Melissa Ethridge just wrote an article on this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/you-can-forget-my-taxes/

Basically says that, since the state of California now considers her a second-class citizen and will not give her equal rights under the law, she doesn't have to pay taxes anymore.

I have a few things to add here, but I think I'll hold back a little and think it all through. Good advice from Echo ... make sure that my thoughts are clear.

I'm a little surprised by this as well. I wonder, just how much of this could be attributed to the Hispanic (Catholic) vote?

I may be incorrect on this, but I had thought that California DOES provide equal rights under the law. A same-sex couple can legally register as domestic partners and receive all the delightful rights and responsibilities of a married couple. The difference here is that they don't get to be called 'married'. That's it.

Which of course is not to diminish that title of 'married'. They should have a right to that as it is a civil statement, not a religious one.

Hey isn't the Universal Life Church the same Church that Johnny is an ordained minister at?

I have a lot to say on this and will take the Tim road for a minute to collect my thoughts.

Yes, Johnny is a minister of that church, and the head of my graduate program is a Saint in it. Quality :)

I have just confirmed that yes, that is indeed the church Johnny is an ordained minister.

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/07/the_good_revere.html

Ross, that's funny that you would throw that card on the table, as if you were some big preacher and Bible scholar.

Dude you should get a ring for us to kiss.

Continue to perform marriages pfffft!

Oh, your holiness.

Your authority is above that of the kings of the earth.

You'd figure the average Priest is too busy 'alterboying' to get involved in politics. Good to see they can pull up their pants long enough to do something else, I guess.

I totally agree with you here, Echo.
This is a subject I am deeply passionate about, one of the few actually. I am VERY disappointed to be a Californian right now. Last semester, I was taking a philosophy class, which was the study of ethics and religion. My favorite class in college thus far, by far. Our final was a paper to be written in argument for or against a particular moral issue. I chose this particular issue, and I basically stated that it was immoral to ban same-sex marriage based on the fact that it was discrimination. I argued very well, in my opinion. I got 100%. It's discrimination, and therefore immoral. It's true that the most support for this proposition to be passed came from the church-going population. I assume we still have a general adherence to the separation of church and state....or am I wrong?

While I am infuriated at this, I think it's one of those things that needs a bigger movement.
The Civil Rights Act didn't get passed by people just supporting a cause. It got passed by thousands of people actively disrupting (non-violently) society. Protesting. Causing a stink. And struggling for a long time. They forced the public, through the media, to see its error. Then Washington took notice.
Not paying taxes is an interesting idea. There's got to be more like that. More than just parades and spokespeople.
The gay rights movement needs to caucus just like the GOP is doing. Figure out a new game plan and new way to attack the issue.
Find a champion to take up the cause in a different way then what's being done now.
Figure out a way to get public opinion on their side.

I'm all for gay marriage, rights and adoption. But it's not something, sadly, that will be given lightly.

PS - I think the bill Arkansas passed is worse than California. It bans gay adoption as well.

Arkansas definitely passed a much worse law, but I repeat that in California I'm fairly confident that same-sex unions have all the same legal rights as a married couple except for being called 'married'.

The hard part was getting them those rights; it is likely just a matter of time for them to get the title. This was a step back, but I find it unlikely that it will stand for that long.

While I am sad gay marriage was banned, it does give me some pause that this happened in California. If we can't keep gay marriage legal in California -- where many people have friends who are gay -- then ...

I think part of the problem is that it was imposed by the courts instead of the slow democratic process of changing minds, one straight person at a time. The good news is many gay rights organizations understand this and are committed to a more legislative, not judicial, approach.

Gay marriage will eventually be legal everywhere (except maybe Saudi Arabia and Texas). Even Iran is due for its gay revolution (anyone else notice how Iranian men sound a little gay when they speak English?).

I enjoy how you turned the conversation to the lighter side gnatstar....very cool!

Craig Ferguson was talking about this last night and he said something to the effect of "Protesters gathered in San Fransisco at the City Hall Building and caused $3 million dollars of improvements to the area"

~T

p.s. Separation of Church and H8TE!

tB - what you are saying is absolutely not incorrect. However your decision of 'right' should only apply to whether or not you believe they should be able to marry in church. In the eyes of the government, how do you reconcile your opinion as something isn't foisting your beliefs on someone else?

I am reasonably astounded that this proposition passed. I had an impression of California as a liberal state and was quite pleased they allowed gay marriage by a court ruling. (As an aside: It WAS the duty of the court to interpret the law, they did so without legislating when they upheld gay marriage).

Here's the way I look at it:

Marriage is just a word. As with any word, it means different things to different people.

1) Marriage has a legal definition that has a lot of sway in tax and other legal rights.
2) Marriage has a personal, spiritual, and religious meaning.

The law is supposed to be separate from religion. Trust me, or check your constitution on this.

Calling something one thing for one group of people and another for another group is a lot like segregation. The Supreme court told us that segregation was bad. This did admittedly overturn a previous interpretation that said it was okay.

So, We should either say, legally speaking, allow marriage to any conscious, and sentient person to any other conscious and sentient person. If you are of the age of consent, and are mentally able to enter marriage, you can enter it, like any other legal contract with anyone else. Let churches define marriage their way; if they don't want a gay couple in their church, as a private organization, that's their right.

Alternatively, change the meaning of marriage for ALL couples, gay and straight. Legally we'll call it a civil union. Religiously, it can be called whatever the fuck your church wants to call it.

Holy Crap, this place has morphed from a hard right political party to a down right sausage party.

I have so much to say and hopefully tomorrow.

I am saddened and embarrassed by the passing of this proposition. For the record, I voted "No" on the measure and, with only one exception, everyone I know also voted "No". I have several thoughts on the reasons that this atrocity passed:

California is not the "liberal" mecca that many people seem to think it is. Certainly there are places in CA that are extremely progressive and forward thinking, but by and large there are more "conservative" areas than there are "liberal" areas. The one saving grace about this is that the "liberal" pockets tend to be the most densely populated. I grew up and currently live in Berkeley. Though it is less "liberal" now than it has been in the past, it still leans pretty far to the left. But I can get in my car and drive 45 minutes and find myself in "Bush Country", where houses have the US Flag painted on the roof, where people still proudly display their home-made Bush/Cheney plywood signs that they erected in 2000...

I was raised Catholic, was an alter boy, attended 8 years of parochial school, etc. That said, I haven't attended a mass in over 2 decades and I don't consider myself a religious person. But coming from that background I can understand the fundies' feelings of being threatened by "teh gay". (Or by anything else they don't understand.) Christians are generally an intolerant people, especially the fundies. This election brought a lot of people to the polls that don't usually vote. A lot of them are Black or Latino. I apologize for the generalization I'm about to make, and I know that there are many exceptions, but homosexuals are not very popular with those 2 groups. Flame me if you want for making such a statement, but I am not the only one that considers that a factor.

There was a lot of money poured into both sides of this issue, but the "Yes" people had more in the home stretch. They bought a lot of TV time. People tend to watch a lot of TV, especially at the end of the election cycle. People are often easily convinced that they should do what the glowing screen in their living rooms/kitchens/bedrooms tell them to do. The people that voted for this proposition honestly felt that they were defending "straight" marriage (from what, they couldn't say), not taking away rights.

The people fighting against the passage of this proposition should have underscored that point -- gays in CA had, until Tuesday, the right to be married. A vote in favor of this proposition was a vote to take away that right. This is the message that needed to be repeated, pounded into people's heads repeatedly. It wasn't. The people on street corners handing out "No On 8" leaflets and stickers needed to be standing on a corner in Fresno, in Bakersfield, in Angelscamp, but not outside the Montgomery BART station in San Francisco. Not on Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley. Talk about preaching to the choir...

The last point that I want to make is that people who voted in favor of Prop. 8 believe that a homosexual "civil union" has all the rights that a heterosexual "marriage" has. They think that gays were just fighting to use the word "marriage". The reality is that "civil unions" DO NOT have the same rights as "marriages" -- hospital visitation rights, child custody decisions, inheritance matters (just to name a few off the top of my head) all operate differently. This fact should have been pointed out and made an issue by the folks fighting this proposition. It was not, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned once.

Chances are good that Prop. 8 will suffer the same fate that Prop. 22 suffered several years ago, but the damage has been done.

How do the ardent supporters of Obama who are equally passionate about the right of gay people to marry, feel about Obama not supporting gay marriage? Or am I misunderstanding his position? Echowood? baierman?

tB - Your words echo what I was trying to say with my comment about the religious vote. (Although I wasn't very PC in calling it the Hispanic (Catholic) vote.) Still, in a state with such a significant percentage of Hispanic voters, most raised to be strict Catholics, you have to wonder just how big a hurdle this vote really was. Thinking about it now, I'm a bit surprised everyone is so shocked it passed.

I understand how people can be all up in arms about this, but it is unreasonable to expect people that have been raised with certain religious beliefs that specifically forbid this type of union to vote in favor of it.

Social movements might help to sway government, which is elected by the people, but has it ever swayed the opinion of the Catholic church? You can 'educate' and create as many social movements as you want, the church is your problem ... not the people. Until the church changes stance on this, there will be a significant number of people that will vote along with their church's stance, no matter what they personally believe.

And it is their right to do so.

Scar: Unfortunately, to me it echoes that there still isn't popular support for Gay Marriage.

That said, Obama does support for making a civil union have all the same rights as marriage, which Bile pointed out, it does not currently have. He's trying to please both sides on this, sort of like how he tried to appease both sides of the abortion debate by basically not getting involved (which again, is disappointing).

One more classic example of why church should stay out of peoples lives. If you want to be a part of the church, fine that's your perogative. But don't try to make your church part of anyone's life.

I believe in my heart of hearts that your place in the afterlife is determined by your deeds, not how strictly you follow a book. I apologize for the toes i am about to step on here, but christians, especially the fundamentalist ones, are some of the most hypocritical people I have ever seen. And Catholics are the worst of the bunch. According to the Christian belief system, Mahatma Ghandi, and several million perfectly nice Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, and Jewish people are currently sitting in hell next to Hitler and Mussolini because they didn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

And the Catholic Church? remember some of their "Greatest hits" include The Crusades and The Inquisition. They beleive in the whole world seein things their way, by any means necessary.

Same thing with prop 8. Tim makes a good point. Until the church openly accepts homosexuality (Instead of tolerating and covering it up in the clergy) It won't be accepted. People turn to religion to AVOID thinking for themselves. Some people are just more comfortable letting someone else make all their moral decisions for them. It's sad, but it's been that way forever.

Maybe California is just making up for lost time. They were too stoned out of their gourds in the '60s to properly discriminate against anyone. (Kidding!)

As usual, I'm one of the last ones commenting...but after reading all of the others, I still had to comment (I know, go figure).

Here's how I see it...not every gay couple wants to get married. However, the ones who do are usually people who have been together forever. I know many gay couples whose relationships (however official in the eyes of the law) have lasted longer than many straight marriages. Therefore, when they are allowed to marry, civil union, whatever, they take it seriously.

Would I rather have my (not yet born) children raised knowing that marriage means commitment for life (like Bob and Steve hypothetically down the road), or divorce and trading in every 6 years (like Betty Sue and whoever the current husband is this week)?
If gay marriage is not legal, then there should also be a ban on trading in your spouse more often than you trade in your car.

I'm a very straight female, but I respect commitment in any form...it's rare these days. And that's the true moral lesson I see there.

The flip side (aka money reasons)? The economy sucks...allowing gay marriage means more weddings, which means more employed people...and if they don't work out, then more business for the divorce lawyers.

Tim, I was raised Catholic...am lapsed now, but even the most faithful ones don't believe in all of the ideas that are handed down (birth control, for one example).

I respect people's right to their religion--but religion is supposed to be about tolerance. No gay couple is asking you to go into their bedroom and tape their escapades--they just want to be recognized as being committed to their significant other.

religion needs to mind its own business. my hometown parish is in debt 4 million dollars because it decided to let desperate perverts touch and sexually abuse young parishioners. now they have to close down the schools i went to as a child, putting some of the best teachers i have ever had out without a job. they should have plenty on their plate, too much to go around annoyng gays and lesbians. i wouldnt mind if the catholic church was taken down a few notches in this country, its too in control of americans decisions. i think americans fee like if they abandon their church, they are abandoning their god. ever heard of my god and i need no middle man? people need to live with their own faith. all the church has done for me was make me so socially awkward its funny...

Does anyone want to take a stab at explaining why gay marriage is a "right" under the constitution, but polygamous marriage is not? I understand our cultural aversion to polygamy, but if three people decide in good faith to take their menage-a-trois to the next level... hmm, now that I think of it, that would be one more person to deduct on your tax return and an interesting wedding to boot! Will and Jada Smith could lead the movement.

More seriously, I support gay marriage, but I see it more as a "decision" we have to make as a society, rather than a "right" that is inherently self-evident (sorry for the double positive).

Actually there are many new kinds of relationships developing today: "open" relationships, single parents, brangelina, virtual girlfriends etc. Many of our laws were written when marriage between a man and woman was the only recognized family unit. Government (that means us now, hurray!) needs to look at all these laws to make sure modern family units (especially single parents) are not getting an unfair deal.

i say theres nothing wrong as long as its not as abusive, the only thing is that it'd raise the question as to which of the two people you are married to do you love more?

polygamous marriage is not about menage a trois action....it's about a man lining up enough women so he never has to deal with period sex (that's why they keep them in separate domiciles so they don't get their cycles in sync...).

show me a religion/society that believes in polygamy but doesn't subvert their women and we'll talk....but I haven't seen one yet that didn't believe women exist to serve their men...

(women can serve their men as long as their men serve them when they're done)

marriage is between two people. I'm trying to teach my imaginary kids some morals here folks!!!

btw, brangelina's kids are pressuring them to get married...

SO, I think you just converted me into a Mormon.

Scara, we all know who rules that roost...so good luck with that!!!
(we saw the live blog election coverage...)

and I was thinking more of the cult or tribal polygamy variety---the Mormons I've known stick to one wife (we actually have a rather large Mormon temple here in NC, just not in my town)

plus, a real man is not afraid of period sex...

Sarcky - "show me a religion/society that believes in polygamy but doesn't subvert their women and we'll talk"

I'll get right on that.

By the way, can I have your address? I've got an 'invitation' to send you.

Oh, and bring the hierloom.

Geez skybendit, take a chill pill dude.

Honestly, I had a hard time making it through your submission because each sentence grew more and more of a personal attack on tB. He has religious beliefs that are important to him. Good for him.

Just think of it. tB has been going along living his life just fine. No involvement in major anti-homosexual movements. He has friends that are homosexual. I bet his friends respect the hell outta him. He probably respects them equally as well.

Then, the State of California decides that homosexual rights is an issue that needs to be put in front of people of the state to decide. tB is forced to take a stand on an issue he is perfectly happy living with as is. He didn't demand to have this issue thrust into his face to decide upon. But he was asked to decide. So, he did, basing his decision on his religious beliefs. As is his right to do.

I may not agree with everything he wrote, but I thought tB's contribution was respectful and well thought out. In turn, you respond with a self-righteous tirade littered with personal attacks on tB and insulting sarcastic retorts.

That's hardly clean and respectful.

As most of you are painfully aware, I have a great fondness for the rights we enjoy as Americans. I defend these rights without fail, and beat this subject to death on a regular basis. I believe that the freedoms we have are a direct result of the many struggles our predecessors endured and, more importantly, the ultimate price paid by those soldiers sent to defend our American way of life over the years. I am not a soldier, but I try to do my part by using my words to defend one’s right to the freedom America offers. In my opinion, if your right to do or express something does not endanger the life or compromise the rights of another, I will stand beside you and help defend your ownership of said right.

Over the years, this has caused me to confront many emotional issues with trepidation. How do I handle the abortion issue? Are guns really necessary? Why are there sports teams in Seattle? What about gay rights?

Invariably, this is all resolved by sticking to my belief that, as Americans, we all have been given the right to make our own choices regarding these issues. I can live with people having the right to own firearms for hunting and property defense, although I don’t believe anyone needs an AK-47. I can live with women having the abortion rights, but I pray it only be used as the last resort. I can live with the homosexual population having the same rights as everyone else, but don’t think that having that right allows you to force me to accept it as the new social norm. What can I say? I’m a complex dude.

So why do I respond to this post at all? Well, I love your posts, Echo. You’re an intelligent man, and I respect your opinion. Hell, I respect the whole bunch of you liberal lugs (and lugettes). You do a great job of giving me an intelligent discussion and challenge my opinions without pointing out what an asshole I am, incessantly insulting me and otherwise threatening my very existence for no apparent reason. Why the hell else would a middle-aged, conservative-leaning, handsome white guy choose to hang out here on a regular basis? I learn stuff …

But, I’m having trouble with two items in your post. Not disagreement with what you said, just trouble reconciling the whole thing. If you’ll indulge me …

First off, thanks for the link to Noah Brier’s Blog. I haven’t read through everything, but I like the thoroughness of those things I’ve read so far. It looks like another good source for the kind of ‘education’ I get here. That said, I think the theory put forth as a definition of discrimination is flawed.
Specifically, I’m having a problem accepting that there really is a ‘group’ within society that is truly unaffected by this, or any piece of legislation. What group is really outside of this legislation? If it doesn’t pass, are there not people that are affected? Everyone is affected, one way or the other. I can’t accept that there is a specific group that is affected by any piece of legislation, because I know damn well that there isn’t a consistent interpretation of the proposed legislation amongst those gaining, or losing their rights by its passage. In the case of Cal Prop 8, can you honestly say that every homosexual person gaining (well, maintaining since it was already a right) the right to legal marriage would interpret what freedom(s) that affords them the same? It certainly isn’t interpreted the same by heterosexual couples. Some think they have the right to practically have sex in public, whether children are there or not. Others are more sensible, and are more respectful in social gatherings. I suspect the diversity amongst same-sex couples is much the same.

My premise here is that we all live together and simply have to be tolerant of one another. That’s it … why all the laws? Keep in mind that I am not defending why this was even brought to a vote, which I think was bullshit from the beginning. (Supreme Court decides one way, then the people get to vote on it? What the hell is that all about? I can’t think of anything that would strengthen an opposition more than the opportunity to reorganize and override a Supreme Court decision that went against them. Do I understand this right? WTF?)

I know that my simpleton view comes across as naïve, but I think it really can be that simple. Tolerance. No laws that tell us what to do. Just the realization that we all live together, and our lives affect one another. If two guys are making out in front of my daughter, she’s going to ask questions. I don’t mind explaining the ways of the world to my children, just don’t force me to do it by pushing issues into our lives. Tolerance. Respect my life and I’ll respect yours.

Our society is just too interdependent to accept that one group’s rights can be isolated, defined and approved or disapproved while only truly affecting that group … no matter how you define ‘group’. I know that what I am proposing is sheer lunacy to those that feel discriminated against, for any reason. I just don’t believe that the answer lies in creating groups, defining who they are, giving them specific rights and creating laws to protect them. We’re way beyond that.

And no, I’m not proposing some sort of Orwellian utopia that exists only in my mind. I don’t have the answer, I just spit out the bullshit.

OK, the second item. I touched upon this in my earlier post. You briefly mentioned the two beliefs in the origin of homosexuality; the belief that it is either a choice, or you’re ‘born with it’. But then, you seem to dismiss the distinction between these two items as a right to ‘believe what you want’ to believe. (Which is a right that I, of course, will defend.) I think that this fundamental distinction is the key to whole issue.

Let’s talk about choice briefly; adopting the premise that homosexuality is not a human trait but a product of our environment and personal preferences. In this world, a person’s right to choose homosexuality comes with certain rights and certain sacrifices, just like any choice made in life. For every choice we make, there are ramifications we must accept. If one chooses to adopt a homosexual lifestyle in an environment that he/she knows to be hostile to such a lifestyle, that person should expect certain challenges, whether right or wrong. This is no different than an inter-racial couple making a choice to move forward in a relationship that they know isn’t going to be well-accepted within the family, or the neighborhood, or work, or however the environment is defined.

Currently, that is the world we live in. This is exactly how same-sex couples are treated.

But, the issue is very different (at least it is to me) if we accept the premise that homosexuality is a human trait. By this definition, wouldn’t any religion, government, or intellectual group of any kind have to recognize that homosexuality is simply another personality trait and accept it accordingly? Isn’t tolerance the only acceptable response in such instance? Are we not tolerant of left-handed people? What about the IQ-challenged? (Hell, we can’t get enough of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.) I haven’t discriminated against a redhead in years.

What I’m trying to say is … if we accept that sex, race, homosexuality, or whatever are human traits, we have to accept that no individual choice has been made. These traits are just cards that are dealt. If no choice has been made, others do not have the right to discriminate against a person because of that trait because no option was available to ‘opt out’ of certain traits so as to avoid the social ramifications. In a nutshell, if I have been assigned traits resulting in me being a three-foot, homosexual man with one arm, you can’t fight for my right to try out for the Yankees on Monday, then tell me on Tuesday that you resent my homosexual practices and their affect on you. You have to accept the whole person. At least that’s the way I see it under this premise.

Maybe we should all focus our efforts on defining once and for all whether homosexuality is a choice or a trait. Better yet, let’s get the Vatican to take a stand on the issue. Last I checked, they were kinda wishy-washy on the causes, but most definitive on the effects. That might free some people to make up their own mind instead of following a religious edict.

Having said all that, it is clear in my mind that there are now people in California who had certain freedoms last week that they no longer enjoy. That’s not right. Why it needs to be legislation one way or the other is beyond me.

gnatster: on homosexuality vs. polygamy under the constitution.

Frankly, neither has much to do with the constitution, but lets review my arguments:

There is some pretty solid science that indicates that homosexuality is biologically deturmined (if not strictly genetic, for the sake of brevity, I won't go into that). That said, the constitution does not allow for discrimination based on race or gender. Other laws guarantee certain rights based on race, creed, disability, or religion, but not explicitly sexuality. As a result of biology, sexuality should be added to this list, but it has not yet been!

Polygamy is not at least currently thought to have anything to do with someone's biological sexuality, though plenty feel it ought to be protected under religious rights.

On another track: There is no (or little) legal precedent in the U.S. and English common law to allow for marriage between more than 2 people. Of course, until recently there was no precedent for same sex marriage either. Just imagine the tax laws for having multiple wives, and the potential tax dodges.

Personally, I wouldn't want more than 1 wife, one is plenty! Seriously though, I'm pretty open minded about letting other people do what they want, and so long as its not through coercion or statutory rape, I've got no beef with polygamy.

Just a couple of quick thoughts:

1. It's a shame that this subject is frequently framed as 'pro-gay' vs. 'anti-gay'... it's more about being 'anti-discrimination' than it is about being 'pro-gay'. Referring to a civil rights activist as 'pro-black' clearly shortchanges the argument.

2. Isn't it interesting that the religious right believes sexual preference is a choice, but that being a Muslim or a Jew is apparently genetic?

Hopefully the legal challenges to this 'Proposition' will be supported in the Supreme Court... equal protection seems straightforward to me.

A large part of the push for Prop 8 was funded by the Mormon church, which, given their history, should stay out of marriage legislation.

The problem here is that marriage is both a religious and legal construct, due to thousands of years of tradition. Like Jewishness being genetic. It's a problem of language. People have always bonded with a mate, whether official in the church or official with the state or not.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people would vote for a specific law to hurt other people they don't even know, when it makes no difference in their own lives.

Couple interesting side notes (apologies if I'm not the first person to bring this up.)

1 - While California banned gay marriage, they approved legislation to give chickens bigger cages to roam around in.

2 - It seems based on early data, that a large number of minority voters - the ones coming out for Barack, also voted to pass Prop 8. Guess they approved on one kind of change but not 2.

Actually, Baier, since gay marriage was in place, they voted for nothing but change...

I'm telling you--for some people you have to put it into economic terms...

Alex, thanks for catching that....and may I invite you to register (it's free!) and pick an icon? It saves the trouble of having to wait for approval on your comments (just keep in mind it doesn't allow for total free for all).

Sincerely,
the membership manager

I would like to take the other side for a moment.
Imagine with me for a minute.
What if I were a Muslim man. An extremely good looking Muslim man at that. I am not a hateful man nor do I hate homosexuals. I am just a good looking, straight, deeply religious Muslim man.
I have two children Ahkmad and Abdullah, of whom I teach to love and fear Allah.
While reading in the Holy Quran Chapter 7 verses 80-84 I come across the story of a man name Lot who speaks with Allah and Allah tells him that he is very angry with the city, (Sodom and Gomorrah) that he lives in because the people are practicing homosexuality. In fact Allah is so angry that he tells Lot to take his family and leave because he is going to destroy this city (because of homosexuality). Lot leaves the city and it is destroyed. Not only is the city destroyed,but his wife is destroyed just for looking back on the city. That's how mad Allah is with homosexuality.
I put my Holy Quran down and ponder what I have read.
Its election day and I have to vote for or against proposition 8. Though I have no hate towards homosexuals, I realise that if gay marriage is legalised, the public school sysem and society in general will teach gay marriage as a norm and not a sin.
I know that I can raise Akmed and Abdullah to believe that homosexuality is a transgression but I fear that by making (what I believe is a sin and displeasing to God "normal")and teaching that in the school systems, that will open the door to more homosexuality.
Remember, as a Muslim, I fully believe that Allah is displeased with homosexuality. I also truly fear that as homosexuality and it's popularity grows that Allah will get angry.
I don't want Allah to get angry, I fear that Allah can exact punishments on my great country just as he did with Sodom and Gomorrah.
I fear for the safety of my Children and my family and friends. I fear that by accepting homosexualty as a norm and not a sin I will anger Allah.
Allah destroyed Lot's wife just for looking back on the city.
Will Allah's anger also be shown on my children even if they don't practice homosexuality?
I must do everything that I feel I can do to protect my children and family from the wrath of Allah.
If that means fighting the normalization of what I consider heinous sin I will do it.
So I go to the voting booth and vote for proposition 8. Not because I hate homosexuals, not because I am a bigot, not because my friends tell me to, I vote for proposition 8 because I believe that by voting against gay marriage I will at least be fighting against something that I truly believe is offensive to Allah. By doing what is pleasing to Allah, perhaps he will protect my family and my community.
I don't want homosexuality imposed on my children as normal because I believe it is a sin. With gay marriage legalized it would be imposed as normal.

Do I as a Muslim hate Homosexuals? Absolutely not, I just believe that the lifestyle is displeasing to Allah.
Do I do things that I believe are displeasing to Allah? Absolutely, everyone does.
Do I want those things that I do that are displeasing to Allah taught as "Normal" and socially accepted? Absolutely not.

Do I have the right in this great country to vote on what I feel is pleasing to Allah to just to protect my children from the great wrath of the Almighty?
Damn Rights.

Amen, brother.

It's amazing to me that some people look to place the blame for this debacle with the voters in California, rather than looking at the big picture. The voters are to blame because they voted their conscience? Unbelievable.

The whole idea of this getting to the voting booth is ridiculous. I understand why the Mormons proposed it, that's what they do ... I just can't understand how the balloting process is setup so that this type of thing can be approved for vote. To me, that's where the offense occurred.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to start lobbying to get a measure on the next California ballot requiring all waitresses to be topless when men order bacon, and all waiters to be bottomless when women order sausage.

I'm pretty sure it will get a lot of support.

Damnit Dave, I hate it, but right on brother. Never thought I'd agree with you!

One of the inherent problems we have in this country is the majority pushing around the minority. In some sense, its the foundation of democracy that such things happen. If instead, a certain minority were in charge, we'd likely have some autocratic or fascist system. Yet in another sense, minorities have to be protected. This is what the bill of rights, and a number of additional amendments (13-15, 19, and 26) ensured.

We need another amendment, and I'm not sure how or when such a thing will happen.

I liked Michael Kinsley's suggestion - don't sanction any marriages by the state. It's a private thing. Everyone's equal this way, the government doesn't have to get involved, and stuff like Prop 8 is off the ballot so people can focus on more important issues.

Perfect solution imho. Marriage is an archaic institution anyhoo.

Blacks oppose gay marriage because they are sick of homosexuals (who are, on average, richer, freer, and of higher social standing than the average American) claiming "discrimination" when what they are asking for is "a special definition."

I mean, be honest. Gay weddings don't serve the same purpose, intent or outcomes as traditional marriage. Personal unions are already allowed in California. Equating them is a glorified, over-intellectualized exercise in goofdom.

Gays don't marry. They partner. (You know this is true. It is self-evident. Not bad or wrong, just totally obvious.) It is just stupid and self-centered to take a religious idea (marriage) and then co-opt it, change its definition, force it on everyone else and then cry "discrimination" when the majority says "uh, back off, please."

I mean, seriously. Gay marriage is, by definition and practice, a political stunt, and therefore not an attempt to seriously adopt the tradition of marriage, but an attempt to re-define it.

Those (both gay and straight) who understand what real marriage is get this implicitly. A marriage is not a political institution, certainly not solely. Gay marriage is a political effort alone, and therefore, not a legitimate area of discrimination.

Be happy with the unions - they serve the purpose of marriage without the inherent religious baggage that is virtually self-condemning.

There is a myth among progressives that Everything is Progress. If the civil rights movement can't be repeated ad infinitum, it isn't progress. But that's just silly.

Blacks not having access to reasonable public schools, normal public transportation, drinking fountains, etc. IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to the so-called discrimination of gays not getting to pretend they are straight in the eyes of the community.

You all know in your hearts this is true. Or else you've got no idea what marriage really means. (Hint: it isn't an empty, relative term, meaning whatever you want it to mean.)

Swayze, what about the Gay Black Republican community?

Yes, I'm looking at you Omar.

KBK-Come to the dark side my son, come to the dark side.....

DSB - You've got balls, my friend. If what's about to come your way materializes, I hope you're wearing a wetsuit and backing away from your monitor!

I have to process what you've said. I'm not sure I agree with all of it ... but it's got a lot of meat. Good for lunchtime digestion.

DSB: what is this? Star wars? Search my feelings I know it to be true?

I don't know such in my heart at all. In my heart I know that marriage is about commitment and love and its completely subjective to the individuals involved in it.

Dave: I thought liberal-socialism was the dark side? Did I miss a memo?

I don't see what anyone loses by having gay people marry. It doesn't cost anything no? OTOH, I don't know what gays gain by being married. Like I said it's an anachronism.

It seems a lot of this is about semantics more than anything.

I'm straight, but if gay, what I would be concerned about is that if I had a child and "partnered" with someone in a civil union, then if I died would my partner become the legal guardian/parent of my child by default like in a marriage? Would estates and assets and the like all be treated the same as in a marriage?

If yes, then anything beyond issues like these is just arguing semantics.

Afterall, I'd just get the civil union and whether I had a ceremony or not I'd still say I was married. Even with the marriage of a straight couple its only the marriage certificate that makes you "married." Any ceremony of any kind of any religion is only for emotional or personal reasons, but isn't relevant.

Yes, it is still discrimination that a gay marriage can't legally be called a marriage, but the focus should - at the very least - be that gay couples can receive all the same rights and benefits as straight couples. Anything after that can really be called whatever you want it to be called.

KBK-On this liberal site, I am the dark side.

Can a man marry a woman (say in New York) and then enter a civil union in California without getting a divorce? (And other loopholes tax accountants are searching for as we speak).

Actually this makes me think of something: I can't walk up to any girl and say "Let's get married so we can get tax and health insurance benefits." But to one of my frat brothers? We would laugh about it at first... then go online to find out exactly what "marriage" entails. Then we would set up a tax consulting business. Aha, the next Van Wilder movie...

gnats, I think Adam Sandler already did that one.
Kind of an interesting point, it doesn't seem obvoius to me that insurance at least is distributed this way.

Marriage is NOT subjective, no matter how badly you want it to be. Two people can live together, sleep together, and define their relationship however they want, under any terms they want. But it only becomes recognized as marriage after passing certain criteria, at which point certain, self-evident expectations are put upon it.

Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in the Roman Empire. But you'd have been laughed out of the country for trying to "redefine" marriage. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against because they can't marry. They can't marry because, by definition, they are the same gender! This is very simple mathematics, folks. I'd stop assuming that all the people who voted in favor of traditional marriage in California are stupid zealots.

Now, if we had segregated gay drinking fountains, bathrooms, sections on the bus, and special voting restrictions for gays, I'd I agree, that's discrimination.

But gay people don't have a "right" to have a special class of marriage applied to them. THAT'S discrimination.

"Gay marriage" discriminates against gays (placing upon them the expectation of a definitionally straight term) and against the straight who already have a defined term for a lifelong, committed heterosexual relationship. You don't need "gay marriage" for insurance or other financial purposes. You don't need the state to recognize a commitment ceremony. The only reason to "redefine" a perfectly functional, specific state term is out of political zeal, not reason.

"Gay marriage" is a glorified way to jam homosexuals back into the closet, and half (but only half) the gays I know (and all of the gay-friendlies) are falling for it hard. It is a palatable way for "cool" straights to place prejudicial traditions on homosexuals. Because it makes people feel all tolerant and open (and smarter than their vilified opponents) if they support them.

But it doesn't make it right. For anyone.

Swayze, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but like serotonin said, this seems like semanitic jibber jabber.

"But it only becomes recognized as marriage after passing certain criteria, at which point certain, self-evident expectations are put upon it."

What the state recognizes as marriage is up to the voters, no?

I guess it's settled.

Can I say that we all agree now that it is fricken insulting that anyone would ever dare compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement.

I just have a hard time thinking that Rosie O'donnell will be looked upon as the next Rosa Parks.

Or Carson from Queer Eye for the straight guy as MLK Jr.

Come on! Just because the majority of Californians don't want you telling their kids in school that it normal to get your salad tossed isn't bigotry, its really just the majority of Californians not wanting to have their kids come home asking about getting their salad tossed.

I love Ultimate Fighting, its part of my lifestyle, its part of my life.
I think Ultimate Fighting should be a High School Sport.
I think that it should be Considered Wrestling.
If put to a vote it would probably be denied.
A lot of people think its wrong.
I don't.
John McCain called it "Human Cock Fighting".
I don't think it is.
I am drawn to it.
My inner self loves it.
It is natural to me.
It makes me feel good.

Most of the world doesn't think it should ever be part of High School Sports.

Are my civil rights violated because they wont let me have Ultimate fighting in High School?

Hell No.

DLUX (cool name btw), you make some good points. You don't want to infringe the rights of others when sticking up for one group. That said, these are kind of side effects of this argument. Marriage per se doesn't require Catholic charities to do anything. Well, not imo anyhoo.

Dave, you make in interesting comparison. How would the Rosa Parks of the UFC behave anyway? Give McCain a big ole roundhouse kick? I'm envisioning Eyes on the Prize meets Under Siege II. Fuken A I'd go see that.

Dave, I was thinking about this earlier, and I think part of the reason this movement hasn't gotten a lot of traction is basically what you just said.

Yes, homosexuals are discriminated against, persecuted, and even some are violently attacked and targeted for crimes, but not to the systematic extent that happened to blacks during the civil rights movement, so there really isn't the outcry that happened in the 60s.

DSB: I still vigorously disagree with your perception of marriage. I think the that marriage is a subjective definition for everyone. Live and let live brother.

hi..

i just want to say that as a resident of California (North Hollywood) and a member of the GLBT community (full disclosure - female, technically bisexual will a major slant towards women) i have yet to be able to put my feelings on this into words.. but it means so much to me to read your posts. just that fact that people are discussing this issue at such great length and with such passion gives me hope that this nation is truly ready to stand up for true equality.

again, my words seem less than adequate to me at this time, but i'll repeat the ones that ring louder than anything else in my mind: THANK YOU.

~Teresa

I would say that the Rosa Parks of the UFC would be Royce Gracie and the Martin Luther King would be Dana White.

However, Though Dana White has done a lot for the sport and Royce Gracie Pioneered it in, I would be a complete dumbass for even making the comparison.

No Dave, we cannot all agree not to compare the civil rights movement to gay rights, so I guess you’re going to have to be insulted. Civil rights are the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks. I think they should also be extended to gays. Blacks are people; gays are people. They should enjoy the same rights. I am neither black nor gay, but I suffer too, albeit to a lesser, more abstract degree by this discrimination. I can’t in good conscience go blithely about my business ignoring the oppression of others just because I can get married (or ride in the front of the bus etc.).

If you have a hard time looking at Rosie O’Donnell as an icon for gay rights, then how about Matthew Shephard or Daniel Fetty?

Your theory on tossed salad lessons in school has been thoroughly debunked. Also, the better we get at that whole science thing, the more we discover how sexuality is likely at least partially affected by biology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR2008062201994_pf.html

Do you honestly think that people wake up one morning and say, “I think I’ll be gay?” They’d have to all been masochists.

It shouldn’t be a matter put to vote. Majorities can be just as backwards and prejudiced as an individual. Civil rights would not have survived a majority vote.

Tossed salad lessons in school? Shit, I feel old. In my day we just had peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches. Kids these days!

What it all boils down to is just another issue for Group A (in this case homosexuals) to get all pissed off at Group B (Apparently everyone else). Tempers flare, news ratings go up, ads are sold, money is made, and an argument over whether or not gays get to use a certain word to define their civil unions ends up making a lot of rich people richer. The more i read about the rights california gives to couples in a civil union, the more i realize that this whole issue is over the use of a word.

Seriously people,

You are fighting over a fucking WORD.

are you kidding me?

And E, what about the Gay Black Republican community?

BOTH of those guys must be Pissed right about now.

Okay, just throwing an idea out here, bear with me a minute...

Since the objections to gay marriage seem to be mostly religious in nature (and mostly Christian religion at that), maybe we should take a look at what the Bible actually says about it, in Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Assuming "mankind" here just means "another dude," and not "every dude on earth" (which, yeah, would be kinda slutty and gross, no matter what your orientation), it seems the hangup here is with the word "lie."

So, what if all gay men (lesbians are already off the hook, apparently) make a pact that they'll only engage in gay sex while standing up? So, it'd be:

Gentle spooning between two dudes: SIN
Guy-on-guy suck-n-fuck-fest in the shower: NOT A SIN

There, problem solved!

(Oh, and since Leviticus also says, "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you," we should probably go ahead and ban ham from all public schools as well.)

Senor Paulo: Unfortunately, its not just about a word, but about a number of rights associated with that word. There are state by state differences in what civil unions get you.

To me its an example of separate, but not equal. Old school segregation.

That's my last thoughts on the subject, I don't think I've got anything that hasn't been said already on this page.

Jeem, well said. That's close reading.

It's been an interesting dialogue all.

I'd just say to the folks who feel excluded, if you consider yourself married then I do as well. As far as the legal stuff goes, the future is an open book. I would point out that alot of people were on your side. The Govenor for one I believe.

Cheers.

Wait, Jeem....that means no bacon...I cannot condone that...

hmmm....
but side note...to all of those Loyal 77ers who like to Oprah bash, I want to point out that the November issue of O has a recipe for bacon-nut stuffing:

http://tinyurl.com/6pg9oj

Didn't want to open up a whole forum entry to share this...just taking advantage of one of the most popular posts (shoot me...I know, there are rules about this)--but it looks really good (and I know most of you men would not have picked up a copy of O unless you had a gun to your head or the dentist threatened to withhold novocaine during a root canal)...

Myrtle,

Half of us thank you for reading 'half the comments'.

On the other hand, you can now spend more time reading between the lines.

As a straight man, with some homophobic tendencies, living in Oklahoma, I cannot for the life of me understand how this prop 8 could not pass. I hold a very strong opinion of what separation of church and state means, and lately it has become all too apparent that our once great nation is anything but just that. Religious fundamentalists have for too long governed the masses with their beliefs on how we should conduct ourselves, and defined way too many things for us with their jaded views. if Allah thinks gay marriage is an abomination, so what! prop 8 is and will be a turning point for all of us. only I see us turning around and heading back where we came from. if you want to prevent same-sex couples form adopting, i can understand that for now, but when the question of " are you born gay, or is it a choice you make?" is answered we can address that then. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that if a gay couple wants to be called "married" I could care less either way. but to deny in-alienable rights afforded other opposite sex couples who have made the same commitment to one another is by and large discrimination, and there is no other word for it. the U.S. supreme court will hopefully sort this out.

Here here, Joe Joe!

Thanks for getting right to the point on some of the hypocrisy involved. Well said.