Straw poll on gay marriage

[Trooper_IHB]

No valid questions will offend me, so fire away.

25W...I had never thought of that and think it's an excellent idea! Now who do we contact to suggest it ?

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

To me its just silly that people claim that the 'legal status' of marriage needs to be protected on religious grounds, when the legality of it has nothing to do with religion at all.

No matter the reason why people want to preserve it (it's not solely for "religious" reasons) or why they don't... the decision should come from the people themselves... and not four judges. I think everyone can agree on that.

 

[TimHume_IHB]

We have talked about the gays' view on marriage but now I'm curious - what is their view on divorce?

Thanks for telling your story. Out of curiosity, what makes you think gay people's views have any less variance than straight people's views?

 

[Trooper_IHB]

The decision should come from the people themselves… and not four judges. I think everyone can agree on that.

No, I don't agree with this statement. This is why we have courts...to determine if the will of the people is valid and just.

Can you imagine if there was a ballot measure in November to kick out all Mexicans ? To banish all Blacks to another state ? To make all gays leave ?

The "will of the people" might just vote some of these cockamamie things in, but it takes judges to rule it unconstitutional. I don't believe that you should have the right to decide whether I can get married or not....frankly, not to be rude, but I don't think it's any of your business whether I get that right or not. So, yes, I'm cranky that this is even a ballot measure.

These things should afford rights, not take them away.

So this is what's happened in California so far:

1. The elected body approved gay marriage.

2. The California Supreme Court gave the green light to gay marriage.

But that's not good enough ?! NOW it has to come down to a vote of the people ? These elected officials are our voice, these judges are our protectors. So if I lose marriage, I should be happy that I at least had two outta the three and was "oh so close" ?

The United States Supreme Court has the final say in such matters. Do you not believe there should be a SCOTUS ? I mean, those are judges.

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

We have talked about the gays' view on marriage but now I'm curious - what is their view on divorce?

Thanks for telling your story. Out of curiosity, what makes you think gay people's views have any less variance than straight people's views?

Sorry if I take a while to respond. My internet connection keeps dropping off today (just as I was writing how pleased I have been with Cox, ironically.)

Why do I think their opinions may vary from that of heteros? Because their experiences are different and from the sound of it, their reasons for wanting to be married will sometimes differ from the reasons straight couples do (not in all cases but some.) I was watching a comedy hour on tv the other night - and the comic made some joke based on an observation that gays are known for moving in together quickly. Now, this is not MY observation as I had never heard this before. But it got me wondering if the gay culture is different in that way. Yes, I know some heteros move quickly too but I wondered if the gays were more flexible with their relationship status than heteros are. (I.e. if they like to become a live-in couple quickly then is it more okay to them to break up too.) I know not one gay can speak for all of them but I just thought I'd ask since Troop is the only gay I currently have access to - is that ok?

 

[TimHume_IHB]

but if a domestic partnership or civil union gave you those things i.e. pension, etc (without calling it "married") then would you consider it a sufficient version of marriage for you?

So, if a domestic partnership or civil union gives the same things as marriage, why not just have marriage? Why have separate terms? What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? You can't use religion here because we don't require religious beliefs of straight couples. I just don't get the hang up on the word. Let's just have one word for everyone.

 

[TimHume_IHB]

I know not one gay can speak for all of them but I just thought I'd ask since Troop is the only gay I currently have access to - is that ok?

It is definitely okay with me, not that it has to be. :cheese: I just thought I'd ask you because it hadn't occurred to me that there would be a difference and you seem easy to talk to - not being defensive and all that.

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

The decision should come from the people themselves… and not four judges. I think everyone can agree on that.

No, I don't agree with this statement. This is why we have courts...to determine if the will of the people is valid and just.

Can you imagine if there was a ballot measure in November to kick out all Mexicans ? To banish all Blacks to another state ? To make all gays leave ?

The "will of the people" might just vote some of these cockamamie things in, but it takes judges to rule it unconstitutional. I don't believe that you should have the right to decide whether I can get married or not....frankly, not to be rude, but I don't think it's any of your business whether I get that right or not. So, yes, I'm cranky that this is even a ballot measure.

These things should afford rights, not take them away.

So this is what's happened in California so far:

1. The elected body approved gay marriage.

2. The California Supreme Court gave the green light to gay marriage.

But that's not good enough ?! NOW it has to come down to a vote of the people ? These elected officials are our voice, these judges are our protectors. So if I lose marriage, I should be happy that I at least had two outta the three and was "oh so close" ?

The United States Supreme Court has the final say in such matters. Do you not believe there should be a SCOTUS ? I mean, those are judges.

Hi, Troop. No, not at all - I don't feel you are being rude whatsoever. I like talking with you and say thank you for sharing your time.

I have not studied this subject in depth so I may have this wrong but I was under the impression that 61% of California voters passed Prop 22, giving definition to marriage.

All I am saying is - if it's a democratic voice you (not YOU-you, but people in general) want, then it's a democratic voice they've got. I don't think liberal folks would be too pleased if four extremist conservative judges made decisions that were not what they wanted, so it's hard to have it both ways. When not everyone can agree on the laws, these are fortunately or unfortunately the only processes we have. There are some laws I don't like but we just accept and work around or at least for the time-being. (I do not like being told I must wear a helmet when I'm riding a bicycle and I do not like the seat-belt law for people over 18.) I was more interested in hearing what your Plan B is if 8 is approved. Thanks for reading.

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

but if a domestic partnership or civil union gave you those things i.e. pension, etc (without calling it "married") then would you consider it a sufficient version of marriage for you?

So, if a domestic partnership or civil union gives the same things as marriage, why not just have marriage? Why have separate terms? What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? You can't use religion here because we don't require religious beliefs of straight couples. I just don't get the hang up on the word. Let's just have one word for everyone.

Hi, Tim... errr... T!m.

Well I'm just trying to imagine for a second if I were a lesbian in a relationship... I honestly think I would be okay being in a civil union. It is still a recognition of the couple and doesn't take away any of their rights. I would not expect to be called "married" since the two unions are different... just as being in a common-law marriage is different from having been married. Each union has different characteristics. You know what's funny is this discussion got me thinking about a grey area -- you know - with hemaphrodites? (Maybe that is not the P.C. term anymore, not sure.) They are people that have XXY or XYY chromosomes and/or ambiguous genitalia. I wonder how they marry. It does not seem to be a very common occurance but I have seen a few people in this situation on tv before. I'm not even sure what the conservatives would think of that union - approve or not -- although I am sure the liberals would be fine with it. Interestingly, some of them side with one gender or the other and some do not... they select no gender. It was very interesting!

 

[25w100k+_IHB]

but if a domestic partnership or civil union gave you those things i.e. pension, etc (without calling it "married") then would you consider it a sufficient version of marriage for you?

So, if a domestic partnership or civil union gives the same things as marriage, why not just have marriage? Why have separate terms? What would be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? You can't use religion here because we don't require religious beliefs of straight couples. I just don't get the hang up on the word. Let's just have one word for everyone.

Well, I think i'm with you, I just don't think that word should be marriage for the sake of those who are sensitive to who is involved in marriage(ie conservative religious people). If 'civil union' becomes the defacto law term, you can't claim gay/lesbian couples arn't allowed because of religious reasons.

If some churches *want* to recognize g/l couples, they can be married there (anglican, most presbyterian?), and if some don't, well, that is there right too (catholic, evangelical, etc.).

And if individuals think g/l shouldn't be married, then they can find a church that doesn't recognize marriage between them.

 

[Trooper_IHB]

When you tell me you would like me to call it a Civil Union instead of marriage, it makes me feel as if you don't think I'm as good as you....not worthy of marriage....so I get relegated to some 2nd class "Union" status. Trust me, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth with our CA. Civil Union protection.....but I want equality. Perhaps you will understand more when I tell my story.

And no, gays don't move in with each other any faster than straights. That's a lesbian stereotype.

You also asked me if I considered my (hypothetical) relationship different than yours....and I say no. For me, it's not about spirituality at all. It does have something to do with legal and financial protections....

But mostly it has to do with love.

 

[Trooper_IHB]

and in response to the 61% of voters, I Googled around and found a link. I'll steal some of it's content....

Misleading: "61 percent of California voters ... voted in favor of proposition 22."

The folks supporting proposition 8 could make this more accurate by noting that it wasn't 61 percent of California voters, but actually only 61 percent of those who voted. The state had 15.7 million registered voters in the year 2000 -- but only 7.5 million weighed in on proposition 22 either way. That means that in reality, only 30 percent of California voters voted in favor of proposition 22, almost 20 percent voted against it and almost 50 percent didn't vote on it.

Also regarding "Activist Judges", which I'm sure just mean judges that don't do what you think is right....

Misleading: "Four activist judges ... decided that the democratic voice of 4.3 million California voters was irrelevant and overturned the people's vote..."

An "activist" judge is a matter of opinion, but what did their decision really say? Did they overturn the "people's vote?" Well, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than the supporters of proposition 8 seem to want us to believe in this add.

The court's decision said that the California constitution doesn't allow the state to designate a relationship between opposite sex couples as a "marriage" while granting same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, but instead calling it a "domestic partnership." That, in the court's view, posed the risk of denying the family relationships of same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples.

The court did say, however, that any attempt to limit "marriage" to apply only to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. That directly affected the language some voters inserted into state law through proposition 22, but also gender specific language that the legislature had added to the California Family Code years before.

 

[mrogoff_IHB]

The bumper sticker I saw to vote yes on 8 says "Protect Marriage." Homosexuals are NO threat to anyone's personal marriage or to the institution of marriage itself. Straight people have threatened this far more than any gay couple ever could. Take a look at the divorce rate, the rate of infidelity, alcohol and drug use, financial impropriety, and the like, and anyone can see that the institution of marriage is unstable at best because of the straight people who have been marrying one another. Marriage itself may need protection, but certainly not from gay people. We must preserve the right for gay people to marry; they are no threat whatsoever to my marriage, and Massachusetts has been doing just fine while they have had gay marriage. All of these ridiculous claims that all five year-olds will be taught about homosexuality consist of slippery slope fallacies. Marriage is a civil institution; it is not necessarily strictly a religious rite. No churches will be required to perform gay marriages. There are plenty of clerics who do perform them by their own choice and beliefs, and some gay couples may also choose to have marriages performed by judges or other public officials. I hope that the citizens of this state are smart enough to see through the smoke screen that the Yes on 8 people are creating.

It's No on 8 for me.

 

[Trooper_IHB]

SoCal78, I thought you might like browsing through this. It's the website for DignityUSA, which is a gay Catholic website. I think religious gays suffer psychologically more than most, trying to reconcile the "sin" with their faith/belief. But that's just me..... I do know that religious families are much more difficult for a gay child to come out in.

link

 

[25w100k+_IHB]

When you tell me you would like me to call it a Civil Union instead of marriage, it makes me feel as if you don't think I'm as good as you....not worthy of marriage....so I get relegated to some 2nd class "Union" status. Trust me, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth with our CA. Civil Union protection.....but I want equality. Perhaps you will understand more when I tell my story.

And no, gays don't move in with each other any faster than straights. That's a lesbian stereotype.

You also asked me if I considered my (hypothetical) relationship different than yours....and I say no. For me, it's not about spirituality at all. It does have something to do with legal and financial protections....

But mostly it has to do with love.

I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but if so, no that wasn't my intent. I just think that anyone should be able to chose a legal partner and the government has no business telling anyone who that can/can't be. If some churches want to recognize 'marriage' as a religious ceremony, then that is their own business, I'm happy to attend a church that is pretty progressive (though there are quite a few at the church who would disagree with my views).

I just also happen to support the *right* of churches to be bigots also. I also think if the term marriage was relgated to a non-legal status, it would be easier for the entire nation to embrace the idea of the fact that a 'civil union' can be had between anyone.

 

[SoCal78_IHB]

and in response to the 61% of voters, I Googled around and found a link. I'll steal some of it's content....

Misleading: "61 percent of California voters ... voted in favor of proposition 22."

The folks supporting proposition 8 could make this more accurate by noting that it wasn't 61 percent of California voters, but actually only 61 percent of those who voted. The state had 15.7 million registered voters in the year 2000 -- but only 7.5 million weighed in on proposition 22 either way. That means that in reality, only 30 percent of California voters voted in favor of proposition 22, almost 20 percent voted against it and almost 50 percent didn't vote on it.

Also regarding "Activist Judges", which I'm sure just mean judges that don't do what you think is right....

Misleading: "Four activist judges ... decided that the democratic voice of 4.3 million California voters was irrelevant and overturned the people's vote..."

An "activist" judge is a matter of opinion, but what did their decision really say? Did they overturn the "people's vote?" Well, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than the supporters of proposition 8 seem to want us to believe in this add.

The court's decision said that the California constitution doesn't allow the state to designate a relationship between opposite sex couples as a "marriage" while granting same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, but instead calling it a "domestic partnership." That, in the court's view, posed the risk of denying the family relationships of same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples.

The court did say, however, that any attempt to limit "marriage" to apply only to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. That directly affected the language some voters inserted into state law through proposition 22, but also gender specific language that the legislature had added to the California Family Code years before.

Troop - please show me where I used the term "activist" judges? I did not say that and purposely so... because I do not believe it's a substitute for saying "someone who does what you don't think is right." Sorry but I am more impartial than that whether you think I am or not.

If you can't go by the votes of those who do vote, then what can you go on? I think choices should come from the people (no matter what those decisions are, really) and it's not feasible to hold off on making laws until every person registers and votes. I wish everyone would, but they don't, so there's nothing you or I can do about that. Hopefully these issues will just encourage more people to get into the voting booth... if they feel like they have a voice at all, that is.

 

[Trooper_IHB]

please show me where I used the term “activist” judges?

You are correct, my apologies.....but really, were you thinking that ?

25, no, I was responding to SoCal.... sorry I didn't make that clear.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

To me its just silly that people claim that the 'legal status' of marriage needs to be protected on religious grounds, when the legality of it has nothing to do with religion at all.

No matter the reason why people want to preserve it (it's not solely for "religious" reasons) or why they don't... the decision should come from the people themselves... and not four judges. I think everyone can agree on that.

Ok... Time for everyone to reach back into their memory of high school civics.

There are three branches of government. The legislative branch writes laws and drafts budgets. The executive branch enforces the laws. The judicial branch interprets the Constitution (and to a lesser extent, the laws). Absent the judicial branch, the Constitution would be mostly pointless, as it would be majority rule on a day to day basis. As the State Department puts it:

The motto of the U.S. Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law," embodies the objectives of the judiciary in a democratic society.

. . .

The counter-majoritarian nature of the judiciary is actually an advantage rather than a flaw. Limits on governmental power and guarantees of individual rights would be meaningless without some institutional means of curbing the power of the majority. The judiciary, therefore, is the perfect vehicle for protecting minority rights while the other two branches are more responsive to the majority. Unlike other officeholders, judges have no constituents; they "represent" the Constitution and derive their authority from it.

So, no SoCal, I cannot agree on that.

Some additional thoughts. Prop 22 had the effect of changing a statute. Statutes are ranked lower (sorry for the lazy terminology, but I'm trying not to do "lawyer speak") than the Constitution. So when the recent California Supreme Court case on gay marriage came out, the Court essentially said: "This statute conflicts with the equal rights provision of the state constitution. Where a statute conflicts with the constitution, the statute loses." What Prop 8 is trying to do is rewrite the state constitution. If Prop 8 passes, then the recent case is no longer valid (but I think the interim marriages will be). Does that make sense?

So I know you're against judges making big decisions and all (paraphrasing), but the remedy to that is to change the thing (statute or constitution) that was the subject of the decision. So while I don't agree with the Yes on 8 folks, their choice of remedy is correct.

To take another example, the US Supreme Court recently interpreted an equal pay law that requires the effected person to file their claim within 6 (I think) months of the pay disparity. I don't know how often you compare your salary to your coworkers, but a lot of people don't. Some people believed that the 6 months should run from the time you find out about the pay disparity. What's the solution (if you think the Court was wrong)? Get Congress to change the law.

My point is, while some people believe that judges are dictators in black robes, people still do retain the power to change the rules they live by.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

It is interesting reading everyone's experiences. I guess I will share the short Reader's Digest version of mine just for shits and giggles, because we are all so different on this board.

I have been married for over 8 years and together for 10. In my opinion, our spiritual bond has everything to do with it. A three-stranded rope is not easily broken. In the time I've been married I've had other friends with different views who were married and divorced (some, twice) within that same time period. When I got married, what changed? Everything. I saved myself for marriage. The commitment of a relationship I do not take lightly. Sharing a home, a life, finances, etc are serious steps that deserve commitment and loyalty to one another. To that extent I am refreshingly surprised to know that gays are interested in making those vows even though they do not have societal expectations to do so. I am very happy in my marriage and everyday am thankful for my spouse and our relationship which passed a lot of trying periods leading up to marriage and that transition you make. While it may seem odd or old-fashioned to some, to us it has made us hold each other in higher regard and more appreciative of one another. It allowed us to see every facet of each other and our personalities before we committed our lives to each other. I would not have done it any differently.

We have talked about the gays' view on marriage but now I'm curious - what is their view on divorce? For example I recently met an engaged woman. I congratulated her and asked if she was nervous. She said, "No. Because I can always get a divorce if it doesn't work out." So I gathered that to her marriage is not that much of a real commitment and can be easily revoked at any time. Do gays feel this way? I.e. if you're doing it mainly for tax purposes / financial / otherwise do you not feel a duty to push through hard times to stay together? Or do you? Just wondering.

Thanks for reading and for sharing. Cheers.

I think you are probably better off asking Troop for her views on divorce. Like you just said above, even hets have differing views on divorce. You have your views, and the woman you used as an example has hers. I suspect that that is what you meant to say, it just came out differently.

Unless, of course, I need to send some champagne Troop's way, as she has been elected the Decider for All Things Gay.

Later edit: Ok, I saw your response to Troop that she is the only gay you know (or think you know ;-) ). Sorry for jumping in late.

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

Troop, do you think a good solution would be to do away with marriage (in the legal sense) and only have a 'civil union'? Level the playing field the other way. Then if people want to have a religious ceremony and call it marriage, well, thats up to each church to decide who and how and what hoops people have to jump through?

To me its just silly that people claim that the 'legal status' of marriage needs to be protected on religious grounds, when the legality of it has nothing to do with religion at all.

Hope I didn't offend, just curious your thoughts on the issue.

Honestly 25, I don't think that would work well. Like it or not, at this point in our cultural history "marriage" has a meaning that "unioned" does not. At some point that may change, but for right now, I could see some groups using "marriage" as a wedge to say that their relationship is more sanctioned or legit or meaningful than those who are "unioned."

And a quick note, I'm not trying to pick on anyone - really. I've been reading these throughout the day but have not been able to respond to them until now.