tugon (imported) wrote: Fri May 16, 2008 7:03 pm I do not know why christians feel the need to force their agenda on others. Since so much of it is misinterpreted. If two adult people are in love and they want to commit to each other so be it. I know some fudamentalists that are able to find evil in everything and I think that is a form of evil. Sometimes I think what is wrong with this country is all the damn christians. Those that emulate the life of Christ and do not preach from the Old Testament to support hate and their agenda please forgive me. The rest well you make a man twice as fit for hell as you are yourself.

Because they feel it is a their God given duty to convert the wicked and those that do not agree with them.

If there was an actual Hell then it is earth, and the good people are hear to learn then report back.

As the whole mess with the FLDS church people see what they want to see. Oprah gave a good example the other day on her show about the FLDS group...in the bible there is a line that the FLDS church translates into women can not cut there hair, but yet anyone that wants to leave the compound has to deal with the armed guard towers you see on prison fences and high fences with barbed wire on top! The way I saw it they would shot to kill any member that tries to run away. Now does not the bible say it is wrong to kill? or did a miss the line that said it is ok to force people to stay in your police state compound. Or they just get so many people wanting to join that they had to put up guns to keep them out?

People see and read what they want in the bible.

The mission of Jesus was to teach love and kindness for each other, and not to take the sins of the world on his shoulders.

The proponents of the initiative to put the ban on same sex marriage in the California constitution claim to have a million signatures on their petition. Assuming that enough of the signatures are verified as registered voters, the issue will be on the ballot in November. In California, the campaign for this one will probably overshadow the presidential race. If it passes, it will be an example of what the founding fathers feared in a democratic process, the Tyranny of the Majority.

That was the reason that they created our country's government as a representative democracy instead of a true democracy. Having a system of elected legislators, of varying terms, and a Supreme Court with justices appointed for life was intended to put the restraint of reason into the public discourse. The reality is that this is something that most legislators, in this PC state, do not want to take the heat for at election time, one way or the other. They are quite happy to let it go to an initiative proposition.

The initiative petition process in California was enacted to provide a way for the people to get around a corrupt or lazy legislature, but, in recent years, unfortunately, has been co-opted by special interest groups to get their desires written into the state constitution, and by devious legislators to get laws passed by the people that the legislators don't want to take the blame for at election time.

Legislators and special interest groups count on the fact the few voters take the time to read the full text of the law or constitutional amendment that they are voting for. This one, however is simple enough that anyone can read it. Here is the full text:

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution to read:

Sec. 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

It's meant to elicit a simple, emotional response. "Sure, why not? It's obvious." They are counting on the fact that most people will not consider the consequences. Look at the last part of the sentence, "or recognized". That means that California law will not recognize a same sex marriage from other places where it is legal. So? I'll give you an example.

I know a very committed pair of women who have been living together for 20 years, or so. One of them was the victim of a horrendous traffic accident (prior to 2003) in which her neck was broken. Her partner called by the Highway Patrol because of identification found in the accident victim's purse, but because she was not a spouse or blood relative, they would not even tell her where the partner had been taken. She had to wait hours until the parents of the other woman had been notified and were able to call her. Then, when she got to the hospital, she ran into the same problem. Hospital personnel would not let her see her partner or tell her about her partner's condition because she was not a spouse or a blood relative. Finally, one of the doctors said that the situation was ridiculous and let her see her partner (Who, by the way, survived and recovered.).

That's just one example of the kind of thing that will happen if this is passed. The people behind this initiative are not favorable to domestic partnership rights for same sex couples either and are actively circulating another petition to get a proposition on the ballot to enact a constitutional amendment to reverse the The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. These people feel that they are doing "God's work."

I know many same sex couples socially, and have observed that relationships are relationships. The quality of the relations between the partners in a heterosexual couple and between the partners in a homosexual couple differ only in the small details. If same sex couples want to get married (and suffer with the rest of us) what business is is of the government or religious zealots? Let them.

This seems to be a very petty thing to be amending a constitution about. --FLO--

Uncle Flo (imported) wrote: Sat May 17, 2008 11:13 am This seems to be a very petty thing to be amending a constitution about. --FLO--

It certainly is, but the reason that the group opposed to same sex marriage wants to amend the state constitution is that, with it part of the constitution, the California State Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional as they did the original law. They are also proposing the same amendment to the US Constitution!

The Iraq Occupation aside, I feel that the issues of same sex marriage and abortion have the potential to become the most divisive political issues that the people of this country have had to deal with since slavery.

The initiative process in California was designed exactly for cases such as this. The judicial branch of California's government made a ruling that upset a large number of people, and so they now have the opportunity to put the matter before the people and let them have a chance to overrule the government. I am very glad to see this process in action, regardless of whether or not I agree with what the process is adressing.

Simply because one does not agree with an attempt to amend the constitution does not make such an attempt a "special interest." It seems that these days "special interests" are anything we don't agree with. If we do agree with it, then it is a valid interest, no matter how specialized the group behind it is.

Why is same-sex marriage a government issue? Because there are government-granted rights and benefits involved. If marriage were only a title with no special rights and benefits involved, then of course the government would not deserve any say in the matter. But since there are such rights and benefits, it is a government issue.

I am very pleased with domestic partnerships. My partnership has saved my partner and me money, among other things. We were able to buy one renter's insurance policy for both of us because of the partnership. Without the partnership, we would have each had to buy our own policy for the same property, which would have doubled the price. The partnership also enables us to see one another in the hospital, get information on one another's condition while in the hospital, and make medical decisions for one another. If either of us dies due to unnatural circumstances, the other can sue for wrongful death. We can file jointly for our state taxes. There are also a number of other rights we get that are too many to list. Yes, there are still a few rights of marriage that domestic partners do not get, but in California domestic partners get almost all the rights and benefits of marriage. If I had to choose between domestic partnerships and nothing, I don't think I'd spend much time making up my mind.

And yes, one of the major drawbacks to our domestic partnership is that it is only valid and recognized in California. If we are in another state, we are two strangers and have no rights. Perhaps someday there will be a domestic partnership like system on the federal level. I would support that.

Now, consider the ramifications of this intiative if it qualifies. Historically these sorts of amendments have been known to draw conservatives to the polls in very large numbers. If this were to occur, how would the entire elections be affected? Might McCain claim California? If he could do that, he would almost certainly win the presidency. Might the balance of California's state legislature be affected? How will other proposed constitutional amendments turn out? Including ones that failed before but are up for a second try?

There are a number of potentially serious ramifications of this amendment that need to be considered. It is a lot more than just the issue at hand.

But speaking of the issue at hand, I am not confident in the chances that this amendment will not pass. It was only 8 years ago that 61% of voters passed the statue with the same wording. I honestly am skeptical that things could have changed that much since then.

Good news this is indeed, but the vote was close. I hope that the United States Supreme Court allows the states to deal with this right, not because I think same-sex marriage is wrong but because it needs some hothouses to nurture its formation. The notion that people cannot be who they are or live fulfilling private lives is more than sad, it is outrageous. My first response to this news was one of immediate joy.

plix (imported) wrote: Sat May 17, 2008 1:43 pm The initiative process in California was designed exactly for cases such as this. The judicial branch of California's government made a ruling that upset a large number of people, and so they now have the opportunity to put the matter before the people and let them have a chance to overrule the government. I am very glad to see this process in action, regardless of whether or not I agree with what the process is adressing.

Simply because one does not agree with an attempt to amend the constitution does not make such an attempt a "special interest." It seems that these days "special interests" are anything we don't agree with. If we do agree with it, then it is a valid interest, no matter how specialized the group behind it is.

Why is same-sex marriage a government issue? Because there are government-granted rights and benefits involved. If marriage were only a title with no special rights and benefits involved, then of course the government would not deserve any say in the matter. But since there are such rights and benefits, it is a government issue.

I am very pleased with domestic partnerships. My partnership has saved my partner and me money, among other things. We were able to buy one renter's insurance policy for both of us because of the partnership. Without the partnership, we would have each had to buy our own policy for the same property, which would have doubled the price. The partnership also enables us to see one another in the hospital, get information on one another's condition while in the hospital, and make medical decisions for one another. If either of us dies due to unnatural circumstances, the other can sue for wrongful death. We can file jointly for our state taxes. There are also a number of other rights we get that are too many to list. Yes, there are still a few rights of marriage that domestic partners do not get, but in California domestic partners get almost all the rights and benefits of marriage. If I had to choose between domestic partnerships and nothing, I don't think I'd spend much time making up my mind.

And yes, one of the major drawbacks to our domestic partnership is that it is only valid and recognized in California. If we are in another state, we are two strangers and have no rights. Perhaps someday there will be a domestic partnership like system on the federal level. I would support that.

Now, consider the ramifications of this intiative if it qualifies. Historically these sorts of amendments have been known to draw conservatives to the polls in very large numbers. If this were to occur, how would the entire elections be affected? Might McCain claim California? If he could do that, he would almost certainly win the presidency. Might the balance of California's state legislature be affected? How will other proposed constitutional amendments turn out? Including ones that failed before but are up for a second try?

There are a number of potentially serious ramifications of this amendment that need to be considered. It is a lot more than just the issue at hand.

But speaking of the issue at hand, I am not confident in the chances that this amendment will not pass. It was only 8 years ago that 61% of voters passed the statue with the same wording. I honestly am skeptical that things could have changed that much since then.

You have already posted the immediate and most salient objection to the post I just made. Thanks for having already done that.

It's a good news for GLBT. Although many countries are still forbidding the same-sex marriage at present. It got some progress. I think it's really great. I have a friend getting married with the same sex under the help of the site BisexualMingle (explore sexuality, come out, enjoy life, have fun, romance, fulfill fantasy, etc.). And they live happily and wonderfully.