Author Topic: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once. (Read 28450 times)

Fred Garvin · « **Reply #75 on:** November 07, 2008, 10:32:29 pm »

Why is this an issue? Same-sex couples have no bearing or influence on my family. If 2 men or 2 women want to make a legal, binding commitment to each other, why should I care?

WeTheArmed.com

msb45 · « **Reply #76 on:** November 08, 2008, 12:06:42 am »

Doug I appreciate your thoughts and you actions as a gentleman, we're cool. I also appreciate your zeal on your cause as I have a definite opinion on that issue.

I think the main point I'm making is that the law is not static. It is changed by society's acceptance or rejection of something. Rights are a given. I agree with the concept of enumerated rights. We need to carefully balance the need for regulation with liberty.

The example may have been offensive, my apologies , as it was to show the end of a continuum. But ask yourself as a gun owner this question. Have I been lumped in with people with mental issues, people with bloodlust, or an owner of something whose only "purpose is to kill another human"? Aren't these characterizations far fetched? What public outcry will result and pressure to legislate your rights away via a prohibition as these ideas take hold? Can anyone here really answer the first question with a no?

If the election of Obama has taught us anything it is the value of perception. Forget the laws on the books. A couple of legislative moves, a few Supreme Court nominees, and some taxes on ammo and it's over. We have to stand as a unified commmunity and vote on this one issue and lobby the government. We need to present ourselves in a manner that separates us from whom the public despises through education and example. We need their support. If we're not perceived as a threat the public will be more willing to oppose restrictions on us. And in the upcoming fight we need every ally we can get.

THE NORSEMAN · « **Reply #77 on:** November 08, 2008, 12:12:46 am »

This is a tough issue. While my personal beliefs are that there are certain laws of God that are not open to interpretation by man, I do see how others with different views or belief systems could see limiting same sex marriage recognition as discriminatory.

Thanks to all WTA members that have posted so far. Some of you have raised points I honestly hadn't considered. And while the discussion here has gotten "heated" at times, I think we have managed to remain civil with each other. That deserves high praise.

MadMatt · « **Reply #78 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:46:53 pm »

Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Many years ago the Mormons had a practice of marriage that was very strange to the rest of the society. Polygamy was practiced and people perished for their beliefs. The Mormons were hounded for years, moved 1000's of miles from Missouri to Salt Lake City, buried their loved ones along the way, and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.

And now 160 years later, they are advocating that the government do exactly the same thing to another group of people that just want to live their lives as they see fit.

Does that bother anyone else?

Nolo · « **Reply #79 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:55:55 pm »

Quote

And now 160 years later, they are advocating that the government do exactly the same thing to another group of people that just want to live their lives as they see fit.

Does that bother anyone else?

Sure it does.
I'm bothered by it, but I am also bothered by many other practices/history of almost all of the other major religions, so, I mean, they really aren't special.
Plus, I don't want to bring that up in a debate about law, someone might get the idea that I feel the government ought to do something about it.

Skunk Ape · « **Reply #80 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:02:43 pm »

Quote from: Nolo on November 12, 2008, 10:55:55 pm

Plus, I don't want to bring that up in a debate about law, someone might get the idea that I feel the government ought to do something about it.

Ah, but here we have some of the few explicit duties of the gubmint, namely the enforcement of contracts and equal protection under the law. The irony is that the government SHOULD do something about it, but refuses to due to political pressure from both the Left and the Right.

Nolo · « **Reply #81 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:06:37 pm »

Quote

Ah, but here we have some of the few explicit duties of the gubmint, namely the enforcement of contracts and equal protection under the law. The irony is that the government SHOULD do something about it, but refuses to due to political pressure from both the Left and the Right.

Well, I meant within their own church. Laws can be declared unconstitutional, and any law like that should be.

GeorgeHill · « **Reply #82 on:** November 13, 2008, 02:30:26 am »

Quote from: MadMatt on November 12, 2008, 10:46:53 pm

Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Dude, don't even blame Utah Mormons for the voter response on Prop 8. They didn't vote on it. Or are California Voters all the sudden really big on what Utah thinks?
And why did you single out Mormons? Catholics and other Christian churches donated money for advertising too. Or didn't you know that? Or is it just a Mormon thing?
Be honest.
BTW, Welcome to a Mormon Run Board. Not to make you uncomfortable, I just want to know what you think. Because I didn't donate money to this. I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against regardless of what Vice they choose. You could be into Avocados for all I care. As long as it isn't a child and its consensual, I don't care. I've very Libertarian that way. I would be just as concerned if you said "The Catholic involvement".

Quote

and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.

And that isnt exactly right either.... but that's another topic for another day...

Khorne · « **Reply #83 on:** November 13, 2008, 10:15:51 am »

It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas. A case in point...

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html

Ishpeck · « **Reply #84 on:** November 13, 2008, 11:24:54 am »

Quote from: GeorgeHill on November 13, 2008, 02:30:26 am

Dude, don't even blame Utah Mormons for the voter response on Prop 8. They didn't vote on it. Or are California Voters all the sudden really big on what Utah thinks?
And why did you single out Mormons? Catholics and other Christian churches donated money for advertising too. Or didn't you know that? Or is it just a Mormon thing?
Be honest.

Latter-Day Saints make the easiest target because we're easiest to distinguish in a crowd. We're the best-organized religion you're likely to run into just about anywhere and we make no secret out of our beliefs.

The facts of the matter -- as well as the true issue -- are hidden in the feelings of hurt and rage that're likely to come from a majority ruling against something so important to people. But rather than address the principle flaws in democracy -- which many are indoctrinated to adore -- they would rather just blame a church. Makes a great scapegoat.

Quote from: Khorne on November 13, 2008, 10:15:51 am

It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas. A case in point...

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html

I don't like the term "tolerance." It's usually used the wrong way. When many say that they want "tolerance" they actually mean that they want your endorsement.

That's why, instead, I choose the word respect: I ain't gonna tell ya how to live your life and kindly ask you return the favor. If you want me to tell you it's okay, that I think you're justified, or whatever else, you can go to hell. But I'm not going to hurt you and I'll do my best to judge you fairly.

Mrs. Armoredman · « **Reply #85 on:** November 13, 2008, 12:04:58 pm »

Quote from: MadMatt on November 12, 2008, 10:46:53 pm

Hi, I'm Matt... enough of introductions.

Here is what bothers me about the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Many years ago the Mormons had a practice of marriage that was very strange to the rest of the society. Polygamy was practiced and people perished for their beliefs. The Mormons were hounded for years, moved 1000's of miles from Missouri to Salt Lake City, buried their loved ones along the way, and ultimately gave up their beliefs to gain statehood from a government that didn't accept them.

So what. Don't blame the Utah Mormorns. You seem to bring religon into this discussion and shoot fire at one religon. I am not mormorn but I hate it when someone shoots fire at one religon. I am a Wisconson Synod Luthern and I am a Hetrosexual one man woman. I think sir you are out of line attacking people like that. I get even more upset when folks drag marriage through the mud like it's evil. It's not. I don't believe that 2 men and 2 women should be married it's not right. It's sicking. I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off but that is how I feel.

Geroge Hill, I like your board and I like posting here. I have no issue what religon you are. You are a nice man and I am grateful that I was able to find this board. You have never thrown your religon in anyones face or made them convert. I feel that this person was out of line attacking someones beliefs like that. I have beenb married for almost 11 years and I enjoy it being with the man I love. Again thank you for allowing me to post on your awesome board.

StevenTing · « **Reply #86 on:** November 13, 2008, 12:19:25 pm »

Quote from: Mrs. Armoredman on November 13, 2008, 12:04:58 pm

So what. Don't blame the Utah Mormorns. You seem to bring religon into this discussion and shoot fire at one religon. I am not mormorn but I hate it when someone shoots fire at one religon. I am a Wisconson Synod Luthern and I am a Hetrosexual one man woman. I think sir you are out of line attacking people like that. I get even more upset when folks drag marriage through the mud like it's evil. It's not. I don't believe that 2 men and 2 women should be married it's not right. It's sicking. I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off but that is how I feel.

Geroge Hill, I like your board and I like posting here. I have no issue what religon you are. You are a nice man and I am grateful that I was able to find this board. You have never thrown your religon in anyones face or made them convert. I feel that this person was out of line attacking someones beliefs like that. I have beenb married for almost 11 years and I enjoy it being with the man I love. Again thank you for allowing me to post on your awesome board.

I know Matt. He's not attacking anyone's religion. He's just providing an opposite view. While I don't necessarily agree with the statement 100%, I think there may be some validity to it. I don't like the idea of gay marriage but it will probably happen in the future.

A high school friend of mine wrote the following:

Quote

In the early 1900's, in the United States, the majority of people felt that interracial relations were a deviant behavior which people were killed for. It took time for people to accept interracial relationships as equal to same race relationships, and I do believe that someday homosexual relationships will gain the same level of acceptance. Homosexuality may seem deviant to you today as it does to many people, but that feeling usually goes away when you spend time with a committed homosexual couple.

But, if you follow the case of the Mormons, when their beliefs were not accepted or they were persecuted, they moved to a new place. Maybe it's time for the LGBT crowd to move to a state where it's already accepted, like Massachusetts. They can form their own state and their own society where everyone will except them. I just know it's not likely to happen in Utah.

StevenTing · « **Reply #87 on:** November 13, 2008, 12:20:33 pm »

Quote from: Ishpeck on November 13, 2008, 11:24:54 am

I don't like the term "tolerance." It's usually used the wrong way. When many say that they want "tolerance" they actually mean that they want your endorsement.

That's why, instead, I choose the word respect: I ain't gonna tell ya how to live your life and kindly ask you return the favor. If you want me to tell you it's okay, that I think you're justified, or whatever else, you can go to hell. But I'm not going to hurt you and I'll do my best to judge you fairly.

Good Call. I'll start using the word Respect instead of Tolerance. It makes much more sense.

MadMatt · « **Reply #88 on:** November 13, 2008, 12:38:02 pm »

What a fun board!

A couple of things to point out. I didn't attack anyone nor did I attack anyones religion. I pointed out something that I thought was hypocritical and I have been taken to task on it. I can appreciate that. I didn't tell anyone to stop being mormon, nor did I say I think people are dumb or ignorant if they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are LDS, then be the best LDS member that you can be. We can be critical all day long when it comes to the hypocracy in government but religion seems to really get people going.

To Georges point, the reason I posted about the Mormon church is that at one time they had a government extermination order issued against them and people were told to shoot on sight, all because of a belief that they held to be true but others didn't understand. I don't know of any other Protestant American religion that has such an order but I could be wrong.

I will also correct my statement about giving up a belief. Mormons stopped practicing polygamy in order to achieve statehood.

I also know that this is a Mormon run board. I don't think that has any bearing on this.

Utah Mormons vs. California Mormons? I didn't know there was a difference. Didn't the mormon church encourage members everywhere to donate to the cause?

If the moderators tell me that religion is off limits as a subject to talk about, I will respect that and I won't bring it up again.

Brian Dale · « **Reply #89 on:** November 13, 2008, 01:40:36 pm »

Quote from: Khorne

It's amazing that those that preach "tolerance" the most are usually most intolerant of other people's ideas.

They seem to have tolerated Mr. Eckern's ideas just fine for some 25 years. However, when the voters of California decided to get up and deny to gays and lesbians an important institution that other citizens accept and insist on for themselves, he acted. He donated $1,000 in support of the campaign to deny legal marriage to gays and lesbians. When people found out, they raised a stink about it.

The figure of $1,000 brings to mind the tale of a gentleman named Dan Cooper. You might all remember what happened when he was discovered to have donated the same amount, $1,000, to the Obama campaign. The gun boards didn't go quite berserk, but there were lots of shrieking harpies--or Furies, perhaps--raising quite a stink about it for the day or two until Mr. Cooper "fell or was pushed" from his job as CEO of the company that bears his name.

Some people in Sacramento fought from the soap box against Mr. Ekern's support of Prop 8, just as many of us fought from the soap box against Dan Cooper's support of the Obama campaign. I don't see any hypocrisy in either action.

Mrs. Armoredman · « **Reply #90 on:** November 13, 2008, 04:03:06 pm »

Then they should practice what they preach. Ok your not attacking any religon. What are you attacking?

Khorne · « **Reply #91 on:** November 13, 2008, 04:24:40 pm »

Friendly reminder for everyone to keep it civil.

ridata · « **Reply #92 on:** November 13, 2008, 04:45:14 pm »

Brian Dale: That's funny. I read through the article and made the exact same connection with Dan Cooper. There is some difference in that Mr. Cooper's beliefs and donations went against everything his company (presumably) stood for. I don't quite see how Mr. Ekern's donation was against what his company stood for - they could hire different actors to replace the gay ones that quit over his support of Prop 8.

macadore · « **Reply #93 on:** November 13, 2008, 06:27:43 pm »

IMO, the issue is money. If a married spouse dies, the survivor can draw the deceased's social security and other retirement benefits. If we allow gay marriage, the costs both of these will go up. There are other financial advantages to being married. If I were gay, this type of discrimination would infuriate me. It does not seem fair or equitable.

Ishpeck · « **Reply #94 on:** November 14, 2008, 12:31:42 am »

Quote from: macadore on November 13, 2008, 06:27:43 pm

IMO, the issue is money. If a married spouse dies, the survivor can draw the deceased's social security and other retirement benefits.

Well, considering the whole Social Security system is inequitable in the first place, I'm not sure how that's applicable. Social Security is a fraud. It's a contract that you are forced into against your will and you have no option of escaping and the government is free to change the terms of your social security without your consent at any time in a manner that pleases it. In the real world, we call those kinds of contracts "unconscionable."

So by the time you get around to talking benefits for surviving widow(er)s and the genders of said window(er)s, you're so far down the line of inequitable attributes of the social security program that I really have to wonder where your priorities are.

Brian Dale · « **Reply #95 on:** November 14, 2008, 12:46:59 am »

Ishpeck, I love ya like, well, like an Ishpeck, but the insolvency of Social Security is a red herring here.

Ishpeck · « **Reply #96 on:** November 14, 2008, 01:37:08 am »

Quote from: Brian Dale on November 14, 2008, 12:46:59 am

Ishpeck, I love ya like, well, like an Ishpeck, but the insolvency of Social Security is a red herring here.

Insolvency aside, there is so much about it that's just plain wrong that whenever people try to use it as an argument in anything, I have to just laugh.

Demanding equity where social security is involved is laughable at best.

Now, see, a real insurance plan or a real retirement fund would let you name any random person you want as the beneficiary. Who you're married to is subordinate to what you want. Under a fair contract where you actually have a say in its terms, you could declare your secret gay lover, or your trophy wife, or your dog as the beneficiary of your death and it won't matter.

So the whole issue of SS and other similar inheritance concerns is also a red herring when considering marriage.

macadore · « **Reply #97 on:** November 14, 2008, 06:21:07 am »

Quote from: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 12:31:42 am

Well, considering the whole Social Security system is inequitable in the first place, I'm not sure how that's applicable. Social Security is a fraud. It's a contract that you are forced into against your will and you have no option of escaping and the government is free to change the terms of your social security without your consent at any time in a manner that pleases it. In the real world, we call those kinds of contracts "unconscionable."

So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable? It depends on whose ox is being gored.

Quote from: Ishpeck on November 14, 2008, 12:31:42 am

So by the time you get around to talking benefits for surviving widow(er)s and the genders of said window(er)s, you're so far down the line of inequitable attributes of the social security program that I really have to wonder where your priorities are.

I make a simple statement of economic fact and you respond with a personal attack? That's an illogical argument. My priorities may be skewed, but that has nothing to do with the argument. The fact remains that while everyone pays into the system, many marriage benefits of the system available to straight people are denied to gay people. That's inequitable, and it is the same argument that you're making against Social Security.

Molson · « **Reply #98 on:** November 14, 2008, 09:57:05 am »

Quote from: macadore

So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable?

Save the Highway system, (and a good argument can be made for police as well) yes; they are unconscionable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong; just because a wrong is committed in one circumstance doesn't justify it in another.

I think the main point about Social Security is that it is, by its nature, an inequitable system. This is evidenced by the fact that I and others around my age, have very little chance of seeing a dime from Social Security when we get older, but we still will be putting in for most our lives. That's not mentioning that I and most others will most likely never draw from SS for a disability, or any other reason that one can draw early, as others do. So claiming that one group doesn't have equitable access to a system built around inequitable access is not a valid argument.

Your argument also assumes that gay marriage is a valid reason to claim equitable access, which I don't believe has been established yet; therefore, it cannot be claimed that they have unequal access anyway. I would argue that they have equal access to SS, just as they have equal marriage "rights" currently. If I want to marry a woman, I can. If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can. If he wants to marry a man, he can't. We both are held to the same standard. That's one thing that has always bothered me about the gay marriage argument; they claim they are fighting for equal rights, but they are really fighting for special rights, or at least different rights. Whether it is a right that is justified or not is something that I haven't decided yet.

JesseL · « **Reply #99 on:** November 14, 2008, 10:27:48 am »

Quote from: Molson on November 14, 2008, 09:57:05 am

Your argument also assumes that gay marriage is a valid reason to claim equitable access, which I don't believe has been established yet; therefore, it cannot be claimed that they have unequal access anyway. I would argue that they have equal access to SS, just as they have equal marriage "rights" currently. If I want to marry a woman, I can. If I want to marry a man, I can't. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can. If he wants to marry a man, he can't. We both are held to the same standard. That's one thing that has always bothered me about the gay marriage argument; they claim they are fighting for equal rights, but they are really fighting for special rights, or at least different rights. Whether it is a right that is justified or not is something that I haven't decided yet.

That line of reasoning always struck me as a little disingenuous. You could easily apply it to miscegenation or other kinds of segregation as well.

The easy counter to your argument is:

If you want to marry the person you love and intend to spend your life with, you can.
If a gay person wants to marry the person they love and intends to spend the rest of their life with, they can't.