| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2008 12:11:27 AM · #601 |
There was a huge amount of misinformation put out repeatedly using religious arguements such as the 'sanctity of marriage' and 'churches losing tax status if they refused to marry gay couples' and on and on. When I say repeatedly, I mean even several times in a half-hour program on both radio and TV.
I heard an interview with one black woman who voted for 8 who simply said, as I recall: "I'm a Christian. It's not right."
ETA: Where is our famous separation of Church and State.
Message edited by author 2008-11-08 00:12:37. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 12:28:34 AM · #602 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Interesting discussion on MSNBC tonight about Proposition 8 and the African-American vote. Based on exit polls the black vote was something like 7 to 1 in favor of Prop. 8. If anyone should understand that "separate but equal" isn't equal, its black voters. |
Be VERY careful with poll results. There's been a lot of chatter on gay blogs in the last couple days that this topic is being deliberately employed as a wedge to turn the hostilities of two minorities against one another and distract them from more important goals. Gay baiting AND race baiting, all with one simple statistic! I've personally seen many posts in a number of venues, mainly the comments sections of newspaper articles about the huge protests against Prop 8 that have been sweeping the state for days, where identified conservatives repeatedly bring it up just to stir the pot.
There are so many other ways to look at it... compare the votes of blacks vs. the votes of religious conservatives, of which blacks contain a high percent demographically, and the result is not as surprising. It's a foregone conclusion that MANY types of people who should know better let their religious beliefs trump their belief in civil liberties. Just look at the Mormon Church's own history of persecution! Should they not have also 'known better'?
I'm not going to suggest that black culture isn't openly hostile to gays in many ways, just listen to rap music. But standing around and pointing fingers after cleaving statisitics one way or another isn't doing squat to, you know, fix anything. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 01:13:11 AM · #603 |
Hey, I'm capable of discussing this issue without turning it into a "choose which minority to support" issue or making it divisive. I found it interesting that the same language that was used in the past to scare white people about racial issues such as interracial marriage was used in the present day to scare black voters about gay marriage: the same distortions, the same religion-based arguments.
Btw, yesterday I had a pretty interesting chat with a conservative black voter from Texas. He said it killed him not to vote for Obama at this historic time, but he had to go with his beliefs and vote for McCain. It's amazing how civil the discussion was face to face (as opposed to the angry attacks that are so easy to make on the web when talking with strangers). We talked about "beliefs" and though I won't give you a blow-by-blow account, he finally admitted that the idea of gay marriage conflicted too strongly with his Christian beliefs. I was pretty dumbfounded on a couple of levels. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 02:36:05 PM · #604 |
Unbelieveable... huge daily protests all across the state, for days. Peaceful protests!
The genie looks like it's out of the bottle.
It's one thing to have never had something than it is to have been given a taste of something and then getting it ripped away. They've just Stonewalled the Gex-Xers, and WE have blogs and twitter and flickr and flash mobs and give a shit. I even have rings! I wish I had stock in whatever company's making all that tacky rainbow schwag.
Who's going to be the first to tell me that I don't believe in democracy and am un-American because I won't submit to the 'will of the people'? Oh wait, I don't have to guess... I see it all over the web! The same people who have tried over and over to take away the privacy rights of teenaged girls (bye bye Prop. 4, nice knowing you!) despite the 'will of the people' being demonstrated in defeat after defeat, actually! Do conservatives not understand irony? As a progressive liberal I would wince if someone suggested I use that argument.
What flavor of conservatives do we have here at the DPC? Ones that will cop to history (does anyone remember all that 'political capitol' GW was going to spend with his second term 'mandate'?) and stop making stupid, ironic arguments that directly contradict everything they supposedly stood for a moment ago, or ones that won't? For that matter, what kind of liberals do we have here? How about we just don't go there, huh? |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 04:05:30 PM · #605 |
| I guess that most don't equate sexual orientation and race. Most simply don't recognize gays as a minority group... the word minority has been too closely associated with race only. Don't fret too much. I think that time is on the side of gay marriage and eventually it will come to pass that gay marriages will be recognized across the entire country. I understand that the law will not be retroactive so all of the gay marriages that were done legally will stand. I personally am not in favor of gay marriages but I don't think it is right to allow them and then to change the rules based on a popular vote. It seems entirely un-american to me to deny rights to people that they have already enjoyed based on the arbitrary opinions of people who are largely unaffected by those rights either way. I don't agree with seperate but equal either. I think the government should only recognize civil unions regardless of sexual orientation. One system for everyone. Marriages should be left to religious institutions. If gay people are religious and belong to a church that will recognize them as married then they can say that they are married. If not then they JUST have a civil union. Same for heterosexuals. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 04:23:23 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I guess that most don't equate sexual orientation and race. Most simply don't recognize gays as a minority group... the word minority has been too closely associated with race only. Don't fret too much. I think that time is on the side of gay marriage and eventually it will come to pass that gay marriages will be recognized across the entire country. I understand that the law will not be retroactive so all of the gay marriages that were done legally will stand. I personally am not in favor of gay marriages but I don't think it is right to allow them and then to change the rules based on a popular vote. It seems entirely un-american to me to deny rights to people that they have already enjoyed based on the arbitrary opinions of people who are largely unaffected by those rights either way. I don't agree with seperate but equal either. I think the government should only recognize civil unions regardless of sexual orientation. One system for everyone. Marriages should be left to religious institutions. If gay people are religious and belong to a church that will recognize them as married then they can say that they are married. If not then they JUST have a civil union. Same for heterosexuals. |
This is pretty much what I feel, as well. Whatever they're called, the legal bonding and the religious bonding should be separate entities and in no way dependant on one another. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 05:39:42 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
This is pretty much what I feel, as well. Whatever they're called, the legal bonding and the religious bonding should be separate entities and in no way dependant on one another. |
I get really worried when I hear that people desire religious marriages wihout any mandatory legal protections for themselves and the public.
It seems really open to abuse and exploitation.
Two people get religiously married. They forego the civil aspects of it, for if civil and religious unions are truly separate, each is entirely optional. They live in the same home, and share the same stuff. One of them has a shopping addiction. Without truly understanding what is happening, the other spouse watches their partner rack up tons of debt buying big TVs, expensive cars, and the like. A large percent of that debt is spent on consumables, well more than the value of any tangible property remaining. Then, unfortunately, the one who held the purse strings dies.
I see many issues here.
What claim do the civil debt holders have on the shared assets of the partner remaining? What is the legal recourse for them to claim what is owed to them? Is it up to the church to arbitrate what should be a business situation?
What legal safeguards does the remaining partner have against property claims by relatives of the deceased OR from the civil debt holders? What if those claims come from relatives of another faith?
Why does a hospital of a different faith have to honor the wishes of the spouse to be at the bedside of their partner as they die, when it has no legal obligation to honor the contracts ratified by another institution, and in doing so it opens itself up to very real legal liability should anything go wrong due to the presence of an outsider?
While I feel that civil marriage can definitely be crafted independently from religious marriage, I hightly doubt the opposite is feasable. All people need a common framework to handle issues as they present themselves, to mitigate the very sorts of conflicts I have described above.
Why do you think we have such a huge amount of case law around marriage and divorce?
Message edited by author 2008-11-08 17:40:00. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 07:46:56 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
This is pretty much what I feel, as well. Whatever they're called, the legal bonding and the religious bonding should be separate entities and in no way dependant on one another. |
I get really worried when I hear that people desire religious marriages wihout any mandatory legal protections for themselves and the public.
It seems really open to abuse and exploitation.
Two people get religiously married. They forego the civil aspects of it, for if civil and religious unions are truly separate, each is entirely optional. They live in the same home, and share the same stuff. One of them has a shopping addiction. Without truly understanding what is happening, the other spouse watches their partner rack up tons of debt buying big TVs, expensive cars, and the like. A large percent of that debt is spent on consumables, well more than the value of any tangible property remaining. Then, unfortunately, the one who held the purse strings dies.
I see many issues here.
What claim do the civil debt holders have on the shared assets of the partner remaining? What is the legal recourse for them to claim what is owed to them? Is it up to the church to arbitrate what should be a business situation?
What legal safeguards does the remaining partner have against property claims by relatives of the deceased OR from the civil debt holders? What if those claims come from relatives of another faith?
Why does a hospital of a different faith have to honor the wishes of the spouse to be at the bedside of their partner as they die, when it has no legal obligation to honor the contracts ratified by another institution, and in doing so it opens itself up to very real legal liability should anything go wrong due to the presence of an outsider?
While I feel that civil marriage can definitely be crafted independently from religious marriage, I hightly doubt the opposite is feasable. All people need a common framework to handle issues as they present themselves, to mitigate the very sorts of conflicts I have described above.
Why do you think we have such a huge amount of case law around marriage and divorce? |
I think the answer is relatively simple. Marriage would have no bearing whatsoever on legal issues. If there is no civil union then there simply are no legal rights. In the eyes of the law they are two seperate people who may or may not live together or have children together. What the church chooses to enforce upon it's subjects is it's own business between the church and the member but would not have the force of law. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 07:51:10 PM · #609 |
I posted before my second coffee so I goofed; what I said wasn't actually what I meant :)
Certainly, anyone wanting the legal protections would require a civil marriage, as legal matters are civil matters, but religious marriage should be within religion with no bearing on civil matters.
In other words, I can;
a) get a civil marriage alone. I would not be married in the eyes of my faith, would be "living in sin", but would have the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.
b) get a religious marriage alone. My church would recognise my living with my partner, raising a family if we chose, as valid and holy. But in the eyes of the law we would still be treated as individuals.
c) get a civil and a religious marriage and be recognised as a couple by both the law and the church.
Maybe this still presents difficulties, I haven't thought of all possible ramifications, but it must be better than the current situation, no?
eta; dponlyme posted while I was typing :)
Message edited by author 2008-11-08 19:52:41. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 07:52:48 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I think the answer is relatively simple. Marriage would have no bearing whatsoever on legal issues. If there is no civil union then there simply are no legal rights. In the eyes of the law they are two seperate people who may or may not live together or have children together. What the church chooses to enforce upon it's subjects is it's own business between the church and the member but would not have the force of law. |
But who would stop you marrying your horse then? Isn't that always the big concern forefront in peoples' minds? |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 07:58:31 PM · #611 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I think the answer is relatively simple. Marriage would have no bearing whatsoever on legal issues. If there is no civil union then there simply are no legal rights. In the eyes of the law they are two seperate people who may or may not live together or have children together. What the church chooses to enforce upon it's subjects is it's own business between the church and the member but would not have the force of law. |
But who would stop you marrying your horse then? Isn't that always the big concern forefront in peoples' minds? |
The state would forbid a civil union between you and a horse and if you belonged to a church that would allow a marriage between you and a horse then while very strange would be legal. So long as you are not breaking any laws (ie consummating the marriage) with said horse, who's business is it if you want to consider yourself married to it. It has no legal force under my proposal. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 09:03:46 PM · #612 |
to keep this discussion from getting too far into the surreal,
perhaps moving from horses to tractors to who knows where, can
we stipulate that we are talking about human beings here and leave out
the livestock.
Many thanks. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 09:24:50 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
to keep this discussion from getting too far into the surreal,
perhaps moving from horses to tractors to who knows where, can
we stipulate that we are talking about human beings here and leave out
the livestock.
Many thanks. |
I'll agree to that stipulation. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 12:36:23 AM · #614 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
b) get a religious marriage alone. My church would recognise my living with my partner, raising a family if we chose, as valid and holy. But in the eyes of the law we would still be treated as individuals. |
I don't think you CAN legally treat spouses as individuals in the cases I tried to present! Someone's rights could get violated, or they could get exploited! Debts don't automatically evaporate upon death... who's the next of kin? Could the child of a deceased debtor wind up having to pay off the money that a living, religious-only spouse refuses to cough up even though they were the benefactor? And you still haven't adressed my point about needing a common framework in case of interfaith marriages... who's rules prevail? If it's not either church, what is it? Might I suggest the simple answer... civil law?
Again, I'm pretty sure the only two feasable permutations are:
a) Civil Marriage
b) Civil Marriage 'augmented' with a Religious Marriage
Oooh, won't the conservatives like that? Augmented makes it sound special! And interesting enough, that's exactly what we have today, and for good reason. At least for heterosexuals.
I'm sorry if I'm being picky, but I don't think we can ever be too precise in discussions like these. :)
Message edited by author 2008-11-09 00:40:19. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 04:52:45 AM · #615 |
No, as it stands now you can't legally treat spouses individually, because religious marriages have civil power. I propose to remove that power for religious-only marriages. I agree that it would only leave your two options feasable with regard to legal ramifications.
But having the 3rd option would still satisfy the needs of some religions, in religious matters only, that aren't allowed now, such as polygamy. Your religion says you can have 3 wives but the law says you can't? Fine, have your 3 wives in the eyes of your church, married and certified by your church, live together as the tenets of your religion dictate. But in legal matters you have the right to civil marriage to no more than one of those women, and that marriage must still be granted separate from the religious ones.
Okay, having typed that I finally see the problems with that proposal. Along with taking legal marriage out of the realm of religion it takes religious marriages out of reach of the law and would open the can of worms that everyone seems so worried about.
So I agree that there ARE just the two alternatives you mentioned, and that the third isn't viable. :)
I think we agree on the basic premise; that civil matters need to be taken out of the hands of religion. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 05:02:18 AM · #616 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I think we agree on the basic premise; that civil matters need to be taken out of the hands of religion. |
That'd be because there are so many religions that are barely civil.
Love thy neighbor.....as long as he does it our way, otherwise, stone the son of a b*tch!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2008 09:56:45 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I think we agree on the basic premise; that civil matters need to be taken out of the hands of religion. |
That'd be because there are so many religions that are barely civil.
Love thy neighbor.....as long as he does it our way, otherwise, stone the son of a b*tch! |
I think I rather see it the other way... take religious matters out of the hands of the civil authorities.
Mr. Jeb I don't think that any religions are advocating stoning people anymore. At least none that I know of. Capital punishment perpetrated by the state is in effect a lot of places (Texas in particular comes to mind) but that is another can of worms. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 10:15:54 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I think we agree on the basic premise; that civil matters need to be taken out of the hands of religion. |
That'd be because there are so many religions that are barely civil.
Love thy neighbor.....as long as he does it our way, otherwise, stone the son of a b*tch! |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I think I rather see it the other way... take religious matters out of the hands of the civil authorities.
Mr. Jeb I don't think that any religions are advocating stoning people anymore. At least none that I know of. Capital punishment perpetrated by the state is in effect a lot of places (Texas in particular comes to mind) but that is another can of worms. |
I was being facetious....
My point was how intolerant good church-going folk have a tendency to be if they feel threatened by something they don't like or understand.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2008 11:23:53 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Mr. Jeb I don't think that any religions are advocating stoning people anymore. At least none that I know of. |
Maybe not in the US ...
Fox News report ...
Search Results for "stoning death" ... |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 12:38:05 AM · #620 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Capital punishment perpetrated by the state is in effect a lot of places (Texas in particular comes to mind) but that is another can of worms. |
The United States is the only Western country to still have the death penalty. In Europe, the only countries still practicing capital punishment are Belarus and Kazakhstan, for which they are denied entry into the EU. Latvia technically has capital punishment but does not actively exercise it. The US is sixth out of a list of seven countries in the world with the highest rates of executions. It shares this dubious distinction with true paragons of tolerance and respect for human rights: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 07:38:01 PM · #621 |
Just seen this - how cheery for all those kids put back into institutional homes who have been saved from loving families in order to preserve the moral indignity of the ultra-cons.
ETA: //sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg
Message edited by author 2008-11-10 19:39:43.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2008 09:35:48 PM · #622 |
Foster care is a completely broken system anyway... now it's probably taken out some good people for no real reason. They need to put more effort into weeding out the bad apples who are doing it for nothing but the money they receive to care for the children and/or are abusive. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 10:41:17 PM · #623 |
If you like Keith Olberman's emotionally over the top style you'll appreciate his special comment on gay marriage from tonight. Thought he was going to cry for a moment on this one.
I was glad to hear him bring up the parallel to interracial marriage which was based on many of the same core arguments that anti-gay marriage arguments are now based on. I'm also glad to see someone with a platform take a strong stance on the issue although I'm afraid his strong emotions distract from his arguments, but perhaps that works for some people. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 11:31:13 PM · #624 |
I like Olbermann. I've never seen him quite like this... seemed from the start he was barely containing himself. Came off as pretty genuine to me, he's kind of a tough nut. "Our world is barren enough of happiness... do you want to do good by your creator? Spread happiness."
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:38:30 AM · #625 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I like Olbermann. I've never seen him quite like this... seemed from the start he was barely containing himself. Came off as pretty genuine to me, he's kind of a tough nut. "Our world is barren enough of happiness... do you want to do good by your creator? Spread happiness." |
Personally I think Olbermann is a jack ass... he makes a strong point with this though despite the messenger. |
|
