Poll on Gay Marriage and Civil Unions for OC residents (Montclair: appointed, move)

[bobmulk]

Cabolissa: A question for you...how will homosexual marriage play out? With approval of homosexual marriage, how can we then deny plural marriages? Can you tell bisexuals that they can't marry? If not, that opens the door to plural marriages.

As for marriage being a "right", well, according to who? Wanting something doesn't make it a "right". Perhaps it would be best to work for equal protection under the law so homosexual and lesbian couples have the same options open to them as heterosexual couples--insurance, hospital visits, ad infinitum.

I personally am on the fence, couldn't care less either way, but I look at both sides of the equation. No one knows what will result down the pike with incorporation of homosexual marriage--it will be years or decades before we're able to discern any definitive positives or negatives. Expecting society to change something as foundational as marriage overnight due to the demands of a small minority is a bit far-fetched. It has nothing to do with hatred, which is the current mantra and nothing more than a feeble attempt to play the victim card. People still have in this country the right to vote their conscience. Saying that passage of 8 is hatred is tantamount to saying that homosexuals are heterophobic because they don't sleep with the opposite sex.

[slang75]

Originally Posted by bobmulk

Cabolissa: A question for you...how will homosexual marriage play out? With approval of homosexual marriage, how can we then deny plural marriages? Can you tell bisexuals that they can't marry? If not, that opens the door to plural marriages.

As for marriage being a "right", well, according to who? Wanting something doesn't make it a "right". Perhaps it would be best to work for equal protection under the law so homosexual and lesbian couples have the same options open to them as heterosexual couples--insurance, hospital visits, ad infinitum.

I personally am on the fence, couldn't care less either way, but I look at both sides of the equation. No one knows what will result down the pike with incorporation of homosexual marriage--it will be years or decades before we're able to discern any definitive positives or negatives. Expecting society to change something as foundational as marriage overnight due to the demands of a small minority is a bit far-fetched. It has nothing to do with hatred, which is the current mantra and nothing more than a feeble attempt to play the victim card. People still have in this country the right to vote their conscience. Saying that passage of 8 is hatred is tantamount to saying that homosexuals are heterophobic because they don't sleep with the opposite sex.

Yay...Bobmulk came to the OC forum. I have seen him on other forums talking down to people and always thought "there is no way he would grace the OC forums with his straight talk express"...then BANG...here he is talking down to people on a topic he clearly "couldn't care less either way" about. Well done sir. Pulling out the polygamy argument in the first paragraph. You didn't really have anywhere to go from there tho. Try not to shoot the hyperbole gun right away next time.

[YLresident]

I don't really see how plural marriages can work legally... everything gets divvied up in thirds? Custody rights in thirds, alimony paid to 2 spouses? Or 2 spouses pay alimony to 1 spouse? Well, whatever... I think all marriages should be civil unions, anyway, gay or straight. We can all call it marriage, but on paper it'll be civil marriage. Leave religious marriage up to religious institutions and the couples who choose to seek them out--but only civil marriages will be officially recognized by the state/fed.

Then, we can all get married--gay, straight, atheist, orthodox jew, roman catholic, buddhist, hindu, latino, asian, black, white, purple. All of us can do so civilly first and be recognized by our gov't, and then those who want the recognition of their congregations, can choose to be religiously married in addition to their civil marriage.

Oy... did that make sense? Watching TV, sorry! O_o

[Coldjensens]

Where is the "I do not care" voting option? This is just such a tiny issue in a society that is facing so many huge issues. why is so much time energey and money focused on this tiny issue? How many people will be impacted? Less than a million. Probably less than 100,000. Maybe less than 20,000 what a waste of time.

[shaynaciao]

I believe homosexual couples should be allowed a civil union for sure. I just get upset when they want to call it "marriage". Why try and change the definition?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by cabolissa

Pro Prop-8ers, I have some questions:
What I can't understand is, if the authority to marry generated from a theological basis (between a man and a woman before God, blah blah), why do you support civil marriages between atheists?

Actually it now appears that we never should have allowed the govt to 'marry' in the first place-of course when that started happening in this country, there was no question as to who should enter into these unions so there was no controversy.

That is, a marriage not performed in a "house of God" but by a judge, etc.

I suggest you put together a proposition taking marriage out of all civil law. Id vote Yes.

And, how does restricting marriage protect it?

Because it reaffirms yet again, whom is supposed to Marry and whom quite frankly is not.

How does it diminish the fact that 50% of hetero-marriages result in divorce?

The institution of Marriage is perfect. Those who enter into it are not.

Finally, what's it to you? If you're not gay, how does it REALLY affect you?

The majority of Californians it turns out do NOT want their children raised in a state where marriage between gays and lesbians is considered normal because it goes against their beliefs and is seen as yet another slip in the moral footings of society.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by shaynaciao

I believe homosexual couples should be allowed a civil union for sure. I just get upset when they want to call it "marriage". Why try and change the definition?

I think they should have all the equal protections currently given to straight couples but to make things totally fair, we need to remove Marriage from all civil law and make all couples(gay or straight) enter into civil unions-then any couple who needs to be married can find a church that will do that for them.

[happ]

In light of the judicial mandate in Iowa & legislative decision in Vermont, the California supreme court will over rule prop 8. The damage to the GOP is already as bad as prop 187 & only furthers their total demise in California. The gay marriage issue is passé.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by happ

In light of the judicial mandate in Iowa & legislative decision in Vermont, the California supreme court will over rule prop 8.

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. You all did that prior to Nov 4 and we all know what happened.

The damage to the GOP is already as bad as prop 187 & only furthers their total demise in California.

2 Million Democrats Voted Yes on 8.

The gay marriage issue is passé.

From you lips to Perez Hilton's ears.

[happ]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. You all did that prior to Nov 4 and we all know what happened.


2 Million Democrats Voted Yes on 8.



From you lips to Perez Hilton's ears.

Come on Montclair, anybody with a little insight knows that trying to scare people with homophobia is over. You'll never be able to put the genie back into the bottle & wasting our time arguing against gay marriage is clearly a dead end. You don't believe me? Wait another year or 2