California's Prop 8
 

What do you think about the proposal to ammend California's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

Here is a snippet from an article that discusses the proposition.Link


A friend of mine is very much in support of the proposition. Here is a snippet from her blog:

My Catholic mother-in-law believes that if the proposition does not pass, it will mean the end of the Catholic church in California.

I have yet to speak with a supporter of this proposition whose defense does not come off as fanatical. I have friends from out of state who are calling, begging me to support proposition 8. I have family who is discussing this over the dinner table as though the end of the world will come if gays are given the right to marry.

I do not understand. So, I take it to the TFP. What do you think of this proposition? Do you think that the impact of this bill will be huge or minor? Do you see supporters of this bill as bigots, fanatics, or just concerned religious conservatives?


I am horrified at the proposition. I am even more terrified of its supporters. I was glad when the gay marriage ban was lifted. I will be sad to see it put back into place.

Just like I would not allow a government to tell me which woman (as a heterosexual male) I can or cannot marry, I don't have the right to tell another person the same.

It is an embarrassment that this is even an issue.

Legislating religious law is theocracy. I'd no sooner vote to support a ban on same sex marriage than I would a ban on worshiping any gods but the Judeo-Christian God, per the first commandment.

My concern is more with people being confused by the "yes/no" switcheroo. A yes vote bans gay marriage, a no vote does not ban gay marriage. Unfortunately, people polled found the question confusing, and people that support gay marriage are putting a line next to "yes", which is incorrect.

Remember: Yes = ban, No = no ban.

The amount of misinformation running around California about this proposition is kind of terrifying, too. My wife's co-workers (she's a teacher) were talking about it the other day, and apparently their pastors had told them that they would be civilly liable to students and their parents if they didn't teach the children about gay marriage if prop 8 doesn't pass. That somehow NOT passing the amendment would carry with it an affirmative duty to teach everyone, including these kindergarten kids, that gay marriage is ok and that failing to do so would carry civil penalties.

It makes me wonder about people. And, yeah, as will said, the yes/no flip could have some serious "unintended" side effects. Nasty little trick from the people who put this shit together. The gay marriage issue makes me so confused my brain hurts, and I'm honestly embarrassed that people plan to vote FOR taking rights away from others. Fortunately, the polling I've seen thusfar has looked on the positive side for it to fail. I hope that follows through.

I guess I should clarify my response to the OP. I think people who are against gay marriage as a LEGAL institution are bigots and fanatics who are unable to divorce their religious beliefs from secular politics. There is no legally sound argument for why gays should not be allowed to marry under state or federal law, nor will I ever be able to understand why people think that married gays will have such a dramatic impact on their life. It'd be like if I got really upset because you painted your dining room purple. Do I have to see it? No. Would I want to paint my dining room purple? No. Do I think it's a travesty to do so? Yes. But, ultimately, it has NO impact on my life, unless I go to your house for dinner, in which case, I've already accepted that you're a crazy purple-dining-room-person and like you anyway.

The only ground these people have to stand on is some nonsense about marriage being an inviolable covenant between man, woman and god. And, sorry folks, but whatever nonsensical sanctity marriage might have had went the way of the dinosaur when divorce became legal. If YOUR CHURCH does not want to marry gays or allow divorce or whatever else because it's against its teachings, fine by me, but get that shit out of my legal system, because it has no place there.

Fundamentally I do not believe any government has a role in marriage beyond enforcing a contract. That said, I have no problem defining marriage a contract between a man and woman, as long as a similar but differently title option (i.e. civil union) is offered to those in same-sex relationships. I do not support a ban on same-sex marriage.

^^^ What he said.

The US is still a very strange place to me on so many societal issues. I don't really understand how it is so different in the US compared to the rest of the western world. We've had gay marriage in Canada for a number of years and the Devil has yet to come and claim all our souls.

I certainly do not support the idea behind Prop 8. I can't believe people want to make gay marriage illegal. Do they think that the gay couples who have married since the law changed have ruined marriage? Has the sky fallen, the world ended? Of course not. These people have an irrational fear of nothing.

makes me angry
the best I can say is that when people keep calling you up, maybe remind them that the current laws are as if prop 8 did not pass
doubt it will help against most, but perhaps some will realize the hype for what it is
it also makes me sad, I'm not sure what kind of argument someone can come up with as to why they should have a say into the affairs of the laws of my state. I don't even know how republicans can think it's consistent, since the very basis of state's rights is that we should be able to do what we want outside the control of non-residents

throughout the entire 'right to bear arms' community, it's been a popular saying that what happens in Cali, happens in the USA. I'm very much against this simply because it is yet one more item in the 'peoples' private lives that the government gets their foot in the door on.

If only there were more social conservatives like DK.

Don't you mean conservatives who are socially liberal like dk?

DK is technically a fiscal and social conservative. His libertarianism just happens to dictate no government interference, which includes not disallowing gay marriage.

Ah, quite.

QFT.

It's sad that instead of the true issues like the economy, jobs, infrastructure, education..... we are more worried about abortion, gay marriage, cigarette smoking, basically social and moral values. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE SOCIAL OR MORAL VALUES. PROHIBITION OF ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK AND COSTS BILLIONS TO FIGHT.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM PEOPLE.... OUR FOCUS IS ON BULLSHIT ISSUES AND NOT ON THE TRUE THINGS THAT MATTER.

This stems from our leadership, media and religious groups. VERY FEW OF THEM SAY WHO FUCKING CARES LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT TRULY MATTER LIKE THE ECONOMY, THE EDUCATION, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, GETTING A MANUFACTURING BASE BACK."

This stems from people wanting to have things their way, fuck everyone else and what others believe..... we want what we want NOW. We want pro-life.... pro-choice.... non smoking privately owned restaurants..... trans fat abolished.... gay marriage.... no gay marriage.....and we demand YOU live the way we tell you to.

Now go buy a house you can't afford, run up your fucking credit buying imported shit from countries with no human rights and fund people to bomb our buildings and kill our people and shut the fuck up.

The scary thing is if I have to agree with Pan anymore I'm gonna have to change my party affiliation :eek: :).

Here's my proposition: ban all marriage.

wow. conservatives use disinformation. by way of political statements made in churches no less. and they use this disinformation to generate panic. imagine that.

o those gay radicals tearing at the fabric of reactionary america by having the audacity to want to marry.

i think the amendment is horseshit.
but the inhabitants of conservativeland seem to be having a difficult time adjusting to the pulverization of their situation. this may serve some therepeutic effect for them in kali. displacement i think it's called.

The LDS church has been pouring money into this bill. Does anyone else feel that they should lose their tax exempt status for this?

I think the argument would be that the Devil got you all first, and that's why you folks allowed gay marriage.

There was talk of a backlash against gay marriage for a while, but it never really materialised. Then again, the Canada i know is Quebec, which is now very secular and very tolerant when it comes to questions of the body.

It's not just conservatives it's the vocal radicals on both sides that give us minutia and keep focus off the real issues.

To say it is just one side is a fallacy and disingenuous.

Both sides derive power not out of what great things they can accomplish but fear over the other side.

Meanwhile, the true power gets stronger.

Focus on gay marriage, abortion, smoking, anything they tell you to...... fight to legislate/ not legislate morality and social life.

I have asked on here before what if we did background checks on where the money comes from on these moral and social issues and found that in the end both sides are funded by the same people because they maintain power in doing so.

We want what we want and we have tunnel vision and ignore that which is truly important.

I'm shocked to find a church using misinformation promote any issue or agenda.
-----Added 11/10/2008 at 12 : 41 : 18-----

Yes, I think all churches should be taxed on their income. I think they should be allowed to write off any charitable acts, i.e. shelters, orphanages, food programs etc... But the income that goes to buy political ads or private jets and mansions for the slime bag TV preacher spewing hate should be taxed.

The Catholic Church seems to be doing okay up here in Canada after we passed same-sex marriage laws.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to be for Prop 8? What is the rational for the passage of it? Everyone here seems to have the same state of mind.

The church has every right to say no to same sex marriage. The government does not.

Now that's an idea that I could get behind. :thumbsup:

I'm glad the AG changed the wording of the title of this proposition to make it clear what it actually is "Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".

This makes a yes/no vote clearer, but I just hope people will read their ballots...

My girlfriend's parents and relatives are voting "yes", and their reasoning is that gay marriage is wrong and will destroy the institution of marriage. And God forbid raising children in a gay marriage, they will most likely turn out to be horrible gay-brainwashed evil-doers like their parents.

This is most likely based on their being Catholic. But, I had to convince her mother that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, so there might be other factors to consider...

A church can only lose their tax exempt status for endorsement of a particular candidate, not a proposition or issue.

I am against prop 8, and echo most of what has been said here.

My parents, on the other hand, are LDS. Just this morning I got a an email forwarded from my mom.

Nothing I could ever say would convince them otherwise. They are closed to anything other than what they are told by the church.

Not for long term renewal. Most people (adults) go back to the Catholic Church after a long absense because they have young children and they want them to experience baptism(often too young to remember) and confirmation. Most are from Catholic schools as it is part of the curriculum and when finished high school they are leaving and not coming back. The Catholic churches in Canada, especially Quebec are floundering to exist, regardless of gay marriage.

I'm embarrassed that this is even on the ballot. State sponsored segregation in 2008? In California of all places? Christ on a cracker, I thought we were better than this...

That's pretty much how I feel about it. Prop 8 is one of the major reasons I'm voting this year, because most of the rest is picking between the lesser evils. I'm going to be pissed and disappointed if it passes.

I don't think there could be anyone out there who could come up with a rational explaination as to why Prop 8 should pass. There isn't a reason. People are just afraid that same sex couples will get the same rights as them. I have no idea why certain people are hellbent on withholding basic rights from others.

No there is a rational explanation out there somewhere...tfp just happens to have a 'slight' liberal bias :)

Outside of religion, I haven't really heard anything. I am against this though, not so much for equal rights, but because the state of California is effectively making a national decision. I don't believe California should have had the right to legalize gay marriage in the first place, nor any other state. It causes too many problems, especially when those gay couples travel to other states and their marriage isn't recognized. I believe that the Federal Government should mandate it's legalization already.

Anyone else happen to be with me?

I thought marriage and divorce laws were a state perogative? I don't understand your system that well, but isn't it the case that in some states you can marry at 16 and in others you have to be 18, for instance? This would fall under the same banner, I'd have thought.

That is true, which is why California could pass and then possibly ban such legislation. I would imagine it would be practical if there was a unified definition of marriage, or no definition at all as mentioned above.

So are you suggesting taking away states' rights to make certian decisions? As I understand the US system, that would be as well received as banning guns, free speech and Baby Jesus.

Pretty much. There are too many ideological differences between the various parts of the country to make a national mandate in support of gay marriage work at this point in time. We have to start with this at the state level, just like regular marriage, and let states decide for themselves in regard to this issue. Slowly but surely it can be done! It hurts to see stuff like Prop 8 up there on the ballot, but just because it's on the ballot doesn't mean that a) it will pass, and b) it's constitutional.

Admittedly, I live in a weird state--Oregon says that marriage is between a man and a woman (Measure 36 :sad:) but has established domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Oddly, heterosexual couples do not have domestic partnership rights--they are ONLY for same-sex couples (I'd been hoping the legislation would turn out to be something like the French Pacte civil de solidarité).

Personally, I think the issue we should be clarifying is whether marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution or a CIVIL institution. If it's the latter (and it should be, separation of church and state, etc), then the government--be it county, state, or federal--has no right to dictate who can and can't marry. It should be equivalent to issuing a business license. But that's how it should be, not how it is. We have a long ways to go. There are a lot of bigots in the United States.

let's just not legislate "sanctity", mmkay?

No, I never said that. I understand our system, I understand that the 10th amendment leaves powers reserved to states, which is what creates our two tier government. You are assuming that I mean take every right away from states. All I am saying is that there should either be a unified definition of marriage [that hopefully promotes equality] or no definition at all. This isn't like a drivers license, where states can mandate an age. This is a national issue, one that is being made by a single state [it just so happens it's the greatest state in the country :) ).

Allow me to pose you an example, what if a couple from Texas came here to get married, and then went back to Texas? Do you think their marriage will be instantly recognized?

The federal government already clarified that issue with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

You haven't heard a "rational" explanation because there isn't one.

Seriously.

It has NOTHING to do with a liberal bias, and everything to do with the motivation for this law having nothing to do with reason.

The "reason" they would give you would be to compare gay relationships to incest or to child abuse, insofar as relationships like that are generally thought to pose a threat to the community at large or to have a victim and an abuser. People who support prop 8 (or any anti-gay marriage amendment) truly believe that gay people who get married undermine the "sanctity" of marriage for everyone in the entire country, and that allowing them to get married somehow taints and undermines the strength and meaning of marriage as a social and religious institution.

They believe it is wrong for the same reasons you and I are believe murder and theft are wrong, only instead of a specific victim to the wrong, the victim is society. It's not logical, it's not reasonable and it's not rational. It's motivated purely by close-minded religious fanaticism and a strained reading of one or two sentences in the bible. It's motivated by a hatred for how other people live their lives and a desire to have the law treat them as second class citizens, which is what these people believe they are. It makes as little sense and has as little purpose as the laws which prohibited blacks from marrying did in the Reconstruction South.