Domestic partnership already exist and provide the rights that marriages do in California. The potential problem is with litigation: continued recognition of gay marriages will put pressure on institutions like certain schools and churches to also recognize them and give the the same rights regardless of religious belief. This will be a hugh area of expanded litigation.

On the other side, in any event, litigation will continue to remove gay marriage rigthts. Narrow minded individuals will never stop their crusade to take this away because they basically do not like the idea of gay partnerships to begin with. These people are dangerous, just like the nuts who bomb abortion clinics.

This is what i was trying to point out. There are ramifications the way this is all being handled: the CA Supreme Court decision which paved the way for gay marriage, as well as this ballot measure which attempts to remove it. I do not like either really, because I think such an important issue should be realized while preserving the right for some not to be legally threatened by it due to religious belief. Both sides deserve protection without either being demonized. This thread basically sees things in a simplistic manner, while those with an interest way in.

I have no real interest other than believing that this is a complex issue which needs a discrete solution preserving rights for all. However, if you are gay and are thinking of marriage, you should move on it before the election results are in because if gay marriage is removed, it will not legally relate back to those marriages made between the issuance of the CA Supreme Court decision and the ballot's approval.

I don't see how anyone really cares who marries who.
I hate the idea of marriage, but let everyone be miserable in a religious societal construct of ownership of another if they want.
People poke their nose into others business way too much.
I just find it amusing the drive to get out voters for Obama in CA is probably what will possibly push this over the edge to pass.
Liberal ideals indeed.

Religion is SO put upon by people who love one another and want equal rights. Boo fucking hoo.

Who cares if they have to argue for their position of bigotry in a court of law.

congratulations paul!

i (along with everyone i know) will be voting no on 8.

And if I was eligible to vote, i'd vote no too.

Congrats!

Great explanation DYBBUKIM! Thanks for explaining the ramifications on both sides.

Sorry to say Obama and Biden are against gay marriage, according to Biden in the vice presidential debate.

Ike

I think if you're going to restrict marriage for same sex couples, then you should do the same for heterosexual couples, might stop marriages like this 16 year old going ahead

Well, when this becomes an active issue in Kentucky, you can make that argument in support. Given the political composition of your Commonwealth, unfortunately, that will be when. . .perhaps 2060? Back in your coal hills, the brother-sister marriage controversy will probably surface first.

Just joking, but these are the complex issues that face politically progressive states and their citizens.

Failure by both sides to address the concerns of the other breeds more antagonism and hatred. Understanding the concerns of everyone, and attempting to workout a solution that appreciates individual rights, religion, and litigation concerns is the best option. Instead an ax is applied where a scapel is best used.

I am still undecided, yes or no. I want anyone who reasonably wants to be married to be permitted, but I don't want others having this imposed on their churches without their consent. I don't want to be swayed by the haters, pro or con.

Good point. But that is what divorce is for. Divorce and marriage are the yin and yang of this. Be glad that the ability to get a divorce is no longer an issue in the USA and most of the world.

Gay marriage will be universally recognized one day, but it's up to all people to see that the road there is less, not more, rocky and difficult.

California's Proposition 8 is the issue now for Californians. I want to vote no, but perhaps a vote yes would send the whole thing back for more consideration until a more tailored solution is formulated? If I knew the answer to that question, I would not have posted.

Is anyone else on the fence?

Is there a link to everything it entails? I find it odd that allowing same sex couples to get married would effectively force a church to marry them, I thought a church could turn down anyone? Seems to be the way it works here, i.e. you have to prove that you're a good christian before the vicar will marry you, regardless of your sexuality. One of the main reasons I had to have a civil service

You'd think that the divorce lawyer lobbyists would be all over this proposition and pump big money into the No on 8 campaign. Makes for more potential clients...

I don't think the problem with most churches is how good a christian you are but who your sleeping with. In the eyes of most churches if your Gay or Lesbian you automatically are not in the good christian category.
Record numbers of Gay and Lesbian couples have been getting married in States and countries that have made that possible and while there may have been cases of litigation against some religious institutions that have fail to carry out the ceremony I don't think that has happened for the most part. I think Gay and Lesbian couples that want to marry just want to do that and are not really interested in challenging someone that doesn't want to marry them. There are enough good and kind people of all persuasions that have no problem with marring whomever wants too. That being said I'm sure there will be cases when religious institutions will be challenged for their discrimination policies and I say bring it on! Gay and Lesbian couples have the right to fight discrimination against all institutions be they religious or otherwise. Can you imagine a heterosexual couple being refused marriage in a church because their straight? Would they have the right to sue? Or if the pastor of some church refused to marry a couple because one was to fat, or shorter than the other. Sounds pretty silly huh? I do think we still have a long way to go (like never ever) before it will sound just as silly to hear that a church refused to marry a Gay couple as it is to hear that this same church refused to marry someone because they were to short.
But then again I'm probably not the best person to be weighing n on this issue as I can not abide religious institutions and think they should first of all be taxed and then sued as vigorously and often as humanly possible.
I'm also one that would choose the more rocky and difficult road to travel. I think it builds more character in the end.

at least they're pro-benefits for same-sex couples.

unlike Palin who can merely "tolerate" me. if you're going to start talking about sides, take it to the presidential thread please and keep this thread clean of rhetoric.

Glad your just joking. The state where I find myself has little to do with what I think, as is true for you. But of course you HAD to have known that.

If you want to appreciate individual rights then you allow gay marriage.

This is not a religious issue, it is a government one. The last I looked they weren't supposed to have much to do with one another. This is about the government granting permissions to a group it has here to fore disallowed rights that it freely grants to others. The religious (though not all religious people agree but you are one to make generalizations) are allowed by the government to do as they please and are free to practice as they please and hate gay people and detest their lifestyle if they so chose. It is the case that someday these religious people with their government protected rights, will have to reconcile their world view with the case, that gay people are amongst them and deserve equal rights, and fair treatment.

If bigots want to be litigious it is their right as well, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is should gay people be allowed to marry by the government.

This is a political thread.

Wouldn't the answer to the religious problem be for the state not to sanction any marriage at all? I would love to vote to end state sanction marriage. We should all get civil unions licenses from the Secretary of State and let churches give our marriage certificates. Since this is never going to happen I am voting no 8.

Side note - Lisa and I told our preacher we were atheist before he married us at the front of a church and took our $300.

The Doctrine of Charitable Immunity could be used very easily by "concerned" legislators to moot out the arguement that gay marriage potentially subjects a Church to litigation.

This is a traditional right wing wedge issue designed to energize the religious zealots who then vote Republican.

The Republicans are worried about keeping their seats.

Solution demonize the gay community and create fear that because consenting adults of the same sex might be able to marry society will crumble and Churchs will be buried with litigation,

Charitable Immunity can so easily erase the litigation issue, its a red herring.

First of all thanks for all the congratulations!

Some specific comments.

Obama has come out against Proposition 8. See
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
Although many people certainly wish he would be more vocal about it. Still I can understand his reluctance.

The church-suit fears are groundless. A church can refuse today to marry a hetero couple for any reason (even as bad a one as, say, refusing to marry an interracial couple). Why would it be any different with a gay couple?

You can find some brief answers to this and related questions at
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction

If Prop 8 passes, it will amend the California constitution in a way that can't be modified without a 2/3 majority of voters. So voting yes would not send it back for more consideration; it would effectively kill it for many many years. Voting no would allow for a future more nuanced solution in the future if you thought that desirable. (One constant in California initiatives is that voting no always leaves the status quo; a good general rule is that if you can't decide on a proposition, vote no.)

There are countries in Europe where marriage is a civil act; religious ceremonies are not recognized as legal but of course you can still have one if you believe it makes you married in god's eyes. I agree that this would be a better solution in the long run but I can't see it happening here anytime soon.

Domestic partnership does not give all the rights of marriage; there are (I believe) 8 rights that it does not confer. But just as important is that it doesn't give the dignity and respect of marriage. If you are married, would you be happy to have your marriage replaced with a domestic partnership? Do you look forward to the day when your children will be domestically partnered?

And finally, no, I'm not coming down to West Hollywood or Palm Springs this weekend, why? I'll actually be staffing tables encouraging people to vote no.

My best child hood friend is gay and some of my good friends over the years have been too, and I do not feel that based on that they shouldn't be able to marry who they love. I also hate the government telling anyone what they can and cannot do, it's bullshit. Unless you actually harm somebody or pre-meditate trying to harm a specific target I don't think anything should happen to you. For instance a drug user or a someone who got a DUI but happened to be driving fine but a little machine said they weren't okay or for just carrying a weapon but you didn't use it or get caught attempting to use it. What is next, if your caught on a cel phone or texting they throw your ass in jail and suspend your license because you could potentially kill somebody? It is ridiculous.

I also have a hard time believing that schools would teach it or that churches would be forced to recognize it, doesn't that have to do with separation of church and state? Does it not go both ways? (no pun intended)

Also aren't these parents who don't want their kids knowing what gay marriage is teaching them about it anyway? Or do these kids out with yes on 8 signs think people just want to get rid of the number and they are trying to save it Typical hypocritical stuff to me.

Side note - Lisa and I told our preacher we were atheist before he married us at the front of a church and took our $300.[/quote]

Sorry to hear that Glenn.

I wonder how many other people that pastor has ripped off?

For that price you should have had some marriage counseling sessions thrown in or live music.

I had to meet 3 times with the pastor before we got married.

IKe

I don't, and its one of the reason I'm sick of him. Kerry was the same way.

Amen!

That's exactly the problem. The state should have nothing to do with "marriage", it should only recognize civil unions for everyone and leave the marriage stuff to the religious folks.

I LOVE this idea! I'm gonna get started on drafting a measure. Fucking texting - you die! [Serious, please note the absence of purple.]

I don't think that's the point Glenn was trying to make.



Congrats Paul!