Prop 8 Prevails in California -- Gay Marriage Discussion

[SlikkRikk]

I have a lot of feelings on this issue and I'm going to try to present my views as non-combative as I can. But I have read the thoughts of many on political issues on 'Scapers so I'd like to read what those minds think of this.

It is amazing to me that in a Democratic state like California is, where it seems that everyone I know voted for Obama, Prop 8 still passed somehow. I really wanted to see McCain in office but the passing of Prop 8 is what had me down the next day. I just don't see how the victory of this could make people so happy. To think of all the time some folks have spent lobbying and campaigning and spending money all to sit there afterward and say, "Yay! We just pushed gays farther down the ladder and continued to discriminate! Woo hoo!"

I know the VOTE YES campaign centered around religion and "protecting our children". Well, I have two kids, and I'm quite positive they'll hear about gay people sometime in their life, as I did. I think they'll make it.

The main argument that I hear from my friends that voted Yes for Prop 8 is that they "like their gay friends but the Bible says its wrong and they chose to be gay, they didn't have to be!" With all the evidence to the contrary that homosexuality is genetic, I don't understand this narrow view. Obviously there are some that choose it for various reasons, but go talk to a gay man or woman and they'll usually tell you they knew they were gay as a child. I've heard story after story of three kids growing up together, one being gay and the others being straight. It happens. I'd like people to put themselves in that shoe. Not only is being gay against the norm and the persecution for that lifestyle is high throughout their growing years and adulthood, BUT if and when they do manage to fight through that and find a partner that they love they can't marry them. Those are shoes I would hate to have to wear. And many gays, I feel, don't have a choice in the matter.

I understand the Bible says its wrong. But a lot goes on in the Bible today that's wrong. We live in a sinful world. Is there a chance that the world has progressed to the point where sin is alive in our world, and even commonplace, and even developed into our genes? Of course there is. The fact remains, gay folks are still PEOPLE like everyone else. I don't see why their ability to get married has to be restricted, and why they need to be continued to be treated as second-class citizens.

But EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME to this point -- beyond religion, beyond genetics, the simple question that I ask every day, is:

Even if you feel like being gay is wrong/sinful, why does that give us the right to discriminate and make decisions for others lead their lives?

My prediction: In 20 years, gays will be married nationwide and we'll look back and say, "What were we doing?"

May healthy discussion prevail.

[Malechi]

As one who voted YES on 8, I can say that it was a difficult decision for me to vote for a discriminatory amendment to the California Constitution. However, I fully blame the 3 judges that overturned the law last year that was voted in a few years ago as unconstitutional. The main reason was indeed Mayor Gavin Newsom's "Whether you like it or not!" speech ...

There is a simple solution to the whole thing ... If you get married in a church it is a Marriage; if you get married anywhere else it is a Civil Union. Period. No definition of who is involved.

[boom]

I voted NO on Prop. 8. The supporters add campaign of using children as a scare tactic obvioulsy worked. The LA Times reported many people that were "on the fence" regarding this Proposition turned to "YES" in large part because of their fear that their kids would take field trips to gay unions or some other such horror.

I'm a pretty religious dude, heck my son goes to a parrochial school, but I break from the Church's stance that homosexuality is a sin. I can proudly say that my sister-in-law's twin sister and my two cousins are lesbian/gay, but are still the kind, loving and caring people that anyone else is or can be. I know many hetersexuals that sin regularly and enjoy doing it. To deprive homosexuals of their chance to be married, based solely on their sexual orientation, rings of discrimination.

Maybe being "Married" or being joined in a "Civil Union" will afford both couples the same rights, but why the need for a differentiation? I say if gays/lesbians want to get married; let them. They have a right to be miserable, just like everyone else.

[Agent Minivann]

I think the interesting thing with gay marriage is that it is a practice with no historical precedent (or none that I'm aware of). It is a modern creation. The practice of the homosexual lifestyle has been around a long time, but tying homosexuality with marriage is entirely new.

I kind of like the idea of restricting marriage to religious ceremonies and all else be civil unions. The question of eliminating the tax benefit to those who actually have kids was mentioned in the presidential election thread. I don't think that's a bad idea. One of the big complaints is the unfair advantage married people have over gay couples in the tax benefits. Eliminating the incentive except where it fulfills the original reason for the incentive would be a good thing, and I don't like raising taxes.

[Roland]

As one who strongly opposed it I agree, in a religious context if a church decides that two people cannot marry because of what the church believes that is fine. As far as the state is concerned on 'marriage' it should be fully allowed.

As far as the kids are concerned, in Massachussettes you may not pull your kids from a school lesson for any reason, in California it is the complete opposite, you may take your kid out of sex ed, religious studies, and the like if it is concerned against your religious beliefs. The YES campaign obviously used shameful tactics in trying to get the bill passed.

[Jexik]

Who are the victims of gay marriage? If they can only have 'civil unions' that sounds a lot like 'separate but equal,' which isn't really equal.

[SlikkRikk]

Originally Posted by Jexik

Who are the victims of gay marriage? If they can only have 'civil unions' that sounds a lot like 'separate but equal,' which isn't really equal.

Jexik -- how come you can say in two sentences what I was trying to say in my opening post?

That's exactly the way I feel. I have yet to understand that one, and that's why I have a hard time understanding why so many people went so far out of their way to make sure this passed. I'm just looking for equality here.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Jexik

Who are the victims of gay marriage? If they can only have 'civil unions' that sounds a lot like 'separate but equal,' which isn't really equal.

Unless the state calls all unions civil unions, and only religious institutions use 'married'.

[SlikkRikk]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

I kind of like the idea of restricting marriage to religious ceremonies and all else be civil unions. The question of eliminating the tax benefit to those who actually have kids was mentioned in the presidential election thread. I don't think that's a bad idea.

If this was the case, I can't see how it would ever get through because now straight folks would be threatened with something being taken away.

Which is kind of why I'm shocked how it is passed anyway, with nothing being taken away from straights at all besides the definition of a marriage.

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by SlikkRikk

Jexik -- how come you can say in two sentences what I was trying to say in my opening post?

I was trying to think of a concise way to say, "I agree," without simply saying it. It was that or say something inflammatory about how Jesus as described in the Gospel loved pretty much everyone, and I don't see how Protestants can view homosexuals as second-class citizens. Everybody sins- what's next? Are we going to prevent people who have premarital sex from getting married?

Oops.

(I was raised as a Lutheran. I was once the president of my church's youth group, but I rarely attend service any more. Part of my objection to organized religion has been because it is used as a political tool. I also don't know how the Republican party who supposedly wants smaller government feels it is within their agenda to tell people who they may marry or love when it comes to consenting adults).

[Lord Pyre]

Originally Posted by Jexik

I don't see how Protestants can view homosexuals as second-class citizens. Everybody sins- what's next? Are we going to prevent people who have premarital sex from getting married?

Yes, everybody sins; there's no question about that. But condoning it is different than saying we do it.

I've said this before; I don't hate homosexuals. They're still people. I just believe that what they're doing is wrong. It's no more or less sinful than murder, theft, adultery, lust, hate, etc.... They're all the same.

The government forbids what they can. Obviously they can't make hate or lustful thoughts illegal. Government can't stop homosexuality, but they shouldn't condone it.

So what I'm saying is that homosexual marriages shouldn't be supported. They shouldn't be outlawed, either.

My




And please don't bash me for my beliefs again. I'm not saying anyone's wrong; I'm just stating my opinion.

[CupidsArt]

"All you need is Love"