Help me understand.............

ron2

There is nothing in nature, the law, or the Constitution (the same one that brought you Pres-elect Obama) that forbids same gender marriage. So, states like California that are banning gay marriage, even by means of amendments to state constitutions are running afoul of the Constitution

Educate me, please.  I'm not all that "up" on Constitutional law, but my understanding is that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it is considered a states' rights issue.  So how can states passing laws banning or supporting homosexual marriage/civil unions be violating the Constitution?

sillysally

Actually, I am a Christian and I have no issue with a same sex couple getting married.  My rights end where yours begin.  Even if it bothered me (which it does not)--who cares?  It's not any of my business whether or not two consenting adults enter into a contract with the state.  It does not weaken my own marriage, nor does it weaken my faith . . .   

ETA:  Not to anyone in particular, but this seems like it could turn into a Christianity slamming thread very quickly.  This would be an unfortunate turn of events in a thread about equal rights and respect for others.

 I agree completely.

For the record I am a Christian insofaras I believe in the existance of God and hs grace but beyond that I don't feel the need to dictate how other people should live.  I support separation of church and state, as it protects both the church AND the state.  I do not understand the position that the this proposal hinges on the word "marriage".  Since when has marriage ONLY been man and woman anyway?  If churches do not want to perform same-sex marriage, then they don't have to.  Churches already decide who they will marry.  For example, my cousin's husband had to convert to her sect of Christianity before their church would marry them.  Words cannot express how $(%*)#(^)$ stupid I think it is that people really believe they are better and more special and more deserving of legal rights and protection than someone else just because their intercourse involves a penis and a vagina.

If you want to see what hate people are actually spewing and how I respond, read my family blog (I am Lies).

http://blog.dutchbingo.net/index.php?itemid=236#nucleus_cf

ETA: I think a lot of people voted in favor of the ban simply b/c they really didn't care and it didn't affect them.  I've heard people actually say this..."well, I don't know any gay people and it doesn't really matter to me so I just voted yes..."  *bangs head to a bloody pulp*

Myra

Educate me, please.  I'm not all that "up" on Constitutional law, but my understanding is that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it is considered a states' rights issue.  So how can states passing laws banning or supporting homosexual marriage/civil unions be violating the Constitution

True. Things not covered in the Constitution do fall to the states. I would put a question to you, as all states are part of the union. I'm not looking for more federal control but as my mom raised me "if you can't play with it nicely, you don't get to play with it all." IOW, what is the legal precedent for allowing states to violate the spirit of "all men are created equal"? Where is it that states are allowed to run counter to the Constitution? It is also a freedom of speech issue. Are states allowed to counteract that, as well?

Quick note, I am not intending to bash christianity, nor am I suddenly all muslim, either. Just pointing out where I might differ with some christians (not here necessarily) that would wish to see their religious opinions codified into law. For example, indecent exposure is a religious attitude codified into local laws. Exactly how is nudity a crime? But I digress.

We do change the Consitution or refine it from time to time. As for the founding of this country, it was to throw off the rule of Britain, largely due to unfair taxation (a theme here?) and oppressive rule. But enough people were followers of Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads who were rebelling against the Anglican Church of England and wished to engage in their Puritanism. Cromwell and his followers felt that the AC of England was too "cavalier" (slight pun there). And they wished to worship in a manner different and the only way to ensure that against loyalists to the crown that might have influence on local governments was to ensure separation of church and state. But I doubt that many of the people back then were concerned about worshippers of Allah, Astarte, Odin. Not even all that concerned with worshippers of Jahweh. It just so happens that a few people influential in wording the Constitition had also read the words of John Locke.

I'm not a constitution law expert. Obama is, however (his specialty in law school). But if the word and spirit of the document is that all men are created equal, how is the action of California not a direct violation of that document, to which California must adhere as a member of the union?

ron2

IOW, what is the legal precedent for allowing states to violate the spirit of "all men are created equal"?

Ahhh .  . I understand now.  Thank you.  I wasn't considering the equal rights thing, just looking at it sheerly from a marriage-isn't-mentioned-in-the-Constitution angle.

denise m

From what I read, the large turnout of black voters in the state resulted in the passing of #8.

denise m

I find it somewhat ironic that a group who has fought long and hard for  their equality  would oppose the same right for another group

Denise...I think this might just be the result of the Gay movement, trying to in some cases (which I have witnessed via soundbyte or various rallies/signs I saw when I lived in Cali) attach itself to another that perhaps did not invite it.

The Gay Right's movement is an important struggle, and one that deserves attention...but the Black struggle was one really backed with Faith and religion at it's core, and perhaps that's caused some resentment. Perhaps unwarranted resentment...but I do think it is there, nonetheless.

complicated issue...that of the "struggles" of one group or another and how they might or might not...be similar...lots of opportunties to step on toes or cause offense where none was meant.

I do send my empathy to those affected by this and similar bans...and wish them well in trying to get their lifestyle and wishes for their futures clarified and accepted by their States of residence.

There has always been some debate between interpreting the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and where those two ideas might differ. It is a variation of such a debate, I think, that led Obama to wonder if the Constitution, which normally states what the government cannot do, should also be interpreted to mean what they should do in issues not directly stated. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Does that mean that the government should equalize people's bank accounts in order to Pursue Happiness? It is guaranteed to make some happy and others not so much. I took it to mean that, in this country, you are free to pursue your dreams as long as they do not violate laws or harm another person. That the govt. may not decide what education you will have nor what occupation you must work in, nor limit how much money you may accrue. There is nothing to stop anyone, legally, from pursuing the life's work of their dreams and making as much money as they can. I wish I was the guy that invented toilet tissue. As long as there are humans, you will need toilet tissue. Guaranteed market and income. OTOH, for the longest time, it was necessary for the govt. to define a minimum wage as not all companies could be counted on to provide adequate compensation. So, it's a push-pull between free economy and central rule. Along comes NAFTA, which allows american companies to move off shore or across borders and undercut american wages by having workers that make a mere fraction of what we do to build stuff. Meanwhile, americans suffer from job loss and when they do get one here, the wages stink but X company can build it in Mexico for 1/3 the labor cost. And it's a good possibility that these moves were to buy loyalty from other countries lest they become something other than capitalist. It also allows big business to make big profit. So, a truck made in Mexico costs a third of what it does here. And yet the car company still charges $40K. And yet they have the chutzpah to ask the govt for loans? It's not that simple, I am sure, but there are plenty of wrong things going around.

Back to topic. All men are created equal. No government may establish one religion. Prohibition of same gender unions is a religious opinion. Codified into law doesn't make it legal. But that is the danger of democracy. It allows people to contradict the law, in spirit and letter. But, it's just a little better than a dictatorship. What we have voted into law can be voted out, repealed, or overturned. This issue could go to the Supreme Court. And may eventually require specific language in the Military Code of Conduct (another failure of Bill Clinton, though the odds were stacked against him.) Don't ask, don't tell is a bandage on a bleeding gut wound.

ron2

Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Initially, it is the state recognizing the union of two people. Legally, it has ramifications. A surviving spouse has influence in probate. For example, Louisiana as napoleanic law. That means, regardless of stated wills, the surviving spouse automatically gets 50 percent of the estate. As a spouse, one can receive beneficiary status on insurances and investments that allow such a designation. For example, a lifetime annuity has the option of naming an irrevocable beneficiary and requires the signatures of both parties to enact, and the signatures of both parties to dissolve. As spouse, one is legally next of kin.

The notion that same gender couples should not marry is purely a religious opinion. There is nothing in nature, the law, or the Constitution (the same one that brought you Pres-elect Obama) that forbids same gender marriage. So, states like California that are banning gay marriage, even by means of amendments to state constitutions are running afoul of the Constitution and the spirit of the law and are, indeed, infusing more church into state, in spite of the explicit language in the Constitution that states that the government may not iestablish any one religion into law. Some may think me a godless american. And may find it that I will quote Bible verses. Well, I'm complicated, I guess. And blonde and really tall, too. Let me qoute again. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Anyone remember who said that? Same guy who said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

I totally agree, and am REALLY upset with my home state of California for passing proposition 8.

I understand that homosexuality makes many people uncomfortable, and that many people believe it is morally wrong. I respect that. But ya know what, divorce makes a lot of people uncomfortable, too, and a lot of people believe divorce is morally wrong. So are we legislating morals, now? Will a ban on divorces be the next step? What about refusing to marry couples who engage in premarital relations?

There are already many lawsuits being filed against California to protest the proposition. Fingers crossed that it will work out.

And for the record, I'm heterosexual, and personally conservative to the point of often being called a "prude." But I also make it a point to work hard to avoid passing judgment on others.

I too am concerned that this not turn into a Christianity bashing thread -- but the crux of that is that there are so many different denominations and 'sects' (to use Lies' word) of Christianity that no one comes from the same frame of reference there anyway (altho it should be Biblically based *sigh*)

I rarely raise my head in religiously based threads because I have an extremely strong personal relationship with God, but I have a lot of problems with mens attempts at organization of the same.  (I'll shut up about that now.)

BUT -- most all of the adverse reaction comes out of fear.  And as usual, fear tends to provoke a violent reaction (whether we're talking dogs or humans, actually).

For the life of me tho, I can't figure out why humans are so afraid of encouraging a strong, lasting legal union (which helps protect against all of the disease, pain and suffering and all things that a promiscuous, amoral society moves towards) between two adults. 

I may not choose your lifestyle for my own, but it would seem logical that it would be mutually beneficial for both of us to be in a loving, harmonious, union that espouses fidelity.  So my point is that I don't get why it didn't pass either.

Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread, so forgive me if these points have already been raised. This is a topic that really upsets me, as I will never understand how some people hold the views that they do.

I believe that all people, man or woman, should be allowed to marry whomever they want. I find it ridiculous that gays who are in a commited, loving relationship are denied the same basic rights as a man & woman who are in the same commited, loving relationship. I view marriage as a union of two people. Not, solely, a union of a man and woman.

I don't believe that allowing gay marriage is "giving gays special treatment." Roughly ninety percent of our country's population already have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. This is even considered a fundemental, constitutionally protected right. How does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? I believe that the biggest flaw in the "special rights" arguement is that people assume that civil right laws in this country are equal, therefore extending rights to gay people constitutes "special rights." We all know that this is an absolute ***.

I also find it funny that, in the end, it comes down to religion. The first amendment reads..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. Maybe I am wrong with this assumption. If I am correct with my assumption, then argueing against gay marriage on the basis on religion, should be null & void.

BEVOLASVEGAS

also find it funny that, in the end, it comes down to religion. The first amendment reads..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well.

I may seem to wander here, but this colors a deeper issue I think.  I have many gay friends and I'm truly heartbroken for them. 

Somewhere within the last 200 years we've skewed things - I was right with Bevo straight to the end of what I quoted and then I realized something.

"freedom of religion" should mean I'm free to practice whatever religion I want.

But somewhere along the line my freedom to worship has gotten convoluted with someone else being exposed to it "freeom from ...". 

There's no one "at fault" here -- but honestly I am as willing to defend your (the collected "anybody" there) right NOT to worship as my right TO worship.  But somewhere along the line assumptions began that of course you'll do it this way because WE do it this way and ...

I had a little tiff with my boss earlier this year.  He's Jewish and he's a wonderful person.  He IS ... he doesn't just practice it occasionally.  He "walks" it which puts him way up there in my esteem.  But I pointed out to him that he can take off all of *his* religious holidays and then mine too.  The rub is ALL of his float and occur on various days of the week.  In my faith Christmas floats, but Easter Sunday is always a Sunday. 

But we all used to get off Good Friday as well and that's history that was sacrificed somewhere along with Washington's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday (i.e., President's Day) and we got Martin Luther King Day (which half the US takes and half doesn't get it).  In short somewhere we've all "lost" holidays but if I were another faith I'd get others.

NOW granted -- **MY BOSS** is in shule (church for him) on ALL his holy days.  So no way do I mind him taking those.  Florida courts now take Yom Kippur as a legal holiday (everyone). (Except we don't follow court schedule so I don't get it off.)

But I asked for (and got) Good Friday this year because for me it *is* a day of preparation. 

We have to be really careful about that 'to' and 'from' stuff -- because it bites both ways.  And this is where the rub is in the current discussion -- bottom line I have a feeling most of the people who are against gay marriage (if they were honest) are offended merely by seeing two people of the same sex exchange any sort of affection, and they're *really* offended by it being "legal". 

Frankly -- it should come down to being tasteful. Do I want to see ANY couple have sex in the street?  No. But I can turn around and go the other way.   Do I want to see it on TV?  Gee, if I don't I *can* change the channel -- it's my RIGHT.   Somewhere in there lies a question of taste, morality and sensibility. 

NOT legality.  Why on earth should it have been IL-legal in the first place? 

But anywhere in there inherent in the fact that I have a 'right' means a) I need to be sensitive to make sure my 'right' doesn't cause hardship to others, and 2) I need to realize that sometimes another person's right may be inconvenient for me.  Herein lies the concept of working together -- not just making something illegal.

Somewhere along the line we've gotten so militant about our 'rights' that we've lost the essence of it all.  We've forgotten that the Pilgrims who originally settled our land were CAST OFFS.  They left the UK and Europe (the Hugenots) because they were completely shunned and could be imprisoned.  Was anyone over there upset to see them go?  Noooooooo -- a few missing religious zealots?  Good riddance (as long as they pay their taxes.)

We patriotic folks forget we were founded as a land of misfits -- folks who came here to find freedom to be themselves.  It shouldn't just be freedom to do what *I* want.  It should be tolerance.  It should be understanding and acceptance.  Because what I think, do, and believe in ... gee whiz .. it might just NOT be what you think, do and believe in ... novel concept, huh?

But we've tried to legislate everything here to ensure "freedom".  And frankly ... we've screwed up big time because we've lost basic common sense.  And honestly, to me allowing committed adults to marry regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. should be common sense.  Whether individuals DO or SHOULD do it should be a matter of personal morality and religious decision.

We've fought for the right to bear arms soooo now you can buy a gun at Wal-Mart and then children bring guns to school and kill others.  But I can't even water my lawn at noon.  We argue about inane things because someone's trying to wriggle around a legal loophole.  And that's not freedom.  It's life by legislation. 

sillysally

That having been said, I do think that religious institutions should have the choice as to whether or not they preform these unions should it even be made legal.  

 

I am totally in favour of same sex marriage and I am very proud to live in one of the few countries in the world where it is legal nationwide. (Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Norway - jan.09) I do not however believe that religious institutions should be forced to perform same sex marriages. The state can not dictate what a religion's beliefs are. It can't tell a religion to teach evolution if it believes in creation. People belong to religions by free will because they believe what that religion stands for. Just because something is legal does not mean it is acceptable within the church. Adultery and birth control both being examples.

On a side note, I'm curious as to why everyone is so disappointed in California when only 2 other states recognize same sex marriage.  

I voted yes on prop 8. I am a Christian and apparently one of the few, around here especially, that actually cares about what the Bible says. I believe the Bible is God's word and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). There are more in the book of Romans. Because I am a Christian, I am a follower of Christ, therefore what hte Bible says, matters in my life. I am not saying I am perfect, I have sin in my life, but I do honor God's rules. Because I am a Christian, Christ is in my heart, therefore my decisions and opinions are based on His word. Regardless of separation of Church and state, my values are Christ's values. So I have to be true to myself and my values when I vote. I am not a gay hater. My boss is gay. I show her no disrespect because of this, we get along very well. i do not agree with her lifestyle, but I am still her friend. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I am sorry if people cannot understand this.

I also feel this is not a civil rights issues. I read an article that I think represents how I feel:

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/03_march/030204_is_marriage_a_civil_right.htm

" The American founding was characterized by clear thinking about ordered liberty. Today in America , chaos reigns. Judges and mayors are ignoring the law, and the will of the people, while imagining that they themselves, along with supporters of same-sex marriage, are compatriots of those who stood against slavery and communism. The comparison is not accurate. Their struggle is not the same. Slaves were denied their civil rights. So were those who lived under communism.

Civil rights are, as correctly recognized in the American founding, inalienable. They can neither be given by government, nor rightfully taken away. These rights are those which slaves, and all subjects of tyranny, were denied: free speech, the free exercise of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to vote, to be free from unlawful intrusions of government on their persons or property, and the right to fair and equal treatment under the law in all other matters mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments.

The same-sex marriage advocates who today congratulate themselves as freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, and Lech Walesa are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of actual tyranny. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different—their desire to redesign history's most important cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it meaningless.

Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?

Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage—each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition."

Furthermore, this country is supposed to be run for the people by the people and the people have spoken how they feel on this issue. The people also voted the same way in the year 2000 when it was on the ballot before.

jenn52

Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?

Apples and oranges, IMO.

The Constitution does not guarantee marriages, hetero or gay. Why should it proscribe against either? Just because the Constitution didn't line this out and what's not said is usually left to the states doesn't mean that the state can impinge upon other inherent and stated freedoms in the Constitution. California state law says that one person cannot tell another person "I love you." Violation of freedom of speech. You certainly have the right to your religious opinion. And many people vote their hearts and minds in an election, as many did in this one. But marriage is also a matter of the heart, for many. It goes beyond a job or education. I also have had friends who are gay and believe in God and go to a church where they can have a protestant service as well as a catholic service. And the state may not tell them how they may or may not worship or how they must interpret the Bible. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Now, there is a country that blends religion and government. It's name is Iran.

It's a matter of having cake and eating it, too. If one really wants to expound the founding of this country, it was built by slaves. And slaves were not considered equal humans until the Emancipation Proclamation and that actually affected just the Confederate states. The Union states still had slaves. Yet, they believed they were following God's will in their exercise of government. Either the law is a respectful of all persons or it is respectful of none. If you can have Obama as president, you can have same gender marriage. We don't get to pick and choose in the law who is more equal than another.

Purplepets, this is for you.

"It's my Life" - Bon Jovi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g50vzZzAja0

I think another reason it didn't pass is that the gay community doesn't have a clear leader in the eyes of JQP.  Think of other movements where people fought for rights and legal changes, we've had Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, Ghandi, Cesar Chavez... who does the gay community have?  Ellen DeGeneres?  I'm not saying this to bash them, I first heard this criticism from two different gay men themselves and I think it's a fair explanation.  While the gay community obviously was voting down the ban, there's a fair deal of straight people that honestly have never met a gay person, this proposal doesn't affect them, so why would they care?  What would convince them to vote in favor of civil rights?  Sure there are people that actually think God condemns homosexuality based on a few verses in the Bible that are always stripped of their context and will never change their minds...but I think these people are really in the minority, and that the majority of people are just regular old folk who don't have anything personally invested in this issue and need some reasonable leaders in the public eye to sway them.