• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Prop 8 & others

tharlanjr

tharlanjr

NAXJA Forum User
Location
EAST COUNTY
Soooo glad prop 8 passed, simular ones passed in AZ and Florida!!!

I am glad at least something good came from this election.
 
Why do you care who someone else marries?

What I think is funny is prop 8 failed because of Barack Obama
70% of African American voters in Ca voted yes on 8, as did 51% of Latinos. Turnout for both groups was up this year due to their support of Obama.
 
it cracks me up when people tell me prop 8 is not discrimination. last time i checked, telling someone they cant do something because they are different than you was discrimination. whether or not people (who you will probably never meet) get married, has no effect on your life whatsoever. mind your own buisness :gag:

people complain that they want prop 8 to pass so they cant teach children about gay marriage... but they already teach about tolerance. so you are telling your kids "its ok to be gay, and you shouldnt treat anyone differently because they are different than us... but no they cant get married because they are different than us."


makes perfect sense to me :doh:
 
I'll paste this from a conversation I was having with a No on 8 voter who called me ignorant.



Can you explain to me how it's ignorant to protect marriage? Please do. Explain to me how it's "unfair" that gay and lesbian couples get the same rights, and moreso than a straight couple.

Let's put it this way, I'm a conservative christian, my views on homosexuality are obviously not in line with yours. HOWEVER, as a proponent for a FREE country, I can not, as an American, knowingly deny somebody the right to be with a same sex partner. BUT, I CAN protect, my religious ceremony called marriage, and protect my idea of what "marriage" is.

Quick fact check for you. Same sex couples get all the same tax deductions, exemptions, and breaks as married couples. They receive all the same rights, in all facets of the law. They even get BREAKS, in some aspects. For instance, if I'm living with my Wife, who is not covered on my car insurance, and she drives my car... she will NOT be covered. However if I'm living with my "partner" Tim, and he drives my car, he WILL be covered by insurance. It'd seem to me they'd like to keep it that way?

When it comes down to it you have to understand how hypocritical a NO vote on 8 is. Separation of Church and State is a relatively new thing to this country. Not all aspects of it are separated. If it were up to me, you wouldn't have to go to the state to get a "Marriage" license, you would go get a domestic partnership license. This goes for same sex or opposite sex marriages. This would grant you any and all rights being married grants you today. Thereafter, if you want to be married, you go to your CHURCH and get married. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that has nothing to do with the state of California, or any other government, be it federal or local.

You want to talk about ignorance. Ignorance is the same sex couples SUING churches for not marrying them. DEMANDING that they defy God, and their beliefs, so they can have "equal" rights. THAT'S ignorance.

I will fight til the day I day for my beliefs, and I will fight hard.
 
GrimmJeeper said:
it cracks me up when people tell me prop 8 is not discrimination. last time i checked, telling someone they cant do something because they are different than you was discrimination. whether or not people (who you will probably never meet) get married, has no effect on your life whatsoever. mind your own buisness :gag:

people complain that they want prop 8 to pass so they cant teach children about gay marriage... but they already teach about tolerance. so you are telling your kids "its ok to be gay, and you shouldnt treat anyone differently because they are different than us... but no they cant get married because they are different than us."


makes perfect sense to me :doh:
Click to expand...

x2 well worded man.
 
GrimmJeeper said:
it cracks me up when people tell me prop 8 is not discrimination. last time i checked, telling someone they cant do something because they are different than you was discrimination. whether or not people (who you will probably never meet) get married, has no effect on your life whatsoever. mind your own buisness :gag:

people complain that they want prop 8 to pass so they cant teach children about gay marriage... but they already teach about tolerance. so you are telling your kids "its ok to be gay, and you shouldnt treat anyone differently because they are different than us... but no they cant get married because they are different than us."


makes perfect sense to me :doh:
Click to expand...

thank you.

mind your own damn business. it doesnt matter.

and to anyone that says slippery slope...youre an idiot, there is no proof to back that up, it doesnt happen.
 
crazyjim said:
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that has nothing to do with the state of California, or any other government, be it federal or local.
Click to expand...
then the state has no buisness deciding who gets married or not. that is up to your church to police itself. :dunno:


just for the record, im not calling anyone an idiot, or badmouthing anyone here for voting how they did. you are entitled to your oppinion just as much as i am. what you are NOT entitled to, is forcing your oppinion on others. THAT is discrimination.
 
GrimmJeeper said:
then the state has no buisness deciding who gets married or not. that is up to your church to police itself. :dunno:


just for the record, im not calling anyone an idiot, or badmouthing anyone here for voting how they did. you are entitled to your oppinion just as much as i am. what you are NOT entitled to, is forcing your oppinion on others. THAT is discrimination.
Click to expand...
I agree, with EVERYTHING, including forcing your opinion and beliefs on others.


Like the gay activists who started to sue churches for denying them a marriage ceremony. So what then? Why should a church go against it's beliefs, and damn the bible, to marry a gay couple? They SHOULDN'T. That's what I'm fighting against.

The argument of gay people not having equal rights is bullshit, and you know it.
 
crazyjim said:
The argument of gay people not having equal rights is bullshit, and you know it.
Click to expand...

How can you say that when the question at hand is proof in itself that they dont have equal rights? Therefore, its not bullshit.
 
I voted yes on 8, but I would set it up so that a civil union was available in all states, is recognized by all states, and is afforded the rights of a traditional marriage. Jim's point on the gay couples suing a church for not performing a marriage is a good one. My father in law is a pastor and that was a big concern of his. How do I tell a gay couple that, no I will not marry you because it goes against my beliefs and religion, without risking getting sued. Think it won't happen? There was that lesbian couple who sued a fertility doctor for not inseminating them due to his beliefs, even though he gave them the name and number of a doctor who would.
 
swbooking said:
How can you say that when the question at hand is proof in itself that they dont have equal rights? Therefore, its not bullshit.
Click to expand...
Equal rights? Check out California Law. Taken straight from the government site.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5


[SIZE=+2]FAMILY.CODE [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]SECTION 297-297.5 [/SIZE]


297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.
(c) "Have a common residence" means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.



297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from
exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing
rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the
California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic
partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits,
and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered
domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to
third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either
partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as
between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships
registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement
between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed
by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive,
and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement's
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to
1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005.
Click to expand...
 
We're not talking about equal benefits, were talking about the equal right to be married.
 
crazyjim said:
If it were up to me, you wouldn't have to go to the state to get a "Marriage" license, you would go get a domestic partnership license. This goes for same sex or opposite sex marriages. This would grant you any and all rights being married grants you today. Thereafter, if you want to be married, you go to your CHURCH and get married. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that has nothing to do with the state of California, or any other government, be it federal or local.
Click to expand...

Have to say while I was a No on 8 voter, I agree with this 100% Jim.

The state should have nothing to do with religious marriage if church/state are separate. Therefore, the state should not issue marriage licenses.
 
crazyjim said:
Why? Equal rights ARE benefits. Christians have the right to DENY marriage in their church of same sex couples. What about their rights?
Click to expand...

hahaha, equal rights are NOT simply benefits.

So your implying that equal rights does not encapsulate the right for anyone, who chooses so, to be married?

I see your point about the churches. I do agree that a church should not be forced to marry anyone they choose not too (kinda like that "reserve the right to refuses service to anyone" sign)

Im not arguing that point, but I AM arguing that prop 8 denied equal rights.
 
crazyjim said:
Same sex couples get all the same tax deductions, exemptions, and breaks as married couples.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. "Married filing jointly" doesn't exist for them. In at least one state (Virginia) it is illegal for employers to offer same sex couples insurance plans similar to straight folk.

crazyjim said:
Separation of Church and State is a relatively new thing to this country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only about 232 years new...

crazyjim said:
You want to talk about ignorance. Ignorance is the same sex couples SUING churches for not marrying them. DEMANDING that they defy God, and their beliefs, so they can have "equal" rights. THAT'S ignorance.
Click to expand...

But that isn't happening so that's just a strawman.
 
GSequoia said:
No, they don't. "Married filing jointly" doesn't exist for them. In at least one state (Virginia) it is illegal for employers to offer same sex couples insurance plans similar to straight folk.
Click to expand...

"Married filed jointly" is just another term for what they have. If not for the rights, what are they fighting for? The word? And don't quote a Virginia state law to further validate your argument, we're speaking of California, not VA. While on the subject of California, name me the rights that gay's do not have that married people have? If you can do that, holy shit you better go tell California!

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

GSequoia said:
Yeah, only about 232 years new...
Click to expand...

That's cute, I know when it was written. But only recently has it been starting to be put to use, in the late 1900's.

GSequoia said:
But that isn't happening so that's just a strawman.
Click to expand...


Oh no? Educate yourself a little on current events before you accuse me of misrepresentation.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/
 
The institution of Marriage is a Legal and Religious issue. We commonly link the two in our minds, but I have been in a Civil Marriage that was not recognized by my Church.

There is no legal precedent to force a Religion to perform a Ceremony based on the law of the land. Therefore, it would be a breach of separation of Church and State (As most Liberals define it) to force any Religion to perform a Marriage Ceremony between two people of the same sex because Secular Law allows it and created a Legal Contract between two people of like minds and body parts.

As I understand the basis of Proposition 8, there has been an attempt for a minority of Secular society to teach, at a young age, that their sexual proclivity is proper behaviour amonst Adults of consent. That is simply inappropriate material for young children. The discussion of said activity is a family, not a State matter because it hinges on Religious beliefs.

You can not legislate Religious beliefs. To do so makes the State a Religion; an activity which is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
55-65mph vibration with several different prop shafts
Replies
9
Views
1K
tech1001
T
1
Can't get good brakes on my 1ton xj
Replies
2
Views
4K
1-tonxj
1
G
Chrysler 8.25 wheel studs for aluminum rims
Replies
10
Views
2K
kastein
kastein
Z
RENIX fuel delivery questions
Replies
4
Views
331
Ecomike
Ecomike
W
AAL kit; Input Please
Replies
5
Views
146
Wander Motor
W
Back
Top