Prop 8

[Mr. Blonde]

On tuesday Californians voted 52.3% in favor of Prop-8, repealing the previous supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage.

What have we done?

In a time such as this where prejudice and fear soak up our hope and dreams like a sponge how could Americans be so cruel as to strip away the rights of their fellow citizens? There was so other portion to Prop-8, no bells or whistles that would make it otherwise attractive to vote for. These votes were motivated by one thing and one thing alone... hate.

"Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love.""
-Keith Olbermann

I've been considering posting something about this up here for the past couple of days, but Keith Obermann stated my opinion so matter-of-factly that I'm glad I waited.

Do we really consider ourselves to be so righteous? Has being angry ever made you feel better about anything?

[Doublehex]

I think there is something you should read, to see [I]why[/I] people voted on this...and why they are just so very wrong.

[url]http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2008/11/cal-thomas-sez-religious-right-is-dead.html[/url]

I'll talk with you after you have read it.

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms] I used to be sort of ambivalent about gay rights. I was always for them, but I never got passionate about it because I assumed it would happen eventually.

But one of my best friends at college is bi, and he became incredibly upset after Prop 8 was passed and later on it opened a floodgate of bad memories for him. So I guess I've become more concerned about it. I've always been annoyed with people who are prejudiced against gays, but now that I've become good friends with someone who is gay/bi, I get very defensive about the whole subject.

I knew from the beginning that Prop 8 had a very good chance of passing, but I guess seeing how deeply it effected some people made me more emotionally invested in it.[/font]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Matt']I think there is something you should read, to see [I]why[/I] people voted on this...and why they are just so very wrong.

[url]http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2008/11/cal-thomas-sez-religious-right-is-dead.html[/url]

I'll talk with you after you have read it.[/QUOTE]

"Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?"

Great quote, thanks for the article, Matt.

[TimeChaser]

Prop 8 is, of course, the big amendment that was voted on this year. But people seem to pass over the fact that the same amendment got approved in other states too.

Here in Florida, Amendment 2 got 62%, just over the 60% margin it needed to pass.

What I don't get is how the rights of one group are considered a subject for popular vote, when every other recognition of rights in our history was passed by the government without resorting to a vote by the people. If popular vote was the way it was always done, you can bet that the rights of women and minorities would have taken longer to pass.

Then there's the incredibly stupid idea that allowing people to marry each other, regardless of their gender, will mean the collapse of civilization as we know it, which is absurd.

The fact is that you have people that are just as human as everyone else, and who love and care about each other, some of whom even have children together. It doesn't send a positive message to those kids to tell them their families do not deserve the same respect and rights as their friends who have a mom and a dad. To say that a family of two gay parents is not as capable of raising kids as well as a family with heterosexual parents is also absurd. There are some single-parents families who manage to raise kids to be healthy and happy and productive. It's all about the love and care those kids receive from the parents, not what gender the parents happen to be.

What it boils down to is that we have far still to travel to be a truly equal society. When we can get to the point where we all acknowledge that it is a misuse of our laws to deny people their rights, then we will be much better off.

[Rachmaninoff]

I don't agree with such amendments since they cross over the line and remove the separation of church and state that needs to be there. It's one thing for a religious organization to refuse to marry gays, but to deny them state marriages is just wrong in my opinion.

I'm not the only one to think so since the involvement of the LDS church in telling members to back it resulted in protests here in SLC over the weekend. o_O

However, I also worry over the tendency to automatically point fingers at Christians when being one, doesn't automatically mean they all think it's okay to attempt to force their morals on others by using the government as a means.

It's pretty clear that it's a religious issue, but not everyone who is religious is over that far on the right. To the point of attempting to regulate others. It's just a pity that those who do, make the rest of them look like ignorant idiots.

[Drizzt Do'urden]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Prop 8 is, of course, the big amendment that was voted on this year. But people seem to pass over the fact that the same amendment got approved in other states too.

Here in Florida, Amendment 2 got 62%, just over the 60% margin it needed to pass.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's actually looking over the fact timechaser. I think its more of a surprise it came from California, since it stereotypically has more gays per capita then the other states. Therefore it was sort've thrusted into the limelight, and I can say I'm honestly surprised this thread wasn't started the day the ballots were counted.

Passing this, in my opinion, has probably opened up a can of worms that can't be closed. Now that people see the "gayest" state in the union as repealed a law that, if I'm not mistaken, originally started. Which is a sad day, I was always on the fence leaning towards traditional marriage. After meeting my fiancee's two gay cousins I completly reversed to being in complete support of gay marriage. Attribute my hesitence to the typical south eastern ohio hill jack mentallity, but that's in the past.

I do hope I'm incorrect, but I do fear that we will see many more of these on the ballots in the years to come. Hopefully, however, they will be shot down and California will repeal their repeal.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I do hope I'm incorrect, but I do fear that we will see many more of these on the ballots in the years to come. Hopefully, however, they will be shot down and California will repeal their repeal.[/quote]This isn't completely accurate but it represents it well enough:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States_by_state"][U]Same-sex marriage legislation in the US by state[/U][/URL]

But this kind of thing already is pretty prevalent in the US. Adding on more laws to make sure gays will never have the right to any form of marriage.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']However, I also worry over the tendency to automatically point fingers at Christians when being one, doesn't automatically mean they all think it's okay to attempt to force their morals on others by using the government as a means.[/QUOTE]

I do believe Christians have gotten a little more heat than required for this issue, but like we've all said it begins with being a religious issue. The shame is that a majority of people that are christian and oppose gay marriage aren't actually religious. These are mostly (but not all) the sort of people that use their limited knowledge of their own religion when it suits them and leave it behind when it doesn't. Worshipping something you don't fully understand or care to understand is scary, and dangerous.

[quote name='TimeChaser']What I don't get is how the rights of one group are considered a subject for popular vote, when every other recognition of rights in our history was passed by the government without resorting to a vote by the people. If popular vote was the way it was always done, you can bet that the rights of women and minorities would have taken longer to pass.[/QUOTE]

The fingers should ultimately be pointed at the government for even putting equal rights to a vote. Unfortunately our current president and the one going into office don't support gay marriage, however Obama doesn't believe it should be decided by the government so we'll see what unfolds over the next four years. But I wouldn't expect much. I'd guess this will continue to be decided in a state by state fashion until a politician on a national level does some real work into shutting down this flawed system in which we vote on the rights of others.

The fact is that this country is made up of various groups of formerly oppressed people who came to this country to escape oppression but instead had to deal with it again when they arrived here. We've systemactically removed (and most of the time replaced) the rights of every ethnic, religious, gender, and sexual preference group in this country. We're all misfits, and we should have equal rights as such.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]Well I do agree with the general consensus that it's wrong to deny others rights, but I have to wonder if everyone who voted for it, did so for religious reasons only. I find it hard to believe that only people citing religious beliefs that being gay is wrong would vote for such a thing.

I mean I know a few people who to be blunt are homophobic (at least they seem that way to me). And some of them claim they are atheists so that just makes me wonder. o_O

Anyway, I can't vote and I don't live in California so other than to think it's wrong to deny people rights based on sexual orientation, I haven't got much to say on it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Doublehex]

It really is a simple reason. America is just, quite simply, not ready to place homosexual marriage on the same stage as heterosexual marriages.

Even more so, America is not ready to be comfortable around gays. You have to remember, a good deal of our sense of morality stems from the Christian idea. Guys, tell me, would you be comfortable in a locker room with a man who proudly declared himself to be gay?

Of course not! Because there is the idea that gays will instantly latch themselves onto ever man they see. America is just not comfortable with homosexuality. It is not ready for it. And it won't be for a long time.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Matt']It really is a simple reason. America is just, quite simply, not ready to place homosexual marriage on the same stage as heterosexual marriages.

Even more so, America is not ready to be comfortable around gays. You have to remember, a good deal of our sense of morality stems from the Christian idea. Guys, tell me, would you be comfortable in a locker room with a man who proudly declared himself to be gay?

Of course not! Because there is the idea that gays will instantly latch themselves onto ever man they see. America is just not comfortable with homosexuality. It is not ready for it. And it won't be for a long time.[/QUOTE]

We need to stop treating this as a case of two separate things, labeling one "homosexual marriage" and the other "heterosexual marriage". What we're talking about is marriage, period. It is the union of two people who love each other and want to solidify that commitment, regardless of each person's gender. Other than that, there is nothing that calls for a differentiation.

And it's unfair to say "America" is not ready to be comfortable around gays. It's a person-by-person thing, not the entire population. And there are plenty of religious people who support gay rights. It's a rather complex issue.

[Drizzt Do'urden]

[quote name='TimeChaser']
And it's unfair to say "America" is not ready to be comfortable around gays. It's a person-by-person thing, not the entire population. And there are plenty of religious people who support gay rights. It's a rather complex issue.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with the statement its a person by person basis, I do agree with the termanology he used. If the "majority" of people are voting to ban gay marriage then technically it is "America" that isn't ready. "America" wasn't ready for a black president until now. The voice of the majority is the voice of "America" so lay off him he was just making a true statment.

It really isn't a complex issue though, in my opinion. Its pretty simple, you're either accepting or you're not, and right now the concensus seems to be not (which really baffles me since a fews ago we were.).

[Darren]

I didn't read the other posts here because I'm tired. So I hope this hasn't been said already.

First of all, I'm extremely upset that it passed. Not only that, a similar ban was passed in both Arizona and Florida. Not to mention that Arkansas (quite possibly the most backwards state I've ever lived in) passed a law banning any couples who aren't married from having foster children!!!

First of all, to Arkansas, the ban was created as a way to bar gay couples from having foster children. (Seeing as they can't get married) I guess the state of Arkansas never thought about the opposite side of the story in that there aren't enough foster homes as is and that even some straight couples aren't married who may want foster kids but are now banned from it unless they get married... Ridiculous. (And a total run-on sentence... I don't care)

Second, my whole view on gay marriage is simple: The government has no right to tell churches they aren't allowed to perform ceremonial unions between any two people. (Separation of church and state) The way I see it, it shouldn't even be a governmental issue. It should be entirely up to the individual churches as to weather or not they would want to unite two men or two women in holy matrimony.
Personally, I don't see why gay couples want to get married in a church. They're all about the bible and to them, being gay is so morally wrong that they probably don't even want to be uniting a gay couple. There's a little thing called justice of the peace. (And no, it doesn't have to be all run down and a quick five minute ceremony where only three people show up as witnesses. It can be just as fancy as a real wedding)

There was an article that I read somewhere the day after Prop 8 passed that said,

"The fact that the government would put the fate of a minority in the hands of the majority is wholly unethical and wrong. If it were any other minority group such as latinos or african americans, America wouldn't have a problem calling it like it is: Prejudiced."

(I paraphrased that quote because I can't find the article anymore) I completely agree. This shouldn't be an issue of state or national affair. It should be up to individual churches and how they want to interpret the bible in regards to gay and lesbian relationships. There shouldn't be debates. There shouldn't be voting. There shouldn't be prejudice. It should just [I]be[/I] and it should have been like that from the beginning.

Okay, I'm done ranting now.

[Kenso]

[quote name='Darren']Second, my whole view on gay marriage is simple: The government has no right to tell churches they aren't allowed to perform ceremonial unions between any two people. (Separation of church and state) The way I see it, it shouldn't even be a governmental issue. It should be entirely up to the individual churches as to weather or not they would want to unite two men or two women in holy matrimony.

Personally, I don't see why gay couples want to get married in a church. They're all about the bible and to them, being gay is so morally wrong that they probably don't even want to be uniting a gay couple. There's a little thing called justice of the peace. (And no, it doesn't have to be all run down and a quick five minute ceremony where only three people show up as witnesses. It can be just as fancy as a real wedding)[/quote]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Therein lies the problem, Darren. These aren't just about getting married in a church. Marriage is its own legal status, aside from being a religious thing. Even if it's done by a JoP, it's still a marriage. Even if 'gay marriage' was legal, a church has the right to deny performing the ceremony based on religious reasons (thanks to our religious freedom).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Anyway, I just wanted to comment on that. I know it has been mentioned in other topics that reasons for not voting for Prop 8 are not necessarily anti-gay. The whole thing was a bit more complicated than that, but as I don't know the exact wording, I can't say anything else. But you may want to look into that also. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Kenso'][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Therein lies the problem, Darren. These aren't just about getting married in a church. Marriage is its own legal status, aside from being a religious thing. Even if it's done by a JoP, it's still a marriage. Even if 'gay marriage' was legal, a church has the right to deny performing the ceremony based on religious reasons (thanks to our religious freedom).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

That's really the core of the "religious" issue with this. It's not the fact that the church refuses to marry a gay couple. Which as we've said is completely up to the church themselves, but the fact that people want to deny gay couples the right to marry... period. Once again this crosses over into separation of church and state. Marriage is a state issue, not a religious one. Couples need to aquire a marriage license from the state for their marriage to be legal, and for some reason we've put that to a vote.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Kenso][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Therein lies the problem, Darren. These aren't just about getting married in a church. Marriage is its own legal status, aside from being a religious thing. Even if it's done by a JoP, it's still a marriage. Even if 'gay marriage' was legal, a church has the right to deny performing the ceremony based on religious reasons (thanks to our religious freedom).[/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]I think this raises a fair point, actually. It's been glossed on once or twice before in the thread, but I believe that pointing to the Christian community as the reason for the bill's locational pass is flawed. Certainly most Christians are opposed to the idea (note I said [I]most[/I]; there are those dissenting), but I sincerely doubt Christianity holds enough of the majority to influence policy in that way.

Also, I think patience is in order. Remember how strongly the abolition of slavery was resisted, or how long it took for racism to disappear once it was declared unconstitutional? (Still hasn't totally vanished, sadly.) People don't resist change so much as they resist [I]sudden[/I] change. I doubt we'll see any significant differences/progress (depending on your perspective) on the issue for at least a few decades.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Marriage is a state issue, not a religious one. Couples need to aquire a marriage license from the state for their marriage to be legal, and for some reason we've put that to a vote.[/quote]
Democracy is about rule based on the will of the people, to protect both the majority and the minority from oppression by the other. So what you're saying is that state policy should not be decided by state inhabitants? Help me here.[/FONT]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
Also, I think patience is in order. Remember how strongly the abolition of slavery was resisted, or how long it took for racism to disappear once it was declared unconstitutional? (Still hasn't totally vanished, sadly.) People don't resist change so much as they resist [I]sudden[/I] change. I doubt we'll see any significant differences/progress (depending on your perspective) on the issue for at least a few decades..[/FONT][/QUOTE]

But it requires sudden action of legalizing it, because the longer we wait the longer it is going to take for gay marriage to be accepted. If we waited for the abolishment of slavery to be "accepted" we'd probably still have slavery in the U.S and Britain. Every other act of civil rights was thrusted upon the country and of course their was resistance at first, but the longer we maintain the idea that this type of prejudice is acceptable, the longer it will be.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
Democracy is about rule based on the will of the people, to protect both the majority and the minority from oppression by the other. So what you're saying is that state policy should not be decided by state inhabitants? Help me here.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that gay marriage should not be decided by the people. It is a civil rights situation, and the rights of others should not be decided by the masses, especially when the decision does not influence those masses. How would you like it if they put heterosexual marriage to a vote? It's not ethical.

[Darren]

[quote name='Kenso'][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Therein lies the problem, Darren. These aren't just about getting married in a church. Marriage is its own legal status, aside from being a religious thing. Even if it's done by a JoP, it's still a marriage. Even if 'gay marriage' was legal, a church has the right to deny performing the ceremony based on religious reasons (thanks to our religious freedom).[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Oh, I know that. (About it being its own legal status) What I was trying to get at is that it seems the large portion of resistance comes from christianity either directly or indirectly. Sure I can agree in saying that it's not only christians who voted yes for Prop 8. But really, let's think about reasons why others voted yes for it. I can't speak for everyone, only a few of my friends from California who did vote yes for it. And even though they're self-proclaimed atheists, when I asked them why they voted yes on it, they replied because they thought it was wrong. When I asked them why, they had no real answer. Like it's been said before, our government was largely established by 1800s conservatism. Which is extreme, even for today's conservatives. The point is that even if someone had alternative motives for voting yes on the proposition, I believe that christianity played a large role in it. Why? Because Christian doctrine and theology are so well rooted in this country that it's instilled into many peoples brains to this day even if they claim not to be a christian. Something that they're not willing to give up so easily. Just an observation.
(While I'm at it, let's just say "religious doctrine," because christianity isn't the only one that disagrees with homosexual relations)

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Democracy is about rule based on the will of the people, to protect both the majority and the minority from oppression by the other. So what you're saying is that state policy should not be decided by state inhabitants? Help me here.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

But we're talking about a matter of civil rights, which historically have not been put to a popular vote. If the rights of women and minorities were finally recognized by the government, then why now are we saying the rights of this particular group are a matter for the voters to decide? It's hypocritical, unfair, and unconstitutional.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']But it requires sudden action of legalizing it, because the longer we wait the longer it is going to take for gay marriage to be accepted. If we waited for the abolishment of slavery to be "accepted" we'd probably still have slavery in the U.S and Britain. Every other act of civil rights was thrusted upon the country and of course their was resistance at first, but the longer we maintain the idea that this type of prejudice is acceptable, the longer it will be.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]And there you miss the parallel I was drawing between the two. Slavery was not suddenly abolished, or suddenly frowned upon. Controversy over slavery had been happening for several decades prior to its abolition. In fact, it even predates Oregon's status as a [I]territory[/I]; before and during Andrew Jackson's presidency there was a direct balance between 'free' and 'slave' states, and the admission of Oregon as a 'free state' allowed the admission of Texas as a 'slave' state. Texas had been denied annexation prior to Oregon's admission because it was feared the addition of a state below the Mason-Dixon without a counterbalance would upset the northern population, and Jackson wanted to avoid the controversy.

But even then, the northern states and territories did not find slavery an acceptable practice, and the southern states were constantly worried that their institution would be infringed upon. This was in 1828; Lincoln didn't "free" the slaves until 1863.

My point is that, like the abolition of slavery, nationwide civil rights will not happen instantly, nor will it be followed by acceptance. Legislation is based on acceptance, and does not preclude it. Rather, a civil rights 'victory' for homosexuals will be the [I]climax[/I] of their struggle for acceptance, not the beginning of the path to it.

[QUOTE][I]What I'm saying is that gay marriage should not be decided by the people. It is a civil rights situation, and the rights of others should not be decided by the masses, especially when the decision does not influence those masses.[/I][/QUOTE]
Civil rights have always fallen to the masses to decide first, and then gone through the system afterwards. I have a feeling that this decision may be appealed on the grounds of being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not exist to dictate what laws should be made, but to tell the masses (and the other branches of the government) when they are on the right track and when they are totally effing wrong. :p

I agree that it is a civil rights case. But since all legislation is initially based on the will of the people, excluding them from the process and going straight to the top, regardless of the case, could be seen as an abuse of the system.

And sorry, but the decision [I]does[/I] influence the masses. The issue may not affect them directly, but there will still be an impact on society. Just look at what happened since [I]Rowe v. Wade[/I].


[QUOTE][I]How would you like it if they put heterosexual marriage to a vote? It's not ethical.[/I][/QUOTE]
How did the Negros like it when their status as 3/5 of a person was decided by people who didn't even know them? How did the Cherokee like it when the US told them their nation wasn't really a [I]foreign[/I] nation, but a domestic nation dependent on the US? That "how would you like it" argument is so irrelevant it sounds childish. The issue is not whether or not I like it. The issue is how changes in policy are made.

[QUOTE=Darren]I can't speak for everyone, only a few of my friends from California who did vote yes for it. And even though they're self-proclaimed atheists, when I asked them why they voted yes on it, they replied because they thought it was wrong. When I asked them why, they had no real answer.

[CENTER]/~/[/CENTER]
The point is that even if someone had alternative motives for voting yes on the proposition, I believe that [C]hristianity played a large role in it. Why? Because Christian doctrine and theology are so well rooted in this country that it's instilled into many peoples brains to this day even if they claim not to be a [C]hristian.[/QUOTE]
It sounds to me like you're putting words in your friends' mouths while trying very hard to make a scapegoat for the issue. I find this faulty; for instance, although servitude is established in Judaic law, there are multiple clauses protecting the slave from oppression, and much of the Southern plantation slavery ran completely counter to that. In other words, American slavery is condemned by Christian doctrine, and yet it pervaded our country from colonial establishment until some time after the Civil War.

Yes, homosexuality is not accepted within Christian doctrine. But that is our sphere, and the rest of the issue is social, not religious. Likewise, racism was a social issue, women's suffrage was social, and slavery was a financial and economical issue; none were religious.

I can understand you being frustrated by people blindly following ideals they barely understand, but you really need to stop blaming us for things like this that don't go the way you wanted.

[quote name='TimeChaser']But we're talking about a matter of civil rights, which historically have not been put to a popular vote.[/quote]
Like I said to [COLOR=DarkRed]Kataki[/COLOR] above, matters of civil rights have [I]ultimately[/I] been decided by authorities beyond the direct influence of the people, but the issues themselves sat at the common level for years before being reconciled. Women's suffrage was an issue before the Revolutionary War, even. How long was it before they received acknowledgment of the right to vote, again?

This kind of change doesn't happen overnight. And perception of time is greatly distorted by history books, where you can read in a matter of minutes what took years to achieve.[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I find this faulty; for instance, although servitude is established in Judaic law, there are multiple clauses protecting the slave from oppression, and much of the Southern plantation slavery ran completely counter to that. In other words, American slavery is condemned by Christian doctrine, and yet it pervaded our country from colonial establishment until some time after the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Slavery was something that took so long to resolve partially because those who supported and believed in it got their justification from scripture just as much as those who fought against it.

[QUOTE]Yes, homosexuality is not accepted within Christian doctrine. But that is our sphere, and the rest of the issue is social, not religious. Likewise, racism was a social issue, women's suffrage was social, and slavery was a financial and economical issue; none were religious.[/QUOTE]

I think it's important to acknowledge that there are some denominations that do not discriminate against homosexuals, so we then get into muddled territory again when it comes to it being supposedly a "religious issue". This is one reason I consider it a social issue, and not a religious one at all.

And the rights of women and minorities, and slavery could also, at one time, be considered religious issues because people's beliefs told them that A) women were in a subordinate position to men and had to defer to them, and B) for many centuries, people considered all non-Christians "barbarians" who either had to be subjugated or exterminated.

Now, I said "considered a religious issue", because we know now that they aren't religious issues at all. And just because we didn't know that back then doesn't mean they were ever religious issues.

Anyway, just throwing in some historical context for understanding.

[QUOTE]Like I said to [COLOR=DarkRed]Kataki[/COLOR] above, matters of civil rights have [I]ultimately[/I] been decided by authorities beyond the direct influence of the people, but the issues themselves sat at the common level for years before being reconciled. Women's suffrage was an issue before the Revolutionary War, even. How long was it before they received acknowledgment of the right to vote, again?

This kind of change doesn't happen overnight. And perception of time is greatly distorted by history books, where you can read in a matter of minutes what took years to achieve.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Sadly, I agree with you that a fight for rights takes a very long time, but there comes a time when the rights must finally be acknowledged by the government beyond the popular vote and all of that. African-American civil rights would never have been as resolved as they are if the federal government hadn't passed those bills and other legislation. I'm not saying the fight is over, of course, because we still have people in this world who hold on to their stupid prejudices. What I am saying is there comes a point when it has to be constitutionally recognized and no longer up for a popular vote that will never resolve the issue.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='TimeChaser'] What I am saying is there comes a point when it has to be constitutionally recognized and no longer up for a popular vote that will never resolve the issue.[/QUOTE]

I agree withh TimeChaser 100%.

Allamorph, what I believe you have mistaken for our ignorance is simply our frustration at a system that has failed many times before. I'm well aware of my American history, my friend. If anything the American government should (not will, but should) take up this cause because letting it bounce around in lower level state courts for years on end just prolonges the issue, as we've seen with various other civil rights laws that have been eventually passed.

And I would hardly consider the present day legalization of homosexual marriage an "abuse of the system". If other's rights were being limited, or stifled, yes, but when you're giving a group the rights that other citizens have, no. We've seen what happens when the masses are given the opportunity to decide their fellow citizen's fate. It fails.

My "how would you like it if heterosexual marriage was put to a vote?" comment was simply in response to what seemed to be your opinion that this vote should have taken place. I view the meer suggestion of this vote offensive to the rights of gays in America.

Yes, things have been occuring a certain way for hundreds of years in the United States but we've seen the suffrage of far too many people for far too long to let this decision hang in the balance for years without resolution.

[Darren]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]It sounds to me like you're putting words in your friends' mouths while trying very hard to make a scapegoat for the issue. I find this faulty; for instance, although servitude is established in Judaic law, there are multiple clauses protecting the slave from oppression, and much of the Southern plantation slavery ran completely counter to that. In other words, American slavery is condemned by Christian doctrine, and yet it pervaded our country from colonial establishment until some time after the Civil War.

Yes, homosexuality is not accepted within Christian doctrine. But that is our sphere, and the rest of the issue is social, not religious. Likewise, racism was a social issue, women's suffrage was social, and slavery was a financial and economical issue; none were religious.

I can understand you being frustrated by people blindly following ideals they barely understand, but you really need to stop blaming us for things like this that don't go the way you wanted.


Like I said to [COLOR=DarkRed]Kataki[/COLOR] above, matters of civil rights have [I]ultimately[/I] been decided by authorities beyond the direct influence of the people, but the issues themselves sat at the common level for years before being reconciled. Women's suffrage was an issue before the Revolutionary War, even. How long was it before they received acknowledgment of the right to vote, again?

This kind of change doesn't happen overnight. And perception of time is greatly distorted by history books, where you can read in a matter of minutes what took years to achieve.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Well, agree to disagree? It's really hard to get my point across on this topic over the internet. But I do think a lot of those issues had religious ties to it. ESPECIALLY SLAVERY. Again though, I really don't care to get into it. If/when I find the bible verse that I think promoted a large portion of slavery, I'll post it here. But again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Everyone has their opinions and that one is mine, whether you think it's faulty or not.

[Korey]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Allamorph, what I believe you have mistaken for our ignorance is simply our frustration at a system that has failed many times before. I'm well aware of my American history, my friend. If anything the American government should (not will, but should) take up this cause because letting it bounce around in lower level state courts for years on end just prolongs the issue, as we've seen with various other civil rights laws that have been eventually passed.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]See, the difference here is that the last few issues that got past that have to deal with civil rights happened to be a lot more violent than gay rights. Am I saying that there isn't violence in association with homosexuality and gay rights. However, there is a large difference between what is happening with Gay Rights as compared to the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. You don't see homosexual people being blasted by fire hoses and being mauled by police dogs.[/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph']I agree that it is a civil rights case. But since all legislation is initially based on the will of the people, excluding them from the process and going straight to the top, regardless of the case, could be seen as an abuse of the system[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I'm going to take a stab at what Allamorph is referring to here and say that if you take it straight to the decision makers first without going through the people, you present a horrible abuse of the system. The judge who hears on this case may be anti-gay rights and if he decides to pass the law to outlaw it, then wouldn't you consider that a tad bit unfair? I believe in the hands of people, that what the people decide as a collective is a better representation of public policy than that of a single group or single person. It's a flaw of our representative democracy, for sure.[/FONT]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']We've seen what happens when the masses are given the opportunity to decide their fellow citizen's fate. It fails.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do.[/FONT]