- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- GOP
- |
Please Fight Proposition 8's Assault On Same-Sex Marriage
Read More:
Aclu, California Gay Marriage, California Supreme Court, LGBT Issues, LGBT Rights, Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage,
Politics News
I'm angry and heartsick about what may happen in California on November 4th.
In the most personal way possible, I'm asking you for a favor: help us ensure that gay couples all across California keep their fundamental right to marriage — the basic right to be treated just like anybody else.
I hope you will forgive the indulgence when I speak from the heart and tell you my personal story.
You see, I grew up in a loving and supportive household, where my family believed I could be anything I chose — anything except being an openly gay man. Neither of my parents finished high school, and yet, they believed I could accomplish all I set out to do as I went off to Princeton University and Stanford Law School.
They got me through the toughest of times, scrimped and saved, and always believed that failure wasn't in the cards for me. They had more faith in me than I often had in myself. Whenever my parents visited me at Princeton, my Dad would slip a $20 bill in my pocket when my Mom wasn't looking. I never had the courage to tell him that the $20 wouldn't go very far towards my bills, books and tuition. But, it was his support and belief in me that sustained me more than the tens of thousands of dollars I received in scholarships.
When I finished college, they were hugely proud of my — and their — accomplishments. That was until I told them I was gay and wanted to live life as an openly gay man.
Though I always knew I was gay, I didn't come out to them for many years, as I was afraid of losing the love and support that had allowed me to succeed against all odds. When I did tell them, they cried and even shouted. I ended up leaving their home that night to spend a sleepless night on a friend's sofa. We were all heartbroken.
When my Mom and I spoke later, my Mom said, "But, Antonio (that's the name she uses with me), hasn't your life been hard enough? People will hurt you and hate you because of this." She, of course, was right — as gay and lesbian people didn't only suffer discrimination from working-class, Puerto Rican Catholics, but from the broader society. She felt that I had escaped the public housing projects in the Bronx, only to suffer another prejudice — one that might be harder to beat — as the law wasn't on my side. At the time, it felt like her own homophobia. Now I see there was also a mother's love and a real desire to protect her son. She was not wrong at a very fundamental level. She knew that treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens — people who may be worthy of "tolerance, " as Sarah Palin asserts, but not of equality — was and still is the last socially-acceptable prejudice.
Even before I came out to them, I struggled to accept myself as a gay man. I didn't want to lose the love of my family, and I wanted a family of my own — however I defined it. I ultimately chose to find my own way in life as a gay man. This wasn't as easy as it sounds even though it was the mid-1980s. I watched loved ones and friends die of AIDS. I was convinced I would never see my 40th birthday, much less find a partner whom I could marry.
As years passed, my Mom, Dad and I came to a peace, and they came to love and respect me for who I am. They even came to defend my right to live with equality and dignity — often fighting against the homophobia they heard among their family and friends and in church.
The right to be equal citizens and to marry whomever we wish — unimaginable to me when I first came out — is now ours to lose in California unless we stand up for what's right. All of us must fight against what's wrong. In my 43 short years of life, I have seen gay and lesbian people go from pariahs and objects of legally-sanctioned discrimination to being on the cusp of full equality. The unimaginable comes true in our America if we make it happen. But, it requires effort and struggle.
One of the things I love about the ACLU is that it's an organization that understands we are all in this together. We recognize that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Given what's at stake in the outcome of this election, I am personally appealing to you for help to fight the forces of intolerance from carrying the day in California next Tuesday.
If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. You can send them a message here.
We need to make sure people keep in mind that gay people are part of every family and every community — that like everyone else, gay people want the same rights to commit to their partners, to take care of each other and to take responsibility for each other. We shouldn’t deny that, and we shouldn’t write discrimination into any constitution in any state. Certainly, we can't let that happen in California after the highest court in the state granted gay and lesbian people their full equality.
Unfortunately, due to a vicious, deceitful $30 million advertising blitz, the supporters of Prop 8 may be within days of taking that fundamental right away.
To stop the forces of discrimination from succeeding, we have to win over conflicted voters who aren't sure they're ready for gay marriage but who are also uncomfortable going into a voting booth and stripping away people's rights. With the ACLU contributing time, energy and millions of dollars to the effort, we're working hard to reach those key voters before next Tuesday.
If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. Share this email with them. Call them. Direct them to the ACLU of Northern California's Prop. 8 webpage for more information.
Don't let other young people grow up to be afraid to be who they are because of the discrimination and prejudice they might face. Let them see a future that the generation before them couldn't even dream of — a future as full and equal citizens of the greatest democracy on earth.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." As we strive to defeat Prop. 8 and the injustice it represents, the ACLU is trying to make that arc a little shorter.
On behalf of my Mom and family, and on behalf of all the people who will never face legally-sanctioned discrimination, I thank you for being part of this struggle and for doing everything you can to help.
It is a privilege and honor to have you as allies in this fight for dignity and equality.
For additional information on Prop. 8 and tools for advancing LGBT equality in your community, visit www.aclu.org/getequal.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
13mG%2Bb8O7Qij9DRzchD9jJdyGXIEn7wTbHlOD72pNlhH4YuuWy%2BeA3ibwPPMO2zAuiYRgGZW%2FV0zeEoAK4PP14WgWYLsqR80
7xjEawVab%2FQb2gjnDCtmYb2y7E6Yk4U%2BaBoyrzhaMyYLUdNhRhOiQA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
5Wq2zWJWAQ1lX8UPssOLAH54WW3b0Avw
xF7zn5zlLKDd9lCRNwrKMMe%2BIXKpOknN
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"it's still wrong for one group of people to be singled out in a State Constitution to have different or less rights than another group."
thats right!
conscientious objectors to marriage, better known as your single unmarried friends should have the same rights as married, DP,CU people....instead they are being taxed and not represented equally.
the need for healthcare is about access to care for all people-- not addressed by prop 8
when the groups that support NO on 8 step up and complete the fight for pay equity for all genders and complete the fight for access to healthcare for all then, and only then would I vote no on 8
but so long as we are all left in a state of competing for resources, why would I vote No on 8 and against my own interests?
Against your own interests how? Prop 8 affects no one except for the people who participate in the marriages it keeps legal.
Voting no on 8 will not be against your own interests. In fact, 8 will have no effect at all on your interests. I understand that you've got a problem with the differences between married and single, but deciding to discriminate against one group who would like to marry while ignoring the REST of the population being allowed to marry........ That's just dumb.
What you should do is vote AGAINST 8, and then try to get the differences between married and single removed!!
It is never moral to commit a wrong against someone else in order to get (or think we might get) a right for ourselves. Each vote for Prop 8 is a vote for discrimination, and if the state can discriminate against those in the LGBT community, they can certainly discriminate against you. You would effectively be setting the precedent to discriminate against yourself, by codifying discrimination into the California constitution, and eventually, those who want to discriminate will come for you, too.
The public at large seems totally UNAWARE of the GAY WELFARE DIVORCE PROGRAM that tax-payers fund. Yes - YOU - the tax-payer funds this program. But you will rarely, if ever hear of it due to the closet and shame. Well, I'm a case-study. Married (in my heart & mind) for almost 8 years, but when I needed to leave this relationship for my own safety, I discovered what Marriage Inequality means.
But this is NOT about me. It is about the countless other gay Americans who are also placed in these situations, where legal divorce would facillitate a JUST separation, but without legal divorce we have anarchy, with one party often taking advantage of this legal inequity.
In my case, over $40,000 of tax dollars went to support me, just me, between 2006-2008. 100% of that money would have been UNNECESSARY if I had access to legal divorce. The truth is, part of all welfare recipients are turning to welfare since the marriage courts do not even acknowledge us. And who pays? YOU DO. Dumb, dumb economics.
Aside from PURE EQUALITY (which is the real reason for marriage rights), we need equality to stop this unnecessary use of tax dollars.
Could you please explain this, in one syllable words, since I don't understand what the heck you are talking about!
Simply put, my lack of legal protection under the law (civil marriage) led to my bankruptcy and PTSD; the irony is that now I have a hearing for SS Disability....a condition the government's discriminatory laws created. Insanity.
My entire story is on my blog (COST TO SOCIETY):
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2008/07/cost-to-society.html
BUT - the more important story is NOT any individual's personal story, but rather how it is an abomination to put up a minority's civil rights to a popular vote.
During this nasty barrage of the Republicans, I kept repeating a favorite quote of mine:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"~Thomas Edison
This election's particularly personal to me, as a white woman married 20+ years to a magnificent college administrator, who is black, and is a man very much like Senator Obama; loving, intelligent,soft spoken, with extremely high standards for himself.. I never knew one person who was so adored by so many, until I was introduced to Senator Obama.
For several years we resided in San Francisco, & my husband volunteered at the San Francisco Center for Living, & even though we had gay friends before, this gave us the opportunity to truly have an understanding of the feelings of the gay community as a whole, & their feelings of feeling ostracized.As an interracial couple, we'd never consider denying individuals in love the right to marry, we never forget that it was not that long ago, as an interracial couple we'd have also been denied that same right.
Funny, I was thinking back when my ex-husband who is white, met my current husband, he said to me, "Did you have to pick the best?" My response was that I deserved the best, & that 's the way I feel about this election, & that is why I voted for Obama.
Marriage is NOT a "right". If it were a "RIGHT" to marriage, there would be NO need of a license to have it. Marriage instead is a PRIVILEGE, in which a legal agreement is arraigned and signed into. If the terms of that agreement are broken, then the State has the right to end the marriage. Marriage is a LEGAL contract in this country, enforceable by the courts and laws.
There is NO legal right to drive a car, same as marriage. Both are issued a license, as an legal contract, by the state, both may be revoked at any time by the state,for justifiable cause.
A "RIGHT" is something that can not be revoked, EXCEPT under EXTRAORDINARY reasons. An example of a RIGHT, would be Free Speech, I can, and will say anything I wish to your face, as long as I do NO harm, or make direct and specific threat of harm, I am under MY right to that SPEECH.
We all also have the RIGHT of equal treatment under law. That means if the government is handing out candy, drivers,marriage, or business licenses, etc.,etc. then they MUST hand them out EQUALLY to all who ask.
The best lie is 99% truth and 1% lie. Your post is a fine example of the best kind of lie, gaydm.
"That means if the government is handing out candy, drivers,marriage, or business licenses, etc.,etc. then they MUST hand them out EQUALLY to all who ask." it was good until this point then you went off into the fallacious self serving lie. They do not hand out business liscense equally. Different types of business require very different forms of licenses, regulation, audits, etc. In many cases proficiency tests must taken and applied for or financial bonds on filed with the state. Even for a drivers license a test must be passed
On that basis California is one of the most discriminatory states in the country. Because certain types of business are extremely heavily regulated and difficult to file for a business license.
Under your logic a pet shop would have the same license as a nuclear waste disposal company. Which, obviously they do not. Therefore CA does not hand out licenses equally.
Crash and burn gaydm, your lie has been exposed.
So in your "logic", since I will not procreate, I should be denied a legal contract to something that in no part of it grants, or requires the option of procreation. The marriage license has nada to do with children. NOWHERE in it is it mentioned that children are involved. Just because you ASSUME that is the case does not mean it is so.
You would be denying a drivers license to me, because I will not carry more than one person in my car. In no case,is it REQUIRED that I must carry more than myself. I could get an Commercial bus drivers license,but I am still not obligated to carry anyone in my bus
So wait a minute, since my wife had three kids with her ex husband and then got her tubes tied, we should not have been allowed to get married, since there is no chance of her getting pregnant????
Already voted against Prop Hate. It's going to be a squeaker --the fundies are desperate-- but Goddess is on our side and I think the young folks (like my 19-year old daughter voting in her first election) will overwhelmingly say "NO" to codifying antediluvian religious bigotry.
~WolfLady ~ (Princeton '73)
If some of you say, "SAME SEX UNIONS YES, SAME SEX MARRIAGE NO!", then,
"Heterosexuals owe 100% of taxes due; homosexuals owe only 35% of taxes due."
(tax percentage based on civil rights granted)
Fair is fair, no? As another 43 year old (like Mr. Romero), I will NOT wait patiently for my life to pass me by before I am granted EQUAL TREATMENT under the law. To "debate" this right is a joke; there is no debate. Unfortunately the LGBT organizations have agreed to condone these Equality Fund-raisers, which sickens me to no end. State by state marriage equality will only create nightmares for any family that needs to travel across state lines (that would be most). Only until the repeal of DOMA and the attainment of civil marriage on the federal level will we be EQUAL. Until then, don't expect compliance in other areas of civic life.
That sounds good, but can those of us who are straight but still support gay marriage ALSO be included in the 35% group??
Actually, you could be part of that 35%. While there are only LGBTI Americans currently withholding tax (that we know of), we certainly would have no problem if heterosexuals who ALSO believed in JUSTICE FOR ALL would join us and say,
"No, I will NOT file my tax return to the IRS until my daughter/father/neighbor/best friend can marry the person they love."
Charles Merrill has just filed papers with the U.S. Tax Court objecting to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) based on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. He objects to not getting all the same benefits as other married couples -- 1,138 of them -- under a discriminatory tax code. His trial is set for 2009.
CIVIL UNION FOR ALL!
I understood we had settled this argument yesterday, it was to be manditory CIVIL UNION CEREMONIES FOR ALL, that would settle the Marriage problem and Marriage would refer to a Religious Ceremony following a State Mandidate CIVIL UNION CEREMONY. My understanding is this had been a agreement of this council meeting? Can we now move on? What is the next problem or do we turn to the worthless idiots in Sarcramento and D.C. for a lack of knowledge solution?
But my partner, Bob, has been a member of the local First Christian Church for over 13 years now. He would prefer to marry the man he loves in his own church as a Christian man. What about him? Are we seriously having a tug-o-war over different words (words which label concepts).???
How will our country EVER gain respect in the world when we are still bogged down in legal arguments over WORD USAGE?
(Dear moderator - please forgive if my posts get into "personal" details, but since our FAMILY is at stake in PROP 8, it's hard NOT to discuss details. This isn't about fixing bridges or adjusting tax rates; this is about the safety and security of our BELOVED FAMILIES. ALL OF THEM.)
I am a gay man in a commited relationship in a State that does not recognize same-sex marriage or anything like it. There is even an amendment in the state constitution to prevent it from happening. With DOMA making it a state matter as opposed to federal, I am without recourse until time passes and constitutions (not laws) change.
This means that my husband (for to me he is my husband) and I cannot cover each other under one health plan. We must use different hospitals and doctors because of it. If anything were to happen to him, I would be unable to make medical decisions. If his family chooses, I could be prevented from seeing him in such a situation. The house that we live in is in his name. Upon his death (not for a while I hope), I will have to get my things and leave. I don't have the right of survivorship. These are some of the little things that divide us from others.
Yes, there are legal documents that can effect some of it. A living will, durable power of attorney and will can change some of these things. But why should we HAVE to go through all of that (we're also working class, so money is a challenge) for rights that others take for granted? As well as knowing that if we moved, it would start all over (unlike marriage which must be acknowledged accross state lines, civil unions, etc. do not).
You'll be able to find me with a "No on H8" sign at the Burbank Blvd. Interstate I-170 exit in North Hollywood in the coming days. I urge other straight people, if you really want your fellow Californians to continue to be treated equal, if you feel that this is an unnecessary and backwards step in society, an affront to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to do something similar. Don't just vote. Act. Educate.
DISCRIMINATION IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG.
And "don't confuse our kids" is such a crap-out. Children just don't make the distinction of labels that you do.
I am against same sex marriage. I am not against civil unions. I think civil unions are more appropriate for homosexuals. I am not against homosexual marriage for religious reasons. I am against it for social, and medical reasons. I think the problem in California for the Homosexuals is probably the large Hispanic population who absolutely do not as a majority approve of such relationships. They are a powerful voting block and will probably be the major group which will kill Homosexual marriage. Most people don't realize it but Homosexuality is by far and large, statistically a white middle class persons game. I predict that a lot of Homosexuals will probably move out of California to the more white dominated Eastern states where there message will be accepted more readily by a white population.
I will accept civil unions, if you will give up marriage and accept civil unions also. Otherwise,no deal. And My constitution says so. It is called equal treatment under the law. If you do not wish for me to have marriage. Then you MUST stop having them yourself, otherwise it is unconstitutional. Stop marrying and I will stop asking.
also, all of the above post? incorrect. there are just as many (proportionally) gay hispanics as there are gay whites. plus, there's the fact that many of the hispanics in CA are illegal -- they cannot vote. One of the reasons they are sometimes referred to as the silent majority.
and what possible medical reason could you have against gay marriage? you think it's an illness?
Yeah. That's why there is same-sex MARRIAGE in SPAIN. I guess somebody forget to tell them about their deep-seated Latino prejudice against gays. Are you sure you're not just speaking for yourself?
I'm guessing you're not lgbt, don't live in California and aren't Latino/a. Why do you even have an opinion on this? Is this some stereotype your particular demographic group believes? And who exactly are you to determine what is "more appropriate" for a whole segment of the population? We don't stick our noses in your affairs but you would change our Constitution to condone discrimination.
Actually you do stick you noses in our affairs. The plain truth s that if gya marriage is passed next week then homosexuality will be taught in the schools without the right for parental notification or opt-out options. Liberal teachers can teach just about whatever they want about homosexuality without the opposing viewpoints of parents.
Don't tart the argument that it's not true. It has already started since the CA supreme court decision. The California Safe Schools Coalition asserts that children will be taught in class about homosexuality and gender identity.
According to the coalition's Question and Answer Guide on California's Parental Opt-out Statutes, the coalition asserts that parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation and/or gay marriage.
The coalition describes how a school district can develop a plan that will preclude parents from opting out of such teachings, parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.
In essence, the coalition's reasoning is precisely the same reasoning successfully used against the parents in the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court held that the parents could not opt their kindergartner out of a class discussing tolerance of gay marriage. According to this reasoning, if Prop. 8 fails, same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.
"I'm guessing you're not lgbt, don't live in California and aren't Latino/a. Why do you even have an opinion on this?"
I get it now -- you're a hater, and you are the one who decides who gets to have an opinion and you also are going to determine if someone is Latin, Californian etc.
CREEPY
Then I challenge you to live within the restrictions of a civil union and be happy. It's the same as saying "There are two different water fountains, one for whites and one for coloreds. The water is the same, so why should it matter?"
I just don't get it. I'm a heterosexual married male with 2 kids, have been a conservative all my life, served a 6yr tour in USMC, am an avid nascar fan and was born in raised in heart of the bible belt, so basically just your average american male. Yes, I have used gay slurs in jest out of ignorance or indifference or whatever around friends. Yet I cannot understand for the life of me, why people are against gay marriage. I fail to see how that intrudes on peoples personal or religous beliefs. Can someone explain to me how a relationship between two people infringes on your rights? I cannot comprehend how people go through life so freakin occupied about how others live their lives. Also, that arguement that gay marriage will be taught in schools if allowed to pass is totally b.s. So what if my kids learn about it, like they'll grow up never knowing there are homosexuals? Please! Usually when someone mentions it, I tell them I simply don't care, however I'm to the point I actually do care. Everyone should be afforded the same fundamental rights and the pursuit of their own happiness equally!
thank you for your service and your support.
Thank you Jerry for your thoughts. I hope TRIATHLON can learn acceptance from your example.
SEA GOING BELL HOPS!
Never happen, the only thing that a sea going bell hop is polishing shoes, and standing in lines. Were not talking about acceptance, neither side is ever going to embrace the position of the other and that is clear from the board meeting here. What were looking for is middle ground, and not my way or the highway.The Religious Dogmatic aren't going to move an inch to protect (MARRIAGE), so a CIVIL UNION FOR ALL with total equal rights as with a (MARRIAGE) seems a middle ground, but (MARRIAGE) would be a Religious Ceremony. Acceptance from a Marine, ask him what he thinks of Regular Fleet. Jar Head! Were worse than gays and straights, you got nothing on us.
Now THAT'S a Marine!! Thank you Jerry, from the bottom of this former Squid's heart!! The only other person I see on here who claims to be a Marine is always going around talking about how we need to CUT rights from people, rather than let them have their due!! You have a new fan now Jerry!
Anthony, I am 52, was diagnosed with AIDS in 1999, and in 2002, found the love of my life. A man of equal age who is HIV-. As you have, I have seen and been through all of the travails of life as a gay person.
I joined the Navy in 1975, right after the draft was abolished. I was one of the first of the all volunteer military we have today. I did not join the navy for any other reason, than to serve my country, and defend OUR rights Gay and Straight. There was NO don't ask, don't tell when I served, I survived,somehow the witch hunts that drove many out.
As you have wondered,so have I. I never in my wildest dreams thought for one minute I would ever be able to see my way to this age. I have survived beatings,knife attacks, threats and just plain slanders of many forms. But I am still here, I have my love, and despite my HIV, I am in relatively good health, all things considered.
I wish to thank you my friend, for all your service to our community. I wish I did live in California so I could vote against prop 8. But unfortunately I live in the State of Georgia, where my equality has been denied.
My parents are both still alive,and like yours, they are fully supportive of myself and my partner. I only wish I could make them a happily married man.
I would like to pose 2 questions to you if I may. As an attorney maybe you would be able to answer them for me please.
My first question concerns California and your supreme courts ruling about granting LGBT's FULL equal treatment in marriage law. If prop 8 does pass, could the California supreme court then rule that if LGBT people are to be denied the right to marry, Then all must be denied the right to marry, both Gay and Straight? Equal treatment for all still rules in that case also, would it not?
My second question concerns Florida's amendment 2, which reads "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
Will not the first part of this amendment LIMIT Florida to recognizing only 1 marriage as valid. And will not the second part prevent any legal recognition of any form of relationship, whether they be gay or straight? Thank you for your consideration of my questions, I hope they will be of use.
No, because the Constitution is always the law, even when it contradicts itself. In other words, since the equal protection clause is a general issue, while the wording for Prop 8 is specific, it would take precedence.
Has it been so long that it is so easy to forget the lessons of the past? Separate but equal is NOT equal. Whether or not you approve of same sex marriage doesn't give YOU the right to deny another person their rights, period. This IS an equal rights issue. Equal for all or equal for none.
Even IF the worst happens and 8 passes, it won't stand up to consitutional muster, as we've already seen. It's discrimination plain and simple.
I really, really want someone to explain to me just how two consenting adults wanting to make their union legal negatively effects you or the institution of marriage. Stable, committed relationships benefit everyone.
what if my position is "equal for none" with regard to marriage?
don't I have the right to hold that principled position based on my own experiences?
or am I given the status of troll and hater?
and if it gives me the status of troll and hater, then those who say "you must vote no to 8 or you hate"
are in league with the Palins and Bachmanns
in my opinion
finally, I don't think loving is certified by the state
so, I think for me, in the end, it is going to be yes on 8
but I am open to trying to see this differently
Why should the government even be involved, or care, about marriage.
Because conservatives from both sides of the party divide would prefer the things they're being asked to swallow were back in the tin. Conservativism in America is committed to an ideal of protecting America, but in doing so attempts to turn back the clock to a simpler time when issues were ignored. Let America be America and stop trying to recreate the 1950's in the 21st Century.
HuffPost's Pick
The legal issues are property rights and protection of children. News flash: lots of gays and lesbians have kids, often from marriages before they realized why they weren't happy with the Ward & June Cleaver arrangements.
A civil union would be the obvious solution. But the problem is, CUs and Domestic Partnerships are NOT legally identical.
The issue on Prop 8 is that the folks who believe that everyone should live according to THEIR religious beliefs (the Mormons have poured millions into this, odd considering they started out polygamous) feel that it is their right to write the laws of America to fit their own particular religious standards. Not all Christian churches have the homophobic attitudes of the fundamentalists; some even support gay marriage.
I'd love to see the government take its nose out of everyone's bedroom. Consenting adults, and all that.
But the issue here is changing the CONSTITUTION to discriminate against people. This is America, isn't it? All created equal, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?
The Constitution defines a country, or a state. Writing discrimination into the constitution is a fundamentally bad thing to do. Today it's gays and lesbians. Fifty years ago it was blacks and whites who were not allowed to marry.... and the arguments were almost identical.
Rolling back social justice is never a good idea.
I think women's rights play into this...
Women get pregnant
Thus society determined a need for marriage
That is the only reason really that I can see for marriage
I don't really see a point to marriage otherwise
So, I don't really see why, if I believe this way
Why should I vote no on 8
My position is to support equality between singletons and married people
Why would I say no to 8
Marriage in its current form has not made communities better or safer
It is a myth, a romanticized notion that plays out in pretty ugly ways when the illusion ends
With tax benefits that are not given to unmarrieds and singletons
Why should I vote no on 8
I'm asking
also, there is the issue of pay equity
two males living in, say, San Francisco
would be making more than a single female
or two single females residing in San Francisco who do the same work
why would I support and even exaggerate that disparity?
If it was about that, lesbians would be in favor of prop H8 in droves. That's not the case.
Because you respect human beings enough to let the two women in question make that decision for themselves, perhaps?
Imagine being forced to marry a person of the same sex as your own just to get health benefits... imagine not being able to see your dying wife in the hospital because the Mormon church doesn't think you should be married.
This isn't about special treatment--it's about equal justice under the law, part of the foundation of America itself.
It's one thing to ask honest questions; it's another to troll for attention. My guess is you've made up your mind and are just playing games, so good night, chuckles.
Yes, women get pregnant. W/o hetero marriage you can't establish paternity, dna testing being a recent occurrence. That seems like a more plausible reason than evening-out the income disparity. Marriage allows two people to enjoy a longer life-expectancy, share property and a life. With state-recognition it guarantees that others cannot trample that mutual acknowledgment. Think about mother-in-law jokes or the jealous-father figure; people who could, otherwise interfere in a relationship. The term "next-of-kin" really means something when you're in a hospital bed and your homophobic family decides to meddle in your life. Marriage means you won't have to pay an inheritance tax if one of you dies. On a federal level it means a thousand-something rights we don't have.
That single people pay more in taxes is no reason to deny us the same rights and privileges any heterosexual who wants to get married can claim. I'm not asking to go to anyone's party, I just want to be able to have mine.
As for it being an "illusion", so what? That's your opinion, you have a right to it just like you have a right to whatever illusion you subscribe to. You may ask yourself, what right do the theocrats have to deprive others of their "illusions", as far as that goes?
yes, in fact, you can establish paternity outside of hetero marriage - think Maury Povich Qtip swab DNA tests he does for unwed mothers
marriage only might allow for longer life expectancy- it does not guarantee it- so can long term committed relationships not based in a state sanctioned relationship
grandparent rights sometimes impede on hetero marrieds or divorced hetero marrieds
this last part
**"That single people pay more in taxes is no reason to deny us the same rights and privileges any heterosexual who wants to get married can claim. **
Yes, it is a very legitimate reason- a single person has a right to think about this financial aspect in considering their interests and rights as an individual, particularly when they are already funding the public schools married heteros send their children to.
**I'm not asking to go to anyone's party, I just want to be able to have mine.As for it being an "illusion", so what? That's your opinion, you have a right to it just like you have a right to whatever illusion you subscribe to. You may ask yourself, what right do the theocrats have to deprive others of their "illusions", as far as that goes?**
becomes even more flimsy, because the govt imposes all sorts of rules on what kind of parties people are allowed to have-- there are some women who are happily contemporary career women in Colorado, Nevada and California who are in a "plural marriage" it works for their lives in many, many ways - they are doing this against the law.
You want your opinion to become law and you say "so what?" to mine- that is fine, but it does factor in to the voting and it is just offered as a fact that plays out in the dynamics of the vote.
Marriage was originally a civil contract devised to determine property ownership and was co-opted into religion, it has little to do with whether or not anyone has a uterus. Personally I don't really give two hoots about marriage, but as long as marriage is a legally binding contract with all the benefits and penalties that come with any contract, and is recognised by city, state and nation - as opposed to just something nice that happens in a church, I think that marriage should be for all.
I noticed you've not indicated you're prepared to vote yes on prop. 8, but this is a decision about enabling people, and if people feel they are being harshly and unfairly treat by their government then they should be enabled - especially if marriage between two people of the same sex does nothing to damage marriage, which as I say is something inextricably bound to legality. If it wasn't then most marriages would be simply a ceremony and not registered with the government.
I don't care about same sex marriage harming hetero marriage- could care less.
I care about economic disparities that occur - negative $$ effect that accrue to single or unmarried couples -- that is it.
Property ownership flowed from blood lines, blood lines flow from uterus...
also, I have yet to see gay men standing with signs in support of pay equity for women....
Because even though you don't see the benefits to marriage, it's still wrong for one group of people to be singled out in a State Constitution to have different or less rights than another group. Remember how well Separate but Equal went for black people in America during the 19th and early 20th centuries!
"it's still wrong for one group of people to be singled out in a State Constitution to have different or less rights than another group."
thats right!
conscientious objectors to marriage, better known as your single unmarried friends should have the same rights as married, DP,CU people....instead they are being taxed and not represented equally.
Somehow various religious organizations have come to believe that "the gays" will try to force them to perform & recognize same sex marriage in churches that are against it. Out of all my gay memos, I have never seen one encouraging me to sue a church for the right to marry inside it's doors. The argument is absurd! I married my partner so that maybe one day I we could file a joint tax return, not be subject to inheritance tax if one of us passes away, or social security benefits for the surviving partner. I don't want any part of some religion that treats me as a second class citizen. Why on earth would I wan't to get married in that environment. Enough already. I see no threat to religion or their institutions regarding same sex marriage. My parents aren't upset, and I don't threaten their marriage in any way.
YOUR MAKING THE VARIOUS RELIGIOUS ORGAIZATIONS POINT!
The argument is absurd! And, they come back that your is absurd and the arguments just go round and round and round. And, your asking questions that as a "If there is a God person" can't answer for Religious Dogma. I can see your point but, I can see theirs, and I can't understand the problems, paper and words don't make relationships, Marriage, Union, Living together, Shacking up, yours is about legal rights, theirs is about Religous Dogma. Both sides have to my view valid arguments. Form your own Religion, I don't know. The question is what happens when the immoveable object meets the unstoppable force? Neither side see's the others point of view.
Potatoes, Patatoes, Tomatos, Tamatos, Unions, Marriage, just call it even one Union one Marriage and just get along. You stay out of their Dogma and they stay out of your bedroom.
Your ignorance is showing. Just because you can see both sides of an argument doesn't mean that one of them isn't wrong. The reason the religious fools who are pursueing this agenda are wrong is that their "belief" is based on the writings in a poorly written book of fairey tales and they choose to believe it in an imaginary being who tells them that being gay is a sin. If GOD created them then how can they be sinful? But that is just way too dogmatic for them. Here is the real kicker that makes them wrong. Gays do not get to choose their gayness, it is a matter of genitics and they are born with it. Science doesn't even discuss this anymore than they discuss the sun coming up in the east. It is done, over, fine'! So what we have is modern science which got us to the moon, cures deseases, causes automobiles and TV's to work and on the other hand we have ignorant, uncivilized, barbarians that are living in the 12th Century. Sorry, they shouldn't even be allowed to vote. They are too stupid!
THAT is the problem! Religion won't stay out of my private life. I wasn't trying to take over the church.
You are confusing the two parts of every marriage in the USA. The first part, the part that you get the marriage license for, is a contract that two people sign with the govt. They agree to join and in many respects become one legal person, in return for being allowed to file a joint tax return, pay no inheritance tax when one of them dies, see each other in a hospital, etc. In return for this the govt tells them that the only way they can break apart is through a divorce.
RELIGIOUS marriage, on the other hand is where you stand in the eyes of god and everyone and say that you will love, honor, and cherish the person standing next to you for all eternity. No legal benefits there, just religious benefits.
In the case of the marriage license, the ONLY part that matters is the first. The state doesn't care where you get married, and they don't care WHO officiates at the ceremony, as long as they are also licensed by the state.
If CA says no on 8, then the only part that will be affected is the former. RELIGIOUS marriages will be unaffected, as no one will try to tell a church that they MUST marry two people who they don't want to marry!
I am for gay marriage, and it's hard for me to understand why anyone wouldn't be. Committed relationships of all kinds quite literally make our society stronger and healthier. I've known women who were either engaged or married to gay men, and gay men who were engaged to women before coming out. These situations are heartbreaking ... how much better if we all just accepted each other as we are.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
