California State Measure Results

[akdiver 3]

They've voted on the proposition, certainly. But that doesn't really address the question of whether a vote was needed to begin with.

Well, given that the initiative was put on the ballot using the proper procedure - it seems pretty clear that the required number of voters in California have decided that the vote was needed to begin with.

Perhaps we're not at a point where civil rights are largely set in stone or that they can be assumed for others on the basis of the experiences of other minority groups who were subjected to repression. But it seems to me that we're not at a a point where we're going to see a regression to racial segregation laws or for taking away minority's voting rights.

Um....OK.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They've voted on the proposition, certainly. But that doesn't really address the question of whether a vote was needed to begin with.

Well, given that the initiative was put on the ballot using the proper procedure - it seems pretty clear that the required number of voters in California have decided that the vote was needed to begin with.

Perhaps we're not at a point where civil rights are largely set in stone or that they can be assumed for others on the basis of the experiences of other minority groups who were subjected to repression. But it seems to me that we're not at a a point where we're going to see a regression to racial segregation laws or for taking away minority's voting rights.

Um....OK.

Well noone is going to endorse legislation for taking away the rights that other minority groups have won. Are they?

I think Prop 8 reflects bigotry of the worst kind (as I said).

[akdiver 3]

Well noone is going to endorse legislation for taking away the rights that other minority groups have won. Are they?

You're kidding, right?? There are PLENTY of people who endorse legislation to strip people of all kinds of rights. Find a nice white guy with a southern accent to troll around certain parts of the country and ask some questions about stripping blacks, jews, muslims, immigrants and others of various rights and see what kind of response you get.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well noone is going to endorse legislation for taking away the rights that other minority groups have won. Are they?

You're kidding, right?? There are PLENTY of people who endorse legislation to strip people of all kinds of rights. Find a nice white guy with a southern accent to troll around certain parts of the country and ask some questions about stripping blacks, jews, muslims, immigrants and others of various rights and see what kind of response you get.

Of course there are - but what prop 8 shows us that its more socially acceptable to bigoted against gays than women or racial minorities. When you have fairly clear precedents that allow, for example, a black man to marry a white woman - it isn't a terribly large leap to apply the same logic to homosexuality. Certainly not the paradigm shift suggested by the naysayers. In other words gay marriage isn't the threat that its purported to be.

Hence I ask why do we need a vote on this issue when the result promotes bigotry?

Edited November 5, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[akdiver 3]

Of course there are - but what prop 8 shows us that its more socially acceptable to bigoted against gays than women or racial minorities.

...at least in California.

When you have fairly clear precedents that allow, for example, a black man to marry a white woman - it isn't a terribly large leap to apply the same logic to homosexuality. Certainly not the paradigm shift suggested by the naysayers. In other words gay marriage isn't the threat that its purported to be.

So, it's clear then. We need to treat women and blacks the same as gays. No problem.

But seriously - gays are being treated the same as everyone else. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they can convince to marry them - just like non-gay people are. It's all just in how you phrase the issue.

Hence I ask why do we need a vote on this issue when the result promotes bigotry?

It's the will of the people. You know. That whole democracy thing. Edited November 5, 2008 by akdiver

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course there are - but what prop 8 shows us that its more socially acceptable to bigoted against gays than women or racial minorities.

...at least in California.

When you have fairly clear precedents that allow, for example, a black man to marry a white woman - it isn't a terribly large leap to apply the same logic to homosexuality. Certainly not the paradigm shift suggested by the naysayers. In other words gay marriage isn't the threat that its purported to be.

So, it's clear then. We need to treat women and blacks the same as gays. No problem.

But seriously - gays are being treated the same as everyone else. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they can convince to marry them - just like non-gay people are. It's all just in how you phrase the issue.

Hence I ask why do we need a vote on this issue when the result promotes bigotry?

It's the will of the people. You know. That whole democracy thing.

The issue is having the right to not be discriminated against for your lifestyle when it doesn't harm nor directly impact the quality of life of others. Being gay and told you can marry so long as its someone of the opposite sex is like offering a tray of meat products to a vegetarian and telling them that its all there is to eat.

Again outside of religious dogma its not really clear what the problem is with gay marriage that justifies the opinion that it be prohibited.

[akdiver 3]

The issue is having the right to not be discriminated against for your lifestyle when it doesn't harm nor directly impact the quality of life of others

OK - so what about plural marriage? If everyone is able and willing, then what business is it of anyone else's? I don't think it is reasonable (consistent) to allow gay marriage without allowing plural marriage. Now, you can raise the issue of women's rights if you want, but I call BS. If a woman wants to have three husbands, then that's her business. By the same token, if she wants three wives, that's also her business. If she wants to share 2 men with 3 other women and another man, well, that's her business too.

Being gay and told you can marry so long as its someone of the opposite sex is like offering a tray of meat products to a vegetarian and telling them that its all there is to eat.

I don't have a problem with that. Eat or not, that's up to you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue is having the right to not be discriminated against for your lifestyle when it doesn't harm nor directly impact the quality of life of others

OK - so what about plural marriage? If everyone is able and willing, then what business is it of anyone else's? I don't think it is reasonable (consistent) to allow gay marriage without allowing plural marriage. Now, you can raise the issue of women's rights if you want, but I call BS. If a woman wants to have three husbands, then that's her business. By the same token, if she wants three wives, that's also her business. If she wants to share 2 men with 3 other women and another man, well, that's her business too.

Had that discussion a number of times before. "Plural" marriage is entirely impractical for quite obvious reasons - and its really no coincidence that the only examples of it that we have (at least in our society) are rigid models based on patriarchal religious doctrines.

Quite simply - gay marriage doesn't represent the threat to the social construct of "marriage" that polygamy does.

Being gay and told you can marry so long as its someone of the opposite sex is like offering a tray of meat products to a vegetarian and telling them that its all there is to eat.

I don't have a problem with that. Eat or not, that's up to you.

I thought you said you didn't care who married who? If you're not against it - why defend the bigotry?

Edited November 5, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't understand why so many people are so hell-bent on voting against something that doesn't impact them in the slightest.

Actually, that's not true. If more people have access to employer-based insurance as a gay spouse, that affects the insurance pool, claims rates, prices, etc. Among other things.

My employer health plan covers same-sex spouses. They sent out an email to that effect

last month - after a New York State appeals court ruled that same-sex marriages legally

performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.

[akdiver 3]

"Plural" marriage is entirely impractical for quite obvious reasons

I don't see any obvious reasons.

I thought you said you didn't care who married who? If you're not against it - why defend the bigotry?

I'm not defending it at all. I'm also not promoting bigotry toward those who wish to involve voluntarily involve themselves in plural marriages.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Plural" marriage is entirely impractical for quite obvious reasons

I don't see any obvious reasons.

Are you serious?

If you are married to woman A, B, C, and man D, and each of your partners has husbands and wives of their own - how exactly are you going to file taxes, decide on who gets custody of the kids, what inheritance or divorce settlement people are entitled to?

Clearly - its ridiculous.

As I said - this is why the only form of plural marriage that we have are those that involve one man married to many women (i.e. a recognisable family unit with its own hierarchy). Yet that obviously wouldn't work beyond those particular communities because it conflicts with equal rights laws for women.

Hence plural marriage entirely destroys "marriage" and the traditional concept of the family. That is a paradigm shift, gay marriage is not.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[akdiver 3]

If you are married to woman A, B, C, and man D, and each of your partners has husbands and wives of their own - how exactly are you going to file taxes, decide on who gets custody of the kids, what inheritance or divorce settlement people are entitled to?

Same way it determined now. Mutual agreement, law, regulation and the courts.

Hell, look at the issues caused by couple A&B hiring person C to be a sperm donor and person D to be a surrogate mother. And oh, by the way, despite the contract in place, after the baby is born, some people start changing their minds....the courts figure all this ####### out eventually.

Marriage is just a contract. I see no reason to limit it to 2 people, nor want people can put in their contract.

Hence plural marriage entirely destroys "marriage" and the traditional concept of the family.

As you indicate many times - the times they are a changin'. What was acceptable in the past is no longer acceptable now. What is acceptable now will no longer be acceptable in the future.

I certainly don't feel any more threatened by plural marriage than I do by gay marriage.

Government should be completely out of the marriage business anyway.

Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[HAL 9000 96]

Was that a slow, yet slippery slope?

I believe so.

Frankly put... keeping all variables equal except gender to legalize marriage, there is no reason to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage other than to use a religious definition to define a social one. That in itself makes it bigotry.

Civil law does not define church law. The ceremony itself can be practiced in more than one fashion. Again I do not understand the rationale for voters to oppose legalized marriage in parallel to heterosexual unions. What fears are being exploited to impose wills here?

[Amby 490]

gays are people too!

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm very disappointed in the people of California. I had hopes for a more enlightened vote.