Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/14/2008 12:11:11 AM · #902

Originally posted by RonB:

Haven't you heard about the separation of church and state? ...the state CANNOT grant RIGHTs to individuals that subject church polity to the law.

For the same reason, they also can't restrict that right. You assume (falsely) that every church policy is against the practice, and the state shouldn't be able to tell a church they CAN'T marry two people either. Ultimately Prop 8 will be shot down as unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time, and by pushing for this amendment I think its supporters have unwittingly accelerated the process.

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 00:16:15.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

11/14/2008 12:24:59 AM · #903

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Haven't you heard about the separation of church and state? ...the state CANNOT grant RIGHTs to individuals that subject church polity to the law.

For the same reason, they also can't restrict that right.

Yes, they CAN. All it would take is to remove the phrase "a priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination" from the list of who is authorized to solemnize a marriage.
Mind you, there would be all manner of protests, but the state COULD do it with the stroke of a pen.

Originally posted by scalvert:

You assume (falsely) that every church policy is against the practice

I make no such assumption. I was speaking of the law, not the ceremony. Any church can provide the ceremony to anyone they please, but they cannot legally solemnize such a marriage if it is not permissible according to the law.

Originally posted by scalvert:

... and the state shouldn't be able to tell a church they CAN'T marry two people either.

Ah, but the state already does that. They tell the church that they cannot legally marry persons who have not reached the age of consent, or who are already married to another, or who are closely related by blood, or who are not mentally capable of consenting, or who are being coerced, etc. etc.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ultimately Prop 8 will be shot down as unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

11/14/2008 12:48:01 AM · #904

I think what some are missing here is that society as a whole does not have to accept homosexuality as being normal. You may feel that homosexuality is normal and okay but others do not. While I personally disagree with what happened in California you cannot and should not say that the voters did anything wrong. They expressed their wishes. In my opinion they should not have had that chance but the fact of the matter is that they did.

With regard to constitutional amendments and such I would say that since marriage is currently defined as a man/woman thing (federally and most states)that it is up to those who wish it changed to propose the amendment (federal or state) that would explicitly change the traditional definition of marriage as it pertains to the government.

I personally am not bigoted against gay people but I am also not a proponent of changing the definition. As I have stated before I feel that the government should only recognize civil unions and not marriages which do have a religious connotation.

I think that what is being sought by gays is acceptance of their lifestyle and that is not going to happen by being allowed to get "married". If any thing it will spur on even more hatred by those who are violently opposed to it imo.

These are just some thoughts off the cuff... I'm sure someone will rip them to shreds.

edit to delete reference to race.

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 00:49:58.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

11/14/2008 02:26:21 AM · #905

An aside for those who oppose gay marriage based on it somehow affecting the sanctity/validity/rightness of man/woman marriage - why isn't there an equally strong outcry to ban divorce? Seems to me that divorce, which occurs in FAR huger numbers (and can adversely affect far more lives) is much more detrimental to the sanctity of marriage....

11/14/2008 07:05:28 AM · #906

Originally posted by Melethia:

There you go again, using facts, logic, reason, and common sense.....

Knock it off, will ya?

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 12:23:49.

11/14/2008 07:36:51 AM · #907

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ultimately Prop 8 will be shot down as unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by RonB:

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

Yes, it will be. It's unconstitutional and just plain wrong to discriminate in this manner.

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 12:23:41.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/14/2008 09:53:04 AM · #908

When one considers that the Ethics of Reciprocity seem to be common within most religions, The Golden Rule, one can only wonder as to the reasons why there is so much resistance to Gay Marriages.

Ray

11/14/2008 10:56:43 AM · #909

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Ultimately Prop 8 will be shot down as unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

Yes, it will be. It's unconstitutional and just plain wrong to discriminate in this manner.

1) When the Supreme Court says that Prop 8 in unconstitutional, then you can say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Until then, it is only an opinion, not a fact.
2) In a culture that subscribes to relativism, it is the culture that determines what's right or wrong. In California, the culture, by virtue of its majority vote on Prop 8, says that gay marriage is wrong. For now. But, because the culture subscribes to relativism, it can ( and always will ) change.
But it takes longer to change laws than to change culture.

11/14/2008 11:17:15 AM · #910

Originally posted by RayEthier:

When one considers that gay marriage proponents feel so strongly about the Ethics of Reciprocity that they use it as a measure by which to demean their opponents, one can only wonder why gay marriage proponents would be so adamant in pushing for gay marriage when they know that it is so offensive to so many.

11/14/2008 12:08:33 PM · #911

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You have apparently shown me many definitions of marriage in many different cultures. They ALL, with the exception of our buddy Nero, involve at least one member of each sex. So, I am stating once again that the fact that in history marriage has involved opposite sexes is as steadfast and constant as squares having "four equal sides".

You did attempt to bring up polygamy to point out that two people of the same gender are "married". I countered that by my understanding the same-sex members of the marriage were viewed differently toward each other than to their husband. As example, in Judaism and Mormonism, the two cultures I at least know best that practiced polygamy, it would be still considered reprehensible for two of the wives to have sex with each other despite the fact they are in the same "marriage". Also, because we have been talking about marriage and the legal rights that go along, I pointed out that wives of such marriages did not enjoy some of the basic rights we now do with regard to each other (when one wife dies, the other wife does not have a claim on her property as inheritance). So, to answer your question, no, if you and Erick get a hot chick to go along with ya, it doesn't somehow make your marriage "sacred" in my eyes.

So while you claim many, many examples of how marriage has changed, I somehow remain unconvinced.

No... I have asked you how many documented cases of the definition of marriage it will take for you to concede that marriage is variable across space and time. Pick a number. I will provide them. I have not said I HAVE provided them, and I have not, I've said I WILL provide them. The rest of the content of my posts has simply been trying to keep you on track by pointing out how you have strayed from what seems to be a simple, contructive way to get you to either concede a point or not, after establishing a framework. I want this, since if you can't concede that you've made a mistaken factual claim despite simple terms I'd hope you could agree with... there is no point in debating someone irrational. The rest of the content of my posts has been directed at the novel distractions you keep providing... I just can't help it when I think even your distractions have been poorly thought out. I shouldn't have clouded the issue, apparently.

I am trying to make you a deal. I feel I have been super clear about this, and that you are not responding to it. I think that you are being completely unreasonable about your claim, and am trying to take a constructive, negotiated approach to illustrate how marriage has changed and differs between cultures, in opposition to the claim you have made about marriage being the same across all cultures for millennia.

You have flatly refused to accept my challenge by picking a number, or even suggesting alternate terms you'd be comfortable with as evidence contrary to your claim, and now you seem to be saying that I've already made the effort and failed, when I have been waiting for you to agree to a well defined approach so I don't waste my time. I want a guarantee that if I am able to show you X cases where marriage has changed, or is different in different cultures, that you WILL concede, of if you don't, I have the information I need to write you off without feeling like I didn't give someone a fair shot.

Does that clear it up for you?

I'm tired of making a factual arguments and having conservatives dodge them and bring up something else, never conceding an inch.

I'm trying not to play that game. Running around in circles is AGGRIVATING.

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 13:42:22.

11/14/2008 12:15:52 PM · #912

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
When one considers that the Ethics of Reciprocity seem to be common within most religions, The Golden Rule, one can only wonder as to the reasons why there is so much resistance to Gay Marriages.

Ray

When one considers that gay marriage proponents feel so strongly about the Ethics of Reciprocity that they use it as a measure by which to demean their opponents, one can only wonder why gay marriage proponents would be so adamant in pushing for gay marriage when they know that it is so offensive to so many.

You do not have a RIGHT to not be offended.

The very idea of the conservative's god offends me profoundly.

I deal with it.

Simple!

Golden rule: APPLIED.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/14/2008 12:21:52 PM · #913

One can only wonder why proponents would be so adamant in pushing for abolition when they know that it is so offensive to so many. One can only wonder why proponents would be so adamant in pushing for women's suffrage when they know that it is so offensive to so many. One can only wonder why proponents would be so adamant in pushing for desegregation when they know that it is so offensive to so many. One can only wonder why proponents would be so adamant in pushing for gay marriage when they know that it is so offensive to so many. C'mon, everybody sing along! It's the same old song, and you all know the words. One can only wonder why proponents would be so adamant in pushing for discrimination and prejudice when they know that it is so offensive to so many.

"The Campaign for California Families unsuccessfully sought to get a same-sex marriage ban on the November ballot that also would have stripped same-sex couples of domestic partner benefits." A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by a traditional marriage nor a civil union. This is a private legal matter of consenting adults (and not necessarily involving sex) who are committed to each other, without the term "marriage" or any church involvement, and yet even that is unacceptable? Sanctity of marriage indeed. More like preserving the sanctity of hatred :-/

11/14/2008 12:26:51 PM · #914

Originally posted by RonB:

1) When the Supreme Court says that Prop 8 in unconstitutional, then you can say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Until then, it is only an opinion, not a fact.

Uh, no.

When a law discriminates against a whole segment of society, it IS unconstitutional.

That's a fact, not an opinion.

There are stupid, unconstitional, irrelevant laws on the books everywhere that no one has felt like making a case over.

11/14/2008 12:57:13 PM · #915

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by RonB:
1) When the Supreme Court says that Prop 8 in unconstitutional, then you can say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Until then, it is only an opinion, not a fact.

Uh, no.

When a law discriminates against a whole segment of society, it IS unconstitutional.

That's a fact, not an opinion.

There are stupid, unconstitional, irrelevant laws on the books everywhere that no one has felt like making a case over.

Mea culpa. I erred. I don't know how my thinking went awry.
Even if the Supreme Court were to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it would STILL not be a fact.
It would only be an OPINION.
Because Supreme Court rulings are always issued as OPINIONs.
And that's a fact.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

11/14/2008 01:33:34 PM · #916

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Mousie:
I'm going to stick to my premise that state and federal law are irrevocably intertwined.

- For federal income tax purposes, the test of taxability is ownership.
- Ownership, however, is determined by state law.
- According to California state law, domestic partners own community property equally and the earned income of a domestic partner is community property.

Therefore, since Federal law does not allow me to report an equal share of our community property, California's domestic partnership law does not provide me the same rights as those of a heterosexual couple, in seeming contradicition to the stated rules.

I have no idea where you got the idea that for federal income tax purposes the test of taxability is ownership. Ownership of WHAT? It's income tax.
As far as I knew, for federal income tax purposes, the test of taxability was, well, income, whether wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, inheritance, or gaming or lottery winnings. All income. Nothing to do with ownership of anything ( other than the income, that is ). The federal government does NOT tax anyone on the stocks they own, or on their car(s), or their camera(s) or their house(es). Only on income, earned or otherwise obtained. That's why Warren Buffet can legitimately claim that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's - because his only income is from long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

But even ownership is not ultimately a state's sole determination - rather, it is a federal determination. The due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution specifically state that one cannot be deprived of property without due process, and that ( due process ) applies at both the federal level ( 5th amendment ) and at the state level ( 14th amendment ). Property rights rulings by municipal and state courts can be appealed to federal courts, which are ultimately responsible for determining who held ownership and if rights were violated.

And finally, in California the community property laws in effect for a domestic partnership are the same as for a marriage, whether heterosexual or gay. It is only at the federal level that community income must be reported separately by the individuals in the union.
Because of the FEDERAL DOMA, California CANNOT grant you the same federal income tax reporting rights as heterosexual married couples. Even California's short live MARRIAGE ruling did not, and could not provide you the same rights as those of a heterosexual couple. There is no difference.

But then, you already know all of what I just wrote. You're just tossing out stuff to make it "seem" that a California marriage grants you more rights that a California domestic partnership - OTHER than the one right of calling the union a marriage. So far, I see absolutely no difference.

Er... are you being coy? It's right in my list. Ownership of the income! The captial! The money itself! "According to California state law... the earned income of a domestic partner is community property." Despite this, he who recieved the money in a gay marriage must pay the taxes on it, not the spouse, and not jointly. It isn't the same for heterosexuals, which is unequal rights, in apparent contradicition to what state law appears to dictate, because of the legal devaluing of gay relationships at state and national levels. This is why full, nation-wide marriage equality (I am not fighting for state equality, I am fighting for FULL equality) is the only answer, in my opinion.

And it's hardly fair to suggest that this isn't a federal rights issue as well as a state rights issue by suggesting that it shouldn't matter what I call my relationship because of the effects of DOMA... because in effect I get the 'same' rights (today, DOMA is going down) no matter what I may call my marriage... when DOMA itself was designed specifically so people COULD deny those rights granted by the state that USED to be transitive and national.

I don't agree with DOMA either, and just because there are many things we need to change doesn't mean we need to change them all at once instead of one at a time. Calling my marriage 'marriage' and getting it recognized by the state first is incrementalism, and takes place in a larger context you seem quite eager to strip away.

You are the one who's making this a state-scoped issue, not me. I see it in a larger context of home, state, country, and globe, in that order, and I'm starting at the beginning. I have my marriage, now I'm working on getting the state's recognition, and then the nation's, since I feel this is the best and fastest way to secure my full rights in a practical sense.

I'll think about changing the world once my state and country support me.

(Although acting locally DOES often change things globally, for free!)

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 13:37:31.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/14/2008 01:37:02 PM · #917

Here's an anecdote from a NY Times editorial, for those of you arguing that marriage is just a word and that Proposition 8 didn't hurt anybody:

The day after the election, the San Francisco lawyer and his husband, Paul Herman, a stay-at-home dad, had had to face the fact that Proposition 8 could mean that their marriage would be invalidated. Theyâ��d also had to go to parent conferences and tell the teachers that their five-year-old daughter, Liza, might be struggling in school because she was scared that her family might fall apart.

Liza, who has a twin sister, Katie, had peppered Swanson and Herman with questions once sheâ��d realized that marriages uniting â��a boy and a boyâ�� were no longer allowed.

â��They canâ��t take yours away, right?â�� sheâ��d asked her parents. â��They canâ��t take yours away when you have children, can they?â��

â��Thatâ��s when we realized she was afraid something would happen to us,â�� Swanson told me by phone on Wednesday. â��We said, â��They canâ��t take us away from you. We will be here for you forever.â��â��

â��Itâ��s difficult to explain to a five-year-old why it is people donâ��t want your parents to be married,â�� he continued. â��Theyâ��re young enough that there was a chance they could have grown up thinking all their lives that their family was equal and accepted. Now theyâ��re not going to have that chance. Theyâ��ll have to spend at least part of their lives knowing that their family is something that people donâ��t feel is acceptable.â��

But of course, this isn't a real marriage, so it's probably for the best that these girls learn that as quickly as possible. I'm sure it's also for the best for them to learn that they're not in a real family. They're much better off being wards of the state, so that their sense of reality can remain intact.

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I have a real problem with people who don't make the effort to understand another person's perspective. Two thousand years ago, a prophet told us to judge only ourselves and to send nothing but love outwards, and ever since his words have been used to love only ourselves and to send nothing but judgement outwards.

David Ey

Nikon D80

11/14/2008 01:42:41 PM · #918

Originally posted by posthumous:

lawyer and his husband,

Is each partner refered to as "husband"?
How about lesbeans....."wife"?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/14/2008 01:47:47 PM · #919

There's too much right-wing hate, intolerance, ignorance and judgement in here. I can't stand it anymore.

11/14/2008 01:53:42 PM · #920

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by posthumous:
lawyer and his husband,

Is each partner refered to as "husband"?
How about lesbeans....."wife"?

So eager to comment on something you obviously know so little about, aren't you?

Don't you think that me calling Eric 'husband' over and over should have cleared this up for you? Or do you think he calls me 'wife' because I'm less of a man? Do you think I want to be a woman? Haven't I made that clear? Oh, that's right, you never dragged yourself back to respond to my post about that very issue.

Don't you get it?

A gay marriage is not one guy prancing around in a pink dress pretending to be wife and mommy while the other wears wife beaters, watches football, drinks beer, and ignores the kids.

A gay marriage is two unshaven dudes playing videogames, installing laminate flooring, watching SciFi, and shooting guns at the range.

At least mine is, anyway.

P.S. Lesbians

Message edited by author 2008-11-14 14:03:12.

11/14/2008 02:02:31 PM · #921

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

There's too much right-wing hate, intolerance, ignorance and judgement in here. I can't stand it anymore.

I know! Something seems to have gone really sour in the last day or so.

I would like to think that this is because they, when backed into what seems to me to be an indefensible position based on supposedly factual claims, would rather simply exhibit intolerance than concede.

But heck, I'm biased and that's just my guess. Even so I don't know how much more of it I can take.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/14/2008 02:18:23 PM · #922

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by posthumous:
lawyer and his husband,

Is each partner refered to as "husband"?
How about lesbeans....."wife"?

Originally posted by Mousie:

I reported the post to SC even though I wanted to just blast off.

Every single post in this thread by the man has appeared to be intentionally rude or inflammatory.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

11/14/2008 02:21:42 PM · #923

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I reported the post to SC even though I wanted to just blast off.

Every single post in this thread by the man has appeared to be intentionally rude or inflammatory.

If people stopped responding to them, it wouldn't be a problem. There are people worth responding to, and people not worth responding to, and given what I've seen in this and other threads over the last few weeks, you'd think a couple of people would know when to not respond. Keep taking the bait though. Mind boggling.