Proposition 8

[Coral]

Well it looks like its passed. I didnt think that would happen, I'm not really sure what to say right now. To the Yes voters, you disgust me. To the No voters, and Im not familiar enough with US law to know but one day we'll be equal.

As this is in the War Room, feel free to debate. Of course, just keep it on topic.

[JValone]

Didn't California pass a similar law a few years ago in a ballot initiative? Or maybe it was a ban, whichever, but I seem to remember hearing something similar a few years back. It doesn't seem like the electorate's stance has changed much over that time. CNN had a big board of various gay rights/abortion initiatives and it was pretty bleak if you were rooting for them with the exception of one of the pro-abortion laws.

I think in all honesty the courts are going to have to figure this particular subject out, and Constitutionally speaking they should side with gay rights groups because there's no precedent to do otherwise. Whether the left likes it or not the majority of the US does not approve of gay marriage, it's a fact and it was proven again yesterday. Activists are going to find a lot more success through the judicial system than they will putting it on a ballot.

[Tanooki]

CA some years ago banned the union of anyone other than a man and woman as illegal. The supreme court of CA shot that down lately which caused this prop to come up which tweaked things to say that 'marriage' is for a man and woman. It's basically a dodge to put the law back on the books.

I think JV has a point, legal process is the way to deal with it and not ballots as most just won't be accepting of this as it has been shoveled as a law. Honestly the only way an equality in marital union type thing could be done where no one would fight it except for the pure haters which then would be a minority is to NOT call it or any union a marriage anymore. By placing everyone on the same footing under a new classification and reserving the 'word' for personal use in a non legal and binding setup would put an end to the crap.

[MR EPIC]

That'll never happen. What's a guy supposed to tell his buddies instead of "I'm about to get married"? "I'm about to enter into a union with my life mate" just doesn't flow as easily.

[JValone]

By making every union a civil union, as Jeff suggested, it makes marriage a privately rather than legally defined term. It's actually a pretty good compromise in my opinion. Christians (and others) who think that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples can go get a meaningless marriage certificate from a church that agrees with their worldview while homosexuals can get an equally meaningless certificate from a church that accepts their beliefs.

It basically circumvents the entire argument by equalizing everyone in reverse. Getting gay couples "marriage" rights is going to be 10x more difficult than re-categorizing all straight couples as "civil unions". And what's worse is it's a pointless word, having equal rights is what matters regardless of what you call it. If anyone holds out for the word "marriage", assuming the option of defining everything as a civil union is actually on the table, that's just splitting hairs imo. Furthermore it's debatable whether the government should have any say in what marriage is defined as. They only need the information for proper documentation anyway, the word has nothing to do with their purpose.

[Lucas]

Yeah, but all the folks against gay marriage enjoy the superiority of unfair treatment. If the government tried to revoke the term "marriage" to create equality, all religious institutions would go up in riots like spoiled little brats across the nation because they aren't getting preferential treatment since their precious Bible tells them that gays and lesbians are dirty rotten sinners who will burn in hell.

California's voters (and especially the out-of-state Mormons who funded this with millions of dollars) have really disgusted me today.

[Tanooki]

Well then riots there shall be, and it's nice to see JV there sees my logic in it. The term isn't sullied by government over governing every piece of life, and everyone can damn well call it what they want, but on gov't paper it's just a union.

[JValone]

I could see some religious organizations flipping out as Lucas said, but I think they would take the pill easier than the alternative which is a court saying "we define marriage, if you don't like this: tough". If the government just flat said that civil unions are strictly used to file couples for tax, medical, insurance, or other legal purposes and marriage was at the discretion of your god I think they might buy into it. Just having the government back down (even if they really aren't) and say that they're no longer in charge of defining a term would mean a lot to certain people like myself who feel their hand is too deep in the cookie jar as is.

[Coral]

The bigots are celebrating. http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/yes-on-8-bigots.html

[Lovebird]

More importantly is Proposition 2 in Florida.

"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

I mean, it's not bad enough that gays can't adopt children here in Florida either, but they can't have any legal ties between them. And not only are gays not allowed to marry, but it destroys domestic partnerships. All domestic partnerships. So in Florida, unless you are married to someone else (hetero) or blood related, you have no legal links at all.

God I really love living in the south, everyone is just so open minded.

BTW, it passed with something like a 69% majority.

[Coral]

A very important message for Yes voters (http://perezhilton.com/2008-11-10-a-very-important-message-from-26#respond)

[virion]

All domestic partnerships. So in Florida, unless you are married to someone else (hetero) or blood related, you have no legal links at all.

****.. in oklahoma you're common law married if you live with a bitch for atleast 6 months. i could only be so lucky to have no legal ties to a crazy bitch that's trying to ruin my life.

[JValone]

I'm generally dead-set against Olbermann, mainly because he wears a self-righteous sneer throughout his program and is never at a loss for snarky remarks and arrogance. However I've got to say that was an extremely eloquent statement. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not you have to admit he laid out his point of view extremely well, I liked it.

But I still believe if the word "marriage" is the real goal here (and not parity, which could be achieved by knocking everyone down to civil unions) the courts are going to be the hammer that drives home gay marriage. The majority of the American public is just not for it, whether you disagree with their beliefs or not it's just a fact. I figure we'll get a landmark Supreme Court case sometime within the next decade opening up the term to everyone, not as good having it now obviously but it's better late than never.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Olbermann's a very intelligent man, and his special comments are usually pretty amazing. This one in particular is especially excellent, so props to Keith.

[Tanooki]

This is one of the rare times Olbermann actually has made sense, dropped his self gratifying sneer, and wasn't being a douche either. This has to be the perfect storm/trifecta of him on TV never to be likely seen again.

And JV you're right it's the courts that'll end this at the Supreme Court level surely under Obama. Depending how the balance of power sits over his 4 years or so will probably tilt which way it goes. We'll see doing the right thing and calling all joinings of any two people a civil union on legal paper and reserving marriage as a personal term, or the lib cranks will with smug 'justice' do it the wrong way and force it down everyones throat as is which will likely kickoff a hell of a lot of protests or worse with as many who are so fervently against using the word, not the will to allow those to just be joined equally. Either way it'll end, one way will end ugly.

[Smokey]

Basically, I agree with Olbermann. However, I'd like to point something out, in that there is no way you can compare slave marriages and gay marriages and expect to be taken seriously.

[Tanooki]

That's true, but do consider the source.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Basically, I agree with Olbermann. However, I'd like to point something out, in that there is no way you can compare slave marriages and gay marriages and expect to be taken seriously.

Well parallels can definitely be made; given that they were both persecuted groups (to different degrees of course) that are denied basic fundamental rights by the majority due to characteristics that aren't controlled or chosen.

[Robert-AMN]

The sad thing also is that so many people have let their religion corrupt our legal system. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

America seems to be the only first world nation that still hasn't completely separated church and state, as much as we try to hide it.

We have so much to learn from Europe :(

[Tanooki]

Yes the church needs to stay out of politics, but I don't think we need to learn that much from Europe, at least not economically. I with the enviropussies would stay out of the way of progress though as France has the right idea when it comes to clean power with nuclear reactors instead of coal/clean coal.

[Smokey]

Well parallels can definitely be made; given that they were both persecuted groups (to different degrees of course) that are denied basic fundamental rights by the majority due to characteristics that aren't controlled or chosen.

Legally speaking, there can be no comparison. Slaves were property, not people. Would it make sense to marry your couch and your toaster? To compare the plight of homosexuals today and that of the slaves is completely ridiculous.

[Lizzaroni]

America seems to be the only first world nation that still hasn't completely separated church and state, as much as we try to hide it.

We have so much to learn from Europe :(
America has a considerably different background with regard to religion.

By making every union a civil union, as Jeff suggested, it makes marriage a privately rather than legally defined term.
I'm pretty sure most folks (here) agreed on this some time ago. I almost don't know why we keep bringing it up since it was pretty unanimous.

That'll never happen. What's a guy supposed to tell his buddies instead of "I'm about to get married"? "I'm about to enter into a union with my life mate" just doesn't flow as easily.
Not that what guys'll tell their buddies is the most pressing issue in legal matters or anything, but "I'm going to get hitched"?

[HGW XX/7]

^That, or a guy can still say "I'm going to get married." I don't think it matters what he says personally. Legally it'll just be a union though.

[Rensa]

Legally speaking, there can be no comparison. Slaves were property, not people. Would it make sense to marry your couch and your toaster? To compare the plight of homosexuals today and that of the slaves is completely ridiculous.
Not entirely... both situations involve a failure to recognise basic human rights.

[Smokey]

Is marriage a basic human right, though?

Even if it is, it's still a major stretch to consider the plights of both groups to be comparable.

[Tanooki]

It comes off seeming snotty, but Smokey is right, marriage isn't a human right while other things are.

[HGW XX/7]

Ding ding ding. Marriage isn't a right.

Edit: It's not a right in America at least. If it is other places, I don't really care. Worst right ever.

[Rensa]

Okay, 'basic human right' is clearly too strong a phrase. But the arguments for gay and interracial marriages are pretty much the same: that these groups are just as entitled to the benefits - legal, financial, personal - implied by marriage as anyone else.

The right here is not the same, basic, constitutional right as, say, food or shelter. It's a contingent right based on the notion of justice: if white people can marry, black people have the right to marry too. If straight people can marry, gay people have the right to marry too.

That's why the comparison is valid. The fact that the two situations are driven by different motivations - a failure to see blacks as human versus a desire to protect the definition of marriage - is irrelevant; the similarities are still present.

[Smokey]

I won't argue with you, because ultimately we believe the same thing: gay people have as much right to a civil union as straight people. However, Olbermann made a big mistake in the way he compared black slaves to free gays.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

^ No he didn't, because he drew a parallel that fell strictly within the context of the right to marry (or lack thereof). Both groups are/were under very different circumstances, but the point was to say that neither have the right to marry, which is valid.

[virion]

i say we allow gay people to marry when it becomes technologically viable for men to gestate and give birth out their ass.

[Rorshach]

^Just because gay men can't make babies with each other doesn't mean they can't express their love through marriage.

Even though I'm against Prop 8, I don't see why they can't just live together and say stuff like "I love you" "I love you more", etc. I mean, yeah, marriage is sometimes the ultimate goal of a relationship, but why should it matter if two people truly love each other?

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

^Just because gay men can't make babies with each other doesn't mean they can't express their love through marriage.

Even though I'm against Prop 8, I don't see why they can't just live together and say stuff like "I love you" "I love you more", etc. I mean, yeah, marriage is sometimes the ultimate goal of a relationship, but why should it matter if two people truly love each other?

It's more of a question of giving the people who want to express their love through marriage the ability to have that option. Some people may not want to get married, the same way some straight couples wouldn't, but the point is that if two people who are in love want to celebrate that bond through marriage, they can.

[virion]

how about we let them get married without the tax breaks?

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

And what would that accomplish?

[virion]

so the gays are just trying to get tax breaks?... cheap bastards.. they really aren't doing it for love then.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

If they wanted to get tax benefits then they would have settled for civil unions ;)

[Robert-AMN]

If they wanted to get tax benefits then they would have settled for civil unions ;)
Civil unions don't give the same tax benefits. They can't file a joint tax return for example.

This is all just because some religious groups are scared of their beliefs of a marriage only being recognized btwn a man and a woman being threatened by others who don't believe it should be limited to that by the state. All that crap about it being taught in school was a major scare tactic as it isn't on school curriculum in this state in public schools. Its a major conflict of church and state as I've mentioned before and it should be decided upon by the courts.

[Lucas]

Its a major conflict of church and state as I've mentioned before and it should be decided upon by the courts.

Christian courts deliver Christian rulings.

You know, I'm more and more falling in line with Jeff's line of reasoning here. As long as the Christian faith dominates American politics, Gay marriage will never happen because of the religious stigma. Then again, perhaps it shouldn't be recognized under the law...any more than hetero marriage should be recognized under the law. Marriage is a religious ceremony (which I interpret as the public expression of one's eternal devotion to another). It is a religious ceremony, and the state should have no hand in religious ceremonies. All marriages should be respecified as Civil Unions--because that's basically what it is--but with all the benefits of current marriage laws and leave the religious definition of marriage up to the Churches. That leaves no grounds to legally discriminate between a couple's sexual orientation.

The hate in this nation needs to die, one way or the other. I'm tired of people being punished for trying to express their love for one another.

[Rensa]

Sorry for the bump, guys, but I thought a few of you might be interested in this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983598/) comparing gay rights to black rights. It's not a very deep explanation of the issue - mostly just a collection of opinions on the comparison framed to the election - but it might foster some extracurricular reading for some of you.

[Smokey]

At least Solmonese has some sense of perspective. The two cannot be compared, and using such a ridiculous comparison is only going to hurt them, not help them. Marriage is not a right, it's as simple as that.