CA Prop 8

[Appa23]

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.

I don't have intimate knowledge, but I do know how to search the Internet (though it took a bit longer than I thought).

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

[WheresFanny]

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.

I don't have intimate knowledge, but I do know how to search the Internet (though it took a bit longer than I thought).

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Thank you.

Let me know when you find out how that married thing worked out (as I recall in the show, they had either divorced or separated due to all the stress of the ordeal, which is too bad).

[Appa23]

Here is what I found on Wikipedia:

In Nebraska, Attorney General Jon Bruning charged Koso with one count of first-degree sexual assault which is punishable by up to fifty years in prison. Bruning said he would not allow his state to have an adult male involved in a sexual relationship with a young adolescent girl. In taking this action he took the case out of the hands of Richardson County DA Jeffrey Goltz, who had not made a decision about criminal charges against Koso.[4]

The indictment drew international headlines until a plea bargain was negotiated. On February 7, 2006, Judge Daniel Bryan sentenced Koso to 18 to 30 months in prison.

Koso was released on May 5, 2007.

Near as I know, they still are married. I guess that I could ask people that I know in the Falls City area.

For being such a small town, Falls City and the surrounding county is a magnet for famous cases.

In the 1980s, there was a cult compound around Rulo, Nebraska, that was the scene of a mass murder. (My law partner defended the head of the cult.)

The "Boys Don't Cry" case also occurred in Richardson County, and the trial was held in Falls City. (Likely would have been my case if the presiding judge did not hate my partner becuase of the above case.)

I also understand why AG Bruning took over the case. Jeff Goltz likely would not have prosecuted the case.

[danielh41]

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.

I don't have intimate knowledge, but I do know how to search the Internet (though it took a bit longer than I thought).

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

I'm surprised the amendment passed in California with that wording. I would think that a statement like "Shall the California Constitution be changed to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?" would have passed but not one that mentioned eliminating a certain group's "right."

[plasticene]

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.

I don't have intimate knowledge, but I do know how to search the Internet (though it took a bit longer than I thought).

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

I'm surprised the amendment passed in California with that wording. I would think that a statement like "Shall the California Constitution be changed to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?" would have passed but not one that mentioned eliminating a certain group's "right."

That's an astute observation! The wording was provided by the Secretary of State to make it clear what the proposition was really about. The backers of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully sued to try to make it more like what you suggest.

[gotribego26]

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 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. (Bold added by gotribego26)

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.

Bob##### can straighten this if I read the CA Supreme Court decision incorrectly - every time I try to read something like this, I'm reminded why I'm not a lawyer. I read it this past summer as I do business in CA and the definition of a married couple matters to my business.

The interesting facet of this proposition and the supreme court decision is that the "right" of same-sex couples to "form a legal partnership that garners them certain rights and advantages not available to others" still exists in California.

The Supreme Court decision pointed out that the state has granted a same-sex couple the option to enter into a union that entails many of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. It said that to grant this similar (identical ?) status but to call it by a different name is discrimnatory under the CA Consititution. Therefore we should just allow them to marry like other couples do.

So Prop 8 removes that by saying they can no longer be married, but they can still have legal status similar to being married.

I beleive the Court decision in CT was based on similar logic - (but I'm not 100% sure).

[Thousandaire]

[
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.

Hosw is homosexual behavior detrimental to our country?

[clem21]

Why do I feel like you're all going in circles?

Not that it's any of my business.

Besides I'm only posting because I'll be damned if this thread gets to 100 posts without a single one being mine.

You may now resume your argume... er...educated discussion

[TheCalvinator24]

[
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.

Hosw is homosexual behavior detrimental to our country?

Way to pull something out of context and completely ignore what I said.

[franktangredi]

[
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.

Hosw is homosexual behavior detrimental to our country?

Way to pull something out of context and completely ignore what I said.

I was wondering why you didn't answer me when I asked you the same question. I don't think I ignored what you said or pulled it out of context when I asked it, but maybe I was wrong.

[TheCalvinator24]

Hosw is homosexual behavior detrimental to our country?

Way to pull something out of context and completely ignore what I said.

I was wondering why you didn't answer me when I asked you the same question. I don't think I ignored what you said or pulled it out of context when I asked it, but maybe I was wrong.

The entirety of my participation in this discussion has been predicated on the issue of marriage for homosexual couples. I have not said that homosexual conduct in and of itself was detrimental. In fact, in the snippet above I specifically said "I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes." The "but" that followed related to the actual discussion that the thread is about, i.e., marriage between homosexuals.

[TheCalvinator24]

Opposition to gay marriage is not a form of gay-bashing.

[franktangredi]

Way to pull something out of context and completely ignore what I said.

I was wondering why you didn't answer me when I asked you the same question. I don't think I ignored what you said or pulled it out of context when I asked it, but maybe I was wrong.

The entirety of my participation in this discussion has been predicated on the issue of marriage for homosexual couples. I have not said that homosexual conduct in and of itself was detrimental. In fact, in the snippet above I specifically said "I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes." The "but" that followed related to the actual discussion that the thread is about, i.e., marriage between homosexuals.

But that IS what I asked you. I realized you were not talking about homosexual behavior, but about gay marriage. (Though you did leave yourself open to misinterpretation by using the word 'behavior.') Here's what I responded exactly, so you don't have to go back and look:

Fair enough. But in the middle of that statement is still the phrase "I believe." So 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?

I like that we are having a civilized, non-glib discussion of this.

No one has even attempted to answer that question, let alone in the terms I put it. (Italicized above).

[TheCalvinator24]

frank,

I didn't reply because although we were having a good non-heated discussion, there was nothing I could say that would satisfy you, and there's nothing you can say to shake me from my beliefs.

Marriage is what it is, and anything that undermines that is bad for society. Many of the other things that undermine marriage have been mentioned throughout this thread, but the existence of several other things that weaken marriage (and thus our society) does not mean that we should encourage one more thing to weaken it even further.

[franktangredi]

frank,

I didn't reply because although we were having a good non-heated discussion, there was nothing I could say that would satisfy you, and there's nothing you can say to shake me from my beliefs.

Marriage is what it is, and anything that undermines that is bad for society. Many of the other things that undermine marriage have been mentioned throughout this thread, but the existence of several other things that weaken marriage (and thus our society) does not mean that we should encourage one more thing to weaken it even further.

I wasn't looking to shake your beliefs or expecting you to shake mine. But I am trying to understand.

You state that gay marriage would "undermine marriage." But you take it for granted that it does so. I was asking you to explain HOW it would undermine marriage. I have never heard a concrete explanation of the HOW. Do you really think heterosexual couples would stop getting married, or that their marriages would somehow become weaker? (It might weaken marriages of convenience, but neither you nor I believe that those were good marriages to begin with.) How would you explain to a committed gay couple who were friends of yours that their getting married would undermine marriage? These are real people here. And some of them are really hurting.

I understand if you don't want to answer the question, and I certainly have no desire to prolong this. But, in the absence of any other explanation, my personal feeling remains this: it really boils down to the fact that people are personally uncomfortable with it. And that just doesn't seem a good enough reason.

Thanks for listening.

[silverscreenselect]

Is there any difference under California law between "marriage" and whatever type of legal union is allowed between homosexuals or other non-"married" adults?

Does marriage confer any rights upon the married couple that the legal union does not? Is it easier for a married couple to adopt than a legally united couple? Is it easier to terminate a legal union than to get a divorce? Do state alimony, support, visitation, inheritance and property laws (Cal is a community property state) differ for those in a legal union?

If there are no differences, then what is the big deal about calling this what it is, a marriage? If there are differences, then denying people those rights because of whom they choose to unit with is a form of discrimination.

[peacock2121]

Opposition to gay marriage is not a form of gay-bashing.

That is the problem. You don't mean to bash and it occurs as bashing to those who are being denied.

[Flybrick]

CNN is reporting that Melissa Etheridge is stating she will no longer pay California state income taxes as she's not being treated as a "full citizen."

While I would suspect that her anger will subside once the first subpoena arrives, I wonder why she thinks that illegal action is ok to counter an election result she doesn't like?

I've no problem with her being unhappy with the results, but it seemed a legitimate, law-abiding will of the people of California decision.

Work to get it looked at again at the next state election season if you must, but to threaten to break the law?

Is that how the left works out its differences?

[minimetoo26]

CNN is reporting that Melissa Etheridge is stating she will no longer pay California state income taxes as she's not being treated as a "full citizen."

While I would suspect that her anger will subside once the first subpoena arrives, I wonder why she thinks that illegal action is ok to counter an election result she doesn't like?

I've no problem with her being unhappy with the results, but it seemed a legitimate, law-abiding will of the people of California decision.

Work to get it looked at again at the next state election season if you must, but to threaten to break the law?

Is that how the left works out its differences?

She can just ignore the subpoenas. Karl Rove does....

[Flybrick]

So I take that as a "yes, it is" then?

[trevor_macfee]

CNN is reporting that Melissa Etheridge is stating she will no longer pay California state income taxes as she's not being treated as a "full citizen."

While I would suspect that her anger will subside once the first subpoena arrives, I wonder why she thinks that illegal action is ok to counter an election result she doesn't like?

I've no problem with her being unhappy with the results, but it seemed a legitimate, law-abiding will of the people of California decision.

Work to get it looked at again at the next state election season if you must, but to threaten to break the law?

Is that how the left works out its differences?

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Look, I'm not taking a position on Prop 8 - my feelings are actually very complex on the issue.

But certainly civil disobedience has a long and creditable history in this country, and not just on the "left." Thoreau went to jail because he didn't want his taxes to pay for a war that would spread slavery (of course, he was only there for one night but he wrote a heck of an essay about it). Martin Luther King and the leaders of the civil rights movement spent time in jail for challenging - and breaking - unjust laws. "Segregation forever" was the "will of the people" in the south; certainly you don't take issue with those who non-violently resisted those laws, sometimes by breaking them.

And, to ascribe to "the left" this type of action ignores that this is exactly what the founders of our country did when they threw tea into Boston Harbor and when they resisted what they saw as unjust laws foisted upon them by the Crown.

Whether I agree with Melissa Etheridge in this instance is irrelevant, as the MLK quote states I respect anyone who is willing to challenge what they consider an unjust law nonviolently and who is willing to accept the consequences of that challenge.

[minimetoo26]

I don't know "the left", whoever they are. I just know a bunch of people with a bunch of ideals that are never addressed by just one party and try to pick the one that comes closest to what is most important to them.

Well, I did know one of those frothing, letter-to-the-editor-writing, completely off the deep end kind of "left" guy, but that was over 20 years ago and we couldn't take him seriously. Like we tend not to take seriously the right-wing frothers, either.

[franktangredi]

CNN is reporting that Melissa Etheridge is stating she will no longer pay California state income taxes as she's not being treated as a "full citizen."

While I would suspect that her anger will subside once the first subpoena arrives, I wonder why she thinks that illegal action is ok to counter an election result she doesn't like?

I've no problem with her being unhappy with the results, but it seemed a legitimate, law-abiding will of the people of California decision.

Work to get it looked at again at the next state election season if you must, but to threaten to break the law?

Is that how the left works out its differences?

First of all, I can't quite wrap my head around the mindset of someone who takes one statement by one person and generalizes it to millions of people.

Second of all, civil disobedience does have a long history. Every hear of a guy named Thoreau? He wrote a whole book about it. His medium of disobedience was taxes, too.

Third of all, it isn't just confined to the left. http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=72431

Fourth of all ... actually, never mind.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

It would be more interesting to me if she filed a joint return and dared the government to prosecute her for that, unless of course her taxes were higher filing jointly.

[tlynn78]

I saw that, too, Flybrick. While I understand her disappointment, her (probably knee-jerk) blog reaction was um, let's say not well thought out. That's why I don't blog. The things my brain thinks at times should not be made available to the public. By her logic, anyone unhappy with an election outcome should refuse to pay taxes. That's not gonna work out so well in the long run, not for anyone. Apparently, celebrities aren't as good at dodging tax trouble as politicians. (See: Willie Nelson, RIchard Hatch, et al). Besides, did her and her latest partner already marry while it was legal? And as I understand it, at least so far, the marriages that took place during that time remain valid, right?


t.