Same-sex marriage ban wins OK

[7starmantis]

Texas became the 18th state to write a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution as Proposition 2 was overwhelmingly approved by voters Tuesday (Nov 8th).

The controversial proposition was supported by Gov. Rick Perry and many churches throughout the state.

Houston Chronicle Story

Thoughts? What are the implications of this to other states?

7sm

 

[Kane]

Here in California it is still illegal, I think 60% of the population is against same-sex marriage while 40% is for it (in California). I'm personally against same-sex marriage and I think majority of the US still is. I am okay though a union between homosexuals just as long as it isn't called marriage (and not equated in the same way). That's is my opinion.

 

[Ping898]

Personally I think the US should absolve marriage all together, at least in a civil sense. Marriage is a religious thing or at least my understanding is that in many cultures it started out as one and if you want to get married, you should, in your church. If you want the societial benefits that comes along with getting hitched at town hall, i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, the sutff that comes along with having kids....etc...., then I think any two adults, male to female, female to female or male to male should get a civil union.
Last I checked Canada allows gay marriage and the country hasn't imploded, so IMHO I think US citizens are overwhelmingly being stupid, spiteful, and closed-minded by not allowing gays the same rights. Last I checked, most gays that want to get married, want to do so to a) get the benefits a male and female marrying get and b) have a public way to declare their love for their partner and the celebrations that go along with that. I personally see nothing wrong with that...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Y'know, if you let the public vote on what's "right" we'd still have slavery, women might still not be able to vote, and you can bet your *** that non-whites would not have to worry about going to school with whites.

It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US. Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans. Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights.

Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (e.g. by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.


I look at it this way. If you don't want to marry someone the same gender as you, don't. You aren't forced to. But let those who do want to make the commitment do so, and enjoy the same protection opposite gender commitments do.

Laws concerning cross-race and cross-religion unions have been struck down, sometimes forcibly. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Makalakumu]

One conservative explained to me that he was against same sex civil unions because he feared that it would encourage homosexuality.

 

[Sarah]

It will take lawmakers with balls to force true equality in the US. Thank goddess other nations such as Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa do understand the discriminatory nature of such close minded bans. Maybe someday, the US will truly be a nation of equal rights.

And New Zealand...dont forget about us.

I will never understand why people feel they have the right to tell others what they can and cant do just because they are different??

I do beleive this issue is a generational thing...in 50 years time, it will be such a non issue!

 

[Jonathan Randall]

First of all, I think the best way to "protect marriage" is by marrying as well as possible - even if you have to postpone the committment until both partners are mature - and by not getting divorced. Some of the strongest opponents of gay marriage are right wing talk show hosts with multiple divorces and religious leaders with admitted adulturous affairs.

If you are against gay marriage - don't marry a person of the same sex. True, I would not mind it being called something slightly different, but to exclude a whole class of people from the legal benefits and protections of union strikes me as greatly unfair.

There are so many more important issues out there that this is drawing attention from, IMO.

 

[Xequat]

True, some of the biggest enemies of same-sex marriages are right-wingers. But some of the biggest opponents are left-wingers, too, so don't blame the whole thing on conservatives. The only reason it's an issue now is Karlo Rove's brilliant campaign strategy. He picked an issue that would unite the religious right as well as pull from the religious Democrats. I'm kind of sorry to say, but it worked. Also, I know of one fairly conservative talk show host in Cincinnati (Mike McConnell, I think) who is only opposed to it because it might lead to other things. Here's why: if you say that homosexuality is different, but deserves the same privileges as heterosexuality, then it would follow that bestiality, pedophilia, bisexuality, etc would be OK, thus setting a legal precedent for anyone being able to marry anything. Plus, if a person is sexually attracted to both males and females, then it would only be fair that that person be able to marry both, since s/he's bisexual instead of homo- or heterosexual. Not a bad argument; at least it's logical and not religious or emotional.

The reason I underlined privilegs is that marriage is one...it's not a "fundamental right" like the drama queen in the article called it. There are probably churches where you could get a homosexual marriage; it just wouldn't count by law. Personally, I don't understand all the anti-gay sentiment, though. To me, it's like country music. It's not something I like...at all...but I don't dislike others for liking it or even care at all really. I have a few gay friends, but I don't usually think of them as my gay friends, just as my friends because I couldn't possibly care less whether they like men, women, redheads, blondes, brunettes, fat girls, skinny girls, fat men, skinny men, blacks, whites, whatever...I just don't care.

Like a lot of things, I believe in states' rights as well. Maybe there could be a provision stating that a state didn't have to recognize a gay marriage from another state while maintaining a permanent residence there or something to that effect. For example, Texas says no, but maybe it's legal in Oklahoma. If two homosexuals want to marry each other, then maybe they'd stay in OK. I don't know, that might set an ugly precedent too, maybe with driver's licenses and other trans-state issues, but it's just a thought.

Another thing that the gay community is criticized for is its lack of monogamy. I think that allowing them to marry would help, because there is really no tangible commitment right now. If there were marriages, then there would be a certificate and a contract of sorts and I believe that that would help solidify relationships. Could be wrong, I mean there are still married people who cheat, but at least the commitment would be acknowledged more.

Oh, and one other thing. I've been known to pick on liberals and others sometimes for using illogical, emotional arguments instead of logic and facts, so I'll stay consistent on this one as well. This is a mostly emotional argument. "Marriage has always been that way;" "The Bible says...;" "Ewwww! Gays!" and other such nonsense. It seems that the religious are using religion to push their ideas, and they're doing it with striclty emotional arguments. That is annoying.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

True, some of the biggest enemies of same-sex marriages are right-wingers. But some of the biggest opponents are left-wingers, too, so don't blame the whole thing on conservatives. The only reason it's an issue now is Karlo Rove's brilliant campaign strategy. He picked an issue that would unite the religious right as well as pull from the religious Democrats.

True, and true. It was a strategy and the Democrats played right into his hands.

 

[arnisador]

The time has come. Legalize it.

 

[Marginal]

Rules that squelch freedom and target certain groups of people... Thats not American or constitutional. Whether its been done or not in the past is a moot point, it shouldn't be done.

 

[Ping898]

Also, I know of one fairly conservative talk show host in Cincinnati (Mike McConnell, I think) who is only opposed to it because it might lead to other things. Here's why: if you say that homosexuality is different, but deserves the same privileges as heterosexuality, then it would follow that bestiality, pedophilia, bisexuality, etc would be OK, thus setting a legal precedent for anyone being able to marry anything. Plus, if a person is sexually attracted to both males and females, then it would only be fair that that person be able to marry both, since s/he's bisexual instead of homo- or heterosexual. Not a bad argument; at least it's logical and not religious or emotional.

You know this is the arguement from many conservatives that I have seen that I hate. Why is it that if you make a union between two consenting ADULTS that suddenly every bizarre thing out there involving pets and kids would suddenly be allowed. There is no direct or even fuzzily indirect line between those topics cause it seems like the main point of two consenting adults is suddenly lost. Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions WILL NOT lead to a run on pedophilia and beastality making them all legal and such.....
Plus, right now if someone wants to marry 5 other people they can...in their church. But for the purposes of inheritence and adoption and all the other legal benefits of a union it involves just TWO people. When 3 women and 1 man can provide the genetic material to make 1 baby then we'll talk about poligamy....until then.....gay marriage isn't going to lead to a great run on the Mormon's overtaking city hall.

 

[Kane]

Personally I think the US should absolve marriage all together, at least in a civil sense. Marriage is a religious thing or at least my understanding is that in many cultures it started out as one and if you want to get married, you should, in your church. If you want the societial benefits that comes along with getting hitched at town hall, i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, the sutff that comes along with having kids....etc...., then I think any two adults, male to female, female to female or male to male should get a civil union.

I would assume many people for same-sex marriage is because they think it is a religious thing. Your not wrong in your opinion, but it makes you wonder what religion is really doing to morality and what everything used to be. Which is why religion might end up destroying what morality in the end, although it tried hard to instill it. When people read verses like "Thou shalt not do this" they assume it is has to do with being religious and dismiss it completly.

I'm not saying homosexuality is evil, as there are many people who were by nature gay. It doesn't mean we have to change the defination of marriage altogether. Marriage has been between a man and a woman, and just because homosexuality may not be bad it doesn't change the facts. I think many people including myself would view marriage as a sacred union between a man a woman. Not sacred just because God said it was, sacred because it has been a human tradition that dates backs even to homo erectus! It has been an important part of literature even since literature began we need to keep in mind that a union between a man and a woman is different between a union between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or any other type of union you can think of . To me marriage has little to do with kids, it has mainly to do with the union between man and woman.

However I do see why homosexuals do want some sort of union, and they can have it if they like. A union with full rights as a straight couple in my opinion would be a great aspect to add to humanity, and and the homosexual union will be more beautiful if it is a a league of its own in my honest opinion.

And just so all of you know, this is coming from a currently non-religious man. Anyways, if we were to come up with a union for homosexuality with full rights as the other type of union (equal but different), what do you think we should call it? Garriage? Homunion? ect? What do you think if we were to solve this issue with a middle of the road approach?

 

[Icewater]

Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.

The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over. A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay. I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it. I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.

 

[Xequat]

You know this is the arguement from many conservatives that I have seen that I hate. Why is it that if you make a union between two consenting ADULTS that suddenly every bizarre thing out there involving pets and kids would suddenly be allowed.... When 3 women and 1 man can provide the genetic material to make 1 baby then we'll talk about poligamy....until then.....gay marriage isn't going to lead to a great run on the Mormon's overtaking city hall.

Yeah, I don't completely agree with the argument, but I can see that side of it. The thing about your polygamy agrument is that there is not enough genetic material to create a baby in a homosexual marriage either, so that doesn't really apply, unless you believe that marriage only exists for procreation. But, if that's whast you believe, then you'd be against homosexual marriage, so I'm confused by your point. Were you on a bit of a rant maybe and I read into it too much?

I definitely see your point about the two consenting adults, though. Laws are pretty much made up of words, so I'm sure that there's some way to word it such that any two adults can marry and only two. Myabe call it a union between one adult and another adult. But that's not the wording that worries some people.

Personally, I wish the whole thing would go away. I think that until science can prove (and it never will) whether homosexuality comes from choices or genetics, it should not be singled out. If it's genetic, then it's the same as being black, white, tall, short, whatever, so it would be discriminatory to say that gays couldn't do something that straights can do. If it's proven to be a choice (impossible, since for some it's probably a choice and others it's genetic...just a personal opinion, could be wrong), then they become a special interest group and different rules apply.

 

[Kane]

Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.

The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over. A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay. I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it. I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.

About homosexuality and Nature vs Nurture, I think some people are born gay while others choose to be gay. I know from experiance with gays, as I have gays that are against homosexuality themselves for religious reasons! That may seem odd, because if that is the case why doesn't just be straight? Same thing applies in India. In India being gays is a crime and yet India has a very large unic, transgender, and homosexual population (although a tiny minority it still exists). Whether it is a birth defect, genetics or not I am certain some people are born homosexual. If this wasn't true there wouldn't be such things as self-hating homosexuals . Because if a homosexual dies bit like homosexuality, he would not be gay (like a friend of mine).

 

[OUMoose]

Talking as a conservative here, I could care less what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom. However, I have a real problem giving gays SPECIAL rights to marriage. Homosexuals are a well funded SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP just like the NRA, PETA, and any other group that CHOOSES to act in a particular way.

The goverment should grant equal rights based on race, color, etc... things that a person has no control over. A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay. I know the arguement that some people are genetically pre-disposed to be gay, but I don't buy it. I'm german-irish but that doesn't mean I deserve special rights because I am genetically pre-disposed to drink a lot.

I may be misunderstanding the situation, but I don't think anyone in the gay/lesbian community is asking for "special" rights above and beyond what is already granted to a heterosexual couple. They simply want to live and let live like everyone else. I really don't understand why the concept is so difficult for the majority to grasp.

 

[ed-swckf]

I cannot see one reason why same sex marriages should be illegal just for being same sex marriages.

 

[mrhnau]

I cannot see one reason why same sex marriages should be illegal just for being same sex marriages.

Already been discussed ad infinitum

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27126

 

[Icewater]

I may be misunderstanding the situation, but I don't think anyone in the gay/lesbian community is asking for "special" rights above and beyond what is already granted to a heterosexual couple. They simply want to live and let live like everyone else. I really don't understand why the concept is so difficult for the majority to grasp.

I think you are misunderstanding it then. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The most common legal definition being:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

If you create an amendment to that saying that gays can also marry, then you are giving them SPECIAL rights that are contradictory to the present law. It would be the same as saying that a person has the right to marry their dog.