I’m still mad about Prop 8
From Andrew Sullivan, a great pic:
Nikki Eddy and her girlfriend Dawn Miller comfort each other during a Proposition 8 opposition rally at the San Diego Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center November 5, 2008 in San Diego, California. Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, passed in yesterday's California election. By Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images.
It is just inconceivable to me how so many in this country can be against mutual recognition in a pluralist society. Isn’t that what makes America great? I don’t get involved in your affairs as long as you don’t get involved in mine?
Why are so many people afraid to let homosexuals marry? Aren’t these people in the same position anti-civil-rights people were in the 60s? You know, those against school integration and such?
November 7th, 2008 13:13
I agree that this was a stupid decision, but protestors really make me angry and unsympathetic. Signs that say “mormons have 10 wives, why can’t I have one?” Now many blame Mormon churches for purchasing ads regarding this prop. persuading those to come out against it, but is spewing lies about the Mormon church really the right response to their anger over Mormons spewing lies about them?
I don’t like protestors.
November 7th, 2008 13:15
My wife and I are an interracial couple. We see the same religious and moralistic arguments being tossed out to deny gays the right to marry as were used in the not too distant past to try to block marriages like ours.
It’s bigotry, plain and simple. So many “Christians” find it easy to cross the line from personal disapproval to active persecution. Intolerance in the name of Jesus. How’s THAT for a family value?
November 7th, 2008 13:29
Mormons, and other Christian churches, have institutionalized bigotry based on some ghost in the sky. Calling them out is not uncalled for. There is no place for bigotry in the political process of this country.
November 7th, 2008 15:12
Calling them out is fine, making things up is not. That’s exactly what these religious fanatics do to them. It lowers them to that level, and it’s silly.
November 7th, 2008 15:13
What are they making up?
November 7th, 2008 15:16
Mormons don’t have 10 wives…that’s stupid.
November 7th, 2008 15:17
Are you arguing that the Mormon church does not turn a blind eye to polygamy?
November 7th, 2008 15:23
I’m arguing that it has been outlawed in the Mormon Church for nearly a century…it is a stereotype just as there are stereotypes of other groups that were based in truth but are outdated and unfair.
November 7th, 2008 15:24
You’re wrong. It was outlawed because of US law. It is still very much tolerated and a part of mormon culture in Utah.
Read the Krakauer book.
November 7th, 2008 15:30
I don’t buy that stuff quite as much as you do. It was a stupid sign, that’s all I’m saying.
November 7th, 2008 16:41
By the way, can anyone here give me a secular reason why gay marriage should not be allowed? What is the benefit to society?
November 7th, 2008 16:47
[...] I’m upset about Prop 8 not passing as well. But there are ways to make your voice and agency heard that do not involve violence and destruction. Things like this do not work: Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches. [...]
November 7th, 2008 16:47
I don’t have any studies to back this up, so I’m not an advocate of this position; however, I could foresee someone submitting to you a study in which children coming out of a traditional family are healthier than those that are not. But that is an argument against adoption, and not marriage. Very shaky. With all of this said, I’ve heard that this passage does nothing to rights of survivorship, contractual rights, etc. So the civil aspect of gay marriage is still intact???
November 7th, 2008 16:51
You don’t buy that polygamy occurs in Utah and the Mormon church turns a blind eye while secretly encouraging it? I dunno, that seems like objective fact that can be discovered and refuted (but who is refuting it)?
As for the “traditional marriage” leading to healthier children, that seems like a bunch of a hooey. Nevertheless, I’ve never seen such a study.Any one that does exist is probably funded by some Church group with dubious measures and operationalizations anyway.
November 7th, 2008 16:55
Okay, what about the final question, that the passing of this bill does not affect a “spouse’s” right to inherit his or her share of the “marital property,” etc. What specific rights does this legislation take away.
November 7th, 2008 17:03
How about the specific right given by the CA Supreme Court to be married? Is that not enough reason for folks to be upset?
November 7th, 2008 17:03
Would you like it someone voted on whether or not your marriage should be valid?
November 7th, 2008 17:05
I’m not asking if people should be upset or not. I’m asking what tangible right have they lost that they had previously in California?
November 7th, 2008 17:06
What are they no longer able to do, that married couples, under California law, can do
November 7th, 2008 17:13
Be married! That’s the tangible right they lost.
I’m confused about your line of questioning.
November 7th, 2008 17:20
Marriage has both a secular and non-secular definition. What makes marriage, marriage in the churches is its status as a union before God. That is not a secular marriage though (even though the State recognizes those marriages). A secular marriage is one in which the State will provide certain rights to spouses that are not available to friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. So my question is what of these rights that they obtain under a secular marriage have they lost?
November 7th, 2008 17:24
You are mischaracterizing what secular marriage is. It isn’t just about “tangible” rights that obtain. It is about making a public announcement in front of the community that person A and person B are now joined.
November 7th, 2008 17:27
Your avoidance to answer the question tells me what I suspected, and that is that they haven’t lost any of the secular rights of a married couple. That is a silver lining that at least should be addressed.
As far as the right to make a public announcement in front of the community that person A and person B are now joined, you don’t need a marriage license to do that. The real discrimination comes in treating these couples differently in the eyes of the law, not of the community.
November 7th, 2008 17:31
I don’t think you get it. The civil union discussion is different from the marriage discussion. No one is arguing that their civil union rights are being taken away. There is, however, a very large right that obtains from being in a marriage, even if it isn’t tangible.
The whole point of traditional secular marriage in our society until recent times has not been about tax filings and joint health care. It’s been about making a public pronouncement that is observed and registered by the state. And that’s important. It’s important enough that we still do it. Lacking compelling governmental purpose, the state has no right to discriminate who gets to take part in that announcement, even if no “tangible” benefit obtains.
November 7th, 2008 17:31
Let me amend that final sentence…you can fix the discrimination that tax place in the eyes of the law, not as much the community…so if in the eyes of the law same sex couples have the same rights, that’s good.
November 7th, 2008 17:34
Then you are separating aren’t separating secular and non-secular marriage, and that to me is problematic.
November 7th, 2008 17:35
woops..typing quickly…are not separating was the intended phrase
November 7th, 2008 17:36
Wow that’s a mess. Take a full minute and construct a comprehensible sentence for me. What are you asking?
November 7th, 2008 18:01
I’m not asking anything, I’m telling you that you are not separating secular and non-secular marriage anymore.
November 7th, 2008 18:03
How am I not separating secular and non-secular marriage?
November 7th, 2008 18:07
Because non-secular marriage is for all intents and purposes a civil union that allows heterosexual couples and homosexual couples the exact same rights…you seem to be saying that there is something more.
Basically all prop 8 seems to be doing is stripping homosexuals of the term “married.” It’s seems like this is a stupid fight between right-wingers and left-wingers over semantics.
November 7th, 2008 18:11
And this, again, is where you show your limited understanding.
First of all, it’s not your place to say what the “intents and purposes” are. You have no idea why two homosexuals would want to get married versus simply having a domestic union. I’m telling you the reasons they give and you’re not accepting them. There is something beyond “tangible assets” that is important to marriage. Your not understanding this issue doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue.
It’s a discussion that has a whole lot more meaning than simple semantics for those that are involved in it…
November 7th, 2008 18:20
Scholar, read and absorb before you write. For all intents and purposes a non-secular marriage IS a civil union. In the eyes of the State, it is not looking at emotion, or symbolism, but rather rights and treatment of citizens. Thus a couple that is united in marriage in the eyes of the law has certain rights that those who are not, do not have. In no way did my post speak to why homosexuals or heterosexuals get married. So read first.
November 7th, 2008 18:24
Yankees fan, you don’t get it. When you say “for all intents and purposes” you are missing a big part of why gay people want to be married. They want to be able to say in front of their secular community that they are one and the state should recognize that just as they recognize a heterosexual couple to do so. It isn’t the tangible stuff that matters. That is what you’re including in intents and purposes. You need to move beyond that to understand this issue.
Heterosexual couples have the right to pronounce their union and have the state recognize it; homosexual couples want the same right.
Very simple.
November 7th, 2008 18:27
But that’s why it comes down to semantics. They want to use the term marriage to say that they are committed to each other for life. Right-wingers don’t want them to have the term. It’s a stupid debate, and they should be able to call themselves married.
But the state still does recognize homosexuals that are married as one in the same way as it does heterosexuals, despite the prop’s passage. That’s where the “for all intents and purposes” comes from.
November 7th, 2008 18:30
No one is arguing otherwise. What I’m saying is that there are a number of very legitimate reasons why people marry that have nothing to do with tangible rights provided by the state.
Republicans are so foolish on this for not letting it go. This will happen one day, why not just submit and swallow the bigotry?
November 7th, 2008 18:36
So then we are in agreement. Not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. The difficult part of tihs debate is that there really are two debates that it seems liberals don’t want to have. I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn’t be recognized as married in the secular sense, but when you turn to religion and the church, I do see reasons to deny that. The difficult thing, scholar, is that when you get into the intangibles of marriage, you start to teeder on the edge of moving into the Church and Religion.
November 7th, 2008 18:41
Wrong. How is announcing a union in public and having it recognized by the state as marriage at all religious? Secular marriage is distinct from religious marriage.
November 7th, 2008 18:43
Right…we aren’t arguing then. They should be able to say that they are married as anyone else that the state recognizes.
November 7th, 2008 20:21
OK good, now answer me this next question: why do Republicans care? I know you don’t, but since you’re of the ilk, you probably have some explanation for their behavior. Why do lots of Republicans not want to see homosexuals call themselves “married”?
November 8th, 2008 11:34
Again, I think it comes down to semantics. Republicans who care are those of strong faith that believe that marriage takes place in a church and is a union before God. Thus, the term marriage that includes homosexuality is a threat to the church.
That is why I’m trying to argue that the only discrimination that the state really should care about are those rights that the state recognizes outside of what the term marriage symbolizes in the church.
November 8th, 2008 11:36
So basically you’re arguing that Republicans who care about this are too stupid to realize that there is secular marriage and religious marriage? The government shouldn’t be involved with this marriage business at all, as far as I am concerned.
But you didn’t answer the question. How is homosexual marriage threatening to the religious? What does it mean that homosexual marriage is a threat to the Church???
November 8th, 2008 13:59
I didn’t argue that Republicans are too stupid to realize that there is secular marriage and religious marriage, but they are afraid that one will leadot the other…I disagree.
Homosexual activity, as well as many other activities, are sinful. Affirmation of sin is threatening to the church.
November 8th, 2008 14:38
So in other words, the religious can’t let other people live their lives because it is a threat to the church? Explain that one to me. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then don’t engage in gay sex. Pretty simple. Why is it that the religious feel the need to impose their views on others?
November 9th, 2008 13:31
They don’t. But you asked where certain members of churches would be uncomfortable with homosexual unions using the term marriage. I gave you one reason.
November 9th, 2008 13:43
Your reason was that it threatens the Church. I’m asking for the logic in that. How does homosexual marriage by two non-believers threaten the Church?
November 9th, 2008 20:41
Because a good number of homosexuals believe in Christ and consider are Christians. However, it has always been accepted that marriage is between a man and a woman, and sexually speaking, homosexuals would deny themselves. There is a very strong push in Churches to relax this line…as society gets more and more behind homosexual marriage, so do more liberal minded people in the Church. Thus, when one can separate what marriage is to the state, a civil-union, and what marriage is to the church “marriage,” there is a safe separation b/w the two. When all marriages are called marriages, that separation becomes a bit blurred.
November 10th, 2008 00:30
Question: since when is “it has always been accepted…” a good argument?
In the 60s it had always been accepted that blacks should have their own schools and water fountains.
In the 20s it had always been accepted that women were not men and shouldn’t have the same rights, like voting.
In the 19th century it had always been accepted that blacks should be slaves and couldn’t vote. In fact, they weren’t people.
So tell me, Yankees Fan, why is “it has always been” a good way to start any argument?
November 10th, 2008 09:29
Further, it is simply not true that in California “it has always been” the case that marriage was between a man and a woman. If that were the law then Prop 8 wouldn’t have been necessary. Prop 8 puts that language *into* law. Turns out the way we’ve always done is has been gender-neutral. Until now.
November 10th, 2008 09:31
[...] I’m Still Mad About Prop-8 [...]