Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[Pie]

I'm not gonna be happy till "separate but equal" is invalidated at the national level.


ETA: and even then, I probably won't be happy. But that's my problem.

[Shawnee123]

Ah. Arguing over semantics.
Well, there you go, it's not that Americans are more conservative than Europeans, it's that European gays aren't as pedantic.

So true. I found myself looking up the etymology of the word marriage, and wondering who got to decide it meant a religious union (and yes, they are arguing man and woman as religious tenet.)

It's a word made up of letters. Who gives a crap who uses it? Seriously, is Prissy and Biff's marriage somehow threatened because Jack and Doug use the same word? Methinks P and B feel threatened, not secure in their union, and afraid their God will let others who perhaps haven't fallen prey to social convention, bearing long silences over breakfast and lightly disguised hatred, into...gasp...heaven.

[piercehawkeye45]

Besides the oppressive part, the big problem I have is that the Christian church (I'm using this as a general term) is trying to monopolize marriage in the United States. You cannot break the sanctity of marriage because their is no definition for marriage in general. You can break the sanctity of a Christian marriage, you can break the sanctity of an Islamic marriage, you can break the sanctity of a Hindu marriage, etc, because each religion or sect of religion defines marriage in their own way.

The state should recognize any marriage that involves two citizens that are at legal age (which can be debated) and leave the banning to individual religions. If the Catholic Church wants to ban gay marriages, ban it within the church. No one is going to force the church to marry gay couples if they feel it goes against their religion.

[Radar]

Civil Unions vs Civil Marriage.
taken from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
(who argued the Massachusetts case)

Talking Points

What's the difference?

Framing the conversation: What's really at stake?

First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance - not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.

Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities-not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set its own rules about who can marry and on what terms.

Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place.

Let's compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other's side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and in California in 2003. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage."

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

-Portability:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil
unions themselves.

-Ending a Civil Union:

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.

-Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

-Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

-Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don't fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal
penalties.

[Radar]

-Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We've been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

How real are these differences between marriage and civil unions, given that a federal law and some state laws discriminate against all marriages of same-sex couples?

Would any of this change immediately with marriage of same-sex couples? Probably not, because married same-sex couples will face other layers of discrimination against their marriages. Right now, a federal law denies recognition of same-sex unions conferred by any state for purposes of all federal programs and requirements and over 30 state laws do the same. Ending discrimination in marriage does not mean the end of all discrimination, but using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union" is an essential first step to opening the door and addressing whether continued governmental discrimination against civil marriages of gay and lesbian people makes sense.

Marriage and civil unions remain different, both in practice and in
principle.

First, more than a dozen states have not taken a discriminatory position against civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples. In those states, civilly married gay and lesbian couples should be able to live and travel freely and without fear that their relationship will be disrespected.

Second, even as to those states with discriminatory laws, legally married gay and lesbian couples from those states may well face some discrimination in some quarters, but their marriages will also be treated with legal respect in other arenas. Marriages are far more likely to be respected by others than newly minted "civil unions."

Using the term marriage also prompts a discussion about fairness. Allowing same sex couples to marry (rather than enter a separate status) will allow gay and lesbian people to talk with their neighbors, their local elected officials, and the Congress about whether discrimination against their marriages is fair. Where gay and lesbian people and their children are part of the social fabric, is it right to continue discriminating against them in civil marriage? The federal government and states that have taken discriminatory positions against marriages of gay and lesbian couples could rethink those policies and go back to respecting state laws about marriage, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the end, we will not be able to have this discussion until gay and lesbian folks have what everyone else has: civil marriage.


Civil Marriage & Freedom of Religion

A myth: A major myth about ending discrimination in civil marriage is that it will somehow compel religious faiths to change their doctrine or practices about who they marry. This is flatly incorrect. We have freedom of religion in this country. When a court or legislature ends discrimination in civil (governmental) marriage, there is no compulsory impact on any faith. Each faith is-and will remain-free to define its own requirements for its marriage rite: who, what, when, where and why.

Some people say marriage is a sacrament. And it is for some religious faiths. But the government is not in the sacrament business. The only "marriage" to which the couples in the Massachusetts case are seeking access is civil/governmental marriage. Governmental marriage already exists side by side with each faith's different rules for their religious rite of marriage. Nothing can change that.

Two Types of Marriages

Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.

Civil Marriage

Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government's requirements. Right now, the requirements in Massachusetts are that the partners be adults, pass a blood test, and not be already married or closely related. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1000 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter into a marriage and under what conditions.

Religious Rite of Marriage

Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the
right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners' sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice.

In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil
marriage.

As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does with regard to civil marriage

[lookout123]

Now that I think about it, anyone who is able to quote something that takes two posts MUST be right.



problem solved

/thread

.

[Sundae]

Well, just for the record, most everyone I know says Marriage over here.
Same as when they brought in Council Tax, denying it was Poll Tax, and everyone called it Poll Tax anyway.

I suppose you're right, but it seems an awful shame to get bothered about words. Now the fact it's not legal in all states and does not confer the same benefits as marriage - yes, that I would be annoyed about.

[tw]

Sinner exposed in the NY Times of 15 Nov 2008:

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage
Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here.

We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. ...

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

No representation without taxation?

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs. ...

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

Should we be prosecuting religious leaders who were so evil as to contradict Christ's teachings? Or should they be paying massive taxes to save our corporations from economic meltdown? Either way, the Catholic and Mormon churches have violated what any decent religion would never do.

When asked, "How do we tell good Catholics from bad?", he replied, "Kill them all. God will know his own." Religion again doing what it does best.

[ZenGum]

Here's my views on it, presented in a manner much more musical and entertaining than I could achieve...

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Here's my views on it, presented in a manner much more musical and entertaining than I could achieve...

Thanks for that. I really like the video.

[DanaC]

We have a similar history in terms of gender but ours is more separate and absolutely not equal :P

Bear in mind we were still locking people up for homosexuality in my parents generation.

Talking of the slow route to equality.....do you know what year the British legal system recognised rape in marriage as a possibility? Prior to this it was not considered legally possible for a husband to rape his wife.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bah, all kitchen stoves should be 2 feet high. :p

[Juniper]

Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?

It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."

When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.

What are our "rights," anyway? Is there a list? Who created it? Was it like Moses and the ten commandments?

We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap. For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive? (and who says "rights" are given at birth instead of conception? Or even before conception, for that matter?) If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it? Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act. If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?

See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.

Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.

And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.

Don't agree? Prove it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Yes, but where do they come from, these magical "rights"? Who says you've got 'em? Is there proof that they exist?

I've never used the word "magical" to describe rights. Is gravity "magical"? Where does gravity come from? Rights come from the same place as gravity; specifically from nature. They are all part of natural law.

Originally Posted by Juniper

It's not so much that rights are a manmade invention, it's that man has decided that they must exist and gave them the name "rights."

Not really. Men discovered rights that always existed in much the same way Isaac Newton discovered gravity.

Originally Posted by Juniper

When you say you have a "right" do this or that, or "no right" to prevent this or that, you're talking about ethics, about what is morally correct or...what's the word..."right." Of course, ethics and morals are subjective and open to interpretation.

The natural state of man is freedom. The freedom to do ANYTHING you want as long as your actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the rights of others. No person has the right to initiate force against another, but all people have the right to use force in their defense.

Originally Posted by Juniper

We do agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but I think there's a great deal of overlap.

Not really. You deny that rights are even real, so we obviously can't agree on where they begin or end.

Originally Posted by Juniper

For example, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, why doesn't the fetus have a right to survive?

Again, we own ourselves and no other person or other organism has any claim to our body against our will. As long as something resides within our body it has no rights, especially over and above our own. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our own body. We alone get 100% of all decision making power over what will allow to live or die within our body. In fact, since we own ourselves and our life, we can take our own life too.

Originally Posted by Juniper

If you think someone has the right to suicide, why doesn't his family have the right to prevent it?

Because we own ourselves and no other person has any claim to our body or our life, even if they love us.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Almost in no case are the only people consensually involved in an act the only people who are affected by that act.

Emotional harm is irrelevant. Only physical harm does. If we locked up everyone who hurt the feelings of another, everyone on earth would be locked up and we'd have nobody to close the door and turn the key.

Originally Posted by Juniper

If you think you have no right to prevent someone from shooting up heroin, why doesn't that person's child have the right to a drug-free mother?

Because the person doing heroin owns their body and themselves. The child has no claim to the body or the life of their mother. The child does have a right not to be endangered or physically harmed by the parent. If the heroin using mother is also endangering their child, the child can be assigned new parents (as long as they are willingly taking this responsibility) where they won't be endangered.

Your rights don't include changing the person, property, or behavior of others as long as their actions do not PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another. Since the child has no claim to the body of their mother, they do not have a right to a drug-free mother. They only have the right to an endangerment free mother.

Originally Posted by Juniper

See, the trouble with "rights" they way you define them is that they tend to overlap or have blurry edges.

Nope. They are clear and simple, and easy to recognize. There are no blurry edges. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. You own yourself, and you have no claim to anyone else. End of story.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Which leads to the question of whose rights are more important.

There is no need to question this since our rights do not overlap. Your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Originally Posted by Juniper

And since "rights" are not immutable - in fact, are nothing more than a concept invented by man to define his sense of ethics - it comes down to who's got the loudest voice or the biggest weapon.

Don't agree? Prove it.

The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin

Natural Law and Natural Rights - James A. Donald

Second Treatise on Civil Government - John Locke

The Rights of Man - Thomas Paine

The Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) - National Assembly of France

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Magna Carta - Archbishop Stephen Langton

The Law - Frederic Bastiat

Natural Law - Lysander Spooner


Human rights have been self-evident for thousands of years throughout every part of the world. People have always known that freedom was the natural state of humanity. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle even knew this. Rights are both self-evident and exist. You can't see air, but you can breath it. You can't touch gravity, but you know it exists. You have no proof that love exists, but few would doubt its existence. Humans didn't invent love. Nor did they invent rights.

Rights have existed for as long as the universe has existed and they come from the same place that created the universe and natural law. Human rights existed before humans existed and will exist as long as the universe does. They just are.

[Aliantha]

Are you having fun yet Juni? lol