Debunking the Cali Prop 8 voter myth

2

Comments

  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Once again, do you think the gay and lesbian community would be OK with no government involvement?

    Do you think the "left" would be ok with no government involvement? Before you answer, think about it.

    The gay and lesbian community would be and I don't give a fuck what the left thinks because no Government involvement is the correct approach to the issue.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    The gay and lesbian community would be and I don't give a fuck what the left thinks because no Government involvement is the correct approach to the issue.


    Well then, we agree.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Well then, we agree.

    So you agree that the lesbian and gay community would be OK with no government intervention.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    mammasan wrote:
    That is exactly the issue. In many states same sex civil unions do not offer the same rights and benefits as marriage, in some states it does. So while marriage may not be a right the government offers heterosexual couples more rights and benefits than they do a homosexual couple and that is just discrimination. Notice how in states like New Jersey that have same sex marriage civil unions that offer the same benefits and rights as a marriage there is no fight for same sex marriage. The gay and lesbian community is treated equally even though the terminology is different. So to many of them it's not about a term but about the benefits and rights tied to that term.



    exactly right.




    and until marriage is NOT a government term, homosexuals deserve the same, equal rights to marriage as heterosexuals. if the legal term ceases to exist, soething else entirely.


    saveuplife wrote:
    Once again, do you think the gay and lesbian community would be OK with no government involvement?

    Do you think the "left" would be ok with no government involvement? Before you answer, think about it.



    what exactly does that mean? as in.....no more filing joint tax returns, no automatic survivor benefits, rights towards decisions/visits in halth-related matters, you know....all the rights and responsibilities that now are associated with legal marriage? do away with them entirely? so then what.....have to make all those arangements legally on your own, whereas now it's just so damn easy to get a marriage license? or do simply mean, do away with legal 'marriage'...and have only civil unions?


    for me personally, i LIKE legal marriage as a construct. i know many others look at it differently, but for me...it *simplifies* for lack of a better term, a lot of things. i know many non-married couples who had to go thru sooo much legal paperwork to have rights towards healthcare, decision-making, financial protections, etc.....
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    decides2dream wrote:
    exactly right.




    and until marriage is NOT a government term, homosexuals deserve the same, equal rights to marriage as heterosexuals. if the legal term ceases to exist, soething else entirely.

    At the very least they deserve to have the same benefits and rights attached to civil unions as they are to marriage.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jimed14
    jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    Somehow I feel, if you don't feel either way on the issue, you really feel gay marraige is ok ... I mean, if it doesn't bother you, why not let them have the right to marry?

    Someone mentioned donors above ... here's on donor creating QUITE a stir ...

    Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus
    By Marcus Crowder

    Published: Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008 | Page 1B
    Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

    Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.


    for the rest of the story ... go here ....

    http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1387273.html
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    mammasan wrote:
    That is exactly the issue. In many states same sex civil unions do not offer the same rights and benefits as marriage, in some states it does. So while marriage may not be a right the government offers heterosexual couples more rights and benefits than they do a homosexual couple and that is just discrimination. Notice how in states like New Jersey that have same sex marriage civil unions that offer the same benefits and rights as a marriage there is no fight for same sex marriage. The gay and lesbian community is treated equally even though the terminology is different. So to many of them it's not about a term but about the benefits and rights tied to that term.

    So the government changes its regulations and allows adults to grant another adult the same rights and benefits as would happen in marriage, and the problem is solved, right?

    But I still think the government should just stop sanctioning and recognizing any marriages and that would be the best solution. Why aren't people calling for that?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    know1 wrote:
    So the government changes its regulations and allows adults to grant another adult the same rights and benefits as would happen in marriage, and the problem is solved, right?

    But I still think the government should just stop sanctioning and recognizing any marriages and that would be the best solution. Why aren't people calling for that?

    I have been calling for that. I believe that the government should just issue civil union certificates to any homosexual or heterosexual couple. Marriage should be left to the religious institutions to preform.

    the problem, right now, is that government is involved and as unfortunate as it may be I don't see that changing anytime soon. So while they are involved then all people should be granted the same rights and benefits. Ultimately I would love nothing more than to see the government end the practice of issuing marriage licenses and simply issue civil union certificates to all couples regardless of sexual preference.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    mammasan wrote:
    the problem, right now, is that government is involved and as unfortunate as it may be I don't see that changing anytime soon. So while they are involved then all people should be granted the same rights and benefits.

    But it's not nearly as black and white as that statement would seem. As it stands, they DO have the same rights. If they want to get married, they can - just not to someone of the same sex. I'll say it again, marriage is not a right. Furthermore, the ability to say you are married does not solve the issue.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    know1 wrote:
    But it's not nearly as black and white as that statement would seem. As it stands, they DO have the same rights. If they want to get married, they can - just not to someone of the same sex. I'll say it again, marriage is not a right. Furthermore, the ability to say you are married does not solve the issue.

    I'm not talking about the term. Homosexual have the right to go get a civil union but in many states that civil union does not offer the same rights and benefits as if a heterosexual couple went and received a marriage license. I don't care what you call it, but you should give one group one set of rights and benefits and then turn around and give another group less simply because of their sexual preference.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    know1 wrote:
    But it's not nearly as black and white as that statement would seem. As it stands, they DO have the same rights. If they want to get married, they can - just not to someone of the same sex. I'll say it again, marriage is not a right. Furthermore, the ability to say you are married does not solve the issue.



    according to whom?
    who determines this...and why and how?


    and the ability to say you are legally married indeed DOES solve this issue...the issue of having the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. that IS the issue.



    and sure, we do all realize they CAN get married to someone of the opposite sex, but since that's not who they'd want to be married to, seems a silly point to make. :rolleyes: this is not a question of a religious issue, merely a legal one...and the law very much can and should endorse legal marriage for homosexuals b/c it is an equal rights issue. marriage is a legal contract, and two consenting adults, regardless of gender.....should be able to do so. our laws should not be defined on narrow, religious pov.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    decides2dream wrote:
    the issue of having the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. that IS the issue.

    So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,578
    know1 wrote:
    So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.


    I suspect that most of the people who voted for prop 8 would have a problem with the government taking away the label of "marriage." They would say that that is an erosion of their right to be legally married.

    The only way that makes sense or would work is to let gays marry.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, Boston 9/15/24, Ohanafest 2025 (EV)
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    know1 wrote:
    So one more time - why can't the government just allow adults to grant those rights and responsibilities to another adult without calling it marriage???? Wouldn't that solve the problem? And I'm talking about both homosexual and heterosexual couples. It seems like the perfect solution to me - especially if the voters are going to get hung up on the word marriage and continually vote it down.



    you answered none of my questions, but sure, i'll answer yours.



    absolutely!
    if they truly want to do away with the word 'marriage' as a legal term...so be it. i personlly think it is a slippery slope to go down, basically allowing religion to dictate what vocabulary we may use of a legal nature....but fine, whatever. as long as NO one has 'legal marriage'.....ALL have civil unions or whatever you want to call em, with ALL the SAME rights afforded....cool. i would happily give up the word to have the actual intent, accross the board, for all. :)

    however, i think that's about as difficult to occur as getting gay marriage recognized. far too many people are already legally 'married'...and may not like what they might consider a demotion in language, or perhaps not...might be easy, idk. so for right NOW...as long as legal marriage exists, i 100% agree gay marriage should exist as well. maybe it'll happen, maybe we'll finally do away with legal marriages, who knows? all i do know is as it stands today, it most definitely is wrong that gays cannot legally marry, at least not everywhere. the fact that there ARE 2 states with legal marriage for homosexuals, other states with civil unions....does show it CAN happen. it'll just take time.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • chiquimonkey
    chiquimonkey Posts: 9,337
    decides2dream wrote:
    you answered none of my questions, but sure, i'll answer yours.



    absolutely!
    if they truly want to do away with the word 'marriage' as a legal term...so be it. i personlly think it is a slippery slope to go down, basically allowing religion to dictate what vocabulary we may use of a legal nature....but fine, whatever. as long as NO one has 'legal marriage'.....ALL have civil unions or whatever you want to call em, with ALL the SAME rights afforded....cool. i would happily give up the word to have the actual intent, accross the board, for all. :)

    however, i think that's about as difficult to occur as getting gay marriage recognized. far too many people are already legally 'married'...and may not like what they might consider a demotion in language, or perhaps not...might be easy, idk. so for right NOW...as long as legal marriage exists, i 100% agree gay marriage should exist as well. maybe it'll happen, maybe we'll finally do away with legal marriages, who knows? all i do know is as it stands today, it most definitely is wrong that gays cannot legally marry, at least not everywhere. the fact that there ARE 2 states with legal marriage for homosexuals, other states with civil unions....does show it CAN happen. it'll just take time.
    yeah, what she said lol

    seriously, i don't understand how anybody can be ambivalent about this issue. if you are for prop 8 you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and if you're against it, then you think they do deserve it.
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    thanks for posting that. :)
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    chiquimonkey wrote:
    yeah, what she said lol

    seriously, i don't understand how anybody can be ambivalent about this issue. if you are for prop 8 you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and if you're against it, then you think they do deserve it.
    They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • chiquimonkey
    chiquimonkey Posts: 9,337
    know1 wrote:
    They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).
    from what i understand (someone please correct me if i'm wrong!), is that they are not afforded the same rights in terms of health and life insurance, and hospital visitation. so while civil unions are still allowed, the full extent of marriage rights are not.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    chiquimonkey wrote:
    from what i understand (someone please correct me if i'm wrong!), is that they are not afforded the same rights in terms of health and life insurance, and hospital visitation. so while civil unions are still allowed, the full extent of marriage rights are not.

    No - I'm saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. They have that right.

    (I don't really think that way, just pointing out there is more gray area here than some people admit).
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    They already have the same rights technically speaking. (Again - I'm not for prop 8, but I'm just saying).

    this is akin to having a discussion on the merits of 24 hr grocery stores and saying that technically they don't open on christmas day so they aren't 24 hrs ... :rolleyes:

    this point has absolutely no relevance in the discussion ...

Categories