California gay marriage ban gaining steam

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My apologies, you are quite correct about the status of existing marriages. However, you're wrong in thinking that this proposition would take away any civil rights already guaranteed to same-sex couples in California.

No, actually I'm not wrong. Because first and foremost, it's a legal and well known precedent that separate but equal is NOT equal. I don't want to feel like I'm a second class citizen because I'm now in a fucking domestic partnership. You clearly have no idea what discrimination is, don't you?

Secondly, the effect of proposition 8 in California is going to have an impact on the rest of the nation. California is not the only state that will be impacted by the outcome of this proposition but gay rights in the rest of the country will be affected as well.

[FSTargetDrone]

I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

Aside from the obvious appeal to tradition, who cares if it's an institution of any particular religion? I can go get married with a judge performing a civil ceremony with religion playing no part in it at all. Does that civil ceremony have less relevance or meaning because religion is absent?

[Kodiak]

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

[Kodiak]

I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

Aside from the obvious appeal to tradition, who cares if it's an institution of any particular religion? I can go get married with a judge performing a civil ceremony with religion playing no part in it at all. Does that civil ceremony have less relevance or meaning because religion is absent?

No, it doesn't.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

It does make you in favor of it. Your post makes it sound like you doubt that you're in favor of inequality. Though you should sit and think of the fact that a definition is more important to you than the rights of people. That's very pathetic.

[Erik von Nein]

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

What? They're not changing anything, you moron. But, hey, at least you're honest about your bigotry.

[Kuja]

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

The concept of Seperate But Equal, summed up so nicely.

[CaptainChewbacca]

This might be a dumb question, but IS there any functional difference under California law between the rights a married gay couple would enjoy and a gay couple living in a 'civil union'?

[Duckie]

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

I fed this into babelfish to see what I got, and then corrected the wording a bit for a less long-winded translation.

Literal Translation: "Allowing gay marriage would make gays feel like they have a right to exist and that they might actually be human beings, and I do not believe this to be the case."

'Loose' or Vernacular Translation: "I am a bigoted asshole."

[Guardsman Bass]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Is that primarily because you're an asshole and you hate gay people, or is it primarily because you're an imbecile and you buy into the boatload of laughably fallacious arguments in favour of banning gay marriage, such as "sanctity of marriage" or "marriage is for procreation" or "only ideal parents should marry" or "marriage is a Christian institution"?

Wow, so many reasons how can I choose?

In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.

Generally, one of the purposes of a Supreme Court either on the state level or federal level has been to strike down unconstitutional laws and to protect the rights of the individual against the majority (although some Supreme Courts seem to have forgotten that).

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

But if you believe that they ought to be the functional same under California law as heterosexual marriage, then why quibble so much over a symbolic definition? You sound like the separate-but-equal advocates, who argued way back when that it was okay to forcibly segregate blacks and whites as long as the facilities were perfectly equal - but if they are perfectly equal, then why segregate at all? It's nothing but a symbolic preference on your part, but the government, and particularly the court system, doesn't exist to enforce the majority's symbolic preferences - it exists to support their constitutional rights and promote their welfare.

Look, nobody's going to force your church or any other church to perform a gay wedding. Most gays probably wouldn't even want to be married in a church that treated them with nothing but hostility. All those churches - including, I'm sorry to say, the LDS Church, which has been at the forefront of these battles for decades - are free to be as discriminatory as they want in the confines of their own chapels vis a vis weddings. So why the hell is it such a problem for people like you?

[Kodiak]

I fed this into babelfish to see what I got, and then corrected the wording a bit for a less long-winded translation.

Literal Translation: "Allowing gay marriage would make gays feel like they have a right to exist and that they might actually be human beings, and I do not believe this to be the case."

'Loose' or Vernacular Translation: "I am a bigoted asshole."

What a coincidence, I fed yours into a translator as well:

"Conservatives are what is wrong with America, and I'm a douchebag." Color me unimpressed

[Broomstick]

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

How sweet - same sex couples in California enjoy the same rights as married heterosexuals. I'll have to take your word for it, being unfamiliar with the details of California law.

However, I can assure that that is NOT the case in many other places in the US. California allowing gay marriage to continue, though, may benefit other couples elsewhere through the full faith and credit clause where a marriage legal in one state must be recognized in all states - I think it will take a trip to the Supreme Court to really make it stick, but it's one more blow for civil rights that are truly for all.

Allowing homosexuals to marry does not, in any way, diminish my heterosexual marriage. I see no reason for separate but equal in this situation.

[Kuja]

I fed this into babelfish to see what I got, and then corrected the wording a bit for a less long-winded translation.

Literal Translation: "Allowing gay marriage would make gays feel like they have a right to exist and that they might actually be human beings, and I do not believe this to be the case."

'Loose' or Vernacular Translation: "I am a bigoted asshole."

What a coincidence, I fed yours into a translator as well:

"Conservatives are what is wrong with America, and I'm a douchebag." Color me unimpressed

I noticed that MRDOD's post attacked you in particular and yet you seem to think it's an attack on all conservatives. Strawman much?

[Kamakazie Sith]

This might be a dumb question, but IS there any functional difference under California law between the rights a married gay couple would enjoy and a gay couple living in a 'civil union'?

There might not be. That doesn't matter though because you are still causing seperation among people which is wrong.

[Broomstick]

"Conservatives are what is wrong with America, and I'm a douchebag."

Considering the current state of the Union after so many years of Republican rule I have to agree with that statement.

[CaptainChewbacca]

This might be a dumb question, but IS there any functional difference under California law between the rights a married gay couple would enjoy and a gay couple living in a 'civil union'?

There might not be. That doesn't matter though because you are still causing seperation among people which is wrong.

Right. But if its functionally the same, then this vote is really just fighting over the definition of a word, and BOTH sides are persuing their own agendas according to their own morality, not just the anti-marriage folks.

Again, that's if the protections and rights are all the same.

[Duckie]

I fed this into babelfish to see what I got, and then corrected the wording a bit for a less long-winded translation.

Literal Translation: "Allowing gay marriage would make gays feel like they have a right to exist and that they might actually be human beings, and I do not believe this to be the case."

'Loose' or Vernacular Translation: "I am a bigoted asshole."

What a coincidence, I fed yours into a translator as well:

"Conservatives are what is wrong with America, and I'm a douchebag." Color me unimpressed

Oh ho, let's ignore the meat of the argument and swap insults. Let's dissect this, because you're obviously too dense to read your own words and get what I was pointing at with the "literal translation" bit.

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have, then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large.

their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large.

marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large.

what they're doing is condoned by society at large.

Do you see what the problem is here?

Fact 1: You believe homosexuals do not deserve to be able to be married.
Fact 2: You believe that homosexuals are attempting to hijack the concept of marriage.
Fact 3: You believe that homosexuals are doing this in order to force acceptance of homosexuality upon society.
Fact 4: You believe that homosexuality is not condoned by the majority of society, and therefore it is completely morally indefensible to support gay marriage, because the majority is always right.

I'll let these four things stand on their own for everyone else to see. Why don't you just mull it over and then claim that I'm misrepresenting your bigotry as some other kind of bigotry after a bit of thinking? (Because that's assuredly what will happen next)

[Kamakazie Sith]

This might be a dumb question, but IS there any functional difference under California law between the rights a married gay couple would enjoy and a gay couple living in a 'civil union'?

There might not be. That doesn't matter though because you are still causing seperation among people which is wrong.

Right. But if its functionally the same, then this vote is really just fighting over the definition of a word, and BOTH sides are persuing their own agendas according to their own morality, not just the anti-marriage folks.

Again, that's if the protections and rights are all the same.

No, one side is asking to be treated the same as everybody else. The other side is trying to establish ownership over a word.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The consequences of making same-sex marriages illegal is the further continuation of the marginalization of LGBT individuals since you know... LGBT individuals need to be marginalized more from society!

[Guardsman Bass]

This might be a dumb question, but IS there any functional difference under California law between the rights a married gay couple would enjoy and a gay couple living in a 'civil union'?

There might not be. That doesn't matter though because you are still causing seperation among people which is wrong.

Right. But if its functionally the same, then this vote is really just fighting over the definition of a word, and BOTH sides are persuing their own agendas according to their own morality, not just the anti-marriage folks.

Again, that's if the protections and rights are all the same.

True, but keep in mind that if it really is just a matter of "a word", then there's no real reason to be discriminatory about it and deny the definition to gay marriages. It'd be the same as denying the title of marriage to mixed-race marriages while giving them the same rights - denying the title if all other things are equal is just the Restrictionist Crowd getting their panties in a knot for no real reason other than they don't like having it around.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

If we were to follow through with Kodiak's use of 'tradition' as a way to prevent social progression, than slavery would have to be re-introduced as it was tradition to own people like a piece of property long before the definition of Judeo-Christian marriage was ever concieved.

[Kodiak]

But if you believe that they ought to be the functional same under California law as heterosexual marriage, then why quibble so much over a symbolic definition? You sound like the separate-but-equal advocates, who argued way back when that it was okay to forcibly segregate blacks and whites as long as the facilities were perfectly equal - but if they are perfectly equal, then why segregate at all? It's nothing but a symbolic preference on your part, but the government, and particularly the court system, doesn't exist to enforce the majority's symbolic preferences - it exists to support their constitutional rights and promote their welfare.

Why indeed quibble? Because it IS symbolic, and it's an important symbol to many people who believe that it should maintain its traditional definition. I'm aware that these arguments are the same, by and large, as the ones that were used to advocate racial segregation but I believe that the comparison ends there. There are no "gay only" stores, "straight only" lunch counters, or anything of the like. As you said, it's a symbolic preference on my part and I don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does anything to reduce anyone's constitutional rights or demote their welfare.

Look, nobody's going to force your church or any other church to perform a gay wedding. Most gays probably wouldn't even want to be married in a church that treated them with nothing but hostility. All those churches - including, I'm sorry to say, the LDS Church, which has been at the forefront of these battles for decades - are free to be as discriminatory as they want in the confines of their own chapels vis a vis weddings. So why the hell is it such a problem for people like you?

Perhaps you're not aware that any church which does NOT recognize same-sex marriages could be classified as a "hate group" and sued? This would cause hundreds of churches to either compromise their beliefs or lose tax-exempt status.

However, I can assure that that is NOT the case in many other places in the US. California allowing gay marriage to continue, though, may benefit other couples elsewhere through the full faith and credit clause where a marriage legal in one state must be recognized in all states - I think it will take a trip to the Supreme Court to really make it stick, but it's one more blow for civil rights that are truly for all.

That's exactly what has been proposed on the Prop 8 websites (both for and against). I too feel that this issue will shortly be before the Supreme Court.

I noticed that MRDOD's post attacked you in particular and yet you seem to think it's an attack on all conservatives. Strawman much?

Agreed, that was a poor strawman and a dirty tactic. I apologize for that dishonesty.

Fact 1: You believe homosexuals do not deserve to be able to be married.

Agreed

Fact 2: You believe that homosexuals are attempting to hijack the concept of marriage.

Not the "concept" but rather using this opportunity to define it themselves WITHOUT a ballot measure but instead using a ruling by the state supreme court

Fact 3: You believe that homosexuals are doing this in order to force acceptance of homosexuality upon society.

Agreed[/quote]

[/quote]Fact 4: You believe that homosexuality is not condoned by the majority of society, and therefore it is completely morally indefensible to support gay marriage, because the majority is always right.[/quote]

I'm saying that the majority of Californians did condone same sex marriages in 2001 and that I do not condone it now. I did not say that supporting gay marriage is morally indensibile, in fact there are many strong arguments out there. I'm saying that I do not support it because of my own beliefs.

[Kodiak]

If we were to follow through with Kodiak's use of 'tradition' as a way to prevent social progression, than slavery would have to be re-introduced as it was tradition to own people like a piece of property long before the definition of Judeo-Christian marriage was ever concieved.

Yes, and I also believe we should all sit in the dark at night since it was "tradition" to do so before the advent of fire

[Ender]

I'm gonna go ahead and throw a little more fuel on the fire here

From September

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

Bird's father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville's Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

"I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with 'Party A' and 'Party B,' " he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. "If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time."

So far, however, officials with conservative legal foundations, gay groups and the state say they are unaware of anyone else making a similar stand.

And Rachel Bird described her position as "personal – not religious."

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

But those who favor the gender-neutral language say it is fair and treats all citizens equally.

"These are legal forms meant to uphold the law, changes that were meant to accommodate all Californians, which includes gays and lesbians," said Ed Bennett, president of the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats.

Bird and Codding said they didn't intend to become part of the culture debate. They didn't know about the change when they applied for their marriage license in August. When they saw the terms, Codding wrote "groom" next to "Party A" and "bride" next to Party B and submitted their license. On Aug. 16, they married at her father's church.

On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.

The couple say they have no intention of signing the forms.

"We feel that some things are worth fighting for," said Gideon Codding, 29.

Officials said the law is clear.

"I can understand their frustration," said Gloria Coutts, assistant county clerk for Placer County." But their marriage is not registered with the state."

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. "I really don't know," she said.

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

"We feel like a a bride and groom," said Bird.

From yesterday

Bride and groom are in. Party A and Party B are out.

California state officials, saying they had heard from residents all over the state who would like to be identified as "bride" and "groom" on their marriage license, announced Monday that state forms will be changed. Again.

Couples filling out the license will now have the option of declaring themselves bride and groom, bride and bride or groom and groom. They can also leave the space blank. The new forms will be available in county offices in November.

Roseville residents Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding, who refused to sign the new forms and sued the state, said they were relieved by the changes.

"We are just so thankful," said Codding.

A spokesman for the California Department of Public Health which oversees vital statistics denied that that changes are in response to the couple's lawsuit which was filed last week. Spokeswoman Suanne Buggy said the new language had been discussed for some time.

"These options are consistent with court rulings," said Buggy.

State officials changed the forms after the May state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same sex marriage. After that ruling, courts mandated state paperwork to use gender neutral language. State officials dropped the terms "bride" and "groom" and replaced them with the word "Party A" and "Party B."

So tell me Kodiak (and others) how do you feel about this? Personally, I think the state should have told them to get fucked and treat them as single if they still wouldn't sign the original form, and I think the father-in-law is a special kind of scum to use his daughter's wedding to mess with politics, but that's just me.

[Kodiak]

I'm saying that the majority of Californians did not condone same sex marriages in 2001 and that I do not condone it now. I did not say that supporting gay marriage is morally indensibile, in fact there are many strong arguments out there. I'm saying that I do not support it because of my own beliefs.

Stupid Typo. Fixed here.