Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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

That would have been the logical thing to do.


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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

What's your point here?

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

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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

So what does it have to do with gay marriage?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So what does it have to do with gay marriage?

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 .) 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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

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.

So are there gay water fountains and straight water fountains?

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

It makes about as much sense to me to do away with it as it does to expand it. Once we move away from what's been traditional, for lack of a better word, in marriage it becomes a whole lot easier for me to question the value of state endorsement of the whole institution.

It's not a question of wanting to exclude gay people because same sex marriage really doesn't bother me, but once you start to examine the whole institution and how it's practiced or not practiced, it's hard to figure out why it ought to be perpetuated.

It's not regarded as essential for having and raising children. It's not regarded as especially permanent. What's the point anymore really? (If you have a good marriage, it's not really the state endorsement that gives it meaning probably.)

I don't think anyone believes people should marry for health benefits or tax breaks, so why would they be a good reason to perpetuate the institution?