Brand new here and really angered by...

[luluc 6]

They did it in Texas and I was very disappointed but not surprised.

nor was i. amazingly - or rather not, arkansas voted to not only prohibit the gay community from adoption - but also unmarried couples.

love to know the pro life movements view on this - or really, maybe not:confused:

[plain 12]

love to know the pro life movements view on this - or really, maybe not

Do you REALLY wanna open that can of worms again??

[luluc 6]

Do you REALLY wanna open that can of worms again??

they have their own thread TYVM - i however find it ironic who likely supported the ban of adoption to gays & unmarried individuals in Ark, which isn't off base in the discussion of this thread topic.

[JaimeSTL 4]

Thank you Jaime,

and OMG!!! A baby! Congrats, how did I miss that?!?

Keep me updated. I'm excited for you.

Thanks! It was quite a shocker, but we're getting excited!

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

To clarify, since it seems not many are very educated about the issue, or the proposition...

First, Prop 8 contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It's not an attack on gays or how they choose to live. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this. You may still visit your loved one in the hospital.

Secondly, the proposition does not seek to nullify any of the 18,000 marriages already performed. The victory for prop 8 is the definition of marriage. Call it civil union or domestic partnership. It's not a marriage.

Thirdly, as far as park discounts and car insurance rates, that's really something you should take up with the companies that you use, not the law. I don't like paying more because of the car I drive either, but I don't seek to change the definition of an SUV.

It's about changing a law to meet the needs of few people. It would seem ludicrous to all of us here for a man to attempt to change age of consent because he fell in love with a 7 year old. Or for a thief to change the definition of robbery because he was unsatisfied with how society, or tax benefits, or what not viewed him.

If it's all about symbolism and being recognized by God or what not, no earthly legal label makes a difference in any of that.

If we define marriage as a committment between any two consenting adults, why stop there? Why do they have to consent? Why do they need to be adults? Are they just human adults or are we talking all types of adults? Adult goats (as I read in the paper the other day about a man who loved his goat in that fashion.) Can I marry my sister? We're two consenting adults. No! The law of the land is that marriage is defined by a union between a man and a woman. Period. End of story.

I can understand that this is an emotional issue. I get that. And I don't mean to make emotions seem unimportant or belittle anyone in any way. (Which is why you won't hear me saying "I don't care what you think." and blah, because I do care what you think, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here)

People think that by protesting on the streets, or by making a big fuss over what's now been passed TWICE by voters (which I think should have more sway than 4 judges, it was a 4-3 vote BTW, not a big victory by any means) that it's going to change. It's not. Gay and lesbian people will fight, but for once, and I'm so proud... we're fighting back. I'm not going to be shoved into a corner and labeled a homophobe or discriminatory. I don't believe I'm either of those. I know gay people, I'm related to gay people. I love them. My position has and always will be the same. To me, this isn't a religious issue like the world wants to make it. It's a moral issue, yes- just like any other issue- abortion, death penalty, redistribution of wealth. But it's also an issue that I feel very strongly about.

As for the argument of what happens behind closed doors, believe me, I do not care, nor do I want to hear about it. However, we're not talking about what happens in private, we're talking about what is paraded around in society.

I have always believed in defining a marriage between a man and a woman. This prop 8 thing has made me think more deeply and I realized that I need to be more vocal about MY beliefs and MY rights. Although I won't speak without thinking and taking into consideration the words I'm saying, I won't be silent anymore for fear of hurting someone's feelings. And if you really believe what you preach, then you should be tolerant towards me and my beliefs. Somehow by having a different opinion, I'm intolerant. But to those who agree with me: we can't let that hold us back any more. If you're against gay marriage, take a stand and be active in the cause. Don't let them scare you or bully you.

Again, I don't have malice or hate in my heart against anyone. I love my gay friends and relatives and will always love them. And we will continue to disagree about this fundamental topic. But at what point will people move on and accept the law of the land?

[luluc 6]

This prop 8 thing has made me think more deeply and I realized that I need to be more vocal about MY beliefs and MY rights. Although I won't speak without thinking and taking into consideration the words I'm saying, I won't be silent anymore for fear of hurting someone's feelings. And if you really believe what you preach, then you should be tolerant towards me and my beliefs. Somehow by having a different opinion, I'm intolerant. But to those who agree with me: we can't let that hold us back any more. If you're against gay marriage, take a stand and be active in the cause. Don't let them scare you or bully you.

Again, I don't have malice or hate in my heart against anyone?

you shouldn't be silent for sharing your value system - nor should you not expect those that don't "believe" as you do, not respond.

if you don't have malice or hate in your heart; then you would have no issue with those who love who they do & want a legal commitment that is "maybe not like yours".

you have EVERY right to post your opinion of the matter - as do others to respond in kind...it is R&R.

[JaimeSTL 4]

MrsFF, I'm just wondering if you could explain how gay marriage affects you at all. All I hear is that gay marriage will somehow undermine the sanctity of marriage. I guess I just don't see how someone else's marriage affects mine in the slightest.

As for the slippery slope argument you are bringing up (people marrying animals, adults marrying children, etc), I think that's ridiculous. There are laws in place to protect animals, children, etc. Are you saying that gay people need to be protected just the same?

I think you should really put yourself in the shoes of the parties you are fighting so hard against. If someone told me that for some trivial reason, my husband and I couldn't be married, have the equal rights of another married couple, etc, but we could have a "civil union" and we should just be happy with that, I wouldn't be very happy. As someone else pointed out, it wasn't all that long ago that interracial marriage was actually banned in places...would you and your husband be okay with racists trying to invalidate your marriage or prevent you from being married at all because their personal beliefs said it was wrong? I doubt it.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

The reason is not so simple to explain as it begins with the start of our existence on earth, our purpose, our functions as genders, our goals, etc... You're asking me to put a series of novels into one paragraph, which I cannot do. However, I'll try. It redefines marriage for society, with a definition I do not agree with. That alone undermines the sanctity of my marriage. I don't want my children (which I do not yet have) learning that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage. (BTW, CA law can require kindergarteners to learn the concept of marriage in schools Education Code § 51890).There cannot be two marriages. My marriage is not the same as a homosexual relationship. Mine is previously defined, and yes, I believe, one that is defined by God. If we redefine it, marriage becomes genderless. Marriage is essential to society. The unit of a family is important, one that keeps our children grounded, historically better citizens, off drugs, away from teen pregnancy. The definition of marriage has been used for thousands of years. Yet now people want to change it for the attractions of a few. I believe a child is ideally born into a stable family with a mother and a father, as we know children need both gender influences. This is not to diminish familes that have different situations due to death or divorce or illness or what not.

As for the racism aspect, again, as I said before... and to mimic your words "that's ridiculous." Again, the definition of marriage is one between a MAN and a WOMAN. He is a man, I am a woman. It has never been defined as a union between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman. In addition, we didn't get married for legal benefits, tax purposes, or for the discounts we allegedly are entitled to. For me, the legality wasn't ever the point. We took vows in front of friends, family, and God. Gays are free to do the same if they like. It just shouldn't be labeled as a marriage.

The point of the law here is to define and determine appropropriate behavior, just like we've defined stealing and murder and determined what's appopriate. No one is interested in arresting all the gay people and plopping them in jail (unlike the racial laws in the south).

Same gender attraction does not allow for society to continue. And no, I don't believe the only reason to get married is to make babies but the concept supports my belief (and the reason that we're all here today- your birth took two genders to create). If the only way to perpetuate the species is between opposing genders, then is is contrary to nature to have two same gender beings together as that would be the end of the species. Rationally, why would it be okay to have a committment that stops the species from existing? .... Why don't we live in the bottom of the ocean? Because we weren't designed that way. Why do same gender relationships not produce more members of society. Because we weren't designed that way.

I don't believe the world is overpopulated, so that argument doesn't work with me. I think we should be better stewards of our resources- but that there are enough resources for many more people. Animals everywhere have a common purpose in mind, to not go extinct. It's embedded into us. Even gay couples can agree, they want babies too. To raise someone, to leave a piece of themselves on the earth and to continue their species. Unfortunately, we, by nature, were not designed to do it with someone of the same gender.

[MacMadame 81]

Does this mean that all previous gay marriages in California have been set aside and rendered invalid?

No, the law doesn't work that way. (Thank goodness.)

Is it the Hispanic and Asian community?

It was 52% of the people. To try to pin it on one or two minority groups is offensive to me. Plenty of white people voted for this abomination.

It's not an attack on gays or how they choose to live.

Of course it is. Otherwise, the status quo would have been maintained. There is no need for Prop 8 if you don't want to challenge gay people's way of life.

Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this. You may still visit your loved one in the hospital.

Unless your partner is in a hospital outside of CA. That's not the only difference. There are tons of differences between a domestic partnership and a marriage.

It's about changing a law to meet the needs of few people.

Right. It's about changing the constitution to make a few people feel comfortable and keep gay people out of their exclusive club.

It would seem ludicrous to all of us here for a man to attempt to change age of consent because he fell in love with a 7 year old.

Here we go again, comparing being gay to being a pedophile. :eek:

If it's all about symbolism and being recognized by God or what not, no earthly legal label makes a difference in any of that.

Except I already said it was about legal rights, not symbolism. If the state only recognized civil unions, for gay and straight people, and marriage were some spiritual thing, I'd be fine with that. But the state is in the marriage business and therefore it's wrong to single out a whole group of people and say "no Soup for you."

If we define marriage as a committment between any two consenting adults, why stop there? Why do they have to consent? Why do they need to be adults? Are they just human adults or are we talking all types of adults? Adult goats (as I read in the paper the other day about a man who loved his goat in that fashion.) Can I marry my sister? We're two consenting adults.

More offensive crap comparing being gay to incest and bestiality.

People think that by protesting on the streets, or by making a big fuss over what's now been passed TWICE by voters (which I think should have more sway than 4 judges, it was a 4-3 vote BTW, not a big victory by any means) that it's going to change. It's not.

First of all, the law of the land says that elected judges get to decide certain topics. The people agreed to those laws and elected those judges. That's the way our system works. It's not some perversion of justice as you imply.

Secondly, the idea that this will never change is just ridiculous. Every year there is less and less support for prohibiting gay marriage, not more. I predict in 10 years or less, gay marriage will be legal in CA and quite a few other states it's not legal in now as well. It's definitely going to change; it's already changing in other states.

[pattygreen 5]

mrsflipflops, You have a definite way with words, and I agree wholeheartedly with all that you have been saying. It is the definition of marriage that I ,too , don't want to see changed. Marriage is: A God ordained institution between a man and a woman who say vows before God as they make a committment together before Him.

I also understand that there are those that don't believe in God. That is their decision. The God that I serve, Jesus, tells me in His word that it is wrong for men to have sexual relations with men and viceversa. He established the marriage union and therefore if you don't want to obey Him, then you don't have to. Call your relationship a civil Union (or any other name you like) say your vows before your own God and get on with your life doing just as you please. Just don't expect the majority to have to change the meaning of marriage as it was defined by its Creator.

[BJean 16]

This goes to the very heart of the reason behind separation of church and state.

[*susan* 1,709]

BJean, I agree 100%!

[pattygreen 5]

Why does the gay community feel they have to call their relationships 'marriage'? Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I believe it is not because they want the same rights as married people do, (because as a civil union, they have those rights) but I believe it is because they feel that if they can get the people to call their relationships a 'marriage', then it would be considered acceptable, and it would make them feel like it is ok to live this way.They would feel justified in doing what they are doing. People are much happier to live in a world where if you are doing wrong, it's ok because it's legal.( just a few examples: It's legal to drink alcohol and get drunk, even though drinking alcohol to excess causes many problems. It's legal to abort babies, even though it kills life. Some want to make marajuana legal, even though it affects the mind mentally. It's legal to smoke cigarettes, even though it is a proven toxin.) People feel much better about sinning when it's allowed by law.

[pattygreen 5]

Dear Macmadame, You are absolutely right when you say that within 10 years or so gay marriage will be allowed by law. This is because as time goes on people get further and further away from the moral code of law that was set up for us in the beginning. God gave us these laws and some still choose to adhere to them and others don't. God did say that in the end people will want to call what's wrong, right and then what's right, wrong. I can see that today with alot of issues: Take 'In God we trust' off our money. Take prayer out of school. Take 'Under God' out of our pledge. Take the 10 Commandments down from public places.

When this country (which began as a Christian nation) starts to take 'God' out of it and make laws that contradict his way, Then you will see it begin to fail.

[ReadySteadyGo 8]

You can have marriages in the church only. THat would be fine. But the government should accept all marriages or only recognize civil unions for everyone.

Patty Green I could care less what you think God Ordained. Blah Blah the bible, Blah Blah. I wish people would stop speaking for God, I'm sure he finds it rude. I would if someone was talking about something they really knew nothing about using my Name.

People do the whole seperation of church and state just like they do the bible. They pick and choose what verses in the bible they want to live by, and what they want to force others to live by, and ignore the others. People want seperation of church and state EXCEPT this issue or that issue. We are supposed to have SEPERATION. Complete.

Ms. FF. I'm not going to respond to you. I can't be civil with someone who compares my life with a child molester or someone who would be with a horse, or a goat, or a duck for that matter. So, I will just tell you now, that I'm sorry I can't. I wish I had the time and the patience to show you, but I don't.

So Ms. PGreen. Do you follow these laws? Do you think someone who doesn't is gonna "fail" along with the pro-choicers and the gays, and whatever else the bible thumpers are screaming about? In the same testament that the bible verse you love to throw around in leviticus?

"If a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they punish him, then his father and mother shall take him before the elders of the city and declare, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and won't obey; he is a worthless drunkard." Then the men of the city shall stone him to death. In this way you shall put away this evil from among you, and all the young men of Israel will hear about what happened and will be afraid"

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Look, they are supposed to kill their kids. KILL the rebellious teenagers! Or at least not let them get married. Being rebellious is a choice!)

For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on Sabbath shall be put to death.

Exodus 35:2 (Lots of people work on the weekend...Lets kill em...or at least not let them get married. Working on the weekend is a choice!!!)

When the lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show no mercy.

Deuteronomy 7: 1-2 (Yeah! Kill em. Who said they have a right to live there anyway? If we won't do the right thing and kill them all, we should at least not let them get married. Being in the country that WE want is a choice!!!)

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife. As Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING.

Ephesians 5:22-24 (Oh I get it now! How can gays get married? It's not written in a book who should submit to who! How confusing! They would have to have an equal relationship with communication and no orders. That will never do. I see the light now! Being a submissive wife is NOT a choice! Get off the internet all you married ladies and go ask your husband as meekly as possible to give you your opinion, then beg his permission to type it. Didn't want to submit to your husband. Shouldn't be allowed. Being a strong, opinionated woman is a choice!!!)

Now, I don't want your acceptance. I want EVERYONE to have the same rights. Be they rebellious teenagers, countries we have invaded, People who work on the weekend, Wives of husbands, or the abominable gays. If anyone doesn't agree with my lifestyle, they have that right...see I would protect that one too. I would protect your right to argue with me. To live how you see fit no matter how much I think you are wrong. I don't agree with what you say but I'm glad you get to say it. But to try to hold someone down because you think they are immoral is unpatriotic, and oppressive. To take rights AWAY from any group of people is unconstitutional, and hopefully one day we will finally have that seperation of church and state.

Edited November 10, 2008 by ReadySteadyGo
Half my post dissapeared, so I had to put it back