Same-sex marriage

[eternaldisneyfan]

Proposition 8 is a Constitutional Amendment-those are extraordinarily hard to overturn.

 

[Chuck S]

The church issue-see Parker v. Hurley-it will take away the rights of parents- separation of church and state! Same reason why, although I am extremely religious, I am against prayer in school

This appears to be a case in which it was ruled that parents cannot tell a public school what it can and cannot teach because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

What does that have to do with whether a Catholic Church will be forced to marry 2 Jews?

In other words, Parker Vs Hurley enforces the separation of church and state. Public schools teach what is secular, and if gay marriage is legal, including it in a discussion of legal marriage in the classroom, is a secular discussion. Secular education is the responsibility of the public schools.

Religious marriage and religious values are the responsibility of the parents and the church.

 

[Chuck S]

Proposition 8 is a Constitutional Amendment-those are extraordinarily hard to overturn.

Yes, and how sad that so many Californians seem ready and willing to make discrimination part of their constitution.

 

[Goofyluver]

Be in love. Make it "official". Have a party. Wear a dress (or not)!

 

[Tigger Woods]

Why do they allow props on the ballot in this state that are unconstitutional? Will the outcome of prop 8 even matter or can it simply be overturned again?

I'm voting no, BTW. It just seems like a waste of time to vote on something that can be overturned by a judge. I remember an earlier proposition on illegal immigration that later got overturned by a judge. That kind of thing ticks me off.

If Prop 8 is amended into the California Constitution, it cannot be overturned by a judge. The U.S. Supreme court has already said it's up to individual states to define 'marriage.'

 

[Handbag Lady]

Why do they allow props on the ballot in this state that are unconstitutional? Will the outcome of prop 8 even matter or can it simply be overturned again?

I'm voting no, BTW. It just seems like a waste of time to vote on something that can be overturned by a judge. I remember an earlier proposition on illegal immigration that later got overturned by a judge. That kind of thing ticks me off.

I don't know why they allow props on the ballot that are later determined to be unconstitutional. Seems like a huge waste of taxpayer money to me. I don't remember the Proposition number that is was a few years ago, but that is the one that all of the PRO 8'ers are complaining about. CA passed it but it was unconstitutional, so now they are crying that four judges are going against "what the people want." Baloney.

 

[Kuzco]

Here's the WIKI post for the MA Ruling.

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

Every place that "same-sex couple" is used replace with a "polygamist group". The arguments are still constitutionally valid.

My argument is once you have denied the State the right to define marriage on one basis (i.e. only a man and a woman) you MUST deny the State the ability to define marriage using any other basis as well (i.e the state can't limit marriage to only two people).

Interesting point, but I believe there is a difference. Under equal protection analysis, the court compares two groups of individuals. One group is granted certain rights, and the other group is not. In the MA ruling, the court analyzed whether there was any rational reason to grant heterosexual individuals certain rights, while denying homosexual individuals the same rights. Finding no rational reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, the court ruled in favor of same sex marriage.

Comparing heterosexual individuals to heterosexual individuals versus comparing polygamous individuals to nonpolygamous individuals is quite different, and would require an examination of other factors. I do not think the courts would necessarily reach the same conclusion.

 

[TwinsinCA]

Proposition 8 is a Constitutional Amendment-those are extraordinarily hard to overturn.

Thanks for the information. I didn't know exactly how this was different from the last proposition on the subject.

 

[JohnZ46]

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding


October 11, 2008
Contact: Chip White/Sonja Eddings Brown, 916-215-4392
SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

"Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids," said Yes on 8—ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding," Schubert said.

When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was "a teachable moment," the school's principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.

"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage," said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila. "We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will," Avila added.

The lesbian teacher's wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: "The door's wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not."

The Yes on 8 campaign's ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. “It's totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.” The field trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.

Has there ever been a field trip to any other wedding???

You left out this part of the "article" (paid submission):

For more information, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com

Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8, a project of California Renewal. 915 L Street, Suite 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

Here's the Yahoo link showing that this was a press release that yahoo was paid to report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200810...en_to_san_francisco_city_hall_for_gay_wedding




Here's a link to a report from an actual newspaper (ie. not written and distributed by ProtectMarriage.com):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&hw=gay+wedding&sn=006&sc=452

Here's an excerpt:

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

Please note that the trip was a surprise trip arranged by a parent (not something being taught by the instructor). All of the children who attended had their parent's approval.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I modified the original post to clarify...Churches would be forced to marry anyone who asked.

You're making stuff again, and again it's completely incoherent.

Why would leaving things as they are NOW in CA lead to the Catholic Church being forced to marry two Jews?

 

[perla75]

Which is why I advocate leaving the word Marriage to the churches and Civil Unions to the state.

The only rational (to me) arguement against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs, so leave the term to the religions and let the state sanction Civil Unions. In this manner everyone gets what they want. Don't know, always seams like the easy logical answer to me.

I'm sure this was just wording on your part, because of course there are many other religious venues where people get married (i.e. jewish temples, Kingdom Hall, etc...), but what about atheists? Where would they get married if marriages were only left up to religious institutions??

 

[zippitydoo]

This is something I do not understand also. I honestly do not see why the government should even get involved in this issue. They should allow gay marriages. I feel if two people are in love they should be allowed to marry. nobody esp the gov't should tell them otherwise.

 

[Rence]

The 10 commandments don't say anything about gay marriage, but they sure are clear about lying. I wonder how those running the ads with all the lies about gay marriage reconcile this?

The one thing that baffles me is how the religious community can oppose gay marriage on the basis of the bible, while they turn a blind eye to so much else in the bible. The bible is a huge book, it says absolutely nothing about gay marriage specifically. It also says relatively very little about homosexuality in general. If you consider the huge number of passages in the bible and the fact that only a handful deal with homosexuality, you see that the bible barely mentions the subject.

Yet the bible is very clear about prohibiting divorce. This is spelled out far more directly than anything involving homosexuality. Yet the same groups pushing for same-sex marriage bans are doing nothing to push for a divorce ban. How do they reconcile this?

Why is it OK to pluck the subject of homosexuality (which is barely mentioned) out of the bible and make a big deal out of it, amend our constitutions with it etc. and yet ignore items that are spelled out much more frequently and clearly in the bible?

It certainly is an inconsistent position. It is certainly not derived from the bible, because if the focus were to implement what the bible says into our state constitutions, there are matters much more prominently discussed than homosexuality.

I have asked this question many times in the past of various people who support same-sex marriage bans, I've posted it on a number of forums, and no one has ever explained to me how one can use the bible to justify this and ignore everything else the bible says.

It appears that folks use the bible as a tool to justify their own prejudice, rather than an honest effort to enact biblically based laws.

 

[jamimb]

The 10 commandments don't say anything about gay marriage, but they sure are clear about lying. I wonder how those running the ads with all the lies about gay marriage reconcile this?

The one thing that baffles me is how the religious community can oppose gay marriage on the basis of the bible, while they turn a blind eye to so much else in the bible. The bible is a huge book, it says absolutely nothing about gay marriage specifically. It also says relatively very little about homosexuality in general. If you consider the huge number of passages in the bible and the fact that only a handful deal with homosexuality, you see that the bible barely mentions the subject.

Yet the bible is very clear about prohibiting divorce. This is spelled out far more directly than anything involving homosexuality. Yet the same groups pushing for same-sex marriage bans are doing nothing to push for a divorce ban. How do they reconcile this?

Why is it OK to pluck the subject of homosexuality (which is barely mentioned) out of the bible and make a big deal out of it, amend our constitutions with it etc. and yet ignore items that are spelled out much more frequently and clearly in the bible?

It certainly is an inconsistent position. It is certainly not derived from the bible, because if the focus were to implement what the bible says into our state constitutions, there are matters much more prominently discussed than homosexuality.

I have asked this question many times in the past of various people who support same-sex marriage bans, I've posted it on a number of forums, and no one has ever explained to me how one can use the bible to justify this and ignore everything else the bible says.

It appears that folks use the bible as a tool to justify their own prejudice, rather than an honest effort to enact biblically based laws.

Not judging just trying to answer your question but the Bible does refer to a homosexual lifestyle as being an "abomination"
According to the dictionary that word means greatly disliked,intense adversion to, or a vile shameful or detestable action. You dont need paragraphs upon paragraphs on the subject to undertstand that it is not seen in a favorable light.

I for one do believe that a homosexual lifestyle goes against nature itself. I don't think anyone who has any knowledge of human anatomy could argue with that. Sexually speaking male and female bodies were made to correspond to each other suggesting in fact that that is how we were intended to be together in a sexual way. Having said that while I would not want to see homosexual marrigae legalized I do NOT agree with how modern day Christians target homosexuals with such hatred!! I do have a problem with Christians today going after this "sin" but completely ignoring others. I believe that in some cases children are being taught to hate homosexuals and I am SOOO against this and teach my kids to love and respect all people whether you agree with them or not!

 

["Got Disney"]

I am voting NO on Prop 8......because I dont want it to be overturned...

I think everyone has a right to marry who they want no matter what sex they choose. I am offended by people that have a problem with 2 men or 2 woman being joined in marriage...I dont get it ..it has nothing to do with them...


the ADs that they have out are filed with scare tactics on the news that have been terrible...telling voters that it they keep this ruling that children in Kindergarten will be taught that little boys sleeping with little boys is okay... and things like that

I could not believe what the AD's were saying.....here is a from Ellen

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2008/10/prop_8_psa.php

 

[OrlandoMike]

An old favorite of mine when people try to drag the Bible into this discussion....

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Goofyluver]

An old favorite of mine when people try to drag the Bible into this discussion....

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Snatched it...for future use.

 

[sarasotamom]

As an independent voter, I too, do not understand the big deal about gay marriage..I was brought up in an extemely christian household..My parents thought that homosexually was a sin...I can remember as a teenager debating my father on this issue. I have always felt that you do not choose to be gay..you are born this way..He never got this..Well... my brother is 46 and has never been married, my brother-in-law is 61..never been married...niece (30) never had a boyfried..my son is gay..Both my daughters are straight...My question is and always has been why would somone choose to be gay and suffer the consequences..The answer...They would not..

I love and accept my son. My parents and in-laws, when they were alive, chose to bury their heads in the sand. I have chose to stand by my son. This has brought me much hatred from my family. I am proud that he felt that my husband and I loved him and would accept him. Both my daughters, and their husband-boyfriend accept him too. He is one of the most caring individuals that I have ever met. I am proud to be his mom and my husband is proud to be his dad.

I pray that one day that the world will get over the prejudice of the word marriage. I hope that one day that he will find his lifetime partner. He does want children and I think he will make a wonderfulf ather. He has many girls that are willing to be a surrogate for him. Not being partial my son is a hottie

Most people are hung up on the word marriage...I find this very stupid...That is why I firmly belive in the separation of church and state..I am a Christian but I also believe that God is not judgemental..The right-wing God is full of hate though

 

[dejr_8]

Wouldn't this mean you are also against Loving v. Virginia because it would lead to polygamy?

Excellent Point! And right now (and maybe never will) I don't have a good answer to give you.




For everyone bringing up Equal Protection as the basis for the ruling I ask why are any TWO PEOPLE privileged to Equal Protection but not any THREE PEOPLE?

 

[bicker]

I explained that earlier in the thread.