Same-sex marriage

[Uuaww]

California has a proposition on the ballot revolving around same-sex marriage. I personally am pretty moderate in everything not relating to environment, and can usually see both points of view on every topic but I just can't for this one. I mean I understand that people are pro and against abortion because of the life factor, I understand gun control relates to public safety, I also understand that the war touches each person individually.

But I really don't understand why gay marriage matters so much? It legitimately doesn't affect the marriage of anyone else, so why does it matter? Someone enlighten me please, I need to understand both sides before voting.

 

[phragmipedium]

It doesn't really, as far as I can see. Some people are afraid it ruins the sanctity of marriage - I don't really see that the institution of marriage is doing so hot currently as it is, personally, but that's an argument against it.

Marriage is currently a legal institution as well as religious, granting a lot of rights to married partners. I personally think same-sex marriage should absolutely be legal, and I don't think it's okay to deny consenting, adult same-sex couples the legal right to marry. At the very least I believe there should be civil unions, but I'm not crazy about the separate-but-equal aspect there. Married people can easily and without jumping through hoops: visit each other in the hospital, be on joint insurance policies, receive survivor benefits and social security, file joint tax returns, and a whole host of other things - not least of which is having your union with your life partner recognized as a marriage just like anyone else's. Marriage is frequently as secular as it is religious in our society, and I think gay couples should be able to wed also, either secularly or in a church that's comfortable with it. Though I don't attend church, I believe churches should be able to decide who they will and will not marry.

I know wikipedia's not a trusted source, but a brief resource on rights and responsibilies of married couples can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Kudos to you to getting out and researching so you can make an educated vote, no matter what you decide.

 

[themilesfamily]

Additional question for those in states that have legalized gay marriage (not just civil unions): Do churches that believe homosexuality is against their religion have the right to say "no" to marry a same-sex couple or would they risk the potential of a lawsuit on the grounds of discrimination?

I've always wondered that.

Also, what exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

 

[Master Mason]

Well, I'll give you my thoughts on the subject.

I don't think that the states should legalize gay marriage. But I also don't think the states should be sanctioning hetero marriage either. Marriage is a religious institituion and should be reserved for the churches to decide who to marry. If your church wishes to only marry hetero people so be it, if your church wishes to marry same sex people, so be it.

What the state should sanction are civil unions, and civil unions should be allowed to be formed by any 2 consenting adults.

But that's just me.

 

[phragmipedium]

Additional question for those in states that have legalized gay marriage (not just civil unions): Do churches that believe homosexuality is against their religion have the right to say "no" to marry a same-sex couple or would they risk the potential of a lawsuit on the grounds of discrimination?

I've always wondered that.

Also, what exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I'm not in a state that has legal gay marriage, though I am in Oregon where civil unions are legal. Currently, I'm not sure what would prevent a gay couple (in states where gay marriage is legal or not) from suing a church for refusing to marry them. People sue people for stuff all the time. It may have already been written into the laws in those states that churches would not be penalized for exercising their religious beliefs - I don't know if that's the case, but it would make sense that it might have been necessary to get the laws passed in the first place. I would hope, for the good of the movement, that the LGBTQ community might refrain from filing lawsuits like that even if they could. If it could be said that religious institutions could be exempt from a discrimination suit in order to simply make gay marriage a legal right, I would fully support that. I think the separation of church and state and freedom of religion offers a protection to churches, and I don't think you'd see even the ACLU take on something like that. Besides that, for me, the potential that someone *might* sue is not enough to keep something from being legalized - deal with frivolous lawsuits as they come up, set a precedent in courts that churches can decide their own policy, and go from there.

A civil union *or* gay marriage, I believe, can grant all state-level marriage rights that a traditional marriage can - it depends on the state. In Oregon, I think civil unions have all the same state-level rights as traditional marriages. However, I think the Defense of Marriage Act prevents civil unions or states with legal gay marriage from extending federal marriage rights to same-sex couples, like social security claims or joint federal income tax returns.

 

[Alice's Mom]

a very good friend recently married his boyfriend. they are now husband and husband. being married means a lot to them, its a step they have wished to take for a very long time.

i am voting no on prop. 8, i could never in good conscious deny someone equal rights.

my seven year old knows exactly what being gay means and when we talked about gay marriage today (she saw a yes on prop. 8 sign and wanted to know what it was about) she said that it didn't sound fair to not let gay people marry. even a seven year old gets equal rights!

master mason:

just wanted to say thanks for your town loaning out its fire department, i saw a gilroy fire truck helping to put out the porter ranch fire.

 

[Master Mason]

a very good friend recently married his boyfriend. they are now husband and husband. being married means a lot to them, its a step they have wished to take for a very long time.

i am voting no on prop. 8, i could never in good conscious deny someone equal rights.

my seven year old knows exactly what being gay means and when we talked about gay marriage today (she saw a yes on prop. 8 sign and wanted to know what it was about) she said that it didn't sound fair to not let gay people marry. even a seven year old gets equal rights!

master mason:

just wanted to say thanks for your town loaning out its fire department, i saw a gilroy fire truck helping to put out the porter ranch fire.

That's good, there were lots of SoCal units up here when we were burning. OT my oldest son finishes his fire academy in December, and then he'll be out there as well

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

Well, I'll give you my thoughts on the subject.

I don't think that the states should legalize gay marriage. But I also don't think the states should be sanctioning hetero marriage either. Marriage is a religious institituion and should be reserved for the churches to decide who to marry. If your church wishes to only marry hetero people so be it, if your church wishes to marry same sex people, so be it.

What the state should sanction are civil unions, and civil unions should be allowed to be formed by any 2 consenting adults.

But that's just me.

I somewhat agree with this sentiment. BTW, I grew up in Gilroy. Went to Brownell Elementary and still come by for the Garlic Festival.

I'm voting No on Prop 8 in support of gay marriage. I am Christian and I do believe the bible says homosexuality is a sin (which is probably the one area of my faith where I really struggle in understanding why it is a sin, but I believe it is in there). But for that matter it also says marriage between a believer and a non believer is a sin, as is divorce outside of very few specific reasons, fornication (sex before marriage), etc. Christians may believe that marriage was invented by God, but it's hard to argue that it hasn't become also become a secular institution in this nation. If Christians want to take a stand on marriages based on what is Biblical than to me there can be no picking and choosing which sins are okay. Churches need to oppose it all or none, it is not up to us to decide which sins are more important to God. And since we have separation of church and state, it's not really up to churches to define what constitues a marriage by the state.

In my opinion the term marriage has been secularized beyond the point where Christians will be able to successfully reclaim it to mean the covenant God intended. Let people (all people) have equal state marriage rights, but let the church have the right to perform covenant marriages as intended in the Bible, legally having the ability to exclude those who they believe the Bible says would be entering into a sinful union (and realizing many churches would define this differently). I don't think it would be anymore right to ask a Pastor to perform a wedding ceremony he believed was a sin, than it would be to deny equal rights to a homosexual couple and prevent them from marrying.

For a final in one of my classes I have to give a speech on Prop 8, presenting both sides of the issue. My Prof's dh is a lobbybist for Yes on Prop 8 and my Prof is hardcore. I'm a tad terrified.

 

[bicker]

Here in MA, where gay marriage is legal, no one has ever sued a church to marry them. That's not the kind of marriage that is legal. The lawsuits would be against town clerks. That's the only kind of marriage that is legal, and therefore that which gays wishing to marry have a right to assert.

I see no rationality to oppose gay marriage while something like divorce is still legal. If you're going to ban things, why not ban bad things, instead of good things?

 

[LJC1861]

Lisa and I have been together for going on 8 years. We cannot file taxes jointly, be covered on each others insurance policies, or be allowed to visit one another in the hospital as family....even though we are. We are about as married as any couple could be, except for one thing.....we cannot legally do so.

If something were to happen to either of us, the other person would have to rely on our blood family to make any decisions. Now, we are blessed to have two supportive families, who understand our committed relationship and have verbally agreed that we call the shots....even though ultimately the words may have to come from one of them. That is horrible to even think about, but when such a right does not exist for you, you have to make a way to make what you wish happen, if that makes any sense at all.

Being able to be legally married, would open many doors for us and ultimately solve many potential problems. It is something that I wish the state of NC would consider, but I fear that they never will.

I wear a diamond on the third finger of my left hand, given to me by Lisa. She wears one also, given by me. We both hope that someday we can be legally married. In the meantime we are planning a commitment ceremony but it is in no way the same.

Linda

 

[holycow]

Here is an interesting article to read. It might help you make your decision.

It isn't just about 'allowing' gays to marry.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...27F03A-80C6-4259-8A81-E5D73F237D93}&dist=hppr


From the Wall Street Journal.

 

[bicker]

Holy cow, what a bunch of --- deception. I've seen a lot of silliness passed off as news online, but this takes the cake.

Here is an interesting article to read. It might help you make your decision.

It isn't just about 'allowing' gays to marry.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...27F03A-80C6-4259-8A81-E5D73F237D93}&dist=hppr


From the Wall Street Journal.

Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8, a project of California Renewal. 915 L Street, #C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814. 916-446-2956. Major funding by Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage California Committee and Focus on the Family.
SOURCE ProtectMarriage.com

It is an ADVERTISEMENT from people who are opposed to homosexuals marrying. Don't be snowed under.

 

[chrisw127]

If you have a law which extends a right to one group while excluding another, courts have said you need a compelling reason to do so or that law is unconstitutional. So it's fine to prohibit two 12-year olds from marrying because we don't believe they are old enough to do so. Or, for example, to prohibit first cousins from marrying, which 13 or so states do. Any law which prohibits gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional then, unless there is a compelling reason. And of course, there isn't one.

The constitutionality of the issue should solve the problem right there. Joe Biden touched on this a bit in the VP debate.

I'm all for gay marriage. You can't make religious organizations marry them, but why not extend the same benefits to gay couples that we do to heterosexual couples?

 

[holycow]

I wouldn't have posted it if I felt it was all lies. That is your opinion.


You can't make religious organizations marry them

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

They actually can marry civilly. Calif. voted on this law in 2000 with over 60% of the people against gay marriage. The courts have gone against the will of the people. Which is actually my biggest concern here. Taking away the right to our vote.

I won't argue the point. Just wanted to give some opposing information that might be useful to the OP.

 

[bicker]

I wouldn't have posted it if I felt it was all lies. That is your opinion.

No, the fact that it was an advertisement paid for by an organization that opposes same-sex marriage is not an opinion. It is a fact. I even presented, in my message, a copy of the attribution for the web page you linked to, showing, definitively, that it is an advertisement.

Fact. Not opinion.

You can't make religious organizations marry them

I agree completely. The only exception is that if a religious organization offers their facility for rental as a public offering, then they cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in such an offering. However, surely, the clergy of the religious organization cannot be compelled, or even expected, to perform the ceremony, under the auspices of the religious organization.

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

No it won't be. We've had same-sex marriage here in MA a bit longer than they've had it in CA, and what you're guessing would happen hasn't.

The courts have gone against the will of the people.

The courts are compelled to enforce the US Constitution and the constitution of the state, regardless of popular opinion. The courts, ostensibly, exist, at least in part, to protect significant minorities from tyranny of the majority.

Which is actually my biggest concern here. Taking away the right to our vote.

There is no danger of the right to vote being taken away.

I won't argue the point.

The article was an advertisement; there is no reason to argue that point; it is -- that's factual and not debateable. With regard to the rest, you have a right to defend the points you've made from the rebuttals other folks have posted, or to let the rebuttals stand.

 

[chrisw127]

You can't make religious organizations marry them

But they will be harrassed/sued etc....if they don't. That will be the next step.

And a judge wouldn't let the lawsuit proceed because religious organizations don't fall under the same umbrella that government organizations do. They may "discriminate" based upon their beliefs.

Please note that I'm not trying to use the word "discriminate" in a pejorative way, only to illustrate that religious organizations can pick and choose whom they marry, hire, etc., even if how they do so would be deemed discrimination by other organizations.

 

[bicker]

Marry, yes. Hire, no. Marrying people in a church is a religious action governed therefore by religious precepts. Hiring people in a church (for anything other than ministerial positions) is a civil action governed therefore by secular precepts.

 

[chrisw127]

Marry, yes. Hire, no. Marrying people in a church is a religious action governed therefore by religious precepts. Hiring people in a church is a civil action governed therefore by secular precepts.

No, religious organizations may discriminate even in hiring if it is accordance with their religious beliefs. Obviously, there are gray areas here, for example, it would be impossible for a religious organization to argue that not hiring a minority as church secretary conflicted with their religious beliefs. But if they can find a reason that fits within their religion, they may discriminate.

In case you're interested:

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 (the religious corporation exemption) makes the subchapter of the law that requires “equal opportunity” inapplicable with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by an educational institution or corporation of its activities. This section of the law has been interpreted by the courts to allow a religious institution to discriminate on the basis of religion (but not race, sex, etc.), assuming of course that the defense is not used as a pretext for discrimination on some other illegal basis.


42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1) provides that it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees on the basis of religion when religion is a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This is the narrowest of the three exemptions, and it is generally the employer's burden to justify a BFOQ employment action.

Under the Title IX regulation, an institution that is controlled by a religious organization is exempt from those sections of the regulation that are inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization. Institutions may, under the religious exemption provision, fill certain employment positions on the basis of sex, if this practice is consistent with the tenets of the institution's controlling religious organization.


I'm sorry. I probably didn't word the previous post very well. Also, I spend way too long working in civil rights law.

 

[dejr_8]

I will be flamed for this but ... if you permit gay marriage I don't understand how you can continue prevent polygamous marriages.

All arguments used to support gay marriage are just as valid for polygamous marriages.

In my view, we have just reached the slippery slope.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Holy cow, what a bunch of --- deception. I've seen a lot of silliness passed off as news online, but this takes the cake.
Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8, a project of California Renewal. 915 L Street, #C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814. 916-446-2956. Major funding by Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage California Committee and Focus on the Family.
SOURCE ProtectMarriage.com

It is an ADVERTISEMENT from people who are opposed to homosexuals marrying. Don't be snowed under.

Focus on the Family....That guy is a nut job. He makes me sick.