Ban gay marriage and other minorities will also be discriminated against?

[IDrinkaRum]

Ban on Gay Marriage = trend to possibly discriminate against other minorities?

Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. are now saying that with the passage of Prop 8, there will be a legal precedent for people to discriminate against them also.

Discuss.

[Greenday]

The point where legal discrimination against race is pretty much gone. There's no chance of making it illegal for people to marry because of their race. Hating gays is the new, ok type of racism these days that the government is fine with. Racism won't fly anymore though.

[Lady_Foxfire]

I'm fairly certain that race and religion are protected classes under the federal constitution, which means that any laws or amendments like prop 8 targeted at those groups would be immediately struck down as being unconstitutional. The only reason prop 8 was allowed was that sexual orientation is not yet a protected class.

[smileyeagle1021]

Greenday, granted it takes a lot more to get a federal amendment passed than a state amendment, but the precedent has been set that it is ok to deny rights because of what the majority believes to be morally right. If it were put up to a 50+1% vote I have no doubt that it would be passed that it is illegal to be an athiest, after all the majority of the country (at least 50+1%) do believe that being a member of a church is the morally right thing to do. However sense it's already protected at the federal level so it would need a federal amendment which takes a 2/3 majority... that said, I could see it just barely passing if it were put up to a vote today. So racism isn't the only thing we have to worry about for removal of rights anymore.

[anriana]

I think it's unlikely that a state amendment denying rights to people of color would pass... but I also didn't think that CA, the liberal and queer mecca of the U.S., would pass an amendment banning gay marriage.

I am very scared by this precedent.

[DrT]

I think the next step to be worried about is a ban on gay mariage at the federal level. Until prop 8 it not felt possible, but with that kind of backup I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back on the table.

The difference between gay mariage and the racial issue is that public opinion wise, the race issue is WAY too hot. Whereas an anti-gay stance still wins elections.

Seriously, I'd be more worried about abortion, even is the president elect says he's going to protect it. I see it as the next target of the christian lobby, which gains power every day.

[AFPheonix]

Oh it's been a target and they've been chipping away happily at a state level for a long time.

That's another reason that I wanted a dem for a president. With several supreme court justices wanting to retire, I simply couldn't abide it if the balance in the supreme court was tipped even more conservatively and Roe vs Wade was struck down.

[Flyndaran]

But gay marriage is actually a form of sexual discrimination. Because I, a man, am not allowed to marry X because of his sex, not what we are assumed to do while married.
A gay man and a gay woman could legally get married as we don't check to see if they have sex in private. So why is it illegal for two dudes or chicks to marry?

Also as the supreme court called marriage a right rather than a priviledge when slapping down miscenagenation laws, stopping gay marriage would require an amendment to stop.

But as no such case has gone to them they can't publically say that such marriage discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional.

[LewisLegion]

I think a lot of it is a matter of semantics. From what I understand, most homosexual couples want to marry because they want to have the same joint rights as straight married couples: insurance, joint taxes, legal status to speak for one another during health crises, being considered 'family' for hospital visits, etc.

So it seems to only be control of a word. If homosexuals were allowed a full civil union or an official 'domestic partnership' that granted them all the rights of a married couple, why worry about the word 'marriage?'

This is not meant to imply that I don't believe in full rights for homosexuals. I fully believe they should have the same rights as anyone else, I'm seriously just curious. Marriage came about as a religious term referring to the union of man and woman, right? So why niggle semantics?

There are plenty of things out there that certain people 'can't' do. Person A isn't Catholic so can't participate in Catholic religious ceremonies (unless they choose to join that religion). Person B isn't African American so he can't go to college under a african american college fund. Person C isn't female so he can't get a woman's only basketball scholarship. This is oversimplified but you get my drift.

If homosexuals can get all the full rights of a married couple under law, under a civil union or domestic partnership, if they can even indulge themselves in a ceremony and exchange rings and invite family and adopt children if they so desire (all of which I FULLY support and pray the government allows someday), why care if its called 'marriage' or 'partnership' or 'union?'

Heck, why not make all three? Marriages are between heterosexual couples that want to make that commitment. Partnerships are made between homosexual couples or heterosexual couples who want to have joint rights for a set amount of time (contract ends at a given date and can be renewed simply for another term or dissolved without the messy divorce proceedings). Unions are between homosexual only couples who want the full benefits similar to a marriage (including divorce and custody proceedings if desiring to seperate).

If its the 'word' causing all the problems, then just change the word. Compromise to soothe everyone's feathers.

[BookstoreEscapee]

If its the 'word' causing all the problems, then just change the word. Compromise to soothe everyone's feathers.

I've seen this argument numerous times (on other sites); I'm not sure from your post if you're for or against gay marriage, but a lot of people who are against it talk about the word "marriage" as if they somehow own it. I see comments like "you can have your civil union and all the rights and benefits, JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE!!" Then they turn around and say, as if it somehow strengthens the argument, "it's just a word, so let us (heteros) have it" - my question, if it's truly "just a word," why do they care so much.

I have yet to see a remotely logical explanation of how gays getting married affects anyone else's marriage; people who are so concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage never seem so concerned about the high divorce rate. When/if I get married, it will be between me and my husband. Bob and John down the street getting married won't affect my relationship any more than Britney Spears's 55-hour marriage does. And hell, I'd be right there to help Bob and John celebrate, while, had she asked me, I would have told Britney she was nuts.

FTR, if you look up the word marriage, there are several definitions. Most of them don't mention religion. And if you look at the history of marriage, it was for a long time primarily a financial arrangement between a man (and/or his family) and the father of his bride. Most women had little, if any, say in who they married, and often, the groom probably didn't have much more say. Marriage as a romantic relationship is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[LewisLegion]

Oh, I'm all for gay marriage. And you're absolutely right, on the one side you've got a group yelling to be married and on the other side a group saying 'you can't be/call it marriage'. My point is, why all this pointless fighting over a word (on BOTH sides), when the energy could be spent instead on getting legislation passed to have the same rights (WHATEVER its called).

Am I making any sense?

Instead of meeeting the pig-headed 'omg u can't be MARRIED' argumentists in a shouting match, why not focus on the heart of the problem (financial/insurance/adoption rights, etc) and screw what its called? It seems to be only pride in that it HAS to be called marriage as it is only pride that 'omg u can't be MARRIED becuz ur 'the queer' even if its not affecting my rights at all' that keeps it going like this. Energy that should go into getting legislation accomplished under WHATEVER name needed to get it accomplished is instead going into bickering over a word.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Am I making any sense?

Absolutely.

Part of the problem is people who refuse to acknowledge the difference between the religious institution of marriage and civil marriage. Two atheists can get married by a justice of the peace, and religious folks don't insist they're not really married (well, not publicly, at least...). Even if you get married in a church, without a marriage license from the state you're not legally married. One solution I've seen proposed is to remove marriage from the civil realm all together. Everyone, gay or straight, gets a civil union (or whatever) and if you want to be married you can do that in your church. Either way, I doubt the casual usage of the word "married" will change. Personally, I think the whole distinction is rather silly.

[Flyndaran]

Absolutely.

Part of the problem is people who refuse to acknowledge the difference between the religious institution of marriage and civil marriage. Two atheists can get married by a justice of the peace, and religious folks don't insist they're not really married ..

Hee. My brother and his wife are atheists married by a judge in his tiny library. Admittedly the idea for it initially came about as a way for two friends to afford a house and mesh assets. Whoda' thunk that they would actually fall in love?
That leaves little old me the only unmarried member of my family despite my 10 plus year relationship.