Proposition Eight

Wow. Sorry I missed this when it opened. Great topics to discuss...but, I missed the lump of it so I'll just say that it's great how honest everyone can be here. Even if their opinions are outside of the popular in this particular group. I am pro gay marriage in a family that believes the very opposite. It causes fights. A lot. But I see marriage as a right. It's a man made tradition nothing created by any mystical deity. It should be about love and devotion. What? Should marriage, this sacred, beautiful thing be reserved for the Britney Spears 22 hour flights of fancy out there? I don't think so. Besides, everyone should have the right to be equally miserable. : )

And BTW, Abortion should be allowed. For people in certain circumstances. Not as a form of birth control. Those people should be left barren.
 
Harm's way I stick up for you and your right there are WAY more IMPORTANT things to worry about the econemy starving peple ect!!!

Also edmund no I wouldnt like to be a brides maid you smart ass 😀 I am only saying that the whole marriage thing isnt made for us it is made for STRAIGHT PEOPLE hence groom and bride DUH!
 
caitaintdead
caitaintdead
Yes. I can tell how much you care about the economy by your excellent knowledge... Such as how to spell the word! ;)
Come on guys, what about Willow and Tara...lol. Would you begrudge them such a beautiful thing?

Seriously though, if we always stuck to the typical...to tradition...we wouldn't have this place. We wouldn't have Buffy.

Something smells good and I'm hungry...
 
I think this is a very interesting point, and I kind of have to agree....
This is my take on this, gay people can be together with or without some big head legal guy validating their love by saying they're married, but issues such as aborted fetuses don't have anything at all. I just believe there are more important issues to be dealth with in America and worked out before people start ranting and raving to have something else. But like I said that's my own view, I'd rather go to a pro-life rally than attend a gay parade, but that's because it's just where my personal priorities lie.

Harm's way I stick up for you and your right there are WAY more IMPORTANT things to worry about the econemy starving peple ect!!!

Also edmund no I wouldnt like to be a brides maid you smart ass 😀 I am only saying that the whole marriage thing isnt made for us it is made for STRAIGHT PEOPLE hence groom and bride DUH!

I fail to see how a form of institutional prejudice that invalidates a whole section of society's ability to commit, that continues to promote negative stereotypes, and that allows certain people to feel justified in their continued hatred is not an incredibly important issue. Of course there are more important things to deal with in the world, but since when were governments able to work solely on one issue until it is solved completely? Civilisation would grind to a halt. They can multi-task, y'know?
 
E
Edmund Blackadder
Abso-frikkin-lutely
palabravampiress
palabravampiress
Great post!
Harm's way I stick up for you and your right there are WAY more IMPORTANT things to worry about the econemy starving peple ect!!!

Also edmund no I wouldnt like to be a brides maid you smart ass 😀 I am only saying that the whole marriage thing isnt made for us it is made for STRAIGHT PEOPLE hence groom and bride DUH!

I won't comment on the first part because I spent an entire page saying how ridiculous that stance is.

Made for us?

Why are you separating 'us'?

Thats the problem, people continuing the separatists belief.
We're all one people, we should all be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Bride and Groom are simply two words added to a contract that joins two people.
The thing about contracts is that the wording can be changed while still retaining the fundamental principles of it.
 
L
Lindsey McDonald
Ex-Frikken-actly. Ok, that one doesn't work so well, but you get the sentiment.
The debate has taken an interesting turn and I just want to add my two cents again. I apologize in advance for the length of my post.

The question here seems to have become less about choosing a side for Prop 8 and more about debating the necessity of choosing a side at this particular junction. To that, I answer: because the opportunity has arisen. The GLBT community and its allies have made their voices heard. They've staged parades, demonstrations, and fundraisers. They've won and challenged court cases. They have fought for their rights and won the opportunity to be an issue on the minds of voters, justices, and elected officials. I am certain that when women fought for equal rights, there were many people scratching their heads and asking why it was important. Why change the status quo? Why do so now, when issues like Prohibition, the cleanup of WWI, and the formation of the League of Nations were on the table? Surely, some matters seemed more pressing. Relative urgency did not change the fact that roughly half of the population had been disenfranchised; nor did it change the vote that Joe Shmoe's mother Sally, sister Lucretia, and wife Madeline were not legally his equals. The matter of suffrage may not have trumped the fallout from WWI, but it was important to Sally, Lucretia, and Madeline, as it would have a direct influence on their daily lives. Similarly, Prop 8 in particular and Gay Marriage in general are important in the here and now because of their influence on the daily lives of your fellow citizens (if you are an American), your friends, your neighbors, and your family members.

The effects of Prop 8 and discriminatory marriage laws are real and pressing, even if they do not constitute your first priority at present. To Mary and Dana, Prop 8 means that the legality of their marriage is in limbo. To Joe and Martin, it is important because they just got engaged and aren't sure when they'll be able to be married. Tom and Marcy care because their child has just come out and they are concerned about her place in a state or a nation that denies her equal rights. People like Bill and John are worried because Bill's health insurance only extends to spouses or children; it can't extend to his partner John, who has just been diagnosed with cancer. Perhaps Tonya and LaToya are worried because LaToya has not yet been able to adopt their children, so her authority is questions when she signs school permission slips, comes to sign one of the kids out for a doctor's appointment, or (God forbid), visit them in the hospital. The fact that gay marriage may not be number one on your priority list does not diminish its importance in the lives of others. By not voting and not caring, you turn a blind eye to these injustices and allow them to continue.

Caring more about Susan's abortion or Shuhda's ruined Baghdad suburb is fine; your priorities are your own to determine. The importance that you place on those issues, though, does not negate the effect that your lack of action, lack of knowledge, or lack of caring has on those whose lives are directly affected by Prop 8 and anti-Gay Marriage laws. We are all complicit. If we don't take the opportunity to change these unjust laws now that they are on the forefront of the national consciousness, who is to say that the chance will come around again for another ten, twenty, or even more years? This issue is important and pressing now because we have the chance to right a wrong now. It may not be the most urgent wrong to right, but it is still wrong and it is still our duty as citizens to correct it.
 
L
Lindsey McDonald
Fantastic post. I agree entirely.
E
Edmund Blackadder
I agree with Palabra...I think this is just going to be my standard Karma for you now - Ohh and I love the names, they are so, 'gay:)
Airam
Airam
awesome post!
I was actually surprised and pleased to hear the California voted yes to Prop 8. I suppose that makes me the minority on this board. I was preparing to write this to Kean via a PM as I did not want to hear the backlash over my agreement with California but I remembered I should not be afraid to mention my beliefs even if feathers are ruffled. I am not going into enter into the debate on the open board (this will be my mantra) I will simply state my views and leave it at such. I fear the topic too heated to have a friendly debate without nail scratching and hair pulling. (though I would be happy to be proven wrong)

First marriage is defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, simple as that. I view it as that and nothing more. For that reason: good for you California! However my conservative views do not run so deep not to recognize that gay people can and do live in union together. I understand that and accept that. Yet they should not be allowed to be married.

We have to remember that marriage is not a right. No one has the "right" to get married. If that were the case I could sue as I am single and being denied MY rights. Marriage is an institution between and man and a woman; the problem is not redefining marriage but redefining our laws. A same sex 'marriage' will always be separate from real marriage (for reasons I stated) yet there is no reason, in terms of law allowed to both couples, it cannot be equal.

To my understanding the case for gay marriage is not so much about being 'married' as much as it is recognition and rights that come with and to married couples; at least by, and for those actually concerned with marriage. So my answer is simple. Allow the same rights; if the partner dies, allow the other life insurance etc etc you can go down the list. That would allow same sex (or even man and women) that spend their life together yet never married the benefits without redefining the entire institution of marriage.

Should they have equal rights? Yes, I do believe that. Should they be married? No. Coupled, partnered, mates; whatever other name you want to call it to allow these rights is fine by be. Just leave the word married out of it.

Does that make me a bigot? No. But I fully understand how some could view it as such. Just remember while we are talking rights, I have every right to post the way I feel, as people have posted how they feel, without being attacked for it. In my mind, you cannot have a same-sex marriage. It is an oxymoron.

Why is marraige not a right? Once people are of age the only reason they can't marry is if they're related or in some places - the same sex.

Here is a definition of marraige:Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition

You choose to include separate gender in your intepretation, I wonder why? The law in the past has also taken that view - the point is to change that intepretation so that everyone is equal. Why would the institution of marraige be changed in even the slightest way?

Straight people aren't going to find themselves less married?!

All it does is embrace MORE people. It doesn't take anything away from anybody or anyone.

Why is the definition of the word the be and end all of the matter for you? Surely that is the least important thing when one is discussing people's civil liberties. It seems a very narrow minded point of view to me.
 
Um, this goes to whom ever captain is the person who made a pun at my spelling. First off I posted that in the early hours of the morning so I was tired, second just because I did not spell it right doesnt mean I dont care honestly my mom is suffering every since the economy has started to have issues. Her work has ripped her off over 500 hundred dollars within the last month or so and fired over 1,000 people. I have been out job hunting and Mcdonalds isn't even accepting new people (you know something is wrong when they don't hire you lol).

Also, Edmund, I just feel that one good thing we have is the whole not being able to breed with one another and that is good for the fact that we can't (for the most part) be married. I do not see why two gay men would want to settle down. I know I certainly do not want to.
 
C
Charlie Kaur
You're only 19!
H
Harm
he's 19, therefore, his opinion is not credible! *eye roll*
Um, this goes to whom ever captain is the person who made a pun at my spelling. First off I posted that in the early hours of the morning so I was tired, second just because I did not spell it right doesnt mean I dont care honestly my mom is suffering every since the economy has started to have issues. Her work has ripped her off over 500 hundred dollars within the last month or so and fired over 1,000 people. I have been out job hunting and Mcdonalds isn't even accepting new people (you know something is wrong when they don't hire you lol).

Also, Edmund, I just feel that one good thing we have is the whole not being able to breed with one another and that is good for the fact that we can't (for the most part) be married. I do not see why two gay men would want to settle down. I know I certainly do not want to.

Oh come on. Just because you don't feel like you want to settle down with a person, you think that no other gay person should have that option? There are plenty of straight people who don't get married, but you don't see anyone saying that the choice should be denied them. Do you really believe that same sex couples should be denied the fundimental legal rights that are afforded to heterosexual married couples when it comes to insurance, inheritance, and seperation?
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
I really am starting to hate your banner luvmuffin.. it's taunting me with
meant to say taunting me with how few days i have left.. i hit a random return key


yes... that is it.. it was just a case of premature punctuation
 
L
Lindsey McDonald
No, we ALL know you meant to say "taunting me with sexy Lindsey", but you got overexcited and had to cover. It's ok, we understand. We know you chose to say it in THIS topic for a reason. :P
Look, IMO marriage was designed for STRAIGHT people. Woman and Man, I personally don't feel that gay people (lesbians included) should have a regular marriage. I think that we should all have the same rights but it is contradicting the definition of it when gay people marry. I would love equal rights but think we should have a diferent kinda ceromony.
 
Look, IMO marriage was designed for STRAIGHT people. Woman and Man, I personally don't feel that gay people (lesbians included) should have a regular marriage. I think that we should all have the same rights but it is contradicting the definition of it when gay people marry. I would love equal rights but think we should have a diferent kinda ceromony.

Why didn't you say that then? What you're talking about is very similar to the situation as it is now in Scotland, where we have Civil Partnerships. Marriage in all but name. And, er, heterosexuality. But to say "For all the gays who want to be married I think this is just awful." is incredibly closed minded. Marriage is no longer a religious ceremony. Straight people can be registered in a government office, without "hearing the word 'god'", so why should that be a consideration? If your only objection is gender roles, then perhaps you need to get out of the 1950s. Marriage wasn't always religious, marriage is no longer solely religious, and marriage is not just about the vows you take on the day. The legal ramifications run much deeper, and to say that a gay couple should be denied that just because you don't want it is ridiculous.
 
Look, I am not stuck in the 50's but you still have butch and femme gays which do have "GENDER ROLES". So all in all it makes sense.
 
Look, I am not stuck in the 50's but you still have butch and femme gays which do have "GENDER ROLES". So all in all it makes sense.

Oh, my, God, NO. That is not the point AT ALL. I'll make it nice and clear:

People should have equal rights, responsibilities and obligations regardless of whether they are straight or gay, femme or butch, man or woman.

This is about SO much more than people being man and wife. Gender roles SHOULD NOT COME INTO THE EQUATION. Chuck Norris should be able to commit legaly and emotionaly to Rambo - it doesn't matter whether one views themself as the wife or not. Their relationship (and might I say, what a relationship THAT would be) would be just as valid as any straight persons'.
 
Us poofs have just as much right to be married and miserable as you heteros!

Actually...I'll stick to common-law...

As you were...
 
Its not Prop 8 BUT its something related and it doesn't really need its own thread when we have this one here.

Sounds promising

NH Senate votes to allow gay marriage
NORMA LOVE


CONCORD, N.H. - The state Senate voted Wednesday to move New Hampshire a step closer to becoming the fifth state to allow gay marriage, but made a distinction between religious and civil ceremonies, bringing back an idea the House rejected in March.

The bill, which passed the Senate 13-11, goes to the House, which can agree with the Senate, kill the bill or ask to negotiate something different.

Gov. John Lynch would only see a bill if both chambers agree. Lynch has said marriage is a word that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman, but he has not specifically said he would veto a gay marriage bill.

"I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples," Lynch said in a statement Wednesday. "This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."

In its debate on the bill last month, the House had rejected a measure that would have established civil and religious marriage licenses, though it didn't define the difference.

The Senate version goes into much greater detail about the distinction between the two types of marriages.

"This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens," said Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from Exeter.

The bill allows churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Also in contrast to the House's version, the Senate's would allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples united by civil unions in the past year would automatically be assumed to have a "civil marriage" under the bill.

"This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides of this debate and meets our shared goal of equality under state law," said. Sen. Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat from Plymouth.

Opponents argued that marriage is a sacred religious institution that would be cheapened by allowing gays to marry. They said gay marriages threaten the foundation of human civilization.

"The marriage of a man and a woman is not based on prejudice but on the fact of human nature," Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau of Derry said. "Only a man and a woman can bear children. ... Only through the union of a man and a woman life can begin and a child can have a father and a mother."

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage. California briefly allowed it last year, but a voter initiative in November repealed it.

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will sign a gay marriage bill if state lawmakers pass one that's been introduced there. In New York, Gov. David Paterson is making another push to legalize gay marriage.

Maine legislators also are considering allowing gay marriage.

Two years ago, New Hampshire lawmakers passed, and the governor signed, a bill allowing civil unions. More than 600 New Hampshire couples have entered into civil unions since the law took effect last year.

Federal law does not recognize civil unions or same-sex marriages. Voters in 29 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom