Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage?

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

Oh, oops, I am misremembering my numbers.

Results 1 - 10 of about 588 for 2004 "measure 36" oregon rally. (0.25 seconds)

I won't compromise my Christianity
'cause my momma taught me better than that!

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

We are, in some ways, compared to even 2000, but the eastern half of the state is pretty 'red'.

It is funny to divide so tall a state by east & west. Funny meaning amusing to look at. Like it's a red & blue harlequin hot dog bun.

I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status.

I thought donating to propositions was protected as "free speech", no matter who's doing the donating...?

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books. I think that plays a big part in people's outrage over Prop 8.

I have to admit they do like nothing otherwise that wld make them tax-exempt questionable. I mean like no church positions are paid & they don't spend their tithes on anything really but building more churches & assimilating/destroying to a broader mass.

they = Mormon Church

I totally understand why it's more important if you're actually IN California, it's just that I'm hearing huge levels of anger from people halfway, or all the way, across the country, including in states that have already passed these amendments. Perhaps it seems different than 2004 because people were also so angry about Bush's reelection then?

xpost - I think churches are not allowed to donate to candidates for office because they risk losing their tax-exempt status...don't know what the rule is for propositions, though.

xpost again - yeah, that does make a big difference. Hadn't thought of that.

fwiw, Mark Leno is OTM: the vv narrow margin of asshole victory and expensive and misleading campaign required to achieve it = writing on the wall. The battle may have been lost but in important ways the war is already OVER. Millenials will tip it.

I don't know what the polls were saying about Arizona, but I seem to recall Alfred telling us it was somewhat close in Florida. I think perhaps people thought it stood a real chance in California and also some of the gall may be in proportion to the joy over Obama's victory.

It's true. We killed the witch and those fuckers went and poked us in the eye.

the writing is totally on the wall. the fact that legal barriers have had to be erected (where before there were none) is a sign in and of itself. And only 40 years after Stonewall signalled it being (kinda sorta) okay to be out and gay in the country (in certain parts, at least)

I am in the Stonewall Queer-Straight Alliance! Man can those peeps bro down. (Magpie-like tangent.)

Even the Prop 8 folks were very careful to state that they were all about, like, civil union type rights and stuff.

bullshit

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books.

This is not true.

Bullshit that they said it or bullshit that they meant it?

Because yes it's some horseshit, but the fact that they made it a talking point tells ya which way the wind's blowing.

Yeah, if they'd meant it, they would have written civil unions into the prop

Bullshit that they meant it, and 77% bullshit that they said it.

And civil unions are some Jim Crow shit anyway.

^^^disagree

Basically, when Oregon passed the measure, it was to prevent lawsuits from being tried. The Att'y General had said, as I recall, that he didn't think the argument (that not allowing gay marriage was a form of sex discrimination, which was prohibited in the state constitution) would be valid; but it's kinda hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, which is one reason why there was the push to put language specifically outlawing it in the state constitution.

fair

xp

we went over this on the election thread - basically the end-goal should be to separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil rights accorded married people by the government so that EVERYONE gets the same recognition under the law (same visitation rights, same healthcare benefits, etc.)

x-post

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

I have even managed to get some Republicans I know to admit that marriage is a religious ceremony and the State should recognize nothing other than civil unions, though they still, sometimes quite sincerely I believe, keep bringing up the polygamy canard.

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

Then why aren't Mormons pro-gay marriage, if it'll lead to legalized polygamy?

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

As I've said elsewhere, why would a devout Catholic want his/her state to call and recognize as a marriage, a union, even between a man and a woman, where one of them is divorced and therefor, according to the Church, an adulterer?

Shakey, couldn't the Feds just define all civil unions as marriages wrt the tax code?

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:32 PM Bookmark

civil unions 4 everyone

Bcz polygamy is a commandment we are not godly enough to follow as it currently stands, and will happen again after Armaggedon. Duh.

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

its not the same because the law only deals with the former and would basically be disregarding the latter entirely

civil unions 4 everyone

exactly

but it doesn't
xp

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing, which it does, then civil unions are still second class.

that sounds pretty "equal but separate

Weddings I have been to have been widely different but the underlying law remains the same.

We have to destroy marriage in order to save it.

The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.

look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.

Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.

xxpost

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,

you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.

I see I hold a minority opinion.

you guys know how laws work, right?

what about recognition across state lines?

I would like to pass an amendment that states that if a marriage is defined by law as a sacred union between a man and a woman, they must then all occur in churches.

Basically, in their zeal to "protect" marriage, these people are destroying it, and I want to help them reach their logical conclusion so that everyone is fucked (ie, equality in the other direction).