Proposition 8 discussion continued

[Irvine511]

Yes that's just so pro family. The children will suffer, and I don't know how adults can live with themselves when they do.

don't you see? it's complicated.

 

[Miroslava]

Some LDS members leaving church over same-sex marriage controversy

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - The strong backlash against the LDS Church over Proposition 8 is taking a new twist. LDS members - sometimes whole LDS families - say they are now leaving the Church because of its opposition to same-sex marriage.

On just one anti-prop 8 website, they reportedly number in the hundreds. Some say they've already resigned; others are apparently about to.

Linda Stay from St. George is one of those resigning from the LDS Church, and is doing so because the Church opposes gay marriage, like the one her son Tyler is in.


Full Article

 

[toscano]

All this can't be helping Mittens, so maybe there IS a Silver lining !

 

[Irvine511]

Gawker, of all people, gives the gay community the swift kick in the ass it needs, further emphasizing that the loss of this particular battle just might eventually win us the war. brilliant headline, too:

Pro-Gay Marriage Forces Finally Organizing, After Losing
By Pareene, 5:52 PM on Tue Nov 11 2008, 6,267 views

We mentioned it before, but it was sad when, on Election Night, America once again said thanks, but no thanks, to recognizing the rights of gay people. Specifically, California's Proposition 8, which banned the state's previously legal gay marriages, passed. Now, hey, everyone's going nuts. The gays are currently blaming Black People, Mormons, the governor, Barack Obama, and others, and they're protesting and demonstrating and doing all the other things everyone forgot to do before the vote happened.

We know everyone was totally distracted by Barack Obama and his magical election, but guys, even we out here in New York knew you faced a well-funded, well-organized, media-savvy campaign of lies and misinformation, and the pro-gay marriage response was abysmal.

Now—now!—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's a shame gay marriage was banned, oh boo hoo. He didn't lift a finger to campaign against Prop 8 before! Now David Geffen is quoted in The Daily Beast babbling about the lack of outreach to black voters. Where was his money, before? [Update: Geffen gave $200k, out of his billions.] Did he get his rich liberal friends to contribute as much as the Mormon Church did? Did they use the money to build a grassroots movement as well-organized as the pro-Prop 8 guys did? Check out the list of Hollywood's non-donors as of September 10—many of them did eventually donate, but see how they didn't feel the need to until the last second?

Blaming the blacks is ridiculous and unhelpful and stupid. There aren't enough black people in California to have make the ultimate difference, even with bigger turnout, unless you consider these black voters a subset of religious voters, a giant group everyone should've known they'd have to contend with months ago. Black people certainly posed less of an electoral threat than Catholics did in the California polls.

It seems like everyone just assumed Prop 8 would fail, magically, even when the polls tightened significantly. And now—now!—the protests are ramping up. Now—now!—Keith Olbermann delivers his heartfelt Special Comment. Hey, let's all boycott Sundance! That'll show the Mormons! They won't meddle in our affairs ever again!

Of course the anger and resentment is already hardening. But yes, outreach and education and organization and money (and maybe some genuine help from Barack Obama, who was against Prop 8, though you'd never know it) might've won the battle.

Garnering support for gay rights in Arizona, in Arkansas, even in Florida, are difficult challenges that will still probably take years of work, but to get a gay marriage ban passed in California smacks of enlightened rich liberals not trying hard enough.

 

[martha]

So all that anti-choice bullshit about adoption being the solution really was just bullshit?

 

[Irvine511]

So all that anti-choice bullshit about adoption being the solution really was just bullshit?

we certainly can't have the gays raising them, so we need to offer enticements and incentives to get otherwise reluctant straight people to come out and adopt more of these kids.

like this heterosexual woman:

Md. Mother Jailed After Bodies Of 2 Children Found in Freezer - washingtonpost.com

this story was in the DC area papers a few weeks ago. it's rare that a news story makes me cry, but this one did.

consider the following, too:

Woman Met Adoption Requirements, D.C. Officials Say - washingtonpost.com

 

[martha]

While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.”

So, the gay agenda is all about providing loving, caring homes.

What's the agenda of the Arkansas Family Council, then?

Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild;

See, this is what will wake straights up. When they see that this bullshit affects them.






And no one here has defended this complicated law yet?

 

[nathan1977]

because the Supreme Court of California found that banning gay citizens from access to the institution of marriage and it's subsequent legal rights and benefits was unconstitutional.

Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.

why is it okay to retain a law that has been found to violate the civil rights of millions of Californians?

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

 

[melon]

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex.

Are you sure you want this? I can only imagine the divorce settlements the gays could rack up, if they married and divorced a bunch of rich women to make a statement. Maybe that's how the Prop. 8 repeal can be funded!

 

[Irvine511]

Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.

why wasn't a civil union enough for you?

it's all water, why can't we have separate water fountains? the bus goes to the same station, why can't the blacks just sit in the back?

why do you need to maintain this distinction?

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

is this really behavior you want to encourage? do you want straights and gays getting married? doesn't that fundamentally alter the definition of marriage much more than simply expanding it to encompass same-sex relationships? do you really want to encourage that level of deception? do you really want two people who are incapable of making a union in the way that attracted couples could make one?

this isn't about gauzy, vague notions of "what marriage means as a society," it is about equal protection under the law. it's not about the right to get married, it's about the right to be treated equally under the law. judges don't grant any rights, they simply affirm that the right already existed under their constitution. one group of people should not be treated differently from everyone else. the court has a duty to protect minority groups from discrimination. it's far more than easy scapegoats like the ACLU and LAMBDA. it's also the ADL and the Bar Association of San Francisco as well as the APA and virtually every newspaper in California and the CTA.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

are you going to go the STING rout of asserting something and then not backing it up? there is not a word in Prop 8 about education. no child can be forced against the will of teir parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. the case in Massachusetts is absolutely irrelevant to what's going on in California -- and it's absurd, imho, to think that a book that simply states that two Kings can get married or that Heather might have 2 Mommies is somehow objectionable. there's no sex in these books, just the mere fact that gay people exist.

the court decision specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

 

[BVS]

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

It doesn't bother you that the vote may be unconstitutional? So should we have a state vote to see if they want to ban interracial marriage in Alabama? Come on, "one citizen, one vote".

 

[phillyfan26]

Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

You voted for the side of Proposition 8 that was totally against separation of church and state. You do realize that, don't you? You're for a group that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds.

As Irvine said, there's nothing here about the rights of churches that would change.

Please stop ignoring facts.

 

[Irvine511]

just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.

 

[BVS]

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.

True.

I think they honestly believe in the fight, they just don't know why.

 

[toscano]

True.

I think they honestly believe in the fight, they just don't know why.

They know why. They just don't have the cojones to say it.

 

[BVS]

You voted for the side of Proposition 8 that was totally against separation of church and state. You do realize that, don't you? You're for a group that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds.

As Irvine said, there's nothing here about the rights of churches that would change.

Please stop ignoring facts.

Yeah, this is by the craziest of arguments I've seen. I think some folks are truly confused and mainly because the church has done a good job at selling the lie.

THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. A church can still deny a marriage just like they could deny the marriage of heterosexual couple they see unfit.

 

[VintagePunk]

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

That's incredibly weak. Were citizens allowed to vote regarding the redefinition of what it meant to be a black person in American society? If that were the case, blacks would still be at the back of the bus.

Churches here can refuse to marry gay couples. Just as, if I'm not mistaken, they can refuse to marry anyone, gay OR straight, as they see fit.

In a casual classroom conversation about families, why should parents be notified if gay or lesbian-headed families are mentioned? Do they need to be notified about the mention of single parent families? Of blended hetero families? Of families headed by grandparents? That argument is nothing bullshit, to borrow Martha's apt description, designed to raise another generation of bigots.

just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.

It's hard to resist joining the fray when the argument presented to you is sanctimonious crap, couched in false complexities.

 

[BVS]

They know why. They just don't have the cojones to say it.

True, but I do have to admit it's a little more nuanced than that...

I do believe there are different variations of bigotry.

For example in this scenario there are those that are just flat out bigots and attack homosexuality, or believe they're going to rape children, or they're going to turn us all gay, not even based on religion etc...

And then there are those that are acting out of bigotry but the bigotry is second hand. For I do know many of people who struggle with the fact that their religion says this but they honestly don't understand why is says this...

And there are many variations in between, but no matter what camp you come from you can't legislate based on bigotry or religion.

 

[martha]

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it.

All Alabamans have the right to sit where they want on the bus. As long as blacks sit in the back.

And if they want to change the fundamental racial order of society, the way God intended it (see the Loving vs. Virginia ruling for specifics), then we should be allowed to vote on it.

Ok. I see how it works now.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.

isn't this the essence of almost 99% of the threads in FYM though?

There are rarely any threads on here where the opposing sides are split 50/50...

 

[Irvine511]

isn't this the essence of almost 99% of the threads in FYM though?

There are rarely any threads on here where the opposing sides are split 50/50...

that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.

there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.

that and the fact that U2 haven't released an album since then, and you just get lower traffic than you used to.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.

that's hot

 

[martha]

there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.

Plus, when you're constantly called out on stuff and have to actually defend the things you say, well, some people take their ball and go home, don't they?

 

[Irvine511]

Plus, when you're constantly called out on stuff and have to actually defend the things you say, well, some people take their ball and go home, don't they?

someone certainly did after last Tuesday's tsunami.

 

[BAW]

Yeah, this is by the craziest of arguments I've seen. I think some folks are truly confused and mainly because the church has done a good job at selling the lie.

THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. A church can still deny a marriage just like they could deny the marriage of heterosexual couple they see unfit.

Unfit hetero couple chiming in!

I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.

And the woman who did end up performing our ceremony spent 2 hours interviewing us before she would agree to marry us and made it clear she could turn us down for any reason.

 

[Irvine511]

I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.

And the woman who did end up performing our ceremony spent 2 hours interviewing us before she would agree to marry us and made it clear she could turn us down for any reason.

to piggyback on this, you know what's amazing about these arguments that say, "once gays start to marry, who's next?"

you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.

 

[BVS]

Unfit hetero couple chiming in!

I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.

I need to see this dress...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.



All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."

Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.

 

[phillyfan26]

to piggyback on this, you know what's amazing about these arguments that say, "once gays start to marry, who's next?"

you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.

The voting age is too high. I was totally competent and aware of my choices this year, and was denied the right to vote due to being two months younger than 18 years on November 4th.

The funny thing about people my age is that those who are aware of the issues WILL vote, and those who are not won't bother registering. I don't understand why we're not allowed to.

 

[phillyfan26]

Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.

Exactly. The points of the supreme courts making these decisions is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking away liberties and rights.