Yes on 8 Using Elton John's "Very Happy With Civil Union"
OMG! Elton John, you're breaking my heart. And getting used by Yes-on-8 fund raisers in the aftermath of the passage of ballot initiative that eliminated same-sex marriage in California.
Sir Elton's comments, made November 12 before the start of his annual Elton John AIDS Foundation dinner in New York--Anderson Cooper hosted and Gladys Knight performed-- are now being used by the Yes-on-8 campaign and are featured the Protect Marriage website.
Elton may be happy with his civil union, but that's because the UK version is very different form California's. While in the United Kingdom, civil unions grant all the rights of marriage and are available for same and opposite sex couples, in California, only same-sex couples may have a civil union. More importantly, in California, civil unions are granted the same 400 state rights as marriages but--and this is a huge but-- are ineligible for the 1069 federal marriage rights, should the Defense of Marriage Act be overturned. President-elect Barack Obama's political platform calls for a full repeal of DOMA.
Jeff Flint, manager of the Yes-on-8 campaign, sent out an e-mail solicitation Thursday citing Sir Elton's remarks. Prominent on the e-mail is a large red button that says: Donate. The email also decries the protests and alleged vandalism.
Money raised through the Yes on 8 email solicitation featuring Elton John will be used in the coming court battle over Proposition 8.
Damn...Elton's Red Piano at Caesar's Palace is now off my list.
Follow Lisa Derrick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lalisa93
Loading comments…
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
of course i have been shouting from the roof tops since this whole thing began - well before prop 8,
and again of course no one listens to me...............
the state has no business in the marriage business. never did. to that end that law should be changed to: TWO PEOPLE ENTERING INTO A CIVIL CO-HABITATION CONTRACT. and should
be immediately legal as soon as the signature of the clerk or notary is affixed.
then if these two human beings want to go have a ceremoney, a party ,etc..........fine.
this is way too easy, and stands no chance because no one wants to solve the problem, they
want to continue to use it as a wedge issue.
You're describing what we already have: a civil co-habitation contract called "marriage".
Marriage is a civil contract granted, controlled and enforced by the government.
Religions can throw an entirely optional party to celebrate civil marriages if they want -- these are called "weddings".
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Religion has nothing to do with marriage. Religions cannot grant, control or enforce marriage liceneses.
If you get married without a religious wedding, you're legally married. If you have a religious wedding without a marriage license, you're not legally married.
Religions are uttlery powerless when it comes to marriage. They can throw all the weddings they want to, though, just like people who are have non-religious weddings. Or they can refuse to throw someone a party if they want, just like people who get married but choose not to have a wedding.
The simple answer is to stay with what we have. Religion is in the wedding business, not the marraige business. Marriage is a civil contract from the government and, as such, is a civil right for everybody.
You know, I had a completely different take on this. I was thinking that "marriage" is a religious institution and not a civil one. After your comment, I'm actually inclined to agree with you. I was thinking that if a same-sex couple wanted to get married in a catholic church, for example, the church should not be REQUIRED to perform the ceremony, since it goes against the core beliefs of that church.
As long as ministries are not required to compromise beliefs, I agree with your assessment. Marraige is a civil contract and therefore should apply to all as a civil right. Thanks for the comment. It gave me a different perspective...
If Mr. Flint thinks civil unions are a good idea, perhaps he'll work to get them enacted in the 43 states that have no form of recognition or legal rights for same sex couples.
How about it Mr Flint? A respectful invitation is extended. R.S.V.P.
If Mr. Flint thinks Civil Unions are a good idea. Perhaps he'll work to get them enacted in the 43 states that have no form of recognition or legal rights for gay couples.
How about it Mr Flint? A respectful invitation is extended. R.S.V.P.
I hope that this can be a watershed for the LGBT community. The anecdotal info I had from the Bay Area is that the anti-H8te campaign was not very well organized, the media spots not effective. If LGBT's took this campaign too lightly, then perhaps the lesson is learned. With a first African-American President, the argument that no one should have to accept 'separate but equal' seems a no-brainer.
I don't know if Sir Elton will react in any way to his words being used - albeit indirectly - to fund this campaign. I will say, however, that I'm skeptical that he even cares to the extent that many might assume.
His inclusion of O2 World in Berlin and the O2 Arena in London on his current tour shows his lack of concern as far as whose pockets he lines DIRECTLY. In wouldn't take a lot in today's world to look into the financial activities of the likes of Philip Anschutz, whose entertainment group owns and operates these venues.
No separate but equal, either all can get married or all can have civil unions.
Personally, I think the government being separate from the church should only have civil unions.
Get married in your church, get unioned by law no matter who you are!
Sounds like a reasonable approach, as long as the 'getting unioned' includes the 1069 federal rights, marriage or union.
Me? I never plan on getting married or joined or unioned or whatever the next phrase will be. Been there, done that applies, but that's just me. In being me, I want everyone else to be as happy and if being married, unioned or joined... completes their world... so be it, no matter what the sexual orientation. Gays and Lesbians getting married, unioned or joined will not change my life a bit. I will still make fresh ground coffee in the morning, excercise, check HuffPost and live the rest of day desiring good will and peace. Been to war as a combat medic and somehow survived. Peace, natural beauty, good music, clean water, clean air, watching wildlife and enjoying all the good things is a choice, I've made as a result of the horror of war. Gays and Lesbians pay taxes and deserve the rights that hets have, naturally.
In the USA, we know that separate is not equal.
Other than that, having a smorgasbord of options only confuses everyone.
The simple answer is that everyone is equal so everyone gets the same marriage rights.
There should be a massive movement for just this aim. When I explain it to people, they are always shocked, but agree--"Why haven't I heard of this before?" It's the most obvious and reasonable solution, but it hasn't been pushed.
isn't marriage a sacrament? isn't it blasphemous for the gov't to license them?
No, marriage is a socially convienient fiction that both the church and society bought into. The church may call it a "sacrament," but that's not what it is in a Justice of the Peace office, it's a civil contract. We have allowed the religious fictions to so contaminate the civil institution that it has turned against it's constitutional obligation and [in Ca] made a class of citizens "unequal" to the rest.
What churches do or do not regard as a sacrement has no bearing on a society that is not run by religion.
Some churches extend their sacrament to same-sex couples. Does that mean marriage equality should be legal because of that? No, it should be legal because our form of government believes all people are created equal.
Some churches don't extend their sacrament to marriages between divorced people. The government still legally marries divorced people all the time, anyway.
The whims of a countless number of religions have no place in any discussion of marriage -- or any other government matter.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
