Proposition 8 Supporters are not all bigots (insurance, hotels, weddings)

[caldje]

I would like to take a minute, as a person who is in a same-sex marriage to say that I don't appreciate the folks who are saying that ALL proponents of prop 8 are bigots and basing their opinions on hate.

The one thing the yes on 8 folks are right about is that if we are going to support tolerance it has to go both ways. We should be tolerant of their religous convictions.

Although there are PLENTY of bigots supporting the measure, it is counterproductive to generalize and prejudice based on this. Some people are just truly misled and believe that a yes on prop 8 would protect their children etc. Of course, this is not true, but can't we be tolerant of them as well?

I have no doubt, that given a civil debate and appealing to those who are actually not bigots but are planning on voting yes on 8 we will win every time. They are out there, they aren't bigots, and if they hear the truth I have no doubt they will do the right thing and eventually vote no on 8.

Tolerance goes both ways. Im willing to support that and hopefully a few folks who had originally planned on voting yes on 8 will have a civil discussion with me as to the merits of my position that a no vote on proposition 8 is a necessity in a society that does not discriminate against minorities. Let us talk with the honestly good people who have been lied to. Its not their fault, they are making rational decisions. We know that 50% of California is not irrational! Lets be real and reach out with compassion in the same way we want to be treated.

Sincerely,

Please talk to me civilly about why a no vote on 8 is the right thing to do.

[TheDragonslayer]

I believe we are being more than tolerant of the disrespect and absolute hatred that many people of religious conviction and some of those without are showing gay people just because they are gay. I can understand the want and even the need to protect ones children and those of others even. I am gay, married and do not have any children, but I have nieces and nephews and if anyone hurt them or tried to, Lets just say that this gay would do a bit of his own bashing.

As a child, I once remember my Mom saying that if one of my brothers or my sister were to marry a black person, that she would disown that child. I could not believe I was hearing those words from my Mom, her own mother threatened to disown her for marrying a Mexican/Indian man. My Mom was Portuguese. She eventually stopped having so much hatred for black people and never disowned my niece when she married a black man and had several children by him. She loved her grandchildren regardless of their race. I think finding out that out or her 5 sons, 4 were gay opened her eyes. I do not like to think that my mom was a bigot, but when I look back on it and remember what she would say about people because of the race they were. Then I guess that yes my Mom was a bigot, she showed intolerance towards people because of what they were and not their merits. It took many years for her to realize that she was no better that anyone else.

Sorry for being long winded.

[NewToCA]

I'll go back the statements I made in postings concerning the proposals, and a critical link:

//www.city-data.com/forum/5513098-post61.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/5522328-post79.html

Bob Casey on Civil Rights


In addition, haven't seen any data at all about the cost, benefits, liabilities or legal implications concerning this issue. Will legal gay marriage result in lower state revenue or increased state cost?

[caldje]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

In addition, haven't seen any data at all about the cost, benefits, liabilities or legal implications concerning this issue. Will legal gay marriage result in lower state revenue or increased state cost?

I would like to make the point that gay marriage is already legal.

I think a lot of confusion surrounds this central part of this proposition. Voting no on it does not "make gay marriage legal." Voting no keeps things the way they currently are.

The only thing that 'changes' anything is a yes vote.

With regards to fiscal implications the original ballot argument that the yes on 8 folks put out said there would be no fiscal impact. This was evaluated by the courts and elected officials and found to be false. I, myself, am a good example. I have personally paid for my family and friends to come to my wedding. We have booked espensive hotels, a location for the wedding, a location for the reception, rented cars, we will be eating out while we are there, we will go to universal studios and the price is right. All of these simply because gay marriage is legal.

All in all, just myself and my family will be spending and have already spent in excess of $25,000-$30,000 in the state of California simply because the love of my life and I are getting married there.

So with regards to the fiscal implications they are tremendous. Destination weddings are expensive and the 11,000 gay couples that have been married in california have spent a lot of money doing so. Boosting California's economy.

Then you have to consider workforce issues, another issue I myself am a good example of. I will be moving to california with my new husband to provide healthcare to the uninsured migrant farmworkers and elderly on medical/medicare/medicaid. The location I chose was based largely on the fact I could be married in the state before moving there and put my husband on my insurance policy etc.

In conclusion. Gay marriage is a boost for california's workforce and economy by all accounts. It will not COST the state a dime. On the contrary it will increase revenues and provide a much needed workforce that may have otherwise chosen any other state in the union that does not grant them/us the rights we feel we deserve.

A no vote on proposition 8 is a vote for the economy as well.

[ferretkona]

One thought I have not read from anyone.
If gay marriage was illegal, when your spouse is in failing health - do you want to hear since you are not immediate family you can not make decisions regarding each others health or finances. This could also affect inheritance or spousal insurance.

I believe in the idea of a separation of church and state!
However.
Marriage has always been a big religious ideal. The state got involved by selling marriage licenses. Insurance companies want you to be married to be cover in a family plan. Everybodies hands are in this.

I have some other thoughts on this I can not really get down as I type.
This thread will likely get locked down as others like has.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by caldje

I would like to make the point that gay marriage is already legal.

I think a lot of confusion surrounds this central part of this proposition. Voting no on it does not "make gay marriage legal." Voting no keeps things the way they currently are.

The only thing that 'changes' anything is a yes vote.

It wasn't a point of confusion to me at all, the point I was making is that the state budgets are all predicated on certain funding and expenditure streams, and the legalization of gay marriages wasn't factored into the budgets.

Perhaps it is revenue and expense neutral, but I would like to see an independent analysis of this impact.

[TheDragonslayer]

Gay marriage is already making the state money and if it remains legal, the state will make much more money. So will all venues that are willing and able to perform those marriages, cater for them and the families and host the ceremonies and celebrations that have happened and will happen. My spouse and I are planning a celebration event for about 100 of our friends and family next summer and it is going to cost us between $5000 and $7000 just for the event, that does not include the cost of hotel/motel rooms and transportation for our families.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I'll go back the statements I made in postings concerning the proposals, and a critical link:

//www.city-data.com/forum/5513098-post61.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/5522328-post79.html

Bob Casey on Civil Rights


In addition, haven't seen any data at all about the cost, benefits, liabilities or legal implications concerning this issue. Will legal gay marriage result in lower state revenue or increased state cost?

I am so tired of intolerant ppl claiming that it "costs too much" to give other citizens the rights that they should be entitled to. Don't gay ppl pay taxes too? You know, if you insist on giving less rights to gay ppl, then why doesn't the State consider taxing gay californians less? that would make as much sense as denying rights to gays because it "costs too much"- wouldn't want to deprive straight ppl of their godly earned gov't benefits, would we?

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by caldje

I would like to take a minute, as a person who is in a same-sex marriage to say that I don't appreciate the folks who are saying that ALL proponents of prop 8 are bigots and basing their opinions on hate.

The one thing the yes on 8 folks are right about is that if we are going to support tolerance it has to go both ways. We should be tolerant of their religous convictions.

Of course. They, in turn, should also respect separation of religion and state, another key tenet of our country. Marriage is not a religious institution any longer. I would argue that the movement towards the secularization of marriage started as soon as divorces were allowed. Ever since then, it has moved more and more away from the church, and now you can have a legally recognized marriage without any input from a church at all. So for anyone to try and protect marriage on religious grounds is questionable at best. Why not rail against green-card marriages, which are performed solely to gain citizenship? Those are far more unethical than gay weddings.

[DixieSherry]

Arizona has a Proposition as well.
Arizona Proposition 102, known by its supporters as the Marriage Protection Amendment, will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If enacted, it will amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
State law already prohibits same-sex marriage, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. However, ban supporters contend it also needs to be in the Constitution in order to prevent future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage.
Arizona is the only state whose voters have rejected a same-sex marriage ban. The 2006 rejection of Proposition 107 was widely attributed to provisions interpreted to prohibit government recognition of domestic partnerships and civil unions. [1]

I will support same sex marriage. Why?

Because there is so much prejudice in this country and a person who has been prejudiced against as a woman, age difference between my husband and I, physical defect, age, etc..

So, I feel as though just living my life there are enough prejudices and struggles. Who is my government to tell me who I can marry based on gender? Personally, I could care less what other people do. I feel if I was perfect and walk on water and heal the sick and bring back the dead, then maybe I wold feel differently but for now I am concentrating on making myself better all ways possible.