SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
.

The Bishop could marry them, my wife who is not LDS was married to me by my Bishop, (Pastor).

<>

I dated a Mormon girl once and she told me if we got married that my family wouldn't be able to take part in a certain section of the wedding(because they aren't Mormon), something about going into another room... am I remembering that right?
 
I dated a Mormon girl once and she told me if we got married that my family wouldn't be able to take part in a certain section of the wedding(because they aren't Mormon), something about going into another room... am I remembering that right?

That's if you want to wed in the Temple for all time and eternity.

My wife I think wants to be married for me for just this life I think.

Our Bishop married us, it was a great wedding attended by both LDS and Non LDS friends and family.

<>
 
That's if you want to wed in the Temple for all time and eternity.

My wife I think wants to be married for me for just this life I think.

Fascinating... I remember her mentioning being married for eternity, and back then I thought that was an incredibly romantic notion. But I can't imagine the lonliness if god forbid something happens early in life and one spouse dies. I'm assuming you can't remarry, or is that allowed?

But I didn't realize you had a choice. Wow, that has to be an akward conversation when one wants to and the other doesn't...:wink: What I'm good enough for life but not eternity? :madwife:
 
Wow. That's gotta be an awkward conversation. "Look Diamond, I love you and all, but let's see how this life time goes before we talk about eternity."

Talk about leaving yourself an out.

Well, she's a smart cookie.

I wouldn't want her to be w me in heaven unless she really wanted to be w me.

We can go to the Temple later if she wants and have it solemnized there for all time and eternity.

It's her move.

:)

<>
 
Fascinating... I remember her mentioning being married for eternity, and back then I thought that was an incredibly romantic notion. But I can't imagine the lonliness if god forbid something happens early in life and one spouse dies. I'm assuming you can't remarry, or is that allowed?

But I didn't realize you had a choice. Wow, that has to be an akward conversation when one wants to and the other doesn't...:wink:

You can remarry absolutely, usually you marry the 2nd spouse for time only.

Yes LDS people are known to be peculiar sappy romantics.

<>
 
please, straights, everyone is so nice and supportive to me and of me in my life, help me out here. i don't know how you people *really* think and talk when i'm not around.

Irvine, I haven't weighed in on this issue so here it is.
I'm 54 years old and I will tell you that your time is coming. Having lived in the South all my life I've seen first hand how change can happen.
It's the next generation. The young are educating the old and that is more powerful than trying to change stereotypes.
The gay rights issue is going to still take some time (shorter in some parts of the country) but it will come about, I assure you.
There are plenty of people, myself included who cannot abide by what is being said and done to people who are as much a part of the human race as anyone else, and deserve their rights as much.
I/we are working for you too.
I'm not trying to patronize you and I hope it doesn't come across that way, but it was really difficult to talk to people about electing a black man over a white one and to make them focus on what really was important.
It was a racial thing pure and simple.
Your fight is almost the same but it involves sex, to most homophobes, and not rights.
Gay rights are much harder for people to come to terms with. There really is no real reason to be afraid of gays, and I have heard all the arguments, fear and taunts directed against women, Africian Americans and other races or religions all my life.
Look how far they've come. :up:
There's still a long way to go but it's getting there.

Uhhh, even my parents where so enraged at the thought of gays marrying, then again my mother is convinced that Obama is a Muslim and/or the Antichrist. Seriously, the last couple months have put into perspective how little in common I have with my family.

I had a confrontation with a guy that I work with today. He has signs all over his truck that said RIP USA. OBAMA is a MUSLIM. WE ARE NOW OFFICALLY a MUSLIM NATION now. I walked up to him and ask him. Are YOU CRAZY? Do you think that millions of people believe this drivel? Do you think I'm Muslim now? Just How! stupid are you? Where did you get this information? Quote me one educated source and I will read it.
I'm not playing anymore. People have to be aware that what they say - has to have substance.
He said, and I quote, "well from what I've heard..." I told him that was his first mistake, believing everything he hears. Then I referred him to some sources he could get the truth. He was stumped.
We've always had a nice report to each other and talked about work things on break, etc. He did not see this coming.
There was another co-worker out there too but she didn't say much and I think she was like minded but paused when I ask about him thinking I am Muslim.
seriously? not all Muslims are extremist. But he thinks they are.

I know this is long but I had alot to say. :ohmy:
 
according to my mother "the only reason gays want to get married is so that they can adopt kids so that they can make them gay since they can't reproduce" :|

My mother is OLD old school she never misses mass, prays the rosary every night and is the most uptight person I know. Yet I wasn't all that surprised that she went against the church and voted No on 8, she was pretty mad it passed. I don't think she knows of a single person in her life that is gay but she felt strongly that it wasn't her right to tell people who they can love. In particular she thought it was ridiculous to think that only a man and a woman were capable of properly raising a child.

I passed a car on my way home from work this evening painted with "thank you for voting yes on proposition 8. God loves you and so do I" She had Tennessee plates I wanted to tell her to go home.
 
i agree with that. it does suggest a level of insecurity, if not cowardice, in their own arguments.

I don't know about INDY, but I've never been a consistent poster in FYM. I have a tremendous amount on my plate, and oftentimes I don't feel like going back over ten pages of often inciting comments (all supporters of Prop 8 are bigots, etc) to see if any are germaine to me. I've posted numerous times on this issue, always trying to be respectful of other posters. So telling me to "man up" because I haven't gotten back on the wheel is a bit ridiculous.

But thanks for your earlier post, Irvine. We may indeed disagree on this issue, but I think we can both agree that our back-and-forth on this issue has been one of substance.
 
I passed a car on my way home from work this evening painted with "thank you for voting yes on proposition 8. God loves you and so do I" She had Tennessee plates I wanted to tell her to go home.



this is what i just don't understand.

nathan, INDY -- can you understand just how incredibly hurtful the entire "Yes" campaign was, and how incredibly hurtful *all* of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage are?

you see, it's not so much that marriage is something i lie awake at night dreaming about, like it's some kind of proverbial pony. i don't stare out the window at the rain and wish to be married. in fact, it's likely that something along the lines of same-sex marriage will surface in the District of Columbia in 2009. were it to pass (and it's likely it would -- yes, this is a very black city, but it's also a very liberal city, and a very gay city), i don't think that Memphis and i would be first in line. i expect that one day, probably not too far away, we'll do something official.

so it's not so much that i pine for marriage, it's that the opposition (and their rationalizations) to my getting married guts me. it's easier today than ever before, but i don't think straight people truly understand just what an act of courage it is to actually come out. it's terrifying for most, and it's a long process of questioning your own self worth after growing up where "that's so gay" and "faggot" and "dyke" and "cocksucker" are commonplace playground insults. you're terrified that you'll be rejected by friends and family, and you're terrified that maybe, deep down, there is something wrong with you.

and the "Yes" crowd, the religious bigots, what they do is cut straight to these deep down fears and anxieties and they tell you, "you know what? your family should reject you, your friends should reject you, there really is something wrong with you, you have no place here, you have no place at the table, no matter what you do with your life, it is negated by the very fact that you are and always will be nothing more than a faggot in my eyes." that is the message that comes across in those cheery yellow signs with the blue children holding hands -- like they're forming a human chain of disapproval and exclusion and telling you to get the hell out and stay out of their sight, because they're disgusted by your very existence.

it's like someone has taken all the work that you've done in being honest with yourself, and accepting yourself, accepting that, yes, you are a bit different, and, yes, your life will be a bit different, and, yes, you might stand out in a crowd, and they've crushed it. and enjoyed crushing it.

it is no different than racism. it is no different than sexism.

and it's all wrapped up in garbage, anti-intellectual "arguments" about "activist judges" and what's "natural" and then topped with a big bow of sanctimony.

i remain unchanged in my opinion that, at the root of all, and i do mean *all*, "arguments" against same-sex marriage are rooted in bigotry. it's dressed up in sanctimony and "children" garbage, but it's all window dressing to a deeply held conviction, one that isn't even religious, a conviction that uses religion as an excuse, as invalid an excuse as the rest of the "children/schools" garbage.

no, there aren't perfect parallels to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, but in 20 years time, the "Yes" crowd will be remembered as the Bull Connors and Strom Thurmond and George Wallace's of this particular age.
 
nathan, INDY -- can you understand just how incredibly hurtful the entire "Yes" campaign was, and how incredibly hurtful *all* of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage are?

Emotions are what separates liberals from conservatives. Clearly, even if both understood, which is doubtful at this point, I'm not entirely sure if they'd care. Ideology is greater than people, and the ends justify the means.
 
Emotions are what separates liberals from conservatives. Clearly, even if both understood, which is doubtful at this point, I'm not entirely sure if they'd care. Ideology is greater than people, and the ends justify the means.



so what do we do?

we continuously lose on this issue at the ballot box, often big-time.

granted, in nearly any other year, and certainly without the massive influence of the Mormon church, Prop 8 would not have passed.

but it did. the campaign obviously worked.

how do we fight back? we are not winning this argument, even though there is no argument on the other side. how and why are we so easily defeated?

anyone who believes in the basic dignity and equality of gay citizens needs to ask themselves these questions.
 
this is what i just don't understand.

nathan, INDY -- can you understand just how incredibly hurtful the entire "Yes" campaign was, and how incredibly hurtful *all* of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage are?

you see, it's not so much that marriage is something i lie awake at night dreaming about, like it's some kind of proverbial pony. i don't stare out the window at the rain and wish to be married. in fact, it's likely that something along the lines of same-sex marriage will surface in the District of Columbia in 2009. were it to pass (and it's likely it would -- yes, this is a very black city, but it's also a very liberal city, and a very gay city), i don't think that Memphis and i would be first in line. i expect that one day, probably not too far away, we'll do something official.

<clip>

:up: Great post irvine.


I have a question for the "Yes" supporters, have any of you actually attended any sort of ceremony, marriage or civil union, between two homosexual people? (EDIT: Of course, I'm sure the answer is no...)

I had the chance to go to my boss' "wedding" (in Minnesota, so no laws on the books recognizing it as legal) ceremony over the summer, and it was honestly one of the most beautiful things I've ever experienced. I'm so grateful and honored that I had the opportunity to see it. They were really, truly in love, and it showed throughout the entire ceremony.

Now, did the state of Minnesota blow up because these two men decided to hold their own ceremony? No. In fact, nothing really changed. The world continued on. So, why exactly is allowing two people who are in love the ability to show that love officially such a problem?
 
I have a question for the "Yes" supporters, have any of you actually attended any sort of ceremony, marriage or civil union, between two homosexual people? (EDIT: Of course, I'm sure the answer is no...)

Our mail carrier commented on our No on 8 signs today and admitted that she had been on the fence about it but voted yes because she doesn't know any gay people and wouldn't be personally affected by the outcome :|
 
Our mail carrier commented on our No on 8 signs today and admitted that she had been on the fence about it but voted yes because she doesn't know any gay people and wouldn't be personally affected by the outcome :|

Perhaps you should tell her that you voted "No" on a pay increase for postal carriers because you don't know any postal carriers. Maybe you should also vote no on cancer research because you don't know anyone with cancer.

Etc, etc.

It's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
 
Emotions are what separates liberals from conservatives. Clearly, even if both understood, which is doubtful at this point, I'm not entirely sure if they'd care. Ideology is greater than people, and the ends justify the means.
I think you need to clarify that statement, opposition to abortion seems to be exceptionally emotional.
 
I think you need to clarify that statement, opposition to abortion seems to be exceptionally emotional.

Nope. Not one bit. Christian tradition declares that life begins at conception (never mind that St. Thomas Aquinas, probably the most influential theologian in Christian tradition ahead of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Paul argued, essentially, that the soul entered the fetus at three months). For that reason alone, many Christians are perfectly ready to force women to have children against their will, even in cases of rape or incest.

Ideology before people.
 
All people can be scum when they need to be, I don't think the assertion that liberals/progressives/leftists are inherently more caring or empathetic than conservatives is accurate, it is probably more a question of definition than anything else (is a devout anti-abortionist who thinks that the state shouldn't intrude into peoples lives and legislate against abortion not a conservative). I wouldn't disagree that anti-gay reactionaries would prefer you didn't exist and that their worldview doesn't gel with principles of equal treatment under the law.
 
so what do we do?

we continuously lose on this issue at the ballot box, often big-time.

granted, in nearly any other year, and certainly without the massive influence of the Mormon church, Prop 8 would not have passed.

but it did. the campaign obviously worked.

how do we fight back? we are not winning this argument, even though there is no argument on the other side. how and why are we so easily defeated?

anyone who believes in the basic dignity and equality of gay citizens needs to ask themselves these questions.

We must learn from the struggles of the the American civil rights movement and that of the Jewish struggle for freedom and dignity over the last 2,000 years. We can also learn from César Chávez and other labor organizers, who fought for living wages and benefits for the working class.

In other words, as much as a moment like this is a time for lament, we can earnestly say that our struggle is not without precedent. What it does require--and I think that this is something that the last 2-3 generations have little discipline for, in particular--is dedication and hard work. That means long, loud, and consistent protests, in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The gay community also has, according to the financial world, a disproportionately high percentage of saved income, which is sizeable and our spending is very noticed. Perhaps it would also be necessary to couple those protests with a long and protracted nationwide economic boycott of all non-essential goods. Chávez's grape strike took five years to resolve in their favor; could we have the discipline to go that long too?

In short, what the gay community needs to do, more than ever, is fight and fight legally. No more conceding religion to the Religious Right; I've argued repeatedly and consistently why their views on religion are little more than what Mortimer Adler would call "superstition," at least, and absolutely wrong, at most. Their interpretation of law is also blatantly wrong. Their interpretation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech is laughably ignorant. They do, of course, have every right to believe what they believe, no matter how wrong it is. However, the gay community has every right to challenge them and point out how wrong they are every step of the way, meaning that they do not have a constitutional right, as they would like to imply, to have unchallenged beliefs because they are self-described "religious." Not only do they not have a monopoly on God, but, as far as I see it, God is nowhere near their belief system. The gay community needs to understand and believe this too, and I believe it will be much easier to be assertive against them.

The real question is whether the community is ready for the sacrifice required to do this, and whether a true leader in the gay community--our Gandhi, our MLK, Jr.--can emerge. The current "leaders" are--I'm sorry to say--pretty much little more than spineless whores for the Democratic Party apparatus, who continue to string us along with patronizing and unfulfilled vague promises of "more rights," but not all rights. This is the party, however, that passed and signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Why should we trust anything they have to say at their word? Undoubtedly, the Democratic Party is likely to be the more receptive party of the two to our message, but, even at that, I do not think they take us or our struggle seriously at all. What I can say for sure, at the very least, is that this is not going to change, as long as we sit back and do nothing.
 
All people can be scum when they need to be, I don't think the assertion that liberals/progressives/leftists are inherently more caring or empathetic than conservatives is accurate, it is probably more a question of definition than anything else (is a devout anti-abortionist who thinks that the state shouldn't intrude into peoples lives and legislate against abortion not a conservative). I wouldn't disagree that anti-gay reactionaries would prefer you didn't exist and that their worldview doesn't gel with principles of equal treatment under the law.

The devout anti-abortionist who believes that the state shouldn't intrude probably doesn't exist. Nonetheless, they would likely fall under the banner of "pro-choice" then. I'd say most pro-choice individuals are personally against abortion too, and would likely discourage family and friends from having one, if asked.

I think the reality is that liberals understand nuance and context, whereas nuance and context are irrelevant in the essentialist view of the conservative world.
 
Gay rights or votes, can you have both?

Did the African American civil rights leaders care about the political popularity of their rights, or were they more concerned about reclaiming their inalienable rights guaranteed to them by natural law (according to Locke) and the Constitution? Likewise, the gay rights movement must have the same perspective. Those like the oblivious mail carrier who voted "Yes" on Prop. 8 out of total ambivalence are not unlike many white Americans on race by the early 1960s. Sitting back and doing nothing is not going to change any minds.
 
My first instinct was to label you a Democrat, if there were other parties vying for gay votes it could force change, the Democrats enjoy the luxury of being the lesser of two evils.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom