posted November 06, 2008 11:22 PM            

The Church and not State(fed/state) marries people.

Church and Government(fed or state) should never mix and that way the constitution protects the rights of church(members)

How do u propose we resolve?

As I mentioned before I wanted America to have a liberal president just for these types of freedom which a conservative republican will never even think about for fear of God. Obama is actually doing a favor for conservatives running in the future provided this issue is burried for ever. I hope he even considers Euthanasia rights for inviduals. But remember people still have workarounds on these types of rights so was never important for me in elections.

posted November 07, 2008 12:19 AM            

quote:

---

I'm still just surprised by CA. Not so much the others but definitely CA.

---

A couple things happened that worked against the No on 8 people. The biggest one is probably the issue of teaching about gay marriage in schools. The Yes on 8 campaign released a radio commercial suggesting that gay marriage would be taught in schools just like it was in Massachusetts or Connecticut. Eventually, the No on 8 campaign responded with the California Superintendent of Schools saying that marriage details aren't taught in school. Yes on 8 responded with a "field trip" that took place to a gay wedding. (It wasn't actually a field trip. The kids and their parents were invited, and two families opted not to go from what I hear.) So it's no surprise that last week a Libra at work didn't understand that Prop 8 was a ban on gay marriage proposal. He thought it was about teaching kids about gay marriage. This was probably the biggest issue.

Two other issues I noticed:

Normally, the activist supporters on something are on the "Yes" side. It seemed wrong that the positive for gay marriage had to advocate "No".

This was further compounded by the other problem I saw. The Yes on 8 campaign had yellow background signs with blue writing that looked bright and cheery. The No on 8 gay rights campaign had Republican-looking royal blue background signs with a strong font and white lettering. If you only caught glipses of them side-by-side, I don't think there's any way you'd associate them with the correct group. I think the No on 8 campaign should have copied the color scheme and style of the Yes on 8 signs. I think that would have helped even the playing field amongst those who were just confused about what the votes meant.

posted November 07, 2008 01:58 PM            

but the vote is already being protested and the gay community will be lobbying for its repeal, at least in california.

posted November 07, 2008 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

what business does my neighbour have telling me who to marry, unless i am hurting him in some way??

---

posted November 07, 2008 08:52 PM            

Will the poor get a big "bonanza" while the rich (note... really the middle class) get taxed higher to give to the lazy and unmotivated?

How about this? Since Obama won the election, he has already pushed forth his plan to make middle (jr high)and high school kids perform 50 hours of community service per year in order to graduate..Sounds great right? Lets make them work (nevermind that it against child labot laws) but hell... The kids in HS that have siblings and a single mom that MUST work.. how are they supposed to feel about this?

In all reality, many of his ideas work out better for the elite (much like the Kremlin) than the middle class. The poor will be so busy working community hours, plus school, their jobs (to help feed the family) and even extracurricular activities, if they can do it, that they will not even see what is going on for the rich.. Oh.. how this feels like Putin's reign.

Gloat now.... but wait until all this crap comes to fruition. Higher taxes, lower incomes, less opportunities to buy homes...

Yeah... Great choice America... Obama is even being endorsed by the tyrant midget in Iran and his twin tard in Venezuela...

As far as gay marriage. I voted for the ban although I support civil unions. I Church has the right to stand by their doctrine and not perform gay marriage. Many of the initiatives took away that right and would force a church to perform such a union.

posted November 07, 2008 11:48 PM            

Now, if you hate Christians or think they're stupid or should be fed to the lions, I don't really care. But don't forget that even for heterosexual marriages, the Church does not recognize a Civil Ceremony as an official marriage by the Church (ie, with God) if the marriage has not also been blessed by the Church. Blessed and approved by the Church ... and yes, heterosexual couples are not necessarily approved for marriage just because they're not gay.

Anyway, it becomes more an issue of semantics at that point. Imo, Marriage is a religious ceremony and the word retains a religious overtone. And certainly, I don't believe any religion should be forced to change it's doctrine or practices by legal decree and especially not when that change would go entirely against what that religion not only practices today but has always practiced. Can Christians turn around and say they were handfasted because it's, like, the same thing?

For the rest of us who are not married by the church, gay or straight, we've gone through Civil Unions or Ceremonies. Justice of the Peace? Wed at the Courthouse? And, imo, the rights granted under a civil union should remain the same for any union ... although I would say I am opposed to unions of more than two people even if they are consenting adults. Call me crazy, I don't care.

posted November 08, 2008 01:11 AM              

quote:

---

I'd point out the lexigrammical differences between the terms "Civil Union" and "Marriage" but ...

---

ooh ooh ooh! I wanna see! I wanna see!

posted November 08, 2008 01:56 AM            

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

It is primarily an issue of semantics, and what we call legal relationships between adults. If civil unions and marriage afford the same rights under the law, why in the world should there be a different name? I think of all the situations where this wording might show up, and it just seems ridiculous.

"So...You guys getting married?"
"Nope, civil union."
"Same thing."
"Apparently not."

---

"So you're married?"
"No, actually. Civil union."
"But you're straight."
"Same thing, right?"
"Yeah, I suppose so."

posted November 08, 2008 04:07 PM            

I believe in liberty. Let individuals follow their own religion. Be it gay or straight. But no they are interested in marrying in front of audience. Because society denies marriage, they get a kick out of it by being rebels.

The traditional definition of marriage is "between man and woman". It ended up in all dictionary also as the same. Isn't it natural and a logical to believe that male and female (opposites) energies mix together. Every religion also teaches that as high truth and marriage is symbolic of that high truth. Jesus said unless you make the two in to one, you cannot enter the kingdom. And he said much more which I can't type at the moment. Churches that are established has tried to preserve Jesus's teachings. Perhaps the marrigage tradition got carried forward in churches from before Jesus. But didn't he also say people won't marry in the future. When we were in stone age, we never had the concept of family. No one knew who the father of the child was and the child would refer to every male as uncle

The guys who wants to marry or support them can go to their own temple and follow such practises. I do not think it would be unconstitutional. Or will it? My Pallas is in Leo, and if I am wise, I am right when I say that Obama does sees the same flaw in the constitution along those lines.

If Obama constitutionally supports gay marriage according to most definitions discussed here, he is nullifying church. If he is a marxist (who don't believe in God), then he will do such a thing. Apparently he has some wisdom in him, who could see that state and church should be kept separate.

And no that does not make me a left winger. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

posted November 08, 2008 10:55 PM            

Well, for you then.

******

civil union

NO UNCIVIL IN I
UNION IN I
CIVIL NOUN

******

marriage

I AM A GEAR
I MAR
I AGE
A RAG? GRIME!
I AM A GRIM MIRAGE
ME ME ME!
I RAGE

******

Note: By the line "A RAG? GRIME!" I felt a reference to the whole process over time (AGE) trying to be cleaned up or polished, if you will, with the result of the "grime" that the practice has acquired over the years being quite obvious.

******

So, and for other reasons, I don't hold a favourable opinion of the word marriage myself and can't imagine why so many people want to fight for it. A new and better word, more descriptive of what you want your union to be, would be better for all couples. Imo. Already vows, traditionally Christian, have gone through various changes with many abandoning traditional vows altogether. Aren't the majority of Americans moving toward a more secular, or at least not Christian, life anyway? Why not start wholly fresh? Alas, the English language doesn't seem to adapt as quickly as it should.

******

posted November 11, 2008 07:21 PM            

So, has your husband gotten off his butt and gotten a real job yet,
or is he still off killing brown people for lazy tycoons?

And, yes, we will see what Obama does with the next four years...

Who knows, maybe "the middle class" will grow
to include more than 2% of the population!

Lord knows, that single mother working the fry-o-lator at McDonald's,
on her feet for ten hours a day, in that cramped, hot little kitchen,
works at least as hard as most anyone I can think of in "the middle class".

People shouldnt have to bust their ***** just to scrape by, Pid,
but that is exactly what McCain and Bush would love to see.
And you just swallow their propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.

Its a damn shame.

posted November 11, 2008 08:30 PM            

quote:

---

So, and for other reasons, I don't hold a favourable opinion of the word marriage myself and can't imagine why so many people want to fight for it.

---

I'm not terribly concerned about the word per se, but I think you might be onto something in general.

I think that "marriage" is enviable by gay couples primarily because of its long dominance as a relationship contract. If Civil Unions had already reached an equal status in society on its own (and it was equal in everyone's eyes) I don't think we'd be seeing this battle. Certainly if there were a menu of relationship-contracts available, then Civil Unions would share a similar status to all the others on the list. It's just getting to that place of social acceptance.

posted November 12, 2008 10:52 AM            

So whether Pids husband kills some brown people in Iraq or a brown American president kills its own people, it is one and the same. Clintons debacle showed up 8 years late in the market. Most are trying to prevent a socialistic Obama from carrying out his dumb plan.

Gosh, where were you when we were discussing these things in the last several months?

Most here believe that a capatilist nation generates wealth and gives prosperity to its peoples and rest of the world. It could then be shared as welfare amongst the american people or as aid to Africa and other countries of the world etc etc; even freedom could be spread to all corners of the world ....

Sometimes people do sound alarmist just to keep our liberal hearts in check

posted November 14, 2008 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

HSC, your perception is flawed. The president of any country with marxist economy policies may use force (constitution amendment) and military to bring about change.
History has shown how millions were killed by dictators justifying killing the weak and the hungry and those suffering in famine. Obama's philosophy is same.

---

Are you talking to me?

Although I do not necessarily agree, I never disagreed with any of this, though I may take issue with your use of certain terms.

For one thing, I'm afraid Obama will just turn Afghanistan into another Iraq. Maybe Palestine, too. Like I said, we will see.

quote:

---

Did you not notice how his campaign people and other supporters gave him the election? An Ohio government woman thought it was fair to intrude in that Joe the plumber privacy and get his details... etc etc..These socialists will do anything for their president. Remember the KGB days where PhD women will sleep with men to get secret information? Its kindda like that.

---

I'm not qualified to answer this, but I've never contradicted it.

Maybe AG can help you out there?

quote:

---

So whether Pids husband kills some brown people in Iraq or a brown American president kills its own people, it is one and the same.

---

It's a little different. Without a draft, Obama cannot send a soldier to war without his/her consent.
Of course, that is what military propaganda is for; the manufacting of consent. If only the people would WAKE UP,
and ask questions about our motives for military intervention, they might save their own lives.

But these poor lemmings, these pure men of action, are every crooked politician's wet dream.

quote:

---

Clintons debacle showed up 8 years late in the market. Most are trying to prevent a socialistic Obama from carrying out his dumb plan.

---

What are your concerns, exactly? What do you think may happen?

quote:

---

Gosh, where were you when we were discussing these things in the last several months?

---

Wherever God wanted me?

quote:

---

Most here believe that a capatilist nation generates wealth and gives prosperity to its peoples and rest of the world. It could then be shared as welfare amongst the american people or as aid to Africa and other countries of the world etc etc; even freedom could be spread to all corners of the world ....

---

Obama, as far as I know, is not anti-capitalist. It would appear that he is proposing what you want.
Isnt the sharing you speak of the same fair distribution of profits that Obama has promised?
The so-called free market of the past, and lamentable present, is what has failed us, and landed us in an econimic depression.
But that's how the powers want it. It is set up that way. Corporations take risks with taxpayer money.
These bailouts are nothing new, but, rather they've been a built-in part of the system for years.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDPxVy7h38

http://www.amhttp://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Fant asies-Capitalism-World/dp/B00002JXEJ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1226711428&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=chomsky

quote:

---

Sometimes people do sound alarmist just to keep our liberal hearts in check

---

posted November 14, 2008 08:28 PM            

Interracial marriage bans existed until June 12, 1967 Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court ruling. Barack was born 6 years to his white mother and black father before that when there were around 30 states with anti-miscegenation laws. I was born to my black father and white mother 4 years after that ruling.

even Interracial marriage rights pioneer Mildred Loving believes that gay marriage should be a right and that no religious beliefs should keep people that love each other from being married just like they kept black/white couples from marrying each other.

I am glad that religious beliefs can't keep people of different races from marrying each other.

I look at it like like this
if I couldn't marry the woman that I love because she and I are of different races,I would be ******

well..that's how gay people feel for not being able to marry their same sex partner.

So I empathize with them in that way.

I also have maternal stepcousins that are gay too....so their gay marriage rights are taken away.....all because people want to be self righteous and impose their beliefs on them.