CA Prop 8

[earendel]

There are many of us who view homosexuality as a behavior and not as something innate. Gay rights advocates have been quite successful in recent years in getting sexual orientation on a par with race, ethnicity, and gender in matters concerning equality, discrimination, etc. I reject the notion that being gay is like being white or black, or male or female. Science has never proven that homosexuality is genetically based.

No, but there have been some strong corellations drawn - twin studies, brain functions, etc. Leaving that aside, however, let's proceed with the larger issue.

Many people view marriage as something faith based and not state based. That's why we get married in a church with a preacher. I can see how many people would view gay marriage as an affront to those Biblical beliefs, as if it were an insult to God. Apparently, there were enough people in California who felt this way that Prop 8 passed. And why should people vote for anything that is against their beliefs just because a very loud minority is calling them names?

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

[TheCalvinator24]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

[earendel]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

Thanks, Cal - that means a lot.

Truly it bothers me whenever I attend a wedding and the presiding minister says something to the effect that "by virtue of the power granted to me by the <insert governmental entity here> I now pronounce you..." because it's a reminder that whatever religious people may think about marriage, it is only by the will of the government that we are allowed to solemnize the happy couple and bestow the various civil rights that they gain. Same thing with the license - and what the government can grant, it can also remove.

[franktangredi]

frank, my comments were directed specifically at those on the losing side of this issue who are doing the vile things because they lost.

Not at those who are on the losing side of the topic who do not do those illegal things. I have no issue or complaint with them.

The acceptable way to deal with this is to try again at the next election and run a better campaign.

Lesson there for many.

As I said, it was only your last statement ("so much for tolerance by the losing side") that seemed to imply that you were tarring everybody with the same brush. I think we're in enough agreement here.

[christie1111]

Wow, this was exhausting.

[wintergreen48]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

I think that this is exactly the way it is handled in Italy: to be 'married' (or 'united' or whatever you call it) in the 'eyes of the law,' you have to go to a court or something and have a public official take your oath or whatever you call it. You can still be married in the church (or synagogue or whatever), but the legal marriage, with all the legal rights appurtenant thereunto, come from the civil action, not the religious.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

I think that this is exactly the way it is handled in Italy: to be 'married' (or 'united' or whatever you call it) in the 'eyes of the law,' you have to go to a court or something and have a public official take your oath or whatever you call it. You can still be married in the church (or synagogue or whatever), but the legal marriage, with all the legal rights appurtenant thereunto, come from the civil action, not the religious.

Does this mean that the main difference is that the way we have it here, a larger set of people are, um, deputized, to perform the legal part of it?

[TheCalvinator24]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

Thanks, Cal - that means a lot.

Truly it bothers me whenever I attend a wedding and the presiding minister says something to the effect that "by virtue of the power granted to me by the <insert governmental entity here> I now pronounce you..." because it's a reminder that whatever religious people may think about marriage, it is only by the will of the government that we are allowed to solemnize the happy couple and bestow the various civil rights that they gain. Same thing with the license - and what the government can grant, it can also remove.

I specifically instructed the Preacher who officiated my wedding that he would NOT say "by the authority invested in me by the State of Texas." He changed it to "by the authority invested in me as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

I'm sure some of my Reformed and/or Baptist friends thought that sounded a bit too Roman Catholic.

[BackInTex]

You've stated the case quite well - marriage is faith-based. But you fail to draw the logical conclusion - as a faith-based institution, "marriage" may well be the province of the church, but the "rights and privileges appertaining thereunto" are granted by the state. And it's wrong to allow certain couples to enjoy those privileges but not others, based solely on a "faith-based" relationship. So let me suggest this (I've suggested it before in other incarnations of the Bored): Let "marriage" be reserved solely and exclusively for churches or other religious organizations. Let them decide who gets married, how they do so, etc. But let them have no legal rights (tax benefits, etc.). If they want those, then they must enter into a civil agreement or contract. The government decides what is required for such a contract and who gets to enter into such a contract. But the government can't decide that on the basis of some faith-based criteria (opposition to homosexuality, polygamy, etc.). Aside from the obvious benefit of disentangling Church and State it also has side benefits - for instance individuals who want to be "married" but can't do so because it affects their Social Security. They could be "married in the eyes of God" but not in the eyes of the government, and their benefits wouldn't be affected.

This will come as a shock to those who have not paid close attention to my posts over the years, but I essentially agree with earendel here.

Cal,

So how do you feel about the government mandating that companies who offer benefits to employes (and their spouses) who consider a spouse in existence only in a marriage rather than a civil union, agreement, or contract? If you believe that traditional marriage is one of the core elements of our society then I don't see how you could support the government mandating same sex benefits.

[wintergreen48]

I don't expect many of you to agree with my position, but I will not let anybody put words in my mouth that I didn't say or ascribe motives to me that I don't hold.

So far, the anti-Prop 8 crowd's argument has been "If you don't agree with us, you must be a bigot." That is pathetically weak.

I'm not sure that I agree that's what people have been saying. I suspect that's what some people are trying to say without coming out and using that word.

I am willing to grant that there are a very few people who support Prop 8 on the grounds that they think a court decision is not the proper venue to decide this type of public policy.

But the overwhelming majority of the people who support it, do so because they don't want gay people to be able to marry who they want to marry.

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

I think that the restriction of marriage to 'a' man and 'a' woman would also prohibit polygamy or polyandry; other states that have enacted rules like this are even more specific, stating that marriage is between 'one man' and 'one woman.' If Cal (or anyone else) were to support these kinds of laws because they don't want [a person] to be able to marry the people (plural) they wish to marry, does that make Cal (or anyone else) a bigot? If not, why not? If so, does that mean that 'bigotry' is always a bad thing?

[TheCalvinator24]

Cal,

So how do you feel about the government mandating that companies who offer benefits to employes (and their spouses) who consider a spouse in existence only in a marriage rather than a civil union, agreement, or contract? If you believe that traditional marriage is one of the core elements of our society then I don't see how you could support the government mandating same sex benefits.

I think I know what you are asking, but the question, as written, makes no sense.

If marriage is taken out of the hand of the state, then this issue becomes moot. If the state then creates some sort of civil union for certain benefits, then I don't think it necessary for those benefits to be limited to couples who are of opposite sexes.

[minimetoo26]

I don't expect many of you to agree with my position, but I will not let anybody put words in my mouth that I didn't say or ascribe motives to me that I don't hold.

So far, the anti-Prop 8 crowd's argument has been "If you don't agree with us, you must be a bigot." That is pathetically weak.

I'm not sure that I agree that's what people have been saying. I suspect that's what some people are trying to say without coming out and using that word.

I am willing to grant that there are a very few people who support Prop 8 on the grounds that they think a court decision is not the proper venue to decide this type of public policy.

But the overwhelming majority of the people who support it, do so because they don't want gay people to be able to marry who they want to marry.

And I am willing to come out and say it. If you support Prop 8 because you don't want gay people to be able to marry the people they wish to marry, then yes, you are a bigot.

I think that the restriction of marriage to 'a' man and 'a' woman would also prohibit polygamy or polyandry; other states that have enacted rules like this are even more specific, stating that marriage is between 'one man' and 'one woman.' If Cal (or anyone else) were to support these kinds of laws because they don't want [a person] to be able to marry the people (plural) they wish to marry, does that make Cal (or anyone else) a bigot? If not, why not? If so, does that mean that 'bigotry' is always a bad thing?

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.

[SportsFan68]

frank, my comments were directed specifically at those on the losing side of this issue who are doing the vile things because they lost.

Not at those who are on the losing side of the topic who do not do those illegal things. I have no issue or complaint with them.

The acceptable way to deal with this is to try again at the next election and run a better campaign.

Lesson there for many.

Then why bring it up here at all? No one who posts here is doing any vile things, no matter which side of Prop 8 they supported.

Since you have no issue or complaint with any of us, who have not done those illegal things, why post something that seems so pointedly addressed at those of us who opposed it?

Why lecture to us about the acceptable way to deal with this, when we have not behaved unacceptably?

Any enlightenment appreciated.

[christie1111]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

[clem21]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

Darn you Christie! I was lying in wait!
Now everyone's going to want it!

[minimetoo26]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

No way! Let's post gratuitously and thwart that whippersnapper!

[minimetoo26]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

Darn you Christie! I was lying in wait!
Now everyone's going to want it!

I saw you down there!

I don't want it; I just don't want YOU to get it!

[SportsFan68]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

No way! Let's post gratuitously and thwart that whippersnapper!

We do not post gratuitously here!

[SportsFan68]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

Darn you Christie! I was lying in wait!
Now everyone's going to want it!

I saw you down there!

I don't want it; I just don't want YOU to get it!

[SportsFan68]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

No way! Let's post gratuitously and thwart that whippersnapper!

I resemble that remark!

[minimetoo26]

Ixnay on the emClay!

[SportsFan68]

So is this the longest thread of the new Bored?

Who will get 200? Clem?

Darn you Christie! I was lying in wait!
Now everyone's going to want it!

I saw you down there!

I don't want it; I just don't want YOU to get it!

Everyone else has cleared the field -- I'm helping Clem.

[SportsFan68]

Ixnay on the emClay!

Pig Latin!

That's my second language!

[christie1111]

Did I win?

[minimetoo26]

He's young and fast and needs no help...