I've made several attempts at writing about this issue but they all ended in me realizing that I'm just not a gifted writer and I don't have the kind of time I need to articulate how I really feel. Luckily, I found an article that makes my point far better than I could. My point is that proposition 8 is not just about gay rights - it affects everyone. I feel that if this proposition were defeated, various church and para-church organizations would be significantly affected. This article illustrates how.Without further ado, I refer you to the NPR website where you can read this article. The part I found interesting, and worth passing along, is copied and pasted in it's entirety here:
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
97 comments:
There is such a fine line between giving rights to one group and taking rights away from another. That is what this argument is about. Everything else is rhetoric.
And NONE of those examples would change one bit no matter the outcome of the Prop 8 issue.
In fact, I think it's possible that, should Prop 8 pass, the CA Supreme Court could rule that granting *any* state-recognized benefits to marriage could be deemed discriminatory, and would force everyone (gay or straight) to get "civil unions" in order to get any state recognition.
Duke, I understand what you are saying. These issues have been going on for a while now and the passage or defeat of this proposition isn't going to fix everything. I just found it an interesting read in light of all that is being said and accusations being made on both sides. You made an excellent point about an uncertain future - the truth is nobody can predict precisely what will or won't happen when this election is over and the proposition passes or doesn't.
I just feel, and probably should have said this in my original post, that if we call homosexual unions "marriage", then judges will be more likely to side with the gay community and punish religious people for discrimination. I also should point out that not all of the cases mentioned in the article are necessarily bad - the doctor probable should perform IVF regardless of the patient's lifestyle - I don't think that's something that regularly comes up in a doctor/patient relationship. However, I think it's unfair for church university housing or parachurch oraganizations like boy scouts be forced to endorse something they think is a sin.
Having a legal distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual union will definably help religious organizations avoid discrimination lawsuits - I don't think anyone can argue that. I feel a homosexual union is different than a heterosexual union and should legally be different. You can grant all the same rights to civil unions like California already does and that's fine with me, I have no problem with that - I just don't want religious rights and freedoms restricted.
The problem is, there is precedent for "separate but equal" to be struck down by the courts, which could result in ONLY having civil unions recognized by the state.
Duke-
Thanks for visiting my blog, I appreciate your input. I was actually thinking about what you had said last night as I was swimming laps and I came to the conclusion that it's a good idea. I'd have no problem taking my lovely wife to the courthouse to get a civil union in addition to our marriage. The tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and any other governmental benefit to "marriage" could be associated with civil unions - homosexual or heterosexual.
Meanwhile "marriage" and "weddings" could be separate religious ceremonies and each religion could reserve the right to allow or refuse the use of their facilities for these purposes.
The reason I like this idea is that it wouldn't take away gay rights or religious freedoms. That's why I'm involved in the campaign. As the "no on 8" ad proclaims, "let's keep government out of all of our lives!" I think this should not only apply to the gay community but the religious community as well.
Unfortunately, this idea isn't up for vote this fall, but in the future I would support such a measure because it sounds fair.
This sounds to me like just another list of examples of a sue-happy society. This is obviously happening with or without Prop 8, so allowing equal marriage rights to everyone will not cause these things to happen any more than it will stop them. Your evidence is anecdotal at best.
Benji,
The problem I've always had with this whole debate (well, one of them), is that the word "marriage" at its very core merely means the joining or blending of any two things, be they animals, grapes (in viticulture), ideas, or two ends of a rope.
The word "wedding" (or "to wed") essentially means the same thing.
For some reason straight people felt the need to essentially change the definition to apply only to a man and a woman. All Gay people are trying to do now is change the definition back so that they're no longer excluded. Why is that a problem?
Well, if you read my comments posted above, you'll see why I think it's a problem. Just to re-iterate, I think if we as society decide to define Marriage and Wedding with no regard to homo- or hetero- sexuality, religious groups are much more likely to be sued and to lose these lawsuits. That's my opinion. If I were a judge and a couple came before me with a complaint that a church who lets everyone else use a pavilion for weddings but didn't let them use it because they are gay - this wouldn't seem fair because, as a federal judge, law would dictate that one marriage is no different from another.
However, if prop. 8 passes and there is a LEGAL DIFFERENCE between "weddings" as most people currently define it, and "civil unions" involving same-sex couples, as a federal judge I could side with the church and say, "no, they don't let anyone use the pavilion for civil unions - it's only for weddings".
Now this may sound discriminatory, but I think churches should have the right to discriminate against something they see as sinful.
As far as my evidence being anecdotal - I'm really not sure what you mean by that. I'm not trying to do a science experiment or anything. These are real court cases that have really happened to real people, and I think they show that my concerns are real and I have justification in supporting prop. 8 without having to be labeled a homophobic person or a bigot.
We're not really voting on the dictionary definition of wedding and marriage, but the legal definition - that entails consequences.
Just so we're clear... I have not personally labeled you as anything.
Additionally, you and I are in complete agreement that religious organizations (or anyone else) should not be forced to participate in these ceremonies if they do not want to.
Where we disagree is on the idea that gays (or anyone else) should be forced to settle for a Civil Union.
Marriage brings with it at least 1,049 benefits and responsibilities that that Civil Unions do not, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to take leave from work to care for your partner, and the right to sponsor your partner for immigration purposes, the ability to file joint federal tax returns, the ability to transfer assets without tax penalties, and many many more. (Sorry for the long sentence. I get carried away.)
You and your wife can go anywhere in the country and she will still be considered your wife. That would not be true if you were in a Civil Union, as there are still many states in which these are not considered valid. Granted, at least for the time being, Gays will continue to have this problem even if they are allowed to marry in CA.
Oddly enough, I think the most important difference is also the least tangible. Forcing us to settle for Civil Unions is forcing us into a position of not being "good enough" to participate in something other people are allowed to participate in. Even IF these two institutions were exactly the same in every other way, forcing us into a supposedly separate-but-equal situation is still discriminatory. I'm sure the back of the bus is technically just as good as the front of the bus, should Rosa Parks have just settled for the section she was confined to?
Yeah, sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that, it's just that when you take a stance like mine out here on the internet, people are quick to judge and to guess at my motives. Thank you for being mature about our differences.
Your argument was actually a really intelligent one. The "no on 8" campaign would do well to say what you just said in one of their ads. It may take me a couple days to come up with a response.
In the meantime, what are you proposing? I mean, what kind of a solution would keep religious freedoms secure and religious groups immune from discrimination lawsuits (similar to the ones in my original post) and at the same time allow homosexual couples all the freedoms you mentioned and have them not feel like second-class citizens?
What I'm proposing is really quite simple, at least in my mind. Full federal marriage rights for everyone across the board. This pertains exclusively to the legal aspects of marriage, and has absolutely nothing to do with religious organizations. Just as religious ceremonies are not required in order for heterosexual couples to be considered legally married, nor would they be for Gay couples.
That would of course require that people in secular business practices would be required to follow this law. That includes, doctors, lawyers, landlords, bosses, adoption agencies, and more.
The only gray area I can think of is in the area of adoption. I don't know the ins and outs of licensing for adoption agencies, so I have trouble settling on an idea for that. One suggestion would be that if they want to be able to assist with adoptions, churches would have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
The other suggestion would be that, since they are a religious organization, they would be immune and Gay couples would have to find another establishment from which to adopt.
Yeah, we could probably agree on this solution. The problem is that we can't have everyone agree to leave churches out of it. Obviously the lesbian couple in New Jersey felt they were entitled to use the Methodist Pavilion on the beach and took it to court. If things like that were somehow prevented from happening then we'd have a happy middle ground where we could all meet. My gut feeling, however, is that if prop. 8 fails, then the ACLU would be all over churches and parachurch organizations for discriminating by not allowing church facility use for gay marriages or not allowing homosexual spouses to be camp parents (or whatever the job title is.)
As it currently reads, prop 8 simply says:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." They don't really address the other issues but I think they're leaving it to the voters to determine the likely consequences of what that means.
I think we're in agreement, we both want the most gay rights and religious freedoms to somehow co-exist. Hopefully the next few years will be a series of legal battles that somehow results in such a world.
It would be nice if everyone could find a middle ground. It seems to me that, for the most part that's exactly what has happened. You've sited 10 examples of instances in which that doesn't seem to have happened. If you were to merely look at your examples, it could be easy to be scared by all the potential trouble that religious organizations when Prop 8 fails. However, when you consider that since Massachusetts first begin marrying Gays in 2004, an estimated 22,000 Gay couples have been married in Massachusetts and California combined. In that context, ten examples of foul play are not as scary when compared to 21,990 examples of when things have gone smoothly.
Now, of course there are probably more examples of Gay couples suing over discrimination than the ten you've sited. But are there 21,990 more? Are there even 11,000 more? Are there even 5,500 more? I'd be interested to find out what the percentages are.
I'd venture to guess that the vast vast majority of Gay couples find themselves perfectly able and willing to get married in a secular establishment or in an open and affirming religious venue...
In addition it's probably a lot easier for a straight person to say, "Hopefully the next few years will be a series of legal battles that somehow results in such a world," than it is for a Gay person. Gays have been fighting a series of legal battles for generations in order to get to the world that you and I are hoping for. It's our belief that defeating Prop 8 will cut the number of battles we have to face drastically, and still lead us to the same world.
Sorry to just jump in here, Benji. This is Charlotte. I have to disagree about just looking at percentages. You can't look at those cases as just "one" incidence each. The influence those decisions have can impact thousands of other people and their religious views. Even if it is only 10 cases, they can change the rights of an entire religion in a state. How can you ever compare those numbers? Way more than the 22,000 or so who have been married. Think of all the people who will now no longer be allowed to use Catholic adoptive services in MA. Or think of all the parents who now no longer have a right as to what their children are taught in MA schools. If their teacher comes in and wants to read the "King and the King", thousands of parents have to sit back and just allow it. THEIR rights have now been taken away. And eventually they won't even be able to switch to private schools because they will also be targeted as discriminatory and will be shut down. Where do the rights of THOSE parents go? Homeschool or no school? Move to a new state or country if we don't like it?
And Benji, I disagree with you about the doctor's right to refuse "service". IVF is not a life-or-death situation. If he had chosen not to perform a life-saving operation on a lesbian woman, and she had died, that's one thing. But this procedure could easily be performed by someone else, and she was referred to the doctor's partner who was willing to perfom it. Should a doctor be forced to perform partial-birth abortions just because it's legal in our country? Or should we just quit encouraging men and women who hold those beliefs and values from going into the medical profession? And this specific case wasn't that he was just refusing to perform ANY service. He just didn't want to be the one to "pull the trigger" (so to speak) and allow a child to be born into a same-sex marriage.
Oh that's fine Charlotte, feel free to chime in any time you want. (and thanks for visiting my blog!)
Benvolio-
I agree with Charlotte in that even though I have only listed a few examples, they do show a very real risk that any religious organization is now facing. Again, this isn't science - it's law, and in law one case usually makes it to the supreme court and is then used as a precedent to determine how the courts should rule anytime this situation comes up. Of the 20,000 marriages or how ever many there have been, I do believe that only a handful would result in clashes with religion because, let's face it, most homosexuals aren't really fond of churches and don't want them involved. There's also a large number that, when told they can't use church facilities, would understand and accept that and go somewhere else without taking legal action. So yeah, I think these examples are a very accurate indicator of what would happen when churches get taken to court over these issues.
As far as IVF is concerned, it's a sticky situation because where do you draw the line? Personally, I feel the best environment for a child to grow up is in a home where there is a mother and father present, with a steady income and a full-time parent. That is my standard, but I don't think I'd get very far if I insisted all my patients had to meet that criteria before I would treat them. Should this doctor be allowed to refuse services to single mothers or unwed couples? I think if you choose that medical specialty you should be prepared to help bring babies into the world for people who otherwise can't. You're right that there are usually other doctors available who could and would do it, and in these situations it would be nice if everybody just understood and didn't get offended about it and went to someone else. However, I'm sure there are many rural areas where a couple would have to travel much farther and spend a lot more money if they had to find the nearest doctor who agrees with their lifestyle.
I don't think any doctors are ever forced to do abortions because when you choose to go work at an abortion clinic, you know that's what you'll be doing. I do think medical students should be wise about selecting their specialties and avoid situations where their beliefs will be compromised. It's not really fair, though, to have the state spend a ton of money educating doctors and then have a doctor say he will only offer his IVF services to families who read the bible and pray. That's why to me it's a sticky situation - where do you draw the line?
Hi Charlotte,
I apologize for neglecting to mention parental rights in my previous postings.
I fully support the parents' right to protect their children as they see fit. I think most people would agree with that. Yes... even Gay people.
As I said before though, religious organizations should be exempt from having to honor same-sex relationships. As time goes on, and the general public realizes just how unsavory this discrimination is I'm confident that viewpoints like this will go the way of the KKK. Still around, but not taken seriously.
Private schools currently, and always will be a product that parents have to pay for. They realize that if the parents do not like what the school is offering, they will not pay for the service. Therefore requiring them to teach on subjects that the parents do not agree with will not work.
As for public schools... as with all public services, I think they should be all-inclusive. I think that the opportunity to learn about other people and other cultures should be offered. Just as parents can opt out of exposing their minor to sex education (at least in my schools they did), I feel that they should be able to opt out of learning about homosexuality.
Do I think that does an EXTREME disservice to the student? Yes. It certainly did for me. However, I'm not about to force my views on anyone... I'd merely like for everyone to have the chance to hear them.
To not allow these things to be taught in public is just as discriminatory as forcing people to learn about them. Neither is right.
As for the percentages, and the likely hood that Gay couples would sue over these things. I understand that just one lawsuit can change the law. I also understand just how powerful something like that can be. If Prop 8 passes not only would it actually write discrimination against a specific group of people into California's constitution, but it's effects would be felt in other states that are currently using CA as a barometer.
Additionally, when a government doesn't support a particular group, that sends the message down the line that this group is not worth supporting, that they are "less than" which leads to increased violence, rape, and even murder of that group of people. Passing a measure like this could be extremely dangerous for a lot of people.
As for your question to Benji, I don't think anyone is saying that the doctor should have performed the procedure. The question was whether the woman should have sued the doctor for refusing service. I don't meant to speak for Benji, but I don't think either of us agree that she should have done that.
No one should be forced to abide by someone else's personal beliefs. That applies to doctors performing certain services to certain people, as well as to Gays not being allowed to marry the person they love just because other people don't like it.
Benji,
I can certainly understand the concern. However, I still don't see the possibility that something like this could happen as a justifiable reason for denying an entire group of tax paying American people.
We still have freedom of religion (as well as freedom FROM religion), so I don't see any reason why lawsuits like that would not work in the religious organizations' favor. Can you really sue someone for exercising their religious freedom?
I agree with you about IVF though. Personally, I wouldn't even want to go to a doctor who had such an obvious bias against me. If he hates me for whatever reason I'd prefer he put it all out there, rather than go through with the procedure. While I can certainly understand this patient's disgust and anger toward the doctor, I think (like you do) that if everyone was just a little more understanding of other people's points of view, we'd all be better off.
Unfortunately, Gay people have had to fight against other people who want to force us into their way of life, and in the process of that fighting some of us tend to stoop to their level.
If we'd been being treated as equals all along no one would feel the need to sue over these kinds of things.
Benvolio
Here's the fundamental difference - I feel the necessity to have some sort of legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual union, otherwise religious organizations won't have a prayer in these legal battles (no pun intended). You're saying separate but equal. I don't see it that way. Not that the government should view one union as superior to another, just that homosexual union does not equal heterosexual union in that they aren't the same thing. They have many similarities but also many differences. To me, marriage is about more than life-long companionship, although that is an important part. I feel that creating and raising children is a key element - something homosexual couples can't do without some outside help.
Now, I'm not sure how to go about making people feel that "civil union" is no less than "marriage" if we eventually reach the point where all the governmental benefits are the same. I don't know how the gay community would feel about legally adopting the term "gay marriage". Probably some people would be ok with it and some wouldn't. I'm not sure what term would be best, but all the issues I'm concerned with have to do with the state having a distinction between the unions. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Benji,
Hang on one minute there... Please don't tell me you're going to use the fact that Gay couples can't have children on their own as a reason to not allow them to marry.
What about people who are infertile? Should they be forced into Civil Unions? How about elderly widows who can no longer conceive? What about couples who just choose not to have children? Civil Unions all around?
Should there be some sort of method of discerning which couples are able and willing to conceive before allowing them to enter into a "marriage"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, regardless of either of either spouse's gender.
As far as which term would be the best for same-sex union. The answer is "marriage." Plain and simple. If both institutions are completely equal then I fail to see the point of making a distinction between the two if not to essentially say "We don't want you people in our club."
The only reason to give them different names is to point out that they are, in fact, different.
oh, that's not what I meant. I was simply pointing out one aspect in which the two unions are different. You can't deny that a heterosexual union has the potential to produce children with no outside help and a homosexual union does not. This is not the reason not to allow them to marry - of course it would be absurd to make two people prove their fertility before allowing marriage. This is simply evidence that the two institutions are not the same thing, they are similar. Legally, they should be similar, not the same thing.
I think you're trying to say homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are like oranges and oranges, while I'm saying they are like oranges and grapefruits - a lot of similarities but not the same thing.
And you're right, different names would point out that they are different. I think they are different, you don't see it that way. That's where we need to agree to disagree.
"We don't want you in our club"? That's precisely what I think religions (not government) should have the right to say. I think you agreed with me on that point when you said "religious organizations should be exempt from having to honor same-sex relationships". Am I understanding you correctly?
One more quick idea -
If the word marriage is what is important, how would you feel about a hypothetical state where anyone could "marry" anyone, however, if the couple happened to be heterosexual, they could legally have a "traditional marriage". Would that satisfy both of our requests? You'd have marriage, I'd have a legal difference to help keep religions out of legal trouble.
Again, I don't think this is likely to be the solution, but I'm just trying to understand what we're both saying.
True, Gay unions cannot create children, but not all heterosexual unions can either... so, in my mind, there's no reason to even bring that into the debate.
If anything you could separate relationships into 'child-producing' and 'non-child-producing' classifications.
I'm not trying to say that Gays and straights are like oranges and oranges. Oranges and Grapefruit is a decent analogy. Both are just as valid, just as good, just as healthy and just as much a part of this complete breakfast. Can you give me a good reason to keep them in separate fruit bowls?
As far as religious organizations not letting is into their "club." I'm all for that, and we've already agreed on that.
What I have a problem with is the government, in a country where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, telling me that I'm not allowed to be part of this club for no other reason than that some people want to force me to abide by their religious views.
Benji,
Personally I have very difficult time compromising here. I try though, and I am seriously processing your thoughts and opinions.
As far as I'm concerned though, any distinction between these two types of unions is nothing more than evidence of straight people not wanting us as a part of their group.
This one thing coming from a religious group (not very loving, mind you... but at least understandable). It is, however completely unacceptable for a government to discriminate against any of it's people in such a way.
Several points - first off, what you said last - it is unacceptable for a government to discriminate against it people like in such a way. My issue is that, as much as we try to separate church and state, churches are still subject to the law, and rightly so. If we were just focusing on eliminating discrimination against gays and it had nothing to do with churches, well you and I would be campaigning on the same team buddy. That's not how it is. Even though Prop. 8 does not directly address what will happen to churches, I feel I've adequately made my point about my concerns.
Next, with regards to procreation - I think the key word I used was "potential" and again, only to show how they are different. In general, heterosexual unions have the potential to produce children. Not saying that's the deal-breaker, just saying it's a difference.
If oranges and grapefruits are a good analogy, well, let's address that. They both add their own value to the fruit bowl and can contribute to a healthy breakfast. Some people have preferences to one and some to the other. That's ok. However, they are grown on different trees. They are sold separately at the store. I'm confident that if you look at the California law there are clauses that apply to fruit in general but also some specifics regarding the production and distribution of the fruits individually. There's a legal difference between oranges and grapefruits. (I haven't researched this, nor do I have the time to, but you get the analogy, right?)
As far as groups are concerned - I would gladly invite you into several groups I belong to. The group that enjoys as many of the 1,049 government-given benefits of marriage as I do (as long as religious freedoms aren't impinged). The group that is free from hurtful slander or stereotypes. I would even gladly invite you to worship with me and my congregation - we'd love to have you check it out, seriously, email me and I'll give you directions. However, the group that is ENTITLED to use of religious facilities for the purpose of marriage, or the group that my church allows to live in it's married student housing for the university - that's where we need to part ways and that is my whole basis for being involved. I can't get behind something that would force my church to either leave the state or compromise its beliefs.
I completely understand your difficulty compromising as I'm sure you do mine. I'm not expecting you to change your opinion based on what I say - I guess I just feel the need to get my views out there and feel like I'm understood.
You know how I began this post by saying, "I'm just not a gifted writer and I don't have the kind of time I need to articulate how I really feel."? Benvolio, Duke, Charlotte - you've all helped me to find this time and articulation. Seriously, Thanks.
Sheesh. I leave for a few hours and look how far behind I am now!
Benvolio: For the MA case and teaching in schools, what you are proposing as the solution (the "opt out" solution) was exactly the problem. The parents didn't put up a fuss that it was taught in the schools at all. They were concerned that they were not notified ahead of time and given the opportunity to keep their children home or teach them their own values prior to heading into class that day to be blindsided by their teacher and new views. The superintendent and the courts dismissed the case and said the parents don't have any rights as to what their kids are taught and shouldn't have to be notified ahead of time or given the opportunity to keep their children home or at least talk to them about it...
Benji: Back to IVF, I want to reiterate that I do not think it's fair or legal for doctors or any business owners to refuse service simply based on a person's sexual preference. This is already written into most states' laws or codes. And I actually think the photographer in your list of complaints was way farther off than the doctors... however, IVF is still a controversial procedure, and most students and professors of bioethics agree that it should only be performed when the couple is married. The couple in the case mentioned was not married (and couldn't be because of their sexual preference), but either way, the doctor should have had the right to refuse that particular treatment because it was already his right to refuse it to unmarried couples... Know what I mean? It's this specific, controversial procedure that needs to be considered...
As to the ongoing oranges and grapefruits scenario, if all people (on both sides) were as open and honest and unoffended as this small group has been, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with allowing homosexual couples to have a traditional marriage. Unfortunately, however, someone somewhere isn't going to play as nicely either way. Some group/organization/church/people are going to have their rights taken away. There IS NO easy solution. That is why we aren't allowing it to be a simple decision made by a few judges who think they know the answers. It is being turned over to the people of the state to vote and voice their opinions and decide which rights are valid and constitutional. It's the only solution, and either way there will be unhappy people who feel they've lost rights... over 700,000 people signed the
You're right, Prop 8 mentions nothing about churches. Those opposing Prop 8 mention nothing of churches. That's likely because it has nothing to do with churches. Since there is no mention of churches in the text of the proposition, it's obvious to me that the authors of this proposition did not put this on the ballot in an attempt to protect the way they practice their religions in the confines of their own church walls. It is an obvious attempt to specifically discriminate against a group of people and control what they do in their personal lives.
If the concern was about how Gay Marriage would affect the way their religious organizations are run, the Proposition would be about allowing churches to be immune from certain laws that go against their beliefs. That's not what it's about though. Instead, it says 'You people are not allowed to do this because we don't want you to.'
As far as procreation, I ask you again, should infertile people not be allowed to marry? What about the elderly who are past child-baring age? There's no potential for procreation there.
Yes, I get the fruit analogy. However, the government has no obligation to treat each fruit equally because those fruits don't pay taxes... ok sorry, this analogy is falling apart.
The point is that my Government has made a vow to me - to us all - to treat us all equally and with fairness. Justice is blind and we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The passage of Prop 8 would not only be a step backwards for Gay people, but it would send the message to every person in this country that their government can not be relied on to protect their basic rights.
We have freedom of religion in this country. That means that everyone is allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. Or not at all. This means that I can't force you to do something that goes against your beliefs and you can't force me to do something that goes against mine. I see no plausible way in which suing a church for practicing it's beliefs would go over very well, since forcing that issue would violate the constitution. I honestly don't think you have much to worry about and that this concept is being used as a scare tactic to rile up conservative voters.
As far as your groups go, I would gladly give them each a try.
As far as feeling entitled to use of religious facilities, I still haven't found any reference to this becoming the norm, or even a viable threat. The only thing that Gays as a group are fighting for here is *legal* recognition of our relationships; the ability for both of partners to sign a marriage license and have that relationship recognized and treated equally by our government. Most of us gave up on the Church the moment it gave up on us.
You said, "I can't get behind something that would force my church to either leave the state or compromise its beliefs." Why is it then that you're willing to force me and my people to have to do just that by entering into Civil Unions when we believe in our hearts that is the wrong thing for us to do?
whywalkwhenicanrun,
I'm in full support of parental rights in the MA case. I personally believe that the more people are exposed to people's differences (and the earlier that starts in life), the more accepting they will become. However, I do understand that other people don't agree, so I have to be respectful of that, and try to be a positive example in my personal life. There's no question in my mind that the parents should have been notified that controversial material was going to be discussed in their child's classroom.
I'm not even remotely familiar with MA law. I don't know what their school systems are like. I do know, however, that my parents received notes that had to be signed every time my public school teacher wanted to discuss something that was even remotely controversial... and went to what I affectionately call a "hippie school." We didn't even get letter grades.
As for IVF... wouldn't it be much easier had that woman been able to marry her partner? Then we would know without a doubt whether the refusal for treatment was based on their sexual preference or not. Because you're are absolutely right. No matter what there are always going to be people out there who don't play nicely.
That's exactly the reason we need the government to protect the rights of everyone equally. If one group of people in this country has the right to do something, so should everyone. The judges understood that, because they actually know what the constitution says and means far FAR better than the majority of Americans do.
Most of humanity is close-minded and mal-informed, so if we left all of these decisions up to them we probably wouldn't be allowed to marry outside of our race or allow our wives to vote.
If the judges had suddenly decided to ban gay marriages forever, I doubt the conservatives would be be doing anything but throwing a celebration.
This Prop was not authored by people who were concerned about activist judges. It was authored by people with a prejudice against Gays.
If it's just about judges making decisions like this, where's the Prop banning that from happening again?
I know the feeling Charlotte - I leave to school for the afternoon and come home with pages to respond to!
However, I'm just going to be brief because I really feel like I'm going in circles and not saying anything new. In fact, I'll just quote my main points which I've already stated:
"I just feel, and probably should have said this in my original post, that if we call homosexual unions "marriage", then judges will be more likely to side with the gay community and punish religious people for discrimination."
"I feel a homosexual union is different than a heterosexual union and should legally be different."
The examples listed in the original post are evidence enough for me. The threat against religious freedom is real, despite what the constitution says. Not all judges interpret the constitution the same way.
And one more time, I'm not talking about specific couples being able to produce children or not, that's what you keep saying. I mean in general. Please stop making it sound like I was saying something stupid. Can anybody argue that, in general, heterosexual couples can produce children? I never said they all could - that would be stupid, but in general they can. And again, the only reason I brought it up was to show one way in which they are actually different to back why they should be legally different - not every specific union, but the general terms "heterosexual union" and "homosexual union". I think we've already agreed that they are different things so there's really no need to use my example anymore anyway.
Sorry, I wasn't brief when I said I would be. You know how it is when you get typing though.
Benji,
I understand that you're not interested in discriminating against specific couples who are unable to conceive... just the Gay ones... and not for any tangible reason... just some fears that you have.
There's not much more say here except that as hurtful as these kinds of conversations always are, I've actually enjoyed this one anyway. I guess time will tell which of us is on the wrong side of history.
No, it's not about discriminating, I just wanted to use that as one way that the types of unions are generally different. In hindsight, I probably just should have said "couples whose total number of Y chromosomes is one" are different than "couples whose total number of Y chromosomes are either 0 or 2" and used THAT example of how homosexual and heterosexual couples are, in fact, different.
The tangible reason/fears are listed in the examples in the original post. You may see them as my fears, but I think they are very reasonable fears.
I've actually also really enjoyed this conversation. I'm not sure how you stumbled upon my blog but you're welcome here anytime.
Every human being is different. Every relationship is different. Why is it that you should get to decide that mine is just too different to count?
Oh, and I was linked to your blog by someone who thought I'd have a good time with it. ;-)
Ok be sure to thank them for me!
It depends on what "count" means. Uh, rather than guess I'm just going to ask you what do you mean by that? I think I've already established that I do want the government-granted marital benefits extended to you. I also feel I've established why the legal difference is important to me.
Of course every human and every relationship is different, most of those differences don't (and shouldn't) mean anything to me or the government. You used the words "too different" as though I somehow quantify the differences - that's not what I'm doing. The only area where a difference in a "married" relationship should matter to the government is whether it consists of one man and one woman or it consists of something else.
By "count" I mean "count as marriage."
If you recognize that all relationships are different, but have decided that Gay one's should not be considered "married" because they are different in a way that you are not comfortable with, that's discrimination... by definition. Sorry.
Back to Charlotte and the whole IVF issue -
It's interesting that we see these things differently. I think the case with the photographer in New Mexico is a bigger issue because photography is a form of artistic expression which can be covered under the right to free speech. To have a same-sex couple win the legal battles and have the government say an individual must use their artistic abilities to endorse something they disagree with is forced speech, but maybe that's just how I see it.
I was just speaking with one of my buddies who is a medical student about the IVF issue and wanted to get his opinion on it, as he shares my faith and, unlike me, could potentially be in this situation someday. He told me that the doctors who perform this procedure are OBGYNs who do a sub-specialty to do IVFs. He said what I would have said, the sub-specialty really isn't appealing to him because he knows these issues are out there and are sure to arise during his career, so he won't pursue that sub-specialty of medicine. He told me about a case in San Diego where a Dr. had to find a different line of work because her standard was no to do "artificial insemination" for anybody - she would only do IVF for married couples, and only same-sex married couples because that's what her religion (like mine) believes children are entitled to. Long story short, a lesbian couple sued and she lost.
The issue for me is that I see it as a medical procedure and not as a social service. Actually it's sort of both. Maybe the solution is to have a social service match prospective parents with compatible doctors and then everybody wins.
Discrimination:
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
Are you accusing me of definition 1 or 2? If it's 2, ok, I agree and can live with that. If it's definition number 1 I have to disagree because I'm not in favor or against a group. Again, all government-granted benefits should be equal, but there needs to be a legal distinction to keep the ACLU from restriction religious liberties.
Lastly, you said, "they are different in a way that you are not comfortable with". What did you base that on? When did my comfort level become part of the equation? I don't know how many times I can say it's all about keeping religious freedoms intact.
I'm accusing you of both. You're saying that anyone should be allowed to enter into a marriage, regardless of whether or not they can conceive children... unless they are Gay. Is that not what you've been saying?
You and I have already agreed that religion should be left alone here. What we're not agreeing on is whether or not that has anything to do with this Proposition.
Now that I think about it, if Gays are never allowed to marry, and are forced into Civil Unions, I would think that would give us even more grounds to force issues of inclusion.
As for your comfort level. It's obvious that you're not comfortable with Gay people being allowed to classify their relationship as a marriage. That's all I was saying.
Well, I've offered to give you the word "marriage" if I can have something else, like "traditional marriage". I guess you could say I'm not comfortable with us having the same word (which has EVERYTHING to do with prop. 8) only for the reasons that religious freedoms will be in jeopardy.
"anyone should be allowed to enter into a marriage, regardless of whether or not they can conceive children... unless they are Gay." is actually not what I've been saying. Let me put it this way - two men should not be allowed to enter into a union that the government does not see as different from a union in which one man and one woman can enter. You'll notice I left out terms like "marriage" and "gay". Two straight men shouldn't be allowed to do this. The only reason sexual orientation is involved is because homosexuals are very likely the only people who would want to.
I just think it's fair for the government to "differentiate" between two things that are "different" and again, just by using a different word, not in any other way.
Ok... well...
Apparently, you just have a need to put things into little categories and keep them separate from each other.
I can't help but to wonder how you would feel if you were the one in the back of the bus.
Fortunately for you, we'll never know.
My "need" to do this is spelled out in all the examples I listed in the original post, in order to protect religious freedoms (have I mentioned that already?)
To me it's not the back and front of the bus, I've been saying all along the government-given benefits should be equal. That's a round spinning bus with one big seat all around the edge. (that's my cue to get some sleep)
I've read your examples, and I still don't see them as proof that this will happen in CA. I also find it disturbingly humorous that the very group that is trying to force us into caving to their beliefs is suddenly afraid that we might do it back to them.
To you it's about the back or the front of the bus because you're not being told where to sit.
Pardon me, that last sentence should have read:
"To you it's NOT about the back or the front of the bus because you're not being told where to sit."
You're right, they aren't proof. You can't prove that anything will or won't happen in the future - that's impossible. For me, it's a good enough reason. I'm saying things that have happened before are likely to happen again.
Also, I think I've made it clear that I don't want you to cave to my beliefs. That a male-male union is different from a male-female union is not a belief, it's a fact. A scientific verifiable fact. I don't want my beliefs to be an inconvenience to you, as I would hope you don't want yours to be an inconvenience to me. Can we agree on that?
I'm also saying that, under the new rules (legally: male-male = male-female) religions are much more likely to find themselves on the losing side of the clashes that WILL (not might) happen. I think you're nice and understanding enough that you personally won't be involved with clashes in religion, but the same characters involved in the examples I've listed (I.E. the New Jersey lesbians who feel entitled to use the Methodist pavilion for their commitment ceremony) are the ones who will be stirring things up. For me, it's very convincing evidence that I'm not blowing things out of proportion with my concerns for the future of religious liberties.
sysgwxYou're contradicting yourself a little... First you say, "You can't prove that anything will or won't happen in the future - that's impossible." Then you say, "...religions are much more likely to find themselves on the losing side of the clashes that WILL (not might) happen."
So will they certainly happen, or might they not?
I think we're probably in agreement that things like that are likely to happen. Unfortunately, not even passing Prop 8 will keep that from happening. We're going to keep fighting until we are considered legally equal to everyone else.
Yes... some people will fight beyond that, unfortunately. However, in no way is that specific to Gay people. Should society just stagnate because we're afraid of getting sued if we piss people off?
To say that a male-male union is different from a male female-union is, in my mind, akin to saying a Caucasian-Caucasian union is different from a Caucasian-Chinese relationship... or that a Catholic-Catholic union is different from a Catholic-Methodist union... or that a 47 year-old - 44 year-old union is different from a 72 year-old - 54 year-old union.
That is to say that OF COURSE they are different. They are formed of different kinds of people, from different backgrounds. There is no doubt that they are in some way different. What is about a male-male relationship that makes it the only one of our examples that is deserving of it's own title?
Should we have different names for each and every one of these different types of relationships, or can we possibly agree that the similarities between them outweigh the differences enough to be able to allow them all into the same group, rather than excluding only one type?
And you've said that you don't want me to have to cave to your beliefs, but what you don't seem to understand is that voting for Prop 8 is doing that. It's amending the constitution to prohibit me from doing something that you don't want me to do (enter into a "marriage"). You believe that male-male relationships should be called something different than male-female relationships, so by voting for Prop 8 you're saying that I should have to abide by what you believe.
Obviously, you're basically sound-minded enough to recognize that we deserve some form of equality. I do appreciate that, as misguided as I find your reasoning. The authors of Prop 8, and most of those voting in its favor, can't even bring themselves to allow us that much
"You're contradicting yourself a little."
Touche'. I suppose there is always the possibility everyone will start playing nice and these clashes will never again arise. I wouldn't bet on it.
"Unfortunately, not even passing Prop 8 will keep that from happening."
I understand and agree, but feel the legal outcome of the clashes is what prop. 8 will affect.
"What is about a male-male relationship that makes it the only one of our examples that is deserving of it's own title?"
The fact that many religions condemn them, and thus could get into legal trouble if there is no governmental distinction.
"You believe that male-male relationships should be called something different than male-female relationships, so by voting for Prop 8 you're saying that I should have to abide by what you believe."
I guess you're right, but I could just as easily say that by voting against it you are saying I should have to abide by what you believe. And don't say it won't affect me, because the whole premise of this blog post is that it will affect me.
"The authors of Prop 8, and most of those voting in its favor, can't even bring themselves to allow us that much"
Yeah, and I like that you have taken me seriously and not just lumped me in with the rest of the conservative right. I'll admit that there's a lot of hate out there and I am willing to help out in fighting that, just not in ways that threaten my religious freedom.
Benji- I think if the photographer was just using her talents as a means of artistic release, and she refused to photograph the couple, she would have had an argument. Once you open your doors for business, though, you have to open them for everyone...
Benvolio-
Where do YOU draw the line, then? Just out of curiosity here. Say my husband and I would like to add a third male to our marriage relationship. All of us love each other equally and want to raise our children together. Can we be included in the constitution, too? Or should we move to the back of the bus? Say another man and woman truly love each other and want to get married, but they're father and daughter or sister and brother. Have they crossed any boundaries? Shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? What about two 12-year-old kids? Don't they have rights?
Once marriage has been expanded to include more than just one man/one woman, it will lose its meaning entirely. It will become completely obsolete and invalid. For the benefit of preserving the family and for the best interest of raising our children in the most ideal home (I know you're going to go to town on that one, but there is a lot of evidence to back up that one man/one woman is the best way for children to be raised), marriage needs to be defined this way.
I dunno, just because you get paid for it doesn't make it any less of an art form. You could easily compare it to a professional painter who paints portraits for a living. What about professional spokespeople who literally speak for a living? Under your standard they would be forced to say things they don't believe because someone is willing to pay them.
Also, most photographers are independent contractors and should have more of a say in which jobs they will or won't do.
Also, good point on where the line is drawn. Clearly, it has to be somewhere or the word will lose all meaning.
"I suppose there is always the possibility everyone will start playing nice and these clashes will never again arise. I wouldn't bet on it."
I think the first step in playing nice would be to stop trying to write discrimination into the constitution. But that's just me.
"The fact that many religions condemn them, and thus could get into legal trouble if there is no governmental distinction."
Religious condemnation should not really be a factor in what the government allows people to do.
If this proposition is about preserving the rights of religious organizations, then why isn't that mentioned anywhere in the text?
"I guess you're right, but I could just as easily say that by voting against it you are saying I should have to abide by what you believe."
Not at all. What I'm saying is that no one should be forced to abide by anyone else's personal beliefs. To me that's like saying that since I don't like seafood, no one should be illegal for anyone to eat it.
"Yeah, and I like that you have taken me seriously and not just lumped me in with the rest of the conservative right."
You're welcome... though I will admit it hasn't always been easy. ;-)
"I'll admit that there's a lot of hate out there and I am willing to help out in fighting that, just not in ways that threaten my religious freedom."
Then why not vote against Prop 8, and together we can work on a bill that would allow people to practice their religion as they see fit?
Just a thought.
Hmmm... So, if I was an artist and painted a picture, could I descriminate who I allowed to purchase it? Or just the type of paintings I decided to paint? I'm a wedding gown designer (graduated in the Arts category...), can I tell a lesbian couple I won't design their gowns?
Perhaps my opinion is slightly jaded because my husband will soon be a doctor, but I don't think someone should be given more flexibility than others in a business setting because their line of work is technically classified as artistic. And isn't creating life (IVF) the highest form of art? ;) And doesn't our country still allow private practices (for a little while anyway...)? :P Forgive me, I'm just still failing to see the differences.
Charlotte,
The thing is we already ARE included in the constitution. This proposition is trying to EXclude us. If you're asking my personal opinion on polygamy, I'll tell you. I don't like it.
I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to make the homosexuality/polygamy/incest comparison. Normally they are accompanied by questions about marrying dogs and pigs too though, so thanks for at least skipping over that one.
Until someone can find some evidence that polygamist are that way due to some uncontrollable inborn characteristic, I don't believe those two things should be compared.
This would mean the difference between discriminating against a type of person and discriminating against something that some people prefer to do... at least in my mind.
As far as the government is concerned though, a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. I am not familiar with the exact protocol for legal and financial contracts, but I guess in theory, LEGALLY, anyone should be allowed to devise their own.
Again though... just because the government recognizes certain legal contracts does not mean that religious organizations should be forced to celebrate them.
That's just off the top of my head though... I haven't given the topic much thought.
Additionally, as far as I know, there are scientific and biological reasons for dissuading incest. I think it should also go without saying that I am against it. However, if I had financial, non-sexual, non-romantic reasons for wanting to enter into a committed legal contract with my sister, what logical reason would there be to disallow that?
As for Minors getting married... are you seriously asking me that?
Let me be very clear here... in this particular conversation I am removing all romance, all emotion, and all feeling from the debate. I am speaking strictly of the legal aspect of marriage... because that's the only part of it that the government should have any hand in.
Going back to the emotional aspects of marriage... I fail to see how allowing two people who love each other to enter into a committed relationship with each other would destroy the sanctity of marriage.
It's funny. The anti-gay people just can't figure out what to hate us for. First it was that we were all sex fiends who only wanted to run around having sex with as many random partners as we could. Then when we were like, "Actually, we'd really like nothing more than to settle down with one person that we love," we get hated on for "destroying marriage." We just can't win.
As for the children. I'm not going to go to town on you. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this matter, and you obviously have the children's best interest at heart. As a former teacher I can assure you that I have studied child development pretty extensively, and have their best interest at heart as well. The most important thing for children is to have positive male and female role models. Those role models do not have to be their parents, however. Children are going to look up to whomever their going to look up to. My dad was a terrible role model in a lot of ways, so I found my positive male influence through grandfathers, uncles, teachers, and pastors.
The single most important things a parent can offer their child are love, support, structure and guidance. Those things have nothing to do with gender.
Benji,
"Also, good point on where the line is drawn. Clearly, it has to be somewhere or the word will lose all meaning."
How convenient that you both happen to be on the right side of that line.
Must be nice.
Charlotte,
"Hmmm... So, if I was an artist and painted a picture, could I descriminate who I allowed to purchase it? Or just the type of paintings I decided to paint? I'm a wedding gown designer (graduated in the Arts category...), can I tell a lesbian couple I won't design their gowns? "
I think all business owners reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Or do they have to have a special sign?
Charlotte -
Probably no you couldn't be picky about who buys your paintings, but what you paint should be entirely up to you. That's the speech part. Or, you can sell your wedding dresses to anyone you want, but when someone tells you exactly how to make it you shouldn't be forced to do what they say. You are the artist.
Art form/medical procedure, yeah, that's a gray area because I'm always claiming that dentistry is where science, art, medicine, and mechanics intersect. I guess if a Christian organization wants to set up their own private fertility clinic, that would be akin to the Catholic adoption agency that I feel should have been able to run their business as they best see fit in Massachusetts. If you work for an HMO, on the other hand, many of them won't let the patients go to another doctor and they are stuck with who they get assigned to.
I didn't know your husband was a resident? Did he do med school in one of the California schools?
Benvolio-
I think we've reached the point where we just see the issue differently. To me, there is a significant enough real difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual ones that I want my government to call them what they are - different. Not better or worse, different. I don't feel guilty about that, I think it's the right thing to do.
Your points:
"write discrimination into the constitution"
I see that as definition #2 - pointing out a difference, not elevating one over the other. I'm ok with that.
"If this proposition is about preserving the rights of religious organizations, then why isn't that mentioned anywhere in the text?"
Because that's not what it (the proposition) is about. That's what my involvement is about. I'm simply asserting that it is a real legal consequence of this proposition, and the consequences are too big for me to ignore.
"why not vote against Prop 8, and together we can work on a bill that would allow people to practice their religion as they see fit?"
If it fails, I'm sure that's just what many churches will come together to do. It's an option. Voting yes is another option that, as of right now, does the same thing and uses a lot less resources. This would free up these resources for what churches should be doing - helping the poor and disaster relief, to name a couple.
"since I don't like seafood, [it] should be illegal for anyone to eat it." That's one way of looking at it. Here's another - what if you belonged to a religion that preached a vegetarian diet and excommunicated members who violate this rule. Then a bunch of cattle farmers lobbied to have beef classified as a vegetable so that members of your religion could eat beef and not be excommunicated. That's how I see it. Legal definitions contradicting real definitions.
Benvolio-
Businesses most certainly don't have the right to refuse service...at least according to CA laws. The CA Unruh Civil Rights Act (51b) " All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privideges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
Here's the link in case you're a geek like me and find legal mumbo jumbo interesting:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=2914602106+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Benji-
"Probably no you couldn't be picky about who buys your paintings, but what you paint should be entirely up to you. That's the speech part."
That's the same thing as with the doctor. These people should either choose to not take ANY wedding pictures, or take them of everyone. That's the point where they get to be artistic. If they don't want to do homosexual weddings, we should force them to choose something else like children's photography, or better yet, nature (no human relations involved to sue them)! That's what you're asking the doctors to do.
Whoa, hold on, I seriously just confused you two. In my mind Charlotte was a wedding gown designer.
Anyway, I'm taking the weekend off from commenting on this post because my wife has been feeling seriously neglected while I've been home this week. Feel free to keep commenting, just try not to leave me too much to respond to on Monday.
And thanks again for getting a good healthy discussion going on my blog.
Benji,
"If it fails, I'm sure that's just what many churches will come together to do. It's an option. Voting yes is another option that, as of right now, does the same thing and uses a lot less resources. This would free up these resources for what churches should be doing - helping the poor and disaster relief, to name a couple."
The problem is that your way preserving your rights is specifically designed to do so at the the expense of other people's rights. It was designed specifically to deny a specific group of people of their right to fair and equal treatment under the law. Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
"what if you belonged to a religion that preached a vegetarian diet and excommunicated members who violate this rule. Then a bunch of cattle farmers lobbied to have beef classified as a vegetable so that members of your religion could eat beef and not be excommunicated. That's how I see it. Legal definitions contradicting real definitions."
Kind of a silly situation to conjure up. I'm having trouble coming up with a response to that because the idea of meat suddenly being "reclassified" as something that is an entirely different life form. Gays are pretty much just like real humans though, so... ya know...
Benvolio-
I know people have compared the issue with loving their animals, too, and I just think that's pretty lame. I realize the 12-year olds was pushing it, maybe 15 would have been better, but I wanted it to at least catch your attention.
And now we're getting into the genetic make-up questions which still have yet to be cleared up. There have been studies that "prove" it and studies that "refute" it... here's a site that has quite a few studies.
http://narth.com/docs/isminor.html
(NARTH is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality for those who have unwanted SSA...just to warn you where you're headed. I'm not linking you there maliciously).
And as to this comment: "It's funny. The anti-gay people just can't figure out what to hate us for." I'm sure there are some horrible hate groups out there, but no one I know HATES gays. My sister is a lesbian. This is a huge decision, I realize. But to me, and as Benji has pointed out for himself, and for the hundreds of people I personally know who will be voting Yes on 8, this is not about hate or exclusion. And it's not about the immediate results of one man marrying one man. It's about the ripple effect, and what things could/will be like for our children, our nation, our religions, our freedoms, our schools, etc. should this particular door be opened.
Charlotte,
Thanks. I was just curious because of the signs I see posted in stores and bars and stuff. I knew that applied to customer behavior, but I wasn't sure how far-reaching it was.
If the law is as you say it is (and I trust that it is), I think that's a great thing... at least for secular places of business.
Charlotte,
Though there is plenty of evidence to support the theory that homosexuality is not a choice, I don't need it. If you ask any Gay person if they chose to be Gay the polite ones will laugh in your face. Whether it has anything to do with genes is still debatable and, in my opinion, irrelevant.
As far as your voting. I understand that you feel very strongly about the ripple effects you think will occur. However, you can't possibly say that this proposition is not about exclusion. That's exactly what it is about and there's no arguing that.
You could argue that it's not about hate, but that's probably a lot easier to do from your side than from mine. And I still think that you'd both be singing a different tune if it was your people being being banned.
Hi Guys. Hope you had a good weekend. I don't really want to stir anything up if y'all aren't up for it, but I did find this bit of information about the Prop 8's facts vs fiction. I thought you might be interested, so I'll paste it here. Keep in mind that it is from the NoOnProp8.com site... so there may well be bias, but it does have some direct quotes which are accurate at least.
Home
About Prop 8
Take Action
News
Español
Facts v. Fiction
Don’t be misled. Watch our ad to learn the why Californians oppose Prop 8.
Proposition 8 puts discrimination into our Constitution. It would inject government into private lives. It undermines equal protections under our laws.
Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:
Fiction: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gays.
Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.” The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8.
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
Benvolio-
Thanks, I had a great weekend and I hope it treated you well too.
I read through everything you posted and did find it interesting. The thing is, we had a law from 2000-2008 that said the same thing prop. 8 says. It was overturned because it was deemed unconstitutional. This tells me that many of the laws cited in your article could also easily change because a court deems them discriminatory.
I'm not sure how they justify saying school kids won't be taught about gay marriage when the education code requires they be taught about marriage (5190 A,1,D). Perhaps I misread what they were saying and they were really making the point that in California, unlike Massachusetts, parents can always "opt out" of that portion of the education. Interestingly enough, the "no on 8" pushers were the ones who eliminated that same parental right in Massachusetts. Full story here (from protectmarriage.com):
http://protectmarriage.com/article/proposition-8-who-s-really-lying-
Anyway, that's not really the big issue with me as long as they do their best to keep it "age appropriate". That means different things to different people and we'll probably see enough people on your side or my side or both get offended enough that a more specific guideline is made.
Anyway, I was doing some thinking over the weekend and the more I think about it, the more I like the example of changing beef to a vegetable. I know you're not fond of it but try to see it from my point of view.
I also think Charlotte made an excellent point (probably better than any I have made) about where you draw the line. You said it must be nice to be on the right side of the line but overlooked the fact that currently in California, we all are on the "right side" of that line. You don't really have to wonder because, at least for now, you're there. There could just as easily be religious groups pushing for legalization of polygamy, and they see it not only as a "constitutional right" but as something God really wants them to do. I'm not sure how you feel about the issue, but I bet if we expanded the boundaries a bit to include incest, or the folks at NAMBLA, we'd eventually reach a point where you would want to say, "hold on a second, what you have isn't what I have, there's a key difference". Maybe you're ok with all of those groups sharing the same name for their unions but I think if they are all legally recognized they should be legally recognized for what they are - similar but not the same.
Also, their numbers are few, but your whole point is that the majority shouldn't dictate what the minority can and can't do.
Point is, I'm ok with your union being legally recognized, I just don't see it as the same thing. Also, you had mentioned earlier that there are many differences between relationships and why don't I care about other differences. As I was thinking I realized that it would be impossible. We couldn't classify unions based on race because there is a continuous spectrum of racial make-up in this country. Where would you make that distinction? Also with age - time is something that is continuous and we just arbitrarily measure it's passing.
Hetero and homo sexuality is different than the examples you've listed because they are absolutes. There is no continuous spectrum where on one side people are really really male and in the middle they're just sort of male and then eventually you get to the group of females. Categorizing homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is something nobody can dispute scientifically or genetically. (I'm sure transgendered people would feel miscategorized and I'll have to admit I have no idea if the law treats them as what they originally were or as what they have become, but I'm sure there is a legal distinction).
Anyway, I've written a lot tonight (making up for the weekend I guess). Basically, my point still remains, if prop 8 fails, the ACLU is much more likely to successfully go after religious groups who "discriminate" (definition 2) against homosexuals. That's my opinion and I feel it's my very valid opinion.
Benji,
The problem with your beef to veggie analogy, is that beef and vegetables are more different than they are similar... in that they are completely different and not at all similar.
Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be along the lines of reclassifying a radish as a turnip, which doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
If you really think about it though, we're not trying to change any definitions. The constitution doesn't define marriage as between a man and a woman, it's your camp that's trying to reword it. We're just asking to be included in it as it already existed.
I've already stated my opinion on drawing the line. I've already stated that children off limits, and I'm tired of being unjustly compared to the people of NAMBLA.
I know where you're going with these comparisons, as I've had this conversation with truckloads of other people before. I could go on about the multitude of differences between sexual orientation and the number of people one chooses to have sex with, but I'm not going to.
Instead, I will put the burden of proof on you to find some examples of legal battles being waged and won by polygamists in the states and countries where gay marriage is already legal, as proof of the floodgates that supposedly open up because two men are allowed to marry each other.
Also, I will ask this questions: What if three people down the street were allowed to marry each other? What kind of affect would that have on you?
What if you were legally given the ability to marry more than one woman, or add another man into your relationship with your wife? Would you?
When you say things like, "I'm ok with your union being legally recognized, I just don't see it as the same thing," that comes across as "I don't have a problem with Gays, but I just don't want to be associated with them." Which is basically the same as saying, "I'm not really that ok with the Gays."
As far as sexuality being an "absolute," I know many people who would beg to differ. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Kinsey Scale (named after renowned sex researcher Dr Alfred Kinsey). Basically throughout the course of his studies he made quite a few interesting observations about human sexuality. These observations eventually lead to the creation of the Kinsey Scale, which theorizes that everybody falls somewhere along the line between 0 (completely heterosexual) and 6 (completely homosexual).
In his studies he found that more than 11% of white males between 20 and 35 fall right in the middle at 3... making them bisexual.
Many Gay men openly admit to finding certain aspects of the female being to be quite attractive, even sexually in some cases. Likewise, while few "straight" men will admit it, studies have shown that a high percentage of men are sexually aroused by gay porn.
You may be squarely on 0, and I may be squarely on 6... but that by no means confirms that sexuality is "absolute."
Also... you're confusing sexuality with gender, which are often related, but still two totally different concepts. Gender is who you are (male, female), while sexuality is who you are attracted to. All I'm saying is that I should not be disallowed basic equal treatment under the law strictly based on the fact that I don't want to marry a woman.
(As for transgendered people, I'm not sure if this is the norm, but I once knew a person who was genetically male, and legally married a bisexual woman. Later this person went through a transition and became genetically female, but was still considered married to her wife.)
As for the tidal wave of anti-religious lawsuits you're expecting, did it occur to you that maybe if we just had full and equal acceptance people wouldn't feel the need to lash out in this way. Those of us who are suing (and as I stated originally I don't agree with most of them) are doing so in attempt to obtain equal rights and fair treatment. If we had that we wouldn't need to sue.
Good response, that was well-thought-out and I learned a thing or two.
I think you've misinterpreted a lot of what I said though. This is probably more my fault than yours because I'm always trying to find the balance between being brief and being clear. I think my earlier comment was more brief than clear.
1st- I wasn't classifying sexuality, which I'll buy can be put on a scale and not simply absolutes. I was classifying genders that make up specific unions, which are absolute. Regardless of sexual preference, a man is a man and a male-male union is different from a male-female union.
2nd - the NAMBLA/Incest/Polygamy - I honestly didn't realize you had already addressed that, but this evening I re-read your comments. Probably sometime last week in the mix of trying to catch up on the comments while I eat lunch before heading back to school, I missed that. Also, I wasn't trying to unjustly compare you to them and I'm not sure where you thought I was going. You've probably had these type of conversations more than me and maybe can anticipate where my logic will take me, but I meant no ill-intent.
3rd - burden of proof with polygamy- I'm really not sure what to do with that one. I didn't say the flood gates would open (but maybe you anticipated me eventually saying that). I'm not concerned about that happening in the future any more than I am about gay marriage being legally recognized as the same thing as traditional marriage. To me, if we start recognizing "alternative" unions as the same thing, the gay community shouldn't have a monopoly on that. The polygamist family down the street wouldn't bother me any more than the homosexual family down the street - it's just that I feel these different arrangements should be legally recognized as different.
"maybe if we just had full and equal acceptance people wouldn't feel the need to lash out in this way"
It all depends on what "full and equal acceptance" means. I want you to have that with everything the government grants to married couples. I don't think my church should be told to fully and equally accept couples who disobey their teachings. To ask the church to take the first step and welcome practices contrary to their teachings is like asking a church to stop being the same church. You've made a good point though - Episcopalian churches who sanction gay marriages don't have these type of lawsuits. If my churches biggest concern were avoiding lawsuits, they could easily do the same thing. I don't anticipate them ever doing that, nor do I think they should unless they really feel that God wants them to.
Turnips and Radishes - I like that.
To you and me and everyone I know, the difference doesn't mean anything. Even the constitution is silent on this issue. Suppose a group of people interpreted this silence as meaning that there is no difference and that legally a radish is a turnip. Most of us would laugh at that group because that's just silly. However, if I were legally affected by the new definition, or felt that I had a really high chance of being legally affected by it in the future,I would probably take legal action like putting a proposition on the ballot.
Benji, I actually really thought your scenario of the religion having to be altered because the vegetable farmers lobbied was an excellent comparison. I know Benvolio didn’t agree because of the wording and thinks vegetables and beef are too different to even put in a hypothetical situation. Maybe we could use donkeys and mules, then? The donkey’s god and Bible says that mules are different because they don’t have the potential to procreate (yes, this is my lame attempt at humor…mules are genetically sterile). ;) The mules were angry at this and got together to petition to be called donkeys. They have half of the same genes as donkeys, and they look very similar to donkeys (people even often mistake them for donkeys). They have raised baby donkeys together just fine, so why can’t they be called donkeys? Because they’re different! They just are! A mule by any other name is still a mule. The donkeys just want the distinction to be made to avoid future problems and confusion for their religions and their baby donkeys. Call me an “ass”, but I think it’s a fair distinction…
For point's 1 and 2, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
For point three, I understand what you are saying. However, I do have one comment about your use of the words "traditional marriage."
That term has changed meaning many many times over the past few thousand years. They've gone from betrothals (and other forms of arranged marriage), to dowries (or other forms of basically buying and owning your bride), to loving relationships where the man proposes to the woman who then stays at home and does all the cooking and cleaning and child-rearing, to women sometimes proposing to men and both partners treating each other as equals.
Even today, the phrase means different things to different cultures. Some still work with arranged marriages. Some still won't allow their people to marry outside of their own race or religion.
Why is it that your version of "marriage" has to be the only one that everyone follows?
Again, the people trying to defeat this proposition are not doing so in an attempt to force your church to do anything it doesn't want to do. This proposition speaks specifically of the laws.
There are already laws in place to protect churches (and other religious facilities) from having to go against what they believe. If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you've fallen for the scare tactics.
As for the radish and the turnip... everyone recognizes that they are and always will be somewhat different. However, radishes, turnips, beets, carrots and sweet potatoes, etc, all fall under the classification of "root vegetable." Prop 8 is like saying that potatoes should not be classified as root vegetables because they don't have little points at the ends.
Now that would be silly.
Charlotte,
Is there any reason why mules and donkeys can't sleep in the same barns? Eat the same sorts of foods? Be treated the same way?
No one is denying that there are differences between Gay relationships and straight relationships. We're just asking why that difference matters so damn much to you people, when differences in other relationships do not.
I thought you guys might be interested in reading this article from RepublicansAgainst8.com:
New Lies From Prop 8 Proponents
The proponents of Proposition 8 are really grasping at straws. Here are the latest scare tactics they’re using to try to get folks to support Prop 8:
“Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot.”
FALSE. Proposition 8 says nothing about public schools. Local curricula are set by local school boards in California. If a parent objects to what’s being taught in the classroom on religious or moral grounds, they cal always opt their children out.
“Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.”
FALSE. Churches were performing same-sex weddings for decades regardless of whether they were recognized by law. Similarly, the Catholic Church is not required to recognize civil divorces, nor will it ever be.
“Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies.”
FALSE. Proposition 8 says nothing about what businesses may or may not do. Non-discrimination laws already on the books require that any service offered to the public by a business must be offered to everyone. Are the proponents of Proposition 8 asking that we repeal our non-discrimination laws?
“Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.”
FALSE. Whereas marriage licenses in California are no longer gender-specific, married couples may call themselves whatever they want. That’s a constitutional right–something proponents of Prop 8 don’t seem to have much respect for.
“The role of parents will be diminished.”
FALSE. Already, 71% of children growing up in California live in non-traditional families. Why deny the children of gay and lesbian couples the joy of having their parents’ love recognized by the State?
Proponents of Proposition 8 say it’s simple–but then they must twist the truth in order to scare voters.
Prop 8 is simple–it’s an assault of our constitutional freedoms as Californians.
Mules and Donkeys can sleep in the same barns, eat the same hay, have all the same rights, etc. I don't care. They just can't legally be called the same thing if one of the groups stands to lose significant freedoms by calling them the same thing.
Rooted vegetables - you're actually describing a situation in which proponents of "one male-one female" marriage (I'll use that term if it suits you better than "traditional") are willing to accept single-parent families as being legally married and polygamous families as being legally married, but are singling out same-gender couples as being the only ones who can't get married. That's not what's going on, although it may seem like it to you.
Why it matters so darn much? I've already stated that the examples in the original post are evidence enough to me that my church stands to lose a lot in terms of religious liberties if there is no legal distinction. I'm not saying most of those things (from your quoted article) that "prop 8 proponents" are saying. I'm sticking to my guns that I have good reason to fear for future loss of religious liberties based on what I've seen.
I agree that most of the opponents of prop 8 aren't trying to force my church to do anything and that prop 8 doesn't speak specifically about what will or won't happen. I just see a logical connection between prop 8 failing and the ACLU winning the court battles when future clashes arise.
My root vegetables argument was meant to illustrate that even though there are differences between each kind of root vegetable (and each kind of relationship) they can still very easily fit into the category of "root vegetable" (or "marriage"). Radishes aren't the only ones allowed to use that title.
I still don't see much basis for your argument. We already have laws in place in California protecting religious freedom, and protecting the rights of the parents. Are you saying that Prop 8 would repeal those laws?
If Prop 8 was not created specifically to deny Gay people their rights, and was created just for religious reasons, why doesn't it say something along the lines of "Only wedding ceremonies performed in the church shall be considered 'marriages.' All secular weddings, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, will be considered 'civil unions'"?
I would actually support that Prop... along as the same rules apply to me as apply to straight people, I'm fine. Prop 8 as it actually is does nothing but create different rules for groups of people who should be treated equally.
"No one is denying that there are differences between Gay relationships and straight relationships. We're just asking why that difference matters so damn much to you people, when differences in other relationships do not."
What do you mean by "differences in other relationships do not [matter]"? To what other relationships are you referring? The proposition says "one man and one woman", it doesn't say, "between anyone and everyone but homosexual couples who we really really hate and just want to leave out of our prestigious club to be mean".
And why do YOU (not you people because I personally know homosexuals in favor of Prop 8), but you personally care so much about how it is defined? If, according to all the laws and legalities you will still have the same rights, what difference does it make to you personally? If you're fine with homosexual and heterosexual unions being different, then why is it so incredibly horrible to call them different?
No, it wouldn't repeal those laws. I feel that those laws could easily be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional just like we saw happen this year.
It wasn't specifically targeted at gays because the wording is "only marriage between a man and woman" - that excludes everything else.
The wording you've proposed wouldn't really achieve much because the state would still recognize gay weddings performed in other churches as "marriage". My concerns about discrimination lawsuits remain.
Radishes aren't the only ones who can use "root vegetables" as a title but they are the only ones who can use "radish" as a title. That's the one I'm concerned about. Let's call all the root vegetables what they are and call the radishes what they are. Let's legally recognize all various marital arrangements for what they are and give everyone the same governmental rights. You're seeing "root vegetable" as marriage and I'm seeing "radish" as marriage. We could just as easily classify them into broader and broader categories like "food" or "growing things" or "things composed of matter" and each time include more and more things in our category. I guess taxonomists would say I'm a splitter and you're a lumper.
As far as you not seeing basis for my argument, well, this is probably where our little discussion ends. I read through the examples in the original post, consider what would likely happen with and without a legal distinction between the two types of unions, and I feel compelled to take action to protect religious liberties. If you don't see it that way, that's fine, but you're not very likely to convince me I have nothing to worry about.
Charlotte,
I'm talking about relationships between a white person and a black person, a baptist and a Jewish person, an older woman and a younger man... Those are obviously going to be different than the relationship between a 30-year-old Caucasian Catholic male and a 30-year-old Caucasian Catholic female. Yet they're still allowed to "marry" under the eyes of the law.
If the reason behind Prop 8 (or even the justification for voting for it) is that Gay relationships are different... then we ought to have separate legal titles for each and every type of relationship. As long as they're all equal in every other way it shouldn't be a problem, should it?
As for why I personally care about the definition... Benji and I have already been over that. I still stand by the assertion that telling Gay people that they should be happy with Civil Unions is like telling Rosa Parks that she should have been happy in the back of the bus. After all both sides of the bus are pretty much "equal," right?
It's about dignity and respect as much as it is about the actual laws. There's a certain stigma that society places on "marriage." How would like to have to show your friends your engagement ring while proclaiming, "I'm getting civilly united!!!"?
Don't get me wrong, though... it's about rights too... and as much as you'd like to believe that Civil Unions are equal to marriages, that simply isn't the case.
There are over 1,000 rights automatically given to married couples that are not given to people in civil unions.
A friend of mine wrote it better than I could so if you don't mind, I'll just copy and paste:
Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.
Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.
Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.
Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.
And that's just a few examples. There's also portability. Married couples are married wherever the go. Civilly united couples are only civilly united in the state in which they were originally civilly united.
And I never said that gay and straight relationships were drastically different. All I said was that EVERY relationship is different, and that there are more similarities than differences between them.
Benji,
Do you honestly believe that a group of judges could overturn the first amendment's proclamation of freedom of religion?
In my root vegetable analogy Radish = Straight couple, Turnip = Gay couple, and Root Vegetable = Married.
Radishes and turnips can still keep their individual identities while falling under the umbrella of "root vegetable." Cannot Gay couples and straight couples (and Chinese couples and deaf couples Methodist couples) keep their individual identities while falling under the umbrella of "married"?
I'm not trying to convince you that you have nothing to worry about. There are always going to be people who are going to sue at the drop of a hat. What I'm telling you is that passage of Prop 8 is not the solution. If you feel that you need further protection than what the constitution can provide you, you should either start your own country or work with what you've got. Propose new bills that will protect your people without harming other people.
Ok, I like where the analogy has taken us. You're pretty good at helping me see it from your point of view. When you said "radishes and turnips can still keep their individual identities" I think we've found some common ground. I want those individual identities to be legal.
Overturn the whole amendment? No, I don't think that will happen. Interpret what the amendment means and specifically what churches can and can't do? Yeah, that's the job of a judge.
Chinese, deaf, Methodist, etc. Yeah those are all differences, but I don't see them as absolute. Someone can become partially deaf, be half Chinese, and join or leave the Methodist church at will. Nobody can alter their DNA to change a male-male union to a female-male union. To me, that's a bigger difference than any of the others you've mentioned.
You and I have actually already been over this - the key difference is that churches condemn same-sex unions and therefore stand to lose religious liberties if there is no legal distinction. You said church doctrine isn't a good reason to revise the constitution (or something to that effect) and I think that's a good point, but it explains why I feel the way I do and why I'll vote the way I'll vote.
Benji,
It seems that you and I are probably out of things to say to each other.
You've said your bit, and I've said mine.
I still feel some anger towards people who try to force other people to abide by their personal beliefs. That goes as much for people on your side as for people on my side.
Sadly it seems like in order to keep your beliefs from being encroached on, you seem all too willing to encroach on mine.
That's hurtful, and that's what causes me to go off with these long responses. I apologize if I've come off too harsh on here at all. It's a defense mechanism, that comes from years of this fight as well as annoyance at the people who've been oppressing us complaining about the possibility of being oppressed.
It's hard.
I understand, and have nothing but respect for the fight your people have waged for what you believe. You and I are probably a lot alike and just find ourselves on different sides of this particular issue. Best of luck and feel free to stay in touch.
Best of luck to you too.
Feel free to find me at benvolio7.livejournal.com.
Think of me while you're checking the wrong box.
;-)
I know we've basically moved on... but I just thought I'd pass on this LA Times LA Times Article:
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.
Are you a fellow Benji? That's awesome! When I was a kid a bunch of people called me "Benj".
Yeah, I think that article is basically saying the same things you and I have been going back and forth on. I'm not sure if I would call the yes on 8 ads "lies and half-truths". It's just the nature of the beast that when you have limited resources to get your message out there, you have to simplify. We've already discussed this, but nobody can accurately predict what will happen, I just think looking to these other recent examples of what HAS happened can be a good barometer of what WILL happen - and that legal distinction will definitely help my churches' cause.
As far as imposing definitions, we just have to face the fact that currently individuals in our society have differing definitions. No matter what happens, one group will be imposing their definition on the other group. That's unavoidable.
Lastly, I'd like to direct you to my friend's blog. She can articulate her thoughts and feelings about 10 times better than I can. Feel free to let me (or her) know what you think:
http://ashadeandd.blogspot.com/2008/10/closing-arguments.html
Also, I really liked her last comment she just posted today.
Your friend's article was very well written, but with a basic premise of "Prop 8 needs to pass in order for the 'majority' to maintain their right to treat others as poorly as we want" doesn't hold much water with me.
As for her other arguments, I'd say the same things that I've been saying to you. I still stand by what I've said before. If the table were turned neither one of you would be in favor of this amendment... that alone should be enough to get you to have a little empathy and change your mind...
Since it's not though, all I can do is offer you a link to one of MY friend's blog entries:
http://djmrswhite.livejournal.com
I don't think anyone want's to treat you poorly. Actually I take that back, I know there are people out there who think like that and that is unfortunate, but Ashley and I don't really think like that.
Empathy? I do have empathy for you and no matter the outcome tomorrow I sincerely wish you luck in furthering your cause. This empathy won't change my mind because I'm voting according to my conscience, just like you are, but believe me I've tried my best to put myself in your shoes and have even stood up for your side of the argument in many discussions with my friends. The nature of this issue is divisive because so many people on both sides have such strong-held beliefs. I'm really not expecting you to change your vote based on what I say or write, I just want you and people like you to understand that not everyone in the "yes on 8" campaign has bad intentions. I think Joe Biden said it best in the vice presidential debate when he shared with us the wisdom someone gave to him as a young senator - paraphrasing, "nobody is here with bad intentions. People who disagree with you on every issue are still trying their best to make the country a better place". For me, that was the best "nugget" of all the debates. All the other debates were nothing but finger pointing and out of context accusations (both sides). Alas, I digress.
Your friend made some good points and I agree that the passage of prop. 8 will be harmful to children in the short term. The link I've had on my blog for a few weeks now, also from the Opinion pages of the LA times, and also written by a liberal democrat, makes the point that in the long run this prop is better for all children. I've read this article trying to see it from your point of view and I don't expect you to accept or agree with his reasoning, but I do. Here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
(Sorry I don't know how to hyperlink in the comments section)
Polls are dead even, tomorrows the big day! Good night, take care buddy.
You may not actively want to treat us poorly, but you don't seem to care if that's what ends up happening.
You may not think you're treating us poorly, but the proposition that you are voting for is all about treating us poorly.
Having grown up Christian and church going, I understand that you have the best of intentions. The trouble is that you'd rather impose your beliefs on the rest of society than actually demonstrate your Christian love and support for people who are different.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. That's what I've been taught in church and it's what I strive to do. I'd gladly have you over for dinner or help you out if you were in a jam and needed a ride somewhere or needed help moving or anything like that, but if you want me to acknowledge that same-sex sexual relations are right and good and OK, well that is something I won't do.
I feel like I'm OK with us getting along in spite of our differences, and you think we'll only get along if we eliminate our differences.
You asking me to use my vote to acknowledge that a male-male union is no different from a male-female union, is actually asking me to change what I believe. If you insist that I change my beliefs or else I am treating you "poorly", I'm sorry I just don't see it that way.
I'm not asking you to use your vote to affirm anything. What I'm asking you is to not use your vote to force everyone else to follow your personal beliefs.
If you believe, for some reason, that my "sin" is worse than divorce, or worse than wearing clothing of mixed materials, or eating shellfish, there's really nothing I can do about that.
What I'm saying is that your religious beliefs should never (never) affect me legally. Never.
And our government should never enforce laws which put one groups religious beliefs above another's.
And no offense, but I wouldn't be able to enjoy a dinner at a table where I knew the hosts did not "approve" of who I am as a person.
It boils down to a very simple "Do unto others" rule.
If the tables were turned, and people were trying to outlaw Christian marriages, and you would be offended by that, you should do the Christ-like thing and be offended by this as well.
I agree with you about my or anyone's religious beliefs not encroaching on your rights. It just sounded like you were telling me that you knew what my church thinks about the issue, so I thought I'd share a little about how my church feels on this issue. These beliefs aren't my motive for voting yes, but protecting the right to have these beliefs (see original post) is. But we've been over that already.
I guess where we differ is that if Christian "marriages" were outlawed but were recognized as "Christian Unions" or something like that, I think I'd be OK with that. I'm ok calling my union what it is. If society were 95% homosexuals who wanted to define "marriage" as being only between two men or two women, I really wouldn't want a marriage.
Would you still be ok with "Christian Unions" if those unions came with fewer rights and responsibilities, and less social respect that a "Marriage" would?
Of course I would - Christians LOVE persecution because it means we get blessings later :)
In all seriousness, I understand your point, and believe I've already stated that I would be all for equalizing the government-granted rights and responsibilities, just not legally defining the two unions as the same exact thing. I don't think social respect is something we can legislate because people will feel the way they do on this issue no matter what we call it. I guess for young and impressionable people it would probably help gain social respect. Seriously though, you and your partner (if applicable) can do more to gain social respect just by being good people and showing by example that you're not weird or somehow less than the rest of us. I personally think that generally the gay community has done a great job at this so far.
Anyway, I feel like we're falling back into the same argument again and like you pointed out, you've said your bit, and I've said mine.
The Gay community has done a great job of proving ourselves to your people.
Apparently just not quite enough of a good job.
It's a shame that it even has to prove anything, isn't it?
Happy voting.
Just so we're clear - you brought up the issue of social respect, and I think respect is something that is earned, not automatically given, to any community/church/family/individual/etc. I wasn't really trying to stir things up, I was trying to say something nice but, oh well.
I actually already voted but thanks, and happy voting to you! I hope the lines aren't long. (and be careful if you're driving because I saw lots of really old and confused looking people out today - one even driving the wrong way).
Oh, I understood what you were saying... I was just saying why it is that the gay couples have to earn enough respect to be considered married but people like Britney Spears or any of the other trashy married straight people do not.
In any case, what I was originally talking about was not so much how others feel about Gay people. I was talking about the respect that people give to marriage, verses the respect given to civil unions.
The word "marriage" carries with it a lot of weight and a lot pull, and garners more respect than "civil union" does. Saying "This is my husband Benji," means a lot more than saying, "This is my domestic partner Benj" does.
PS - I voted by mail last week.
As trashy or sub-human as any straight couple may seem to you, they fit the definition, just like you currently do and may or may not tomorrow. You can earn respect but I don't see respect as being criteria for a legal "marriage". To me, nobody can "earn enough respect to be considered married". I don't think there is or should be a correlation between societal respect and legal definitions of unions.
Anyway, I understand your point now about the words carrying respect, thanks for the explanation.
Ok... I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'm sorry.
What I'm saying is that one big difference between "marriages" and "civil unions" is the amount of respect a couple deserves once they have entered into one of those kinds of contracts.
You get more respect as a "married" couple than you do as a "civily united" couple. Not allowing certain people to get married is to deny them that respect.
Ok, I think we understand each other.
Anyway, I'm off to the library and I'm leaving my computer because I seriously need to study and the internet is full of distractions, so, if you don't hear from me again for a while have a great day. And again, thanks for getting a good discussion going on my blog and for being mature about our differences.
Post a Comment