CA Prop 8

[WheresFanny]

The main issue is that one group of people are willfully denied the legal, financial and social benefits that another group of people enjoy based on nothing other than their biological sex.

If a gay man marries a gay woman they get the same public benefit as a married couple as my wife and I do.

So how is their biological sex the cause of them being denied anything?

And you don't think that would cheapen the institution that you hold so sacred and dear? (Which seems to be one of the main arguments that is given against gay marriage.)

[Jeemie]

Yes, I am proud to live in a state where the citizens have voted to protect the rights of our chickens, but not our gays.

This is not a measure of what I think of gay marriage or this resolution, but I feel I must correct an error in this statement.

Marriage is not a right, PSM.

[Bob Juch]

Yes, I am proud to live in a state where the citizens have voted to protect the rights of our chickens, but not our gays.

This is not a measure of what I think of gay marriage or this resolution, but I feel I must correct an error in this statement.

Marriage is not a right, PSM.

Says who?

[Jeemie]

Yes, I am proud to live in a state where the citizens have voted to protect the rights of our chickens, but not our gays.

This is not a measure of what I think of gay marriage or this resolution, but I feel I must correct an error in this statement.

Marriage is not a right, PSM.

Says who?

Is driving a right?

Is drinking alcohol a right?

No- these are activities that are regulated by the state...as is marriage.

We do not allow group marriages- are people who would wish to have these having their rights denied?

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

Marriage is not a right.

[sunflower]

Let the proper "authorities" deal with it.

So who, besides the voters of California, do you think are the proper "authorities"? I curious. More than curious.

Try reading my whole post instead of pulling out sentences that you feel like arguing with. I'm not typing it all over again. The answer to your question is there.

[Jeemie]

Let the proper "authorities" deal with it.

So who, besides the voters of California, do you think are the proper "authorities"? I curious. More than curious.

Try reading my whole post instead of pulling out sentences that you feel like arguing with. I'm not typing it all over again. The answer to your question is there.

I read your whole post.

What I get out of it is you are essentially telling someone who has strong beliefs about something that he/she should not vote in accordance with his strong beliefs.

I would point you to Cal's post about the fallacious "you can't legislate morality" argument.

Beliefs are part of a person's being. You can't ask him/her to check them at the door when making political decisions. That's like asking him/her not to breathe.

Our society's laws are made up of nothing more and nothing less on people's beliefs. Some are the result of compromise, some are widely-held beliefs because a society couldn't function without such beliefs being widely held, but they are all based on people's beliefs.

Laws are essentially "morality legislated".

[franktangredi]

Beliefs are part of a person's being. You can't ask him/her to check them at the door when making political decisions. That's like asking him/her what to believe.

Fair enough. However, if I believe that someone else's belief is essentially a prejudice, I can ask them politely to explain that belief and to re-examine that belief.

Go back and read everything I've posted on this thread from the beginning. That's basically all I've been trying to do. Not tell people what to believe, but ask them to explain those beliefs to me in a way that convinces me it's not simply a prejudice. To put it another way, if laws are indeed "morality legislated," I think everyone needs to examine their own beliefs and honestly answer the question: "Why does this aspect of my morality rise to the level of law while that one does not?" It's easy to justify in the case of murder and theft. Not so easy in this case.

And, in all this discussion, no one has ever answered what I have asked three times, to wit:

Explain to me exactly why you believe allowing a gay couple to marry would be detrimental to the country.

For the record, you don't have to convince me that marriage and the family are important to society. I just don't buy the argument that allowing gay couples to marry somehow threatens that.

And, again, how would you explain that to a gay couple who were very much in love, and very faithful to one another, and were hurting because of the marriage ban, and who were dear friends or family of yours?

Since no one has responded, especially in terms of my third paragraph above, I can only assume:

(a) They can't really come up with a good answer, or
(b) They don't think it's worth answering, or
(c) They are unable or unwilling to imagine that someone they love could possibly be one of 'those people.'

Can you give me an answer I can respect, if not agree with? Can you at least try?

[SportsFan68]

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

[Jeemie]

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

It doesn't do anything to my argument but...touche.

[Jeemie]

Beliefs are part of a person's being. You can't ask him/her to check them at the door when making political decisions. That's like asking him/her what to believe.

Fair enough. However, if I believe that someone else's belief is essentially a prejudice, I can ask them politely to explain that belief and to re-examine that belief.

Go back and read everything I've posted on this thread from the beginning. That's basically all I've been trying to do. Not tell people what to believe, but ask them to explain those beliefs to me in a way that convinces me it's not simply a prejudice. To put it another way, if laws are indeed "morality legislated," I think everyone needs to examine their own beliefs and honestly answer the question: "Why does this aspect of my morality rise to the level of law while that one does not?" It's easy to justify in the case of murder and theft. Not so easy in this case.

And, in all this discussion, no one has ever answered what I have asked three times, to wit:

Explain to me exactly why you believe allowing a gay couple to marry would be detrimental to the country.

For the record, you don't have to convince me that marriage and the family are important to society. I just don't buy the argument that allowing gay couples to marry somehow threatens that.

And, again, how would you explain that to a gay couple who were very much in love, and very faithful to one another, and were hurting because of the marriage ban, and who were dear friends or family of yours?

Since no one has responded, especially in terms of my third paragraph above, I can only assume:

(a) They can't really come up with a good answer, or
(b) They don't think it's worth answering, or
(c) They are unable or unwilling to imagine that someone they love could possibly be one of 'those people.'

Can you give me an answer I can respect, if not agree with? Can you at least try?

You'd have to ask someone that has a problem with gay marriage- I do not.

I was simply pointing out the fallacious argument that laws are not about "legislating morality".

[franktangredi]

You'd have to ask someone that has a problem with gay marriage- I do not.

Well, I have been asking. Not having much luck in that quarter, though.

[SportsFan68]

Thanks, Frank. A while back, I started pressing Cal about what appeared to be his blatant disregard of Biblical teachings -- Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. With what he said then, he helped me get started on figuring out this apparent contradiction, which I've noticed not only in Cal but others I know locally. My ruminations, although along the lines of what Cal posted below, were never more than inchoate, and now Cal has saved me from trying to put it into words thanks to your discussion. Much appreciated.

I wrote (a)religious purposefully. That would encompass those whose positions are based on religious interpretation and those who base their positions on non-religious grounds (if I was being a jerk or thought I had a monopoly on truth, I would have said "irreligious"). This issue is still all about morality (as almost all public policy is).

My position is grounded in my understanding of the Bible, but that is not the sole basis. I believe that certain societal norms need to be maintained and upheld for the stability and order of our society. I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but that support of basic privacy rights does not lead me to conclude that the government must sanction behavior that I believe is detrimental to our country.

Does it not give pause that most efforts to expand gay rights come from Courts that are creating laws/rights and that most ballot measures opposing such expansions routinely prevail? Some will argue that the majority in the South would have maintained slavery forever (which is most likely not true), but the important distinction there is that there is a difference between race, which is an unquestionably immutable characteristic and sexual orientation, which is not unquestionably immutable. Even if it were, that would not be a one-to-one comparison because racial laws were based on who the person is. Laws restricting homosexual behavior are based on what a person does.

The Bible is not a civics handbook. The Bible is the unfolding story of the redeeming Grace of God made manifest in the man, Jesus Christ, who came to save a fallen world from its sins.

However, the principles in the Bible are good ones, and I think we could do far worse than following them. All are appropriate for governance. The question is "What level of governance?" Some are appropriate for self-government ("love one another") and some are appropriate for civil government (Murder is a crime). Many make the mistake of assuming that all sins are crimes. Other make the mistake that sins are never crimes.

Like I have said repeatedly, all our laws are based on somebody's sense of morality. It's only when people don't get the result they want that they start condemning "legislating morality."

[Appa23]

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

We seem to have conflicting sources. This one says 21 states allow first cousin marriages, with an additional 6 that only allow under restrictions (essentially over the age where you would reproduce.)

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm

Note: it looks the difference might be where you stick "half-cousins". They were noted as "No's" in my link, I think.

[Flybrick]

So, let me get this straight:

A majority of the voters in California approved a measure that some of the posters here disapprove of.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, there are offers of pro bono work, mutters of disgust, banging of the head on the cyber wall, wondering at how could people vote that way, but no acceptance of the fair, democratic process, but one that had an outcome you disagreed with?

Hmmm, y'all seemed pretty happy with some of the other election results.


A nice big shot of hypocrisy for anyone? A double even?

[WheresFanny]

So, let me get this straight:

A majority of the voters in California approved a measure that some of the posters here disapprove of.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, there are offers of pro bono work, mutters of disgust, banging of the head on the cyber wall, wondering at how could people vote that way, but no acceptance of the fair, democratic process, but one that had an outcome you disagreed with?

Hmmm, y'all seemed pretty happy with some of the other election results.


A nice big shot of hypocrisy for anyone? A double even?

So you'd be perfectly happy if the voters in your state pass a measure stating that only women will be allowed to operate or occupy motor vehicles?

"Sure, doesn't matter if some bonehead comes up with some brilliant idea that treads upon the liberties of a certain class of people and thinks everybody else should feel that way as well. Doesn't matter if it was worded so that people were confused as to whether their 'yes' vote actually meant 'no'. If even one more person votes to pass it than votes to defeat it, it's fair and just and I just LOVE it! Whoops, gotta scoot. The Schwinn shop closes in two hours and it's a pretty fair hike from my house."

[TheCalvinator24]

So, let me get this straight:

A majority of the voters in California approved a measure that some of the posters here disapprove of.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, there are offers of pro bono work, mutters of disgust, banging of the head on the cyber wall, wondering at how could people vote that way, but no acceptance of the fair, democratic process, but one that had an outcome you disagreed with?

Hmmm, y'all seemed pretty happy with some of the other election results.


A nice big shot of hypocrisy for anyone? A double even?

So you'd be perfectly happy if the voters in your state pass a measure stating that only women will be allowed to operate or occupy motor vehicles?

"Sure, doesn't matter if some bonehead comes up with some brilliant idea that treads upon the liberties of a certain class of people and thinks everybody else should feel that way as well. Doesn't matter if it was worded so that people were confused as to whether their 'yes' vote actually meant 'no'. If even one more person votes to pass it than votes to defeat it, it's fair and just and I just LOVE it! Whoops, gotta scoot. The Schwinn shop closes in two hours and it's a pretty fair hike from my house."

Continuing to say that sex and sexual orientation are equivalent simply does not make it true.

[VAdame]

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

Thanks; I was going to look that up & you saved me the trouble

The other difference is, that if first cousins wish to marry, and live in a state where it's not permitted, they can move to a state where it is. And, if they move back to their original state, or any other of the 50 states, their marriage will be recognized everywhere!

Same with laws governing the permissible age to marry, & age of consent to sexual activity. If a 14, 15, or 16 year old is married, in a state where that is permitted -- regardless of the age of the spouse -- and they move to or visit a state with a higher age of marriage or age of consent -- the marriage is recognized. Even if the younger spouse (or even both spouses!) are under that state's age of sexual consent.

I'm of the opinion that marriage has precious little to do with what (if anything!) goes on in the bedroom, & everything to do with what goes on in the rest of your life. Really! What goes on in the bedroom is: a)private, and b) going to go on regardless of what "The Law" allows (as it has for the whole of human & pre-human history, & a good thing too or we wouldn't be here!)

I need to go do some work but may post the rest of my 2 cents later.

[WheresFanny]

So, let me get this straight:

A majority of the voters in California approved a measure that some of the posters here disapprove of.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, there are offers of pro bono work, mutters of disgust, banging of the head on the cyber wall, wondering at how could people vote that way, but no acceptance of the fair, democratic process, but one that had an outcome you disagreed with?

Hmmm, y'all seemed pretty happy with some of the other election results.


A nice big shot of hypocrisy for anyone? A double even?

So you'd be perfectly happy if the voters in your state pass a measure stating that only women will be allowed to operate or occupy motor vehicles?

"Sure, doesn't matter if some bonehead comes up with some brilliant idea that treads upon the liberties of a certain class of people and thinks everybody else should feel that way as well. Doesn't matter if it was worded so that people were confused as to whether their 'yes' vote actually meant 'no'. If even one more person votes to pass it than votes to defeat it, it's fair and just and I just LOVE it! Whoops, gotta scoot. The Schwinn shop closes in two hours and it's a pretty fair hike from my house."

Continuing to say that sex and sexual orientation are equivalent simply does not make it true.

Please point out where I said anything about sexual orientation in either the post you quoted or my initial post in this thread.

[WheresFanny]

The other difference is, that if first cousins wish to marry, and live in a state where it's not permitted, they can move to a state where it is. And, if they move back to their original state, or any other of the 50 states, their marriage will be recognized everywhere!

Same with laws governing the permissible age to marry, & age of consent to sexual activity. If a 14, 15, or 16 year old is married, in a state where that is permitted -- regardless of the age of the spouse -- and they move to or visit a state with a higher age of marriage or age of consent -- the marriage is recognized. Even if the younger spouse (or even both spouses!) are under that state's age of sexual consent.

Not in Nebraska, apparently. Although I'm not sure how that case ended up (where the husband was convicted of statuatory rape when they moved back to Nebraska from whatever state is was where they got married).

There was a show on WE a while back that had a large portion devoted to cousins marrying and age limits on marrying. The cousins section of the show was pretty enlightening, most specifically with the widespread notion that it's illegal not being true and that the chance of birth defects (not counting known problems like Tay Sachs or ectrodactyly) is really quite low and not much more than any other couple. They had an interview with a genetic counselor that actually charts out and assesses any potential for problems before they decide to have children.

[VAdame]

Not in Nebraska, apparently. Although I'm not sure how that case ended up (where the husband was convicted of statuatory rape when they moved back to Nebraska from whatever state is was where they got married).

If it's the case I'm thinking of, he was prosecuted for sex that took place prior to the marriage, when the young woman became pregnant -- not for sex within the marriage. Still a horrible, stupid misuse of State power, IMO!

[WheresFanny]

Not in Nebraska, apparently. Although I'm not sure how that case ended up (where the husband was convicted of statuatory rape when they moved back to Nebraska from whatever state is was where they got married).

If it's the case I'm thinking of, he was prosecuted for sex that took place prior to the marriage, when the young woman became pregnant -- not for sex within the marriage. Still a horrible, stupid misuse of State power, IMO!

That's probably the one, but it had something to do with their marriage not being recognized in Nebraska. And it was entirely the State doing it because her parents didn't press charges (and I think her mom was fine with the marriage) and the State basically just laid (lie? whatever) in wait until they came back to Nebraska to nab him. Because apparently they don't have more important criminals to worry about.

If I could remember their names I'd look it up, but I can't remember. I think his name was Jeremy and hers was Amber. Or maybe that was the baby's name. Maybe Holt Dad will come across this and fill us in on the deets.

[TheCalvinator24]

So you'd be perfectly happy if the voters in your state pass a measure stating that only women will be allowed to operate or occupy motor vehicles?

"Sure, doesn't matter if some bonehead comes up with some brilliant idea that treads upon the liberties of a certain class of people and thinks everybody else should feel that way as well. Doesn't matter if it was worded so that people were confused as to whether their 'yes' vote actually meant 'no'. If even one more person votes to pass it than votes to defeat it, it's fair and just and I just LOVE it! Whoops, gotta scoot. The Schwinn shop closes in two hours and it's a pretty fair hike from my house."

Continuing to say that sex and sexual orientation are equivalent simply does not make it true.

Please point out where I said anything about sexual orientation in either the post you quoted or my initial post in this thread.

The main issue is that one group of people are willfully denied the legal, financial and social benefits that another group of people enjoy based on nothing other than their biological sex.

You haven't said "sexual orientation" because you are trying to argue that this issue is about biological sex, which is what it is to which I was referring. You keep wanting to equate the two, and it won't work, so just because you don't refer to sexual orientation doesn't mean you are not arguing equivalence that does not exist.

Prop 8 was not about biological sex. Your saying it is does not make it so.

[Appa23]

We do not allow family members closer than 2nd cousins marry- are their rights being denied?

More than half of U.S. states permit first cousins to marry (35, if I counted correctly -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriageli ... cousin.htm). NC doesn't allow double first cousins to marry; some require that you be over a certain age or unable to produce children. Two of my best friends, who also happen to be first cousins, are married to each other.

I don't know if this helps or hurts Jeemie's argument; I just wanted him to know he's wrong about something.

Thanks; I was going to look that up & you saved me the trouble

The other difference is, that if first cousins wish to marry, and live in a state where it's not permitted, they can move to a state where it is. And, if they move back to their original state, or any other of the 50 states, their marriage will be recognized everywhere!

Same with laws governing the permissible age to marry, & age of consent to sexual activity. If a 14, 15, or 16 year old is married, in a state where that is permitted -- regardless of the age of the spouse -- and they move to or visit a state with a higher age of marriage or age of consent -- the marriage is recognized. Even if the younger spouse (or even both spouses!) are under that state's age of sexual consent.

I'm of the opinion that marriage has precious little to do with what (if anything!) goes on in the bedroom, & everything to do with what goes on in the rest of your life. Really! What goes on in the bedroom is: a)private, and b) going to go on regardless of what "The Law" allows (as it has for the whole of human & pre-human history, & a good thing too or we wouldn't be here!)

I need to go do some work but may post the rest of my 2 cents later.

Just to correct the oft-stated but nonetheless incorrect idea that states have to recognize all marriages from other states -- there is a common law exception that no state is required to recognize a marriage that violates a "strong public policy." Many states have included this in their state constitutions, especially recently after the idea of same-sex marriages began being discussed.

So, in order to determine if the marriage of first cousins must be recognized, a court would look at whether the state has a "strong public policy" against such marriages. There was a case out of Louisiana that addressed this issue (interestingly, the lower court also refused to recognize the marriage because the couple were married in Iran, and the court essentially went off on a Pro-America rant.)

The Nebraska case that someone referenced was a case where the husband was charged with statutory rape (that resulted in a child) desapite the fact that the victim was his 14 year-old wife, as they were married in Kansas, which allowed 12 year-olds to marry with parental permission. Governor Sibelius was so embarrassed by the case that she sought to raise the age of marriage in Kansas. I do not know what happened thereafter, either in Nebraska or Kansas.

[minimetoo26]

Britney got drunk and married some guy for 55 hours. Then she took some other guy from his pregnant Baby Mama, married him, had two kids, then kicked him to the curb. And yet marriage still stands. I guess because she's not gay or anything bad like that.

My point is other people's marriages have no effect on mine. Or probably anyone else's. I should let gays hang out with my in-laws. They'd think twice........

[WheresFanny]

Continuing to say that sex and sexual orientation are equivalent simply does not make it true.

Please point out where I said anything about sexual orientation in either the post you quoted or my initial post in this thread.

The main issue is that one group of people are willfully denied the legal, financial and social benefits that another group of people enjoy based on nothing other than their biological sex.

You haven't said "sexual orientation" because you are trying to argue that this issue is about biological sex, which is what it is to which I was referring. You keep wanting to equate the two, and it won't work, so just because you don't refer to sexual orientation doesn't mean you are not arguing equivalence that does not exist.

Prop 8 was not about biological sex. Your saying it is does not make it so.

You are actually going in two different directions here. Your initial post appeared to be in response to the post you quoted. That post did not have anything directly to do with Proposition 8 or marriage at all. It was in response to flybrick's opinion that any measure passed by voters should be considered the will of the people and said people should be all hunky dory with it. My analogy was originally going to be about being born in a certain month but, since all I actually know about flybrick is that I think he's male, I used that as my example.

As for Proposition 8 itself, from what I understand it has to do with same sex marriage. Yes, the main intent behind that concerns homosexuality. But it's not concerning gay marriage, it's same sex marriage. Not same sexual orientation marriage. As Bit pointed out earlier, there's nothing saying that gay people can't marry or even that gay people can't marry each other. They just can't marry a person of the same biological sex.

I am obviously a strong proponent of gay rights, but the whole marriage thing is that two people of opposite sex can form a legal partnership that garners them certain rights and advantages not available to others. Sexual orientation can and most often does enter into this, but it's not a prerequisite.

If someone with an intimate knowledge of the text of this Proposition can tell me that it specifically states only that a homosexual man cannot marry a homosexual man and a homosexual woman cannot marry a homosexual woman, then I'll stand corrected.