[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That piece of paper is quite useful.

Hence my clarification "the piece of paper is worthless except for the aforementioned consolidation and simplification of bureaucratic process".

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Eug 

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.

The ceremony has nothing to do with the piece of paper.

The real issue (as illustrated by Big Mac) is that the word marriage has religious/spiritual/ceremonial connotations that aren't easily altered. If these people need me to use a different word to label my partnership (and thus acknowledge it's inferiority), so be it. Let the haters think their arrangement is somehow better than mine. That's their issue.

The only way to turn this into a rational debate is to frame it in the context of a civil union and just forget about the word marriage. I certainly don't give a crap what you call my union. Just as long as you recognize it legally.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And therein lies the problem; it's up to some local individual or institution to decide how they want to treat a situation.

Actually, that IS part of A problem. Our founding fathers wanted to keep as much as possible about the way our institutions and government is run in the hands of the people. They WANTED stuff to be decided locally wherever it could. If they didn't specifically put a limit on something in the Constitution, they expected it to be decided at the state or local level, knowing that the values and priorities of communities could best be reflected by having those same people make the rules.

Some 200 years later, people want to take control from the states to institute changes desired by a minority. I think it's great that if the people of California don't want unelected judges to make decisions for them, that they can go through legal channels to make sure their wishes are mandated. Our founding fathers intended for us to change our Constitution via vote as well - not for judges just to do it for us.

As people have stated, if prevailing wisdom amongst the people changes, they can just as easily change things to reflect that as well. MUCH fairer than just having a couple of judges decide for people.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

The ceremony has nothing to do with the piece of paper.

The real issue (as illustrated by Big Mac) is that the word marriage has religious/spiritual/ceremonial connotations that aren't easily altered. If these people need me to use a different word to label my partnership (and thus acknowledge it's inferiority), so be it. Let the haters think their arrangement is somehow better than mine. That's their issue.

The only way to turn this into a rational debate is to frame it in the context of a civil union and just forget about the word marriage. I certainly don't give a crap what you call my union. Just as long as you recognize it legally.

IMO the real issue is that piece of paper provides specific legal rights that often are not available to those who don't have that piece of paper. It's not stupid to forego walking down the aisle in a $1000, $10000, or $50000 ceremony when you can't get the piece of paper. For many people, it's essentially a complete waste of time and money.

As for the "religious" meaning that isn't easily altered, I see this as a much less significant issue. Here, one can have a religious ceremony and thus a religious marriage. One can also have non-religious ceremony and a civil marriage. They're both called marriage legally. The latter just doesn't have all that religious baggage attached.

And you know what? People haven't freaked out about the use of the word. The religious right complain about allowing the legal union of same-sex couples. In general they don't really care here if it's called a marriage or a civil union, they still complain. The rest of the population seems fine with the term marriage for same-sex couples.

It's just that a few in this thread seem to want to complexify things by arguing semantics.

[Atheist]

^ I would still argue that removing the word marriage from the debate simplifies it immensely.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Our founding fathers intended for us to change our Constitution via vote as well - not for judges just to do it for us.

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a 3/4 majority. If that were the case for the state constitution as it ought to be, Prop. 8 would be a miserable failure. It was pretty much evenly split, and IMO you shouldn't change the Constitution when half the electorate says no. That wasn't what our founding fathers intended.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As people have stated, if prevailing wisdom amongst the people changes, they can just as easily change things to reflect that as well. MUCH fairer than just having a couple of judges decide for people.

Your argument holds no water. Our history is full of judges deciding that a law needs to be changed, despite the majority believing otherwise. The laws were changed, and years later the majority looked back and saw how previous generations were wrong. This will happen with gay marriage as well. It is wrong, and someday people will realize it, and it will most likely be effected before the majority agrees.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your argument holds no water. Our history is full of judges deciding that a law needs to be changed, despite the majority believing otherwise. The laws were changed, and years later the majority looked back and saw how previous generations were wrong. This will happen with gay marriage as well. It is wrong, and someday people will realize it, and it will most likely be effected before the majority agrees.

But judges don't have the right to decide right and wrong. Their job is to determine what's legal and illegal.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

^ I would still argue that removing the word marriage from the debate simplifies it immensely.

Well, we already have it in law here as an all-inclusive word "marriage". The arguments here against it were generally not against the word per se, but the actual extension of equal rights to same-sex couples. That was the real meat of the issue, not some semantic argument.

I would be fine if all were called "union", but either way I think it's stupid to create another separate bureaucratic section/process for the same thing.

Actually, in some ways I think removing the word "marriage" might cause more trouble than its worth. Couples like to refer to themselves as "married", not "unionized". If you remove the word "marriage" you'd probably get even more complaints.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

IMO the real issue is that piece of paper provides specific legal rights that often are not available to those who don't have that piece of paper. It's not stupid to forego walking down the aisle in a $1000, $10000, or $50000 ceremony when you can't get the piece of paper. For many people, it's essentially a complete waste of time and money.

Ding, ding, ding! That piece of paper means everything, legally! Those who say we can use other legal arrangements to effect the same result don't know all the rights that are afforded to legally married heterosexuals, and that they aren't all available to homosexuals in a civil union, especially in different states.

As for the "religious" meaning that isn't easily altered, I see this as a much less significant issue. Here, one can have a religious ceremony and thus a religious marriage. One can also have non-religious ceremony and a civil marriage. They're both called marriage legally. The latter just doesn't have all that religious baggage attached.

And you know what? People haven't freaked out about the use of the word. The religious right complain about allowing the legal union of same-sex couples. In general they don't really care here if it's called a marriage or a civil union, they still complain. The rest of the population seems fine with the term marriage for same-sex couples.

It's just that a few in this thread seem to want to complexify things by arguing semantics.

The use of the word "marriage" is indeed part of the problem. In the U. S., the religious right defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it that way, including the use of the word marriage. Maybe you believe it's different in your country (Canada?), and maybe it is, but if you believe they aren't freaked out about the use of the word "marriage" by homosexual couples, you're seriously mistaken.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Some 200 years later, people want to take control from the states to institute changes desired by 50%-1.

Fixed that for you. Just under 50% =! "minority"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But judges don't have the right to decide right and wrong. Their job is to determine what's legal and illegal.

And, what if they decide that it's illegal to deny rights from one group of people that are allowed for another?

[Chuckit]

If there is such a clause in the Constitution, it's a valid decision. However, that would also destroy the justice system, which is all about selectively taking rights away from people.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The use of the word "marriage" is indeed part of the problem. In the U. S., the religious right defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it that way, including the use of the word marriage. Maybe you believe it's different in your country (Canada?), and maybe it is, but if you believe they aren't freaked out about the use of the word "marriage" by homosexual couples, you're seriously mistaken.

Yeah, the religious right doesn't like "married" gays. They didn't like that here either. But when you really looked at the argument, it was they didn't feel gay couples shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as hetero couples. ie. Even if it was just a "civil union" for gays they were against it.

So, our government just said frack it, we're sticking with the word "marriage" for everyone, partially because it costs us more money to add other bureaucratic classifications. And guess what? The majority of the general population (excluding the religious right) seems perfectly fine with that.

Now in the US, it would seem the religious right has more clout in some situations than here in Canada. So, what happened in Canada was easier to accomplish, and some view the separation of terms in the US as a reasonable compromise. I can understand that, but I don't really see the point in further complexifying the system, unless the plan is to keep gay unions as a second class category. And I suspect, that is indeed the intention. If you've got two separate laws for the issue and two separate bureaucratic processes, one can attack one set while leaving the other alone.

[Eug]

I guess I could put it another way...

Should interracial marriages be categorized as interracial unions and not marriages, but hopefully they would be given equal rights?
Should blacks vote in a separate black election, but hopefully be given equal clout in the overall election?
Should women vote in a separate women's election, but hopefully be given equal clout in the overall election?
Should we have a separate category for marriages for seniors, but hopefully they would be given equal rights?

If not, then why? Maybe cuz the above examples are stupid, just adds red tape and unnecessary cost to the system, and the fact that such categories would only exist to appease other groups that don't really want to offer them equal rights.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But judges don't have the right to decide right and wrong. Their job is to determine what's legal and illegal.

And they determined that it's illegal to deny a black woman and white man to marry, in 1967, when the majority of voters in Virginia thought otherwise, and didn't even amend Virginia's constitution to outlaw the practice until 1972. They determined that it was illegal for one human being to own another as property, when many thought they should be able to do so. They determined that it was illegal for black people not to be able to vote, when many thought the judges were wrong. They determined that it was illegal to keep black and white children in separate schools, when many thought it was the right thing to do. At one time in this country, women couldn't vote, because many thought they were second class citizens. Most people today realize how wrong we were, although there will always be the ignorant and intolerant among us. This issue will be solved the same way, although it may take a little more time. It took many years for the above mentioned issues to be resolved, and many afterwards until the majority looked back and saw how wrong our forebears were.

Once again, the argument holds no water.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a 3/4 majority. If that were the case for the state constitution as it ought to be, Prop. 8 would be a miserable failure.

State Constitutions are a lot different from the national ones. They are often times a lot more broad and a lot more detailed and STILL have to follow the national Constitution. Again, our founding fathers intended for a lot of the actual law making to be made at the state level, and the chances are that people in a state are more likely to share certain values than someone who lives on the other side of the country - not requiring a "super majority" to show that your neighbors are voting like you. That's likely why those in charge in California didn't require such a strenuous standard.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Fixed that for you. Just under 50% =! "minority"

I'm sorry, but even the dictionary (an impartial source) disagrees with you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minority

Definition: The smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.

My math skills might be fuzzy, but "just under 50%" fits the definition exactly.

Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And they determined that it's illegal to deny a black woman and white man to marry, in 1967, when the majority of voters in Virginia thought otherwise, and didn't even amend Virginia's constitution to outlaw the practice until 1972.

...based on the US Constitution. They didn't find that it was illegal based on the VIrginia Constitution. The United States had already amended the Constitution to protect people against discrimination based just on race, which is what was happening in 1967.

Judges didn't decide it - they just said based on what the US Constitution said (which was changed due to popular opinion), it wasn't allowed. There is no such protection in the Constitution based on sexual orientation. Maybe there will be someday, but that's the way to change things nationally - not have judges rule by fiat just because THEY think something is wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sorry, but even the dictionary (an impartial source) disagrees with you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minority

Definition: The smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.

My math skills might be fuzzy, but "just under 50%" fits the definition exactly.

Sorry.

Certainly, 50%-1 counts as a mathematical minority, but in a population of humans, it hardly applies. By that same logic, you must say that only a minority of the American population agrees with conservative values.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sorry, but even the dictionary (an impartial source) disagrees with you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minority

Definition: The smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.

My math skills might be fuzzy, but "just under 50%" fits the definition exactly.

Sorry.

Your math skills are fine, but your practical application is lacking.

[Big Mac]

So you guys think 50%+1 != majority, and 50%-1 != minority? I guess that's BHO Fuzzy Math. You know, the "95% get a tax cut" type of math.

[olePigeon]

Ask a black or latino person in their 60s why they fought to use the same drinking fountain as a white person. The Yes on 8 people are the exact same people who claim that it's all the same water. Wrong. The message was that whites were superior to "colored" people, so the "colored folk" have to drink from their own fountain.

That is the exact same reasoning used in regards to marriage. The guy they interviewed who headed the Yes on 8 campaign acted exactly like that. He was superior to that of gay people. He was upset regarding the wording of the bill which read, "Taking away the rights of homosexuals to marry..." He was outraged, he actually said that gays don't have any rights to marriage, that their rights are artificial because the superior court gave them those rights.

It's 2008 and California is enacting Jim Crow laws. Separate but equal. Unbelievable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you guys think 50%+1 != majority, and 50%-1 != minority? I guess that's BHO Fuzzy Math. You know, the "95% get a tax cut" type of math.

Your hatred is really pretty unhealthy. People simply have a different opinion than you, and not all 53% of those people are morons, just like not all 46% of the McCain supporters were morons. If your ideology is *that* rigid that you can't even entertain the notion that either you are wrong, or else these people simply have a genuine difference of opinion and are not all lacking in some capacity, perhaps it is *you* that is the radical?

Rigid, unrelenting ideology and radicalism tend to go hand in hand, do they not? I just hope that if this struggle does continue for you that you learn to make your points using intellectual arguments, rather than just turning up your volume.

[TheWOAT]

Lets not compare the hatred and racism ethnic minorities faced in this country to gay marraige.. its a piss poor comparison.

Eventually gay marriage will be legal, along with "mormon hold'em". Dont fight it, yo.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...based on the US Constitution. They didn't find that it was illegal based on the VIrginia Constitution. The United States had already amended the Constitution to protect people against discrimination based just on race, which is what was happening in 1967.

Judges didn't decide it - they just said based on what the US Constitution said (which was changed due to popular opinion), it wasn't allowed. There is no such protection in the Constitution based on sexual orientation. Maybe there will be someday, but that's the way to change things nationally - not have judges rule by fiat just because THEY think something is wrong.

Your opinion is noted. Frankly, I don't care how it's changed, but it will change, and those of us who are still around a few years after the change will look back and wonder what the fuss was about (except of course for the intolerant among us, which we'll always have some of). I make no secret of the fact that I'm waiting impatiently, so my daughter can marry her partner, and then enjoy all the legal rights that married heterosexual couples have. I've got maybe 30 or so years left on this rock, and I'm fairly confident it will happen before then. Less than a decade ago, gays had absolutely no rights in any state, and it took other issues much longer to get to the point where they were legally settled.

[Eug]

My understanding is that this amendment is not retroactive, so that previously married gay couples will continue to be recognized as married. My understanding also is that it doesn't matter if it's an in-state or out-of-state marriage.

Is that correct?

[OldManMac]

That's what the CA Attorney General and several other prominent attorneys are claiming, but there will be lawsuits brought by ProtectMarriage.com, as well as others, from what I've read, to invalidate prior same sex marriages. Interestingly, they can't make a coherent rationalization as to what marriage needs protecting from.

[TheWOAT]

I also heard on KGO that the CA AG will argue that the iniative sought to revise the Constitution, not add an amendment... I guess a revision requires involvement from the assembly. Either way, I dont see this iniative surviving in the courts.