giant monster. We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do. This, for instance, would be a human rights situation if the government were contemplating prohibiting homosexuality as a practice and lifestyle. However, that is not the case. Whether or not the government legally recognizes a union has nothing to do with human "rights".

If government recognition of a marriage carried no benefits or consequences, you'd have a point. As it stands, married gays are treated as second-class citizens under the law. If the same treatment were meted out based on race, for example, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. It's just that there are more gay-bashers than overt racists these days, so there's less of an outcry when the government tries to step on gays' rights.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple could have spent its money on far worthier causes. $100,000 could probably help some cancer children instead of the gay "marriage" farce. I'd prefer Apple respect the will of the voters of California who already voted on the definition of marriage.

Thankfully, there are those who recognize that voters don't always view things in the proper perspective. In 1967, The Virginia Supreme Court ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia, that a black woman could marry a white man, despite the fact that polls showed that 70% of Virginians still believed it should be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, despite the ruling, Virginia didn't officially change its constitution until the early 1970s. Earlier in the last century, it was still unconstitutional for a woman to vote or hold office. In the mid twentieth century, blacks were forbidden from enrolling in white schools in many areas. These strawman arguments that "traditional" marriage, often propounded by those who haven't a clue as to how marriage has constantly evolved during man's history, are simply reactionary fear-mongering, that have no basis in reality. I can personally guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that if my daughter and her partner are allowed to marry (which I hope will happen before my life on this rock ends), they won't waste one iota of energy trying to convert others to becoming gay, and their marriage won't threaten yours, or anyone else's, unless it wasn't very strong to begin with, and in that case you'll have only yourself and/or your spouse to blame, not anyone else.

[shifuimam]

I guess I just don't see it as the government infringing on anyone's rights, per se.

dcmacdaddy has a point - why is the government getting its fingers into something that was originally a religious institution?

I can't argue that it's discrimination against homosexuals to not legally recognize their unions as "marriage". However, if you want to get into the whole government infringing on "rights" discussion, I'd argue that the government is infringing on my right to keep the money I've earned, by way of taxation. The government infringes on the right of a company to choose who it hires, by pressuring them into Affirmative Action-based "minority quotas" (which, by the way, is also discrimination). You could even go so far as to say that the government infringes on your right to consume whatever substances you want, by way of prohibiting the use of certain drugs.

As it stands, the government is not infringing on the rights of people to participate in homosexual relationships, should they choose to do so. The government is party to all sorts of discriminatory practices; marriage is one of a long list.

WRT comparing slavery and gay marriage, that's all kind of wrong. Liberty is the opposite of slavery; slavery was indeed infringing on one's basic rights as set forth by the constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have nothing to do with the legal recognition of a union between two people. In fact, the legal institution of marriage is a privilege, not a right. The government has no obligation to recognize any marriages at all (which gets back to dcmacdaddy's argument). If the government is going to recognize hetero marriages, then they should recognize homo marriages. That's a social/political issue though; not one of human rights.

I like vmarks' definition of human rights...

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'd like to temper your remark "We've been taught to believe that we have far more rights (rather than privileges) than we actually do." by saying instead

We have far more rights than we've been taught to believe we actually have.

Rights are what we can do without requiring anything of anyone else.

My free speech doesn't compel anyone else to pay up, provide a microphone, auditorium, or audience.

But my healthcare, if mandated, would. Therefore, healthcare cannot be a right.

Rights do not stem from government.

Legal marriage in any context is not a right. It's a privilege provided by the government.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

As it stands, the government is not infringing on the rights of people to participate in homosexual relationships, should they choose to do so.

No, and they're also not infringing on the right to buy guns. But they are infringing on the right that all American citizens have to equal protection. This is both a fundamental right and one guaranteed by the Constitution. If the government won't get out of the marriage business (and that seems unlikely), it at least needs to offer them equally to all people.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The government is party to all sorts of discriminatory practices; marriage is one of a long list.

If two wrongs don't make a right, I'm pretty sure 50 don't either.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

WRT comparing slavery and gay marriage, that's all kind of wrong. Liberty is the opposite of slavery; slavery was indeed infringing on one's basic rights as set forth by the constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have nothing to do with the legal recognition of a union between two people.

How about the people's right not to be arbitrarily separated? Visitation rights? Custody rights?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Legal marriage in any context is not a right. It's a privilege provided by the government.

Legal marriage is not a right, and I think we'd be better without the institution. But being equal in the eyes of the law is a right. We have a right to expect that from our government. The Supreme Court ruled half a century ago that forbidding interracial marriage was a violation of our rights. I can't understand why we're having the exact same debate today with "same-sex" in the place of "interracial." It seems like an issue that's been decided.

[Buckaroo]

I voted YES on Prop 8.

[Eug]

dcmacdaddy has a point - why is the government getting its fingers into something that was originally a religious institution?

Marriage has long since stopped being just a religious institution.

Athiests and agnostics do marry you know.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Legal marriage in any context is not a right. It's a privilege provided by the government.

But it can be an issue of discrimination. If state government's didn't recognize unions between blacks or mixed unions, or unions between those in different socioeconomic stratus, etc. AND gave special privileges (tax incentives for example) to those who have recognized unions, that would lead to immediate uproar. Recall the first line in the Declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Many (including supreme court justices) believe that the pursuit of happiness includes being able to join in a union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't see how. Obama opposes and McCain supports Prop. 8. I can't see how anyone would say that their positions are "virtually identical."

They both believe that the matter is not a federal matter.

Go do your research.

[Chuckit]

They're both passing the ball right now, but the fact is that if enough states legalize gay marriage, it will be a federal matter. There are federal marriage benefits that still aren't conferred by state gay marriage laws. Right now there are too few for it to be an issue, but if things continue, the federal government will have to decide whether it wants to recognize these marriages or not.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Marriage has long since stopped being just a religious institution.

Athiests and agnostics do marry you know.

I know. And when I got married (to my now ex-wife) we weren't happy that the state we lived in wanted to give us a marriage license. We didn't want to have any religious associations made with our completely secular wedding. But if we didn't get a "marriage license" we would not have been able to obtain those same legal rights granted to religious couples who got married. The state didn't provide an option for individuals to form a union outside of the traditional religious framework of a marriage.

I think your statement points out rather directly why the state needs to be out of the marriage business. It needs to merely recognize the legal rights of two people who have chosen to join their lives together as one. So, every couple that wants that recognition can get it from the state via a "Certificate of Union" and then those folks who want to go on and have their relationship acknowledged by their religion can get a "Certificate of Marriage" from their religion.

I don't see what the big deal is to change the process unless you (the generic, collective you) are someone who wants the state to provide religious validation for a union that should be seen as completely secular in the eyes of the state. The state needs to merely recognize legally the ramifications of two persons joining themselves as one in a wedding, anything beyond that is superfluous.

[Eug]

"marriage license"
"Certificate of Union"

Basically you're just arguing semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they can be the same thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Basically you're just arguing semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they can be the same thing.

Yes, I am arguing semantics. But words have specific meanings for specific reasons, don't they you dumb f*ck.





















You see my point now?!? Me calling you a "dumb f*ck" has a specific meaning (in this case as a pejorative) far different than me palling around with one of my buddies and calling him that in a playful teasing manner. So, semantics is important in how we use words to define us. And NO, I don't really think you are a "dumb f*ck".

[Eug]

Worst. Analogy. Ever. Better described IMO more like "context" than "semantics".

As far as I'm concerned, a marriage licence is a licence of marriage... with marriage being a very inclusive term, including both religious and non-religious unions. ie. In 2008, around here it's a legal term.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Legal marriage in any context is not a right. It's a privilege provided by the government.

Two points:

(1) You're actually wrong about marriage not being a right. In Loving v. Virginia, the court struck down an anti-miscegenation statute. In the process, it established the right to marry as one of our fundamental rights.

(2) The Court today (and for something like 75 years) doesn't recognize any distinction between "rights" and "privileges."

The proper inquiry in the marriage context is a 14th Amendment Due Process Clause/Equal Protection Clause argument: Whether anti-gay-marriage laws deprive homosexuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denies them equal protection of the law.

Now, there are certain "fundamental rights" listed in the Bill of Rights and what the Court finds under the liberty provision of this amendment; but there are no corresponding "privileges." That distinction is immaterial. Something that is a "fundamental right" is subject to strict scrutiny analysis; everything else is subject to either intermediate scrutiny or rational basis scrutiny.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Basically you're just arguing semantics. As far as I'm concerned, they can be the same thing.

I tend to agree with you, as long as the state doesn't distinguish between heterosexual "marriage" and homosexual "unions."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Worst. Analogy. Ever. Better described IMO more like "context" than "semantics".

You really don't care about the meaning of words, do you? if you want to talk about context let's discuss how a state using religious terminology for non-religious purposes is just a matter of context, eh?.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You really don't care about the meaning of words, do you? if you want to talk about context let's discuss how a state using religious terminology for non-religious purposes is just a matter of context, eh?.

In my circle of friends, "marriage" does not necessarily connote religion.

Indeed, the definition of "marriage" today by many doesn't necessarily connote a religious union either. The term has become an inclusive term, and for this reason I like the term. My definition of it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race... or religion.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Two points:


(2) The Court today (and for something like 75 years) doesn't recognize any distinction between "rights" and "privileges."

Actually, not so. See: right to travel, but privilege to travel by air or car.

Not saying I agree, but that's how the Government views it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That last little bit seems to me to be the problem here. A segment of the religious population in California wants their specific religion's views on marriage--views based on their religion's belief systems--to be enforced across the whole of the state. And that is not acceptable as religion beliefs of one faith should not be used to determine laws that apply to believers of different faiths.

No, that's inaccurate. What we're talking about here is not a majority of Californians voting on marriage based on a sectarian or even non-sectarian religious view. The voters of California simply affirmed back in 2000 that the term marriage refers to the union of a man and a woman. There's nothing about Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Islamic, or any other religion's particular conception of marriage within that broad definition. It is in all respects a non-religious statement. Many voted for that proposition based on religious convictions, but they weren't voting for a religious doctrine in any way.

I agree with Doofy, et al, who have said the state should get out of the business of declaring what are "marriages" and should only be certifying those unions that qualify under the law as civil unions - regardless of sexual orientation. But as long as the state of California is in the business of recognizing unions as marriages, I am going to vote for Prop 8 because I resent the change in the definition of the term and the imposition of the will of three unelected justices over millions of Californians who voted with a clear majority to affirm the traditional definition of the term. Thankfully, unlike the presidential election, my vote will count over this concern.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You really don't care about the meaning of words, do you? if you want to talk about context let's discuss how a state using religious terminology for non-religious purposes is just a matter of context, eh?.

As is done far too often on this board, I think you are arguing incorrectly that words only have one true and everlasting meaning. Language is flexible and constantly evolving, and from my, and I would wager a good portion of english speakers, marriage has evolved past to point of being a strictly religious term.

I agree with you in principle that state sponsored and church sponsored unions should be distinct (and, I would argue, already are), but I have no issue with the secular version being known as a marriage. Perhaps it would be easier to push the notion on "civil unions" on the electorate, but most of the homosexuals I have discussed this with don't believe this to be an acceptable compromise. Marriage means more than a simple contract and has specific connotations, a romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love. Gay folk want to be married. Not contractually bound to another person. And, for the most part, they are not pushing for it to be sanctioned by the church.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, not so. See: right to travel, but privilege to travel by air or car.

Not saying I agree, but that's how the Government views it.

Right to get married. Privilege to get married at a church or where you want.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, not so. See: right to travel, but privilege to travel by air or car.

Not saying I agree, but that's how the Government views it.

I can't speak for how anyone views it but the Court:

Goldberg v. Kelly

The Goldberg court decided that such entitlements (e.g., welfare payments, government pensions, professional licenses), are a form of "new property" that require pre-deprivation procedural protection, doing away with the traditional distinction between rights and privileges.

I was wrong about the date, however. It's only been almost 40 years since the Court no longer recognized a distinction between rights and privileges; not 75.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Gay folk want to be married. Not contractually bound to another person.

Fantastic line!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, that's inaccurate. What we're talking about here is not a majority of Californians voting on marriage based on a sectarian or even non-sectarian religious view. The voters of California simply affirmed back in 2000 that the term marriage refers to the union of a man and a woman. There's nothing about Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Islamic, or any other religion's particular conception of marriage within that broad definition. It is in all respects a non-religious statement. Many voted for that proposition based on religious convictions, but they weren't voting for a religious doctrine in any way.

I agree with Doofy, et al, who have said the state should get out of the business of declaring what are "marriages" and should only be certifying those unions that qualify under the law as civil unions - regardless of sexual orientation. But as long as the state of California is in the business of recognizing unions as marriages, I am going to vote for Prop 8 because I resent the change in the definition of the term and the imposition of the will of three unelected justices over millions of Californians who voted with a clear majority to affirm the traditional definition of the term. Thankfully, unlike the presidential election, my vote will count over this concern.

Are you really that disingenuous, that you think you can convince us that this is a non-religious effort, when you state at the same time that they voted based on religious convictions? Everything these opponents of gay marriage state revolves around their religious beliefs, be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, and to suggest otherwise is simply beyond belief, although they occasionally make an effort to cloak their rhetoric in non religious terms, as they do when they present their arguments that marriage is threatened when Bill and Bob get married, which is of course sheer lunacy. You state you resent the change in the definition of the term. Do you still speak Olde English, because the English language, and indeed the act and purpose of marriage have changed repeatedly throughout man's history. You can't explain how Susie and Mary getting married changes your marriage (unless of course you're not secure in your own marriage, and then it becomes a threat), because you can't seem to grasp that your marriage means whatever it does to you and your wife, regardless of what it means to others. If my neighbors are gay and get married, it does nothing to diminish the stature or my marriage, because my vows were made between me and my wife, and that's all I'm concerned with. If the state adds gay couples to its registry of married people, do you suddenly run to your wife and tell her your marriage is in trouble, because Jack and Jim next door are now married, and your vows and viewpoints on marriage suddenly mean less? I would certainly hope not, but then again, one never knows. I'm not a busybody, sticking my nose in other people's business, when it doesn't affect mine (unfortunately, lot of people are busybodies, concerned more with cleaning others' houses than their own).

What most people who can't get past this issue don't realize, whether it's because of denial, or being obtuse, is that it doesn't matter what others think about two consenting adults deciding to join in union, and calling it a marriage, unless they have some serious insecurity issues, especially when gays are such a very small percentage of the population. It has always amazed me, and apparently will never cease to, that such a large percentage of the public allows their emotions and beliefs to be controlled by such a small number of people, because of irrational fear and absurd projections of implausible outcomes. People actually spend untold millions of dollars on an issue that will never affect them, and they're too ignorant to realize it, or too obtuse to break down the wall of denial.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They both believe that the matter is not a federal matter.

Go do your research.

Their positions on this issue are in fact exactly opposite. They are not virtually identical at all.

[hyteckit]

I've read voting was a right that was traditionally defined as something only white men can do.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've read voting was a right that was traditionally defined as something only white men can do.

Close. White land owning men.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

As is done far too often on this board, I think you are arguing incorrectly that words only have one true and everlasting meaning. Language is flexible and constantly evolving, and from my, and I would wager a good portion of english speakers, marriage has evolved past to point of being a strictly religious term.

I agree with you in principle that state sponsored and church sponsored unions should be distinct (and, I would argue, already are), but I have no issue with the secular version being known as a marriage. Perhaps it would be easier to push the notion on "civil unions" on the electorate, but most of the homosexuals I have discussed this with don't believe this to be an acceptable compromise. Marriage means more than a simple contract and has specific connotations, a romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love. Gay folk want to be married. Not contractually bound to another person. And, for the most part, they are not pushing for it to be sanctioned by the church.

No. I am well aware of how the meaning of words change. I simply want the government to use terminology that is specific to what they would be providing by recognizing the union of two individuals in a (hoped-for) life-long legal commitment. I want the state to be indifferent to whether the two parties to be coupled have a "romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love". To me that is of no concern to what the state is recognizing; The state should be merely recognizing the legal aspects of such a union and nothing else. In other words, I think the state should be indifferent as to whether a legal union recognized by it is predicated on a "romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love" or a "honey were pregnant and need to get a civil union obligation". The state shouldn't really care about the Why; It should just care about the Who, When, Where.

I guess I would question how any couple (heterosexual or homosexual) would consider the state's recognition of their union as having any relation to their "romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love". You say that "Gay folk want to be married. Not contractually bound to another person." but the state's role is only to provide legal recognition of that contractual binding. It's role is to not validate the emotional, affective aspects of the union. So, I would think the state's recognition of their relationship beyond the merely contractual shouldn't matter to the couple. After all, two people can have a "romantic, lifetime commitment based on mutual love" without ever getting married or having a civil union so I guess I don't understand why the state's recognition of their relationship has any sort of validatory power/influence over that personal, emotional aspect of how the participants view the relationship.