Post

I Said Yes On 8, But For a Strange Reason

Now I realize that many of you will find this distasteful, but I will EXPLAIN my reasoning. 

I am not a 'homofobe' and really dont care if men marry men (or women marry women) or not.  From a 'governmental' point of view, it is basically a 'net zero' cost.  If gays were allowed to marry, we would need MORE lawyers for their divorces.  That is a 'net plus' to the economy.  Their weddings are ALSO a 'net plus' to the economy.

So, where do I have a 'problem'?

 

2 years ago the PEOPLE of California voted on 'gay marriage'.  Gay marriage 'lost'.  6 months ago the 9th Circus court wrote law from the bench AGAINST the will of the people.  The 9th Circus court was going to jam 'gay marriage' down our throat no matter what the will of the people was.

 

I am against laws written from the 'bench'.  I am against guys in Robes overturning the will of the people.  We should vote out ALL the guys in the Robes.  No matter your view, you should be against laws out of thin air.  That is Anarchy, not democracy.  And, historically speaking, the PEOPLE do get it right.

 

For those of you TRYING to equate 'gay marriage' to civil rights:  STOP.  It's not the same thing.  We are not putting gays at the back of the bus or making them use different toilets, etc.  CIVIL RIGHTS movement, IMHO, was MUCH more difficult.

 

If you WANT 'gay marriage' t pass:  Don't call it gay marriage.  I know of a NUMBER of people that would vote for 'civil unions'.  It is basically semantics as a union is the same as a marriage.  But this is from people who I knew that voted for Prop 8.

AZBowlman AZBowlman 46-50, M 17 Responses Nov 6, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

Straight (interesting choice of word) from the canyonwalkerconnections.com

“I don’t mind gay people having civil unions, but marriage is not a civil right.”

Married couples enjoy over 1000 civil, medical and tax benefits which exclude non-married couples. Saying “I have no objection to civil unions, just don’t touch marriage” may work nicely for those who enjoy the benefits of marriage for themselves and their families, but is not just or fair for same-sex couples.

Marriage might be a “sacrament” in your economy, but it is a legal contract which provides protections for individuals, couples and families.

As the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) progresses through the Federal Court system, it will surely be defeated. And it should. The unfair burdens that have been placed on partnered same-sex couples may not be on the radar of the average heterosexual. If it does not impact “us”, then the injustice of DOMA also escapes “us”.

Further, there is a strong misconception among heterosexuals that marriage itself is not a civil right. Well, it is.

Marriage has already been designated as “one of the basic civil rights of man” by the Supreme Court of the US. In the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case that invalidated the miscegenation laws prohibiting black/white marriage, marriage was deemed to be a basic right for all people. The decision states, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Marriage as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was again reaffirmed in the 1978 Zablocki vs. Redhail decision. That decision states “ the right to marry as of fundamental importance for all.”

Civil rights should not be subjected to a popular vote; rights are evaluated and extended by close examination under the Constitution. The Constitution interprets for American citizens what is fair and just. Clearly, marriage is a basic right within our Constitution. Inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the right to marry has been and is currently being examined by several states.

Undoubtedly, DOMA will be struck down and a case testing federal marriage equality will be heard at the Federal level in the Supreme Court within the decade. This is the logical progression of interpreting Constitutional law as it applies to the right to marry a same sex partner.

You must be against equality then. Here is a definition for you:
Equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Key word there: rights.
It is a right to get married, therefore if straight people get married and gay people don't you are denying them their rights. Now you do have a situation like racism and sexism. Body count may not be as large, but the concept is the same. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter who it's to, or who it's from.

Oh and I also wanted to mention that when gay people are in a "Civil Union" and one of them gets critically sick, or injured, in a family only situation, the other one cannot see them. They are not technically family. I have friends who died without getting to say goodbye to their loved ones because of this. In one case my friend was begging for his partner, to say goodbye because he was dying, but they didn't let them see each other because he wasn't "family." That man died without getting to be in his loved ones arms. That's the kind of situation your supporting. You can call it all the fancy names you want but as I mentioned before, that isn't equality. That's segregation of rights.

DO NOT be an ignorant ****. People call it 'gay marriage' because they want that same right that other American's have to get MARRIED. They don't want to be in a union with the ones that they love; they want to be married to the person they love. The only way gay people can truly be free and have the same rights as other Americans would be to let them marry who ever they want or not let anyone marry at all. Leaving every one only aloud to be in civil unions.

i agree with chakatblackstar. everyone has the right to have the same thing. if straight people get marriage, then so does gays.

If tolerance were truly the goal I suspect that they would be showing much more. Since they dont, I suspect that 'tolerance' is being used as a tool/weapon to belittle those that do not agree with them.

Having said that, there are inequalities.

Yeah...from those who want tolerance, they don't show much.

Chrisv:



You can REALLY tell that they have 'tolerance'. This is shown by the number of attacks I have received on this topic.



Now I don my 'hetrosexual" apparel, fla la la, la la la, la, la la.

In my opinion, this is a fight over the use of a word. Marriage. Gays don't want anything else. If a civil union matched exactly the rights and privilages of marriage, they still wouldn't want it. If the people speak, it should be accepted. I didn't vote for Obama. But, I recognize that the people spoke and that is it. I'm not going to go around protesting, damaging property and invading churches because of it.

Ok, then, let's take it a step further..... During last weekend there were NUMEROUS protests in the greater LA area for your cause. This took away RESOURCES (police and fire) from the fires that were ablaze.



Now I am sure that there are gays on the police & fire departments, but how many 'protesters' were assisting with evacuation and assisting others? It would have been for the greater good for these groups to SUSPEND operations on THIS particular day due to the hardship it placed on the rest of us. After all, you can protest anytime. You are not winning 'friends' when you actions INDIRECTLY cause people to lose their homes.



My point on the "Guys who like big-chested women" protests is that I can snarl traffic for any reason. By doing so does not exactly gain me sympathy/empathy and MAY **** off the people who I want to help me.



Marriage was originally created as a union between man & woman. And it has been that way for a couple of thousand years. So, here is my question for you:



What is it that YOU are wanting? Are you wanting capability of making health/medical decisions for your significant other? Are you wanting to have something legally recognizeable? Are you wanting to make 'babies'? Adam can buttF*ck Steve all he wants. No baby is going to come of that union. AND that makes it different than 'marriage'.



And what about churches that do not recognize your 'union'? Is it your goal to force your unions on a group of people that not only disagree with your choices, but detest them on Biblical principal? The baptists, catholics, lutherans, mormans, johova witnesses and other 'main stream' religions will never accept or recognize your 'marriages'. Do you want to force yourself into a place where you are not wanted?



IMHO, we are past the point where the term 'marriage' matters much. Just make EVERYTHING a 'civil union'. After all, most of these are 'disolved' in less than 5 yrs anyway (hetro or gay).



Would that be 'enough' or do you want more?

From the same site:

“The Bible is against homosexuality.”

It is quite common for people to use God and “His views” to justify their own moral, cultural and religious biases. Millions of words have been written on this issue. I have written many of those words on my blog.

With extensive experience in this conversation, it is clear to me that people do not shift their dogma in a battle over verses. All of us, all of us, approach verses in the Bible with the filters created by our: experiences, the teachings we have heard and read, interpretations, cultural influences and doctrinal and denominational stances.

I rarely do the “verse by verse” duel with anyone. Certainly, not because I am unable, but it is rarely productive in conversation. (I point to what I have written.)

I do ask people to temporarily lay aside the “Golden Calves” of what they are sure of and step away and risk getting in relationships with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians. Hearing professions of faith, testimonies of changed lives and seeing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in gay and transgender Christians should challenge you.

Then go back and look at that Golden Calf you have held onto so tightly, and ask with honesty, “Does what I see in the lives of GLBT Christians line up with what I have held as a Biblical truth about them?” If you do not know any gay Christians (I did not until seven years ago!), look at my resources page and view or attend some affirming congregation services.

Relationship matters. When I went to a Gay Christian Network Conference in 2006, standing amongst over 300 GLBT Christians convinced me of my own wrong judgments. I knew I had held wrong beliefs about an entire group of God’s other children.

Concerning the verses you confidently know you know, my challenge is quite simple. Look at all (5 to 7, depending on your count) of the references to same sex behavior in the Bible. In every instance, the behavior is bundled together with rape, prostitution, abuse or worship of a god other than God. The combination of the purpose and the resultant action created something that did not please God.

Consider this: is it the combined wrong purpose and behavior being condemned or is it all same-sex relationships being condemned?

If every time the Bible mentioned the exchange of money and that exchange were bundled with violence, prostitution, or manipulation, we might think the giving of money is evil and unacceptable. But we know that is not true. We know how to separate immoral purposes in some couplings and have missed it on the issue of same-sex relationships.

The only examples the Old and New Testament writers knew of same-sex behavior were associated with immoral purposes: rape, prostitution,abuse and manipulation in idol worship. That was their culture, their time. The bundled purpose and the resultant same-sex behaviors were immoral.

Of the thousands of relationships I have with GLBT people, I do not know one based in rape, prostitution, abuse or manipulation of idols. The Bible is not referring to loving, same-sex, monogamous relationships. We have wrongly applied Bible verses to fit our biases about gay people.

Most Evangelical and Southern Baptist Christians do not have intimate friendships with gay people; they have gay stereotypes. We tend to believe dogma that reinforces our stereotypes. This is lazy and dehumanizing.

I am entrenched in the gay and transgender Christian community. Without the permission of the “you cannot be gay and Christian” segment, there is indeed a revival going on that may not line up with the traditional non-affirming interpretations. Oh well.

There is a growing number of us Christians, that, at the onset of our journey of shifting, had been confounded by the witness of gay Christians in our lives. We have arrived at different interpretations of the Bible on this issue than we once held.

It is interesting to listen to and read the so-called “Christian experts” on homosexuality who have no personal extensive experiences with the gay community, especially the gay Christian community. They have truly let their biases support their dogma of disgust and ideology of ick; they continue to poison the church and conservative community with their lies and half truths.

Ok, here is my deal:







I get the idea that the 'significant other' has no legal rights in a PRESENT homosexual union. I get that there is no medical benefits, etc. Those parts of our present laws I see as a travesty.







After all, short of a power of attorney, the partner has no rights. This is the SAME as hetrosexual couples. Up to the point of marriage, there are no rights bestowed on a partner.







My idea:



Call it a civil union and you will win on a landslide. Most of us 'get that'. After all, aren't you really wanting what I just stated above?





By doing that, you keep the Mormon church and the 9th Circus out of it. Both of which, IMHO, are extremist organizations.



After all, do you want to win or just complain? By having a bunch of 'queens' prancing on the streets of LA does nothing for me. And it would **** me off if I was snarled in traffic BECAUSE of them.



You would feel the same way if I started a protest called, "Guys who like big chested women" and interupted YOUR life.

Lebonese Blonde:



Wow, people CAN NOT read on this board. I said that is what the GOVERNMENT is probably thinking. They do not want any tax $$$ to get away these days.



I, personally, don't care about gay marriage. But I don't want gay marriage taught in schools IF the parents WISH to opt out. It does not need to be MANDATORY. It needs to be treated like sex ed (which last i looked is optional).



Go find ANY black man that is in his 60's. Ask him if he pities you compared to what HE and others went through. Gay rights is NOT the same as the civil rights that the black people fought.



There is a difference between rights and privilidges. Next thing you know, you will want drivers' licenses for the legally blind. Or next will be why can't I marry in a 3-some (poligamy). The mormons have you beat on that one in Utah, NM, and Colorado.



Me, and people like me, make up the silent majority. If you screw up our lives with your marches in downtown Los Angeles and make a 30 minute commute into 2 hours, you will **** us off. If you want to do that, and lose our vote (or support), go right ahead. We have better things to do with our lives (like get home) than watch a bunch of guys in high heels run around with signs and holding up traffic for hours.



Instead of taking on the issues and problems with gay marriage, you scream oppression. Again, personally, I don't care. But IF you want our help (and not **** us off), don't just scream at us. We won't hear you. After all, you can catch more flys with HONEY than you can S*it.

SDTERP:



I think you misinterpreted my point. I am not opposed to gay marriage due to financial reasons. MY POINT was (as you had stated) that the state & feds would end up with LESS tax money if gays married (vs being single). I am SURE someone in Sacramento and Washington DC can tell you what the tax loss is for allowing gay marriage. In ANY event, I am sure it IS SIGNIFICANT.



My opposition to prop 8 has to do with justices OVERSTEPPING their bounds. Granted, YOU may think they were doing their jobs. I feel otherwise. And we are allowed to have our difference of opinions. I personally don't want justices writing law that is against the majority of the people. The people, if it was not for the justices, would have eventually got Civil Rights 'right' as well in the 60's. Perhaps not as fast as blacks would have liked, but we would still get it right.



Isn't it better for the people to 'get it right' on their own vs. a group jamming their agenda down someone else's throat? Think of all the strife that COULD have been avoided in the 60's if the people got it right on their own. And yes, WE (the people) do get it right.



As far as being 'oppressed', I fail to see a 48% approval rating as oppressed. Re-write it, keep the 9th Circus out of it, and you HAVE MY VOTE. Keep the schools out of it, not that I care. But others do. After all, 90%+ of the kids in school are being raised by hetrosexuals. It (gay marriage) should be like sex ed and NOT be taught in PUBLIC schools over the objections of the parents. The parents, if they wish, should be allowed the option if they want their children taught gay marriage (or sex ed). Surely you can see that point of view?



My problem is not with the idea of gay marriage. I really don't care. Does my lack of being an 'activist' for your cause make me a 'homophobe'? If so, I must be really f-d up. There is a lot of stuff I don't care about.



My concern (and complaint) over the 9th Circus Court has to do with governmental control. EVERY day the government takes more and more in the way of TAXES and liberties. They tell us what we should do. I am against that. Let the will of the people decide. We do get it right, even if it takes awhile.



In the meantime the judges should just sit on the sidelines and not write law from air.



Best Regards.

WHAT. WAHT? OH MY GOD.

Bowiman, I'm sorry if you took offense, but I do see your views as homophobic. No, I don't perceive everyone who doesn't agree with me 100% as being homophobic when someone suggests making a different set of rules for Queer people I tend to see that as homophobic or bigoted or whichever term you prefer.



The excuses you use to prove you're not homophobic are the same points used over and over by others over the past several decades to hide a slew of prejudiced or bigoted views. Proposition 8 was designed to define marriage in a way that it removed the existing right Queer people had to marry. Regardless of it's outcome, it had nothing to do with curriculum in the public schools. There is nothing that says marriage -- in any form -- has to be taught in any public school. This was a red herring to pull attention away from the fact that this was a denial of civil rights by using lies and scare tactics.



Civil rights are about much more than access to bathrooms. From the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



I'd say this is a clearly abridged privilege.



You mention when Gay men and women start paying for divorces their attitude about marriage rights will change...funny, despite the huge divorce rate and cost of divorce, it doesn't seem to be reducing marriage among heterosexual couples. There must be something desirable about it.



I'm also not sure what you meant when you said, "My personal belief is that the reason for DISALLOWING gay marriage has more to do with FINANCES (state and fed taxes) than moral grounds."



In your original post you said you were opposed to it because judges were writing laws from the bench (it is, in fact, their job to note when a law is unconstitutional or when a minority group is being oppressed by the majority).



So, which is it? You're opposed for financial reasons (which I don't really understand your point if that's the case) or because you don't like the justices doing their jobs?

SDTerp: Do you call everyone a 'homophobe' if they do not agree with you 100%? That must be one hell of a life you lead! Do you have any friends that are not gay?



And since you don't know me and don't know what I am about you attack me? BTW, a sister in law of mine is gay. And since I know a number of gay people, I know your 'venom' is not a complete representation of your community.



Like I said, I don't care personally who marries who. When gays start having to pay 5 figures+ for divorce attorneys, I bet some of their attitudes change a little.



As far as "This isn't over. Justice will prevail," please note what I said. The people do (eventually) get it right. My personal belief is that the reason for DISALLOWING gay marriage has more to do with FINANCES (state and fed taxes) than moral grounds.



It is my PERSONAL BELIEF that we will have something for 'homosexual unions' that is legal and binding. Will it be called 'marriage'? Hell if I know. I do KNOW that if you WANT to get more 'progressive thinkers' and people who are open minded to follow you, you do not want to continue to stuff 'gay marriage' down their throat.



An additional concern is that those who do not want their children to be 'preached to' by our PUBLIC schools with regard to gay marriage have no recourse. That is ANOTHER reason that gay marriage lost.



Gay marriage is like ANYTHING in life. If you want it, you will have to give almost as much as you get.



Let the people who have problems with it (on a moral ground) take their kids from school on the days it is taught (like sex ed, it is REALLY no different after all). Don't make them have their children subjected to something that is counter to their belief system. That is all I am saying. As adults we make our own decisions and views anyway. School should be about reading, writing and arithmetic. And LORD knows, the great state of California is FAILING at properly educating their students.



AGAIN SDTERP. My problem is when guys (and girls) in robes start writing law from the bench. Let the people decide, we do get it right.



Bring out another proposition, word it differently, and offend less people and it PASSES. Did you get that?



BTW, I have yet to have seen a restroom that says "gays only", even in North Park. So to try to equate 'gay marriage' to the Black Civil Rights of the 60's is bogus.

MizzBlue has it right. If Civil Unions are truly equal, then why not strike the word marriage completely? Not to mention that the rights bestowed would not be the same becasue so many of the existing laws that grant rights call out "marriage" specifically and amending every policy and law that has, in effect, created another right for married couples simply isn't going to happen.



It's a case separate and UNequal. Civil Unions simply are not seen as equal to marriage. It's a 'less than' relationship when compared to marriage.



As far as the decision of the 9th Circut court, the court system is there to protect the tyrany of the masses against minorities. The Supreme Court "wrote law" by deciding in the Brown v. The Board of Education case. Was that turning over the will of the people as well? The court simply recognized that the Prop 22 was in conflict with the state constitution.



Please do not try to mask your obvious homophobia with weak arguements and do not tell me that our struggle is not a civil rights struggle as well. Just becaue it's not an issue of where I sit on the bus or which fountain I can drink from, by denying me the right to CIVIL marriage (which is what this is -- neither the federal government nor a single state recognizes religious marriage, they only recognize civil marriage) this becomes a simple issue of civil rights. There's no reason why I should have to pay $4,000 more per year in taxes than my married counterparts earning the same amount just because I can't marry my partner of 13 years.



This isn't over. Justice will prevail.

If civil unions are so great, then why not take away the word 'marriage' from everyone?

It's just like saying - separate but equal.

This is BS - I know where you are coming from, but you CAN NOT say that these two things are remotely the same . . .