Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

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).

haha!

The deal is that EVERY marriage has a civil component. SOME marriages get the special gloss of a religious component, but that is not required for a marriage to be a marriage.

well put

It's not as if Xtians have not at times been exhorted to render unto Caesar what is his and just do their own shit. They had no huge problem with saying mass in a person's home when Xtianity was illegal under the Romans. If their faith tells them that they are, indeed, married via a sacrament tot heir spouse, what difference does it make whether a majority calls them married or not? In that case, let us have equality for all under the common law and if it requires an amendment that says that religious institutions cannot be forced to wed people who they disapprove of, so be it.

(One could argue that traditional marriage was destroyed once it become just as easy to divorce, but that's for another thread.)

(Oh no, I think that is an excellent point and one I would also like to hammer home; divorce is now illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Possibly stoning.)

It's absolutely the truth, though, mackro.

to go back to the civil rights analogy - it is possible to legislate against racially discriminatory practices, but it is not possible to outlaw racism. Similarly it is possible to legislate equality before the law for gay couples, but it is not possible to outlaw homophobia.

x-post

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

It is ludicrous to define as protecting marriage an amendment which limits the number of people who can consider it as an option , epecially since they're not 'in the market' for any of the people whose marriage is being protected, or at least only the people in the closet.