The latest from the Bay Area Reporter:
Equality California has opted not to pursue a repeal of Proposition 8 in 2012, the statewide lobbying group announced this week.
... [a spokeswoman] said public opinion on marriage equality has shifted more in favor of such unions, but "it's just not enough yet to launch an initiative campaign without assuming a tremendous amount of risk."
... Asked about the possibility of trying to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box in 2012 before EQCA's decision was announced, many LGBT leaders expressed reluctance.
Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said trying to repeal Prop 8 in 2012 would be "a terrible idea."
68 Comments
The ballot box is no place for minority rights to be determined.
Of course, if marriage corruption advocates thought they could win they'd be screeching that the ballot box is exactly the place for the definition of marriage to be determined.
Their arguments are so thin it's laughable.
The proposition 8 trial will be much more beneficial to the LGBT rights movement.
If our arguments were so 'thin' Barb, you NOM folks wouldn't be shaking in your boots at there mere thought of the Prop 8 trial tapes being released.
What "rights" do the LBGT folks not now enjoy?
DoE: The ability to enter into a civil marriage with the love of their life. But that wasn't the point of my comment. My point was, the proposition 8 trial furthers the interests of the LGBT community more so than a repeal campaign would.
Bryce, I believe I've asked you before if you think that marriage eligibility rights should be extended to include same-sex siblings, or same-sex parent/child couples, or even same-sexed groups. After all, they love each other, too, for life!
If you love your children the same way you love your husband, you've got some problems, lady.
EvolvedAlready, you seem to be implying that different groups should be treated differently.
Is marriage defined by whom we love, or by other parameters?
And, since my comment on the previous thread is getting dropped, could you please give a more specific answer as to what it is exactly that makes homosexuals a unique group? Being persecuted, mutual respect, love, compassion--those are not characteristics unique to homosexuals.
What exactly is it that is unique (one-of-a-kind) to the gay community?
"If you love your children the same way you love your husband, you've got some problems, lady."
Straw man. Try again.
"EvolvedAlready, you seem to be implying that different groups should be treated differently."
Indeed, DoE. I was thinking the same thing.
"What exactly is it that is unique (one-of-a-kind) to the gay community?"
Simple; same-sex activity provides no value to society whatsover....
Civil marriage is, at its least, a collection of more than a thousand legal rights and responsibilities. You asked who I think the right of marriage should be extended to. To answer your question, I believe that any single adult should be able to enter into a marriage contract with another single adult, provided they both consent.
Gays have over 1,000 unique characteristics - the individual benefits not extended to them when they decide to spend their life with the person they have fallen in love with, even if they happen to live in a state where gay marriage is legal. Need anymore Daughter?
"any single adult should be able to enter into a marriage contract with another single adult, provided they both consent."
Including siblings, or, a parent/child, just to clarify?
Why not groups?
"Gays have over 1,000 unique characteristics"
No, that is incorrect. Those aren't intrinsic.
Name something intrinsic, that sets an individual homosexual, or the homosexual community apart from other groups or individuals.
After all, we don't extend marriage privileges to siblings or groups, or parents and their own kids. And no one argues that these individuals are being persecuted, or denied any rights because they can't marry each other.
Name something intrinsic that sets you apart.
Yes, DoE, including siblings and a parent/child. What we are talking about is civil marriage, the conferring of legal rights and obligations on the partners. Also, the legal contract is not indicative of what goes on behind closed doors, nor should the government should not intrude upon people's bedrooms. But also to clarify, sibling-sibling and parent-sibling partnerships would be very rare indeed. And since the marriage partners would need to be single, the parent would have to be divorced from the other parent.
Why not groups? The thousand-plus legal rights and obligations of marriage would create a very tangled web if shared between more than two people.
"a collection of more than a thousand legal rights and responsibilities."
You make it sound so complicated. If all those legal rights and responsibilities were stripped away, what would it be, at its core?
So, Bryce, if siblings were allowed to get married, or a parent and child, or a group, would this fundamentally change marriage from what it is now--the public union of a man and a woman who are not close kin?
"The thousand-plus legal rights and obligations of marriage would create a very tangled web if shared between more than two people."
Agreed, but the same could be said of SSM, and the presumption of paternity, which is intrinsically tied to marriage law.
Furthermore, why can't a group make the same claim for rights, as pro-SSmers?
And, can we agree, that defining marriage is not, at issue, about sexual orientation? Based on what you've said about letting parents and siblings get married (or not)?
It's clear that the Proposition 8 opponents have given up, as well they should. As long as we can call referendums on their BS, they will always lose. And that's just what we're going to do.
Evolved already,
Individual benefits and rights aren't intrinsic characteristics to an individual or a group. I'm denied a license from practicing medicine, not because I'm a particular sexual orientation, but because I've not done that which makes me eligible, namely, complete a degree in medicine. Yet being denied a license to be a doctor doesn't make me persecuted, denied any rights, etc.
What intrinsic characteristics set apart homosexuals as individuals, or as a group?
And let's hope this comment makes it, as this is the third try on this question.
DoE, if all those rights were stripped away, civil marriage would be nothing.
Of course it would change what civil marriage is now. So would allowing LGBT couples to marry. The whole goal of the marriage equality movement is to change civil marriage laws, is it not? By the way, first cousins can marry in more than twenty states, if I am not mistaken.
Thank you for an honest answer. So often, we hear that SSM won't change marriage, or affect "my marriage."
You've been honest enough to admit it will, fundamentally.
But, again, what's keeping LGBT couples from marrying isn't their sexual orientation, is it?
That marriage should be changed, fundamentally, is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
When the NOM folks decided to make this a war of words and definitions, they conceded defeat.
They know there truly is no solid foundation to their arguments - we know gay married couples do not harm societies, we know gay married couples do not cause economic decline, we know gay married couples are fit to act as parents, we know gay married couples are at a disadvantage compared to their straight neighbors when it comes to their marriage benefits.
You may or may not win a few more rounds at the ballot box, but you'll certainly end up losing in the end. I just hope you've all got a few years left in the tank to see it happen.
Well, no, your marriage won't be changed. You will still have the same rights, benefits, and obligations that you had before same sex marriage was legal. The change is that more couples (same-sex couples) will be able to enter into those rights/benefits/oblications. The truth is that all civil marriages are in fact domestic partnerships/civil unions/civil parnerships/et cetera. The government just calls that type of legal contract "marriage". I hope that isn't too confusing. (:
Please keep in mind the differences between civil marriage and religious marriage. (:
EvolvedAlready,the outrageous decision to treat a person of one's own sex as a life partner of the same type as a marriage partner deserves punishment by more than the withholding of those 1,000 rights one must have an opposite-sex partner to qualify for.(You know that,but you're in desperate denial).Same-sex couples harm societies just by EXISTING and ruining their optimal configuration!
Bryce,I am not religious.And I consider that civil marriage serves no useful purpose unless it requires partners to be of opposite sexes.
Louis, you've got to stop posting circular arguments. Please - for the sake of your cause. Just provide some rational explanations.
"Bryce,I am not religious.And I consider that civil marriage serves no useful purpose unless it requires partners to be of opposite sexes."
Okay... and why do you believe that?
"When the NOM folks decided to make this a war of words and definitions, they conceded defeat."
Evolved Enough, with all due respect, I don't believe you've evolved enough. Definitions do matter, because they affect how the law will be implemented. That is basic. Do you see anyone at NOM waving a white flag? Why don't you get up to speed on the real issues, by first doing some research as to what the law actually says about eligibility for marriage.
Bryce, no confusion on my part. I would venture to say that there are legal differences between marriage and civil unions. At NOM, we're defending legal marriage, not "religious" marriage. We're discussing all marriages that are licensed or regulated by the state, whether contracted civilly, or in a church.
There are fundamental differences between the union of a man and a woman, and between that of two siblings, or two non-related same-sex individuals (and that is irregardless of their individual sexual orientation).
If that is not so, why doesn't the govt. give out licenses to opposite-sexed siblings? Or opposite-sexed parents and kids?
Calling all adult unions marriage (whether they love each other or not), undermines the meaning of marriage, and directly affects issues of paternity, specifically presumption of paternity. Marriage between a man and a woman gives context to presumption of paternity. Without that, males in marriage no longer have the same obligations to their wives as before. And husbands move onto shaky ground, where paternity is concerned. That fact does fundamentally change my marriage.
Plus, marriage becomes watered down so much it loses significance.
OK, just made a long-winded reply to Bryce. Moderator, please post!
Thanks moderator!
DoE thanks for your post above and outlining how serious the marriage debate is!
"DoE, if all those rights were stripped away, civil marriage would be nothing."
Not quite: you'd still have gender complementarity, in which a man and a woman, who have fundamental gender differences, combine to make a unit where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Also, if they create a new citizen, which only a man + a woman can do, the woman can make claims on the father of her child for support, and vice versa, and the child can make claims on both for support and protection. And all this without the govt. having to pick up the tab. All in one tidy package, even if they were to get no tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
"They know there truly is no solid foundation to their arguments - we know gay married couples do not harm societies, we know gay married couples do not cause economic decline, we know gay married couples are fit to act as parents, we know gay married couples are at a disadvantage compared to their straight neighbors when it comes to their marriage benefits."
So, what exactly is a "married gay couple?" If a gay man marries a gay woman, do they constitute a gay married couple? What does their being gay have to do with their eligibility for marriage?
I'll reference you to the first part of my post DOE - more word games. You couldn't resist. Thanks for taking the bait.
The tell-tell sign of pathology sufferers is in their knee jerk blaming of their victims for the crimes that they themselves are committing.
I now return you to your racist and bigoted rants.
You know what's really amusing, EA?
You can't answer my question:
So, what exactly is a "married gay couple?" If a gay man marries a gay woman, do they constitute a gay married couple? What does their being gay have to do with their eligibility for marriage?
Bryce,once more (so you have time to cover your ears and make noise so you can keep pretending I haven't blown your position out of the water when I clearly have)...there is a clear public interest in seeing to it that opposite-sex relationships are formed and maintained.There is no public interest in there being even a single same-sex sexual relationship in any human community.A responsible government must encourage only the one and not the other.
Louis E., you wrote:
"...there is a clear public interest in seeing to it that opposite-sex relationships are formed and maintained."
True, and no one is trying to stop opposite sex people from coupling up, making babies or getting married.
"There is no public interest in there being even a single same-sex sexual relationship in any human community."
Wrong! There is no interest in YOUR world, but there is plenty of interest in my world, and a lot of other worlds as well.
"A responsible government must encourage only the one and not the other."
Why? To keep some people happy and not others? What is the interest in THAT?
What minority right? See Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct. 37 (1972)
Same-sex affectionados are a minority in the same sense that murderers, rapists, and thieves are minorities.
Neither warrant societies acceptance.
Zak Jones,you are confusing your private interest in getting away with having a same-sex sexual relationship with the public interest in steering you away from that error.That there are opposite-sex couples is good for everyone.That there might be same-sex couples is not good at all.We reward what there is a public interest in rewarding.
"That there are opposite-sex couples is good for everyone."
Yep. I agree.
"That there might be same-sex couples is not good at all."
Why not?
New civil rights would properly be a matter for the people and/ or the legislature to decide through the democratic process.
The majority of high courts to include the U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson , have already determined that same sex marriage is not a fundamental right at law.
Louis E:
"...there is a clear public interest in seeing to it that opposite-sex relationships are formed and maintained."
Could you actually explain what that interest is?
"Could you actually explain what that interest is?"
As stated many times "to ensure that a child -the future of society- is more likely to be raised in the most advantageous environment possible."
Society has no interest whasoever in who or what you love, but it most certainly has an interest in its own future.
But as not every opposite-sex couple has or raises children, and as not every opposite-sex couple which has or raises children is suited to raise children...that doesn't even work as a reason for "seeing to it that opposite-sex relationships are formed and maintained," much less a reason for seeing to it that same-sex relationships *aren't* formed and maintained.
"Society has no interest whasoever in who or what you love, but it most certainly has an interest in its own future."
Society's future is guaranteed. Legalising same-sex marriage isn't going to endanger society's future in any way.
David Brider,allowing the sex of one's partner to be treated as a matter of indifference rather than maintaining an unambiguously preferential policy toward opposite-sex couples is bad for society.
Louis E:
Society is doing okay in those nations and states which have legalised same-sex marriage. So no, it's not bad for society.
David,
Each of the ten countries they have corrupted the institution of marriage in their nation are on the verge of financial default. There are no coincidences in life and there is a direct correlation between morality and financial health.
.
David Brider,SSM **CONSTITUTES** a damage to society.
Louis:
No, same-sex marriage does absolutely no damage to society. I'm not sure why you think otherwise?
When we speak of damage to society we must look at the rational effect it would have once a generation had been raised under that philosophy.
A first step is to recognize that same sex marriage promotes a counter philosophy as to what is moral, and its rational to believe the entrenchment of a wrong moral philosophy would eventually have harmful effects on society in numerous ways.
One way a same sex marriage law would hurt society is that it would misguide children to believe men having sex with men is life enhancing conduct while suppressing the truth that it statistically has a ruinous effect on happiness.
A same sex marriage law implicitly imposes a white washed version of a harmful behavior that will hurt many who believe that version.
Behaviors which ruin quality of life, and behaviors which enhance quality of life should not be presented to children as equal to each other.
Common sense requires that we treat these two categories differently. To do otherwise is to promote a lie that hurts children. Its unconscionable to do that.
A second way, I think, is that a same same sex marriage law would naturally erode traditional sexual morality in society, resulting in a less moral environment around all children.
In turn, a less moral society would tend to increase high risk behaviors by children and around children, incline toward more single parent households with less marriage between men and women, with less security for children all around.
This comment by TC Matthews from another blog is a fitting reply:
Ha! bman, I haven't written that line in a while, but I still think of it every time they pull out the old crystal ball inevitability dogma.
bman:
"A first step is to recognize that same sex marriage promotes a counter philosophy as to what is moral, and its rational to believe the entrenchment of a wrong moral philosophy would eventually have harmful effects on society in numerous ways."
Same sex marriage promotes a counter philosophy to what you, and others who disagree with it, believe is moral. That doesn't mean it's a wrong moral philosophy. It's just a different moral philosophy. It could be that it's *your* moral philosophy that's wrong.
bman:
"One way a same sex marriage law would hurt society is that it would misguide children to believe men having sex with men is life enhancing conduct while suppressing the truth that it statistically has a ruinous effect on happiness."
Same-sex marriage is not the same thing as men having sex with men. For one thing, same-sex marriage can include women. For another, people can have sex without being married. For yet another, people be married without having sex. And for another, I tend to assume (rightly or wrongly) that people who are married are monogamous, so - in the case of a couple of married men who are sexually active - it would be man having sex (sometimes) with man.
And sex isn't life-enhancing and has a ruinous effect on happiness? I don't have much experience of it myself, but my understanding is that, contrary to your opinions, when sex takes place between consenting adults it can be a very pleasurable experience indeed. From what I gather, that's irrespective of whether it's between a man and a woman, two men, two women, or in groups consisting of more than two people.
As for the notion that "it would misguide children" about sex...I don't think that most children really think very much about sex.
You are not making a proper distinction between sex and sexual depravity.
Sexual depravity is ruinous.
Sex without depravity is not.
Your comment is merely a truism. Besides, it does nothing to contradict my statement.
I referred to the misguiding effect a SSM law would have on children.
Same sex marriage does not need to "be the same thing" to have that effect.
Since the law would recognize same sex relationships as marriage it would have the effect mentioned, especially if ssm was promoted to children in public schools as a wholesome relationship.
bman:
Okay, so legalising same-sex marriage would promote same-sex marrige as life-enhancing. This is a problem why,exactly?
Your question would reset the discussion to the beginning instead of progressing forward based on what has already been covered.
I previously stated two problems with SSM law.
First, it would misguide children to believe men having sex with men is life enhancing conduct while suppressing the truth that it statistically has a ruinous effect on happiness.
Second, it would naturally erode traditional sexual morality in society, resulting in a less moral environment around all children. A less moral society would tend to increase high risk behaviors by children and around children, incline toward more single parent households with less marriage between men and women, with less security for children all around.
Why do you think it would have either of those two effects, though? It seems to me you're guilty of the same Crystal Ball that you accuse same-sex marriage advocates of.
* Do children really think all that much about sex? Would a child seeing a married couple really start thinking about what their being married says about their sex life, if any?
* Is sex between two consenting adults - whether man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman - *not* life-enhancing? Does it really have "a ruinous effect on happiness"? I'm not convinced, personally. And anyway, even if you're right, that would be an argument against sex, not against marriage.
* What do you mean by "life-enhancing* anyway?
There is a significant difference.
You made an absolute statement, "Society's future is guaranteed. Legalising same-sex marriage isn't going to endanger society's future in any way."
By contrast, I appealed to a natural chain of events, "....it would naturally erode traditional sexual morality in society, resulting in a less moral environment around all children. A less moral society would tend to increase high risk behaviors by children and around children, incline toward more single parent households with less marriage between men and women, with less security for children all around."
My comment only required common sense to make it.
Your comment would have required a crystal ball.