California Law Makers Segregating Gay Marriage

So as my brother and I were pulling out of my mom's driveway these two wholesome looking teens stopped us to hand out pamphlets they were distributing throughout the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I didn't really look at it till they were walking away and my brother was driving away but I wanted to go back and chew them out and question their beliefs. What pissed me off more was this personally effects my brother and he didn't seem to even care.

The pamphlet: 61% of California voters said "yes" to marriage as a man and a woman.
4 San Francisco- based judges said "no."

Proposition 8 is the same 14 words California voters approved before, but this time it's put into our constitution:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"Yes" on Proposition 8 protects the people's will and restores the definition of marriage.

With P. 8, we can place into California's constitution the simple definition that marriage is between a man and a woman- so no judge can ovverturn the will of the people again.


A Man, A Woman- Plus California's Children
While death and divorce may prevent it in too many cases, the ideal situation for children is to be raised by a married mother and father. P. 8 is a positive step.
P. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Those kinds of discussions are best handled by parents at home, not at school.


Proposition 8 is Pro-Marriage and CHildren
P. 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits from gay and lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, they "Shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses (Family COde 297.5). P. 8 will not change this. It just wouldn't be called marriage, and public school teachers wouldn't have to tell children it is the same as marriage.

Visit ProtectMarriage.com for more info and even more ways to support P. 8.
***********************

Where is a child being taught that this in school? Only place I can think of is in U.S. Government and Sex Ed. By the time they are learning this you would hope they'd be mature enough to understand that not everyone has a 'traditional' marriage. I don't see 1st graders having a lesson plan on 'what marriage is' unless this thing passes along with all other hate induced bills that it is forced into lesson plans to drill it into young minds that gay is bad, you must be a god loving straight hetero with the 2.5 kids and lovely obedient wife/ bread winner husband.

I also just love that same sex couples can have 'all their basic human rights' in concept but can't share a title with hetero couples. It's just one more way to segregate and alienate people for what they believe and who they love.

If this bill passes it will just be a gateway for more bills like it, or even bills that go a step further..and a step further...and a step further, to come along. Where will the line be drawn? When do people start to be treated as humans?

I think Wanda said it quite succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

In Britain we now have "civil partnerships" that give same sex couples the same rights as married couples. Officially it is not marriage, and the legal paperwork can be signed without any ceremony.

In May this year my cousin Richard entered into a civil partnership with his partner Matt. The only differences to a normal wedding was a change in the wording, and the lack of anyone dressed as a meringue.

The disco afterwards was one of the campest things I have ever seen, though...

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

I think Wanda said it quite succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

But see... it DOES affect even those who are not "personally connected" to the issue. A certain percentage of our taxes go towards government marital health benefits. Basically.... people can believe what they want -- support gay marriage; don't support it -- but they just don't want to have to pay out of pocket increased taxes to support something they do not believe in.

Personally, I have several gay friends, who I adore. And even one of them who I have spoken to about this issue says he only wants civil unions -- (allowing religious ceremonial unions begins to mess with morality issues... and as we have seen in the case of the abortion rulings-- that is a slippery and dangerous slope).

I see no problem with allowing gay civil unions, but if they do that, the government needs to stop paying for marital benefits for both heterosexual AND homosexual couples. The government sticks it's grubby hands into TOO many things -- the public never should have been privy to "marital benefits" to begin with. Marriage should be a moral issue, and an issue of love -- NOT of money.

Akasha'sMistake wrote:

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

I think Wanda said it quite succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

But see... it DOES affect even those who are not "personally connected" to the issue. A certain percentage of our taxes go towards government marital health benefits. Basically.... people can believe what they want -- support gay marriage; don't support it -- but they just don't want to have to pay out of pocket increased taxes to support something they do not believe in.

Personally, I have several gay friends, who I adore. And even one of them who I have spoken to about this issue says he only wants civil unions -- (allowing religious ceremonial unions begins to mess with morality issues... and as we have seen in the case of the abortion rulings-- that is a slippery and dangerous slope).

I see no problem with allowing gay civil unions, but if they do that, the government needs to stop paying for marital benefits for both heterosexual AND homosexual couples. The government sticks it's grubby hands into TOO many things -- the public never should have been privy to "marital benefits" to begin with. Marriage should be a moral issue, and an issue of love -- NOT of money.

So, you would deny someone who wants to get married simply because of taxes?

There are tax incentives toward marriage. Married couples filing joint tax returns get some form of tax breaks. There are also all sorts of non-monetary benefits that married people have that are denied by mere civil partnership: i.e. right to attorney, visiting loved ones in the hospital, wills, etc. More so for childbearing. Tax credits for kids. Understandable- kids are expensive- but it does seem to point to the fact that there is an underlying current of reproductive prejudice in the whole anti-gay marriage movement. As in, since gay couples can't biologically reproduce together, then the marriage is not worthy of being called such. Because having children is the only reason to be married after all. It seems to be the logic coming from certain uber-right wing elements. That overpopulating the world until it chokes on its own crowding is the way to save society. Right...

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

So, you would deny someone who wants to get married simply because of taxes?

No, not at all. I was saying that I believe NO marriage should come with any benefits supplemented by the government... no matter whether it is a hetero or homo sexual relationship. I'm a Libertarian of sorts, when it comes to my view of government spending. (I DID say Marriage should be a matter of love and no money, did I not?)

Morella wrote:

There are tax incentives toward marriage. Married couples filing joint tax returns get some form of tax breaks. There are also all sorts of non-monetary benefits that married people have that are denied by mere civil partnership: i.e. right to attorney, visiting loved ones in the hospital, wills, etc. More so for childbearing. Tax credits for kids. Understandable- kids are expensive...

Yes, thank you Morella... you saved my poor fingers from typing that all out.

from what I have seen, gay marriage comes only from wanting to justify a lifestyle, rather than gain any benefits.

In my view, call it old-fashioned, I believe a man and a woman makes a 'marriage' complete.

eyvind wrote:

from what I have seen, gay marriage comes only from wanting to justify a lifestyle, rather than gain any benefits.

Please can you clarify that, as I think that could be interpreted in more than one way.

For some of us, marriage (gay or straight) is a way of making and proclaiming a commitment. The GWE and I do not intend to have any more children. Our marriage is to show that we are committed to one another. I wanted the world to know that I have never met anyone who makes me complete as the GWE does, that I am hers alone, and intend to remain that way until death.
(Besides, there are no decent tax breaks in the UK for couples... )

Matt, whom I mentioned earlier on, was caught up in the 7/7 bombings in London. At first they were not sure whether he would lose a leg, or even if he would survive. Richard never left his side in the hospital, yet legally he had no right to be there. Before Civil Partnerships, Richard was not recognised as family or next-of-kin, but would simply be classified as a friend.
Fortunately Matt's family and the hospital staff both recognised how committed Matt and Richard were to each other, but not every homosexual is fortunate enough to have a family that understanding.
Those are the benefits that matter: not monetary, but recognition.

No one should ever have to watch their partner die from the waiting room....

Such an endearing story!


Civil partnership seems to have hit the nail on having made a marriage subtitute without touching a nerve on religious people...

Funny thing here is that you can't legally marriage by any church here, not even the Catholic church. You need to marry by the local reeve, Civilian chief or mayor (mayor is a quite a new figure here, usually we only had reeves appointed by the state governor, whom he or she was appointed by the president of the republic). Apparently this was made from the time Catholic Church didn't let you marriage for being divorced, so people prefer to be married for a few years and if they are on safe ground, then they prefer to marry by the church

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Matt, whom I mentioned earlier on, was caught up in the 7/7 bombings in London. At first they were not sure whether he would lose a leg, or even if he would survive. Richard never left his side in the hospital, yet legally he had no right to be there. Before Civil Partnerships, Richard was not recognised as family or next-of-kin, but would simply be classified as a friend.
Fortunately Matt's family and the hospital staff both recognised how committed Matt and Richard were to each other, but not every homosexual is fortunate enough to have a family that understanding.
Those are the benefits that matter: not monetary, but recognition.

That... is really very touching EHE... made my day, really. Thank you for sharing that.

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Richard never left his side in the hospital, yet legally he had no right to be there. Before Civil Partnerships, Richard was not recognised as family or next-of-kin, but would simply be classified as a friend.

This is a very poignant point, but I'm not sure if it directly bears on homosexuality -- or rather if homosexuality is the only point it bears on. My best friend is not my lover. If she got smashed and was in the hospital, I would want to be there.

What offends me about this state of affairs is not the idea that gay partners aren't married, it's the debasement of the title of "friend."

Yes, but Gomez, you wouldn't have the right to make legal judgements on what happens to your friend- that would be up to her family and/or husband. With a homosexual couple the family would be allowed to make the decisions but not the person you consider your loving spouse because the courts don't deem your love worthy.

Gomez wrote:

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Richard never left his side in the hospital, yet legally he had no right to be there. Before Civil Partnerships, Richard was not recognised as family or next-of-kin, but would simply be classified as a friend.

This is a very poignant point, but I'm not sure if it directly bears on homosexuality -- or rather if homosexuality is the only point it bears on. My best friend is not my lover. If she got smashed and was in the hospital, I would want to be there.

What offends me about this state of affairs is not the idea that gay partners aren't married, it's the debasement of the title of "friend."

KittyKat wrote:

Yes, but Gomez, you wouldn't have the right to make legal judgements on what happens to your friend- that would be up to her family and/or husband. With a homosexual couple the family would be allowed to make the decisions but not the person you consider your loving spouse because the courts don't deem your love worthy.

Thank you Kat, that was my intended point.

I would be the last person to denigrate friendship, but in these situations it has no legal or recognised standing.

Were you injured, then you would expect Mrs Gomez to be able to speak on your behalf, to have a say equal or greater than that of your blood relatives. In marrying her, you have made her your family, and the most important member thereof.

Before civil partnerships, homosexual couples had no way of ensuring their chosen partner received similar recognition.

This can't be rectified by granting Power of Attorney?

"eyvind wrote:
from what I have seen, gay marriage comes only from wanting to justify a lifestyle, rather than gain any benefits.
"Please can you clarify that, as I think that could be interpreted in more than one way.
For some of us, marriage (gay or straight) is a way of making and proclaiming a commitment. The GWE and I do not intend to have any more children. Our marriage is to show that we are committed to one another. I wanted the world to know that I have never met anyone who makes me complete as the GWE does, that I am hers alone, and intend to remain that way until death.
(Besides, there are no decent tax breaks in the UK for couples."
Absolutely. I feel the same way. The 'tax breaks' and the benifit gains are relatively small in comparison. Its the whole idea of marriage and the bond. and the marriage ring is a very important symbol.
I worked with a 'gay' guy that had been 'married' in San Francisco when it was legal the last time. He was proud of that ring, but he did not wear it very often. He did not seem to care about the legal benefits of marriage, rather he wantd to brag about getting married in SF when it was legal. It just seemed rather superficial to me.

Thank you, I understand you now, and agree with you.

I have always said that I only ever intend to get married once. I still believe that marriage should last for life. It took me a very long time to be sure that the GWE was the one for me, and if we ever split up then I think there will not be any point inmarrying again (Not that I can see any reason why we should split up)

I admire people who can find the right one and get married for life.

eyvind wrote:

I admire people who can find the right one and get married for life.

Well I'm not dead yet, so I could still be wrong!

Eyvind- you really should think about this. You're basing your ideas off of on one man's actions. Just like everything else in life, one person's actions does not speak for the whole.