Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto

[Green Gaia]

This is exactly what I think. Many people are very uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality and don't like it thrust in their faces.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how asking for equal rights is thrusting homosexuality in people's faces. If they are uncomfortable with it for whatever reason, I can somewhat understand that given all the misformation and misunderstandings some believe. But that's no excuse for denying another human being the same rights you enjoy. There's just no legal excuse.

 

[jonny]

That's what happened in Massachusetts and the opponents of same sex marriage are scared to death that will start happening everywhere. That's why they're running around accusing judges of being activists and trying to get a federal ban on same sex marriage. It's not going to happen. Same sex marriage will be legal in every state - eventually. You cannot deny someone equal rights and protections and expect to be upheld by courts. We just have to wait and be vigilant.

I'll admit that same sex marriage makes me uncomfortable, but I have realized that there is no logical reason why it should be illegal. "God said it was bad" doesn't fly in a country that separates church and state and "it undermines my marriage" is bull because what other people do has little effect on what I do in my life.

The only request that I have for any law that is passed is protection for the churches. I am worried that the right for churches to marry people will be taken away if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

 

[Green Gaia]

The only request that I have for any law that is passed is protection for the churches. I am worried that the right for churches to marry people will be taken away if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

What in the world would make you think that would happen? Most churches are exclusive about who they will and will not marry now? No one can make a church marry a certain couple. Why do you think that would change?

 

[jonny]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how asking for equal rights is thrusting homosexuality in people's faces.

That's because you are coming from a different perspective. As has already been stated, most people don't see this as an equal rights issue.

 

[jonny]

What in the world would make you think that would happen? Most churches are exclusive about who they will and will not marry now? No one can make a church marry a certain couple. Why do you think that would change?

Because it has become an equal rights issue and when things become equal rights issues the government starts making laws to restrict people who discriminate. I'm sure that the ACLU will sue a church somewhere because it doesn't perform same sex marriages eventually. Maybe my worries are unfounded, but it is my only reservation. I just look at what has happened with the Boy Scouts and see people going after churches in the same way eventually.

 

[Flappycat]

Sick of this.

As a homosexual myself, I'd like to make a few comments on the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage, and I feel that I have a right to be heard and heeded on this matter because the issue directly affects my future and my way of life. Mostly, I'd like to point out that neither heterosexuals nor Christians would lose anything as a result of homosexuals having the legal right to marry. In fact, the only group that has a personal stake in this is the gay and lesbian community, and to us it really isn't a joking matter. Of the many rationalizations that I've heard from the armchair sociologists, wannabe child health specialists, and self-styled psychologists, I haven't heard a single convincing argument from the other side, and I sense that they're just trying to excuse a behavior that they know is wrong. I'm tired of hearing excuses.

Most importantly, what do heterosexuals or Christians lose, materially, when the government begins to recognize same-sex marriages? Absolutely nothing? Some argue that it would affect taxation, but this would only be significant if nearly all homosexuals wished to marry, and that's at least five percent of the population, millions of people, whose lifestyles are diminished in a serious way because of the selfish behavior of money-grubbing bigots. Some argue that those homosexuals who actually wish to marry are a tiny minority even among homosexuals, but how, in this case, would heterosexuals or Christians be affected in the slightest? Odds are high that they wouldn't notice the difference, and the only motivations that I can think of for wishing misfortune on a minority, at no gain to oneself, are anti-social ones. The loudest complaint seems to come from the churches, but they'd be protected from performing same-sex ceremonies by the same sets of rights they've been dedicated to trying to destroy for the past several decades.

Of equal importance, what does the gay and lesbian community gain? For us, gaining the legal right to marriage would mean a very real change in our way of life, and it would have a positive effect upon how we look at ourselves. I don't know one way or the other if I and my mate will ever choose to take that step, but I'd like for us to be able to. It would really mean a lot to me to know that I have that option.

Lastly, I'm sick to death of hearing excuses. I've met child care experts, social scientists, and marital counselors, and they've all been practicing without a license. They really seem quite common, too. The child care experts are particularly fun. They seem to know exactly why a child just can't be healthy without a mother and father figure, and they point out the many single parents they've known as examples that prove this to be true. It's amazing how obnoxious they get when you point out that this is an apples and oranges comparison, but that's okay because they're experts, nevermind that they've never set foot inside a college.

The social scientists are even more ridiculous. They seem to know exactly what would happen to society if we "sodomized marriage." It's really quite amazing; it's almost like they're reading the future through a crystal ball. Firstly, in a world plagued by overpopulation, their biggest concern is that "encouraging homosexuality" could cause the population to decline. This makes the assumption that homosexuality is entirely voluntary, and I am in a position to know that this just isn't so. If heterosexuals feel as I do about actually having sexual intercourse with a sex other than the one that they are naturally attracted to, it's quite unlikely that there could be a significant increase in the homosexual population.

Not quite as large a concern for them but even more stupid is the old slippery slope forumula. Again, this makes the assumption that homosexuality is voluntary, but I'll set that aside for the sake of demonstrating the main failure in reasoning here: homosexuals are a large community, consisting of hundreds of millions worldwide, and it has taken centuries of campaigning for us to gain even the most fundamental of rights. The stout laws in some states against homosexual intercourse weren't torn down completely until a few short years ago, and those who have any complaints about the banishment of those horrible laws don't belong in a country that loves freedom. Also, making marriage legal for us would actually serve to bring the homosexual community closer to the traditional mores of society.

What's really most insulting is the army of self-styled marital counselors. I'm not even going to try to discuss this rationally because I find it offensive on a very deep and personal level. Basically, what they're doing is saying that a homosexual relationship can never be as "complete" as a heterosexual one. They're basically saying that there's something wrong with the relationship between me and my mate without even going to the trouble of getting to know either of us.

My point in all of this is that I'm sick and tired of people trying to justify and rationalize denying me a right that I feel I have had since the day that I was born. It's insulting, it's hurtful, and I find it to be morally wrong on several levels. I want them to stop hiding behind lame and stupid rationalizations and tell everyone their real motivations. If they were required to do so before going out to vote, we'd have so many of them forced into embarrassed silence that the opposition would disappear. It's religious bigotry. There is no other motivation, and I'm sick and tired of religious bigots being handed the power to make decisions that affect my lifestyle.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because it has become an equal rights issue and when things become equal rights issues the government starts making laws to restrict people who discriminate. I'm sure that the ACLU will sue a church somewhere because it doesn't perform same sex marriages eventually.

The government has no power in the policies of churches. They can set up whatever rules they want, discriminate against whomever they want, allow in whomever they want, etc., etc., etc., and the government can do nothing about it. ACLU could sue, but they won't get very far and they know it, that's probably why it hasn't already been tried. Besides, why would a couple want to get married in a church that doesn't want them anyway?

 

[jonny]

I just think it is sad that marriage has become an issue of money, rights, and taxes instead of a partnership formed to bring children into the world (which is what I see it as). Since it has become an equal rights, money, and tax issue it should be extended to all citizens, but it's going to take time for people to become comfortable with the idea.

 

[jamaesi]

This thread makes me sick to my stomach.

I can't believe how people can be happy about denying rights to another group of people- it blows my mind.


Of course, I'm sure many people cheered whenever blacks were denied rights- why should I expect any better now?

That's because you are coming from a different perspective. As has already been stated, most people don't see this as an equal rights issue.

Why? Am I inferiour to you because I'm a homosexual? Am I not human? Do I not have feelings and hopes and dreams and the ability to love?

Why is okay to deny me HUMAN rights?

 

[Flappycat]

I'm sure that the ACLU will sue a church somewhere because it doesn't perform same sex marriages eventually.

The ACLU would be on the front lines making sure that things like this don't happen. They call themselves the "American Civil Liberties Union" for a reason. Just watch: first case of someone trying to sue a church over this will have the ACLU involved in defense of the church. They're really quite hysterical about defending the division between church and state. By the way, they're a non-partisan organization, so even you can call on them if ever your constitutional rights are threatened.

 

[Green Gaia]

I just think it is sad that marriage has become an issue of money, rights, and taxes instead of a partnership formed to bring children into the world (which is what I see it as). Since it has become an equal rights, money, and tax issue it should be extended to all citizens, but it's going to take time for people to become comfortable with the idea.

There are folks who are still uncomfortable with the idea of black and white children going to school together. Should we have waited for them to decide to be comfortable too?

Same sex marriage will take time because there is a process with the courts to go through and we will have to go through the process at least 51 times before every citizen of this country has equal legal marriage rights. We're not waiting for all people to be comfortable with it, we'd be waiting forever.

 

[Darkdale]

maybe we should be rethinking the institution of marriage itself? There seems to be two sides of a marriage: Religious and Legal. Maybe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. The government can simply be involved with legally binding domestic partnerships. Then, anyone, from any religion or background can get married however they wish, or people can be denied married based on their church or tradition; but the government would have no standard based on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc in upholding legally binding domestic partnerships. Maybe that is a stupid idea, but it just seems like it would lessen the controversy.

That way, we can get married without legally binding domestic partnerships and have legally binding domestic partnerships without being married.

 

[robtex]

What in the world would make you think that would happen? Most churches are exclusive about who they will and will not marry now? No one can make a church marry a certain couple. Why do you think that would change?

I have heard that answer more than a few times from other christians. I believe it to generally be a persuasive technique by religious institutions. When confronted question of why infringe on other's rights they create a "forced victimization" that justifies there actions or thoughts. Obviously their is no church that is going to be forced to marry people but by pastors and ministers by presenting this idea are able to justify using political means to regulate marriage as a proposition of self-preservation.

 

[jamaesi]

You know, I've never seen any homosexual here post an article about Christians or any other theist group being denied rights or being killed in some hostile nation and putting happy emoticons after the link.

 

[jonny]

maybe we should be rethinking the institution of marriage itself? There seems to be two sides of a marriage: Religious and Legal. Maybe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. The government can simply be involved with legally binding domestic partnerships. Then, anyone, from any religion or background can get married however they wish, or people can be denied married based on their church or tradition; but the government would have no standard based on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc in upholding legally binding domestic partnerships. Maybe that is a stupid idea, but it just seems like it would lessen the controversy.

This is what I suggested last time this topic came up. I still believe it is the best solution for compromise, but don't see it as ever happening.

 

[robtex]

maybe we should be rethinking the institution of marriage itself? There seems to be two sides of a marriage: Religious and Legal. Maybe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. The government can simply be involved with legally binding domestic partnerships. Then, anyone, from any religion or background can get married however they wish, or people can be denied married based on their church or tradition; but the government would have no standard based on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc in upholding legally binding domestic partnerships. Maybe that is a stupid idea, but it just seems like it would lessen the controversy.

That way, we can get married without legally binding domestic partnerships and have legally binding domestic partnerships without being married.

That is a great idea. religious aspects should be ceremonial and people with law degrees should be the only ones granting legal status. You are right on. There is two aspects to a marraige legal and religious (ceremonial).

 

[Darkdale]

This is what I suggested last time this topic came up. I still believe it is the best solution for compromise, but don't see it as every happening.

Why not? (I honestly don't know. I'm pretty ignorant about this debate).

 

[Aqualung]

maybe we should be rethinking the institution of marriage itself? There seems to be two sides of a marriage: Religious and Legal. Maybe the government should have nothing to do with marriage. The government can simply be involved with legally binding domestic partnerships. Then, anyone, from any religion or background can get married however they wish, or people can be denied married based on their church or tradition; but the government would have no standard based on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc in upholding legally binding domestic partnerships. Maybe that is a stupid idea, but it just seems like it would lessen the controversy.

That way, we can get married without legally binding domestic partnerships and have legally binding domestic partnerships without being married.

That's definitley the way I see it.

 

[jonny]

Why not? (I honestly don't know. I'm pretty ignorant about this debate).

I don't see it happening because it hasn't become part of the discussion with the government officials. Maybe we should write our senators. This would require some significant reform in the system.

I also don't know if this would satisfy those who are pushing for this. Would what Darkdale suggested satisfy those who want gay marriage legalized?

 

[Ardent Listener]

This is what I suggested last time this topic came up. I still believe it is the best solution for compromise, but don't see it as every happening.

Oh foolish jonny, that would make way too much sense and ruin a wonderful national debate.:tsk:

And just how do you expect those who really hold the power in this country to keep U.S. divided among ourselves with thinking like yours? :sarcastic