Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 3, 2008 - 02:53pm PT
|
Can anyone here tell me what "rights" are being violated by the passage of this proposition?
What advantage does a married couple have over Domestic Partnership in the state of California?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 03:02pm PT
|
It is a civil right to be married?
Why then would the Supreme Court not make this decision?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
How about if we pass a law that forbids any person who voted yes on Prop 8 from referring to his or her spouse as "husband" or "wife"?Instead, they may refer to their "concubine."
However, they would have the same rights as husbands and wives, so what rights have been violated?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
" It is a civil right to be married?
Why then would the Supreme Court not make this decision?"
The California Supreme Court determined that under the California Constitution, it is a violation of civil rights to deny gays the ability to get married while allowing it for heteros.
Prop 8 would amend the California Constitution to make it state that gays cannot get married.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
For starters, there is the tax code. Proposition 8 would not change anything for Federal purposes, since the definition of married is in the US Code. But it might for CA taxes.
At the state level, marital status affects distribution of property. Again, whether the status would be recognized in another jurisdiction is a complex question.
After that there is family law with respect to custody of children, etc. Much of that lies in common law.
Probably a slew of others that lawyers could come up with.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I'd like to know why almost every banner on the ST Forums is a 'Yes on 8' banner today. I understand how Google works, placing ads and banners according to the content of the page, but that banner is appearing consistently on forums that have nothing to do with politics.
It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic.
I would strongly support an effort by ST to negotiate an arrangement with Google that screens out such politically charged and highly divisive ads and content (if such a thing is possible).
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
Gays can get married. They could always get married.
Prop 8 won't outlaw gays getting married, they'll just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
A gay guy can marry any woman he talks into marrying him, even a lesbian woman. Same rights as a straight guy has.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
I support Gay Marriage so I am voting YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
Juan
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
The LA Times says that Prop 8 is largely funded by the Mormons. I can't say, but someone is paying for all those banner ads.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story
No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.
November 2, 2008
Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.
That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.
Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.
Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.
Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.
Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic."
I disagree. Most people realize that the web site does not have control over and does not endorse the statements made in banner ads.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 03:21pm PT
|
apogee,
I believe the domain owners have the right to negotiate the contents of ads placed on thier websites.
If Prop 8 deminishes the ability for couples to get equal treatment in a court of law then I will vote against it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
And all I get is the following ads:
1. Subscribe to Alpinist, 33% off, get issue 25.
2. Link to some website for single hikers.
3. Asking that I buy a Ford F-150 gas guzzler.
It just ain't fair, I tell you. The electronic genies must know I'm a Canadian, and spare me the political ads.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
T*r,
we're probably closer on this than you think.
I don't give a damn who marries who or why. And I especially don't see where The Government has any moral authority to use it's force to decide who can or cannot marry.
But IF The Government IS to decide, isn't it better if it's decided by a vote of The People at large, rather than some accountable-to-nobody judge?
If you allow a judge to over-turn the vote on a proposition, it's a very small step for the same judge to decide we voted for the wrong person and over-turn all elections he doesn't personally agree with.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"It's really annoying, and whether it is not intended by ST or not, it casts an impression that ST has a political position on this topic."
"GC: I disagree. Most people realize that the web site does not have control over and does not endorse the statements made in banner ads."
I seriously doubt that most people realize this, but it would be comforting to know this if it is true.
pud: "I believe the domain owners have the right to negotiate the contents of ads placed on thier websites."
Hmm. I wonder. I'm no web-ad guru, but from what I understand the website provides the space, and Google inserts ads according to the content of the page, the user's past interests (based on similar page visits), and other considerations. It would be interesting to know just how much discretion the site owner has over the content of the banners.
|
|
Tan Slacks
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
"But IF The Government IS to decide, isn't it better if it's decided by a vote of The People at large, rather than some accountable-to-nobody judge?"
It's always difficult to have a popular vote overturned by our judiciary. But, the judicial branch of our government has equal value and should not be overlooked. Popular vote has for some a very serious downside. We do not have to go back far in history to a time when popular vote would have and did restrict the rights of many Americans. Consider for a moment that the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian" If places and practices of other religions were restricted, who can or would protect the rights of these minorities? That for me, is the reason I can abide by their decisions. I will always believe that what makes America so great is her ability to see past the popular vote when a minority is threatened.
Prop 8 clearly tries to restrict access of a clear minority to a privaledge and vocabulary that is enjoyed by the majority and I can't help but feel that the prop is insprired in religion.
just my 2 cents
|
|
kelly slater
climber
|
|
nice to see supertopo supporting prop 8 in advertisement
|
|
Moof
Big Wall climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
Out here in Orygun our company just ammended it's policy such that only married and same sex civil unions can sign up for health benefits for the significant other, BUT opposite sex civil unions are not eligible.
It's an odd result of same sex partners not having legal marriage options, so they get MORE benefits than equivalent "straight" couples. Goofy...
|
|
crusher
climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
Proposition 8, proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
So...change our State Constitution to deny the right of same sex couples to legally marry and enjoy the benefits of a state-licensed marriage vs. a "Domestic Partnership".
Here is a link (sorry, too much to cut and paste and still keep the format its in) - showing the differences in benefits between marriage and domestic partnership in CA.
http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus
Hopefully this idiotic and hateful proposition will be roundly defeated tomorrow.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
|
Thanks crusher.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!