Gay Marriage

[Arctyrael]

Halifirien has a good rebuttal to your post already earlier in the thread. Proposition 8 may need to run through CA's legislature first -- which it has not been for this initiative.

As far as federal goes, the only portion that needs to be guaranteed federally is acknowledging state marriages for tax purposes and not defining marriage in the constitution (something that would be assanine).

 

[Mirewen]

I'm not sure what word would better apply. Maybe "supernatural," but I don't really see it as an improvement. Either way, you're still believing in things that don't happen in the natural world.

My point is not to insult people just because you don't believe the same way. Other people have said they're athiest, agnostic, what have you, but they haven't said anything disparaging to Christianity, Judaism, etc. People can believe what they want, it doesn't mean they have to be insulting to people who see otherwise.

 

[Celvantes]

Halifirien has a good rebuttal to your post already earlier in the thread. Proposition 8 may need to run through CA's legislature first -- which it has not been for this initiative.

As far as federal goes, the only portion that needs to be guaranteed federally is acknowledging state marriages for tax purposes and not defining marriage in the constitution (something that would be assanine).

Even if it is run through the legislature, it would be shot down by the state supreme court. The only thing that can trump a constitutional amendment is another one (prohibition, is a perfect example).

There's nothing the federal government can do - this is one of those powers traditionally passed down to the states. Absorbing this power at the federal level would open a Pandora's box of states' rights issues that have been generally untouched since the very early days of this country.

If the gay community in California wants the right to marry, they need to start working up support by winning hearts and minds across the state to get their own constitutional amendment. If the anti-Proposition 8 people can do it, there's no reason they can't. It's just hard work.

 

[Darklilac]

Hali's attitudes towards religion is akin to Homer simpson's in episode IV:

"Apu, when they were handing out religions, you musta been taking a whiz"

If you want people to take your ideas seriously, you need to be respectful to all. Especially as someone who is obviously part of this so called 'oppressed' group, if you want to earn respect then show it. I don't discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, I judge it person to person.

And you are showing me that you don't deserve any respect in any intellectual community because of your severe disrespect to people that don't hold the same belief as you. You bash Christians for being closed-minded, yet do the same thing yourself.

Celvantes answer is the truth, and no, Hali's answer before that is not a rebuttal. When people feel what they did was a mistake, they try to remove their decision. This is what CA is doing. The problem was in the law to begin with. Not saying that I believe a homosexual does not deserve the same rights, but until the definition of what a marriage entails is clearly designated and approved, the law shouldn't be on the books.

 

[Mistra]

Indeed, lobbying would be the way to go. Takes time, effort, and money.

 

[Arctyrael]

Even if it is run through the legislature, it would be shot down by the state supreme court. The only thing that can trump a constitutional amendment is another one (prohibition, is a perfect example).

If the legislature amends the constitution; which is potentially necessary here -- the supreme court of CA can do nothing. The court obviously pulls its power from the constitution of CA. It must also abide by the current regulations, and as Hali provided, can strike down proposition 8 -- as a ballot initiative -- if it appears to undercut the rights of citizens.

There's nothing the federal government can do - this is one of those powers traditionally passed down to the states. Absorbing this power at the federal level would open a Pandora's box of states' rights issues that have been generally untouched since the very early days of this country.

I would be interested to see if this might would constitute a violation of the "bill of rights." I only say this because I know the Federal Supreme Court can, as it should, nullify all discriminatory laws (say if they were based on the color of your skin) and state amendments if necessary.

If the gay community in California wants the right to marry, they need to start working up support by winning hearts and minds across the state to get their own constitutional amendment. If the anti-Proposition 8 people can do it, there's no reason they can't. It's just hard work.

No doubt; this is always the case for all controversial issues.

If you want people to take your ideas seriously, you need to be respectful to all. Especially as someone who is obviously part of this so called 'oppressed' group, if you want to earn respect then show it. I don't discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, I judge it person to person.

Yes.

And you are showing me that you don't deserve any respect in any intellectual community because of your severe disrespect to people that don't hold the same belief as you. You bash Christians for being closed-minded, yet do the same thing yourself.

I'll even agree with this. Halifirien could strive to be more reasonable if he chose and perhaps he should. It is ultimately his choice and you can base any respect towards him then on that choice.

Celvantes answer is the truth, and no, Hali's answer before that is not a rebuttal. When people feel what they did was a mistake, they try to remove their decision. This is what CA is doing. The problem was in the law to begin with. Not saying that I believe a homosexual does not deserve the same rights, but until the definition of what a marriage entails is clearly designated and approved, the law shouldn't be on the books.

It is an accurate rebuttal because Halifirien is talking about state level jurisdiction. Surprisingly few have alluded to a federal level of "equal protection." If this amendment is deemed to undermine the rights of a group of people in CA, the CA supreme court can disallow the amendment and force it through proper legislative channels in CA. Halifirien, as hot tempered as you see him, has provided great information. In no way is he talking federal powers in that regard.

 

[Tyrath]

Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Thats what she said.



Sorry, I had to :<

My point is not to insult people just because you don't believe the same way. Other people have said they're athiest, agnostic, what have you, but they haven't said anything disparaging to Christianity, Judaism, etc. People can believe what they want, it doesn't mean they have to be insulting to people who see otherwise.

Yes, and he believes that people who believe in god are the same as people who believe in magic.

 

[Celvantes]

If the legislature amends the constitution; which is potentially necessary here -- the supreme court of CA can do nothing. The court obviously pulls its power from the constitution of CA. It must also abide by the current regulations, and as Hali provided, can strike down proposition 8 -- as a ballot initiative -- if it appears to undercut the rights of citizens.

By 'legislature' I thought you meant earlier a law passed reference to gay marriage, not a constitutional amendment. In this case, no, if the legislature passed a constitutional amendment, the court could do nothing.

 

[Lukas]

Prop 8 can be considered an illegal consitutional revision because it forgoes equal protection. The yes on 8 losers tried to pass it as a mere amendment, but it's not because it stripped a fundamental right from a particular group. It is not a revision in a quantitative sense as it only redefines marriage, but it is a qualitative one in its attempts to deny a fundamental right AND target a suspect class (homosexuals).

"Equal Protection" is not equal protection if the majority can simply delegate exceptions where they please. A constitutional revision must go before the two houses of CA State Legislature before being voted on - which did not happen in this case and thus the revision was "illegal".

We have precedent here. The state high court has overturned such amendments guised as revisions before, and state legislature has voted to uphold gay marriage twice in the past (which does not bode well for the "yes on 8" losers if they wish to redirect their challenge in the form of a constitutional revision). We also have Gloria Allred...

So essentially: All that we have to do is prove that Prop 8 was a revision rather than an amendment, and the high court will be compelled to over-turn it as it did not follow the appropriate procedure for constitutional revisions.

 

[Lukas]

Meanwhile I can't help but think about how I think the Yes on 8 people won: THEY BROUGHT CHILDREN INTO IT! Whenever someone brings kids into anything people just immediately jump to their (KIDS) defense - as it should be for children, but NOT WHEN IT'S COMPLETE LIES AND NOT ABOUT KIDS AT ALL. The people at Yes on 8 knew this and used it in the sickest of ways to forward their ignorant agenda.

Here's a little factoid for you. Did you know that there have been studies that show that if a magazine puts a childs face on it's cover, people have a near impossible time time throwing it away or recycling it? It will sit on people's coffee tables or desks, etc. for months and even years because people absolutely hate to discard faces of children. They hate to think for a second they are hurting kids in any way, so much so they won't even recycle a fucking piece of paper.

So the lesson is = If you want to SELL something, ANYTHING, put a child's face on it!

So here is what I suggest for a list of key goals when making a go of marriage equality next time (pretending it would be called Prop 8 again):

- Use the language style of your opponents campaign and make good use of the word 'God' in your marketing

- Use colors like red and white, but not blue. Blue is for liberals. Besides, red is the color of GOP (which is sooo close to GOD) and it's the color of Jesus Christ's blood, who died on the cross for us.

- Use images of innocent, white babies. Note: White babies sell more than babies of color.

- Use giant text with a confusing mixed message that only leaves you feeling like you will do anything to save that white baby.

Something like this:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=49417314&blogID=446597532

 

[Halifirien]

As far as minority rights, note that there is nothing forbidding gays to get married in the religious sense - they are free to go to anyone who will perform a wedding ceremony. Nothing says they cannot live together.

Noted, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Gay couples aren't lobbying for religious marriage. If that's all we wanted, we wouldn't be bothering with lawsuits. We could just jump a broom and say we're married. This is about civil marriage.

And I agree with you that this is how the process works. Same-sex marriage passed the legislature and was vetoed, although Schwarzenegger stepped aside and said he wouldn't interfere when the courts said gay couples had to be allowed equal access. So the process worked.

If the ballot initiative can be proven improper -- and the courts declined to rule on it until they were faced with actual passage -- that's also the process working. Of course, I'm sure there will be howls of "judicial activism" if that happens. When it comes to civil rights, sitting around and waiting for the majority to give you the rights you're due out of the goodness of its heart means you're going to be waiting for a long time.

As to my lack of respect for religion, it's no secret I'm an atheist. I lump belief in gods with belief in unicorns, ghosts, and leprechauns, and I've never been shy about pointing that out and won't be retracting my belief that it's all magic wishful thinking anytime soon. Religion in and of itself doesn't bother me as long as it's kept in its proper place, although I'm strongly opposed to fundamentalism in all forms. I can respect the importance you place in your religion, but it's definitely a stretch to ask me to respect the actual religion itself, because I don't and won't pretend I do.

 

[Uzor]

Celv, I highly doubt gay couples want to get married in order to achieve the same rights as normal couples (the rights you mentioned). If that was the case, they would be happy with a civil union, get almost the same benefits, and then go on with their lives without protest.

I'd think they want to get married to have equal rights as the rest of the population, and to be considered equals. If a black couple tried to get married, and the church wouldn't allow it, all hell would break lose. Not allowing gay couples to get married is the exact same thing, you're telling them they aren't equal, don't have the same rights, as everyone else.

Now, I can see not allowing muslims to get married in a church (not that they'd want to, anyway), as that is another religion, but why wouldn't you allow a Christian gay couple to get married? A lot of so-called Christians that don't even believe in God are allowed to get married, and that, if anything, is a big giant slap in God's face, much more so then allowing homosexuals to get married in a church.

 

[Halifirien]

And it's worth pointing out that gay couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades, giving themselves a ceremony in front of their families and friends even though it carried no legal weight. It's not an alien concept. It's just not what we want.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Yeah and he broke them and was able to get God to bring him new ones that had the same thing written on them instead of writing something different and telling people that God was angry because the original was destroyed.

One of those seems more believable than the other to you?

As for lumping Christians and Mormons together, in my opinion that's about as close minded and uninformed as saying people of the same sex can't get married.

It might be if homosexuality was a choice like religion is, but it isn't.

You might as well say Judaism, Muslims, Christians, and Mormons are all exactly the same. They all came from the family of Abraham and worship the same God in different ways.

Except Jews and Muslims don't believe in Jesus like Christians (and Mormons for those of you that make a distinction). Believing in Christ is what makes you a christian. Mormons call thierselves Christians. To not respect their choice to do so is to be disrespectful to their religion. You wouldn't do that would you?

You can call them all believers of magic if you wish. That's what they are to you because you haven't seen God for yourself. Everyone has the right to their own set of beliefs as long as they aren't harming other people.

That's the thing about it though, Christian beliefs DO harm other people very frequently. So do Muslim beliefs.

Personally I am a Christian and I believe that people of the same sex should be able to get married if they so choose. I know that not everyone believes in God like I do. They haven't seen him in their own life so they don't believe in him. Some Christians have not had feelings for the same sex so they don't believe in being gay.

Your wording is misleading. I don't believe in god because I don't think he exists. Christians don't believe people should have the right to be gay. They believe in gay people, they just think they are all going to hell.

I don't have feelings for women (although I joke about it alot with my female friends) but it doesn't mean that I don't believe in gay people and most educated Christians are like that.

That just means that, like most Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to believe while ignoring the parts you disagree with as though they don't exist.

Most atheists that I know aren't so vocal as some of the Christians are about their beliefs but there are extremists on both sides who try to force their opinions on others. The extremists are the ones who really hurt our society.

You won't find extremist atheist who travel around the world trying to spread the idea of no God to people in 3rd world countries. You won't find us standing on the street corner handing out pamplets. You won't find us gathering together once a week so we can blow smoke up each others asses abou how we all think there is no god. "Extremist Atheists" would, at the most, openly disagree with anyone they are within earshot speaking about god. We don't have a book instucting us to spread our beliefs like a plague.

The reason I will openly disagree with anyone spouting off about god and me going to hell? I'm tired of religion destroying this country and stealing the rights of it's citizens due to ignorance.

But that is my "religion", and by your standards, you have to respect that, no?

If I was a Californian I would have voted to let gay people get married. I am a conservative for the most part but I don't believe in telling people how they should live and who they should marry.

Good for you. Now try and convince me that 2 billion other christians think the same way.

Another lesson in this situation is that everyone should pay attention to the issues and vote. You don't have to know everything about every candidate on the ballot and don't have to even select someone to vote for in a category that you don't know enough which option to choose but I think that everyone would know if they believed in marriage for everyone or not. Honestly that alone should be enough for most people to stand in line and vote.

I can't even find myself agreeing with you here. I voted in Tennessee, and that means my vote basicly meant nothing because Obama didn't get any benefit from it. McCain got the 11 electoral votes from my state. I voted on a proposition to allow package stores in my town as well. Not because I don't want to drive 1 county over to get my liquor, hell, I don't even drink. I just wanted this county to get the tax revenue off of alcohol its people buys and consumes.

I think the only reason I vote is so I will have the right to bitch about what happens after the stack my vote is in gets declared the loser in my state. Every time I have ever voted, what I voted for lost in my state.

 

[Tristam Green]

Christians don't believe people should have the right to be gay. They believe in gay people, they just think they are all going to hell.

I think MANY IF NOT ALL QCDN Christians would disagree with you about this, and isn't that the context you really ought to be looking at here? Considering you have dealings with us on a daily basis, deal with the ones in Tennessee how you deem fit, but deal with us differently, because we aren't the ones throwing sand in your eye.

You won't find extremist atheist who travel around the world trying to spread the idea of no God to people in 3rd world countries. You won't find us standing on the street corner handing out pamplets.

You just see them on the television alongside the purported "powerhouses of the Christian faith". Bill Maher ranks right alongside Robert Tilton.

You won't find us gathering together once a week so we can blow smoke up each others asses abou how we all think there is no god.

Charleston Atheist-Humanist Society

Sure you don't.

We don't have a book instucting us to spread our beliefs like a plague.

Sure you don't.

 

[Stine]

One of those seems more believable than the other to you?

One had exactly the same wording and the other didn't. Yes that is more believable to me. I don't question why you don't believe it because it is your right to believe or not.

It might be if homosexuality was a choice like religion is, but it isn't.

I didn't say that it was a choice to be homosexual.

Except Jews and Muslims don't believe in Jesus like Christians (and Mormons for those of you that make a distinction). Believing in Christ is what makes you a christian. Mormons call thierselves Christians. To not respect their choice to do so is to be disrespectful to their religion. You wouldn't do that would you?

If they want to call themselves Christian then they can. I don't have to agree with it. I also don't go up to them and tell them that they are an idiot.

That's the thing about it though, Christian beliefs DO harm other people very frequently. So do Muslim beliefs.

So if I believe that I shouldn't murder someone that's harming someone else? Not all Christians and Muslims believe everyone deserves to die for believing different than them. I am for gay rights so how is me being a Christian harming them?

Your wording is misleading. I don't believe in god because I don't think he exists. Christians don't believe people should have the right to be gay. They believe in gay people, they just think they are all going to hell.

No it isn't misleading. If someone has not seen God in their life, they're not going to believe in them. Some Christians who have not had feelings for people of their same gender so they might not believe in being gay. It just means that they are uneducated about homosexuality. There are gay Christians too. I personally don't think someone is going to hell because they are gay.

That just means that, like most Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to believe while ignoring the parts you disagree with as though they don't exist.

As I have mentioned time and time again, It means as an educated Christian that I understand that the Bible was written by man and is man's interpretation of God's teachings. I know that I should educate myself with secular and nonsecular writings so that I can know what is right. I don't have all the answers. No one does.

You won't find extremist atheist who travel around the world trying to spread the idea of no God to people in 3rd world countries. You won't find us standing on the street corner handing out pamplets. You won't find us gathering together once a week so we can blow smoke up each others asses abou how we all think there is no god. "Extremist Atheists" would, at the most, openly disagree with anyone they are within earshot speaking about god. We don't have a book instucting us to spread our beliefs like a plague.

You don't see every religious person going out trying to force their beliefs on others. The extremist do.

The reason I will openly disagree with anyone spouting off about god and me going to hell? I'm tired of religion destroying this country and stealing the rights of it's citizens due to ignorance.

I am tired of ignorance stealing the rights of it's citizens as well. I am also tired of the ignorance about people who are religious so I posted my feelings. Not all of us want to crucify people for being who they are. Again, there are gay Christians.

But that is my "religion", and by your standards, you have to respect that, no?

Yes I do respect that. I'm not calling you stupid for your beliefs. I ask kindly for the same respect.

Good for you. Now try and convince me that 2 billion other christians think the same way.

I can't. I know that I can't. I also know that spreading hate by calling religious people who are undecided on the issue is not going to convince them to support gay rights. You could have all the facts in the world but as soon as you say, "Religious people are idiots for believing in a magical ghost," you lost their vote. You possibly angered them enough to vote against it.

I can't even find myself agreeing with you here. I voted in Tennessee, and that means my vote basicly meant nothing because Obama didn't get any benefit from it. McCain got the 11 electoral votes from my state. I voted on a proposition to allow package stores in my town as well. Not because I don't want to drive 1 county over to get my liquor, hell, I don't even drink. I just wanted this county to get the tax revenue off of alcohol its people buys and consumes.

I think the only reason I vote is so I will have the right to bitch about what happens after the stack my vote is in gets declared the loser in my state. Every time I have ever voted, what I voted for lost in my state.

First off, I applaud you voting despite your choices not winning. Obama got more votes in South Carolina than I thought possible. No he didn't get our electoral votes either. Does that mean that you shouldn't try? No. There might have been more people in both of our states who would have voted for Obama if they thought their vote counted. The voter turnout in SC was 75% with Obama losing with less than 200,000 votes. Almost 600,000 people didn't vote in SC. What does that say to me? That if not even half of those people voted for Obama then he would have won the state. I might just be optimistic but that says to me that if more people thought that their vote counted, then it would have made a difference.

Some one stated that there was a decent amount of the gay community in California who were not registered to vote. To me that says that if more of them were registered they could have protected their right to get married. I would think that vote would have been enough to stand in line and vote even if they didn't vote for anything else on the ballot.

If you don't read anything else in my post, read this.
The reason that I posted was I am totally mystified as to why someone would start bashing religious people in this thread and not just the extremists who were pushing people to vote against gay marriage when every person who said they were religious in this tread said that they supported gay marriage. The person who started this tread is religious and believes in gay rights. The extremist scared people into voting by doing a campaign that basically said, "Think of the children." To an educated Christian, we know that marriage is touched lightly if at all at school. Yeah a school might teach about the fact that it was passed into law but not all Christians shield their children from the whole world. Yes we're probably a minority. If you wanted to sway an undecided religious person, the best way would be to educate them about how gay people are not trying to force their kids to see their relationships and to be gay. As stated before, you could have all the facts in the world to show why a person should support gay rights but telling a religious person, "You're stupid for believing in a magical ghost," would more than likely turn an undecided religious person against gay rights. Hardly anyone is going to be sympathic to someone's beliefs or want to listen to what they have to say if they constantly call them an idiot. I am not asking you to believe in God. I am not even asking you to praise people for their beliefs. Just don't ask them to respect your rights if you won't respect theirs.

 

[Halifirien]

The reason that I posted was I am totally mystified as to why someone would start bashing religious people in this thread and not just the extremists who were pushing people to vote against gay marriage when every person who said they were religious in this tread said that they supported gay marriage.

If I'm talking to a bunch of undecided religious people about gay rights, then of course I'm not going to go around needlessly insulting their relgion. It's called tact. But that's not the situation we had here.

This entire derail came up because I touched some theological third rail by accepting Mormons at their word that they believe in Jesus and consider themselves Christians. I explained why I treat them the same. Nowhere did I say Stine or Mirewen are stupid for believing what they believe -- the strongest word I used was "cracked," and even then that was directed at religions and not the individual believers. I think you're wrong about how the universe works, but that doesn't make you stupid.

I don't even consider what I said to be particularly insulting, but if you're so incensed that I used a word you don't like, please feel free to explain to me the difference between magic and turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, stopping the Earth's revolution to prolong a battle, calming storms with a word and healing the sick with a touch, or the parting of the Red Sea, or any of dozens of supposed miracles performed in contravention of natural law. I'm sure it'll be a fascinating explanation.

 

[shizbgby]

I was like "The Fuck, California?!"

Like Ellen said, this is a major step back. :nono:

 

[Tyrath]

Sure you don't.

Did you just compare that to a religious book?

Seriously?

Wow. I have to ask. Do you really believe atheists look to this book for guidance?

Just to add, there are publications about all kinds of beliefs around the world. But that doesn't mean this book is the atheist equivalent of the bible, qur'an, etc.

 

[Stine]

If I'm talking to a bunch of undecided religious people about gay rights, then of course I'm not going to go around needlessly insulting their relgion. It's called tact. But that's not the situation we had here.

This entire derail came up because I touched some theological third rail by accepting Mormons at their word that they believe in Jesus and consider themselves Christians. I explained why I treat them the same. Nowhere did I say Stine or Mirewen are stupid for believing what they believe -- the strongest word I used was "cracked," and even then that was directed at religions and not the individual believers. I think you're wrong about how the universe works, but that doesn't make you stupid.

I don't even consider what I said to be particularly insulting, but if you're so incensed that I used a word you don't like, please feel free to explain to me the difference between magic and turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, stopping the Earth's revolution to prolong a battle, calming storms with a word and healing the sick with a touch, or the parting of the Red Sea, or any of dozens of supposed miracles performed in contravention of natural law. I'm sure it'll be a fascinating explanation.

Saying that someone is cracked for believing in their religion says that you think that they are crazy, delusional crackpots. You also likened it to believing in unicorns, ghosts, and leprechauns. Saying that we believe in magic and that Mormons and the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians is insulting to Christians who actually read the Bible and think for themselves instead of taking for granted what some preacher tells us. Probably more insulting to us due to our disgust for their actions in the name of our God than you actually calling them Christians. As I said to Trippyhippy before, they can call themselves Christians, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. I'm not going to come up to their homes and curse them out but I'm definitely not happy with them.

You also made a comment that Christians were scared of gays having equal rights and that maybe it would lead to people shunning us. To me it sounded like people shunning me just because I'm Christian. You probably didn't mean all Christians but just the ones that were spreading hate.

As for magic, maybe in a way we do believe in magic but then again there is proof that some things happen for reasons that science can't explain. I believe that God can cause miracles to happen. Yes, you have the right to believe that I'm crazy for believing that He does. I merely suggest choosing your words a little more carefully when speaking to Christians. Maybe we shouldn't be so sensitive about it as well. No one is perfect and no one has all the answers.