Proposition 8 discussion continued

[Diemen]

Their civil union rights do not give them the same rights as a marriage would give them.

 

[martha]

they assumed they had access to a right

There was no assumption; it was a right. People were legally married.

 

[diamond]

Their civil union rights do not give them the same rights as a marriage would give them.

How so?

Can they still own a home together?
Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still have medical insurance together? Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still own a car together?
Can they bequeath their estate to their marital companion(s)? Is that right being yanked from them?
Can they still visit sick spouses in hospitals? Is that now being yanked from them?
If they adopted kids, are the kids being *now* yanked from them?
Have any kids been yanked from them?

Because Prop 8 passed are all of these things now null and void?

Of course the answer is no to all of the above questions.

At the very most, certificates will be changed on what type of matrimonal relationship or civil union they entered into designating what the realtionships actually are: every other legal aspect should and will remain in tact.

If anything changes are made other than that: let me know.

<>

 

[diamond]

There was no assumption; it was a right. People were legally married.

The majority of the people who voted in Calif. for Prop 8 feel Mayor Newsom and a few judges misinterpreted the law.

They also feel that with the passing of Prop 8-that misinterpretation has now been corrected.

<>

 

[joyfulgirl]

Simple question: how would you feel if you had been denied the right to marry your wife, the woman you love? Can you just imagine that for a moment? Have you ever tried? Why wasn't a civil union enough for you?

 

[U2DMfan]

Irvy and Melon, who patronizes you the most?

And does it bother you?

If you answer incorrectly, I will freeze you in Carbonite with Han Solo,

 

[U2DMfan]

Why is this not a Civil rights issue in terms of Constitutionality?

If the States are meant to choose, then the 'argument' towards the Constitution is flawed.

Should it not be made a question of right over privilege?
The States will always be meant to judge the merits of "marriage"

You have to make the argument about rights, first and foremost.
You've got to make the argument about rights instead of marriage.
Separate the rights from the legal description.

How is this not a SC issue?
Is it because the context is all wrong?

Why did Luke kiss Leia?
Who is the final Cylon?
It will never make sense.

Seriously, though.
Shouldn't the whole argument be parsed differently?

 

[WCF]

So a law is passed violating a group's civil rights, and people don't expect them to get angry about it? Yes, there will always be a few rotten apples to ruin the rest, but these people have the right to be protesting; in my opinion, they ought to be protesting such a big step backwards in social equality. The gay rights side is no more evil than the Pro-Prop 8 side, I'm tired of people trying to imply this. I know this sounds cliche, but an American ideal ingrained into our heads is that "freedom comes at a price." When someone's rights are violated, they have the right, even the duty, to protest. There are cases here and there about gay rights activists crossing the line, but don't let this minority damage the whole. Imagine if Prop 8 had failed; I'm sure there would have been some rotten apples on their side too.

How so?

Can they still own a home together?
Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still have medical insurance together? Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still own a car together?
Can they bequeath their estate to their marital companion(s)? Is that right being yanked from them?
Can they still visit sick spouses in hospitals? Is that now being yanked from them?
If they adopted kids, are the kids being *now* yanked from them?
Have any kids been yanked from them?

As I said in my earlier post, civil unions are degrading and inherently unequal. Don't tell me that if you yourself were in a civil union, that you would feel it equal to marriage. Marriage has a higher position in society, and by preventing gays from marrying, you are preventing them from having this position. Wait a minute, we're preventing Americans from achieving a higher social status - in America! There's your American Dream for you. Instead, you give them marriage's ugly cousin, this "civil union," based upon a religious, outdated ("traditional"), and narrow-minded definition of marriage.


Now, the way I see it, religious people are imposing their beliefs on people who don't believe in the same things. Imagine if, magically, the majority of California became Hindu and they passed a Proposition banning the consumption of cows. They cite that cows are sacred and that they're disgusting anyway. You'd be pretty mad that someone else's beliefs, beliefs you find to be ridiculous, have just been imposed on you. Well, this is what happened here. They took the religious definition of marriage and jammed it into our state Constitution.

If not religious beliefs are being imposed on us, than ignorance is. Many people simply find gay marriage simply disgusting, and I find it disgusting that many people voted based solely on that.

My point is that, yes, the majority of California spoke (the whole 52% majority...), but what did they speak from? To put it bluntly, I think this only means that the majority of California seems to be brainwashed and ignorant. Ultimately, it was religion that brought blacks and Hispanics in favor of Prop. 8. It's also been speculated that the massive Pro-8 ad campaign was the decider in this election. But look at those "Yes on 8" ads, the ones saying children will be taught gay marriage in schools. It is, by far, the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard throughout this whole election, just a big load of fearmongering scare tactics. I actually felt like our intelligence was being insulted. But they were actually effective in getting the public in an uproar against gay marriage. And this is where I lost faith in the people's judgement.

But of course, this last bit of my rambling is just the way I see it.

 

[Diemen]

How so?

There were several replies to this earlier in the thread:

I don't know each and every difference, but the main one that comes to mind is that unlike marriage, domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state where the papers are filed. And they are not recognized at all on a federal level, so you can't file a join tax return as domestic partners.

To tack onto that as a "for instance," I know that if your employer provides health benefits for a domestic partnership, you get taxed on that benefit because the federal government doesn't recognize the partnership. It's called "imputed income."

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia entry provides a partial listing of what marriage entails at the federal level in the US. Note, from the introduction:

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from single people. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

That's right; they'd only be valid in the individual states that recognize them (and then only in terms of state law).

So as you can see, they do not have equal rights as it stands right now.

 

[anitram]

The majority of the people who voted in Calif. for Prop 8 feel ..... a few judges misinterpreted the law.

Yes, we usually let the legally uneducated public decide on the correct interpretation of the law.

 

[diamond]

Yes, we usually let the legally uneducated public decide on the correct interpretation of the law.

snide comment wreaking w liberal consternation.

<>

 

[martha]

Yes, we usually let the legally uneducated public decide on the correct interpretation of the law.

Apparently we do in California.

 

[diamond]

There were several replies to this earlier in the thread:









So as you can see, they do not have equal rights as it stands right now.

So, address and fix those items for SS couples on a federal level legally and not by activists judges.

<>

 

[martha]

The majority of the people who voted in Calif. for Prop 8 feel Mayor Newsom and a few judges misinterpreted the law.

So, even though my state's Constitution has an equal protection clause, gay couples shouldn't expect equal protection under the law in my state? The laws don't apply to them equally?

 

[diamond]

Are gays being hunted and persecuted, or there a few items such as filing joint tax returns, taxes oh healt benefits etc that need to be addressed and correct?

I say fix them legally.

Btw who signed the Defense of Marrige Act anyway?

<>

 

[martha]

So, even though my state's Constitution has an equal protection clause, gay couples shouldn't expect equal protection under the law in my state? The laws don't apply to them equally?

You didn't answer my questions.

 

[diamond]

Defense of Marrige Act signer?

 

[diamond]

You didn't answer my questions.

sure i did-there's work for same sex domestic partners to do legally, get bills passed.

<>

 

[diamond]

Simple question: how would you feel if you had been denied the right to marry your wife, the woman you love? Can you just imagine that for a moment? Have you ever tried? Why wasn't a civil union enough for you?

It's already happened, let me explain.

In my faith, we marry for eternity. She is not of my faith, so I had a decision to make: we both understood we could only be married for time.

I could have ended our relationship, or married her for "until death due us part" like other Orthodox Christian faiths do.

In our faith we can choose between the two.

That's what we did we married for time-by a Mormon Bishop.

She holds no animosity to Mormons because we weren't married the traditional Mormon way (for eternity) nor does she think that Mormons are bigoted- like many mean spirited posters have suggested here.

She's made good LDS friends that don't try to prosletyze her and accept her for who she is. We are not looked down by not having an Eternal Marriage.

She's different from me, beautiful and I love her for it.

<>

 

[indra]

It's already happened, let me explain.

In my faith, we marry for eternity. She is not of my faith, so I had a decision to make: we both understood we could only be married for time.

I could have ended our relationship, or married her for "until death due us part" like other Orthodox Christian faiths do.

In our faith we can choose between the two.

That's what we did we married for time-by a Mormon Bishop.

She holds no animosity to Mormons because we weren't married the traditional Mormon way (for eternity) nor does she think that Mormons are bigoted- like many mean spirited posters have suggested here.

She's made good LDS friends that don't try to prosletyze her and accept her for who she is. We are not looked down by not having an Eternal Marriage.

She's different from me, beautiful and I love her for it.

<>

No, there was never any attempt by the STATE to deny you and your wife the right to marry. What your church allows or disallows has absolutely no bearing.

 

[diamond]

but she didn't make demands to be married the traditional mormon way like gays are trying to do to those not of their mindset.

<>

 

[diamond]

Many people assume Dolphins are fish.
Dolphins are mammals.

I see the Gay Marriage argument the same way.

Gays are uniquely different from Straights.

In some ways Dolphins are superior to fish. However Dolphins still arent fish, they don't lay eggs- they are warm blooded mammals.

The same goes w Gay relationships-(they are different), in some ways much more unique, however that doesn't entitle them to call their unions "marriages" the same way a Dolphin is not called a fish.

Different, but not the same.

<>

 

[diamond]

...and please don't refer to this as the gay dolphin conspiracy..

 

[joyfulgirl]

You didn't answer my questions.

Mine either.

 

[diamond]

Mine either.

yes, i did-but not in the way you had hoped.

<>

 

[joyfulgirl]

yes, i did-but not in the way you had hoped.

<>

You seem to have no ability to empathize. Your situation bears no resemblance whatsoever to what we're talking about.

I'll ask again. Why wasn't a civil union good enough for you and Sally?

 

[diamond]

because by definition of gender we are slated to be in a marriage.

however if i were a girl and sally wanted to be w me in a monogamous relationship, i would be ok w a civil union.

i would then work to get the same benifits that married straights have on a federal level (legally)-if that was my motivation to be w her.

<>

 

[toscano]

How so?

Can they still own a home together?
Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still have medical insurance together? Is that right *now* being yanked from them?
Can they still own a car together?
Can they bequeath their estate to their marital companion(s)? Is that right being yanked from them?
Can they still visit sick spouses in hospitals? Is that now being yanked from them?
If they adopted kids, are the kids being *now* yanked from them?
Have any kids been yanked from them?

Because Prop 8 passed are all of these things now null and void?

Of course the answer is no to all of the above questions.

At the very most, certificates will be changed on what type of matrimonal relationship or civil union they entered into designating what the realtionships actually are: every other legal aspect should and will remain in tact.

If anything changes are made other than that: let me know.

<>

So the LDS bankrolled bigotry, again, to protect "nothing" ???

 

[anitram]

I absolutely think the LDS Church is behaving in bigoted ways here and they also have a long history of prejudice and bigotry that most people are aware of.

Don't think I'm picking on you; I don't practice Catholicism either because I think the Church is no better and I wish not to contribute a penny to what I believe is a bigoted organization.

 

[toscano]

Amazing that people still think government by referendum is a good idea.

If that were the case we'd probably STILL have no voting tights for blacks in Alabama, any attempt to change that constitutionally and the whites would just be complaining about "activist judges".

Rationalize all you want diamond, you're just a bigot through and through.