E
EricBess
Guest
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be over. Protesters have been demonstrating pretty heavily and 7 people were arrested so far.DarthFerret;274197 said:
On Wednesday, immediately after it passed, 3 groups submitted law suits attempting to get it overturned. I'm fairly certain that it is just formalities that will be dealt with, but it all comes across as a bit of a temper tantrum.
E
EricBess
Guest
I'm pretty sure that it will come up again in 2 or 4 years. But the burden will be on the proponents of same-sex marriage to gather signatures and vote to change the constitution.
Yes, it will go to the same court that overturned prop 22, but apparently, they made the same argument in June to try to get it removed from the ballot and the court refused to hear them then. I think at this point, they would be committing political suicide if they simply ignored the vote now. I did find out that the ballot measure was actually place on the ballot last January, so it wasn't even a response to the court's decision, unless they already had reason to suspect that the court was going to rule that way.
There are already plenty of states that have the same definition of marriage already on their constitution, including Florida and Arizona, who both just passed it. I don't know the actual number, but I know it's around half of the states, so there is precidence. Arkansas just passed one that doesn't allow unmarried people to adopt, which many claimed was also targetted at same-sex couples.
The only real issue is what will become of the couples that got married between May and November. I could see the courts going either way on that.
Yes, it will go to the same court that overturned prop 22, but apparently, they made the same argument in June to try to get it removed from the ballot and the court refused to hear them then. I think at this point, they would be committing political suicide if they simply ignored the vote now. I did find out that the ballot measure was actually place on the ballot last January, so it wasn't even a response to the court's decision, unless they already had reason to suspect that the court was going to rule that way.
There are already plenty of states that have the same definition of marriage already on their constitution, including Florida and Arizona, who both just passed it. I don't know the actual number, but I know it's around half of the states, so there is precidence. Arkansas just passed one that doesn't allow unmarried people to adopt, which many claimed was also targetted at same-sex couples.
The only real issue is what will become of the couples that got married between May and November. I could see the courts going either way on that.
E
EricBess
Guest
Which Florida initiative failed? My understaning is that all 3 states (Florida, Arizona, and California) passed their definitions of marriage and Arkansas passed an initiative to disallow single people from adopting which many felt was directed at same-sex couples.
The problem is that it is ultimately a lifestyle choice, where race isn't. People argue that they cannot help who they are, but that has never been proven. There is evidence to suggest a possible genetic predisposition, but my understanding is that most of this evidence is circumstantial. If anyone knows of a reputable study to suggest otherwise, feel free to mention it, but I have yet to see anything conclusive.
And the fact is, race has nothing to do with whether or not reproduction is possible. Gender does. I'm all for making sure that same-sex couples have the same priviledges, but marriage has always been understood as one man and one woman and changing the definition is very disconcerting, IMO.
The problem is that it is ultimately a lifestyle choice, where race isn't. People argue that they cannot help who they are, but that has never been proven. There is evidence to suggest a possible genetic predisposition, but my understanding is that most of this evidence is circumstantial. If anyone knows of a reputable study to suggest otherwise, feel free to mention it, but I have yet to see anything conclusive.
And the fact is, race has nothing to do with whether or not reproduction is possible. Gender does. I'm all for making sure that same-sex couples have the same priviledges, but marriage has always been understood as one man and one woman and changing the definition is very disconcerting, IMO.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I was talking about the one mentioned in the article Mooseman linked to. It was an attempt to amend the Florida state constitution to remove some antiquated and embarrassing text that was targeted at Asian immigrants during the fear of a "Yellow Menace" roughly 100 years ago. The measure probably failed because a bunch of people didn't actually read what they were voting on and went with whatever was against immigrants. I don't know...EricBess;274540 said:
The Arkansas thing is really dumb. I've seen a lot of people complaining about Proposition 8, despite living in other states that are not California and already banned same-sex marriage. But I don't see why they're so upset about California, which didn't do anything their own states didn't already do, instead of Arkansas, which passed a measure that hurts kids all because they're afraid of gays (and let's face it, the poor kids already have to live in Arkansas, so I'd say they suffer too much as it is). Oh, and to be thorough, it actually doesn't disallow unmarried people from adopting provided they're not cohabiting with another person. This will still mean some people who might have otherwise adopted and possibly made good parents simply won't.
What is this directed at? Marriage is a lifestyle choice for ANYONE.
You know what, I don't care anymore. I could rehash what I've already said about "proof" and scientific methodology. I could talk about what science has shown about the factors in homosexuality. I could cite all the gay people who were raised in highly homophobic backgrounds and were horrified to find out that they were gay and tried to deny it or change it as hard as they could and were simply unable to. I could put the onus on you to show the contrary. But for the sake of the argument, I'll just agree with you. Sure. Actually, I'll go one further and pretend that I'm confident that homosexuality is a conscious decision 100% of the time.
Now what? What does that mean? Because it seems to have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the topic of same-sex marriage. If people want to marry, they should be able to.
No, marriage has not always been defined that way. And I'm pretty sure you know that. Even if it was, tradition is not a justification for oppression. So is you being disconcerted.
R
rokapoke
Guest
I read something about Connecticut's passing of gay marriage laws earlier this week, and in that state, civil unions do convey the same rights and benefits as marriage.Spiderman;274564 said:
Again, my personal standpoint is that if marriage has a religious definition, then the government should not sanction "marriage" at all. The government should be sanctioning "unions" which would, of course, include marriages. But that's just my two cents.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Same-sex civil unions do not have to be exclusively between gay/bi individuals, it can just be for the benefits that are conferred.....
Also, isn't it "oppressive" to limit marriage and civil unions to just two people? Shouldn't it be open ended, as long as they are consenting adults?
Also, isn't it "oppressive" to limit marriage and civil unions to just two people? Shouldn't it be open ended, as long as they are consenting adults?
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
What happens if Insurance companies deem families as male/female unions only and create another designation for all other civil unions as special groups and have different rates for those groups. (let's say it's higher, since non-traditional unions are in a higher risk status)
Should the Gov legislate to insurance companies about premiums and coverage?
Should the Gov legislate to insurance companies about premiums and coverage?
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
What is so "right" about a civil union? Civil unions started because people went, "Well, it makes sense that you'd want to take advantage of the same legal things associated with marriage. But we just can't let you have the NAME 'marriage' along with them." In my case, I don't want the name "marriage." Or a civil union for that matter. But my guess is that the people wanting same-sex marriages want the word for the same reason that other people want them NOT to have the word but are okay with civil unions. They find something special about the concept of "marriage." And it's unfair for the government to deny that to some people based on tradition or silly, baseless fears. Or something. That's my impression of what this whole thing is about anyway. Then many civil unions don't offer everything that marriages legally offer and none of the same-sex marriages or civil unions in this country are fully equivalent to the opposite sex counterparts because states can (unconstitutionally) refuse to recognize them. Also, separate institutions are inherently unequal.Mooseman;274561 said:
The DAR is a fully private organization. So is the NAACP, but you actually can join the NAACP. I'm sure that they'd be happy to collect membership dues from you, regardless of your race.
You know, I used to substantially agree with you. But the government doesn't make decisions by first checking with every religious organization and seeing how they feel about the terms used in legislation. They just use whatever terms they deem appropriate. If a religious group wants to also use a certain term, they don't stop them. But they don't defer to religious groups that complain over matters of semantics.rokapoke;274568 said:
Right now, the government regulates marriage. And if religious organizations were trying to stop that entirely--if they were actually trying to say, "Marriage is inextricably bound with religion and the state should use different terminology in its regulation of legal unions between people," then, while I don't think they'd have all that magnificent of an argument, I wouldn't really disagree with them either. But that's not what they're doing. They're largely ignoring that issue and simply maintaining that homosexuals should not have the same rights that they do, all while using painfully shoddy arguments like, "homosexuality is unnatural," "it would undermine our marriage," "the purpose of marriage is to produce children," and "gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children."
At this point, I'm quite happy to endorse whatever outcome most annoys regressive bigots. It would only be returning the favor for the psychic scars they've left on me with ceaseless logical fallacies, strategic changes of subject, and repetitions of debunked claims.
But I would still be totally amenable to the elimination of marriage as a legal institution and its replacement with something else, preferably something more flexible. If the fundies were petitioning for that, I'd be on their side. But they're not. They just want to keep gays from getting married. In some states, they compromise with civil unions, but I really don't see why "separate but equal" should be taken seriously.
Yes, just like the countless marriages of convenience.Mooseman;274570 said:
You seem to be saying this because you think that it's absurd, but the logical extension of what I (or someone, anyway) was saying. I'm not going to argue against it because I don't think that it's absurd. It's fine with me.Also, isn't it "oppressive" to limit marriage and civil unions to just two people? Shouldn't it be open ended, as long as they are consenting adults?