NationStates Jolt Archive

Why not create your own religion that completely fits your views while you are at it ? If one starts cherrypicking, just go all the way. Who cares about "truth" - you know better than "God" after all.

In truth, I think religion is always personal.

And it has nothing to do with knowing better than God. Instead, it is a matter of trusting God, and one's own relationship with the divine, over other human beings.

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

Um, psychological intervention before you harm yourself or others? Apply some consideration that, (surprise) someone may oppose a thing you support, may put money toward it, and may actually win in a place you think your own power and influence are secure?

Next time: work harder and smarter to present your case to the voters, emulate the techniques of the successful Democratic Election in 2008, with the whole "reaching out into areas you're normally weak" and "Motivating your side's activists in recruiting and explaining your positions."

Prop 8 passed in large part because those who opposed it did not apply themselves and their resources intelligently to defeat it-they assumed that because the Obama campaign was motivating Minorities to vote, that they would ride this into a victory. This is an example of stupid campaign tactics and not knowing your audience well enough to make your case to them.

Demonizing a religious group is easy, it's cheap, and it doesn't win. It just makes you look like an asshole.

Next time: work harder and smarter to present your case to the voters, emulate the techniques of the successful Democratic Election in 2008, with the whole "reaching out into areas you're normally weak" and "Motivating your side's activists in recruiting and explaining your positions."

Of course, one should not have to even make the case that every human being is entitled to equal protection.

It's a sad thing that some people still don't understand that basic tenet of government.

Prop 8 passed in large part because those who opposed it did not apply themselves and their resources intelligently to defeat it-they assumed that because the Obama campaign was motivating Minorities to vote, that they would ride this into a victory. This is an example of stupid campaign tactics and not knowing your audience well enough to make your case to them.

People were hardly sitting back and doing nothing. Unfortunately, they gave the voters more credit than they deserved. Instead of making it personal, they made policy arguments. Instead of addressing the stupidity of many of the counter-arguments, they assumed that CA voters were....well....halfway intelligent.

Um, psychological intervention before you harm yourself or others? Apply some consideration that, (surprise) someone may oppose a thing you support, may put money toward it, and may actually win in a place you think your own power and influence are secure?

Next time: work harder and smarter to present your case to the voters, emulate the techniques of the successful Democratic Election in 2008, with the whole "reaching out into areas you're normally weak" and "Motivating your side's activists in recruiting and explaining your positions."

Prop 8 passed in large part because those who opposed it did not apply themselves and their resources intelligently to defeat it-they assumed that because the Obama campaign was motivating Minorities to vote, that they would ride this into a victory. This is an example of stupid campaign tactics and not knowing your audience well enough to make your case to them.

Demonizing a religious group is easy, it's cheap, and it doesn't win. It just makes you look like an asshole.

Spot on target.

West Hollywood white gay activists actually hung an effigy of Sarah Palin BY A NOOSE. That did not sit well with black voters, gay or straight.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462

Perhaps the Mormon Church isn't where the backlash should be focused after all. The NO on Prop 8 side dropped the ball on many points, mostly communication and the assumption that Black voters would automatically support gay marriage, and the further assumption that this is because they compared the gay marriage issue to the Black civil rights struggle.

I agree that the Mormon church has something to answer for, but let's not blow their contribution out of proportion when the opposition to Prop 8 was so badly mishandled.

People were hardly sitting back and doing nothing. Unfortunately, they gave the voters more credit than they deserved. Instead of making it personal, they made policy arguments. Instead of addressing the stupidity of many of the counter-arguments, they assumed that CA voters were....well....halfway intelligent.

Then that, and not only church contributions, is where the critical eye should be focused. The opposition took too much for granted and blew it. If the Obama campaign had run as poorly as No on 8 was run, we'd have a different new President.

Pfff... all religions are a cult. Look up the meaning of the word cult and you may understand the meaning.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

I agree. Next, we move to start a new Holocaust. Intolerance FTW

Of course, one should not have to even make the case that every human being is entitled to equal protection.

It's a sad thing that some people still don't understand that basic tenet of government.



People were hardly sitting back and doing nothing. Unfortunately, they gave the voters more credit than they deserved. Instead of making it personal, they made policy arguments. Instead of addressing the stupidity of many of the counter-arguments, they assumed that CA voters were....well....halfway intelligent.

This is the same california that put an Actor in the governor's office (twice), elected Feinstein to the senate twice, and votes single-party in every presidential election since 1984, right?

I mean, we ARE talking about the same california that lets VPCC write their firearms laws, then has a run on firearms when Los Angeles rioters showed that the police won't protect ordinary people, and it's the same california that is a bad, bad, place to have a small, non-internationalized business.

right?

Did you people really think that a culture of statism isn't going to draw a tyrannical majority out during a hot election year? What in the name of Odin did you people think, believing that eventually, the urge to statism, and the easy ability to change your constitution wouldn't turn against you eventually?

The people that voted it down were nursed on the idea of Government solving all problems large and small, and on the rightfulness of Tyranny by simple Majority.

The nice thing about this, is that with sufficient effort, all laws can be changed or reversed. The bad thing about it, is that y'all set up your system so that tyrannical shit like Prop 8 can pass because your culture allows some to dictate to all, and really provides NO protection to those that are not in the ascendant in the dominating culture.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

*sigh*

Please, PLEASE show me where that's part of any law anywhere seeking to extend the right of marriage to all US citizens. I'll save you time: you can't.

I heard the same crap when the SCOTUS defended flag burning as political expression. I heard and read people worrying that they'd HAVE to burn a flag, even if they didn't want to. It's bullshit. Just like Roe v. Wade never forced a single person to ever have an abortion, ever.

Once more, 'cause the futility is somehow exhilarating: NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO MARRY HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. Can you get that, at long last? Churches won't even have to worry about recognizing same-sex marriages because they're not in the business of providing services that married couples need, with the possible exception of healthcare, and I've not yet seen a Catholic hospital refuse to treat someone who was gay (I could be wrong on that, but I'll await proof).

For the love of all that's lovable, relax! Otherwise, I might be forced to think that you're one of those religious folks who oppose gay marriage just because they don't like it and therefore NOBODY SHOULD LIKE IT. We don't live in that country. You don't like it? Don't do it. What concern is it of yours who marries whom if neither of the couple is YOU?

Then that, and not only church contributions, is where the critical eye should be focused.

I'm not really going to bash someone for treating voters as adults capable of rational thought.

If anything, I'd bash the voters for acting like children.

The opposition took too much for granted and blew it. If the Obama campaign had run as poorly as No on 8 was run, we'd have a different new President.

Obama actually caught hell more than once for daring to actually treat voters as adults capable of rational thought.

If we really wanted to make a comparison here, I suppose we'd have to ask why Obama didn't go out of his way to make an ad countering the ridiculous claim that he was Malcom X's love child.

Who changed the thread title and why?

Who changed the thread title and why?

Ardchoille, because the previous title could be construed as an intent to do something illegal.

I'm not really going to bash someone for treating voters as adults capable of rational thought.

If anything, I'd bash the voters for acting like children.

Obama actually caught hell more than once for daring to actually treat voters as adults capable of rational thought.

If we really wanted to make a comparison here, I suppose we'd have to ask why Obama didn't go out of his way to make an ad countering the ridiculous claim that he was Malcom X's love child.

The difference is that the Malcolm X claim is truly ridiculous. You WOULD have to be an idiot to buy that.

Lots of people actually already believe the outright lies and misrepresentations advertised by Yes on 8 backers. Those ads knew which buttons to push, and they pushed them gleefully. You can say you're treating voters like adults all you like, but some claims have staying power because of societal misconceptions and "conventional wisdom", and as such MUST be opposed. No on 8 backers focused almost exclusively on the white gay population and it cost them.

Also, bashing the voters doesn't sound like any way to get them to vote for anything.

Who changed the thread title and why?

Were you so concerned, you could have read through the post, but it was deemed a potential incitement. I thought it was a reasonable move.

The difference is that the Malcolm X claim is truly ridiculous. You WOULD have to be an idiot to buy that.

And you would have to equally be an idiot to believe that the government recognizing gay marriage will mean that your kindergartner is going to have gay indoctrination classes.

Lots of people actually already believe the outright lies and misrepresentations advertised by Yes on 8 backers.

And they are just as idiotic as those who actually believed that Obama was Malcolm X's love child. Or those who believe that there is some vast conspiracy to create a North American Union and get rid of all borders between Canada, Mexico, and the US.

The fact that there are more idiots in one group than the other is irrelevant to how idiotic the claims are.

Also, bashing the voters doesn't sound like any way to get them to vote for anything.

We also apparently can't appeal to their intelligence.

Appealing to empathy clearly doesn't work.

So, what do we do?

And you would have to equally be an idiot to believe that the government recognizing gay marriage will mean that your kindergartner is going to have gay indoctrination classes.

I disagree. Appeals to a preposterous connection like Obama as kid to Malcolm X is new. It's something floated in desperation, and has that feel to it because it's never been mentioned before whoever tried it, tried it (I'd not heard that myself, and I'm fairly well connected, news-wise).

Appeals to MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN! are very old and very well-established. One has to be far less of an idiot -- or just plain too blinded by child-centrism -- to be coerced into defending one's child from perceived "indoctrination" of some minority viewpoint. Good Lord, it happens when US history teachers try to show R-rated films during the Vietnam sequence (as mine did when Platoon was banned at the behest of three parents in a school of 250 seniors taking the class).

I appreciate what you're saying here, and I even agree, to a point, but playing on the sympathies of parents is as old and perennial as grass.

And they are just as idiotic as those who actually believed that Obama was Malcolm X's love child. Or those who believe that there is some vast conspiracy to create a North American Union and get rid of all borders between Canada, Mexico, and the US.

That may be, but you're missing the point. One brand of idiocy is easily dismissed. But just try and downplay or ignore any group of parents when they get to clucking about this or that perceived threat. You will not get far. Again, I don't like it, but I know it's there, and Prop 8's opponents should have known it, too. They didn't. They blew it. They lost.

The fact that there are more idiots in one group than the other is irrelevant to how idiotic the claims are.

Again, true, but the more idiots there are, the more power and stronger voice they have. The more they will be seen as a voting bloc to be courted and pandered to. They were. Prop 8's opponents ignored this. They blew it. They lost.

We also apparently can't appeal to their intelligence.

Appealing to empathy clearly doesn't work.

So, what do we do?

The No on 8 campaign most certainly did NOT appeal strongly enough to the empathy and intelligence of the voters. Calling them idiots is not going to get them to vote for anything, and you know it. They had to make an opposing emotional and intellectual appeal that exposed the Yes campaign's outright crap for what it was. They needed to not take minority support for granted. They did neither (or neither with any efficacy). They blew it. They lost.

*sigh*

Please, PLEASE show me where that's part of any law anywhere seeking to extend the right of marriage to all US citizens. I'll save you time: you can't.

I heard the same crap when the SCOTUS defended flag burning as political expression. I heard and read people worrying that they'd HAVE to burn a flag, even if they didn't want to. It's bullshit. Just like Roe v. Wade never forced a single person to ever have an abortion, ever.

Once more, 'cause the futility is somehow exhilarating: NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO MARRY HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. Can you get that, at long last? Churches won't even have to worry about recognizing same-sex marriages because they're not in the business of providing services that married couples need, with the possible exception of healthcare, and I've not yet seen a Catholic hospital refuse to treat someone who was gay (I could be wrong on that, but I'll await proof).

For the love of all that's lovable, relax! Otherwise, I might be forced to think that you're one of those religious folks who oppose gay marriage just because they don't like it and therefore NOBODY SHOULD LIKE IT. We don't live in that country. You don't like it? Don't do it. What concern is it of yours who marries whom if neither of the couple is YOU?

Well said. You have raised a convincing argument. However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage. A marriage is a contract in which two people become one in the eyes of God. Thus, a secular state shouldn't be able to perform a marriage. This applies to all marriages. I fin it silly that the state regulates who churches can and cannot marry.

If gay couples want to have marriage, let them found their own church.

Well said. You have raised a convincing argument. However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage. A marriage is a contract in which two people become one in the eyes of God. Thus, a secular state shouldn't be able to perform a marriage. This applies to all marriages. I fin it silly that the state regulates who churches can and cannot marry.

If gay couples want to have marriage, let them found their own church.

They don't need to. Several faiths perform gay marriages. Including mine.

Who changed the thread title and why?
When I wrote the title and OP, I was in a state of irrational anger. I have no problem with the mods toning down the title; I'm a little toned-down myself, by now. though I have to note that this is the first time I've ever gotten a thread to go over 1000 posts, and spin off three or four copy-cat threads; maybe I should get outrageous more often
However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage.That is exactly backwards. If the LAW doesn't marry you, it isn't a marriage: have a "wedding" in your church if you want to or feel the spiritual need to, but if you don't get a marriage license from the county clerk and record it, that wedding was not a "marriage". On the other hand, millions of people did not get wed in a church, but are legally "married" just the same.

The problem remains- apparently, even in California, some animals are more equal than others.

It never, ever, occurs to the masses that when they collectively restrict the rights of some, they are denying rights to ALL.

California has a long tradition of restricting rights of some (easily suppressed) citizens in the name of "The People", it's just that this time, the "Some" are a minority used to getting their way in California.

The wyrm always turns.

Well said. You have raised a convincing argument. However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage. A marriage is a contract in which two people become one in the eyes of God. Thus, a secular state shouldn't be able to perform a marriage. This applies to all marriages. I find it silly that the state regulates who churches can and cannot marry.

If gay couples want to have marriage, let them found their own church.

Not necessary because of this...

They don't need to. Several faiths perform gay marriages. Including mine.

(Unitarians, for example)...and this...

That is exactly backwards. If the LAW doesn't marry you, it isn't a marriage: have a "wedding" in your church if you want to or feel the spiritual need to, but if you don't get a marriage license from the county clerk and record it, that wedding was not a "marriage". On the other hand, millions of people did not get wed in a church, but are legally "married" just the same.

Spot on, Tmut.

Marriage is the one-stop rights shop for those who wish to consolidate the whole of their lives without having to use separate legal contracts and forms. Making one group jump through many multiple legal hoops while the other can just sign a marriage license is discrimination, pure and simple.

Don't want a gay wedding in your church? Don't have one. Period.

The problem remains- apparently, even in California, some animals are more equal than others.

It never, ever, occurs to the masses that when they collectively restrict the rights of some, they are denying rights to ALL.

California has a long tradition of restricting rights of some (easily suppressed) citizens in the name of "The People", it's just that this time, the "Some" are a minority used to getting their way in California.

The wyrm always turns.

I assume you mean that the GLBT community has always gotten their way?

Complete and utter crap. Proof please.

Well said. You have raised a convincing argument. However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage. A marriage is a contract in which two people become one in the eyes of God. Thus, a secular state shouldn't be able to perform a marriage. This applies to all marriages. I fin it silly that the state regulates who churches can and cannot marry.

If gay couples want to have marriage, let them found their own church.

Marriages exist in atheistic cultures. They have always existed , as long as we have recorded history - and that means they have existed longer than any of the current crop of religions.

So - if anything, your little religious festivals are the abberation. Do you think we should ban them?

If you actually did a little research before you talked, you'd have seen that the state DOESN'T regulate who churches can marry. The state simply chooses which wedding ceremonies to consider legal as civil unions. You are confusing the actual state of marriage (a contractual arrangement between two or more parties), with the ceremonial stuff that various religions do to solemnise a purely legal arrangement.

The No on 8 campaign most certainly did NOT appeal strongly enough to the empathy and intelligence of the voters.

Actually, that's exactly how they tried to appeal - albeit more to the intelligence side. Apparently, according to you, appeals to intelligence simply can't hold up to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" appeals, no matter how stupid.

And, if you're going to hold up the link you posted from NPR as representative, appeals to empathy clearly aren't the way to go either. After all, the guy flat-out said that he doesn't care about the problems of others.

Calling them idiots is not going to get them to vote for anything, and you know it.

Of course not. But it doesn't change the facts either.

Whether they truly are idiots or not, anyone swayed by the yes campaign's bullshit acted as one.

They had to make an opposing emotional and intellectual appeal that exposed the Yes campaign's outright crap for what it was. They needed to not take minority support for granted. They did neither (or neither with any efficacy). They blew it. They lost.

I don't think they took minority support for granted. What they didn't do was single out minority groups and target them specifically. While that may have been a mistake, it's certainly an understandable one when one's whole platform is equality.

I find it a little odd though that you are putting the onus so strongly on those upholding equal rights. Even if the "no" side hadn't campaigned at all - even if they really had sat back on their laurels and done nothing, the majority of the blame for the results of the vote would still fall squarely on everyone who worked in favor of it.


Well said. You have raised a convincing argument. However, if the church won't marry people then, IMHO, it isn't a marriage. A marriage is a contract in which two people become one in the eyes of God. Thus, a secular state shouldn't be able to perform a marriage. This applies to all marriages. I fin it silly that the state regulates who churches can and cannot marry.

The state doesn't regulate who churches can and cannot marry.

It regulates who the state can and cannot marry.

You may not like it, but there are two forms of marriage being discussed here - religious marriage, and civil marriage. Religious marriage can be performed by any church to their own standards. If they only want to marry brown-eyed people born on a Tuesday, that is their prerogative.

Civil marriage, on the other hand, is a set of protections afforded to couples by the government. And, like any protections afforded by the government, it is bound by the rules of equal protection. People of any religion (or lack thereof) can obtain a legal marriage license.

I assume you mean that the GLBT community has always gotten their way?

Complete and utter crap. Proof please.

Not at all, Intangelon. I'm saying that the GLBT community tends to vote and activist left to center-left, aligning along the Democrat to Left-Democrat axis, and their preference is enough to both motivate their party to mouth support for their issues while completely ignoring their issues in substance when it suits the needs of the Party.

In other words, instead of witholding support and making their allies work to keep their loyalty, the GLBT community is a "Safe vote", and therefore, doesn't matter to the Party they support except when it's convenient.

It's the same problem for Organized Labour in this country, and was, until fairly recently, a similar problem for Second-Amendment supporters. It was convenient for what was largely viewed (and advertised) as a "Gay issue" to be ignored this year, so Prop 8 Passed.

Actually, that's exactly how they tried to appeal - albeit more to the intelligence side. Apparently, according to you, appeals to intelligence simply can't hold up to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" appeals, no matter how stupid.

"According to me?" Why must you disagree so snidely? Where have I done this to you? Surely you've seen the TOTC (a new acronym?) arguments in action and realized that they can't be countered when they're whipped up into a full-on frenzy. The mob mentality is never stronger than when children are the reason for the mob.

No on 8 didn't try hard enough.

And, if you're going to hold up the link you posted from NPR as representative, appeals to empathy clearly aren't the way to go either. After all, the guy flat-out said that he doesn't care about the problems of others.

Already addressed on the other thread, but read HER whole article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

It wasn't that they didn't care, it was that the gay marriage issue was too far down the list of things to care about, and the No on 8 side didn't do any kind of job at making a case for it to be moved up the list.

Whether they truly are idiots or not, anyone swayed by the yes campaign's bullshit acted as one.

That's probably true, but so what? The point is it worked. Prop 8 passed. So now you've called a majority of California voters idiots. Now what?

I don't think they took minority support for granted. What they didn't do was single out minority groups and target them specifically. While that may have been a mistake, it's certainly an understandable one when one's whole platform is equality.

When the people you're asking for votes from don't see equality yet in their own neighborhoods from the police ("driving while Black") or from anything else, they're not likely to think that white gay people demanding marriage is terribly important. They were not shown how (or even whether) equality for gays who want to marry was in any way going to lead to equality anywhere else.

It's well and good to play on the nobility of the issue, but nobility isn't what minorities in L.A. or elsewhere in California were thinking about in that election.

I find it a little odd though that you are putting the onus so strongly on those upholding equal rights. Even if the "no" side hadn't campaigned at all - even if they really had sat back on their laurels and done nothing, the majority of the blame for the results of the vote would still fall squarely on everyone who worked in favor of it.

*sigh*

Basic facts: a majority of people in California and the nation as a whole DO NOT SEE THIS AS AN EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE. How can you not know that? Many still see homosexuality as a CHOICE, for fuck's sake! And nobody who believes that line of crap is going to support gay marriage. Until the argument can be successfully framed in terms of equality under the law, regardless of what some thing their invisible, sky-dwelling avenger tells them about SIN and the fate of their IMMORTAL SOULS, gay marriage will have a very hard time passing, even in California.

Perhaps they should have reminded California voters that the Bible was once used (and by some, still is) to justify slavery and the continued persecution of minorities even after the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed and ratified. I don't know, I'm not a campaign strategist, and I AGREE WITH YOU that PEOPLE in groups can be incredibly stupid.

Not at all, Intangelon. I'm saying that the GLBT community tends to vote and activist left to center-left, aligning along the Democrat to Left-Democrat axis, and their preference is enough to both motivate their party to mouth support for their issues while completely ignoring their issues in substance when it suits the needs of the Party.

In other words, instead of witholding support and making their allies work to keep their loyalty, the GLBT community is a "Safe vote", and therefore, doesn't matter to the Party they support except when it's convenient.

It's the same problem for Organized Labour in this country, and was, until fairly recently, a similar problem for Second-Amendment supporters. It was convenient for what was largely viewed (and advertised) as a "Gay issue" to be ignored this year, so Prop 8 Passed.

I see what you're saying. Since the GLBT community could be counted on to vote Democratic, they assumed that the all Democrats would vote for the GLBT issue and defeat Prop 8. Faulty logic, given the nature of groups as they increase in size. A simple Venn diagram would have shown them that.

Well said.

That is exactly backwards. If the LAW doesn't marry you, it isn't a marriage: have a "wedding" in your church if you want to or feel the spiritual need to, but if you don't get a marriage license from the county clerk and record it, that wedding was not a "marriage". On the other hand, millions of people did not get wed in a church, but are legally "married" just the same.

This isn't really correct either. Marriage has meaning both in a religious sense and a legal sense. Both are forms of marriage, but from a different authority.

That said, when discussing the legal issues behind marriage, only the civil version matters.

This isn't really correct either. Marriage has meaning both in a religious sense and a legal sense. Both are forms of marriage, but from a different authority.

That said, when discussing the legal issues behind marriage, only the civil version matters.

No, not really. Perhaps, historically... but in most of the modern (especially, western) world, marriage is pretty much the province of the legal sense. The 'religious' meaning of marriage is entirely subjective... optional, even... whereas you can't have a 'marriage' without the law. Or you can... but it's a meaningless ritual.

"According to me?" Why must you disagree so snidely? Where have I done this to you? Surely you've seen the TOTC (a new acronym?) arguments in action and realized that they can't be countered when they're whipped up into a full-on frenzy. The mob mentality is never stronger than when children are the reason for the mob.

No on 8 didn't try hard enough.

What is snide about it? You made the argument. I don't think it's true that intellectual appeals can never hold up to such arguments.

Of course, when someone is looking for a reason, the TOTC argument suddenly becomes appealing.

Already addressed on the other thread, but read HER whole article.

I did. It basically boiled down to the same sentiment expressed in the shortened quote. "We have our own problems. Why should we worry about discrimination against someone else?"

It wasn't that they didn't care, it was that the gay marriage issue was too far down the list of things to care about, and the No on 8 side didn't do any kind of job at making a case for it to be moved up the list.

If it was just "too far down on the list to care about", the black community would not have voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. They quite clearly do care about it.

That's probably true, but so what? The point is it worked. Prop 8 passed. So now you've called a majority of California voters idiots. Now what?

I said anyone actually swayed by those arguments is an idiot.

But I honestly don't think that's what happened in most cases. I think most such voters were looking for excuses to vote for it and just latched on to what they saw in advertising because it made them feel ok with supporting it.

When the people you're asking for votes from don't see equality yet in their own neighborhoods from the police ("driving while Black") or from anything else, they're not likely to think that white gay people demanding marriage is terribly important.

One could just as well argue that when white gay people (you know, if they were actually somehow a separate group from all gay people) are treated as second class citizens and often physically attacked for their sexual orientation, the problems of the black community won't seem terribly important.

This is what empathy is. It is being able to relate to what others are going through.

Meanwhile, once again, you cannot make the argument that the issue just wasn't that important. If that were true, you would expect to have seen a 50-50 or so vote on it in the black community (which, by the way, would likely have kept it from passing). Instead, we saw a vote overwhelmingly in favor of it. This issue clearly was important to the majority black community - important in that they felt that discrimination should be enshrined in the law.

They were not shown how (or even whether) equality for gays who want to marry was in any way going to lead to equality anywhere else.

I wouldn't expect same-sex marriage to suddenly make racist police officers stop preferentially pulling over black people.

Of course, I don't see how that fact would convince a black person to vote in favor of discrimination against gays.

It's well and good to play on the nobility of the issue, but nobility isn't what minorities in L.A. or elsewhere in California were thinking about in that election.

No, they were thinking about their own forms of bigotry (well, those who voted in favor of it anyways).

Basic facts: a majority of people in California and the nation as a whole DO NOT SEE THIS AS AN EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE. How can you not know that? Many still see homosexuality as a CHOICE, for fuck's sake! And nobody who believes that line of crap is going to support gay marriage. Until the argument can be successfully framed in terms of equality under the law, regardless of what some thing their invisible, sky-dwelling avenger tells them about SIN and the fate of their IMMORTAL SOULS, gay marriage will have a very hard time passing, even in California.

I do know that. Hence the reason that this particular argument is rather ridiculous. The problem isn't what groups were and were not targeted with ads. The problem isn't that blacks are discriminated against and therefore simply can't bother to worry about others being discriminated against.

The problem is bigotry, plain and simple. And the fact that bigotry exists is not the fault of those supporting equal rights. It is the fault of those who perpetuate it. In this case, we're talking about a form of bigotry that is prevalent within the black community - largely due to their heavily religious bent.

When those in many heavily religious communities (including much of the black community) actually start questioning their religious beliefs and treating homosexuals like human beings, they'll also treat homosexuals like human beings.

Perhaps they should have reminded California voters that the Bible was once used (and by some, still is) to justify slavery and the continued persecution of minorities even after the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed and ratified.

They could have done that. But they probably would have simply further alienated those 7 out of 10 black voters in the state who voted in favor of it. The portions of the black community who don't already see this as an equal rights issue often act rather insulted when you dare compare it to their own struggles.

No, not really. Perhaps, historically... but in most of the modern (especially, western) world, marriage is pretty much the province of the legal sense. The 'religious' meaning of marriage is entirely subjective... optional, even... whereas you can't have a 'marriage' without the law. Or you can... but it's a meaningless ritual.

It may be meaningless to you, but it isn't meaningless to someone who is religious.

"Meaningless" and "without legal ramifications" are not synonymous.

I see what you're saying. Since the GLBT community could be counted on to vote Democratic, they assumed that the all Democrats would vote for the GLBT issue and defeat Prop 8. Faulty logic, given the nature of groups as they increase in size. A simple Venn diagram would have shown them that.

Well said.

I don't know what (he?) was going for, but that's not what I got out of that post.

What I got out of it was that the Democratic party took LGBT support for granted and thus didn't make prop 8 a priority - that the party itself often merely pays lip service to LGBT issues, but relies upon their vote because the LGBT community certainly won't support the Republicans, who are generally outright against them.

What is snide about it? You made the argument. I don't think it's true that intellectual appeals can never hold up to such arguments.

Of course, when someone is looking for a reason, the TOTC argument suddenly becomes appealing.

I did. It basically boiled down to the same sentiment expressed in the shortened quote. "We have our own problems. Why should we worry about discrimination against someone else?"

If it was just "too far down on the list to care about", the black community would not have voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. They quite clearly do care about it.

I said anyone actually swayed by those arguments is an idiot.

But I honestly don't think that's what happened in most cases. I think most such voters were looking for excuses to vote for it and just latched on to what they saw in advertising because it made them feel ok with supporting it.

One could just as well argue that when white gay people (you know, if they were actually somehow a separate group from all gay people) are treated as second class citizens and often physically attacked for their sexual orientation, the problems of the black community won't seem terribly important.

This is what empathy is. It is being able to relate to what others are going through.

Meanwhile, once again, you cannot make the argument that the issue just wasn't that important. If that were true, you would expect to have seen a 50-50 or so vote on it in the black community (which, by the way, would likely have kept it from passing). Instead, we saw a vote overwhelmingly in favor of it. This issue clearly was important to the majority black community - important in that they felt that discrimination should be enshrined in the law.

I wouldn't expect same-sex marriage to suddenly make racist police officers stop preferentially pulling over black people.

Of course, I don't see how that fact would convince a black person to vote in favor of discrimination against gays.

No, they were thinking about their own forms of bigotry (well, those who voted in favor of it anyways).

I do know that. Hence the reason that this particular argument is rather ridiculous. The problem isn't what groups were and were not targeted with ads. The problem isn't that blacks are discriminated against and therefore simply can't bother to worry about others being discriminated against.

The problem is bigotry, plain and simple. And the fact that bigotry exists is not the fault of those supporting equal rights. It is the fault of those who perpetuate it. In this case, we're talking about a form of bigotry that is prevalent within the black community - largely due to their heavily religious bent.

When those in many heavily religious communities (including much of the black community) actually start questioning their religious beliefs and treating homosexuals like human beings, they'll also treat homosexuals like human beings.

They could have done that. But they probably would have simply further alienated those 7 out of 10 black voters in the state who voted in favor of it. The portions of the black community who don't already see this as an equal rights issue often act rather insulted when you dare compare it to their own struggles.

Fair enough, Dem. As usual, you are a fiendish disputant, and as usual, I find my argument in tatters at your feet.

I still wonder how the equal protection under the law argument could be framed to counter both TOTC, religious indoctrination and racial self-centeredness.

It may be meaningless to you, but it isn't meaningless to someone who is religious.

"Meaningless" and "without legal ramifications" are not synonymous.

They are in the context of an institution that is existant under the dmoninion of the Constitution. Equality doesn't care which church you go to - only that you can go to one if you choose. It doesn't care where you marry, only that you can if you choose.

The fact that the religious institution of marriage is not 'meaningless to someone who is religious' (opening another whole can of worms... they have to be the 'right' religious, too...) is actually pretty much the issue - if it is ONLY meaningful to YOU (general 'you', not specific), and as an aspect of YOUR religion - then it IS meaningless to everyone else, and has no place in determining the societal ramifications and restrictions.

I don't know what (he?) was going for, but that's not what I got out of that post.

What I got out of it was that the Democratic party took LGBT support for granted and thus didn't make prop 8 a priority - that the party itself often merely pays lip service to LGBT issues, but relies upon their vote because the LGBT community certainly won't support the Republicans, who are generally outright against them.

That's basically what I said. LGBT supports Democrats because they really can't support Republicans. All Democrats, however, are not sympathetic to the LGBT cause. I think I just expressed it poorly.

Fair enough, Dem. As usual, you are a fiendish disputant, and as usual, I find my argument in tatters at your feet.

I still wonder how the equal protection under the law argument could be framed to counter both TOTC, religious indoctrination and racial self-centeredness.

TOTC is hard, because it specifically appeal to irrationality. The way to keep from being swayed by it is to....not be irrational and actually think about whether or not something really will affect children. But that's a bit hard to get other people to do.

Religious indoctrination is difficult, but not impossible. But it will take time. I think our society is increasingly expecting people to question their own religious beliefs - not to mention to learn about those of others through multiple means of communication. Empathy, I think, often comes with actually interacting with others.

And now that people of various religions are interacting, it might be easier to make the separation of church and state argument stick. Take it into the "Do unto others" mentality - Would you want someone else to enforce their religion on you?

As for racial self-centeredness, I think that is an understandable (although regrettable) trait in much of the black community. But I think that, too, will pass. I actually think the election of Obama will help with that. He's a man from two different (and often thought of as distinct) ethnic backgrounds who self-identifies with his black heritage. He was elected by a coalition of voters from all different ethnic backgrounds. I think it will be more difficult to perpetuate and "us vs. them" mode of thought with him as a role model and example.

I actually heard an interview on the radio about this the other day. They were talking about how the "authentic" black man, for some time, was the rebellious one - the one who ended up in jail rebelling against white society. But Obama (and others like him) are projecting a new sort of "authentic" black man - one who is fully a part of society, rather than being separate from it with a need to rebel against it.

But, unfortunately, as with all forward movement on these issues, it all takes time.


They are in the context of an institution that is existant under the dmoninion of the Constitution. Equality doesn't care which church you go to - only that you can go to one if you choose. It doesn't care where you marry, only that you can if you choose.

The fact that the religious institution of marriage is not 'meaningless to someone who is religious' (opening another whole can of worms... they have to be the 'right' religious, too...) is actually pretty much the issue - if it is ONLY meaningful to YOU (general 'you', not specific), and as an aspect of YOUR religion - then it IS meaningless to everyone else, and has no place in determining the societal ramifications and restrictions.

Hence the reason that I specifically said that, when discussing the legalities of marriage, only civil marriage is relevant.

That doesn't mean that religious marriage doesn't exist. It just means that it is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

while completely ignoring their issues in substance when it suits the needs of the Party.

That's how any coalition works.

That doesn't mean that religious marriage doesn't exist. It just means that it is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Not to nitpick, but if that were true, nobody would be jailed for polygamy.

Not to nitpick, but if that were true, nobody would be jailed for polygamy.

Which only kicks in if they have multiple civil marriages.

That doesn't mean that religious marriage doesn't exist. It just means that it is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

It doesn't exist for me, therefore it has no bearing - and SHOULD have no bearing - on my marriage. And - it's not an accident that there isn't one acceptable marriage model presented in the Constitution... the same as there is no formal death service or birth service - because any of the formalised versions of those things runs risk of removing the 'freedom of religion'.

The Constitution doesn't care about religious ceremonies - only that you can have them if you want. And the Constitution trumps religious traditions.

Which only kicks in if they have multiple civil marriages.

Not so, sir.

Not to nitpick, but if that were true, nobody would be jailed for polygamy.

HAS anyone been jailed for purely ceremonial polygamy?

HAS anyone been jailed for purely ceremonial polygamy?
It is illegal in one state (Utah).

It is illegal in one state (Utah).

Purely ceremonial marriage? I don't suppose you have a source for that - I find that interesting.

I forget where I first heard it. Some discussion of Utah's statutes:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

Purely ceremonial marriage? I don't suppose you have a source for that - I find that interesting.A statute against purely ceremonial marriage would be flatly unconstitutional.

I forget where I first heard it. Some discussion of Utah's statutes:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

Hmmm, that doesn't really discuss purely religious polygamy - it just (basically) says that the religious argument FOR polygamy probably won't be enough to overturn anti-polygamy law.

I'm going to have to go dig around.

A statute against purely ceremonial marriage would be flatly unconstitutional.

That's about what I was thinking.

I would also be interested in learning about actual laws because it strikes me that, as long as you do not try to claim legal rights and privileges of marriage from your state, you can pretty much live any way you like with any consenting adult(s) you like and call yourself(selves) married. I may be wrong because I don't really keep up with polygamy as an issue, but it seems to me that polygamists only run into trouble when there is a complaint from either spouses claiming abuse or others claiming abuse or custody violations of children, or if the same man tries to apply for multiple marriage licenses without evidence of divorce from previous marriages, or if they file tax returns that are not legal. Otherwise, why would the state even notice how they live, much less care?

That's right.

That doesn't mean that religious marriage doesn't exist. It just means that it is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.Not to nitpick, but if that were true, nobody would be jailed for polygamy.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. Care to explain?

So in other words, it's not illegal to live as polygamists for any reason, religious or otherwise. It's only illegal to file forms with the government that are fraudulent or don't meet CIVIL MARRIAGE requirements (leaving aside issues of abuse and custody).

So it seems to me that the laws against polygamy have nothing at all to do with state regulation of religion.

In fact, one would think polygamous Mormons would be more sympathetic to gays who seek legal recognition of same sex marriage, as they and the polygamists are in the same boat -- able to live any way they like, but not able to get the legal protections for their partners, children and households that two-person hetero households can.

EDIT: That is, if things are the way I think they are.

In fact, one would think polygamous Mormons would be more sympathetic to gays who seek legal recognition of same sex marriage, as they and the polygamists are in the same boat -- able to live any way they like, but not able to get the legal protections for their partners, children and households that two-person hetero households can.


No, see, living on a commune with a bunch of underaged child brides? A-ok. As long as those child brides are girls.

They are ruled by tyrannical "prophets" who need to be sticklers on the letter of Old Testament law, as they medievally interpret it, or else their authority evaporates. So no, we can't expect much sympathy from that direction.

That doesn't mean that religious marriage doesn't exist. It just means that it is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Not to nitpick, but if that were true, nobody would be jailed for polygamy.

Which only kicks in if they have multiple civil marriages.

Not so, sir.

Proof?

Why do you find it necessary to oppose a church? Did they do something specific to hurt you in some way? Did they disgrace your family, or something?

Why do you find it necessary to oppose a church? Did they do something specific to hurt you in some way? Did they disgrace your family, or something?

Did you read the thread?

Did you read the thread?

All signs point to no.

All signs point to no.

Deus "Magic-8-ball" Malum has spoken.

Hmmm, that doesn't really discuss purely religious polygamy - it just (basically) says that the religious argument FOR polygamy probably won't be enough to overturn anti-polygamy law.

I'm going to have to go dig around.
Try here (http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/utah-law.htm) for details on the law(s) referenced in there. Again, Utah is pretty much the only state with as broa'd a bigamy statute as that.

its called voting. Vote as you wish. you may just be outnumbered. I have never supported the winning party in any election. So on the good side I can at least claim the faults of society arnt my problem. I didnt vote for the party in power

Why do you find it necessary to oppose a church? Did they do something specific to hurt you in some way? Did they disgrace your family, or something?

RTFT. Even the OP should have been sufficient.

its called voting. Vote as you wish. you may just be outnumbered. I have never supported the winning party in any election. So on the good side I can at least claim the faults of society arnt my problem. I didnt vote for the party in power
Here we go. Another round of people who can't read somehow managing to post on internet forums.

Read. The. Thread.

This is not called "voting." It's called a religious organization getting directly involved -- as a religious organization -- in a state election.

Church-goers can vote as they wish.

Churches are SEPARATED from the state. Remember? THAT'S what this thread is about. :rolleyes:

I didn't recognise this thread with the changed name.. Damn, missed so much fun.

Deus "Magic-8-ball" Malum has spoken.

Beats the pants off of Deus "Bored as Shit Right Now" Malum, that's for sure.

So in other words, it's not illegal to live as polygamists for any reason, religious or otherwise. It's only illegal to file forms with the government that are fraudulent or don't meet CIVIL MARRIAGE requirements (leaving aside issues of abuse and custody).

So it seems to me that the laws against polygamy have nothing at all to do with state regulation of religion.

In fact, one would think polygamous Mormons would be more sympathetic to gays who seek legal recognition of same sex marriage, as they and the polygamists are in the same boat -- able to live any way they like, but not able to get the legal protections for their partners, children and households that two-person hetero households can.

EDIT: That is, if things are the way I think they are.

That kind of reasoning ("They're a minority, they should understand!") is a fallacy. The problem is, your presuming Empathy where there is none. Human beings are by nature tribalistic, bigoted, and selfish when taken as large groups. Individuals may be (or may not be) tolerant and open-minded, but get three people alone in a room for any length of time, and two of them will gang up on the third over something.
i.e. they KNOW what it's like, they just don't CARE.

That kind of reasoning ("They're a minority, they should understand!") is a fallacy. The problem is, your presuming Empathy where there is none. Human beings are by nature tribalistic, bigoted, and selfish when taken as large groups. Individuals may be (or may not be) tolerant and open-minded, but get three people alone in a room for any length of time, and two of them will gang up on the third over something.
i.e. they KNOW what it's like, they just don't CARE.
Everything you say is correct, except for the part about what I was presuming.

I was being sarcastic. :D

To me the reason they lack that empathy is obvious. They are bigots looking to raise their own social status by pushing others down. Ego-trip disguised as religious vocation. In other words, hypocrisy.

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy.

The Church expresses deep appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the many Latter-day Saints and others who supported the coalitions in efforts regarding these amendments.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4713197&pid=1

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4713197&pid=1

This was already posted and destroyed, but in a different thread.


I have to say, it takes balls to talk about how important to have all the information when you relied heavily on people believing the misinformation and lies you spread.

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4713197&pid=1
You're late. Someone already posted that somewhere, and the response remains the same:

NEW FLASH!! The Mormons say they're not bigots!!

Whoever would have guessed?

Incidentally, and I apologize if I've missed it in the thread, but where's the evidence that the LDS broke the law or overstepped what churches are allowed to do in elections? The "how to file a complaint" link isn't strong on proof.

Incidentally, and I apologize if I've missed it in the thread, but where's the evidence that the LDS broke the law or overstepped what churches are allowed to do in elections? The "how to file a complaint" link isn't strong on proof.
You don't need proof. The appearance of impropriety is very strong, and so the requests are warranted. It will be up to the IRS to review the paperwork and decide if there's anything behind it.

EDIT: And you want to see the appearance of impropriety, take a look at what Neo Bret posted.

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
<SNIP>


Yes, yes. We worked hard to deny them their rights, but it's not because we're BIGOTS - no sir.

Meanwhile, any proof that people have been jailed for purely ceremonial polygamy?

Yes, yes. We worked hard to deny them their rights, but it's not because we're BIGOTS - no sir.

Meanwhile, any proof that people have been jailed for purely ceremonial polygamy?
Have you been holding your breath all this time, waiting for that?

You don't need proof. The appearance of impropriety is very strong, and so the requests are warranted. It will be up to the IRS to review the paperwork and decide if there's anything behind it.

EDIT: And you want to see the appearance of impropriety, take a look at what Neo Bret posted.

The Word Press article? That's not proof. I'm not doubting altogether, but I'd like to see some sort of actual proof before I go trumpeting the instructions to others about how to file a complaint.

And I'm surprised at you. Of course I need proof.

This was already posted and destroyed, but in a different thread.


I have to say, it takes balls to talk about how important to have all the information when you relied heavily on people believing the misinformation and lies you spread.

As opposed to just joining the groupthink, which takes no balls at all, eh?

(You know I love ya, KoL.)

I don't see the oppression you insist exists. I don't see bigotry. What I see is people taking a stand against an arbitrary and entirely selfish insistence that somehow society isn't good enough anymore and now we all have to make adjustments.

Human civilization has existed for thousands of years, and now, all of a sudden, just within the last generation or so, there comes a demand for gay marriage and you have the audacity to say that somehow those of us who are dubious about it are bigoted and oppressive

Excuse me friends but I'm not the one going around looking for people to oppress. Instead, what I see is a group of people who live in morally questionable situations demanding that I stand aside and give them status that their behavior does not entitle them to. If anything they're the ones who need to justify themselves and convince ME that what they want is right.

Instead, the approach they're taking is "Well this is right just because we said so, and you're a bigot and a control freak because you don't just agree with us." That's the purest form of self-righteous idiocy I've ever heard and it's getting pretty old. You'll have to forgive me if the arguments of a petulant and bitter group of whiners is less compelling to me than the words and counsel of men and women who have more integrity and honor in their little finger than most of the people on the other side of this have in their whole bodies.

The Word Press article? That's not proof. I'm not doubting altogether, but I'd like to see some sort of actual proof before I go trumpeting the instructions to others about how to file a complaint.

And I'm surprised at you. Of course I need proof.
Then try reading one of the threads on the subject. Both of them contain links to the IRS forms at sites that also include sources of information. One of them has two articles on the subject from the Salt Lake City Tribune, I believe. This is enough, in my opinion, for the public, who do not have access to the LDS's financial and tax records plus a full and complete understanding of the complicated rules limiting church political action, to ask the IRS, who do have such access and such understanding, to look into the matter.

Nobody is asking you to accuse the LDS of anything, nor to punish them for anything. So, no, actually, YOU do not need proof. The IRS needs proof, and the IRS is in a position to get it, if they think there's anything to get.

It's very simple, Intangelon. If there's fire to the smoke, it's up to the IRS to look for it, but they won't unless enough people ask them to. If there's no fire to the smoke, then there ya go. Done and done. If there is, then the appropriate authorities will sort it out. And either way, if lots and lots of people raise this concern with the IRS, the LDS will get the picture that they need to tread more carefully, more transparently and more respectfully if they are going get political. And if hardly anyone raises such concerns, then they won't.

And you know what the simplest part of the whole thing is? It's the part where YOU don't have to do anything at all, if you think the LDS did nothing improper.

As opposed to just joining the groupthink, which takes no balls at all, eh?

(You know I love ya, KoL.)

I don't see the oppression you insist exists. I don't see bigotry. What I see is people taking a stand against an arbitrary and entirely selfish insistence that somehow society isn't good enough anymore and now we all have to make adjustments.

Human civilization has existed for thousands of years, and now, all of a sudden, just within the last generation or so, there comes a demand for gay marriage and you have the audacity to say that somehow those of us who are dubious about it are bigoted and oppressive

Excuse me friends but I'm not the one going around looking for people to oppress. Instead, what I see is a group of people who live in morally questionable situations demanding that I stand aside and give them status that their behavior does not entitle them to. If anything they're the ones who need to justify themselves and convince ME that what they want is right.

Instead, the approach they're taking is "Well this is right just because we said so, and you're a bigot and a control freak because you don't just agree with us." That's the purest form of self-righteous idiocy I've ever heard and it's getting pretty old. You'll have to forgive me if the arguments of a petulant and bitter group of whiners is less compelling to me than the words and counsel of men and women who have more integrity and honor in their little finger than most of the people on the other side of this have in their whole bodies.
YOU (meaning the LDS and their supporters such as YOU) most certainly did participate in the deliberate oppression of a group of people when YOU reached across state lines to support via a direct program of propaganda a constitutional amendment that STRIPPED EXISTING CIVIL RIGHTS AWAY FROM A SPECIFIC NAMED MINORITY.

I am not interested in your bullshit about how long marriage has existed just the way you like it (not historically accurate). I am not interested in your claims that you all are merely feeling "dubious" of a change to your supposed traditions. I am not interested in any of your wheedling excuses and denials.

FACT: Gays had the legal right to marry in California exactly equal to heteros, and YOU took that away from them by underhanded and dishonest political tactics.

Nobody anywhere was making Mormons conduct gay marriages in their temples, so any claims that the existence of gay marriage harms the LDS are bull.

No "traditional" marriages were in any way affected by the existence of gay marriages, so any claims that letting gays get married harms the institution of marriage are bull.

Once upon a time it was a "new" change for slavery to be illegal. Guess who was "dubious" of that change? We ended up fighting a civil war because of their "dubiousness." I certainly hope you don't intend to go that far with your entirely non-bigoted "dubiousness" of the idea of gays having equal rights.

As opposed to just joining the groupthink, which takes no balls at all, eh?

(You know I love ya, KoL.)

Groupthink? The pro-prop 8 was groupthink at its highest form. Its groupthink that prevented people from looking up all the blatant lies the Pro-8 adds told, do the research and read the readily available facts that would have debunked the scaremongering and bigotry.

I don't see the oppression you insist exists. I don't see bigotry. What I see is people taking a stand against an arbitrary and entirely selfish insistence that somehow society isn't good enough anymore and now we all have to make adjustments.

Human civilization has existed for thousands of years, and now, all of a sudden, just within the last generation or so, there comes a demand for gay marriage and you have the audacity to say that somehow those of us who are dubious about it are bigoted and oppressive

Excuse me friends but I'm not the one going around looking for people to oppress. Instead, what I see is a group of people who live in morally questionable situations demanding that I stand aside and give them status that their behavior does not entitle them to. If anything they're the ones who need to justify themselves and convince ME that what they want is right.

Instead, the approach they're taking is "Well this is right just because we said so, and you're a bigot and a control freak because you don't just agree with us." That's the purest form of self-righteous idiocy I've ever heard and it's getting pretty old. You'll have to forgive me if the arguments of a petulant and bitter group of whiners is less compelling to me than the words and counsel of men and women who have more integrity and honor in their little finger than most of the people on the other side of this have in their whole bodies.

Without getting into the whole idea that what you consider "morally questionable" is irrelevent to the law and that your claim that the mormon leadership "have more integrity and honor in their little finger than most of the people on the other side of this have in their whole bodies" is relative at best and highly suspect at worst...

Its safe to say that what you think going on isnt going on. No one is saying or ever was saying "Christians gots to let us gay folks get married in your church!" In fact, its infuriating that Christian groups think that gay people would even want to get married in their church after all that they have done.

What is going on, however, is gay people saying "We should get equal rights under law." Who says so? Legal precedent and the 14th ammendment.

My bone to pick is not with Mormons any more than my problem over the the pedophellia of a few priests was with Catholics. My issue is with your leadership. You are right to defend your leadership from unjust claims. You are right to ask for justification of our claims.


You are responsible to then weigh the evidence honostly and without bias (as much as possile at least) and make a decision whether the leadership deserves your continued protection based on the evidence.

Have you been holding your breath all this time, waiting for that?

Oh no, I know certain posters well enough to know that if I hold my breath waiting for them to even attempt to prove blatant lies on their part I'd die of oxygen deprivation.

Excuse me friends but I'm not the one going around looking for people to oppress. Instead, what I see is a group of people who live in morally questionable situations demanding that I stand aside and give them status that their behavior does not entitle them to.

KOL may not want to get into this with you, but I gladly will. What, precisely, makes their living situations "morally questionable", and why should the morals of your religion take precedence over the morals of mine, especially considering that we have a secular government? How does their behavior of loving each other and being in a committed relationship while of the legal age of majority not entitle them to marriage? Not marriage in the Mormon church, but a purely secular marriage or one conducted by the clergy of a religion that doesn't object to gay marriage.

<prepares for you to completely ignore this post>

KOL may not want to get into this with you, but I gladly will. What, precisely, makes their living situations "morally questionable", and why should the morals of your religion take precedence over the morals of mine, especially considering that we have a secular government? How does their behavior of loving each other and being in a committed relationship while of the legal age of majority not entitle them to marriage? Not marriage in the Mormon church, but a purely secular marriage or one conducted by the clergy of a religion that doesn't object to gay marriage.

<prepares for you to completely ignore this post>


In all seriousness, it doesnt, and its virtually impossible to be inetellectually honost and say otherwise.

I didnt want to get into this because I felt this was not the thread for it, but hey, you already started, so why not give my opinion on it now eh?

You are responsible to then weigh the evidence honostly and without bias (as much as possile at least) and make a decision whether the leadership deserves your continued protection based on the evidence.
^^ This. There are plenty of Mormons who have gone on public record as opposing this action by their church. I wonder if they are part of the anti-Mormon "groupthink" too.

It is not a bad thing to criticize someone for doing wrong. It is not bigoted to call another out for bigoted actions. It is not improper to call for others to be held accountable for improper actions. It is not dishonorable to protest people having their rights stripped away from them for no reason than that they don't fit in with another minority's social preferences.

If my religion is attacked for something it didn't do, I will defend it to the end. But if some people or leaders in my religion actually do something that is wrong, I will not defend them for it. I will blame them for it, because wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. That's just me and that hang-up I have about honesty and ethics.

KOL may not want to get into this with you, but I gladly will. What, precisely, makes their living situations "morally questionable", and why should the morals of your religion take precedence over the morals of mine, especially considering that we have a secular government? How does their behavior of loving each other and being in a committed relationship while of the legal age of majority not entitle them to marriage? Not marriage in the Mormon church, but a purely secular marriage or one conducted by the clergy of a religion that doesn't object to gay marriage.

<prepares for you to completely ignore this post>
I wouldn't mind waiting around for an answer to that, too. I've been waiting years for one, from any one of these moralistic types.

I wouldn't mind waiting around for an answer to that, too. I've been waiting years for one, from any one of these moralistic types.

<holds breath, turns blue, falls over dead>

Tell you what, let's settle at least one thing right now. For all those crying about how the Mormons unduly influenced the election with vast campaign donations, here's a little tidbit that I'm sure most of you didn't know:

The "No on Prop 8" camp had more money in donations than the "Yes on Prop 8" camp.

Link (http://thepolicyreport.net/2008/10/14/california-prop-8-brings-in-major-contributions-on-both-sides/)

No excuses, no whining. You lost. The people of California had to listen to ads bought by record high campaign donations and they made their choice. Grow up and deal with it and quit looking for someone to blame.

Tell you what, let's settle at least one thing right now. For all those crying about how the Mormons unduly influenced the election with vast campaign donations, here's a little tidbit that I'm sure most of you didn't know:

The "No on Prop 8" camp had more money in donations than the "Yes on Prop 8" camp.

Link (http://thepolicyreport.net/2008/10/14/california-prop-8-brings-in-major-contributions-on-both-sides/)


Just because YOU didn't know it, doesn't mean I didn't know it.

My problem with the Mormon churches involvement ISN'T that Yes-on-8 had more to spend (I've seen figures that suggest the no-on-8 side had even more to spend than the figures you found suggest), because that's irrelevent.

My problem with the LDS is that 40% of the yes-on-8 money came from a church, through an official, cross-state-borders intervention.

They overstepped their bounds. They acted as a political organisation, on a national level.


No excuses, no whining.


What do you think your 'it ruins the sanctity of MY marriage' arguments sound like?


You lost.


Actually - we 'won'. California had gay marriage. You lost. Then you overturned the established law of a state (so much for states rights, eh?).

Now, we've lost what we had gained.

And, when the balance is restored, we'll have 'won' again.


The people of California had to listen to ads bought by record high campaign donations and they made their choice. Grow up and deal with it and quit looking for someone to blame.

How is it you can't apply this to yourself?

California HAD gay marriage. Where was your 'grow up and deal with it' then?

I was plus-one-ing this. I was allowing for the fact that others had answered it. Having looked back over it in response to a later post, there are a couple of issues I have to take up:


I don't see the oppression you insist exists.


That's because you are part of the oppression.


I don't see bigotry. What I see is people taking a stand against an arbitrary and entirely selfish insistence that somehow society isn't good enough anymore and now we all have to make adjustments.


The argument that 'society isn't good enough' isn't arbitrary and selfish - it's fundamental. It's why blacks aren't slaves, now - and why women can vote. It's why it's not a crime to be Jewish or Roma. It's why YOUR church exists AT ALL.


Human civilization has existed for thousands of years, and now, all of a sudden, just within the last generation or so, there comes a demand for gay marriage and you have the audacity to say that somehow those of us who are dubious about it are bigoted and oppressive


Within the last generation or so... go back a hundred years, and there was no call for gay marriage... why? Because being openly gay landed you in jail. It isn't rocket science to analyse that and come to the conclusion that someone that thoroughly disenfranchised is still struggling to get even a voice.

Go back through those thousands of years you talk about - and you find that human cultures have often not been as judgmental against gay relationships as you seem to wish they had been.


Excuse me friends but I'm not the one going around looking for people to oppress.


You don't have to. That thinking was done for you, by your church.


Instead, what I see is a group of people who live in morally questionable situations


Questionable by YOUR morals. Which is a personal judgment - and thus irrelevant to the question of rights.


...demanding that I stand aside and give them status that their behavior does not entitle them to.


Bullshit.

Gay marriage existed in California. They weren't asking for status - they HAD a legally defined status - which YOUR organisation was instrumental in REMOVING.


If anything they're the ones who need to justify themselves and convince ME that what they want is right.


Nope - they had constitutional rights. They HAD it - don't you get that?

They don't need to justify themselves - their case was found to be favoured by the Constitution. The side that chooses to REMOVE those rights needs to justify itself.

And they've failed to do that.

What they have done instead, is use a tyranny of the majority to actually remove rights from a minority.


Instead, the approach they're taking is "Well this is right just because we said so, and you're a bigot and a control freak because you don't just agree with us." That's the purest form of self-righteous idiocy


As opposed to 'I'm going to take away YOUR constitutional rights because MY religion frowns on your behaviour'?

How can anyone in the Mormon faith actually say that? Do you not REMEMBER the history of your own church?


...I've ever heard and it's getting pretty old. You'll have to forgive me if the arguments of a petulant and bitter group of whiners is less compelling to me than the words and counsel of men and women who have more integrity and honor in their little finger than most of the people on the other side of this have in their whole bodies.

I don't 'have to forgive' anything.

Your church has acted to help remove rights from a minority. At this point in history, your church has to show they have ANY integrity and honour. Their actions suggest they don't.

<holds breath, turns blue, falls over dead>
Oh, I know better than that.

Tell you what, let's settle at least one thing right now. For all those crying about how the Mormons unduly influenced the election with vast campaign donations, here's a little tidbit that I'm sure most of you didn't know:

The "No on Prop 8" camp had more money in donations than the "Yes on Prop 8" camp.

Link (http://thepolicyreport.net/2008/10/14/california-prop-8-brings-in-major-contributions-on-both-sides/)

No excuses, no whining. You lost. The people of California had to listen to ads bought by record high campaign donations and they made their choice. Grow up and deal with it and quit looking for someone to blame.
FIRST, I reiterate everything GnI said in his last two posts to you.

SECOND, oh, I see, you want to "settle" this to be about some bullshit you just made up since you have no counterargument to what the debate is really about.

Your attempt to hide behind all the other bigots involved in this fails because (A) nobody ever said they did not exist, and (B) it is beside the point of our complaint against the LDS. These two points have been made abundantly clear over the course of a couple of thousand posts in two threads. And yet I am not at all surprised that you act as if you're not aware of it. Trying to redefine the argument when you're losing it, is par for the course with you.

You're the one whining and making excuses here. Maybe you're just pissed off because you think you got your way on something, but we all won't let you have your celebratory moment like the Obama supporters are enjoying. Well tough shit. You won a battle, not the war, and you did it underhandedly. Well, now we know what to expect from you, and thanks to California's idiotic system, the side of civil rights, equality and social justice will get another crack at overturning this disgraceful outrage in two years -- if we have to wait that long. Trust me, you will have to keep defending this position of yours every single day of every single year, without rest or cease, until WE win -- and we'll know we have won when YOU cry uncle and the LDS changes its position on marriage, the same way it changed its position on race.

^^ This. There are plenty of Mormons who have gone on public record as opposing this action by their church. I wonder if they are part of the anti-Mormon "groupthink" too.


Good to know that they aren't all asshole scum. Or is that scummy assholes? :wink:
You can believe in whatever silly bullshit you want. You can even get together with people that believe in the same magic fairy bullshit and get tax exempt status. You can not force other people to live by your sky daddy bullshit rules.

On a happier note, thought I'd just mention this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/connecticut_sup.html

Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage

I've been reading round the subject, and given Joseph Smith's (apparent) tolerance of homosexuality, and the strong suggestion that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were - at least - bisexual, it is even more perplexing that the church oppressed for it's polygamous roots would act in such an intimacy-intolerant fashion.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

That's rich, given the fact that the pro side intentionally dissiminated erroneous information and used the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" mantra to vilify those opposed.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Then the church is sadly mistaken. This issue is not, and never has been, about the "sacred and divine institution of marriage." It is solely about the civil institution of marriage.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

If this statement were true, the LDS would have no problem with the state recognizing same-sex marriages.

(a) If one is not opposed to same-sex couples getting the protections associated with civil marriage, there is no reason to oppose them actually getting civil marriage.

(b) The existence of married couples of the same sex does not, in any way, infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches. No one is asking the LDS to change their own definition of marriage or to perform same-sex marriages. No one is saying that the members of the LDS church cannot stick to their version of the traditional family. As such, the argument that the existence of same-sex marriages is somehow a threat to these things is disingenuous, at best.

The "No on Prop 8" camp had more money in donations than the "Yes on Prop 8" camp.
But they weren't the side that told lies. Nor were they the side interfering with other people's private lives.
The people of California... made their choice. Grow up and deal with it
The people of New York, Illinois, and Missouri all made their choice: the Mormon Church should not be legally permitted to exist. Deal with it.

There are plenty of Mormons who have gone on public record as opposing this action by their church.
Do you know how I could get ahold of such people?

Tell you what, let's settle at least one thing right now. For all those crying about how the Mormons unduly influenced the election with vast campaign donations, here's a little tidbit that I'm sure most of you didn't know:

The "No on Prop 8" camp had more money in donations than the "Yes on Prop 8" camp.

Link (http://thepolicyreport.net/2008/10/14/california-prop-8-brings-in-major-contributions-on-both-sides/)

No excuses, no whining. You lost. The people of California had to listen to ads bought by record high campaign donations and they made their choice. Grow up and deal with it and quit looking for someone to blame.

KOL may not want to get into this with you, but I gladly will. What, precisely, makes their living situations "morally questionable", and why should the morals of your religion take precedence over the morals of mine, especially considering that we have a secular government? How does their behavior of loving each other and being in a committed relationship while of the legal age of majority not entitle them to marriage? Not marriage in the Mormon church, but a purely secular marriage or one conducted by the clergy of a religion that doesn't object to gay marriage.

<prepares for you to completely ignore this post>

I guess I was right about the bold, eh Neo B? Is it perhaps because you can't answer my points without either admitting you are wrong on this subject or lying?

But they weren't the side that told lies. Nor were they the side interfering with other people's private lives.

The people of New York, Illinois, and Missouri all made their choice: the Mormon Church should not be legally permitted to exist. Deal with it.

Do you know how I could get ahold of such people?
They run real fast, so I think it's kinda hard. ;) Sorry, I'm only hit-and-run NSGing on coffee breaks right now and don't have time to do real net research, but I know that somewhere in one of our threads at least one Mormon leader was named as publicly opposing Prop 8. If you scan the two main threads -- I know, they're huge -- for his name, you could probably google him to find more info. Sorry.

I guess I was right about the bold, eh Neo B? Is it perhaps because you can't answer my points without either admitting you are wrong on this subject or lying?
Oh, be fair. It's possible to do both. ;)

I guess I was right about the bold, eh Neo B? Is it perhaps because you can't answer my points without either admitting you are wrong on this subject or lying?

Maybe he just hasn't seen the post or had time to reply yet?

Not strictly relevant to the thread, but does anyone else find themselves making a verbal slip and accidentally professing their anger at the success of Preparation H instead of Proposition 8? Its a very embarassing mistake to make.

Not strictly relevant to the thread, but does anyone else find themselves making a verbal slip and accidentally professing their anger at the success of Preparation H instead of Proposition 8? Its a very embarassing mistake to make.

Only a very anal person would fault you for that slip, D.I.

Only a very anal person would fault you for that slip, D.I.

Yes thats true, but making that sort of foolish mistake isn't good, on the hole.

Yes thats true, but making that sort of foolish mistake isn't good, on the hole.

Just give him a chance: I'm sure he'll rectify the situation.

Not if we keep giving him shit about it.

Not if we keep giving him shit about it.

Aw, now that's just offal.

We should stop making him the butt of all these jokes.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
There are plenty of Mormons who have gone on public record as opposing this action by their church.

I finally found them: Andrew Callahan (http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=260) urges other Mormons to resign, giving instructions (http://mormonnomore.com/), but will not resign himself because so many elders have demanded that he do so: they'll have to excommunicate him. Further coverage (http://www.news10.net/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=50384&catid=5).

Originally Posted by Muravyets
There are plenty of Mormons who have gone on public record as opposing this action by their church.

I finally found them: Andrew Callahan (http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=260) urges other Mormons to resign, giving instructions (http://mormonnomore.com/), but will not resign himself because so many elders have demanded that he do so: they'll have to excommunicate him. Further coverage (http://www.news10.net/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=50384&catid=5).
Excellent! Thank you! It's just heartening to have proof that people of conscience in the LDS know the difference between their faith and their leadership and are drawing the same line we are.

I'm wicked far behind on all my threads, including this one, but good news! my mom cut up her AmEx rewards card, which earned her points to stay at a Mariott resort or hotel. She sent a letter explaining why.

My dad refuses to use his AmEx card.

Two more to the list of boycotters.

Thank you. I'm trying to get my AmEx all paid off, balance transferred to somewhere else; I'm just so deep in my hole I haven't been able to manage the dramatic all-at-once "take that!" that I wish I could have.

I am removing Marriott Hotels from my boycott list based on this statement:
While acknowledging that he is a Mormon, Bill Marriott said this week that neither he nor his company, Marriott International, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Gay-rights activists urged their supporters to boycott Marriott hotels around the world because of Marriott's membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which raised about $22 million for the initiative that passed Nov. 4.

For the past 20 years, Marriott International has had domestic-partner benefits and has earned a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index for two years in a row, Marriott said in a release. Many of the hotels have hosted gay-community functions and events for years.

"The Bible that I love teaches me about honesty, integrity and unconditional love for all people," Marriott said. "But beyond that, I am very careful about separating my personal faith and beliefs from how we run our business."

I'm sure he tithes (big time) to the LDS church, and thus contributed indirectly (although the church funding was minute in comparison to the member donations); however, he does clearly stand in opposition to the church's policies here.

I am removing Marriott Hotels from my boycott list based on this statement:
I'm sure he tithes (big time) to the LDS church, and thus contributed indirectly (although the church funding was minute in comparison to the member donations); however, he does clearly stand in opposition to the church's policies here.

And on top of that he's not whining about persecution/playing the victim with regards to the boycotts that are already (apparently) starting up against Marriot.

The worst thing about this entire situation is that the pro-gay marriage lobby lost this, not because of the Mormon Church, but because the people of California don't like having their vote overturned.

Instead of calling for the burning of churches, or sending "anthrax" threats, or calling for religious persecution, the gay marriage lobby should have been working out a compromise... coming up with a gay marriage proposition that addressed the concerns of churches who don't want to perform those ceremonies, and did something to block efforts to teach little kids about homosexuality in elementary school (let's leave some things to the parents?). You should have seen some of the disgusting behavior I saw by No on 8 people. I saw hoards of young people with No on 8 signs on the verge of attacking a lone senior citizen quietly holding up a Yes on 8 sign. I saw middle fingers, I heard people cussing and spitting at these people - and I never saw anything but restraint and civility from the Yes on 8 people.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government recognizing marriage at all.

Is this a civil rights issue? No. There is nothing stopping two gay people from gathering their friends, promising to love each other and be together forever, and calling it marriage. NOTHING.

The difference is, there are government "perks" to marriage. No one is bothering to see what those perks are for - they are just making blanket and hysterical declarations about how their rights are being infinged (sorry, it just isn't the case).

The fact is, the entire system of government marriage recognition is a throwback to an era where single-income families were the norm. Everything about marriage that the government has to do with is all about promoting a certain family model that is the best suited to produce and rear a new generation of citizens. Clearly the model is outdated.

So we have a broken system - and the only way ANYONE suggests to fix it is to add a bunch more people to it? How about we scrap it all together? Then everyone is equal.

One question I like to ask is - if gay marriage should be "legal" - shouldn't incestuous marriages be legal as well? Of course, I always get nasty smears when I bring this up - how HATEFUL I must be for equating the two. But it is a valid question - and has nothing to do with my opinions about incest.

#1 - it is two consenting adults. That is the #1 condition the gay marriage lobby uses to promote their ideals.

#2 - a counter argument is that in incestuous unions, there is a chance of birth defects. Well, one popular argument against gay marriage is that they can't produce offspring together. The gay marriage lobby rightly counters that sterile straight couples are not barred from government recognized marriage. Applying it to incest, there is a greater probability of birth defects in cases of genetic disease than incest, and we don't bar people with genetic illnesses from being married.

If we are going to wholesale change the definition of marriage to something other than a man and a woman, it has to be uniform. This means incestuous couples should be allowed to marry. Hell, this might also mean that polygamy might have to be legal, and people might be allowed to marry just for tax reasons. I am not being hateful here, I am just applying the arguments that the gay marriage lobby uses to other situations, and find that "equal protection" grants those people the same status as well.And if that is the way it works, so be it.

I voted for Prop 8. Not because I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married, but I do not like the way the issue was forced on us. The gay marriage lobby lost the debate once in the arena of ideas, and decided to have a court and an insane mayor legislate themselves, and force it on the people. That was wrong.

Personally, my ideal choice would be to abandon the old government sanctioned marriage model all together, make marriage a private affair, and guarantee certain protections (like power of attorney, etc) in civil marriage contract documents. I have a feeling that is a dream though.

However, I would vote in favor of repealing Prop 8, and allowing the government to recognize gay marriage (silly me - I have this idea that the ceremony itself is what matters, not what the government has to say about it), if they come forward with a proposition that protects the right of churches not to perform those ceremonies, and keeps education about gay marriage and homosexual issues out of the schools until the high school level (when they are almost mature enough to understand it).

The thing about churches is - they don't think homosexuals are evil. To them, the act of having sex with another member of your gender is a sin. To them, being homosexual is a challenge God put before you. You can be gay and not sin - just like you can be a meat eater and not eat pork if your are jewish. They should have the right to say that gay marriage is wrong, and choose not to perform those ceremonies without having their status revoked by the government.

Protects people's rights - protect the church's rights to believe what they do (come on, let's see some of that mythical tolorance) - and stop with the HATE we continue to get from the gay marriage lobby, and I will vote for a new ammendment that allows gay marriage. And I came to this decision independent of any ad the Mormon Church helped pay for.

Quit with the damned boycots, denounce people calling for violence against the church, and stop calling these people liars, bigots, and hate mongers. Stop trying to impose your will, and instead actually compromise. Just stand up, accept their concern, and draft a proposition that protects people from the concerns the Yes on 8 people raised - whether you think they are valid or not. You will win - and win big.

Instead of calling for the burning of churches, or sending "anthrax" threats, or calling for religious persecution, the gay marriage lobby should have been working out a compromise... coming up with a gay marriage proposition that addressed the concerns of churches who don't want to perform those ceremonies,

Considering noone was even suggesting that churches should have to perform such ceremonies, I do not see what the purpose of a compromise would be. "You do not have to do that thing you do not wish to do" seems quite acceptable.
Remember - this is about *legal* marriages.

and did something to block efforts to teach little kids about homosexuality in elementary school (let's leave some things to the parents?).

Why ? Why avoid talking about things that actually exist ?
However, if it is the sexpart that upsets you - I do not believe we tell children in detail what married couples do in bed anyway. Straight or not.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government recognizing marriage at all.
Well.. we could make it religion only. Of course, that would mean that EVERYTHING you can think up could be called marriage. Just start a religion with the definition you like.

One question I like to ask is - if gay marriage should be "legal" - shouldn't incestuous marriages be legal as well?

I made a poll on this a few days ago. Go vote;)

and stop calling these people liars, bigots, and hate mongers.
Why avoid telling the truth ? Is that not a sin ?

The purpose of the "compromise" would be to get votes. See that these people's fears are taken into account. That might not be your goal, but legal gay marriage without these protections opens the door to lawsuits against churches who don't perform the ceremonies. You might think it is ridiculous, but when you have groups like the ACLU suing cities because there is a Christian Cross in their hundred year old seal - then you can see why it is important to protect those rights.

There is nothing wrong with talking about things that exist, but parents have a responsibility to teach children about sex. Fact is - kids that young aren't able to understand it anyway, and there is already an alarming trend of teaching kids about sex at a younger and younger age. If you have seen some of the picture books given to young, young kids to that promote homosexuality as a lifestyle, you will understand the concern. Heck - I had DETAILED sex educatoin in 4th grade - and that was at least 2 decades ago. It has only gotten younger since then.

Yes - its a fact, homosexuality is a natural condition that occurs in at least ever mammalian species on the planet. Does this mean is an issue that schools should be indoctrinating our children about? No. I don't want morality taught in school at all - that is up to the parent to instill. No matter which way they want to teach it.

Heh - I will vote if I come across it. Still a newb on this forum... haven't had much time to browse. I am an idiot when it comes to threads like this - and can't resist the pontification. I should have learned my lesson a long time ago LOL

Excellent news about Marriott. I commend Mr. Marriott for coming out with that statement so quickly. If Marriott International has been offering employees domestic partner benefits for 20 years [!], then I kind of doubt the statement is only in response to threats of boycott.

This is exactly the kind of thing I would hope boycotts would accomplish -- to get people to declare their positions honestly and send a clear message to the LDS leadership that they don't actually speak for ALL Mormons, and maybe not purely for Mormon belief, either.

The purpose of the "compromise" would be to get votes. See that these people's fears are taken into account. That might not be your goal, but legal gay marriage without these protections opens the door to lawsuits against churches who don't perform the ceremonies. You might think it is ridiculous, but when you have groups like the ACLU suing cities because there is a Christian Cross in their hundred year old seal - then you can see why it is important to protect those rights.

There is nothing wrong with talking about things that exist, but parents have a responsibility to teach children about sex. Fact is - kids that young aren't able to understand it anyway, and there is already an alarming trend of teaching kids about sex at a younger and younger age. If you have seen some of the picture books given to young, young kids to that promote homosexuality as a lifestyle, you will understand the concern. Heck - I had DETAILED sex educatoin in 4th grade - and that was at least 2 decades ago. It has only gotten younger since then.

Yes - its a fact, homosexuality is a natural condition that occurs in at least ever mammalian species on the planet. Does this mean is an issue that schools should be indoctrinating our children about? No. I don't want morality taught in school at all - that is up to the parent to instill. No matter which way they want to teach it.

Heh - I will vote if I come across it. Still a newb on this forum... haven't had much time to browse. I am an idiot when it comes to threads like this - and can't resist the pontification. I should have learned my lesson a long time ago LOL
A) The protections for churches you talk about already exist. I really do not understand why this needs to be told to the same groups over and over and over.

B) Precisely what does any of this have to do with whether the LDS overstepped the allowed limts of political action by religious organizations in its efforts to help strip existing civil rights from a segment of the California population?

The worst thing about this entire situation is that the pro-gay marriage lobby lost this, not because of the Mormon Church, but because the people of California don't like having their vote overturned.

Oh, boo hoo. They don't like the fact that their bigotry was against their own Constitution.

Instead of calling for the burning of churches, or sending "anthrax" threats, or calling for religious persecution, the gay marriage lobby should have been working out a compromise... coming up with a gay marriage proposition that addressed the concerns of churches who don't want to perform those ceremonies, and did something to block efforts to teach little kids about homosexuality in elementary school (let's leave some things to the parents?).

So, you think that those in favor of equality should have been coming up with a "compromise" to address things that weren't issues anyways?

No one was talking about forcing churches to perform any type of ceremony. It was never on the table. As such, no "compromise" was needed.

Likewise, same-sex marriage has nothing to do with teaching kids about homosexuality in elementary school. Of course, if one is going to teach sex ed, it does need to cover such things.

You should have seen some of the disgusting behavior I saw by No on 8 people. I saw hoards of young people with No on 8 signs on the verge of attacking a lone senior citizen quietly holding up a Yes on 8 sign. I saw middle fingers, I heard people cussing and spitting at these people - and I never saw anything but restraint and civility from the Yes on 8 people.

You weren't really looking, then. I'm sure you can find plenty of assholery on both sides all over the internet.

Any group has assholes. Pretending that it was all on one side is silly.

That said, it is important to note that defending prop 8 is, in and of itself, a bit assholish. After all, those in favor of it were the ones trying to remove rights from a group of people.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government recognizing marriage at all.

I don't. I think the legal protections of marriage are actually pretty important when two people decide to live their lives as one.

The difference is, there are government "perks" to marriage. No one is bothering to see what those perks are for - they are just making blanket and hysterical declarations about how their rights are being infinged (sorry, it just isn't the case).

Those "perks" are really more "protections." There are legal issues created by a couple who entwine their lives to the point that most married couples do.

The fact is, the entire system of government marriage recognition is a throwback to an era where single-income families were the norm. Everything about marriage that the government has to do with is all about promoting a certain family model that is the best suited to produce and rear a new generation of citizens. Clearly the model is outdated.

....except this whole paragraph is bogus. The only thing that was specific to a single-income family was the tax code - which has since been somewhat amended to more accurately reflect the realities of marriage today.

Most of the 1000+ protections associated with marriage have little to do with how many incomes are present in a given family.

One question I like to ask is - if gay marriage should be "legal" - shouldn't incestuous marriages be legal as well?

Probably. It is up to the government to justify any restrictions it places. If it cannot justify a ban on incestuous marriages with a compelling enough interest, such laws should be struck down.

If we are going to wholesale change the definition of marriage to something other than a man and a woman, it has to be uniform.

This isn't really a wholesale change. It actually changes very little about the actual definition of marriage - no more, in fact, than allowing interracial marriages did.

But I agree that the definition must be uniform. Hence the reason I support the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Hell, this might also mean that polygamy might have to be legal, and people might be allowed to marry just for tax reasons.

(a) Polygamy is really another discussion. It doesn't fit under the legal construct of marriage, as said construct was specifically designed for two people. However, I could see polygamous marriages getting a form of recognition akin to incorporation.

(b) People already are allowed to marry just for tax reasons. Nothing on my marriage license form asked me why I was getting married.

I voted for Prop 8. Not because I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married, but I do not like the way the issue was forced on us.

*tear* You were told not to deny equal protection to a minority! BOO HOO!!!

The gay marriage lobby lost the debate once in the arena of ideas, and decided to have a court and an insane mayor legislate themselves, and force it on the people. That was wrong.

The court didn't legislate anything. It did its job in upholding your state constitution.

Personally, my ideal choice would be to abandon the old government sanctioned marriage model all together, make marriage a private affair, and guarantee certain protections (like power of attorney, etc) in civil marriage contract documents. I have a feeling that is a dream though.

.....you want to abandon marriage and replace it with.....marriage?

However, I would vote in favor of repealing Prop 8, and allowing the government to recognize gay marriage (silly me - I have this idea that the ceremony itself is what matters, not what the government has to say about it), if they come forward with a proposition that protects the right of churches not to perform those ceremonies, and keeps education about gay marriage and homosexual issues out of the schools until the high school level (when they are almost mature enough to understand it).

The current law already protects churches from having to perform any marriages they don't want to. There is no reason to reiterate that fact - it would just be redundant law.

As for education about same-sex marriage and homosexual issues, do you want to keep all talk of marriage and sexuality out of the schools until high school? If not, you're being discriminatory. If so, you're waiting until after some of them actually start having sex.

The thing about churches is - they don't think homosexuals are evil. To them, the act of having sex with another member of your gender is a sin. To them, being homosexual is a challenge God put before you. You can be gay and not sin - just like you can be a meat eater and not eat pork if your are jewish. They should have the right to say that gay marriage is wrong, and choose not to perform those ceremonies without having their status revoked by the government.

And they already have that right - even if the government recognizes same-sex marriage.

It's much like the Roman Catholic Church. They don't recognize marriages in which one or both partners were previously married and divorced. However, the government does recognize such marriages. Many religions don't recognize interfaith marriages, but the government does. And so on...

Protects people's rights - protect the church's rights to believe what they do (come on, let's see some of that mythical tolorance) - and stop with the HATE we continue to get from the gay marriage lobby, and I will vote for a new ammendment that allows gay marriage. And I came to this decision independent of any ad the Mormon Church helped pay for.

Where did you get the ridiculous notion that anyone was gong to force churches to sanction marriages they didn't want to?

Quit with the damned boycots, denounce people calling for violence against the church, and stop calling these people liars, bigots, and hate mongers. Stop trying to impose your will, and instead actually compromise. Just stand up, accept their concern, and draft a proposition that protects people from the concerns the Yes on 8 people raised - whether you think they are valid or not. You will win - and win big.

The concerns the Yes on 8 people raised were red herrings. There is no compromise necessary to address them - because they aren't even issues.

Hence the reason that they are being called liars. They lied.

The purpose of the "compromise" would be to get votes. See that these people's fears are taken into account. That might not be your goal, but legal gay marriage without these protections opens the door to lawsuits against churches who don't perform the ceremonies. You might think it is ridiculous, but when you have groups like the ACLU suing cities because there is a Christian Cross in their hundred year old seal - then you can see why it is important to protect those rights.

Those fears are completely unfounded, largely because the option to have a civil wedding at the local magistrate exists. It's completely and utterly silly to think that someone would attempt to force a church, especially one that clearly was against your wedding, to perform such a thing. It's a voluntary service, not something that must be provided when demanded. Utterly silly.

Yes - its a fact, homosexuality is a natural condition that occurs in at least ever mammalian species on the planet. Does this mean is an issue that schools should be indoctrinating our children about? No. I don't want morality taught in school at all - that is up to the parent to instill. No matter which way they want to teach it.

Indoctrination? How is teaching students about something that clearly exists indoctrination?

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing. There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.

But regardless. If the protections already exist as you claim, then there should be NO problem putting them in again. If it makes people feel better, gets more votes, and further guarantees churches are protected, why would you oppose it? Seems silly to me.

B) Civil Rights were not stripped for one. This is not a civil rights issue.

#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.

B) Civil Rights were not stripped for one. This is not a civil rights issue.

Eeehm.. people had a civil right and it was taken away. How is that not a civil rights issue ?

Marriage is not a civil right. No one was banning anyone from getting married anyway - it was all about who the government chose to reward.

The right to vote is a civil right. Government sanctioned marriage is not.

Marriage is not a civil right. No one was banning anyone from getting married anyway - it was all about who the government chose to reward.

The right to vote is a civil right. Government sanctioned marriage is not.

By whose authority was that determined ?

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing. There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.
You ask us to stop calling you "liars"? Then stop telling lies.
But regardless. If the protections already exist as you claim, then there should be NO problem putting them in again.
There is no need to ratify the First Amendment again.
#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.
If you want to campaign and lobby, then pay taxes like everyone else. That's the law.

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing. There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.

Talk from who? I've never heard any such talk. Why on Earth would someone want to have a wedding performed by someone who is morally opposed to that wedding even occuring?

But regardless. If the protections already exist as you claim, then there should be NO problem putting them in again. If it makes people feel better, gets more votes, and further guarantees churches are protected, why would you oppose it? Seems silly to me.

The whole fear that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages seems silly to me.

B) Civil Rights were not stripped for one. This is not a civil rights issue.

There are people that could have married each other three weeks ago that won't be able to. They lost that right.

#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.

You do understand the difference between a union of state employees and a religious organization, right?

Marriage is not a civil right.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held otherwise.
No one was banning anyone from getting married anyway - it was all about who the government chose to reward.
Governmental recognition IS marriage. That's what the word means.
The right to vote is a civil right.
We are a nation of individual liberties. The majority does not have the right to impose its will on the outnumbered, on issues which are up to the individual to decide. WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?

The purpose of the "compromise" would be to get votes.

By complicating the law with redundant passages?

As if the law doesn't have enough of that already?

See that these people's fears are taken into account. That might not be your goal, but legal gay marriage without these protections opens the door to lawsuits against churches who don't perform the ceremonies.

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

You might think it is ridiculous, but when you have groups like the ACLU suing cities because there is a Christian Cross in their hundred year old seal - then you can see why it is important to protect those rights.

The difference being that the city is a state actor. Churches are not.

The ACLU has actually upheld churches in their religious freedoms as well.

There is nothing wrong with talking about things that exist, but parents have a responsibility to teach children about sex.

I agree! If only they'd actually do it.

Unfortunately, many parents don't. So it is left up to the schools to educate children.

Fact is - kids that young aren't able to understand it anyway, and there is already an alarming trend of teaching kids about sex at a younger and younger age. If you have seen some of the picture books given to young, young kids to that promote homosexuality as a lifestyle, you will understand the concern. Heck - I had DETAILED sex educatoin in 4th grade - and that was at least 2 decades ago. It has only gotten younger since then.

...maybe that's because we found that people that young were already having sexual encounters and we thought they should be somewhat educated before that happened.

Yes - its a fact, homosexuality is a natural condition that occurs in at least ever mammalian species on the planet. Does this mean is an issue that schools should be indoctrinating our children about?

How is being clear that it exists indoctrination?

My school taught me that earthquakes happen. Does that mean they were indoctrinating me about earthquakes?

No. I don't want morality taught in school at all - that is up to the parent to instill. No matter which way they want to teach it.

Morality is up to the parents. I agree. But talking about homosexuality does not equate to moral teaching.

By the same authority used by the people who claimed it was.

The same authority that says taxing people different amounts at different income levels isn't a civil rights issue, and doesn't apply under "equal protection under the law."

The same authority that says 20 year old legal adults purchasing alcohol is not a civil right, and isn't considered an "equal protection issue."

Fact is, there are many, many laws on the books which discriminate (not a dirty word - it just means "choose") completely arbitrarily. No one says that a 20 year old's civil rights are "violated" because they are legal adults who are denied access to something other legal adults can get. No one says that the millionaire's civil rights are violated because the law takes more of his money than the person who makes $50k a year.

Are gays being thrown in jail? Nope. Are they not allowed to go certain places because they are gay? Nope - they can go where they like, vote, and have absolute freedom in this country. Their "Civil Rights" are secure.

It is offensive that this is being built up as a civil rights issue to me. It makes a mockery of the REAL civil rights issues that women and blacks went through for generations. Gay marriage is NO different than the drinking age being 21. An arbitrary government distinction. Want to change it? Get the votes. But crying that it is a "Civil Rights" issue, moaning that you aren't an "equal citizen" - that's all nonsense frankly. Gays are every bit the citizens that 19 year olds who can't buy beer are. Every bit.

I think there is room for compromise on the issue, but I'd love to see the gay marriage lobby tone down the rhetoric, have a little tolorance, and discuss the issue a little more rationally.

Yu-Dabi, thank you. I have long held that the supposed (pfth) separation of church and state means that the US government only has the authority to recognize civil unions in any case.
That said, the Mormon church has violated the rules governing its tax-free status, and should be penalized as such. I think that that is the least that we could work towards, as far as political retribution for the passage of Prop 8, using misleading and often downright false information from a historically prejudiced religious group.

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing. There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.
Wrong.

The protections most certainly do exist, starting with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I suspect most of that "much talk" you mention was done by those churches, raising red herring about what the bogeyman ACLU would do someday if they weren't headed off at the pass. But the fact remains, they can't.

But regardless. If the protections already exist as you claim, then there should be NO problem putting them in again. If it makes people feel better, gets more votes, and further guarantees churches are protected, why would you oppose it? Seems silly to me.
Sorry, but I see no reason to let you hold other people rights hostage, as it were, letting you stymie legal advances at every single step as you demand to have the same protections written into every law over and over and over, just to make you feel better about other people receiving equal protection under the law.

B) Civil Rights were not stripped for one. This is not a civil rights issue.
Wrong again.

California law granted equal rights to marriage to gays. Prop 8 stripped those rights away. Civil rights were stripped.

#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.
Bullshit. The very same First Amendment that guarantees your churches' right not to do same sex marriages if they don't want to also restricts your churches' right to be politically active. It's called separation of church and state, friend. Familiarize yourself with it. Individual church-goers are, of course, free to lobby to their hearts' content, but churches are not, because church =/= union, so church does not get the same legal access as union.

Unless, of course, your churches are willing to forego their legal recognition as churches and start paying full taxes, just like political organizations have to...

Didn't think so.

Marriage is not a civil right. No one was banning anyone from getting married anyway - it was all about who the government chose to reward.

The right to vote is a civil right. Government sanctioned marriage is not.
And wrong yet again. Loving v. Virginia declared marriage a basic right.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing.

Yes, they do. It's called the 1st Amendment.

There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.

Bullshit.

But regardless. If the protections already exist as you claim, then there should be NO problem putting them in again. If it makes people feel better, gets more votes, and further guarantees churches are protected, why would you oppose it? Seems silly to me.

I oppose silly redundancies in the law. The law is already complicated enough as it is.

B) Civil Rights were not stripped for one. This is not a civil rights issue.

Yes, they were.

Yes, it is.

#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.

Is there a part of the Constitution that separates teachers' unions and govenrment?

No, I don't believe there is.

Marriage is not a civil right.

It is in the US.

No one was banning anyone from getting married anyway - it was all about who the government chose to reward.

It was all about who could obtain government marriage - in other words, who could get married.


The whole fear that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages seems silly to me.

Indeed. If there really was a big push to make all churches recognize all legal marriages, where is the huge public outcry over Catholic churches refusing to marry divorcees? Or various religions refusing to marry non-members? Or various religions refusing to marry couples who are not of the same faith? Or any number of other religious rules?

Oh, yeah, there is no such outcry because no one is trying to legally force churches to uphold the legal version of marriage in their religious ceremonies.

You ask us to stop calling you "liars"? Then stop telling lies.

Ugh - typical. Disagree on an issue, and clearly you are telling lies. Not sure why I am even bothering, the election is over, and some people just aren't willing to have a dispassionate debate on an issue. I'm not evil, or a "liar" - Im just a voter with very serious concerns. I cast my vote like everyone else. The difference is, when I am in the minority, I don't send death threats to the people that disagreed with me.

But fine - whatever. Don't compromise on an issue. Done the gay marriage lobby real well so far.

There is no need to ratify the First Amendment again.

Sometimes I wonder, because the courts don't seem interested in upholding it.

If you want to campaign and lobby, then pay taxes like everyone else. That's the law.

Agreed. So will you join me in asking all those non profit labor unions to stop the political campaigning they have been doing for decades? If so, I am down with asking churches to not do it as well.

Yu-Dabi- why is it any less unjust for me to be discriminated against by the IRS, giving that I can never marry my lover, than for a black person to have to give up her seat on a bus? While it is not the same issue, when one group's freedoms are compromised, I think that the freedom of the nation suffers.

Gay marriage is NO different than the drinking age being 21. An arbitrary government distinction.
No. Drinking alcohol is not a fundamental liberty. Marrying the person you love is.

It is offensive that this is being built up as a civil rights issue to me. It makes a mockery of the REAL civil rights issues that women and blacks went through for generations.

Interestingly enough, one of those issues was the right to marry the person of their choice. Prior to the civil rights movement, interracial marriage was banned in many places. It was overturned on the basis of equal protection.

Gay marriage is NO different than the drinking age being 21.

Yes, it is.

You want something to compare it to that actually makes sense? Interracial marriage. Bans on gay marriage are no different than bans on interracial marriage.

No. Drinking alcohol is not a fundamental liberty. Marrying the person you love is.

Insert applause here.

Ugh - typical. Disagree on an issue, and clearly you are telling lies.



Sometimes I wonder, because the courts don't seem interested in upholding it.



Agreed. So will you join me in asking all those non profit labor unions to stop the political campaigning they have been doing for decades? If so, I am down with asking churches to not do it as well.
Non-profit status is NOT what separates churches from government. It is the fact that they are churches. The separation of church and state keeps churches free from government interference, and it also keeps government free of church interference. That is why churches are restricted from getting involved in politics the same way a labor union can.

Ugh - typical. Disagree on an issue, and clearly you are telling lies.

You weren't "disagreeing on an issue", you were telling a falsehood.
Sometimes I wonder, because the courts don't seem interested in upholding it.

Oh yes they are. I would say you are "lying" again, but probably you are just not very informed.
Agreed. So will you join me in asking all those non profit labor unions to stop the political campaigning they have been doing for decades?
Labor unions do not claim to be charitable organizations. Churches do. If churches become political organizations instead, they need to pay taxes like anyone else.

Yu-Dabi, thank you. I have long held that the supposed (pfth) separation of church and state means that the US government only has the authority to recognize civil unions in any case.

Ill agree with that. They should all be civil unions - and be done with it.

Yu-Dabi- why is it any less unjust for me to be discriminated against by the IRS, giving that I can never marry my lover, than for a black person to have to give up her seat on a bus? While it is not the same issue, when one group's freedoms are compromised, I think that the freedom of the nation suffers.

You can marry your lover. You can stand up before God and swear eternal love, and vow to remain together forever. You can share a home and a life together. If you were actually prevented from doing that, I would agree it is a civil rights issue. But you can, so it isn't.

Everything to do with "governement" marriage is simple legal status, and no different than the government taxing different people different rates based on income - among dozens of other legal distinctions the government applies to people for a wide range of taxes and government programs.

No one is making you sit at the back of the bus. No one is stopping you from falling in love and taking a marriage vow. That's why it isn't a civil rights issue. There is nothing that you "cant" do - there is just a difference in what the government will give you for doing it. If that is a civil rights issue, then if you ask me, it is a far bigger issue that upper income people are having to pay so much more in taxes than their lower income fellow citizens.

That is discrimination based on income, is it not?

Ill agree with that. They should all be civil unions - and be done with it.
They should all be civil unions for hetero couples, too.

You can marry your lover. You can stand up before God and swear eternal love, and vow to remain together forever. You can share a home and a life together. If you were actually prevented from doing that, I would agree it is a civil rights issue. But you can, so it isn't.

Everything to do with "governement" marriage is simple legal status, and no different than the government taxing different people different rates based on income - among dozens of other legal distinctions the government applies to people for a wide range of taxes and government programs.

No one is making you sit at the back of the bus. No one is stopping you from falling in love and taking a marriage vow. That's why it isn't a civil rights issue. There is nothing that you "cant" do - there is just a difference in what the government will give you for doing it. If that is a civil rights issue, then if you ask me, it is a far bigger issue that upper income people are having to pay so much more in taxes than their lower income fellow citizens.

That is discrimination based on income, is it not?
Absolute bullshit.

The "simple legal status" of marriage is all that matters here, and as Brown v. Board of Education showed, separate but equal is not equal. If there is a legal status called "married" that carries 1000+ benefits, rights, protections, and privileges with it, then that status must be equally available to all citizens. Equally. That means the same.

Ill agree with that. They should all be civil unions - and be done with it.

If you can get the entire world to do that at once, I'd agree.

You can marry your lover. You can stand up before God and swear eternal love, and vow to remain together forever. You can share a home and a life together. If you were actually prevented from doing that, I would agree it is a civil rights issue. But you can, so it isn't.

....but you cannot get equal protection under the law for that union if you and your lover happen to be the same sex.

Since equal protection is a civil rights issue, so is this.

Everything to do with "governement" marriage is simple legal status, and no different than the government taxing different people different rates based on income - among dozens of other legal distinctions the government applies to people for a wide range of taxes and government programs.

....except it is quite different. There is a great deal more to legal marriage than tax status.

You're looking at 1000+ protections that same-sex couples either cannot get, or have to go through much more trouble to get (and even then they aren't guaranteed to actually be enforced).

Ill agree with that. They should all be civil unions - and be done with it.

Hmm. You seem utterly convinced that marriage is NOT a legal contract but a spiritual one. Why ? Marriagecontracts certainly existed before e.g. Christianity, and often had nothing to do with religion.

That religion/spirituality has become more and more important in such unions for many people is of course true, but why now pretend it is the only thing of importance ?

You weren't "disagreeing on an issue", you were telling a falsehood.

If you say so. Clearly you are going to call me a liar no matter what, so I don't see the point in arguing. I did not lie once.

Oh yes they are. I would say you are "lying" again, but probably you are just not very informed.

Labor unions do not claim to be charitable organizations. Churches do. If churches become political organizations instead, they need to pay taxes like anyone else.

Labor unions are 501 organizations - same as Churches. So it is ok then for a Labor Union to use their REQUIRED dues to campaign on behalf of their membership (without a vote, whether their members agree or not), but a church can't do the same?

It is just as "illegal" for a union to do what you are accusing the church of doing, but they have been getting away with it for years. It is illegal for them to make campaign contributions using member dues. Yet they still do it.

Like I said - you support going after the unions for it, and Ill support going after the church for it. Seems fair to me.

If you say so. Clearly you are going to call me a liar no matter what, so I don't see the point in arguing. I did not lie once.

Then you were speaking a falsehood without knowing it. Which I fear does mean the "not very informed" bit has a grain of truth in it...

Of course, the next question is if the people who told you this falsehood were also "not very well informed" or deliberately telling lies to influence your opinion. I suggest you ask them.

Hmm. You seem utterly convinced that marriage is NOT a legal contract but a spiritual one. Why ? Marriagecontracts certainly existed before e.g. Christianity, and often had nothing to do with religion.

It has nothing to do with religion to me. "Love" isn't the government's business. Isn't love spiritual?

The act of marrying the one you love is, in my eyes, distinct and EXTREMELY different than the web of legal statuses that the government grants to that union.

As I said before - I'd want government out of marriage all together. You want to name someone "Power of Attorney" with the right to see you in the hospital, etc? What does that have to do with marriage? You want to adopt a child, and need a tax credit? Why does that have anything to do with marriage anymore?

Every one of the so-called rights that marriage under the law supposedly grants can (or should) be achievable without a "civil union" or "marriage" status. Why then should an expression of love have anything to do with a buerocracy? It is none of their business!

Labor unions are 501 organizations - same as Churches.

Incorrect. They are actually different types of organizations, although they do fall under the rather broad 501 designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

Then you were speaking a falsehood without knowing it. Which I fear does mean the "not very informed" bit has a grain of truth in it...

Of course, the next question is if the people who told you this falsehood were also "not very well informed" or deliberately telling lies to influence your opinion. I suggest you ask them.

Sigh - I am sorry, having a different opinion doesn't mean I am not informed, nor does it mean I am a liar. How about addressing specific points instead of resorting to cheap, personal attacks? You have no idea how informed or uninformed I am, all you know is that I have an opinion you disagree with, and you are attempting to utilize a typical playbook.

I don't agree with you. That does not make me a liar.

Incorrect. They are actually different types of organizations, although they do fall under the rather broad 501 designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)


LOL - ok - so a Labor UNion is a 501 organization. A church is a 501 organization. Exactly how is that incorrect :LOL:

It is not incorrect that it is illegal for Labor Unions to use member dues to make political contributions, but they do it all the time.

I never said they were the same kind of 501 organization. They are classified differently, but they are both non profits. And if you want to enforce political restrictions on the Mormon Church that they allegedly violated, it isn't wrong to suggest that you hold the same standard to the labor unions, who have been willfully violating those laws for years.

The act of marrying the one you love is, in my eyes, distinct and EXTREMELY different than the web of legal statuses that the government grants to that union.

Then you don't understand reality very well.

I agree with you that there should be more to a marriage than the legal issues - that love should be a part of it.

However, when discussing civil marriage, those legal issues are what matters.

Thus, they are not completely distinct.

As I said before - I'd want government out of marriage all together. You want to name someone "Power of Attorney" with the right to see you in the hospital, etc? What does that have to do with marriage?

The fact that most people who enter into marriage need all of those sorts of protections - and shouldn't have to go through $100's or $1000's of dollars to get them.

Two people who marry have chosen to live as one - to dedicate their lives to one another. It makes perfect sense that they would also want legal designations such as "next of kin" status, "power of attorney", "medical proxy" and the like.

You want to adopt a child, and need a tax credit? Why does that have anything to do with marriage anymore?

The child tax credit is not tied to marriage.

Every one of the so-called rights that marriage under the law supposedly grants can (or should) be achievable without a "civil union" or "marriage" status. Why then should an expression of love have anything to do with a buerocracy? It is none of their business!

Regardless of what you think should happen, all of the marriage protections are not available outside of the marriage construct. And even those that can be attained would have to be individually attained (taking a great deal of time and money) outside of the marriage construct.

In truth, marriage is an actual example of government streamlining! There are enough people who enter a situation in which these legal protections are appropriate. And, instead of making them apply for each and every one separately, the government has bundled them all into a single package.

LOL - ok - so a Labor UNion is a 501 organization. A church is a 501 organization. Exactly how is that incorrect :LOL:

You said they were the same. They are not.

A labor union falls under the 501(c)(4) designation, while a church falls under the 501(c)(3). The laws governing each designation are different.

It is not incorrect that it is illegal for Labor Unions to use member dues to make political contributions, but they do it all the time.

Do you have a source for that? All I can tell is that they have broader ability to use their funds for politics than churches.

Sigh - I am sorry, having a different opinion doesn't mean I am not informed, nor does it mean I am a liar.

It has nothing to do with opinion. You made statements as a matter of fact. Specifically, they were:

A) Those protections do not exist. And did not prior to this ammendment passing. There was MUCH talk about challenging the non profit status of churches who refused to perform those ceremonies by the ACLU and other organizations.

You claimed that protections that allow churches to perform only the marriages they sanction do not and did not exist.

That is patently false. This means it was either a lie, or you are un/misinformed.

It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

You claimed that there was a great deal of talk about changing the profit status of churches because they refuse to perform marriages ceremonies by the ACLU. You provided no source for this, and I'm fairly certain that it is also false. But it does sound like the kind of nonsense that the Yes on 8 side was putting out.

Again, this isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

You claimed that protections that allow churches to perform only the marriages they sanction do not and did not exist.

That is patently false. This means it was either a lie, or you are un/misinformed.

It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.


If you'll allow me to step in for a second as a negotiator between two factions:

Yu-Dabi can easily demonstrate how he/she is NOT a 'liar', by providing sources that show the truth of his/her claims.

Yu-Dabi? The ball is in your court.

It has nothing to do with religion to me. "Love" isn't the government's business. Isn't love spiritual?

The act of marrying the one you love is, in my eyes, distinct and EXTREMELY different than the web of legal statuses that the government grants to that union.

As I said before - I'd want government out of marriage all together. You want to name someone "Power of Attorney" with the right to see you in the hospital, etc? What does that have to do with marriage? You want to adopt a child, and need a tax credit? Why does that have anything to do with marriage anymore?

Every one of the so-called rights that marriage under the law supposedly grants can (or should) be achievable without a "civil union" or "marriage" status. Why then should an expression of love have anything to do with a buerocracy? It is none of their business!

The problem is - government can't be 'out of marriage all together', because marriage is DEFINED by government.

And that is a specific and deliberate decision, to stop any church having the power to determine what marriage should be... to guarantee equality for those of ALL faiths (or none).

If anyone has NO place in marriage, it's the church (churches) - because marriage is a civil arrangement that can also be consecrated by a church, not the other way round.

If you'll allow me to step in for a second as a negotiator between two factions:

Yu-Dabi can easily demonstrate how he/she is NOT a 'liar', by providing sources that show the truth of his/her claims.

Yu-Dabi? The ball is in your court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-broyles-jean27-2008oct27,0,7357456.story

Just one opinion piuece discussing the issue.

Fact is - it WAS a concern. This is not a lie. You can CLAIM that the first ammendment trumps all, but as cases like the McCain Feingold Act show, you can think that something is protected under the First Ammendment, but if it actually gets to the courts, anything can happen.

The simple solution would be to insert protections into any legislation that makes it impossible for anyone to even challenge it. The fact that the No on 8 folks are unwilling to do that at all is suspect.

Yes, I have read the papers from law professors that say that this would be impossible under the first ammendment. I have read others that contradict that. Fact is - using the New Jersey case as precident, if a church rents out its chapel for marriages, they could potentially be forced to allow same-sex couples to perform their marriage ceremony on what they consider to be holy ground. It happened - it isn't a lie. They swear up and down NOW that they wouldn't do that. Fine - put it into the law. If you are so sure that it is protected, put it in there, it doesn't hurt anything.

As to the "our laws are complicated enough as it is " argument - bull. When we have congress passing 800 page documents at least weekly, a single paragraph inserted into a proposition to guarantee the rights of a certain segment of the population is not a needless complication. Come on now... let's get serious here.

The New Jersey case, and hell - the fact that there is a legal dispute about it at all - proves that there is no guarantee where the court will find if it was brought before it. That is reason enough to include those protections.

EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191 - a few more examples of cases where you could argue that the First Ammendment was not applied for one reason or another to cases like this. Clearly, as sacred as the First Ammendment is supposed to be, different courts found "more important" reasons to rule agains tthe churches.

The problem is - government can't be 'out of marriage all together', because marriage is DEFINED by government.

And that is a specific and deliberate decision, to stop any church having the power to determine what marriage should be... to guarantee equality for those of ALL faiths (or none).

If anyone has NO place in marriage, it's the church (churches) - because marriage is a civil arrangement that can also be consecrated by a church, not the other way round.

You know, that is an interesting way of looking at it.

The Libertarian in me still thinks the opposite - but I will say I had never considered that approach. Well, I never felt the church defined marriage in general, rather blessed unions that conformed to their teachings (I view marriage as an individual cultural arrangement, and not a legal or religious one).

In any case, just saying - interesting point. That is one way of looking at it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-broyles-jean27-2008oct27,0,7357456.story

Just one opinion piuece discussing the issue.

Fact is - it WAS a concern. This is not a lie. You can CLAIM that the first ammendment trumps all, but as cases like the McCain Feingold Act show, you can think that something is protected under the First Ammendment, but if it actually gets to the courts, anything can happen.

The simple solution would be to insert protections into any legislation that makes it impossible for anyone to even challenge it. The fact that the No on 8 folks are unwilling to do that at all is suspect.

Yes, I have read the papers from law professors that say that this would be impossible under the first ammendment. I have read others that contradict that. Fact is - using the New Jersey case as precident, if a church rents out its chapel for marriages, they could potentially be forced to allow same-sex couples to perform their marriage ceremony on what they consider to be holy ground. It happened - it isn't a lie. They swear up and down NOW that they wouldn't do that. Fine - put it into the law. If you are so sure that it is protected, put it in there, it doesn't hurt anything.

As to the "our laws are complicated enough as it is " argument - bull. When we have congress passing 800 page documents at least weekly, a single paragraph inserted into a proposition to guarantee the rights of a certain segment of the population is not a needless complication. Come on now... let's get serious here.

The New Jersey case, and hell - the fact that there is a legal dispute about it at all - proves that there is no guarantee where the court will find if it was brought before it. That is reason enough to include those protections.

The 'New Jersey case' was a campground, wasn't it?

I don't see anything in that source about churches being compelled to do ANY weddings, gay or otherwise.

We can argue about the specifics of the New Jersey case, or the Catholic 'insemination' case - but they are not arguments about churches - they are arguments about the legalities tied up with certain professions or institutions, regardless of their religious affiliation.

I don't see any argument that say actual churches are even close to under attack, much less the members or ministers of any church.


I can't see this source actually defusing Dempublicent's argument.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-broyles-jean27-2008oct27,0,7357456.story

Just one opinion piuece discussing the issue.

An opinion piece. Not anything actually showing that there is any push to force churches to consecrate same-sex unions. Nothing demonstrating that the ACLU in particular is calling for any such thing.

And some of what he talks about in his opinion piece is misconstrued.

Take, for instance, this:

A Massachusetts father was arrested in 2007 when he would not leave the school because the administration stubbornly refused to acknowledge his legal right to opt his child out of ongoing homosexual indoctrination occurring in a kindergarten class.

There was no "homosexual indoctrination" involved. And the man was arrested for trespassing - something he intended by what he called an act of "civil disobedience."

Fact is - it WAS a concern. This is not a lie. You can CLAIM that the first ammendment trumps all, but as cases like the McCain Feingold Act show, you can think that something is protected under the First Ammendment, but if it actually gets to the courts, anything can happen.

And yet, despite the fact that many churches have, for quite some time, had stricter restrictions on marriage than those in the law, no one seems to bring up a single instance in which a church has been forced to consecrate a marriage they didn't agree with.

Where are the cases in which the Catholic Church was forced to marry divorcees?
In which the Primitive Baptist Church was forced to marry non-members?
In which orthodox versions of any religion were forced to marry interfaith couples?

If these don't exist, what reason is there to believe that they would suddenly exist in the case of another legal possibility in marriage that many churches do not recognize?

The truth of the matter is that a church, should they so wish, could choose to only provide marriage ceremonies for blonde people born on a Tuesday. That is their right.

Yes, I have read the papers from law professors that say that this would be impossible under the first ammendment. I have read others that contradict that. Fact is - using the New Jersey case as precident, if a church rents out its chapel for marriages, they could potentially be forced to allow same-sex couples to perform their marriage ceremony on what they consider to be holy ground.

....which is not the same thing as forcing a church to actually perform a marriage.

They rent out their chapel as a source of income - to people who are having marriage performed by someone other than the clergy of their church. That makes them much like any secular business which rents out space for wedding ceremonies. Thus, they are held to non-discrimination laws.

You know, that is an interesting way of looking at it.

The Libertarian in me still thinks the opposite - but I will say I had never considered that approach. Well, I never felt the church defined marriage in general, rather blessed unions that conformed to their teachings (I view marriage as an individual cultural arrangement, and not a legal or religious one).

In any case, just saying - interesting point. That is one way of looking at it.

What about Atheists? Atheists are allowed to get married, aren't they? Despite having NO religious belief, their marriage is 'real'?

You can look at the Biblical (for example) talk of marriages, and you can find things like marriage as a punishment for being a rapist. You can find references to marriages and family. You can find imprecations to never 'be unevenly yoked'.

And yet, even our biblical churches are okay with marrying infertile couples, couples who are too old to have children, couples that are not mono-theistic (by which I mean - do not share the SAME church). I have never heard of a church forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, just because it's a biblical concept.

Marriage, even in our largely-Christian nation, is not a religious (much less, a Christian) establishment. Any religion can marry any religion. The non-religious can marry the religious. Blacks can marry whites.

American marriage is a secular institution.

Also - it's not just a 'personal' institution because (as the Defence of Marriage Act of 1997 indicated) there are more than a thousand rights and responsibilities specifically tied to marital status. You can argue that marriage CAN be a personal gesture. You can argue it CAN be a religious gesture.

The only thing you can't argue, is it's secular governmental attribution. Without that... it's just not marriage.

Instead of calling for the burning of churches, or sending "anthrax" threats, or calling for religious persecution, the gay marriage lobby should have been working out a compromise...

Yeah, and African Americans should have comprimised too on their civil liberties.

coming up with a gay marriage proposition that addressed the concerns of churches who don't want to perform those ceremonies,

This was never an issue. It was a boogey man thrown out by the religious right to scare their congregation.

and did something to block efforts to teach little kids about homosexuality in elementary school (let's leave some things to the parents?).

Only a homophobe would care that his children were learning that gay people exist.

You should have seen some of the disgusting behavior I saw by No on 8 people. I saw hoards of young people with No on 8 signs on the verge of attacking a lone senior citizen quietly holding up a Yes on 8 sign. I saw middle fingers, I heard people cussing and spitting at these people - and I never saw anything but restraint and civility from the Yes on 8 people.


I dont believe you.


Is this a civil rights issue? No. There is nothing stopping two gay people from gathering their friends, promising to love each other and be together forever, and calling it marriage. NOTHING.

Excet they get no benefits.

The difference is, there are government "perks" to marriage. No one is bothering to see what those perks are for - they are just making blanket and hysterical declarations about how their rights are being infinged (sorry, it just isn't the case).

They are. Its pretty clear. And even if I didnt know for sure you were wrong and full of crap, Im more inclined to believe the various lawyers involved in this over some random jerk off on the internet.


The fact is, the entire system of government marriage recognition is a throwback to an era where single-income families were the norm. Everything about marriage that the government has to do with is all about promoting a certain family model that is the best suited to produce and rear a new generation of citizens. Clearly the model is outdated.

So we have a broken system - and the only way ANYONE suggests to fix it is to add a bunch more people to it? How about we scrap it all together? Then everyone is equal.

I disagree and think youre on crack, but thats for another thread.

One question I like to ask is - if gay marriage should be "legal" - shouldn't incestuous marriages be legal as well? Of course, I always get nasty smears when I bring this up - how HATEFUL I must be for equating the two. But it is a valid question - and has nothing to do with my opinions about incest.


There are various reasons that make the two different, and only a simpleton would not see it. But the difference is for another thread.


#1 - it is two consenting adults. That is the #1 condition the gay marriage lobby uses to promote their ideals.

Incest is usually not between consenting adults.

#2 - a counter argument is that in incestuous unions, there is a chance of birth defects. Well, one popular argument against gay marriage is that they can't produce offspring together. The gay marriage lobby rightly counters that sterile straight couples are not barred from government recognized marriage. Applying it to incest, there is a greater probability of birth defects in cases of genetic disease than incest, and we don't bar people with genetic illnesses from being married.

This is a strawman.


If we are going to wholesale change the definition of marriage to something other than a man and a woman, it has to be uniform. This means incestuous couples should be allowed to marry. Hell, this might also mean that polygamy might have to be legal, and people might be allowed to marry just for tax reasons. I am not being hateful here, I am just applying the arguments that the gay marriage lobby uses to other situations, and find that "equal protection" grants those people the same status as well.And if that is the way it works, so be it.

Again, there are various other legal and ethical reasons why these are different from gay marriage.


I voted for Prop 8.

After all the tripe youve said about, this is not suprising.

Not because I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married,

Bullshit.

but I do not like the way the issue was forced on us. The gay marriage lobby lost the debate once in the arena of ideas, and decided to have a court and an insane mayor legislate themselves, and force it on the people. That was wrong.

Oh, youre another one of those dipshit conservatives who thinks that a court striking down unconstitutional laws, you know, its fucking job is somehow "legistlating from the bench".


Personally, my ideal choice would be to abandon the old government sanctioned marriage model all together, make marriage a private affair, and guarantee certain protections (like power of attorney, etc) in civil marriage contract documents. I have a feeling that is a dream though.


Let me guess, you also think the private sector is infailable and should be trusted with every aspect of civil society? Do you have an alter to it in your closet too?

However, I would vote in favor of repealing Prop 8, and allowing the government to recognize gay marriage (silly me - I have this idea that the ceremony itself is what matters, not what the government has to say about it),

It was never about the ceremony. Most of the time its for the legal benefits. Simpleton.


if they come forward with a proposition that protects the right of churches not to perform those ceremonies,

They have always been protected. More right wing tripe and scaremongering. This boogeyman was never in the closet.

and keeps education about gay marriage and homosexual issues out of the schools until the high school level (when they are almost mature enough to understand it).

Why? You need maturity to "understand" that sometimes men love men.

The thing about churches is - they don't think homosexuals are evil.

Yes they do.

To them, the act of having sex with another member of your gender is a sin. To them, being homosexual is a challenge God put before you.

I rest my case.

You can be gay and not sin - just like you can be a meat eater and not eat pork if your are jewish.

Right, you can be gay and not be happy. Just like you can be straight and not be with someone you love. But why should you have to?

And are you equating giving up being with someone you love to gving up pork chops? Youre more delusional than I thought.

They should have the right to say that gay marriage is wrong, and choose not to perform those ceremonies without having their status revoked by the government.

They always have had that right. This monster was never in the closet.

Protects people's rights - protect the church's rights to believe what they do (come on, let's see some of that mythical tolorance) - and stop with the HATE we continue to get from the gay marriage lobby, and I will vote for a new ammendment that allows gay marriage. And I came to this decision independent of any ad the Mormon Church helped pay for.

I dont intend to start toleratin bigotry.

Quit with the damned boycots,

No. Its a valid political action.

denounce people calling for violence against the church,

No one has called for violence.

and stop calling these people liars, bigots, and hate mongers.

Why? They are liars, bigots, and hate mongers.

Stop trying to impose your will, and instead actually compromise.


Hear that black people? We're going to comprimise with all those rednecks that think youre inferior. You only get half a vote now.

Just stand up, accept their concern, and draft a proposition that protects people from the concerns the Yes on 8 people raised - whether you think they are valid or not. You will win - and win big.


The "concerns" raised by the Yes side were never vaild concerns anyway. In fact....they never even existed.

I can't see this source actually defusing Dempublicent's argument.


I added another one - as you can imagine, being at work, it is tough to go through old stories to find the best one.

At this point, I have no problem if Dempublicent disagrees with me. I just object to being called a liar. It is a concern - and it warrants debate and discussion. Just saying it "isn't so," and I am a liar doesn't make the issue any less real. They could be 100% right - the court could rule that the church could refuse to perform the ceremonies. I think the chance that the court MIGHT rule the other way is reason enough to include some protections.

If that makes me a liar, I guess I am one.

I added another one - as you can imagine, being at work, it is tough to go through old stories to find the best one.

At this point, I have no problem if Dempublicent disagrees with me. I just object to being called a liar. It is a concern - and it warrants debate and discussion. Just saying it "isn't so," and I am a liar doesn't make the issue any less real. They could be 100% right - the court could rule that the church could refuse to perform the ceremonies. I think the chance that the court MIGHT rule the other way is reason enough to include some protections.

If that makes me a liar, I guess I am one.

Fine youre not a liar, just ignorant, uninformed, and never did the research.

I added another one - as you can imagine, being at work, it is tough to go through old stories to find the best one.

At this point, I have no problem if Dempublicent disagrees with me. I just object to being called a liar. It is a concern - and it warrants debate and discussion. Just saying it "isn't so," and I am a liar doesn't make the issue any less real. They could be 100% right - the court could rule that the church could refuse to perform the ceremonies. I think the chance that the court MIGHT rule the other way is reason enough to include some protections.

If that makes me a liar, I guess I am one.

I checked the other source, also - still no evidence of churches.

Here's the thing - if a church moves into another field, for example, renting property, offering medical treatment, etc... that other field does not become 'the church'. Instead, the church becomes a stockholder in that other field - and thus, is - and should be - bound by the same laws as other stockholders in that field.

So - while you might think it unfair that a rental property can be 'compelled' to be made available, it's only fair WITHIN the industry. WHile hospitals might not agree with some medical treatments, if they are equipped to do a job and refuse... one could argue that they are breaking the fundamental principles of their field.

So - there still isn't a story that comes close to 'churches being forced to perform gay marriages'. Or ANY marriages.


Does that make you a liar? I think that comes down to whether or not - given the current evidence - you are arguing there is an actual danger of churches being compelled. As to yet, they haven't (and there's no chance, under current Constitutional law, that they will) - so if you insist that danger is real? It's a lie.

EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191 - a few more examples of cases where you could argue that the First Ammendment was not applied for one reason or another to cases like this. Clearly, as sacred as the First Ammendment is supposed to be, different courts found "more important" reasons to rule agains tthe churches.

Again, none of these cases are ones in which churches were forced to sanction marriages against their beliefs - or to officially sanction anything, for that matter.

These cases don't even involve churches.

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006

This was an adoption agency, not a church. And they were providing a legal service, not a religious ceremony.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

This is a school, not a church.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Again, a school, not a church.

If this were a case where the girls were barred from membership in a church, and then sued, I'd argue in favor of the church.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

A doctor, not a church.

Now, in this particular case, the fact that he referred her to another doctor should have mitigated the problem and I don't think the woman should have sued. But it still doesn't change the fact that the doctor is not a church.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

This woman didn't live up to her contract with her employer. Her employer thus had every right to fire her.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

I actually think this case was wrongly decided. The clerk is a government employee. As such, he should not be able to discriminate in this manner. If he would like to ask to be moved into a different job in which his religious beliefs do not interfere, so be it.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Again, a business, not a church.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Business, not a church.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

This has already been discussed.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason.

Wait.....they are suing because they didn't get special consideration to use things for free? And I'm supposed to be upset about this?

The fact that they could have gotten the use of these areas for free is a privilege - it was completely appropriate of the government to refuse them that privilege if they would not meet the requirements.

While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp.

It would really depend on the organization in question.

But none of this really says anything about the claims that churches are going to be forced to perform marriages they do not wish to sanction.

Yeah, and African Americans should have comprimised too on their civil liberties.

Nope. But then, they were actually dealing with civil rights. This is not a civil rights issue.

This was never an issue. It was a boogey man thrown out by the religious right to scare their congregation.

As I have demonstrated, it is an issue. So deal with it.

Only a homophobe would care that his children were learning that gay people exist.

Yeah - mark one for "Hateful personal attacks." Geez - when did the left get so intolorant?

I never said that the existence of gays should be hidden from children. However, the moral implications of the lifestyle should be addressed by the PARENTS at that age.

I dont believe you.

That's nice.

Excet they get no benefits.

Benefits are not a civil right. The 19 year old can't get drunk - are his civil rights violated too?

They are. Its pretty clear. And even if I didnt know for sure you were wrong and full of crap, Im more inclined to believe the various lawyers involved in this over some random jerk off on the internet.

Lawyers fall on BOTH sides of the argument.

Personal attack #2. Again - which side is more hateful?

I disagree and think youre on crack, but thats for another thread.

Feeling the love. #3.

There are various reasons that make the two different, and only a simpleton would not see it. But the difference is for another thread.

Personal attack #4. In other words, you can't come up with a real good reason why they are different - so you are just going to call me a name and feel superior.

Why do you hate incestuous people? Why would you deny them their "civil rights?"

Incest is usually not between consenting adults.

Well, we aren't talking about those cases, are we? If a brother and sister of legal age desires to get married, isn't that "Two consenting adults?" Who are you to say they arent?

This is a strawman.

No, it is a reasonable application of the same legal argument.


Again, there are various other legal and ethical reasons why these are different from gay marriage.

Name them.

Bullshit.

:LOL: OK, you've convinced me. I am really a homophobe. I guess all the pro-gay political activism I have been involved with in my life was just compensation :)

I guess I went through all those years being called a fag for no reason?

Oh, youre another one of those dipshit conservatives who thinks that a court striking down unconstitutional laws, you know, its fucking job is somehow "legistlating from the bench".

I am a libertarian. Of course, personal attack #5 aside, there is a problem when a court drafts new law from the bench. There is a MAJOR difference between striking down unconstitutional laws, and actually changing them. A major difference.

Let me guess, you also think the private sector is infailable and should be trusted with every aspect of civil society? Do you have an alter to it in your closet too?

Wow - dunno if I should qualify that as a hateful personal attack or just snarky. In any case - I have seen how efficiently the government spends my money, as compared with private charity. The government should be in charge of as LITTLE as possible, because everything they do becomes fat, bloated, inefficient, ineffective, and impossible to get rid of.

It was never about the ceremony. Most of the time its for the legal benefits. Simpleton.

Sigh - again with the hate!

Which proves my point. Legal benefits are not a civil right.

They have always been protected. More right wing tripe and scaremongering. This boogeyman was never in the closet.

Right. Just like they were protected in all the cases I have listed, and many more.

Why? You need maturity to "understand" that sometimes men love men.

If that was all they were teaching, it wouldn't be an issue.

Yes they do.

Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that you know their hearts.

I rest my case.

You never stated one.

Right, you can be gay and not be happy. Just like you can be straight and not be with someone you love. But why should you have to?

But you said it was about the benefits. What does that have to do with being happy? I thought the expression of love and togetherness was what made people happy, and we seem to agree that this is permitted...

And are you equating giving up being with someone you love to gving up pork chops? Youre more delusional than I thought.

And the hate keeps coming.

They always have had that right. This monster was never in the closet.

Once again - that doesn't seem to be the true for a wealth of cases put forth before the court.

I dont intend to start toleratin bigotry.

How can you stand to be around yourself then?

No. Its a valid political action.

Yup. But it isn't getting them anymore votes. It is costing them. It is counterproductive.

No one has called for violence.

[url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220really[/url]?

Why? They are liars, bigots, and hate mongers. So far, you seem to have a monopoly on that...

Here that black people? We're going to comprimise. You only get half a vote now.

See above about the difference between what is and isn't a "civil right"

The "concerns" raised by the Yes side were never vaild concerns anyway. In fact....they never even existed.

Right. Tell that to the Boy Scouts. Or the Jewish Synagogue. Or that New Jersey Church. But then again, from your own lips, they don't deserve any rights, so why don't you just be honest about it?

This kind of crap is what I am talking about. You have one side SCREAMING about how hateful the other side is, but look at what you get. Slander, ignorance, hateful bile.

That's why I voted yes on 8. I think gay marriage is possible, but if this is going to be how it comes about, no thanks. Personally, the idea that once side can start winning arguments by claiming the other side are a bunch of bigots disgusts me. I've been called a liar, a bigot, a hatemonger, and all I have done is tried to have an honest discussion about the very real issues around this change.

A doctor, not a church.

I am just going to agree to disagree with you on the issue (mostly because I don't have the time to rebut a dozen different people - I've been in this same discussion before, I know how it goes) - I don't DISAGREE that it is possible they will be protected under the 1st ammendment. However.

The first ammendment doesn't protect churches. It is supposed to protect individuals of various faiths. Many of those cases are groups or individuals that, due to their faiths, would often refuse services to people in question because of their faith.

The doctor in question - he didn't want to perform the service. But in a professional manner, he referred the people to someone who would. Look what happened to him. The First Ammendment sure didn't protect him, even though the government clearly ruled that he was not permitted to practice his faith.

That is the crux of the argument. The First Ammendment clearly doesn't always hold up in court. All I am saying is, if you are so sure it will, it can't hurt to add a little extra oomph in there to satisfy the people who have very real and legitimate concerns.

Personally, I have seen many cases where I thought a reasonable court would throw out a law as clearly unconstitutional, when they did not. I don't think adding protections into the law is an unreasonable compromise, even if YOU don't think they are needed.

Prop 8 passed by the slimmest of margins. How many people would change their mind if those protections were addressed in the legislation itself? 5%? 10%? MORE than enough to get something passed.

If it really is nothing, then DO it, and win. I don't see why that is such a bad idea.

Nope. But then, they were actually dealing with civil rights. This is not a civil rights issue.


How not?

"Civil rights: a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc..."

How is it not a 'civil rights' issue?

I am a libertarian. Of course, personal attack #5 aside, there is a problem when a court drafts new law from the bench.

There would be, yes.

But I've yet to see a single instance where that actually happened.

Which proves my point. Legal benefits are not a civil right.

Equal protection, on the other hand, is.

Right. Just like they were protected in all the cases I have listed, and many more.

They weren't at issue in any of the cases you've listed. Businesses that happen to be run by religion people != churches.

If that was all they were teaching, it wouldn't be an issue.

Ah yes. They also teach that you can't beat up or otherwise mistreat gay people. Is that the problem, then?

But you said it was about the benefits. What does that have to do with being happy? I thought the expression of love and togetherness was what made people happy, and we seem to agree that this is permitted...

Imagine knowing that, despite the fact that you have dedicated your life to someone, you may not be able to visit them on their deathbed.

Imagine waking up to see the news on TV that a plane had gone down and recognizing it as the plane belonging to your partner's parents. Imagine that you call the authorities (who would not have even been able to report about the accident without calling you first if you could actually get married) to see if your partner is ok, and they tell you they can't talk about it because you aren't family. (This all happened to a couple fairly recently).

Imagine worrying that your wishes will not be met when you die, because your legal next-of-kin is a parent who doesn't approve of your sexuality and who will likely block your partner from making those decisions.

And so on.....

Do you think these worries make people happy?

Right. Tell that to the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts didn't get a special privilege because they didn't meet the requirements for it. How is that a bad thing?

Or the Jewish Synagogue.

College of Medicine affiliated with Judaism != Synagogue

Or that New Jersey Church.

Business != church.

That's why I voted yes on 8. I think gay marriage is possible, but if this is going to be how it comes about, no thanks.

"People were mean to me! That's why I refused equal protection to gay people!"

Seriously?

I am just going to agree to disagree with you on the issue - I don't DISAGREE that it is possible they will be protected under the 1st ammendment. However.

Not just possible. Overwhelmingly probable.

As I pointed out, churches already deny marriage ceremonies to people who can legally get married. There is no reason whatsoever to think that it will be any different in this case.

The first ammendment doesn't protect churches. It is supposed to protect individuals of various faiths. Many of those cases are groups or individuals that, due to their faiths, would often refuse services to people in question because of their faith.

Ever hear the adage, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"?

When someone runs a business and decides to be discriminatory, they're contacting someone else's nose, as it were.

The doctor in question - he didn't want to perform the service. But in a professional manner, he referred the people to someone who would. Look what happened to him. The First Ammendment sure didn't protect him, even though the government clearly ruled that he was not permitted to practice his faith.

The government did not rule that he was not permitted to practice his faith. It ruled that he did not have the right to affect the medical access of others because of his faith.

Now, like I said, I don't think that particular case should have gone to the courts - because he did ensure that they could find anther doctor. But it isn't what you're representing it as either.

That is the crux of the argument. The First Ammendment clearly doesn't always hold up in court.

No, it doesn't always get interpreted the way you would like it to. These things are not equivalent.

Personally, I have seen many cases where I thought a reasonable court would throw out a law as clearly unconstitutional, when they did not.

The courts tend to err on the side of the government if they err at all. They are, after all, a part of that government.

Prop 8 passed by the slimmest of margins. How many people would change their mind if those protections were addressed in the legislation itself? 5%? 10%? MORE than enough to get something passed.

Honestly? I don't think there would be many at all, because I think those "concerns" are generally a red herring.

Most of the people who voted yes on 8 did it because they want to enforce their religious views on others, not because they are worried about the reverse.

How not?

"Civil rights: a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc..."

How is it not a 'civil rights' issue?
Easy. He said so. Plus he based a huge part of his argument on it, and if you take it away, then his argument will fall to pieces. So, obviously, it must be so.

How not?

"Civil rights: a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc..."

How is it not a 'civil rights' issue?


As I stated before - no RIGHT is being denied them.

Government sanction of marriage in this case is the same as the legal limit to purchase alcohol being anything other than 18. The law discriminates all the time about what benefits it gives.

Under the law as it is, a man and a woman can marry. It doesn't provide that they are gay or straight - they don't even have to like each other. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man cannot marry another man, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

You can say "oh, well interracial marriage was once illegal, that is the same thing." No, it isn't. Those laws specifically dealt with the person's skin color. Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender. Neither can straight people. The case against interracial marriage had one set of conditions for one color, and another set for another color.

"Love" or "attraction" is not a factor in the law. In this case, it is the exact same for everyone - A man and a woman can get married. Sexual orientation is not even a part of that. No man can marry another man, regardless of sexual orientation.

They are not being discriminated against, they want a legal status that currently doesn't exist. They want to change the definition of marriage to accomodate a same-sex union, something marriage never was.

This is not a civil rights issue. I am not saying they shouldn't get what they want, but it isn't even close to the same thing...

As I stated before - no RIGHT is being denied them.

...except, you know, for the one he bolded.

Government sanction of marriage in this case is the same as the legal limit to purchase alcohol being anything other than 18. The law discriminates all the time about what benefits it gives.

Except, it isn't. The government restricts alcohol consumption on a basis of safety. Now, we can argue whether or not their particular restrictions are warranted, but the fact remains that this is quite different from denying equal protection to an arbitrary group of people.

You can say "oh, well interracial marriage was once illegal, that is the same thing." No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Those laws specifically dealt with the person's skin color.

And these laws (a) specifically deal with a person's sex and (b) are specifically targeted against those of a particular sexuality.

Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender.

Laws against interracial marriage did not state that black people couldn't marry, simply that they couldn't marry someone of a different ethnicity.

The case against interracial marriage had one set of conditions for one color, and another set for another color.

And the current marriage law has one set of conditions for men and another set of conditions for women - without justification of those conditions in biological differences.

As I stated before - no RIGHT is being denied them.

Government sanction of marriage in this case is the same as the legal limit to purchase alcohol being anything other than 18. The law discriminates all the time about what benefits it gives.

Under the law as it is, a man and a woman can marry. It doesn't provide that they are gay or straight - they don't even have to like each other. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man cannot marry another man, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

You can say "oh, well interracial marriage was once illegal, that is the same thing." No, it isn't. Those laws specifically dealt with the person's skin color. Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender. Neither can straight people. The case against interracial marriage had one set of conditions for one color, and another set for another color.

"Love" or "attraction" is not a factor in the law. In this case, it is the exact same for everyone - A man and a woman can get married. Sexual orientation is not even a part of that. No man can marry another man, regardless of sexual orientation.

They are not being discriminated against, they want a legal status that currently doesn't exist. They want to change the definition of marriage to accomodate a same-sex union, something marriage never was.

This is not a civil rights issue. I am not saying they shouldn't get what they want, but it isn't even close to the same thing...
I already posted the link to the case that proves you wrong when you claim that marriage is not a right, but you ignored it. Here, I'll post it again, so you can ignore it again:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

As I stated before - no RIGHT is being denied them.

Government sanction of marriage in this case is the same as the legal limit to purchase alcohol being anything other than 18. The law discriminates all the time about what benefits it gives.

Under the law as it is, a man and a woman can marry. It doesn't provide that they are gay or straight - they don't even have to like each other. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man cannot marry another man, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

You can say "oh, well interracial marriage was once illegal, that is the same thing." No, it isn't. Those laws specifically dealt with the person's skin color. Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender. Neither can straight people. The case against interracial marriage had one set of conditions for one color, and another set for another color.

"Love" or "attraction" is not a factor in the law. In this case, it is the exact same for everyone - A man and a woman can get married. Sexual orientation is not even a part of that. No man can marry another man, regardless of sexual orientation.

They are not being discriminated against, they want a legal status that currently doesn't exist. They want to change the definition of marriage to accomodate a same-sex union, something marriage never was.

This is not a civil rights issue. I am not saying they shouldn't get what they want, but it isn't even close to the same thing...

"Protection from discrimination based on... sexual orientation".

There is discrimination, based on orientation - thus - it is a civil rights issue.

QED.


Also:

I'm going to bring out a little part of your own post here: "Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender. Neither can straight people."

Why shouldn't straight people be allowed to marry their own gender?

The right to marry your own gender impacts homosexuals disproportionately, but it actually impacts straight people, too. The rights and responsibilities that are part and parcel of marriage are being denied to people who live in other 'marriage-like' relationships, as well.

So - yes, this discriminates based on gender orientation, but it also just discriminates based on choice. It limits rights. Proposition 8 went even further, by REMOVING rights that had been recognised. Yeah - this is a civil rights issue.

What I am personally wondering is, why don't the gays protest other churches? 70% of blacks in California voted for Proposition 8, yet you don't see them marching around a church with a black majority, do you?

I live in Utah. I saw the protest around Temple Square. I heard the anti-Mormon/Monson slurs. It was awful. I'm not Mormon, yet I feel sorry for those guys, what with all the vandalism and hatred going around.

I do think the gays went WAY out of hand here.

#2 - The day teachers unions are barred from doing any campaigning and lobbying, especially on state budget issues, is the day I will believe that a church doesn't have the right to campaign on its own behalf. Turnabout is fair play.

I assume you're talking about that little known clause in the constitution that calls for the separation of teachers and state . . .

What I am personally wondering is, why don't the gays protest other churches? 70% of blacks in California voted for Proposition 8, yet you don't see them marching around a church with a black majority, do you?

I live in Utah. I saw the protest around Temple Square. I heard the anti-Mormon/Monson slurs. It was awful. I'm not Mormon, yet I feel sorry for those guys, what with all the vandalism and hatred going around.

I do think the gays went WAY out of hand here.

Yeah, those damn uppity negr-- er, gays. When will they learn their place and just accept discrimination?

If you say so. Clearly you are going to call me a liar no matter what, so I don't see the point in arguing.

No, I am going to call you a liar when you knowingly make false claims about matters of fact. You claimed that the ACLU intends to force churches to conduct wedding ceremonies against their will: that was a slander. The source that you yourself linked to says that the ACLU's position is that such a thing would never happen.

I did not lie once.

Correct: you lied repeatedly.

Labor unions are 501 organizations - same as Churches.

NOT the same as churches. Labor unions are under tight governmental regulation. Do you want your church under tight governmental regulation? Then turn it into a political organization, and that is what you will get.

So it is ok then for a Labor Union to use their REQUIRED dues to campaign on behalf of their membership (without a vote, whether their members agree or not), but a church can't do the same?

I have no opinion as to whether "it is ok": I have no idea of the facts in whatever situation you are even talking about. If you believe you have encountered a violation of the laws, then report it to the proper authorities (that would be the National Labor Relations Board, I believe).

What I am personally wondering is, why don't the gays protest other churches?
No other church went so far to spread lies and hatred.

No, I am going to call you a liar when you knowingly make false claims about matters of fact. You claimed that the ACLU intends to force churches to conduct wedding ceremonies against their will: that was a slander.

No it wasn't. When you write malicious lies that damage reputations down it's LIBEL.

Government sanction of marriage in this case is the same as the legal limit to purchase alcohol being anything other than 18.

Right, let's just pretend this isn't about gay rights at all and equate it to something unrelated instead! Hey you know, gay marriage laws are no different from.... pineapples!


There is a damn good reason why there should be an age limit on the purchase of alcohol. Alcohol being an intoxicating, dangerous psychoactive with potential short- and long-term health effects including a reduced cognitive and physical ability and the possibility of overdose.

Now give me a similar reason why there should be a gender limit on marriage.

The law discriminates all the time about what benefits it gives.

...true. Like the Nuremberg Laws.

Under the law as it is, a man and a woman can marry. It doesn't provide that they are gay or straight - they don't even have to like each other. A gay man can marry a woman.

Right, except that, you know, being gay, a gay man has no desire to marry a woman at all, so this absolutely discriminates against his preference to marry a man.

You can say "oh, well interracial marriage was once illegal, that is the same thing." No, it isn't. Those laws specifically dealt with the person's skin color. Current marriage laws do not state that gay people can't marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender.

By prohibiting people of the same gender from marrying each other you are by definition discriminating against gay people. Because for the most part, it's gay people who want to marry people of the same gender. Because, you know, that's sort of how homosexuality works.

Your whole, "It's not discrimination against homosexuality to ban homosexual marriage" argument is made of fail.

"Love" or "attraction" is not a factor in the law.

It is a factor in people wanting to get married. And who they want to get married to.

In this case, it is the exact same for everyone - A man and a woman can get married.

Right... heterosexual marriage is allowed.

But homosexual marriage is not. Hence, discrimination against homosexuals. Unless you want to pretend that a man wants to marry another man, and homosexuality has nothing to do with that....

Sexual orientation is not even a part of that.

Well there you have it. Sexuality has nothing to do with marriage. Apparently it's just COINCIDENCE that people marry people they are ATTRACTED TO!

I am just going to agree to disagree with you on the issue (mostly because I don't have the time to rebut a dozen different people - I've been in this same discussion before, I know how it goes) - I don't DISAGREE that it is possible they will be protected under the 1st ammendment. However.

The first ammendment doesn't protect churches. It is supposed to protect individuals of various faiths. Many of those cases are groups or individuals that, due to their faiths, would often refuse services to people in question because of their faith.

The doctor in question - he didn't want to perform the service. But in a professional manner, he referred the people to someone who would. Look what happened to him. The First Ammendment sure didn't protect him, even though the government clearly ruled that he was not permitted to practice his faith.

That is the crux of the argument. The First Ammendment clearly doesn't always hold up in court. All I am saying is, if you are so sure it will, it can't hurt to add a little extra oomph in there to satisfy the people who have very real and legitimate concerns.

Personally, I have seen many cases where I thought a reasonable court would throw out a law as clearly unconstitutional, when they did not. I don't think adding protections into the law is an unreasonable compromise, even if YOU don't think they are needed.

Prop 8 passed by the slimmest of margins. How many people would change their mind if those protections were addressed in the legislation itself? 5%? 10%? MORE than enough to get something passed.

If it really is nothing, then DO it, and win. I don't see why that is such a bad idea.

I don't know how much more wrong you can be shown to be, but I'm sure that if you keep staggering through your arguments over and over again, you'll look even more wrong.

Nope. But then, they were actually dealing with civil rights. This is not a civil rights issue.

Yes we are. As has been demonstrated.



As I have demonstrated, it is an issue. So deal with it.

No you havent.


Yeah - mark one for "Hateful personal attacks." Geez - when did the left get so intolorant?

I came to the conclusion that since the right wont even pretend to respect my opinion, why should I pretend like I respect theirs? Especially since they are not usually based in fact, as you so ampy demonstrate.

I never said that the existence of gays should be hidden from children. However, the moral implications of the lifestyle should be addressed by the PARENTS at that age.

Ok, so lets also let parents teach their kids about the moral implications about employing women, interrracial marriage, and blacks being free.


Benefits are not a civil right. The 19 year old can't get drunk - are his civil rights violated too?


Did you just compare underaged drinking to gay marriage?


Personal attack #2. Again - which side is more hateful?

Yours. I hate bigotry. You hate a group of people. See the difference?


Feeling the love. #3.

Good.


Personal attack #4. In other words, you can't come up with a real good reason why they are different - so you are just going to call me a name and feel superior.

Why do you hate incestuous people? Why would you deny them their "civil rights?"


Look up threadjacking.


Well, we aren't talking about those cases, are we? If a brother and sister of legal age desires to get married, isn't that "Two consenting adults?" Who are you to say they arent?

If theyre two consenting adults I dont give a shit. End of story.


No, it is a reasonable application of the same legal argument.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.


Name them.

See "threadjacking"


:LOL: OK, you've convinced me. I am really a homophobe. I guess all the pro-gay political activism I have been involved with in my life was just compensation :)

I dont believe youve ever been involved in pro-gay political activism.

I guess I went through all those years being called a fag for no reason?

Guess so.


I am a libertarian.

I assumed as much, what with how delusional you appear to be and all.

Of course, personal attack #5 aside, there is a problem when a court drafts new law from the bench. There is a MAJOR difference between striking down unconstitutional laws, and actually changing them. A major difference.


What happened here was an unconstitutional law was struck down. Thus, the default was it was now legal.


Wow - dunno if I should qualify that as a hateful personal attack or just snarky.

Both.

In any case - I have seen how efficiently the government spends my money, as compared with private charity. The government should be in charge of as LITTLE as possible, because everything they do becomes fat, bloated, inefficient, ineffective, and impossible to get rid of.


Again, a faith in the private sector bordering on naivety.


Sigh - again with the hate!

Plenty more where this came from


Which proves my point. Legal benefits are not a civil right.

No, but equal access to them is.


Right. Just like they were protected in all the cases I have listed, and many more.

The cases you listed either didnt say what you think they said or were an opinion peice written by someone just as woefully uninformed as you are.


If that was all they were teaching, it wouldn't be an issue.

Yeah, theyre teaching that gay people arent freaks. Bastards! Youre right, if parents wants to teach his children that those filthy fags are unclean freaks, he should be able to without the school teaching the reverse, just like if some redneck wants to teach his kids that all those ****** lovers who marry darkies are unclean freaks, he should be able to as well without the school saying otherwise.


Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that you know their hearts.

Actually, I hate religion precisely because I know their hearts.

Once again - that doesn't seem to be the true for a wealth of cases put forth before the court.

Yes it is, the fact that you and your opinion peice sources dont know what theyre talking about doesnt change that fact.


Yup. But it isn't getting them anymore votes. It is costing them. It is counterproductive.


This isnt about getting votes anymore. Just admit it. What really bothers you is that people are FINALLY going after your bigoted religions.


See above about the difference between what is and isn't a "civil right"


You too.

This kind of crap is what I am talking about. You have one side SCREAMING about how hateful the other side is, but look at what you get. Slander, ignorance, hateful bile.

Turnabouts fair play and all that jazz. At least we havent pulled the "OMG THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!1!11!" arguement yet. Your side has a monoply on that one.

That's why I voted yes on 8.

Because youre a bigot.

I think gay marriage is possible, but if this is going to be how it comes about, no thanks. Personally, the idea that once side can start winning arguments by claiming the other side are a bunch of bigots disgusts me. I've been called a liar, a bigot, a hatemonger, and all I have done is tried to have an honest discussion about the very real issues around this change.

Youve been called a liar, a bigot, and a hatemonger because you are. Either that, or youre just really really misinformed. Which is it?

Look up threadjacking.
<snip>
See "threadjacking"
<snip>


Pot, meet kettle. This thread has been off topic for half its life, with the active assistance of the OP. I was willing to leave it open as a catch-all for the gay marriage debate, but as it has turned from actual debate to namecalling, iLock.

This does not mean you may not resume whatever you see as the topic in a new thread, if there is not already one covering the topic. Please be specific in your OP.

If it is redundant, it will be locked. If it is trolling, it will be locked. If posters' manner to each other goes beyond the bounds, it will be locked. Please make at least a gesture in the general direction of reason and adulthood in your posts.

{EDIT}The original topic of this one -- possible political action against the Mormon Church -- has already been thoroughly discussed. Let it rest.