I'm really disappointed with 52% of californians...

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am all for gay people being into religion should they choose to do so, but even though I am completely for gay marriage, I do not believe that it's their right to force their "sin" upon their chosen church if the parishioners are against it.
 
Ptownkid said:
Well, let's not go too far...it's not offensive that some people believe that. However; correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus is not believed to have created anything.

It's not offensive that people believe this, but that it's been stated as if it were a fact. I don't like religion pushed on me.
 
The interesting part of all of this is that most people that don't agree with the issue and try to back it up biblically, don't do a very good job at it. 
And most people that agree, try to understand how God feels about it without really reading his word about it. 

One main thing to understand is that nowhere in the bible is described that God hates homosexuals, on the contrary he loved and loves them, but at the same time its very clear about homosexuality.

If you don't believe in God, or if you are not religious than the argument is just about useless, and it should be about whether being religious, or whatever other values you have, is actually relevant to the discussion or not.

Guys..  It is really ok to disagree.

Peace and chicken grease.

 
pucho812 said:
Religion... Man created god in his own image.

yeah.... that goes a long way to explain how screwed up "god" is.
:)

I had a few arguments to make, but can't be bothered.... it takes wilful and repeated effort to get to that level where you'd be able to justify such meanness, selfishness, arrogance, and plain dumbness. And that can't be argued against.... Plus, it all comes down to this, really: I can't believe anyone could be pathetic, mean spirited, or just awful enough to support proposition 8.
 
As a matter of interest what does it mean for gays (or anyone) to not be married in the US?

I ask because I'm neither gay nor married but have a (defacto) wife and two (hyphenated) kids. We've been together for 20 years.

In the legal sense my "wife" has all the rights a "real" wife has. (eg she gets to turn off the life support, inherit my assets no questions asked, and nag the crap out of me if I stay alive... hmmm... not sure that's a legal right).

Does this sort of thing apply in the US? Do gay couples get to be legal couples? (Do straight couples have any legal rights if they're not  married?)

Just asking...

 
Also important to know that the State vision of marriage is different from the bibles view of it.  Most people don't realize they are a little different.


 
> what does it mean for gays (or anyone) to not be married in the US?
Do gay couples get to be legal couples?
Do straight couples have any legal rights if they're not  married?


Every State is different, and then there is the US gov.

There's a player here who does Law in another life and can correct some of what I say.

I have a gal, call her "R". We are married. Therefore I can add R to the group health insurance at my work, and my Pension can be set-up to cover R between my death and her passing. I can apply the Health and Pension to my children in addition or instead.

If these plans were open to "anybody", I could sell health insurance to the highest bidder. Probably somebody very ill. It would skew the insurance payouts very badly. Instead the plan covers only active employees (presumably healthy enough to work) and a finite set of Close Family, who may be well or sick, but on-average will not be very sick.

R automatically shares all my property. Major property requires both of us to sign-off on a buy or sell. Upon my death, without specific instruction, she owns all my property. And if I instruct that all my property go to someone else, a widow can claim a share anyway and the court will decide. Marriage is a much stronger position than "Palimony".

R and I automatically have custody of "our" children. This is far less certain without a Marriage. Unmarried, if disputed, mother has custody until a court decrees otherwise.

This exposes the real though obsolete reason we have marriage. Formerly males owned all property and females bore their children. Property passes from father to son. But.... is that brat MY son? The only way to know is to be sure no other male impregnates my wife. Then all her issue must be mine, and should inherit my property. Therefore I select a virgin (or at least not knocked-up), stand in front of the whole town, and vow to each other. If she is faithful (most of the town will help by letting me know if she is unfaithful), then her children will inherit my property.

Of course that does not stand up today. Property is not male-only any more. Cars and hourly motels make a sneak-off real easy. DNA can establish biological fatherhood; non-blood children are presumed to have rights in the family which raises them (especially if Adopted). We live so long our children are well established before they inherit our stuff. And the medical system keeps us going until there is nothing left to inherit.

There is well-established tradition of Common Law Marriage. However legally it is a much weaker position than a state-recognized Marriage. The legal assumption is "just friends" until you go to considerable effort to prove long-standing relationship equivalent to a marriage.

In this state, I do not believe a "friend" without your Living Will may make major medical decisions for you, next-of-kin can, and spouse has priority. In practice, a Wife may have priority over a friend who has your Living Will... that may not be law, but it may take considerable time to establish who pulls your plug.

A few years back, my state-employee benefits office extended "spouse" to "domestic partner", including same-sex; but there was no legal binding partnership recognition. At the time, I felt this was good social policy but poor fiscal policy. If I were single, I'd find a sick guy willing to buy a piece of my health insurance and call him "partner". No proof of partnership needed, and I could change partners nearly at will. Last year the state established a formal Domestic Partner license: you go to the town clerk and fill a form very much like a marriage license, vow before a pastor or judge and get it signed, and have it registered at the state record office. There are subtle details which make it less than a Marriage, but it does formally establish a Partnership which can not be dissolved casually (I suppose eventually some of these couples will flow through Divorce Court). And I believe it presumes joint ownership of propery and joint custody of minor children with right of survivorship (unless otherwise contracted).

You can not take Life Insurance on a stranger. You need a formal relationship. Family, sure. Business Partner, yes: if one dies, the other may wish to buy-out the widow's share. A friend, even a friend who lives in my house for a long time, generally would not be able to get Life Insurance against my death. With Domestic Partnership status, this should be possible.
 
There's nothing to prevent R and I living un-married for 20 years. We rented a room for a month before the wedding and the landlord didn't blink, never asked if we really did the deed. (Basically if he didn't get paid, he could throw everybody out, so what's the diff?) There is little in everyday life which forces married couples to be "joint": R and I maintain separate checking accounts, mostly buy our own stuff with our own money. We handle bills by who has income; R has been taking the Mortgage because her income is fixed but adequate, I'm taking the lumps for food and taxes because I can, but we done it different in the past and will in future (we may get out of the mortgage, yay!). Her car is in her name and mine is in my name (neither was financed so nobody asked for co-signer). If we had children, and we were on good terms, and didn't abuse the kids, nobody would question parent status.

In fact we have been asked to prove our marriage only twice. So she could drive her car! R took my last-name and the Driver's License office wanted some small proof; they accepted a copy of the License. Last year the state started demanding 7 forms of strong ID to renew a driver license, supposedly anti-terrorism. And if you changed your name since your birth certificate, they needed proof of that too, so she had to get our official Marriage Registration (stamped by the Records Office in a different state). (These are not actually proof of marriage, but proof of name-change.) We file Income Tax as Married and the IRS does not question that. (They might: in some situations it makes a real difference. At present we could actually pay ~$100/year less if not-married; but in many situations a married couple can pay less than two singles so the IRS should ask for proof of relationship.) All our mortgages, hotel rooms, joint-ownership investments.... nobody asks for proof of marriage. (But all these things can be contracted by just-friends.)

The real issue comes if we DON'T get along. Then the Vows we took decades ago will enforce our obligations to each other. It happens that a breakup would be an emotional disaster more than a fiscal catastrophe; I love her far more than I love my half of this house. If we had minor children or truly valuable property, marriage can have real effect on your path.
 
PRR said:
There's nothing to prevent R and I living un-married for 20 years. We rented a room for a month before the wedding and the landlord didn't blink, never asked if we really did the deed. (Basically if he didn't get paid, he could throw everybody out, so what's the diff?) There is little in everyday life which forces married couples to be "joint": R and I maintain separate checking accounts, mostly buy our own stuff with our own money. We handle bills by who has income; R has been taking the Mortgage because her income is fixed but adequate, I'm taking the lumps for food and taxes because I can, but we done it different in the past and will in future (we may get out of the mortgage, yay!). Her car is in her name and mine is in my name (neither was financed so nobody asked for co-signer). If we had children, and we were on good terms, and didn't abuse the kids, nobody would question parent status.

In Oz if you've been co-habitating for 2 years then you're married (well sorta)

As far as the Govt is concerned it's more to do with NOT paying two lots of single unemployment benefit than worrying about insurance fraud.
Hey even the Govt hates insurance companies ;-)

But you are correct there are nasty little corners of the law that "allow" unmarried couples the same rights but don't "give" them those rights by default as they do for married couples. Invariably they crop up in stressful situations involving life & death when claiming your rights is hard work and you have other priorities.

Personally I think it would be a good idea for my wife and I to be married - it will make things simpler in the long run.

For now however we're still just "going steady".
 
It really is a sticky wicket, but hey, a majority of "selected" judges will overturn the will of the voting majority again.  Its Kalifornia, remember!  The politicians and judges will legislate what's "best" for the plebeians no matter what they vote for :thumb:

Peace and chicken grease?  Keep that kinky Kali filth to yourself, mister!
Mike
 
Nice to see so many informed and educated people here. Should I have expected less?  I should say not.

I respect the right of a religion to decline a couple from being married in their church, synagogue or temple- it is the right of membership.

As mentioned there are many Gay inclusive churches along with churches where their congregations are entirely gay.  No one cares to be where they are not welcome.

The flaw lays in assuming a "church going" person can only  be an upstanding citizen. Allow me to point out that the planet has been drenched in tears and blood due to church leaders and evangelicals misusing the Bible.  And that there are a great many upstanding citizens that are atheist.  It's not what you believe, its how you lead your life.



As for two people living together having the same domestic rights as married persons, one only needs to look at the palimony suite of Lee Marvin (google it).

What "Common Law Marriage" was replaced by is what's known as Civil Union, but Prop 8 virtually nullified the legal concept with its passing. Despite that,  civil unions do not afforded the same rights as a "marriage certificate," and that's what the fight is all about the "Marriage License."  For anyone can be married in a church or elsewhere, but it's the being recognized by the state is what gives one the rights of domestic partnership under a "marriage certificate."  Therefor  if two consenting adults  what to apply for a marriage license then the county clerk must issue it.


The reason why so many people have a hard time making Biblical arguments  stick is because:
Jesus says nothing about same sex behavior.
The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
And only six  of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

In fact, the Bible contains 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. It also accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12

Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

LEVITICUS 18:19

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

MARK 12:18-27 

If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Sorry for going on so long.
 
sodderboy said:
The politicians and judges will legislate what's "best" for the plebeians no matter what they vote for :thumb:

That's a tradition establish by the Founding Fathers and ingrained in the Constitution. Whenever I doubt its continued utility, something like this happens and I revert to saying that sometimes people must be wrenched forcibly from their outdated beliefs and outmoded lifestyles.

Of course, this is why we focus as much as we do on the President's power to appoint judges. That receives as much attention these days as the Commander in Chief military role. We live in strange times.

On the insurance topic, having insurance still yolked to employment is utter foolishness. I've yet to encounter a model for providing the services that would overcome the pressing need for private (employer sponsored) insurance that didn't undercut the self-interest of the majority
 
> it's more to do with NOT paying two lots of single unemployment benefit

Then it is generally about couples with "no" property. And government skrew-U.

Doesn't it encourage you to shop for a new woman every 23 months?

> In Oz if you've been co-habitating for 2 years then you're married (well sorta)

Interesting.

The general idea is that man and woman promise to share their life. To ensure this, they vow in front of witnesses who will be available if the relationship sours. In a small society, everybody in the clan just knows. In religious culture, you "stand in front of God" so that He/She/They will hear your Vow and strike you down if you break it. As churches and then governments grew in power and imposed tithe/tax, they got in the business of formalizing and recording vows.

But many couples were beyond easy reach of church and state; and the ancient ways never go out of style even when church/government says so. Man and woman are 50 miles from town, it would take a week to walk over and back, who is going to feed the sheep and chickens? Even in cities, many folks were too poor to pay the fees for "official" recognition.

Because Formal Marriage has significant benefits, most women (and many men) would never dare to shack-up, it reduces their chance of entering a Real Marriage. In some cultures, un-wed women are segregated, partly their own choice, and would never be alone in a room with man for even a moment. Therefore if a woman does stay overnight with a man, feed his hogs, darn his socks, without a very explicit "not intimate" explanation (hired housekeeper with separate room), she sure seems to be "acting married". Practical common-law marriage usually also wants some declaration or strong implication to others, and some length of time.

While not officially Recognized by Government, "common law marriage" has some traction. If Joe and Mary live together as Man and Wife in front of God, neighbors, and children, long enough so it isn't just a shack-up, they may be treated as "married" in most minor things. The farm is in Joe's name (land ownership is usually registered even where marriage is optional), Joe dies, Mary is treated as owner of Joe's farm unless there is some big fight about it.

As government reaches more of our lives, "common law marriage" has mostly been superseded by explicit processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Note that Australia gets its own section, and each state has different property laws (your Fed has unified children-issues). 

In Ontario, a common-law spouse can be compelled to testify against a partner.

England pretty much ruined common-law marriage in 1753, you need a CoE priest (Jews and Quakers can do their own, but Catholics can't). Except: english civilians held by the Japanese in WWII just vowed in front of witnesses, and those marriages were held to be valid.
 
First post on new forum scene....COOL!!!!. Lots o' buttons.
Anyway I'm disappointed by the vote.  HERE http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo
are my thoughts....in song form of course.
I don't understand how a gay couple getting married affects a straight couple's marriage. ???
They'll still be married.  And then, sooner or later divorced.  ::)
Some people need hobbies....ones that don't involve shoving their religious beliefs down others throats.

:eek:
I like the googley eyes...sweet.

 
Ptownkid said:
The part that bothers me the most is that the supreme court ruled it "unconstitutional" that they not be allowed to marry, but then it gets put to a public vote later...

Ah, see, that's the point ... since a law barring gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional, the only recourse that the bigots (let's call 'em what they are) had was to use the initiative and referendum process to place a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot.

So the vote amends California's Constitution, preventing both the legislature and the courts from changing it.

It doesn't affect anyone but those who are gay, so why would people be allowed to vote on this?

Because there are a lot of people who truly believe that their Bible tells them that gays are bad. My wife and I simply cannot see how our friend Vicki marrying her partner affects our marriage in any way.

I understand that challenges to this amendment are being mounted based on the First Amendment's Establishment clause. See, if churches are pushing for this amendment (obviously the Mormons are guilty here, but so are others) then clearly there is an issue regarding separation of Church and State. At the very least, the churches advocating in this manner should be stripped of their tax exemptions. I wonder what a gold-plated spire is worth in terms of a property-tax assessment?

PS: A majority of Arizona voters approved Proposition 102, which amended our constitution as follows: "Marriage - Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." It should be noted that Arizona law already defines marriage as such, but the bigots clearly wanted to ensure that neither the legislature nor the courts could change the law.

A friend asks, "So, if marriage is a union of one man and one women, who is the one man and who is the one woman?"

-a
 

Latest posts

Back
Top