Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest
 

Ok, so today there will be protests across the nation... I am a news junkie, and I have heard a lot of issues regarding reactions to this proposition... anywho, I am curious how this protest will go in other towns...

I will be there here in San Francisco taking lots of pictures.

I support gay marriage... but this is getting a bit crazy... there is a blacklist in California of all the people that donated towards the ban... this one dude lost his job because of his donation... that is a little extreme, then again, so were the commercials for the ban...

I tried to go. i mean I did. I got there just after they finished. I guess I have trouble noticing the correct time of events :o. It was sad. I made such a pretty poster. It said "Str8 against H8" with the 8s in rainbow patterns.

It was so funny because when we went to get a henna tatoo down on South Beach before going home we were telling the guy how we missed our protest and he's like "Oh, I'm so sorry you and you girlfriend missed it." And my little sister was like, "No, she's my sorority big sis! Neither of us are gay!" :p

well, I heard that there were 40,000 in SanFran... which is a hell of a lot me thinks...

They should have put these resources into lobbying and campaigning instead of protesting after the fact

I think it's going to be some time before the majority of the people are willing to consider the idea of gay marriage in most localities. In 2004, Michigan voters passed the amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" and we're a very blue state too.

I think we need to get rid of the term marriage altogether, except as a religious ceremony. Make the license for EVERYBODY say "Civil Union License" and make the rights the same as they are for marriage currently. This would be your legal version of marriage. The religious version would be up to the churches entirely, just like Baptism or other ceremonies are. The only thing is, I don't like the term civil union itself because I'm not sure what you would say "We're getting unionized" doesn't seem like a logical term to me. "We're getting civilized" doesn't work either. "We're being civil unionized"? "We're being partnered" ??? I just don't know what to really call it so that it makes sense. Take the religion completely out of the legal aspect of the whole thing. Then the government is allowing the same thing for any consenting adult and the churches can do what they want. The more I think about this, the more I think this is the way to go. It seems ridiculous to have to spend the kind of money it would take to do this when there is already a legal institution in place, but the term "marriage" has too many religious connotations to too many people at this point. This would better solidify a separation of church and state.

agree with you totally. what if another church want to marry gay couple? isn't it their right to follow their own doctrine as a religion. one church do not want to marry gay couple, it's also their right to follow their own doctrine.

government and religion should not be in one camp, government should only recognized civil union for administrative purposes.

The Roman Catholic Church refuses to marry people for all sorts of reasons. I understand that one of the big issues people had was that they were worried that churches would be forced to marry gay couples or face law suits. If the RCC can deny people getting married because they are divorced, pregnant, not members of the church, etc, then they can deny it for people who are gay.

I keep hearing people say that civil unions do not carry the same rights as marriage but where do civil unions even exist to make that statement? I've heard of states that are allowing gay marriage. I've heard of states that do not. I've not heard of any states that have civil unions. Perhaps it's my own lack of research/awareness. It just seems like the most logical thing to me, to have the government recognize civil union for legal/administrative/tax purposes and have marriage remain solely in the church.

There was one in my city yesterday that some of my friends attended. It was a protest for my state's similar amendment, but it would work for 8 as well. I was unable to attend because I was conducting a program at work that got a lot of people.

SECOND!!

Hear, hear!

Why can't we have a "civil union" between members of opposite sexes? (In fact, that's what my "marriage" is - we were married by a Judge in Colorado, in a "civil service").

No religious organization that I know of will perform "marriage" ceremonies without a civil license.

Look how many companies will allow an individual to provide "same sex domestic partner" benefits, yet my office mate cannot cover her long-time live-in boyfriend, because he's not same-sex and they're not married.

Recognizing marriages/unions for what they are -- contracts -- would go a long way.

Yep. But I ask, what interest does the state have in civil unions either, especially ones without kids?

Why not do away with it all from a civil perspective and offer government benefits of union only to those with children currently living at home?

My company does the same thing. I don't have a problem with it because if my state recognized gay marriage or even civil unions (which we don't - our ban prohibits both actual marriage and "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage"), my company would require that same-sex couples be married or in a civil union in order to have the partner receive benefits. As it is now, they have to have been in a committed relationship for >1 year and sign an affidavit stating more or less, "We'd be married if we could." Our HR folks were talking about rewriting the policy if our ban failed and gay marriage or civil unions were legalized. Alas, even my blue state is full of bigots.

I second the motion for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

Hear hear!!

ETA: I had a civil marriage and began to make a point about calling it "legally joined." When I was "married" in my church, I considered that the date of my marriage.

Only allowing benefits to couples with children wouldn't discriminate against childless couples anymore than marriage benefits today discriminate against the unmarried. Do you think offering marriage or civil unions unfairly discriminates against those without partners?

There ought to be a good reason that the state is involved in marriage or civil unions at all; otherwise the whole thing ought to be left to individuals to decide the terms of. The well being of children may be the only area in which I think it makes sense to offer a different tax rate, health benefits, automatic assumption of shared property, etc. Otherwise, why should the state be in the business of dictating the terms at all?

It's actually cheaper for my husband and me to have two separate individual health insurance plans than to have a single married plan. That particular "benefit" is not as shiny as people want to make it.

Why should the state be involved? Money. That's the bottom line. Married couples consistently show higher rates of income/wealth accumulation, lower healthcare costs, etc. It is to the state's benefit to encourage and recognize legal unions.

EXACTLY!!! This way the churches that want to recognize it can and the ones that don't want too can keep on doing that.

Here is where I see the issue getting iffy... Ok, one of the big propaganda things during the yes on prop 8 campaign was that Catholic Adoption Agencies pulled out of Mass, because they were required to allow same sex marriages to adopt. Here we have the government forcing themselves on to religious beliefs, while the other side argues that religious beliefs should stay out of the government... I believe in gay marriage and gay rights... I believe it is their civil right to be recognized by the government. I ALSO believe in separation of the church of state, meaning that if a Church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, or provide them with adoption, they shouldn't have to... it gets iffy when you think about however, how far the church then would be allow to discriminate, and that is where I get perplexed

I fail to see what kids have to do with 1) being able to provide health benefits to your spouse, 2) community property laws, 3) inheritance laws or 4) right to visit a loved one in ICU and make medical decisions for them. Most first marriages don't involve children until after people are married. I don't understand what kids have to do with marriage or civil unions. You can certainly have a child without being married and you can be married and not have children.

That would have been the logical thing to do.


I support the ban, but I think civil unions should be allowed in every state.

There are many legal rights that spouses have that simply do not exist without marriage/civil union, or that can be very complicated to replicate through other documents (powers of attorney, wills, etc.)

Many countries follow the pattern that has been suggested above -- a civil marriage (conducted by a civil official) is required; it can, if the couple want, be followed by a religious marriage ceremony/blessing. I know many members of the clergy who would love to see a similar pattern here.

I guess you're not familiar with the insane amount of lobbying, campaigning, and grassroot efforts that took place in California prior to the Prop 8 vote. Unlike Amendment 2 in Florida, which was obviously going to pass, polls taken about this were pretty much at a dead heat.

There's a fine line between "civil unions" and:

http://blog.thehumanist.com/wp-conte...imcrowpic3.jpg

. . . and that's precisely because of the societal connotation. I'd love for the doctrine of separation of church and state to rule the day here, because obviously using a religious term for a social contract is a massive annoyance and pure silliness, but the fact is, we do. Why should the connotation and societal importance be legally denied (or, more precisely, hindered)?

There really has to be a better way.

What's your point here?:confused:

My point is marriage or civil union isn't really required to deliver any of the things you listed, other than providing the terminology of "spouse." We could just decide to let people develop their own contracts for these things if we wanted to.

With health care, why does it make more sense to offer health care benefits to a "spouse" than a roommate or best friend?

When children enter the picture, it changes things to me because instead of individuals with a responsibility only to themselves and each other, you have people connected with the obligation of providing for the children so it would make sense to me to have some default legal standards. But for the rest of us, why elect to privileged one relationship legally above all others?

What interest does the state have in regulating that at all?

But if no one had those legal rights by default though marriage, it might become easier and more common to create them with other documents.

I like the idea of civil unions for everyone and marriage through churches who want to offer it to those that want to seek it (and there would be plenty who offered same sex marriage), but I do think that a.e.B.O.T. brought up some interesting issues with that. Will other people still be allowed to "discriminate" for lack of a better word between people who are married and people who are merely joined through civil union?

Probably that offering "civil unions" is a way of having two classes of citizens. At least that's my guess.

I believe his point is that "Separate but Equal" was proven to be wrong a long time ago.

Are you just playing devil's advocate here? You could just as easily argue that people with children don't need marriage to have default legal standards either (and actually, they don't, with regards to inheritance, child support requirements, etc). I am divorced but if I die, my ex-husband still gets custody of them by default, still has to pay for a certain portion of their upkeep and still has to provide medical insurance for them by default of being their father. This would be true if we had never married too. Those are parental rights and responsibilities, not marital rights and responsibilities.

So sure, let's just get rid of all unions from a legal standpoint. Then spouses can't be held accountable for each other's medical bills, debt, or anything. Likewise, they cannot be entitled to anything the other one owns should one of them die unless they have a will stating otherwise. It would eliminate all laws regarding adultery too. Toss laws against polygamy since there is no such thing as marriage or a legal union. No more divorce court.

As for discriminating between people who are married and people who are joined through civil union, government entities and EOEs could not discriminate between the two legally because marriage wouldn't be addressed by laws at all. It would be religious ceremony like baptism, communion, etc and those entities cannot discriminate based on religion. Nobody would even really know, other than your church. Churches are allowed to discriminate based on religion. Who knows whether you're baptized or not?

So what does it have to do with gay marriage?:confused:

That creating a separate set of rights for a homosexual couple who wants to marry (i.e. labeling them civil unions, domestic partners, etc.) is not equal to the right for heterosexuals to legally marry.

And for the record, Munchkin, up above, is right. A lot of money and time was put into the No on Prop 8 campaign. The Yes on Prop 8 campaign had a lot of money to spend and it was effective, especially since most of it was spent on scare tactics saying that gay marriage would be taught in schools (despite the CA Superintendent of Schools saying just the opposite was true :rolleyes:.) Just because people are protesting now doesn't mean they weren't doing anything before and all of a sudden, post-election, have decided that they care about the issue.

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?:p

Separate but equal was created based on racial identity - something for which no one can choose.

I just don't agree with the idea that gays have 'separate but equal' issues when it comes to marriage. Besides, the only people who I've seen tried to push the separate but equal argument where the issue of gay marriage is "equal to" racial inequality are white gay people.

Maybe, but if you want to basically do away with "marriage" as a civil status you're talking about a whole lot more than just doing that. You're talking about overhauling tax laws, pension laws, social security laws, insurance laws, inheritance laws, health care laws, and on and on.

While many may not see any valid state interest in the state's regulation of marriage, the reality, I think, is that we've operated this way for so long, and it's so engrained in the "system" in so many ways, that it's not very practicable to try and make that kind of change.

Plus me.

But something tells me you're not really checking for the black gay opinion in the first place.

LOL. You beat me to it. (And I could point to others besides you.)

But yeah, I have a feeling she's not interested in any opinions that don't match her own. Not saying anyone has to agree, but at least have enough respect to pay attention.