California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[meson]

Don't feed the trolls.

[0ni0n]

Marriage licenses are absolutely necessary, since marriage is a contract between two people, in the eye of the law. While most men will rejoice, I don't see any possibility for that to be remotely feasible.

[Julian]

What is the reason that married people get benefits? Why don't single people get them? how is this fair? I want the same benefits for being single or that is dividing people from people... this is very unconstitutional.

Sorry, been trying to google what exactly people are getting out of being recognized as married that others don't.

Marriage Rights and Benefits

Notice how all those benefits have to do with you and your partner.

Or if you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States has its sources listed in the bottom.

[Penthesilea]

The shitstorm that would ensue from eliminating a marriage license (even if a CU license is the exact same thing) would be infinately larger what's going on now.

How so? If you're still getting solemnized at your place of worship, it should qualify enough in your own mind. That's the uproar right now, that their solemn word is being utilized. The state doesn't give your marriage it's sanctity, your religion does, so by making everyone have a CU License, the only place to get it sanctified is at your church.

[zoobernut]

My point is you are getting upset about the word. I'd say that at this point, you definately have a civil marriage (would be renamed 'civil union') and possible a religious marriage (renamed 'marriage'). I don't know you, so I can;t be sure.

My entire point is that the word "marriage" is used to describe two different things (religious and civil marriages), and this confuses people, which you have perfectly shown.

I totally recognize civil marriages as being legetimate. My issue, is that people seem to think that being married in a religious sense is the same as being married in a political sense, and this is very not correct.

If this truly was your issue then you should be ok with legal gay marriage because being an intelligent you can recognize there is a difference between a legal marriage and a religious one.

The reason why gay marriage angers people so much is because they do not understand the difference. Or so it seems. And yes under your definition I would be part of a "civil marriage" or "civil union" however I can't imagine how you would pass a law forbidding anyone to use the term marriage when referring to their "civil union" is that what you would do to protect marriage at that point? Outlaw the use of the term marriage unless you carried a special piece of paper that permitted you to?

[Aella]

Don't feed the trolls.

^

[Seraph]

How so? If you're still getting solemnized at your place of worship, it should qualify enough in your own mind. That's the uproar right now, that their solemn word is being utilized.

Exactly. Religious hear that gay people want to get married, and assume they mean in a religious sense (where apparently their religious doesn't allow it), and they get all pissed. Gay people hear that the legal term 'marriage' should be changed to 'civil union' and get all pissed because they want to "be equal". The problem is, in a religious way, they never will be equal. The real issue at hand is how the government handles things, not how people view other within their religious beliefs.

Someone talks about redefining things though, and everyone gets all offended, because what you call it is apparently more important than what it really means.

[Charismatic]

It is, why do you think homosexuals get offended when you call them faggots (or even sometimes gays) instead?

Words are far more important than you know.

[Seraph]

If this truly was your issue then you should be ok with legal gay marriage because being an intelligent you can recognize there is a difference between a legal marriage and a religious one.

The reason why gay marriage angers people so much is because they do not understand the difference. Or so it seems. And yes under your definition I would be part of a "civil marriage" or "civil union" however I can't imagine how you would pass a law forbidding anyone to use the term marriage when referring to their "civil union" is that what you would do to protect marriage at that point? Outlaw the use of the term marriage unless you carried a special piece of paper that permitted you to?

I have no problem with 'gay marriage' as you put it. My problem is that it's just a poor fucking defination. English at its finest: calling two different things the same thing.

Hell, how about this. Everytime someone says marriage, they specify if it's 'religious marriage' or 'legal marriage'. That is just as good, since it clarifies what people mean when they are fighting about this shit.



Edit: And to further clarify, I think all people should be equal under 'legal marriage'. there is nothing sacred about 'legal marriage'. People are free to get whatever 'religious marriage' they want, and the assumption would be in the process of being 'religiously married' you would be 'legally married' as well.

'Legal marriage' would grant the legal benefits, and 'religious marriage' can grant whatever status and mental comfort that religion wants it to. Why is this such a big fucking deal?

Spoiler: show

Fire the "lazer"!

[Tyche]

How so? If you're still getting solemnized at your place of worship, it should qualify enough in your own mind. That's the uproar right now, that their solemn word is being utilized. The state doesn't give your marriage it's sanctity, your religion does, so by making everyone have a CU License, the only place to get it sanctified is at your church.

You underestimate Christians. People are fucking crazy. I'm sure there'll be some that wouldn't mind, but as I said, just simply saying "we're going to eliminate marriage in a government sense" would just throw a large majority of them out of wack.

[zoobernut]

So Seraph again do you walk around correcting people when they say they are married? How do you propose that would be regulated?

Would you make it illegal to use the term marriage for anything other than a religious sanctioned marriage?

At a certain point people have to realize that the term marriage has run away from them. It is not associated with any religion anymore it has been assimilated into everyone's vocabulary to mean something different and English not being a dead language adapts to changes in usage of terms.

Marriage does not belong to any religion to defend anymore.

[Tristam]

You underestimate Christians. People are fucking crazy. I'm sure there'll be some that wouldn't mind, but as I said, just simply saying "we're going to eliminate marriage in a government sense" would just throw a large majority of them out of wack.

/agree I think some people here underestimate the portion of the population that thinks this is strictly a moral issue, and that there's a secret homosexual agenda that will make us a satanic nation where everyone can only have sex with people of the same gender etc etc.

[Seraph]

So Seraph again do you walk around correcting people when they say they are married? How do you propose that would be regulated?

Would you make it illegal to use the term marriage for anything other than a religious sanctioned marriage?

At a certain point people have to realize that the term marriage has run away from them. It is not associated with any religion anymore it has been assimilated into everyone's vocabulary to mean something different and English not being a dead language adapts to changes in usage of terms.

Marriage does not belong to any religion to defend anymore.

I don't usually care what they mean when people say they are 'married'. My point is, from a legal perspective, it should be very clear which they are talking about in situations like this because people are stupid, can't read, or both.

And I ask why you care what it is called, and why clarification is such a bad thing? Afraid of the religious are we? I am explaining why I think some people are getting upset, and offering a solution to some of the problems. You just seem to like to argue with me about it. Some people might actually be against legal 'marriage' equality, but I think many are just confused.

To turn the spotlight though, do you have any suggestions besides hating on religions?

[zoobernut]

I am not hating religion I was posing a serious question. Hypothetically if this really was the true issue people had with Gay marriage they got an initiative passed that got rid of marriage as a legal term and it was referred to as a civil binding union for everyone including heterosexual couples how would you enforce keeping people from referring it to marriage? How would it be any different than if you allowed gay marriage in the legal sense?

How would heterosexual religious couples feel when they have to file for legal binding union after their ceremony? They too in the eyes of the government would be unioned not married.

[Seraph]

I am not hating religion I was posing a serious question. Hypothetically if this really was the true issue people had with Gay marriage they got an initiative passed that got rid of marriage as a legal term and it was referred to as a civil binding union for everyone including heterosexual couples how would you enforce keeping people from referring it to marriage? How would it be any different than if you allowed gay marriage in the legal sense?

How would heterosexual religious couples feel when they have to file for legal binding union after their ceremony? They too in the eyes of the government would be unioned not married.

It doesn't matter how people use it in day to day speech, it matters how it is defined in laws, and in propositions. The distinction is in legal and religious terms, not how people talk about it.

Are you suggesting that a 'marriage' is not a 'union' in the most literal sense?

[Penthesilea]

I am not hating religion I was posing a serious question. Hypothetically if this really was the true issue people had with Gay marriage they got an initiative passed that got rid of marriage as a legal term and it was referred to as a civil binding union for everyone including heterosexual couples how would you enforce keeping people from referring it to marriage? How would it be any different than if you allowed gay marriage in the legal sense?

How would heterosexual religious couples feel when they have to file for legal binding union after their ceremony? They too in the eyes of the government would be unioned not married.

You just grandfather them out. Anyone who's married is still in possession of a Marriage License, but from here on out, your Marriage License in regards to legal disputes (divorce, taxation, other benefits) is still referred to as a CU License. Anyone applying for a "Marriage" License is now actually applying for a CU License.

Their concerns are not with the government, but with the government taking away improperly implied sanctity.

[Seraph]

Their concerns are not with the government, but with the government taking away improperly implied sanctity.

You expressed it in a way I could not find the words for. Thank you.

There is nothing 'sacred' about a legal document, no matter how long the line is that you wanted for it in.

[zoobernut]

If that really was the issue then why don't people fight for that?

If everyone would be ok with a legal CU then why don't they start an initiative for that?

It just seems like if it is just a battle of semantics then the easiest solution would be to take the toy away from all the kids and put something different out there that everyone can play with.

However for some reason this most definitely is not the approach that people are taking which is why it has become such a huge issue. For some reason in my gut I feel like if they did do that you would hear a lot of complaining and groaning from heterosexual couples trying to get "married".

Edit: The government does not imply sanctity, the people imply sanctity and you cannot stop them from doing that. There is nothing any more sacred about a religious marriage to anyone outside of that religion.

[Tyche]

I'd call the constitution sacred. That's just me.

[Gwynplaine]

By the way, you can partly thank Michigan's own benevolent philanthropist overlords for funding the ban proposals in CA and FL.
http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/in...y_marriag.html

Holland resident Elsa Prince Broekhuizen has pumped $450,000 into a Nov. 4 California ballot issue to ban gay marriage. It is one of the largest private donations to that cause.

In Florida, protesters gathered last month at Amway Arena to decry $100,000 given by Amway Corp. co-founder Rich DeVos to Florida4Marriage, a group that supports a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

As if buying crap from Amway isn't already stupid enough, there's one more reason. If you ever meet someone who gave money to their idiotic ponzi scheme feel free to just punch them in the face.