Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, the amount spent by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints still is a pittance compared to the Knights of Columbus arm of the Roman Catholic Church, which spent $1.5-$2.0 Million on the Yes on 8 campaign.
Agreed, those Catholics dumped their chump change in as well and if they have anything to boycott, I should hope people would boycott them as well. They are equally as responsible and should be treated as such. Oh wait, they had vulgarities spray painted on one of their churches, anything like that happento any other donators?
This isn't about religion, it is about discrimination and it doesn't matter who is doing the discriminating. It is disgusting the way ALL of these churches manipulated people's votes, Churches who don't even live in the U.S. let alone California.
The intolerance here for people that have a different OPINION shocks me.
I was waiting to read your response to my post on what I see as real discrimination against homosexuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
Agreed, those Catholics dumped their chump change in as well and if they have anything to boycott, I should hope people would boycott them as well. They are equally as responsible and should be treated as such. Oh wait, they had vulgarities spray painted on one of their churches, anything like that happento any other donators?
This isn't about religion, it is about discrimination and it doesn't matter who is doing the discriminating. It is disgusting the way ALL of these churches manipulated people's votes, Churches who don't even live in the U.S. let alone California.
The intolerance here for people that have a different OPINION shocks me.
I was waiting to read your response to my post on what I see as real discrimination against homosexuals.
I don't know what post you are referring to. I did reply to your post that was directed towards me.
I am tolerant of others opinions. I don't care what your opinon on homosexuality is because unless you are gay, i don't see how THEY getting married affects you personally.
If your opinon is different than mine, that is ok.
That is what makes us intersting.
I have a problem with you inflicting your opinions onto others by taking away their fundamental rights as americans. That is just unacceptable.
Having an opinion compared to FORCING that opinion upon others is not the same thing. If you have an opinion than you are free to express it, but not at the expense of others freedoms and rights.
"I have a problem with you inflicting your opinions onto others by taking away their fundamental rights as americans. That is just unacceptable."
You know, inflicting your opinion on someone else is the whole point of voting. That's just the way it works. Someone is going to lose, and be forced to spend their tax money on projects that they're vehemently opposed to. Just how far do we go with 'inflicting opinions onto others' when legislating morality is a common occurrence?
We make laws about morality all the time. Everyone has their own idea of what their moral responsibility to society is. Many people vote on moral issues because of their sense of stewardship over society, since it's our civic responsibility to have a voice in what is socially acceptable.
It is interesting, though, that we set limits on what we consider unfit for social acceptance. For example, what about public nudity? Or po rnographic content in advertising or on t.v.? We've legally set limits on these moral issues. Just how far do we need to go in legislating morality? As an extreme example, would it be moral for an adult same-sex couple, who happened to be sisters, to get married? Or what about a mother and a son who are consenting adults? I think that everyone has their personal boundary of what they feel comfortable putting a societal stamp of approval on. Where is your moral boundary? (No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.) At what point does something become so morally unacceptable on a societal level that you feel compelled to vote your conscience on it?
The problem is that everyone has a different idea of where that moral boundary is. And I don't think it's fair to judge someone because their boundary is different from yours. It's very hard to make that decision to vote on something when society gets to 'that' point, no matter where your boundary is, I think.
I had a post about Civil Unions and using a different terminology. Maybe there is no such thing as a legal recognized civil union and I'm making it up.
Also, I'm not sure that I would call marriage a fundamental right. ;-) But other than a ceremony called marriage, what rights are being taken away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
I don't know what post you are referring to. I did reply to your post that was directed towards me.
I am tolerant of others opinions. I don't care what your opinon on homosexuality is because unless you are gay, i don't see how THEY getting married affects you personally.
If your opinon is different than mine, that is ok.
That is what makes us intersting.
I have a problem with you inflicting your opinions onto others by taking away their fundamental rights as americans. That is just unacceptable.
Having an opinion compared to FORCING that opinion upon others is not the same thing. If you have an opinion than you are free to express it, but not at the expense of others freedoms and rights.
You know, inflicting your opinion on someone else is the whole point of voting. That's just the way it works. Someone is going to lose, and be forced to spend their tax money on projects that they're vehemently opposed to.
Did you just compare people's private lives to how our tax money is spent? Seriously?
Quote:
Just how far do we go with 'inflicting opinions onto others' when legislating morality is a common occurrence?
The problem is i find nothing immoral about gay people. So this is not about leglislating MORALITY in my, and many others, opinions.
An adult's right to get married is what is in question. Just because you don't approve of the 2 Adults SHOULD NOT make it an illegal act. Hookers marry pimps, Crackheads marry smugglers- You tell me where Morality plays a role in these Marriages? Women 9+ Months pregnant get married.
This is all about taking away rights from a segment of the population who you do not agree with. That is ALL that this prop was about, denying rights that were already there because some religious people wish to impose their set of RULES onto the rest of the population who may not even BE religious.
Who is next to have their rights revoked because the church finds them not suitable for marriage? Single mothers? Bastard children? Ex-convicts?
Quote:
Just how far do we need to go in legislating morality? As an extreme example, would it be moral for an adult same-sex couple, who happened to be sisters, to get married? Or what about a mother and a son who are consenting adults?
Why must you be ridiculous. Why do people who hate gays always go to the " what if a dog married a man"
That is a pathetic attempt to show why 2 consenting NON RELATED adults should not be allowed to marry.
Did you know in California 1st cousins can marry. And technically brothers and sisters can marry, because there are NO blood tests required to show they are not related. I asked the clerk at the courthouse about it.
Quote:
I think that everyone has their personal boundary of what they feel comfortable putting a societal stamp of approval on. Where is your moral boundary? (No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.) At what point does something become so morally unacceptable on a societal level that you feel compelled to vote your conscience on it?
The problem is that everyone has a different idea of where that moral boundary is. And I don't think it's fair to judge someone because their boundary is different from yours. It's very hard to make that decision to vote on something when society gets to 'that' point, no matter where your boundary is, I think.
I understand have a moral boundary debate, but I don't see how that makes it ok to remove the rights of a segment of the population who are not in violation of ANY laws- just because it bothers you morally.
Legally we have stated they are doing nothing wrong and therefore they should retain the same rights we have to get married.
Period.
I had a post about Civil Unions and using a different terminology. Maybe there is no such thing as a legal recognized civil union and I'm making it up.
Also, I'm not sure that I would call marriage a fundamental right. ;-) But other than a ceremony called marriage, what rights are being taken away?
California does not have civil unions, they have Domestic Partnerships. I have posted this elsewhere on City-Data but there are dramatic differences between the two. For example, if you are with your domestic partner in another state that does not recognize it and someone gets injured, they may not allow in the domestic partner because they are not considered IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
There are many other examples of how it is seperate but NOT equal. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedd...nvmarriage.htm Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:
Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]
Am I correct in assuming that since the federal govt does not recognizze same sex marriages that the goal is for litigation to change that also?
Final thought, wouldn't it be better to work on creating a legal union a la Vermont(?)"while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples." Then people would not feel that some are trying to redefine an institution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
California does not have civil unions, they have Domestic Partnerships. I have posted this elsewhere on City-Data but there are dramatic differences between the two. For example, if you are with your domestic partner in another state that does not recognize it and someone gets injured, they may not allow in the domestic partner because they are not considered IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
There are many other examples of how it is seperate but NOT equal. Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:
Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]
Taboo, those differences are on a national level, not a state level. Those would ALL STILL BE PROBLEMS even if/when gay marriage is allowed in CA.
Actually this would eliminate those problems, because it wouldn't be a "Gay Marriage", it would just be a plain old marriage.
The vote was not to allow a Gay Marriage proposal. It was to allow Gay people to GET married. The same kind of marriage boring old straight people like myself have.
Therefore Gay couples could choose between having a marriage or a partnership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
