Gay Marriage

[anriana]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

75% of Americans were on the side of Virginia in Virginia vs. Loving (the Supreme Court case about interracial marriage.)

[Boozy]

To clarify for those who haven't heard of the case: Virginia had anti-miscenagation laws at the time of the case (1967), which banned interracial marriage. Virginians were overwhelmingly A-OK with that.

Richard Loving was a white man who married a black/Native American woman (in Washington). They were arrested when they returned to Virginia. (In their bedroom. Seriously. Government agents literally stormed into their bedroom.) Loving went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld the laws.

The case was accepted by the United States Supreme Court, however, and they did the sensible thing and ruled Virginia's anti-miscenagation laws unconsitutional.

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

[AFPheonix]

T

I don't foresee that happening here, since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been accepting gay marriage cases, which is pretty cowardly in my opinion.

Now, before someone says, "1967 was a less enlightened time", I can guarantee you that in 40 years, people will be saying the same thing about 2009. And Prop 8 will be a shameful part of California's past, god willing.

I think the Loving vs. Virginia case is a good example of how popular opinion can be wrong, and how state supreme courts can also be wrong.

Well hell, the California Supreme court didn't even have the balls to comment on the constitutionality of Prop 8. All they did was to make an extremely narrow ruling that stated that according to the rules in place, Prop 8 was worded and put into the constitution legally as an amendment.
Another amendment can be introduced to overturn, at least. It's going to have to, social conservatives cannot hide their heads in the sand any longer. Their numbers are slowly dwindling.
This is a blow to the gay movement and that saddens me that the court couldn't be brave and overturn the measure. That's why they get to be independent jurists who don't have to rely on popular opinion, so they can make calls that are right but not always popular.

It also just reinforces how California needs to have their current constitution scuttled and redone. If you can put in amendments that directly conflict with the rest of the document, then what's the point of having the original document in the first place? The whole point of a constitution is to prevent mob rule in our democracy. That clearly did not happen here.

[Slytovhand]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

After all, there is this document - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which quite clearly indicates that Prop 8 is 'illegal' (or is it legal? I keep mixing the 2 up.. ) Certainly, any form of discrimination is out... and New York has a director who reports directly to the Commissioner!

[Boozy]

Just curious, why isn't this matter heading towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?

The United Nations does not have any jurisdiction over sovereign nations.

Besides, that asshole Mugabe is still in power. If the UN is planning on doing anything (which of course they aren't), they should be dealing with that.

[guywithashovel]

To an extent, it upsets me that so many people seem to think it's okay to vote away someone's else's freedom. And to top it off, many of them justify it with their religion, and many of them even go as far as trying to make their position look like one of love, compassion and understanding. The sheer smarminess and utter contradiction can be infuriating.

However, I only stay angry with them for a few moments. I soon come to the realization that they are on the losing side of history. If you study the past, you will quickly realize that bigotry never prevails. Sometimes it takes a long time to extinguish it, but it is never the victor. We're already seeing this in the gay rights arena. So far, several states have already given the green light to same sex couples, and more states are considering it. Soon, it will spread throughout the country. Unless there is a law or supreme court ruling or some other federal action that says that marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples, I'm sure that it will be a long time before the Bible Belt (The Southeastern US) gives them equal rights, but soon, it will come.

And if I could go back to what I was saying in my first paragraph, I'd like to remark on something I read on another web site. Remember how I talked about the nature of people who use religion to justify discrimination? Well, here's an example. Below is a paraphrased comment that I read in the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers. It was written by an Evangelical Christian who was opposed to giving gays equal rights.

"I understand, and most other Christians understand, that same sex couples want the right to be together and get married. Most of us also understand that not everyone considers homosexuality a sin like we do. And most of us don't have a problem with gay people having gay relationships if they want to. All we ask is that they don't call their relationships 'marriage.' Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

That has got to be one of the most ignorant and most contradictory statements I have ever read.

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha ha ha! Marriage as a sacrament didn't even get instituted until the 16th century. Historically marriage in the Western world was a business contract. It could also be a way of gaining status for families. It sure as hell wasn't what marriage is today.

Never mind the fact that marriage originated many places, not just societies that were Christian.


Having said all that, it's not just religious people that are responsible for this. Religion can be used an excuse, but there are many areligious people that voted this in just because they are bigoted against gays. Eew, buttsecks and all that.

[Boozy]

"...Marriage is OUR thing. It was given to us by God and set up to be between a man and a woman."

Well, in that case, I don't see why the government needs to recognize those Christian marriages at all. Separation of church and state and all that.

If we accept that "marriage" is solely a religious institution, there's no reason for the state to marry anybody. Everyone, gay and straight, can have "civil partnerships." Your church can call your partnership a "marriage" if it wants, but the government doesn't need to call it that.

Let's see how that goes over.

[guywithashovel]

Thing is, most of these people don't think there is or should be a separation between church and state. Many of them want mandatory prayer in all of the public schools, and heck, I think they'd even go for compulsory church attendance laws if they could do it (or maybe that's a bit too much even for them).

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

[daleduke17]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

[smileyeagle1021]

And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

along that vain, it should be mentioned that not all christian sects object to homosexuality... I am very much Christian and still very much gay... the two don't have to be in opposition.

[Boozy]

But yeah, not all of them are religious. And it should be mentioned that Christianity is not the only religion that objects to homosexuality, too.

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

[Slytovhand]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what????


Boozy, my remarks on the UN High Commisioner (and I knew I should have added bits when I posted it ) was that if it was 'ruled' to be against a person's human rights to deny marriage based on sexuality, it would give a massive stimulus to those querying the validity of such discrimination. I know they don't have a lot of power, and no 'jurisdiction', but I would think the effect of having such an important body say it officially would be pretty strong.

Mugabe?? Yeah, well... while the UN hasn't got much power (only the ability to talk, and occasionally rally some support), yes - not a lot will happen (see GD's thread). Besides, the UN is made up of lots and lots of different bits... I'm sure the New York office isn't inundated with so much stuff it can't see it's way to taking a quick peek at Cali.

[Sylvia727]

Are you talking Christianity as in just the Christians (separate from Lutheran, Methodist, etc) or Christianity as a whole (as opposed to the Jewish Faith and Catholicism)?

Ummmm... what????

There is a denomination of the Christian religion whose followers are called simply Christians. Actually, I believe there are several denominations of Christianity who call themselves simply Christians, to "distinguish" them from all the Lutherans and Baptists and what-have-you. Yeah, that bugs me too, on a purely grammar-elistist level. It makes no sense, it does not communicate meaning clearly, it is bad language. And don't even get me started on the people who attend "Christ Church" and blow a fuse when you refer to it as "Church of Christ". They mean the same thing! Name your new denomination something new or quitcherbitchin.

*Ahem* Anyway, I believe this is the concept to which daleduke is referring. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, but it is not a branch of Protestantism. For added confusing goodness.

[guywithashovel]

No, but the quote that I was responding to was made by an Evangelical Christian who claimed marriage as "our thing." For some reason I don't think he was including people of all faiths (including Muslims) in that statement.

That's true. I just thought I would throw that in as a general statement.

And in response to others who have pointed it out, it is also true that not all sects of Christianity consider homosexuality a sin. That needs to be mentioned as well.