Gay Marriage 2.0

Oh... <_< To prevent myself from digging an even deeper hole, I suppose I'll watch it then. I have just stereotyped him (I've seen a good portions of his segments) when he practically mutilates the listener with an onslaught of very angry words.

EDIT:

I see why it's a must watch. Though his analogy of black marriage doesn't necessarily fit the gay marriage model (though some did believe blacks were worthless according to God), as religion is the primary motor in anti-gay sentiment, whereas anti-black sentiment was fueled by racism and belittlement.
 
Last edited:
I see why it's a must watch. Though his analogy of black marriage doesn't necessarily fit the gay marriage model (though some did believe blacks were worthless according to God), as religion is the primary motor in anti-gay sentiment, whereas anti-black sentiment was fueled by racism and belittlement.

Well opposition to gay marriage is arguably fuelled by homophobia, though few will admit it. Religion did run parallel to anti-black sentiments at one time. The Christian Identity movement was centred around the idea that people not of Caucasian descent had no souls and was the founding ideology of many extreme white supremacy groups in the United States. Then you have the notion of racial eugenics, which still pervaded society in the 60s. The idea that the integrity of the "master race" can be diluted through... cross-breeding.

It doesn't really matter what the source or form of the discrimination is. it's all relative because it's yet another example of the majority attempting to maintain the status quo by oppressing a minority.
 
I understand the supposed religious parallels, but I strongly believe those were fronts to hide a blatant racism at the time. But honestly, I agree that the sources are irrelevant because the fact is discrimination is happening, and yet the government is doing very little to stop it.
 
Why doesn't CA ban divorce? That would be the ultimate protection for the "sanctity" of marriage. You know, the vows you take before God and witnesses at the alter to be "for better or worse til death do us part..." I hardly doubt that 50% of homosexual marriages fail.

I think it's just a bunch of misinterpretations. People deserve to be happy, and if getting married is their choice, so be it. Never being too religious myself, I don't feel a need to step up and take a stance on something that's really a non-issue to me. For the super religious that are for Prop 8, there are plenty of other moral issues to be working on in California besides gay marriage lol, I assure you. Major partisan issues like gay marriage always rile up the misinformed to vote on something they really don't understand or have failed to educate themselves about properly. Being gay myself, I personally believe Civil Unions are just fine as long as the same rights are guaranteed, but (not being of the religious persuasion myself) feel no need to go on an alter and say some vows before God and witnesses.

That said, Prop 8 was voted on and is law by a decent percentage. As long as the voting process ran smoothly and it wasn't close enough to deem a "recount" or some other oversight, it shouldn't legally be overturned. Perception is everything in an election and that includes dealing with those propositions you find at the end of your ballot. The best we can do is protest our congresspeople to make changes the next time it can be re-voted on. I see little point to all the rallies and protests across the country apart from showing support to those who may have been planning to get married in CA.
 
That said, Prop 8 was voted on and is law by a decent percentage. As long as the voting process ran smoothly and it wasn't close enough to deem a "recount" or some other oversight, it shouldn't legally be overturned. Perception is everything in an election and that includes dealing with those propositions you find at the end of your ballot. The best we can do is protest our congresspeople to make changes the next time it can be re-voted on. I see little point to all the rallies and protests across the country apart from showing support to those who may have been planning to get married in CA.

Actually, the protests are generally about the fact that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the change it proposes puts the CA constitution at odds with itself (equal protection, due process, the inalienable rights of minorities).

People I discuss this with keep bringing up the point that all appropriate legal recourse was followed to pass this proposition - and that's simply not true. It doesn't matter if the the majority voted because it was not an issue which should have been placed at their mercy to begin with. Then you have the whole revision v amendment dilemma addressed in my first post to consider.
 
Ah okay. So the proposition itself has questions in legality? I was asking myself earlier how such a proposition could be brought up on the ballot despite contradicting every aspect of the U.S and CA Constitutions.
 
Ah okay. So the proposition itself has questions in legality? I was asking myself earlier how such a proposition could be brought up on the ballot despite contradicting every aspect of the U.S and CA Constitutions.

Yes, and yes. Unfortunately for CA, it requires another act in CA recent history, of "judicial activism" to correct the problem. I kind of hope the court does overturn it because that is why they exist (speaking only in regards to CA law) but it should be the people that overturn it. We'll see how it plays out.
 
What I find ironic about one of the major arguments against the full rights of gay marriage is never questioned about straight marriages. The argument I'm mentioning is the fact that many claim that there will be a minority of people that just marry for tax purposes and the other benefits of having a true marriage.

Example: Two men are best friends. They both are straight as an arrow, have lived together to share expenses for a while in a bachelor pad type deal. They get the genius idea to file for a marriage license in order to combine their resources and reap the benefits, thus "cheating the system"

My problem with this is that what's to stop a man and a woman from doing the same exact thing? Nothing. There's no investigation into the legitimacy of a straight couple. The movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry", while being a comedy, brought that issue up in the form people use as the argument. From what I understand a lot of insurance companies have investigated the few gay marriages that have come across their desks in order to prevent defrauding the institution. I'm sure the IRS would be looking into it as well.

Now, I'm only going off a few clips of this argument being put forth that I've seen on the news networks in between all the religious debates on the topic. If I'm completely off base, I don't mind being told so at all, so please feel free to pick what I've said apart. Does make you wonder if it's even worth it to have real marriage rights at all and instead allow people to select those they want for the specific benefits. Like file paperwork with the government for next of kin forms and the such instead of blanketing it within marriage.
 
What I find ironic about one of the major arguments against the full rights of gay marriage is never questioned about straight marriages. The argument I'm mentioning is the fact that many claim that there will be a minority of people that just marry for tax purposes and the other benefits of having a true marriage.

Example: Two men are best friends. They both are straight as an arrow, have lived together to share expenses for a while in a bachelor pad type deal. They get the genius idea to file for a marriage license in order to combine their resources and reap the benefits, thus "cheating the system"

My problem with this is that what's to stop a man and a woman from doing the same exact thing? Nothing. There's no investigation into the legitimacy of a straight couple. The movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry", while being a comedy, brought that issue up in the form people use as the argument. From what I understand a lot of insurance companies have investigated the few gay marriages that have come across their desks in order to prevent defrauding the institution. I'm sure the IRS would be looking into it as well.

Now, I'm only going off a few clips of this argument being put forth that I've seen on the news networks in between all the religious debates on the topic. If I'm completely off base, I don't mind being told so at all, so please feel free to pick what I've said apart. Does make you wonder if it's even worth it to have real marriage rights at all and instead allow people to select those they want for the specific benefits. Like file paperwork with the government for next of kin forms and the such instead of blanketing it within marriage.

there is absolutely no way to regulate that because it is subjective. To suggest taking rights away from everyone (including heteros) because there are a few people exploiting the system is a bit absurd. In every system out there, regardless what it is, there will always be someone looking to exploit it for their own benefit.
 
there is absolutely no way to regulate that because it is subjective. To suggest taking rights away from everyone (including heteros) because there are a few people exploiting the system is a bit absurd. In every system out there, regardless what it is, there will always be someone looking to exploit it for their own benefit.

I guess what I was thinking at the time, and I still think is a decent idea, is to remove marriage from the whole thing. Make the term civil union apply to the governmental side of things, and the term marriage apply to the love aspects of things. There is no reason they have to be related. All a civil union says is that two people trust eachother enough to have the other as their next of kin and sharing assets and debt. There's no implication of a relationship needed in the terminology. This way you can be married but seperate, unioned but not in love, or both if that's what you want. That way that abuse I mentioned above wouldn't be an issue of abuse, it would just be an option that two people can choose who they want to make the important decisions for/with them.

Obviously there are many downsides to this. Many would argue that it destroys the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of tradition, and it probably does. No tradition that outcasts anyone is really worth keeping alive if you ask me.
 
I guess what I was thinking at the time, and I still think is a decent idea, is to remove marriage from the whole thing. Make the term civil union apply to the governmental side of things, and the term marriage apply to the love aspects of things.

That's what we have now. Marriage is a civil institution and the religious aspect is entirely ceremonial.
 
An excellent interview:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/hughley.savage.prop.8/index.html said:
(CNN) -- More than a week after voters in California, Arizona and Florida passed ballot initiatives outlawing same-sex marriage, thousands of people across the country protested the bans in simultaneous rallies Saturday.

In California, Proposition 8 overturned a May ruling by the California Supreme Court that struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions. It passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

CNN's D.L. Hughley spoke to sex columnist Dan Savage about the ongoing battle to legalize same-sex marriage in California. Savage is the author of the popular syndicated sex advice column "Savage Love."
Hughley: On November 4, the same day Barack Obama was elected president, voters in California approved the measure that makes same-sex marriage illegal in the state of California. Seventy percent of blacks and 53 percent of Latinos voted to ban gay marriage. So is the gay community holding minorities responsible for this? Here with me now is syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage. How are you doing, Dan?
Savage: Good. I want to jump right in there, because minority communities and the gay community aren't two separate things. There are gay and lesbian African-Americans and gay and lesbian Latinos, who have really done the most disservice by those folks in the communities of color.
Hughley: Now how do you feel? Election night, you campaigned hard for Obama, you worked hard for him. How did you feel after the election?
Don't Miss



Savage: We were elated. I was ecstatic ... Barack Obama won. ... And then the next day, we had to sit down and open the papers and read about the approval of this measure. It was very, very bittersweet. And you know, my boyfriend and I, when George Bush won, we had a long conversation the day after. We talked very seriously about moving to Canada because we're just done with being attacked that way we're attacked in this country for our sexual orientation. And then we found ourselves having that exact same conversation the day after Barack Obama won the election because of what happened in California.
Hughley: Why do you think that so many -- the large percentage of African-Americans -- voted for Proposition 8, and Latinos?
Savage: Well, there is a lot of outreach that has to be done -- that falls to the gay community, to do outreach to voters of color. But voters of color also have to step up and take some responsibility. It's the responsibility of white people not to be racist. It's the responsibility of men not to be sexist. And it is a responsibility of all of us not to be homophobic.
video.gif
Watch D.L. Hughley and Dan Savage discuss Prop 8 »
Hughley: I have to say, honestly, I don't -- I'm not particularly homophobic. But when I read the bill the way it was written, it was a little confusing. When I read it, it asked me to make a decision that didn't -- that I couldn't quantify on the ballot. I can't, for whatever reason, is it my religious upbringing, I don't condone a gay lifestyle, but I also don't condone the government being involved in two people's affairs. So there was no place for me to vote. And I think a lot of black people I talked to found themselves in the same quandary. Had I been more religious, maybe I would have voted yes to ban.
Savage: It needs to be articulated around religion and homosexuality is that you can have your theology and also sign off on gay and lesbian civil rights and full enfranchisement, including marriage. You know, a lot of Christians think Jews are going to hell. Right? And yet Jews can get married in our culture. No one's attempting to strip Jews of their civil rights in our dominant Christian culture. ... Because you know what? If you're going to hell for being gay, ain't that enough? Ain't you going to suffer enough when it's all over? Do you really need to be persecuted here on Earth too?
Hughley: Here's what I think. I've seen a lot of people, gay activists, make the comparison of basically equating their struggle with the struggle of black people throughout the civil rights era. And that hits me even me kind of wrong.
Savage: And me too.
Hughley: Because historically, millions of people died and they were disenfranchised. Some of them couldn't have a name. This is about one segment, like to be married. And I think that that is none of my business. But I also think that what you asked -- I've never met a black atheist. I never have, because we are so rooted in theology, we are so rooted in all these things, that even me, who -- I'm not a regular churchgoer -- had a hard time going, this is -- this goes against what I was taught.
Savage: Which is why it's up to the gay community to explain why we're not trying to challenge you on your theology. I think African-Americans will always have claim to the civil rights movement, capital "T," capital "C," capital "R," capital "M." Ours is not the civil rights movement. But ours is a civil rights movement, lower case C-R-M. It is a struggle. You get fired because you're gay, you get fired because you're black, you're still out of a job. If your house gets burned down because you're gay, burned down because you're black, you're still out of a house and maybe dead. Hate is hate. I'm not equating the experience with the history at all. But we are making a civil rights demand.
Hughley: But I think what happens is that marriage, regardless of the legal aspects of it, are seen mostly religious. You stand before God and you vow to love and to cherish this woman or this man. And so I think people have a -- I know particularly people that I talked to -- had a hard time unhooking the religious component from the civil.
Savage: But we've long unhooked the religious component from the civil component because you can go to city hall and get married and God will not be invoked. Those are the marriage licenses that we want. We don't want to storm into anybody's church and force anybody's preacher or any religious person to observe our wedding.
Hughley: So you want to be married. But what about the compromise which people put forth, which is civil unions?
Savage: Right, which no one was offering us until we pressed for marriage. So you asked for the moon and maybe you get the stars.
Hughley: Was that the point? You wanted something --
advertisement.gif



Savage: No, I think we want full civil equality, we want full civil marriage rights. But in the meantime, maybe we would take half the loaf.
Hughley: Well I'll tell you what, being black, I can tell you, you got to march a little while longer and then it might happen. I promise. Look how long it took us to get a president. I hope it works out for you. One thing I don't understand is the government involvement in our bedroom. They can't even deliver my mail.
 
It's the responsibility of white people not to be racist.

Sorry for going off topic a bit (as that was a very good interview) but isn't it the responsibility of everyone not to be racist? I've had things said/done to me that were wrong because I'm "white" that would be equally as racist if I did it to someone who was of a different "colour". I didn't understand the term "reverse racism" when I heard it in regards to Powell either... shouldn't reverse racism mean... not being racist? From Webster:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Any race can be racist.

That being said, back on topic. Because so many people seem to be protesting, is something going to come of it? Or is it a done deal now?
 
Sorry for going off topic a bit (as that was a very good interview) but isn't it the responsibility of everyone not to be racist?

I think that's mostly a response from some members of the gay community who have been scapegoating the African-American community because they voted disproportionately in favor of the ban. There's a "gays vs blacks" vibe (which stupidly assumes there are no gay black people) that's been coming up in interviews, and Savage has been very pointed about refuting it. It's not race that's a factor in the votes. It's religion.
 
Are religous people down there predominantly "black" or something? I'd blame the LDS if anything, not a race.
 
Again, the civil union:

Heterosexual couples are more apt for creating families. Via adoption, a homosexual couple could create a family, but the vast majority of couples that are having children are heterosexual. The 'rights' given to a married couple are in place partially to allow for building a family. Deductions on your income taxes, Family medical plans, etc. Is it wrong to deny someone these rights because they're unable to create children? Probably. But again, its not a religious issue so much as a business decision. Science dictates that male + male cannot create children, not religion.
 
Again, the civil union:

Heterosexual couples are more apt for creating families. Via adoption, a homosexual couple could create a family, but the vast majority of couples that are having children are heterosexual. The 'rights' given to a married couple are in place partially to allow for building a family. Deductions on your income taxes, Family medical plans, etc. Is it wrong to deny someone these rights because they're unable to create children? Probably. But again, its not a religious issue so much as a business decision. Science dictates that male + male cannot create children, not religion.

It is also law that prevents perfectly loving families from adopting children. You don't have to have a vagina and a penis in every single relationship to improve a society.

I see what you're saying, that it is somehow a financial incentive to reproduce. It is a logical argument, however, it is flawed in the regard that, as has been pointed out, the benefits of marriage go far beyond finances.
 
I think that interview was a mess. Savage was brilliant as always, but D.L Hughley is a complete moron. No black atheists? Is he kidding? "Well I'll tell you what, being black, I can tell you, you got to march a little while longer and then it might happen" What? That's so patronizing. He's a comedian with no history of political activism - what "marching" has he done for civil rights exactly apart from just being born african-american? For someone as "politically minded" as he, I find it suprising that he sees no problems with separate but equal.

And Hughley is yet another example of people who can't seem to wrap their little minds around the concept that marriage is first and foremost a civil institution. Learn to separate the religion from it, because it is mostly serves a trivial, ceremonial purpose. Why do we even need to explain this to people? Least of all media personalities who conduct interviews on the issue - if it were me, I would at least make an attempt to sound the slightest bit informed. Does no one read anymore (aside from the bible)? Does nobody have a basic grasp of the constitutional history of the United States?
 
Last edited:
Dan Savage v Tony Perkins (with my boo Andy Cooper):


Dan Savage on Bill Maher:


Cynthia Nixon on Larry King (hosted by Joy Behar)


Michelangelo Signorile v Maggie Gallagher (CNN)


Wanda Sykes


Larry King round-table (Joy Behar: Savage, Newsom, Jim Garlow, some crazy ass pastor)



Bill O'Reilly being a racist



Attorney General Jerry Brown pushes for Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Prop 8. Brown will be defending the Proposition in court:

(11-17) 16:42 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The likelihood of a final California Supreme Court showdown over same-sex marriage increased dramatically Monday when Attorney General Jerry Brown and the pro-Proposition 8 campaign urged the justices to decide whether the voter-approved ballot measure is constitutional.

Both Brown, the state government's top lawyer, and the Protect Marriage campaign organization plan to defend Prop. 8, which would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution. In separate filings Monday, the liberal attorney general and the conservative sponsors of the initiative gave similar reasons for asking the court to review lawsuits filed by the measure's opponents.

"There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," Deputy Attorney General Mark Benington said in court papers.

Andrew Pugno, lawyer for Protect Marriage, said, "The people have a right to know as quickly as possible the status of marriage under the California Constitution." He said he was confident that the court will uphold Prop. 8.

However, the Campaign for California Families, another conservative religious organization that supported the measure, asked the court to dismiss the suits without a hearing. The group's lawyer said overturning Prop. 8 "would wreak havoc on the democratic process."

The court could decide at its weekly conference Wednesday whether to accept the suits for review and whether to issue a stay that would block enforcement of Prop. 8 until a ruling is made. A stay would restore authority for gay and lesbian couples to marry, although those marriages - like an estimated 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the Nov. 4 election - would have an uncertain status until the court cleared up Prop. 8's legality and scope.

Benington argued against a stay, saying any marriages performed in the interim period would be questioned if the court upheld Prop. 8. Brown has promised to defend the validity of the pre-Nov. 4 marriages.

The number of suits challenging Prop. 8 grew to six Monday with filings by women's-rights groups and religious organizations led by the California Council of Churches. Two groups of same-sex couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco sued Nov. 5 and were joined Friday by civil rights organizations, which said the initiative would set a precedent for eliminating the rights of any minority by popular vote.

All the lawsuits argue that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of California's Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group.

Prop. 8, approved by a 52 percent majority, would overturn the court's May 15 ruling that gave gays and lesbians a constitutional right to marry in California.

The central claim in most of the suits is that Prop. 8 would make such a fundamental change to individual rights and judicial responsibilities that it would amount to a revision of the state Constitution and not merely an amendment. While a constitutional amendment can qualify for the ballot with 694,354 signatures of registered voters, a revision requires a two-thirds legislative vote to reach the ballot.

Opponents of past initiatives have made similar arguments, usually without success. The court upheld the Proposition 13 property tax cut as well as measures reinstating the death penalty, and restricting defendants' rights in criminal cases, ruling that each was an amendment rather than a revision.

But the court struck down provisions in a 1990 crime initiative that would have limited defendants in California to rights recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it an attack on state courts' authority to exercise their own judgment under the California Constitution.

In 1948, the court removed from the ballot an initiative that would have made wholesale constitutional changes on subjects ranging from pensions to oleomargarine, ruling that it was an invalid revision.

Brown's filing Monday steered clear of the issue, which he presumably will address if the court takes up the cases. The Campaign for California Families, in its brief seeking dismissal of the suits, said Prop. 8 is far less sweeping than the measures the court has invalidated.

The Nov. 4 measure "does not alter the balance of power between the branches of government, nor does it undermine or eliminate fundamental rights," said Mary McAlister, a lawyer for the organization.

All Prop. 8 does, she said, is to enshrine in the state's Constitution "the centuries-old definition of a universal social institution."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/17/BAGP1467MF.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1
 
Back
Top