CA Prop 8

[clem21]

Mine I want it and I'm gonna get it!

[christie1111]

Maybe now.

[SportsFan68]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

That would be helpful.

[minimetoo26]

This makes more sense than some of the arguments here!

[clem21]

YES!!!!!! My timing is perfect!

You can't stop me, you can only hope to contain me.....

[minimetoo26]

Mine I want it and I'm gonna get it!

I hate you. Harrumph.

[BackInTex]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

We started with "one man and one woman".

Now you want to restrict changes to ONLY what you think are valid additional possible combinations. The way you apparently see as ridiculous multiple partners and straying beyond the living and species is the way many (including me) see that ridiculousness starting when you stray from "one man and one woman".

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Somebody send in the clones

[minimetoo26]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

We started with "one man and one woman".

Now you want to restrict changes to ONLY what you think are valid additional possible combinations. The way you apparently see as ridiculous multiple partners and straying beyond the living and species is the way many (including me) see that ridiculousness starting when you stray from "one man and one woman".

Okay, fine--one man and one woman. But you have to relinquish your tax benefits and make sure you and your wife have durable medical powers of attorney for each other unless you want your parents making all the medical decisions.

[wintergreen48]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

By why is that specific limitation, and no others? That is, why is it OK to have two, and only two, consenting adults? Lot of Muslims, old-line Mormons, and others would object to you imposing your bigoted religious views on them by limiting them to one spouse (your views are 'religious' because they are counter to their own religious views, and 'bigoted' because, apparently, one is a bigot if one objects to the marriage of people who love each other and want to get married).

Of course, even your religious bigoted limitation would still permit brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc., which I suspect some other religious bigots would object to...

[minimetoo26]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

By why is that specific limitation, and no others? That is, why is it OK to have two, and only two, consenting adults? Lot of Muslims, old-line Mormons, and others would object to you imposing your bigoted religious views on them by limiting them to one spouse (your views are 'religious' because they are counter to their own religious views, and 'bigoted' because, apparently, one is a bigot if one objects to the marriage of people who love each other and want to get married).

Of course, even your religious bigoted limitation would still permit brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc., which I suspect some other religious bigots would object to...

Fine--marry 'em all! And make sure your employer covers them all on your health plan...

[danielh41]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Not yet. Here's the top ten threads right now (not counting this post):

2008 Audition List
294



Friday Alphabet Game
238




Moved: FNGD -- Post to Play and Questions in this thread
242


More brilliant scientists admitting they really have no clue
220


CA Prop 8
210


FNGD-Come Out and Play!
182


Here's another GroganGame
173


The Alphabet Game
169


Phone-A-Friend gender for female contestants
162


August Sploofus Standings for WWTBAMBored
157


Game #114 (or Game #1) -- Ladies Night at the Bijou
155

[DevilKitty100]

I think we can start with "two consenting adults" in order to eliminate the distracting arguments about the corpses, animals, and children that got dragged into the conversation, and work forward from there.

By why is that specific limitation, and no others? That is, why is it OK to have two, and only two, consenting adults? Lot of Muslims, old-line Mormons, and others would object to you imposing your bigoted religious views on them by limiting them to one spouse (your views are 'religious' because they are counter to their own religious views, and 'bigoted' because, apparently, one is a bigot if one objects to the marriage of people who love each other and want to get married).

Of course, even your religious bigoted limitation would still permit brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc., which I suspect some other religious bigots would object to...

Fine--marry 'em all! And make sure your employer covers them all on your health plan...

Okie dokie......can we now officially call this a clusterfuck?

[ToLiveIsToFly]

It's clear that I owe some people an apology. I don't have the time right now, and may not for a couple days, to write out a well-thought-out one, and it's become clear to me that when I talk about certain things without taking the time to think carefully about what I want to say, what comes out can be just plain wrong.

But know they're coming.

[Political Carp]

[ghostjmf]

Oh, goodie, a discussion! & I missed this one the 1st time around. I think there was an election going on, or something. Right now, I'm weighing whether 'tis nobler in the mind, & also reality, to drive my perilous little 21-year-old, 223,000.00 mile car to NYC (Queens) for a misplaced & mislocated, in my opinion, music festival or just not go. If it was not NYC, I'd rent a car. But in NYC I'd worry about the rental car 24/7. If motels were cheaper in NYC (the festival pinpoints $129.00 ones near the site; to them, that's cheap) I'd just take the train, & subways, & stay in a motel. But train/bus fare down & motel expense (& festival admission, & all that extra time needed to be allotted for the train/bus-&-subway excursion) sure makes the whole weekend less alluring.

(If I drive down, my old, perilous car is my hotel for the night, when parked in an appropriate rest area, the nearest being an hour back up on 684 or thereabouts. As as I said to the nice salesperson while I was testing out futons to replace my very disintegrating ancient mattress, & was told "that one wouldn't be comfortable on a nightly basis"; "Compared to what? I can sleep in my car.")

OK, I can rent the new, too-luxurious car (what they give me always has leather where I asked for vinyl), drive it to the $129/night motel, park in their lot, take subway a couple miles to festival....nah I'd still worry about the darn car. Even in the flipping motel lot. It is NYC, after all.

So I was printing the route map into Queens, just in case, & I found this instead.


My very-popular-with-me version of the gay marriage thing:

Call it "ghostjmf Proposition 0":

There shouldn't be anything legal about the word "marriage". When 2 people, 25 people, whatever (not a horse or a dead body 'cause the horses & dead bodies can't speak) want to get "married" they should get married in whatever faith they share. That is up to the faith, & the participants. The US govt, & state govts should only stop the proceedings if state or federal laws are being contravened (regarding dead bodies, children, horses, whatever).

Then the parties in the religious institution of marriage should enter into a civil contract that will be legally binding. The standard civil union contract should be formulated clearly along present concepts of "marriage" in the "expected rights" terms; nevertheless, these terms should be clearly spelled out:

joint custody of any progeny
joint estate
right(s) to visit other(s) in the marriage in the hospital

etc

If the parties involved really want a pre-nuptual agreement changing any of those terms, they should make one legally binding, same as parties in a pre-nuptual agreement regarding 1-to-1 heterosexual marriage (& most likely some gay marriages too) do today.

Basically, everyone who filed the right papers to have it so would be covered by a civil union, & the word "marriage" can be claimed by whatever faiths claim it, but it should have no legal weight.

Now I have to go read many pages to see if anyone else thought of this 1st?

Hey, I thought of it years ago, I just didn't say it here (I don't think).

[VAdame]

Many people view marriage as something faith based and not state based. That's why we get married in a church with a preacher.

Wow -- I just can't wait to tell my "husband" of 22-plus years we're officially single! Our ceremony was officiated by a judge; nary a preacher in sight. Even our recent Vow Renewal was officiated by the Mayor of Pittsburgh -- in an art museum of all places.

Hope this doesn't mean we're back in the dating pool {{shudder!}}

[ghostjmf]

Wowie Gazowie!

Earendel, Calvinator, Wintergreen all pre-agree with me on the basic point; "Just Say No To State-Defined Marriage". And "Just Say Yes To Universally Applicable Binding Legal-Cohabitation Contracts".


Not the agreement-group I would have expected, considering the subject here.

[Bob Juch]

Wowie Gazowie!

Earendel, Calvinator, Wintergreen all pre-agree with me on the basic point; "Just Say No To State-Defined Marriage". And "Just Say Yes To Universally Applicable Binding Legal-Cohabitation Contracts".

Not the agreement-group I would have expected, considering the subject here.

Add me too, but I wouldn't require as comprehensive a contract as you.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Many people view marriage as something faith based and not state based. That's why we get married in a church with a preacher.

Wow -- I just can't wait to tell my "husband" of 22-plus years we're officially single! Our ceremony was officiated by a judge; nary a preacher in sight. Even our recent Vow Renewal was officiated by the Mayor of Pittsburgh -- in an art museum of all places.

Hope this doesn't mean we're back in the dating pool {{shudder!}}

I guess we are in the dating pool too. There was no religion at our wedding and it didn't take place in a church.

[Estonut]

There shouldn't be anything legal about the word "marriage". When 2 people, 25 people, whatever (not a horse or a dead body 'cause the horses & dead bodies can't speak) want to get "married" they should get married in whatever faith they share.

So people who can't speak shouldn't be allowed to marry? You mutist!

[SportsFan68]

Estonut, come to chat!

Instructions in the Bored reference thread.

[VAdame]

There shouldn't be anything legal about the word "marriage". When 2 people, 25 people, whatever (not a horse or a dead body 'cause the horses & dead bodies can't speak) want to get "married" they should get married in whatever faith they share.

So people who can't speak shouldn't be allowed to marry? You mutist!

Sharyn McCrumb's novel, If I'd Killed Him When I Met Him, touches on that very point:

The setting is the first meeting between Bill, a lawyer, and Miri, a woman very much in love. (Paraphrasing mine as I don't have a copy of the book in front of me)

Miri: I need your help. I want to get married!
Bill: Well, what's standing in your way? Are you or he already married to anyone else? Um, your fiance is a "he," right?
Miri (smiling): Very much so! And we're both single. I met him when I lived in Florida. He's a dolphin!
Bill: Wow, great! Do you think they'll go to the Super Bowl this year? Does he know Dan Marino?
Miri: Not a Miami Dolphin -- a Delphinidae dolphin!
Bill (shocked): What? You mean, like Flipper?!
Miri: That's offensive! Dolphins are intelligent, sensitive beings, and Porky loves me and I love him!
Bill: Porky?!
Miri: Oh, that's just his Tank Name. His mother gave him a name in their own language, but it's a series of clicks and whistles and we don't have the orthography for it! So why can't I marry a dolphin?
Bill (humoring her): Um....well, for one thing, he can't walk or talk!
Miri: Neither can Stephen Hawking -- and you'd let me marry him!
Bill: OK, now who's being offensive?!
Miri: Besides, Stephen Hawking's no better than any other human male -- do you know he divorced his wife and married his nurse?!
Bill: Huh? How?!
Miri: I dunno....just rolled away, I guess!

Bill, just for the heck of it, agrees to take Miri's case, and later in the book they petition the courts to have "Porky Delphinidae" declared "human." Porky will demonstrate his intelligence, ability to communicate and understand language, and his desire to share a life with Miri.

But before the case can be heard, Miri sneaks into Porky's Sea World home after hours, hoping for a little pre-conjugal visit. She makes her wishes clear to Porky, and he's happy to oblige. But poor Miri doesn't have time to brace herself against the tank wall or ladder before Porky pushes her deep underwater -- since that's where dolphins mate! Miri's last though before the water filled her lungs was that males really are all the same -- and switching one species for another hadn't made a damn bit of difference!

The next day, after Miri's body is discovered and her friends piece together what must have happened, Bill realizes he'd better drop the court case -- since granting Porky the status of a "human" would surely not be in his best interest! As long as Porky's an animal, Miri's death is simply a tragic accident. If he were to be considered human, he could be charged with homicide!

[wintergreen48]

In my world, we would have two separate things happening, one secular, the other religious/spiritual.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious/spiritual people could have any kind of religious and/or spiritual ceremony they want, with whomever they want, that their religious/spiritual community accepts as a way to mark a personal union. It would have 'official' status only within that religious/spiritual community, with no application or implication within the secular world (I am talking about a true separation of church and state). For those of us in the One True Faith, this would be the traditional sacrament of Matrimony, which involves one man and one woman, in which the traditional 'union' words involve the priest saying something along the lines of 'I unite you in holy matrimony in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' (sort of like what Cal was mentioning before-- this is the way we would ordinarily do it, the state has nothing to do with it, it is entirely religious). Similarly, other religious/spiritual communities would do it as they see fit, in accordance with their own rituals. The 'eligibility' rules for this would be determined by the religious/spiritual community itself: if the community is OK with 'gay marriage,' then gay people can get 'married' in that community; if not, then they can't get married there, they have to find some place else that is OK with it. If the religious/spiritual community requires that both parties be members of the community (i.e., no 'mixed marriages'), then they can set that rule. If the religious/spiritual community requires that both parties be members of the same racial/ethnic/linguistic/whatever group, then they can set that rule. The state has nothing to do with any of this, and cannot dissolve it, as it exists only with respect to the religious community in which the parties live, and it is only 'sanctified' within that community. At the same time, the religious/spiritual community cannot 'legalize' something that is otherwise criminal in the local jurisdiction: if, for example, a particular religious/spiritual community allowed for a 'marriage' between an adult and a child, well, they can do what they want, but if there is any boinking going on, the state would still be able to enforce its statutory rape laws; if, for example, a particular religious/spiritual community allowed for a 'marriage' between a man and a sheep, well,they can do what they want, but if there is any boinking going on, the state would still be able to enforce its animal protection laws. The statutory rape laws, animal protection laws, etc., have nothing to do with religion, they have to do with protecting minors or animals, and they would remain valid and enforceable irrespective of what some religious/spiritual group says.

This would also, as it happens, permit multiple marriage, if that is OK within the religious/spiritual community. Again, they can do what they want, but insofar as it has no 'legal' impact outside of the community, it doesn't matter OUTSIDE of that community if one person in the community is 'married' to several others within that same community. But again, if any of the multiple 'spouses' is coerced into the 'marriage,' then the usual secular laws would still apply: the laws that prohibit coercing people into stuff have nothing to do with religion, they have to do with protecting people from being oppressed by other, usually stronger people, and they would remain valid and enforceable irrespective of what some religious/spiritual group says.

FWIW, the 'polygamy' situation already exists, in the alternative situation. Under the law of the Catholic Church, divorce is never permitted; while annulments are permitted, the basic point of an annulment is a determination that the 'marriage' never actually took place; if the 'marriage' was valid when the parties entered into it, the Church does not allow it to be dissolved, under any circumstances). So if a Catholic marries, a 'divorce' that he/she obtains after is not considered to be valid under the laws of the Church, so that if a divorced Catholic remarries and her/his original spouse is still alive, the second marriage is considered to be bigamous under Church law. Thus, from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, the laws of most countries already allow 'bigamy' and 'polygamy.'

Related to all that, the religious/spiritual community would determine when, and under what circumstances, a 'marriage' could be dissolved. Again, the concept of 'marriage' only applies within that community, and so they can decide what it is, what it involves, what its consequences are, and so, how to end it (or not).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the secular side, any two consenting adults could enter into a legally-binding, legally-protected contractual arrangement (call it a 'civil union' or whatever you want) in which they can put their property together, take care of each other, act as legal surrogates for each other (as where someone needs to authorize-- or not authorize-- medical care for someone unable to act on her/his own behalf), etc. This would cover EVERYONE: my (now deceased) maiden great-aunts could have entered into one of these arrangements, to take care of each other, share their property, etc., just as Margaret and I did, or as PSM and jsuchard did, or as Ellen DeGeneres and Portia dei Rossi did (before Proposition 8 ) ; sex has nothing to do with this concept of 'union,' it is simply a contractual arrangement between two parties. They would have to be consenting adults because this is a contract, and a contract requires adult consent; I would limit the number of parties to a union to two for practical reasons of enforcement.

And just as any two people can voluntarily enter into this arrangement, they can voluntarily exit it, but the termination would have to be formalized, just as the union itself is formalized; except for 'adultery' (however defined), which would be irrelevant because sex is irrelevant to this, you could pretty much use the same grounds to dissolve these unions that now exist to dissolve marriages: mutual and voluntary separation, desertion by one party, constructive desertion by one party (one party's abusive behavior forces the other party to leave), etc.

Children born to a woman and acknowledged and 'proven' children born to a man during one of these unions would have the same rights to inheritance, etc., that children born to a married couple now have; at the same time, the parties to one of these unions would have the same obligations to support such children as a married couple now has ('acknowledged' children accounts for the fact that whereas women always know who their children are-- the mother of a child is, after all, present at the birth and in most cases pretty much knows what's going on-- while males can have children and not necessarily know it, or they could have a child who is born as a result of, um, an illicit liaison, so you have to have some means for a man to know or 'acknowledge' a child, or in these days of DNA testing, prove paternity). Thus, in my scheme, if at least one of the parties in one of these unions is a woman and she gives birth to a child during the union, then that child has all the usual inheritance rights that a child born to a married couple would have; if at least one of the parties in one of these unions is a man and if he recognizes as his child any child who is born during the 'union,' or if a child is born and proven (by DNA or otherwise) to be his child, then that child has all the usual inheritance rights that a child born to a married couple would have; if you have one of these unions where one partner is a man and the other is a woman, and the woman has a child, then the man's acknowledgment or proof of paternity would be unnecessary/irrelevant, as is currently the case-- the law in every jurisdiction of which I am aware makes an irrebuttable presumption that any child of a marital union is a child of both the husband and wife and I would keep that same rule for these unions (there were cases during WWII where husbands were away on active duty for three or more years, and came home to a wife with a child one year old; and the courts invariably held that the child was that of the husband).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing that happens in the religious/spiritual context would be called a 'marriage' or whatever word the people in that community want to call it; it really applies to them, so they can call it what they want. The thing that happens in the secular legal context would be a 'civil union,' because that is exactly what it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus have I spoken. So should it be done.

[SportsFan68]

There shouldn't be anything legal about the word "marriage". When 2 people, 25 people, whatever (not a horse or a dead body 'cause the horses & dead bodies can't speak) want to get "married" they should get married in whatever faith they share.

So people who can't speak shouldn't be allowed to marry? You mutist!

Sharyn McCrumb's novel, If I'd Killed Him When I Met Him, touches on that very point:

The setting is the first meeting between Bill, a lawyer, and Miri, a woman very much in love. (Paraphrasing mine as I don't have a copy of the book in front of me)

I thought of this too when I read that.

I gotta find "If I'd killed him when I met him" and re-read it. McCrumb is wicked funny.