Proposition 8 in California

[BigSqwert]

[Texsox]

I disagree 100%. One is a result of church traditions, the other is a legal binding contract. Big difference IMO.

Allow me then to rephrase.

 

That church tradition provides the same legal rights and benefits of the legal tradition. What our country has done, in effect, is to "deputize" clergy to perform the same exact role that a judge performs in securing the existing "contracts". Unless you are suggesting that there be different legal benefits and rights between a marriage and a civil union, the end result is the same. All we would be doing is slapping a different label on it based on who presides.

 

In the end a judge will perform a civil union and some clergy will perform a marriage and both couples/groups walk away with the same rights and benefits of each other. That is why I say they are the same. The debate isn't about who gets the Church ceremony and who gets to appear before a judge, its about the rights and benefits and those should be the same.

 

All we are doing to preserving a label for a religious ceremony and trying an end around some of the objections. But the objections are to the rights and benefits IMO, not about the label.

[southsider2k5]

Allow me then to rephrase.

 

That church tradition provides the same legal rights and benefits of the legal tradition. What our country has done, in effect, is to "deputize" clergy to perform the same exact role that a judge performs in securing the existing "contracts". Unless you are suggesting that there be different legal benefits and rights between a marriage and a civil union, the end result is the same. All we would be doing is slapping a different label on it based on who presides.

 

In the end a judge will perform a civil union and some clergy will perform a marriage and both couples/groups walk away with the same rights and benefits of each other. That is why I say they are the same. The debate isn't about who gets the Church ceremony and who gets to appear before a judge, its about the rights and benefits and those should be the same.

 

All we are doing to preserving a label for a religious ceremony and trying an end around some of the objections. But the objections are to the rights and benefits IMO, not about the label.

 

It provides those things because the government again is trying to legislate good behavior. This mess is the result of that type of thinking.

[Texsox]

It provides those things because the government again is trying to legislate good behavior. This mess is the result of that type of thinking.

 

It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now.

[southsider2k5]

It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now.

 

Exactly. There is an incentive to marriage. That is the problem.

[NorthSideSox72]

It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now.

I think Hancock and Co. specifically chose not to think of things like this. It is my opinion, from my readings of the federalist papers and the Constitution, etc., that the intention was to steer clear of regulating personal relationships.

 

[Texsox]

Exactly. There is an incentive to marriage. That is the problem.

Bingo. So the question becomes to be either drop all government sanctioned incentives, or open them up to everyone? IMHO opening them up to everyone is the right thing to do.

[Texsox]

I think Hancock and Co. specifically chose not to think of things like this. It is my opinion, from my readings of the federalist papers and the Constitution, etc., that the intention was to steer clear of regulating personal relationships.

 

things like this? I believe you are correct. Further, I doubt that this specific issue was even a thought then.

[southsider2k5]

Bingo. So the question becomes to be either drop all government sanctioned incentives, or open them up to everyone? IMHO opening them up to everyone is the right thing to do.

 

My philosophy is to drop the incentives.

[Texsox]

My philosophy is to drop the incentives.

 

Then there would be no need for civil unions or marriages in a government, legal context. Only a religious context. That would be workable.

[Soxy]

Then there would be no need for civil unions or marriages in a government, legal context. Only a religious context. That would be workable.

legally they would still be needed for visitation rights, property and inheritance stuff, right?

[Soxy]

I never thought I would agree with a mormon.

So, why are you pro-Prop 8?

[Texsox]

legally they would still be needed for visitation rights, property and inheritance stuff, right?

 

SS said he was in favor of eliminating all incentives, I assumed those would be the kind of incentives eliminated or at least not tied to this concept of marriage or union. If you keep those items where one person has specific rights with another if they are joined together, then incentives still exist.

[Soxbadger]

Dropping incentives is impossible because parts of our entire legal and property system are based on marriage.

 

From insurance beneficiaries, to intestate, to property ownership, to visitation rights, to access to information, to marriage simplifies the system by having a de facto answer. The wife gets a de facto share of the property, the wife gets a de facto say.

 

It also can hurt in terms of family expense act, the wife or husband would be liable for the actions of the other party if it benefits the family.

 

The simplest answer (imo) is to give everyone the same rights regardless of race, religion, sexual preference. If man and woman get X, then everyone should get X.

 

 

[longshot7]

I also hate the argument that if gay marriage were allowed then polygamy would also be legalized. SO WHAT?! If the people engaged are adults, who cares if three people want to get married together?

[Balta1701]

I also hate the argument that if gay marriage were allowed then polygamy would also be legalized. SO WHAT?! If the people engaged are adults, who cares if three people want to get married together?

I can see how the government might have additional concerns on that one, in particular because of the benefits it extends.

 

On the other hand, I can't figure out how, if that argument has any merit, the Mormon church would be the ones funding this initiative so hard. Wouldn't they want this to pass so that the slippery slope occurs?

[longshot7]

I can see how the government might have additional concerns on that one, in particular because of the benefits it extends.

 

On the other hand, I can't figure out how, if that argument has any merit, the Mormon church would be the ones funding this initiative so hard. Wouldn't they want this to pass so that the slippery slope occurs?

 

The Mormons outlawed polygamy in the 1890s. They're just like any other right-wing church now.

[Chisoxfn]

I haven't seen any discussion on this here. It's been a pretty big topic on the political blogs I read. There has been tens of millions dollars spent from both sides of the argument. Anyone have any opinions on the matter? Being the über-liberal of Soxtalk I'm sure you can figure out where I stand on the issue.

It's ridiculous that its even up for vote. I'm going to vote No on Prop 8 and the Yes ads are absolutely disgusting. There is one with someone saying that there kids are going to come home believing that marriage is solely for a man and a man. It's utter bulls***. It's the 21st freaking century and I can't even believe something like this is up for debate (and I'm as conservative as it gets).

[Kyyle23]

Apparently Jeff Kent donated 15 grand to the people who want to vote YES on prop 8

[mr_genius]

strong Obama turnout in California could actually help pro 8 pass.

 

Hispanic and Black voters support the measure more than whites in Cali from the polls i've seen. From personal experience I would say those polls are accurate. Not to say African-Americans and Hispanics are homophobic, but there is a majority within this voting subset which have strong religious convictions on this.

Edited October 31, 2008 by mr_genius

[HuskyCaucasian]

Prop 8 Passes:

A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California was passed by voters in Tuesday's election, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.

[southsider2k5]

For those that feel popular vote is always the best way to go... I give you Exhibit 8. There does need to be a consideration of minority opinion, especially when it is over the rights of a very few. I'll truely believe if they tried to popular vote other minority rights, such as womens/black vote, it would have lost decidely for much longer than it took Congress to get it right.

Edited November 5, 2008 by southsider2k5

[LosMediasBlancas]

Too lazy to read 5 pages. What will happen to those gay marriages in Cali.? Void, invalid?...or are they valid since they got in under the wire?

[whitesoxfan101]

Similar bills in Arizona (Prop 102) and Florida (Amendment 2) passed, and unlike in California, they both passed very easily. Yesterday was a good day to be an Obama supporter, but a bad day to be gay.

[bmags]

This is despicable. God, any time bills are passed to specifically NOT grant rights, you'd think people would stop and think how they would feel if it were them.