Proposition 8 discussion continued

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So the second thread is now on it's 14th page, and still all we have is:

- Defending a word.
- Folks that don't understand the definition of:
separation of church and state
or
voters rights
- Folks that don't understand the law.
- Gays will rape their children.
- Plagiarism.
- And lots of bigotry hiding behind "I have no problem with homosexuality except..."

Did I miss anything?
 
On another Sacramento note, the artistic director of California Musical Theatre, our fabulous theatre company that brings us all the touring productions and so much more has resigned amid threats of boycott. He donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and none other than Marc Shaiman said that no more of his musicals could be produced here. While of course I disagree with the position of the artistic director, I'm saddened that he was forced to resign from his position. The director made clear that the CMT does not share the views of the AD and a boycott would have hurt many more than just the AD. I'm very proud of Sacramento's theatre community, how many local theatres we have and the professional productions we get because of CMT. I don't agree that someone should have lost their job because they disagree on this issue.

From what I read he made the decision to resign.

Just like he made the decision to cut people out of the Constitution.
 
So the second thread is now on it's 14th page, and still all we have is:

- Defending a word.
- Folks that don't understand the definition of:
separation of church and state
or
voters rights
- Folks that don't understand the law.
- Gays will rape their children.
- Plagiarism.
- And lots of bigotry hiding behind "I have no problem with homosexuality except..."

Did I miss anything?

I think you should save this for when we get to the 10th thread...
 
From what I read he made the decision to resign.

Just like he made the decision to cut people out of the Constitution.

I'm sure he did choose to resign. But he wouldn't have made that choice had the backlash not resulted from his donation. It was choice under pressure.
Don't forget Martha, we are on the same page you and I. However, I just don't agree that he should have lost his job for it or felt he had to resign because of it.
 
So the second thread is now on it's 14th page, and still all we have is:

- Defending a word.
- Folks that don't understand the definition of:
separation of church and state
or
voters rights
- Folks that don't understand the law.
- Gays will rape their children.
- Plagiarism.
- And lots of bigotry hiding behind "I have no problem with homosexuality except..."

Did I miss anything?

You forgot -

Government and lawmaking by referendum is the only acceptable methodology for policy making (as long as the decisions go 'our' way)

Judges interpreting the law and constitution is a bad thing, unless their decisons go 'our' way
 
My favourite argument is that you already have all the rights under the law (not true) so "marriage" itself would not add anything or change anything for you as a gay couple.

While pouring in tens of millions of dollars to prevent the addition of "nothing".
 
Join the Impact - my daughters and I will be there in Sacramento sometime during the rally on Saturday. Looking forward to it.

On another Sacramento note, the artistic director of California Musical Theatre, our fabulous theatre company that brings us all the touring productions and so much more has resigned amid threats of boycott. He donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and none other than Marc Shaiman said that no more of his musicals could be produced here. While of course I disagree with the position of the artistic director, I'm saddened that he was forced to resign from his position. The director made clear that the CMT does not share the views of the AD and a boycott would have hurt many more than just the AD. I'm very proud of Sacramento's theatre community, how many local theatres we have and the professional productions we get because of CMT. I don't agree that someone should have lost their job because they disagree on this issue.



i totally agree that he shouldn't have lost his job -- was he fired or did he resign or was it clear that the community would no longer support the CMT because of the artistic director?

the AD is entitled to support whatever causes he wants and not risk losing his job.

however, the citizens of Sacramento are totally free to boycott the CMT because of the artistic director. and if the CMT felt that he was now a liability because of what he said, well, i'm sure he could have quite a conversation with, say, Jocelyn Elders.

i have been following this story a bit -- please keep us posted. :)
 
My favourite argument is that you already have all the rights under the law (not true) so "marriage" itself would not add anything or change anything for you as a gay couple.

While pouring in tens of millions of dollars to prevent the addition of "nothing".



clearly, if the fags can do it, it can't be worth shit.

which really is the message.

we are better than you. don't you forget it, faggot.
 
My favourite argument is that you already have all the rights under the law (not true) so "marriage" itself would not add anything or change anything for you as a gay couple.

While pouring in tens of millions of dollars to prevent the addition of "nothing".

Well all of it's pretty ridiculous, but I think this and the reverse separation of church and state argument have to be the two silliest.

Several years from now it will be interesting to see the majority of those that are outspoken against gay marriage will have children that will just shake their heads at their parent's bigotry.
 
Theater exec Eckern, caught in Prop. 8 flap, resigns - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Here's the link from the Sacramento Bee.

While Richard Lewis may say that no pressure was exerted by him, I'm sure that having a renowned Broadway producer blog that he would never again allow his productions to be performed here while Scott Eckern was on staff surely acted as pressure.

Again, I can't say enough that I don't support his position on Prop 8. But I am saddened that he's leaving.

If people should lose their jobs because of their personal beliefs then shouldn't it hold that Christians should not be able to work for Jewish people because we believe in Jesus? Of course not. And he shouldn't lose his job because of this - or rather feel compelled to resign from his job because of his beliefs.
 
i totally agree that he shouldn't have lost his job -- was he fired or did he resign or was it clear that the community would no longer support the CMT because of the artistic director?

the AD is entitled to support whatever causes he wants and not risk losing his job.

however, the citizens of Sacramento are totally free to boycott the CMT because of the artistic director. and if the CMT felt that he was now a liability because of what he said, well, i'm sure he could have quite a conversation with, say, Jocelyn Elders.

i have been following this story a bit -- please keep us posted. :)

I have been following this story, too. Here is his statement, which is thoughtful, and he seems like a decent guy, much as I disagree with him. It just really bothers me that people like him who are religious, in this case Mormon, seem not to have any real objection to gays or gay rights except for their religion, but they don't challenge their religion on it. He also seems quite naive to be surprised by the reaction his support for Prop 8 received. It's musical theatre, for God's sake. It's like a friend of mine's evangelical mother - so supportive, loves her son and his partner, even immortalized them together in a sculpture, but at the same time votes against anything and everything that will give them all the rights she enjoys. I just don't fucking get it. I guess it's that "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit. Denying people their civil rights is not loving, btw; in fact, it is hateful.

I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues,and I am deeply saddened thatmy personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation.

I have enjoyed my association with all the many fine staff members, artists and audiences over the years. I have strived to stay true to our mission of producing quality live theatre to enrich the cultural live of the community. In the course of my work, I have encouraged a work environment that is safe and creative, working together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I have focused on producing shows with fresh eyes to allow the intent of the original creators to come through. I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well. I have enjoyed the opportunity to be alongside wonderful artists as we have collaborated on sharing productions that will both enlighten and entertain.

I chose to express my views through the democratic process, and I am deeply sorry for any harm or injury I have caused in doing so. I want to support not only my friends and loved ones, but everyone in their efforts to receive equal rights so I will be making a comparable donation ($1000) to the Human Rights Campaign. I hope that through future conversations bridges may be built and healing can occur that will allow us to arrive at a better place of understanding for all involved.

I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best -- to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community.

Sincerely,
Scott Eckern
 
^^He was great on the Colbert Report as well. Obviously a little different environment, but he made some great points.
 
I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage.

I quite strongly believe that the gay community and its supporters have not done enough to challenge this widely-held misconception.
 
I quite strongly believe that the gay community and its supporters have not done enough to challenge this widely-held misconception.

OK, I'm going to show my ignorance here for a second...
With the exception of not being able to actually be married, aren't the rights to benefits the same?

I've been arguing against people who say "Well, they have all the same benefits, except....." And I keep saying that it's the EXCEPT that is the problem. We want the term Marriage to be applicable to everyone who wants to be married.

Are there other differences/limitations because of a "domestic partnership"?
 
I'm sure he did choose to resign. But he wouldn't have made that choice had the backlash not resulted from his donation. It was choice under pressure.
Don't forget Martha, we are on the same page you and I. However, I just don't agree that he should have lost his job for it or felt he had to resign because of it.
If he was pressured, I disagree with the inside pressure from the theatre. BUT

did he resign or was it clear that the community would no longer support the CMT because of the artistic director?


however, the citizens of Sacramento are totally free to boycott the CMT because of the artistic director.

If this is why he had to resign, well, he bit the hand that fed him, didn't he?
 
It hurts me when you say this. I know how hurt you are, and that hurts me as well.



this is the message, though.

and though my specific rights haven't changed, that's the message that comes across. and one of the reason why it stings so much is that i don't live my life as if this were true -- i used to -- and one of the reasons why i don't live that way is because i have been surrounded by wonderful people such as yourself who don't believe this either.
 
OK, I'm going to show my ignorance here for a second...
With the exception of not being able to actually be married, aren't the rights to benefits the same?

I've been arguing against people who say "Well, they have all the same benefits, except....." And I keep saying that it's the EXCEPT that is the problem. We want the term Marriage to be applicable to everyone who wants to be married.

Are there other differences/limitations because of a "domestic partnership"?

My understanding is that there's currently nothing in place to replace marriage.
 
OK, I'm going to show my ignorance here for a second...
With the exception of not being able to actually be married, aren't the rights to benefits the same?

I've been arguing against people who say "Well, they have all the same benefits, except....." And I keep saying that it's the EXCEPT that is the problem. We want the term Marriage to be applicable to everyone who wants to be married.

Are there other differences/limitations because of a "domestic partnership"?


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.
 
Wow, even the name of that - Defense of Marriage Act - is paranoid.....

So suppose prop 8 had NOT passed, marriages would still not be recognized on a federal level for tax purposes?
 
That's right; they'd only be valid in the individual states that recognize them (and then only in terms of state law).
 
sign the petition here to truly protect marriage.

A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?
 
OK, I'm going to show my ignorance here for a second...
With the exception of not being able to actually be married, aren't the rights to benefits the same?

I've been arguing against people who say "Well, they have all the same benefits, except....." And I keep saying that it's the EXCEPT that is the problem. We want the term Marriage to be applicable to everyone who wants to be married.

Are there other differences/limitations because of a "domestic partnership"?

I'm gonna copy and paste something I posted on another forum.

I'm going to come out and say civil unions and marriage are not the same thing. Guys remember Brown v. Board? "Separate but equal is inherently unequal?"

First off, no, civil unions do not get all the same legal rights as married couples. Civil unions are only recognized by states. That means you still don't get protection from the federal government; no tax breaks, no joint-tax returns, no benefits a married couple would have from the federal government.

But here is my bigger point. You can say "Well, they have all the same legal rights as a married couple (which isn't true), therefore they're equal." But it doesn't work that way. Civil unions are inherently unequal. Even if a civil union did get all the same legal rights as a married couple, are they elevated at the same status as a married couple? Of course not; being part of a civil union rather than a marriage is simply degrading. What if a couple was introducing themselves to you, and they say they are part of a "civil union?" The first thought to pop into your mind would be "Ohhh, thats right. It's because they're gay!" followed by sympathy (or whatever). You can't have two institutions like this and expect them to be equal. Marriage has had a long tradition in our society and is held up higher than a civil union ever will be. Just because something has all the same legal rights as another, doesn't mean that its looked upon in the same way by society. It would just be looked upon as marriage's ugly cousin.
 
Back
Top Bottom