Banning Divorce In CA (Merced, Hickman: shop, move to, retire)

[bayarea-girl]

18Montclair, he just wants to tell us off.

Puddy4Lyf, I don't agree with you and think you are trying to take this into entirely different level. It is clear that the marketing and outreach for a civil union for gays in the state of CA was not well done. Again, trying to push how people are created and mixing gay rights in with race is dangerous and will and did have a negative outcome when the polls closed. There is a way to pass the bill without opposition but people don't necessarily have to believe one way either and or it doesn't have to be an all or nothing type of thing either.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

18Montclair, he just wants to tell us off.

I hear ya.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

Nevermind the REALITY that the religious right has a higher rate of divorce then the left.

Your source?? Do people going to divorce court have to devulge their political or religious affiliation to know whether this is true?

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

Your source?? Do people going to divorce court have to devulge their political or religious affiliation to know whether this is true?

It sounds like it might have come from the Barna poll. "Religious right" is not an official affinity group, and different kinds of right-wingers have different rates of divorce.
Age at marriage has a lot to do with divorce rate. Most fundamentalists sects do little to discourage premature marriage -- and may even encourage it as a lesser-of-two-evils preference against extra-marital relations -- and so show a higher rate of divorce than do religious liberals and moderates.

Barna Report: Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)

% who have been divorced
Non-denominational 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

Puddy4LyF, there is a difference between gender and race and don't like when people compare the two.

You may not like it, but in the eyes of the law, they are functionally equivalent. What matters in terms of American jurisprudence is that both are instances of "a class of people defined by an immutable characteristic," i.e., something that can't be changed. You can change your political views, change your choice of words or change what you wear, so those characteristics wouldn't constitute a protected class entitled to anti-discrimination protection. But you can't change your gender, race, age, country of national origin, sexual orientation, height, etc and persons with such characteristics may thereby constitute a protected class.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Gay is not a Gender.

Whether someone is gay or not, they are still either a man or a woman. The question of whom they are physically attracted to is a different issue altogether.

Uh... again, either this is an insinuation that homosexuality is a choice, or you fail to acknowledge the relationship between gender and sexuality. I'll be the first one to acknowledge that homosexuality isn't natural - pragmatically, it has no place toward the evolution of the human being. However, it is what it is and it occurs both in nature and in human beings. We don't know exactly when or why a human being shows characteristics toward the opposite sex AND shows characteristics toward the opposite gender, but I don't know a reputable scientist or non-employee of Answers in Genesis.com that has claimed any thesis aside from there being a genetic link.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Many attempt to answer the question of sexual orientation all sorts of ways but in reality, we don't have a concensus at all as to the origin of homosexuality.

There are somethings we don't fully understand yet.

What we do know is there is some sort of genetic link - whether it be a polymorphic gene, whether it be an imbalance chemically -- one thing is for sure, that the inheritance is complex, and you're right, we don't have all the answers, but one thing is for sure - it isn't a choice.

Whether it's sin or it isn't sin isn't up for me to say because I'm not in the least bit religious - I'll leave that sort of judgement circus to those who give a damn.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Im not clear if you are trying to have a conversation or if you only want to tell us off?

You quoted me saying this:

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

But hey, as long as "the gays" hide how they were created, you have no problem with them! Are you sure that doesn't sound bigoted to you?

I don't know if you thought this was directed at you or not, but it wasn't. I directed that statement at baygirl, and I think if you've been reading her posts, you'd understand why. Let's review briefly for humor sake,

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

there are several differences between gender and race. The one basic to me is that a gay person doesn't have to disclose that he/she is gay

Hence, me saying she was OK with "the gays" as long as they hid the fact that they were homosexual.

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

The gays should have kept it pretty simple

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

But the marketing for the civil union as marriage for gays...

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

that is how gays should have marketed and not in being equivalent to racial prejudices/rights.

----

Originally Posted by Steve97415

You may not like it, but in the eyes of the law, they are functionally equivalent. What matters in terms of American jurisprudence is that both are instances of "a class of people defined by an immutable characteristic," i.e., something that can't be changed. You can change your political views, change your choice of words or change what you wear, so those characteristics wouldn't constitute a protected class entitled to anti-discrimination protection. But you can't change your gender, race, age, country of national origin, sexual orientation, height, etc and persons with such characteristics may thereby constitute a protected class.

+1 if I could, still have to spread it around.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

It sounds like it might have come from the Barna poll. "Religious right" is not an official affinity group, and different kinds of right-wingers have different rates of divorce.
Age at marriage has a lot to do with divorce rate. Most fundamentalists sects do little to discourage premature marriage -- and may even encourage it as a lesser-of-two-evils preference against extra-marital relations -- and so show a higher rate of divorce than do religious liberals and moderates.

Barna Report: Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)

% who have been divorced
Non-denominational 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

You make an excellent point about 'premature' marriage-and despite their intentions being something else, the proponents of this misguided referendum have really given us the opportunity to examine why marriages fail.

I happen to believe that one of the main marriages fail because those who enter into it without being mature enough to handle the ups and downs that come with it.

This is a perfect example.
Mormons 24%

If this is report is accurate, then Most Mormon marriages are not very different from other religious groups. 1 in 4 will end in divorce.

However, marriages that take place inside Mormon Temples, which require members to live by a higher standard of personal conduct(ie more maturity), only have a divorce rate of 6%

[streetscenes]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes, its satirical and a humorous but strangely not funny attempt at revenge. A huge mockery of the voting process that will waste time and money.

I doubt the organizers of this initiative will ever get the nearly 700,000 petition signatures required to get this on a ballot. So they aren't wasting any of our money and the only time being wasted is the initiative organizers and the blow hard pundits on both sides of the issue.

Bottom line is that the state needs to get out of the business of marriage. Marriage is an institution of the church and they can keep it and make up what ever silly rules they want.

[Clarks]

However, marriages that take place inside Mormon Temples, which require members to live by a higher standard of personal conduct(ie more maturity), only have a divorce rate of 6%

Wonder if the Danites enforce the temple vows.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

You may not like it, but in the eyes of the law, they are functionally equivalent.

However, on this particular issue, the people of California have put the law in check twice now. The second time in 2008 and the courts sided that the people are the ultimate deciders of what is and what is not law.

But you can't change your gender, race, age, country of national origin, sexual orientation, height, etc and persons with such characteristics may thereby constitute a protected class.

It seems to me that many people do change their official sexual orientation.

I can't change my skin color-its officially and unofficially the same no matter what mood Im in. A sexy olive tan. LOL