The Road Beyond Proposition 8 - Compromise or Capitulation?

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

While Republican standard bearer John McCain garnered only thirty-seven (37) percent of the vote in California, a constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman passed fifty-two (52) percent to forty-seven (47) percent.

With Proposition 8 carrying the day in the home of such stalwart Liberal political icons as Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the stage is set for an extended fight between gay rights activists and defenders of traditional family values in the Golden State.

While opponents of the constitutional amendment vow to carry on the battle to legalize same-sex marriage in both the courts and the voting booth, they are heartened by the fact that sixty-one (61) percent of voters supported a similar measure in 2000. The resulting nine (9) percent shift over the past eight years suggests time and evolving views on social mores and traditions are on their side.

This belief is reinforced when one considers current views on interracial relationships and marriage.

Once considered an abhorrent social taboo, interracial relationships and marriages are now commonplace across the nation. Social mores that once aggressively condemned black and white unions and supported public ostracization of interracial couples have evolved to the point where they fail to illicit even a second glance from the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, the previous taboo status of homosexuality that kept generations of gays and lesbians “in the closet” has likewise lost ground in the ongoing culture wars in America.

Openly gay and lesbian celebrities such as Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell are now warmly embraced throughout the heartland as well as in the Meccas of gay American culture, New York and San Francisco.

Though one might safely assume that time and changing social norms will eventually resolve the matter to the liking of the gay community and their supporters, I would suggest that both sides consider a compromise that recognizes the desire for expanded civil and legal rights in the gay community while respecting time-honored and traditional views of marriage.

The separation of church and state is the point from which a compromise should be launched.

Gay activists protest that the ban on same-sex marriage is an enforcement of religious dogma via governmental power.

Meanwhile, defenders of traditional marriage insist that gay marriage would undermine the foundation of society and would equate societal endorsement of an alternative lifestyle that is both sinful and destructive in the opinion of many among their ranks.

The compromise lies in the removal of state involvement in the religious institution of marriage and the wedding sacrament.

In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority.

Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine.

Should couples married in a church service wish to formally record their union, they would be able to do so with the local registrar authority at their discretion.

The heart of the compromise is the extension of legal and civil rights to an excluded segment of society while honoring a religious institution that is sacrosanct to another.

As one infamous Los Angelino so famously asked, can’t we all just get along, faithful readers? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if civil unions guarantees the maintenance of civil society.

 

[DarkWizard12]

While opponents of the constitutional amendment vow to carry on the battle to legalize same-sex marriage in both the courts and the voting booth, they are heartened by the fact that sixty-one (61) percent of voters supported a similar measure in 2000. The resulting nine (9) percent shift over the past eight years suggests time and evolving views on social mores and traditions are on their side.

I have to disagree with that, I think its somewhat the same. If you look at the raw numbers, there were more people who voted for Bush back then too so, I think most would have stayed home, or the usually "referendum on the government" thing. Personally, we need to compare the same measure again when a popular republican conservative runs again and see if that would affect the outcome. Then, I think, we would be able to accurately compare.

All I know is this, gay marraige has been debated since the 1960's, the arguements haven't changed, they have just fluctuated.

 

[Shewter]

While Republican standard bearer John McCain garnered only thirty-seven (37) percent of the vote in California, a constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman passed fifty-two (52) percent to forty-seven (47) percent.

With Proposition 8 carrying the day in the home of such stalwart Liberal political icons as Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the stage is set for an extended fight between gay rights activists and defenders of traditional family values in the Golden State.

While opponents of the constitutional amendment vow to carry on the battle to legalize same-sex marriage in both the courts and the voting booth, they are heartened by the fact that sixty-one (61) percent of voters supported a similar measure in 2000. The resulting nine (9) percent shift over the past eight years suggests time and evolving views on social mores and traditions are on their side.

This belief is reinforced when one considers current views on interracial relationships and marriage.

Once considered an abhorrent social taboo, interracial relationships and marriages are now commonplace across the nation. Social mores that once aggressively condemned black and white unions and supported public ostracization of interracial couples have evolved to the point where they fail to illicit even a second glance from the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, the previous taboo status of homosexuality that kept generations of gays and lesbians “in the closet” has likewise lost ground in the ongoing culture wars in America.

Openly gay and lesbian celebrities such as Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell are now warmly embraced throughout the heartland as well as in the Meccas of gay American culture, New York and San Francisco.

Though one might safely assume that time and changing social norms will eventually resolve the matter to the liking of the gay community and their supporters, I would suggest that both sides consider a compromise that recognizes the desire for expanded civil and legal rights in the gay community while respecting time-honored and traditional views of marriage.

The separation of church and state is the point from which a compromise should be launched.

Gay activists protest that the ban on same-sex marriage is an enforcement of religious dogma via governmental power.

Meanwhile, defenders of traditional marriage insist that gay marriage would undermine the foundation of society and would equate societal endorsement of an alternative lifestyle that is both sinful and destructive in the opinion of many among their ranks.

The compromise lies in the removal of state involvement in the religious institution of marriage and the wedding sacrament.

In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority.

Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine.

Should couples married in a church service wish to formally record their union, they would be able to do so with the local registrar authority at their discretion.

The heart of the compromise is the extension of legal and civil rights to an excluded segment of society while honoring a religious institution that is sacrosanct to another.

As one infamous Los Angelino so famously asked, can’t we all just get along, faithful readers? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if civil unions guarantees the maintenance of civil society.

I whole-heartedly agree. My largest issue with the religious folk apposing gay marriage etc... is that I as a straight man, could have chosen to marry my wife in a courthouse with no priest present. That marriage would still be called and recognized as a marriage.

If they want to "preserve" the defenition of marriage, take it back. As it stands right now marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion unless YOU choose to believe so.


I myself would denounce my marital status and apply for a Civil-Union in order to show my support to the gay community. I don't feel that it's right for two people that love each other just as much, if not more than, the "traditional" couple to be denied the same title as any other couple.


By the way, I don't know if that would even please the "community" that pushed proposition 8... see below. (This material is EXTREMELY offensive, ignorant, and frankly... has no place in any progressive society)

YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial

I love how the above link is suggesting that marriage is nothing more than having babies. I don't remember saying MY vows as "To fill your vagina full of sperm untill death do us part."

YouTube - Proposition 8 Commercial

I find it odd that this video is playing on "gay marriage being taught in schools". I don't remember ANY marrital discussion in school for that matter. I challenge anyone to speak up and share with me their classes when they were younger, when the teacher said "Now class, Marriage, is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and it's for babies." Even my sex-ed class would not stoop to the pressures of the ****heads trying to impose their beliefs on the children.

YouTube - Stop Imperial Judges...Support Proposition 8

So Newt Gingrich thinks that it is NOT unconstitutional to deny a person marriage based on their sexual preference?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Would the Judges that declared the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional possibly be doing so because the ban infringes on a gay couples pursuit of happiness? Which, correct me if I'm wrong, but a gay marriage appointed by a state court would not infringe on anyone else's rights, would it?


Ugh. I suppose for now /rant off.

 

[Singularity]

If one were to look at public opinion and apply inductive reasoning, rabid opposition to legally-recognized, homosexual unions will become the minority over the next several years in that particular state. Perhaps not the vast minority, but the minority nonetheless. California's ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000 was ushered in by a fairly large majority, with 4,618,673 voting "yes" (61.4%) and 2,909,370 voting "no (38.6%), adding up to a total of 7,528,043 votes (CA Secretary of State - Vote2000 - State Ballot Measures - Statewide). Proposition 8 was voted in with 6,237,356 votes of "yes" (52.2%) versus 5,723,691 votes of "no" (47.8%), adding up to a total of 11,961,047 votes (Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State). Proposition 22 was introduced before Lawrence v. Texas came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, overturning the earlier Court's decision on Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 (LAWRENCE V. TEXAS). This Supreme Court decision arguably popularized many equal rights issues for the homosexual community, including the right to legally marry the partner of their choosing. The opinion that this decision popularized the issues is debatable; however, the numbers are not. For whatever reason, that state is moving towards marriage equality.

It seems that the question we should be asking is "when", not "if" - assuming, of course, that there aren't millions of anti-homosexual equality voters in cold storage awaiting activation should the 'pro-family' movement suddenly find themselves losing on some similar subsequent proposition come next election day. Barring this science fiction-esque scenario taking place, most folks - even those staunchly against marriage equality - will tell you that they believe gay marriage to be an inevitability. Nonetheless, they line up to stop it. They adopt the mantra of the great Kenny Rogers. They realize that now is the time where you gotta hold 'em. Tomorrow you may have to fold 'em. Maybe even have to walk away. Or maybe have to run. They never count their mo...okay, you get the idea. They'll keep fighting tooth and nail to delay what they view to be inevitable, too.

I believe what Mr. Bare Knuckled Pundit believes, namely "In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority. Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine." This is a compromise that both parties can certainly live with. In fact, i'll wager that it isn't even a compromise. It's simply replacing a discriminatory system with one that is fair.

The reasons?

The first is obvious - homosexuals have access to legal rights, privileges, protection, and recognition that heterosexuals have, and we're all under the same tidy umbrella of what was once legally called 'marriage', but is now called 'civil union'. With every heterosexual and homosexual couple having the same thing, gone is the homosexual warcry of second-class citizenship. Homosexual couples want the privilege of marrying the rational, autonomous partner of their choosing. Heterosexuals already have this privilege. This way, they both do.

This is where they hold 'em.

The second reason is that it would expose those folks who claim they oppose gay marriage because of the title 'marriage', but who actually believe homosexuals to be second-class citizens and undeserving of equal privilege. Heterosexual couples can still get married and have the title 'marriage' in whatever church they want to. Legally, however, they are identical to homosexual couples in both right and name. Those who would line up to oppose such things would be exposed as discriminatory. No longer could they claim to act in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, or that marriage is defined as strictly between one man and one woman. This system acknowledges both of these. So anyone opposed would clearly be acting out of discrimination.

The Great Kenny Mantra would advise those folks opposed here to simply walk away. Or run.

Another reason would be because of the inevitability of gay marriage. As mentioned earlier, even those who are the most ardently opposed to gay marriage realize that sooner or later, it will be a reality. Why not endorse changing the legal status of marriage to 'civil union' right now to protect their definition of marriage down the road? If the trend in California continues, it may be too late once the next proposition is on the table. Their version of the term will be re-written to allow legal inclusion of a group previously denied.

That's when they'll fold 'em.

 

[First Thought]

(This material is EXTREMELY offensive, ignorant, and frankly... has no place in any progressive society)

YouTube - Proposition 8 commercial

I love how the above link is suggesting that marriage is nothing more than having babies. I don't remember saying MY vows as "To fill your vagina full of sperm untill death do us part."

YouTube - Proposition 8 Commercial

I find it odd that this video is playing on "gay marriage being taught in schools". I don't remember ANY marrital discussion in school for that matter. I challenge anyone to speak up and share with me their classes when they were younger, when the teacher said "Now class, Marriage, is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and it's for babies." Even my sex-ed class would not stoop to the pressures of the ****heads trying to impose their beliefs on the children.

YouTube - Stop Imperial Judges...Support Proposition 8

So Newt Gingrich thinks that it is NOT unconstitutional to deny a person marriage based on their sexual preference?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Would the Judges that declared the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional possibly be doing so because the ban infringes on a gay couples pursuit of happiness? Which, correct me if I'm wrong, but a gay marriage appointed by a state court would not infringe on anyone else's rights, would it?

Wow. Those commercials are so ignorant. Good thing I don't live in California anymore... I might have thrown something at my television.

 

[DarkWizard12]

If one were to look at public opinion and apply inductive reasoning, rabid opposition to legally-recognized, homosexual unions will become the minority over the next several years in that particular state. Perhaps not the vast minority, but the minority nonetheless. California's ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000 was ushered in by a fairly large majority, with 4,618,673 voting "yes" (61.4%) and 2,909,370 voting "no (38.6%), adding up to a total of 7,528,043 votes (CA Secretary of State - Vote2000 - State Ballot Measures - Statewide). Proposition 8 was voted in with 6,237,356 votes of "yes" (52.2%) versus 5,723,691 votes of "no" (47.8%), adding up to a total of 11,961,047 votes (Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State). Proposition 22 was introduced before Lawrence v. Texas came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, overturning the earlier Court's decision on Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 (LAWRENCE V. TEXAS). This Supreme Court decision arguably popularized many equal rights issues for the homosexual community, including the right to legally marry the partner of their choosing. The opinion that this decision popularized the issues is debatable; however, the numbers are not. For whatever reason, that state is moving towards marriage equality.

It seems that the question we should be asking is "when", not "if" - assuming, of course, that there aren't millions of anti-homosexual equality voters in cold storage awaiting activation should the 'pro-family' movement suddenly find themselves losing on some similar subsequent proposition come next election day. Barring this science fiction-esque scenario taking place, most folks - even those staunchly against marriage equality - will tell you that they believe gay marriage to be an inevitability. Nonetheless, they line up to stop it. They adopt the mantra of the great Kenny Rogers. They realize that now is the time where you gotta hold 'em. Tomorrow you may have to fold 'em. Maybe even have to walk away. Or maybe have to run. They never count their mo...okay, you get the idea. They'll keep fighting tooth and nail to delay what they view to be inevitable, too.

I believe what Mr. Bare Knuckled Pundit believes, namely "In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority. Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine." This is a compromise that both parties can certainly live with. In fact, i'll wager that it isn't even a compromise. It's simply replacing a discriminatory system with one that is fair.

The reasons?

The first is obvious - homosexuals have access to legal rights, privileges, protection, and recognition that heterosexuals have, and we're all under the same tidy umbrella of what was once legally called 'marriage', but is now called 'civil union'. With every heterosexual and homosexual couple having the same thing, gone is the homosexual warcry of second-class citizenship. Homosexual couples want the privilege of marrying the rational, autonomous partner of their choosing. Heterosexuals already have this privilege. This way, they both do.

This is where they hold 'em.

The second reason is that it would expose those folks who claim they oppose gay marriage because of the title 'marriage', but who actually believe homosexuals to be second-class citizens and undeserving of equal privilege. Heterosexual couples can still get married and have the title 'marriage' in whatever church they want to. Legally, however, they are identical to homosexual couples in both right and name. Those who would line up to oppose such things would be exposed as discriminatory. No longer could they claim to act in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, or that marriage is defined as strictly between one man and one woman. This system acknowledges both of these. So anyone opposed would clearly be acting out of discrimination.

The Great Kenny Mantra would advise those folks opposed here to simply walk away. Or run.

Another reason would be because of the inevitability of gay marriage. As mentioned earlier, even those who are the most ardently opposed to gay marriage realize that sooner or later, it will be a reality. Why not endorse changing the legal status of marriage to 'civil union' right now to protect their definition of marriage down the road? If the trend in California continues, it may be too late once the next proposition is on the table. Their version of the term will be re-written to allow legal inclusion of a group previously denied.

That's when they'll fold 'em.

*sigh*.

We cannot say that the numbers changed. If you notice, there was only ~9% swing between 2000 and 2008. Guess what else had a ~9% swing? the percentage of people that voted republican. The lack of "yes" voters on the proposition was due to lack of excitement by the conservative base.

And yet...it still passed.

:neener

 

[winston53660]

*sigh*.

We cannot say that the numbers changed. If you notice, there was only ~9% swing between 2000 and 2008. Guess what else had a ~9% swing? the percentage of people that voted republican. The lack of "yes" voters on the proposition was due to lack of excitement by the conservative base.

And yet...it still passed.

:neener

I find it amazing that tradiional marriage people are so worried about gay marriage

 

[Singularity]

*sigh*.

We cannot say that the numbers changed. If you notice, there was only ~9% swing between 2000 and 2008. Guess what else had a ~9% swing? the percentage of people that voted republican. The lack of "yes" voters on the proposition was due to lack of excitement by the conservative base.

You're applying conjecture to those numbers. I'm not. I am taking them at face value and applying inductive logic. Your belief that the Republican base stayed out of it due to lack of excitement - while possible - is unlikely, given that this issue is such a hot topic among marriage equality advocates and those who oppose it. The conservative base was most certainly energized on this issue.

Like I said, if there aren't millions of anti-homosexual equality voters in cold storage awaiting activation should the 'pro-family' movement suddenly find themselves losing on some similar subsequent proposition come next election day, things may be different next time this is up for a vote. There is a very real danger to those who favor excluding homosexuals from marriage.

Unless you are willing to bet on the fact that the majority of Americans are willing to keep on viewing homosexuals as underserving of marriage and other legal privilege, perhaps looking into legally changing the term from marriage to 'civil union' would be best for your side. If the numbers do, in fact, indicate education and the evolution of attitude here, it may well be too late to protect the term from inclusion come next election.

Of course, this is just my opinion. You are certainly welcome to think otherwise.

And yet...it still passed.

:neener

It did, but you're making the mistake in assuming that I am upset or hold a grudge against those Americans who voted for Proposition 8. While I would have liked to have seen it defeated, I don't bear anyone who voted for it any ill will whatsoever. It takes time, education, experience, and a lot of patience to change someone's mind when they believe homosexuality to be wrong or morally bad behavior. Many folks don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time around a homosexual couple or befriending someone who is homosexual. I do have that luxury, hence my position on marriage equality.

The best thing to do is move forward and keep on trying as we go. Homosexuals and us heterosexuals who support them must continue to educate and be patient. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[conquer]

Progressive?

What kind of "progressive society" is found by accepting homosexuality and the official marriage between homnosexuals?

On the contrary, homosexuality has been always a sign of a degeneration of the human species and of the failing of societies.

Homosexuality guides to extinction of the species and its proliferation in society causes shame in the families involved with this disease.

We must be realistic about this situation: homosexuals are the only ones who feel proud of themselves, but not so their families feel the same pride.

Say no to homosexuality.

 

[First Thought]

Re: Progressive?

What kind of "progressive society" is found by accepting homosexuality and the official marriage between homnosexuals?

A society in which bigotry no longer exists. People like you, those who share your antiquated beliefs, are what hold us back from ever progressing.

On the contrary, homosexuality has been always a sign of a degeneration of the human species and of the failing of societies.

Opinion.

Homosexuality guides to extinction of the species and its proliferation in society causes shame in the families involved with this disease.

Again, your opinion.

We must be realistic about this situation: homosexuals are the only ones who feel proud of themselves, but not so their families feel the same pride.

The families that are ashamed of their homosexual children are people like you, clinging to archaic beliefs.

Say no to homosexuality.

I'd rather say no to idiots.

 

[JMak]

The first is obvious - homosexuals have access to legal rights, privileges, protection, and recognition that heterosexuals have, and we're all under the same tidy umbrella of what was once legally called 'marriage', but is now called 'civil union'. With every heterosexual and homosexual couple having the same thing, gone is the homosexual warcry of second-class citizenship. Homosexual couples want the privilege of marrying the rational, autonomous partner of their choosing. Heterosexuals already have this privilege. This way, they both do.

Is fundamentally altering the institution of marriage the only way to accomplish this? Can this not be accomodated some other way except for destroying the traditional institution of marriage?

I think so.

And because I think so, it's my opinion that the only reason to gut marriage this way is for a benefits grab. To require, for example, employers to pay for health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner.

The second reason is that it would expose those folks who claim they oppose gay marriage because of the title 'marriage', but who actually believe homosexuals to be second-class citizens and undeserving of equal privilege. Heterosexual couples can still get married and have the title 'marriage' in whatever church they want to. Legally, however, they are identical to homosexual couples in both right and name. Those who would line up to oppose such things would be exposed as discriminatory. No longer could they claim to act in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, or that marriage is defined as strictly between one man and one woman. This system acknowledges both of these. So anyone opposed would clearly be acting out of discrimination.

This benefits grab can be accomodated some other way.

Another reason would be because of the inevitability of gay marriage. As mentioned earlier, even those who are the most ardently opposed to gay marriage realize that sooner or later, it will be a reality. Why not endorse changing the legal status of marriage to 'civil union' right now to protect their definition of marriage down the road? If the trend in California continues, it may be too late once the next proposition is on the table. Their version of the term will be re-written to allow legal inclusion of a group previously denied.

And then we'll be on the road to legal polygamy as we see it already happening in the Netherlands. Heck, there we're even seeing legal recognition of three-person "unions."

No thanks.

 

[First Thought]

And then we'll be on the road to legal polygamy as we see it already happening in the Netherlands. Heck, there we're even seeing legal recognition of three-person "unions."

No thanks.

And? How does polygamy or a 3 person union negatively affect you?

 

[Singularity]

Is fundamentally altering the institution of marriage the only way to accomplish this? Can this not be accomodated some other way except for destroying the traditional institution of marriage?

I think so.

We both do, hence my post. Changing the legal term to 'civil union' allowing both parties access protects marriage, and allows the same legal privilege to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples get. Churches still claim title to the term 'marriage'; legally, however, couples - both heterosexual and homosexual - enjoy civil unions.

 

[Shewter]

Marriage has been changed in quite a few ways throughout the years, so I don't understand the logic in trying to hold on to the "traditional" meaning.

Traditional meanings have been changed to suit our progressive society for quite some time, this one just seems to be a petty one to hold on to.

Hmmmmm.

 

[First Thought]

Marriage has been changed in quite a few ways throughout the years, so I don't understand the logic in trying to hold on to the "traditional" meaning.

Traditional meanings have been changed to suit our progressive society for quite some time, this one just seems to be a petty one to hold on to.

Hmmmmm.

At this point, a traditional marriage involves two divorces before actually settling down

 

[UtahBill]

At this point, a traditional marriage involves two divorces before actually settling down

What churches/religions have their own divorce "courts"?

 

[First Thought]

What churches/religions have their own divorce "courts"?

I don't know. I also fail to see how this is relevant, since my post was a joke. Hence the "" emoticon.

 

[UtahBill]

I don't know. I also fail to see how this is relevant, since my post was a joke. Hence the "" emoticon.

so your joke wasn't relevant either?:2razz:

 

[First Thought]

so your joke wasn't relevant either?:2razz:

My post was a joke. Asking for information or specifics about something you interpreted to be a legitimate post but, was in fact a joke, is irrelevant.

 

[JMak]

And? How does polygamy or a 3 person union negatively affect you?

Irrelevant as to how it might affect either way.

 

[First Thought]

Irrelevant as to how it might affect either way.

I have no idea what this poorly structured sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[danarhea]

Is fundamentally altering the institution of marriage the only way to accomplish this? Can this not be accomodated some other way except for destroying the traditional institution of marriage?

I think so.

And because I think so, it's my opinion that the only reason to gut marriage this way is for a benefits grab. To require, for example, employers to pay for health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner.



This benefits grab can be accomodated some other way.



And then we'll be on the road to legal polygamy as we see it already happening in the Netherlands. Heck, there we're even seeing legal recognition of three-person "unions."

No thanks.

Marriage, as defined in the Bible?

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Looks like the religious right is going to end up in hell for not considering marriage as dictated by the Bible. :mrgreen:

 

[Rick]

Reality check for this thread:

- The the attempt to compare right to interracial marriage with a supposed right to gay marriage remains bogus, because

- There never has been any right to gay marriage - rights are not involved

- The linear extrapolation from what california votesr did in 2000 and 2008 to some gay future is stupid - electorates change to the right, left, and back again all the time over decades.

 

[American]

Marriage, as defined in the Bible?



Looks like the religious right is going to end up in hell for not considering marriage as dictated by the Bible. :mrgreen:

Good ahead and smile, you might already be judged.

 

[First Thought]

Good ahead and smile, you might already be judged.

Oh no!!1!1 :roll: