# Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional in California



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

New York Magazine had the news first out of the gate:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html

Good As You has the full text of the decision (136 pages):

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html

L


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

Finally, a judge with some sense....


----------



## dimples (Jul 28, 2010)

My twitter has been blowing up since the ruling was announced. Great news!


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Wow, what awesome news!! My mom and my 2 best friends are all lesbian/gay, so this is very exciting.


----------



## sem (Oct 27, 2008)

As a person living in CA, Great News! Wrote a whole bunch more and deleted - too political.


----------



## lindnet (Jan 25, 2009)

I agree.....wonderful news.  Now we have to hope they uphold his decision when it's appealed.


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

Yay. Gotta text my friend.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

We try to stay apolitical here at KindleBoards, but I am really happy about this news!

L


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I was quite pleased when my husband told me about it this evening.

Why the State of California would try to quash something that would be beneficial to their tax base is confusing.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Well the administration didn't.
They are the ones who would care about tax revenue.
It was the majority of those who voted who made the decision.

Now 1 judge has decided that the voters don't count.
This is a crisis that exists also about illegal immigration.
And people from other countries coming here to give birth and then leave - just so their children can be US citizens - mostly for college tuition reasons.

There are a lot of issues that the courts have and/or are deciding differently than the voters have.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

In the meantime, congrats to those who are happy about this current outcome.
Thanks for posting it, Leslie.

Just sayin......


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

The government went against the majority when they decided on Brown vs. Board of Education. There are many reasons for why the government should step in against the majority; discrimination and protection of a minority group is one such reason.

Here are a few important parts of the ruling:

*The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States. . . . Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. . . . The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. . . . The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace. . . . The state respects an individual's choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual's life.

[. . .]

Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal.

[. . . ]

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.*


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

It never should have come to vote by the people of CA. See the 14th Amendment. I'm quoting part of it:

*No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*


----------



## jaylynn (Feb 2, 2009)

Love beats hate.

It is appropriate to defend in court the voters' will.  If their will cannot be defended, as in this case, the courts must uncover it. This is the part of the system of checks and balances that prevents the sometimes illogical yelling of voters. The same people decrying this ruling didn't say a thing when courts overturned gun control laws that were passed by voters in some jurisdictions.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

I think just the fact that Prop 8 passed by only 52% in the first place is really saying something. I'm impressed that so many people who are not in a gay partnership or wanting to be in one would still stand up for that minority. I'm even happier that it's finally been overturned. Saying 1 judge overturned something the voters decided they approved of isn't really capturing the aspect that millions of people in California didn't approve of it either. But mlewis is right, it never should have been voted on in the first place.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Jessica Billings said:


> I think just the fact that Prop 8 passed by only 52% in the first place is really saying something. I'm impressed that so many people who are not in a gay partnership or wanting to be in one would still stand up for that minority. I'm even happier that it's finally been overturned. Saying 1 judge overturned something the voters decided they approved of isn't really capturing the aspect that millions of people in California didn't approve of it either. But mlewis is right, it never should have been voted on in the first place.


We straight allies try to do our part to help...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

I think this is an entirely inappropriate topic for Kindleboards.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

I am a conservative leaning person who is very pleased with the decision.  I read all 136 pages and was also pleased that the opinion did not smack of judicial activism, but was a well-reasoned application of the California Constitution.

Since the KB usually avoids political topics, Jeff is probably correct that this is inappropriate for the boards.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

lindnet said:


> I agree.....wonderful news. Now we have to hope they uphold his decision when it's appealed.


And appealed and appealed and appealed. I forsee a long fight up to the US Supreme Court.

But while its here, congrats. Let love rule. Life is too short for anything less.

To quote from Jimmy Buffett's "Cowboy in the Jungle"


> And still twenty four hours, maybe sixty good years It's still not that long a stay.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

crebel said:


> Jeff is probably correct that this is inappropriate for the boards.


It's in "Not Quite Kindle". . . .if it's not of interest, you can skip it. I do that all the time. (sorry Tea people and Dance people  ) As long as people remain rational and reasonable. . .whichever side they're on. . .there's no reason the topic shouldn't be allowed to stay. . . .knowing KB, I expect it'll die a natural death fairly quickly 'cause something else will come along. . . .oh. . .look. . . .a squirrel!


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

Squirrel? ... Where?


----------



## vikingwarrior22 (May 25, 2009)

Annalog said:


> Squirrel? ... Where?


fer sure


----------



## ulysses (Dec 20, 2009)

What was wrong with Civil Unions? I'm probably the lone duck here but its technically that same thing just not the title of "marriage".


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> Love beats hate.


'Nuff said!


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> It never should have come to vote by the people of CA. See the 14th Amendment. I'm quoting part of it:
> 
> *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*


But, for a reasons in addition to this one, there are people who think it is time to repeal the 14th.
I don't mean to open that can of worms, merely to point out that in our Democratic society the voters (majority) can change the amendments either through referendum or through impacting their elected representatives. The court can only rule on what the people have chosen.

Just sayin......


----------



## dimples (Jul 28, 2010)

geoffthomas - let's create a little imaginary bubble here for a split moment, completely different from the world as we know it. In this world, about 80 to 90 percent of the people are gay. These people have the right to marry whomever they love, create a loving family if they wish to do so. 10 to 20 percent of these human beings are straight and have no right to marry. On top of that, they also have to deal with other types of discrimination and ridicule from people, only because they happen to fall in love with the opposite sex. 
YOU are one of those people. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine being treated as a second class citizen because you were born straight? Can you imagine having to defend yourself because of who you love or having to try to get equal treatment because of that? And can you imagine being a part of the minority that has to rely on the good gay people who see that -even though you love differently- you still LOVE and you should have the right to commit yourself to the love of your life in marriage? 

Just because the majority of people says something does not always mean it's the right thing. Just sayin...

ps. I don't mean to start heavy discussions or fights or anything. My only intention is to show a different point of view. Mods, I'm still fairly new to the boards so if I crossed a boundary (I don't think I did) I apologize. Please let me know in that case and feel free to remove this post.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

I hope this thread stays on this 'anything goes' board. I love hearing both sides of a debate.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Unless and until posts devolve into name calling or other non-reasonable discussion, we don't lock or delete threads.  Carry on as the rational human beings you are. . .recognizing that it is O.K. for people to have different opinions and/or belief systems.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I am softly on the other side, especially with my family members who are homosexual. I think marriage between a male and female is the natural biological norm and has been the cultural standard for known history, not a recent "discrimination".

The judges argument assumes that limiting marriage to one male and one female is discriminatory and yet he would still exclude polygamy, etc., resulting in an arbitrary and exclusive definition of his own. This is the best article I have seen that explains my feelings: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/08/federal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8.html and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/08/if-judge-walker-were-consistent.html

everyone had the same legal right: to marry someone of the opposite sex, this is a uniformly applied law, not the type of discrimination where some can marry someone of the same sex and some cannot.

Quote: "Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question, "What is marriage?"

Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families-and therefore marriages-are logically prior to culture.

Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That's why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids." END Quote
from: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6801

I know most here won't agree and that's ok, I just wanted to see the other side described in a reasonable manner. No offense intended.....


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

It's not a liberal v conservative issue.  It's a civil rights issue, as noted by the attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who represented the case against Prop. 8.  You all know that they were on opposing sides in the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore.  In a TV interview yesterday they made clear that this is not a left v right issue.

While I realize that the 14th Amendment came long after the founding fathers, the founders discouraged mob rule or the tyranny of the majority against the minority.  You don't put this sort of issue up for a vote.

Even if one thinks that gay marriage is "wrong," one can also feel that personal opinions and feelings are not the law of the land to make certain minorities second class citizens.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless.


Sorry, I don't quite understand this quote. Could you explain it to me? I'm really trying to understand what the author is trying to say. How can families have no children, yet still be about children? I've never quite understood the whole "gay couples shouldn't get married because they can't have kids" argument, since they can adopt or go through in vitro fertilization (if they even want to raise kids!). But is that quote saying that I should not marry my boyfriend because we are not planning to have kids? Or that even if we don't have kids, it's still the point of our marriage? That's the point I'm confused on. 

I feel like, even if a marriage doesn't produce children, there are still thousands of ways to influence the next generation. You don't have to contribute to the overpopulation of earth just to leave a mark on the world. I don't consider proving that you can reproduce to be the point of marriage. It's about finding someone to share your life experiences with and gay couples should get all the benefits of marriage as a straight couple. They can share their lives together (or raise kids, whatever you think the purpose of marriage is) in just the same way.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)




----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Jessica Billings said:


> Sorry, I don't quite understand this quote. Could you explain it to me? I'm really trying to understand what the author is trying to say. How can families have no children, yet still be about children? I've never quite understood the whole "gay couples shouldn't get married because they can't have kids" argument, since they can adopt or go through in vitro fertilization (if they even want to raise kids!). But is that quote saying that I should not marry my boyfriend because we are not planning to have kids? Or that even if we don't have kids, it's still the point of our marriage? That's the point I'm confused on.
> 
> I feel like, even if a marriage doesn't produce children, there are still thousands of ways to influence the next generation. You don't have to contribute to the overpopulation of earth just to leave a mark on the world. I don't consider proving that you can reproduce to be the point of marriage. It's about finding someone to share your life experiences with and gay couples should get all the benefits of marriage as a straight couple. They can share their lives together (or raise kids, whatever you think the purpose of marriage is) in just the same way.


I supplied the link above so you can see the author's argument. I think the main thrust is that the only reason government is involved at all in marriage is the generational aspect.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I couldn't be more thrilled! I only hope that the reverberations make their way back to Maine in time for my mom's partner of nearly 35 years to make an honest woman out of her.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I supplied the link above so you can see the author's argument. I think the main thrust is that the only reason government is involved at all in marriage is the generational aspect.


Oh I read the article, but I never saw that quote explained. He seems to believe that families describe culture, and not the other way around. But there are so many instances of couples getting together without the intent to have children (which he even admits), so how are families purely about producing children? I think children are simply a side effect of a couple getting together and submitting to their biological whims. I've never seen a couple get married because "we want to have kids." It's because they're in love and like spending time together. Kids often come much later into the picture, or not at all. If the government truly only wanted reproducing couples to get together, they wouldn't allow infertile or elderly couples to marry either. Or the weird ones like me, who don't want to have children (and certainly not biologically because I do not want to knowingly pass on my genes). Or am I still totally misunderstanding the quote?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I would argue that throughout history, marriage has never been about children and only recently about love, but usually about property rights, and continues to be about property (and other) rights. Marriage is a social and legal construct, not a biological one.

(Sorry if I shock anyone here) I lived with my now husband for 11 years before getting married. We didn't get married because we were suddenly planning to have children (we weren't), nor because we were suddenly more committed to each other but because we wanted the legal rights that marriage conferred. My husband wanted me to be entitled to be his beneficiary for his retirement fund, and I wanted to make sure I had legal rights as his wife in terms of hospital decisions, etc, as well as the intangible "status" that being his "wife" provides. Not social status as such, neither of us have any ; ) but the unquestionable and intangible right to be there with him and make those kinds of decisions without having to wave a paper in front of every person I confront. While there were other ways to give me legal rights for medical decisions, etc., marriage was the only way to make me his beneficiary for his retirement. Which brings it back to property rights, not children.

(Sorry to not be all romantic about marriage, y'all.  )

Betsy


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

I think I was wrong when I said this wasn't a topic for Kindleboards. The discussion here has been only slightly shrill and not what I'd anticipated. It's nice to be wrong sometimes.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Oh, and LOL to mom133d's post. Love it. I've never seen that before.

And Betsy, very good point!!


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I would argue that throughout history, marriage has never been about children and only recently about love, but usually about property rights, and continues to be about property (and other) rights. Marriage is a social and legal construct, not a biological one.
> 
> Betsy


I would disagree slightly, Betsy, because I think marriage has been about children, for certain social groups and classes. In the upper classes and royalty, couples entered arranged, loveless marriages for the sole purpose of producing "an heir and a spare" to keep the family lineage going. There was no expectation of fidelity and while in romance novels, the couple often falls in love, I'm not sure how much that happened in real life. Lower classes and poorer folks had a passel of kids to serve as a personal workforce--on the farm or wherever.

But certainly, in 21st century America, this is not the case. Couples get together because of love; in my opinion, I believe they choose to marry for a variety of reasons, including the societal and other benefits conferred by the institution of marriage. Civil unions are not the same--there are benefits that only married couples can receive, as in the excellent example that you provided.

I heard it over and over again during the election last fall: examples of same-sex couples who had been together for 20, 30 or more years--suddenly face illness or death and in the eyes of the state, they are "legal strangers." Even with a power of attorney and all the other paperwork, there are gaps. Marriage is the only way to receive the full slate of benefits accorded to a couple.

L


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree with Betsy. _Legally speaking_, marriage is about property rights. This is why the every state has its own rules governing marriage.


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I would argue that throughout history, marriage has never been about children and only recently about love, but usually about property rights, and continues to be about property (and other) rights. Marriage is a social and legal construct, not a biological one.
> ...
> Betsy


Betsy, I mostly agree. Marriage is one way society uses to conserve property and provide for family units for the care of the young, old, and ailing. In my opinion, the main concerns that government has in marriage, and the reasons for the legal rights that marriage confers, are related to the conservation of property and care of individuals in the family. Without families and marriages, governments and communities would need to devote more resources to the care of individuals who become ill or are elderly. Married couples tend to plan for the future and work for a stable future whether or not children are involved.

I also agree with Leslie that marriage is also about raising children and providing continuity. However this has also historically been for the conservation of property and provide for the future.

In my opinion, society is strengthened by encouraging those people who want to commit to long-term relationships to do so whether or not children are produced, adopted, or not even contemplated. Marriage is a social, not biological, construct. In my opinion, the sex of the individuals involved should not matter for a legal marriage. (Religious ceremonies can add their own requirements as long as those do not break the legal requirements.)


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

mom133d said:


>


LOL Mom133, I did not see this earlier when I was following this thread using the text-only WAP 2 interface.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

And on a related topic, "A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washington University finds that children adopted by lesbian and gay male couples develop just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html

The pic was re-posted by a friend on facebook this morning. It was too good not to pass on.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Annalog said:


> Betsy, I mostly agree. Marriage is one way society uses to conserve property and provide for family units for the care of the young, old, and ailing. In my opinion, the main concerns that government has in marriage, and the reasons for the legal rights that marriage confers, are related to the conservation of property and care of individuals in the family. Without families and marriages, governments and communities would need to devote more resources to the care of individuals who become ill or are elderly. Married couples tend to plan for the future and work for a stable future whether or not children are involved.
> 
> I also agree with Leslie that marriage is also about raising children and providing continuity. However this has also historically been for the conservation of property and provide for the future.
> 
> In my opinion, society is strengthened by encouraging those people who want to commit to long-term relationships to do so whether or not children are produced, adopted, or not even contemplated. Marriage is a social, not biological, construct. In my opinion, the sex of the individuals involved should not matter for a legal marriage. (Religious ceremonies can add their own requirements as long as those do not break the legal requirements.)


Good points, Anna. Thanks for this post.

L


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

mom133d said:


> And on a related topic, "A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washington University finds that children adopted by lesbian and gay male couples develop just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents."
> 
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html
> 
> The pic was re-posted by a friend on facebook this morning. It was too good not to pass on.


Interesting article and study, Mom. Thanks for sharing.

L


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I would disagree slightly, Betsy, because I think marriage has been about children, for certain social groups and classes. In the upper classes and royalty, couples entered arranged, loveless marriages for the sole purpose of producing "an heir and a spare" to keep the family lineage going.


My point exactly. "Heir and a spare" implies that there was property that needed to be inherited. In those days, women, in most cases, could not inherit property. Property rights. They weren't having kids because they loved


Spoiler



the little buggers


. 

Betsy


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> My point exactly. "Heir and a spare" implies that there was property that needed to be inherited. In those days, women, in most cases, could not inherit property. Property rights. They weren't having kids because they loved
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Betsy, did you just add the spoiler? I read the post (no spoiler) and quoted it and there was a spoiler tag!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, I did.  Sorry!

Betsy


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> My point exactly. "Heir and a spare" implies that there was property that needed to be inherited. In those days, women, in most cases, could not inherit property. Property rights. They weren't having kids because they loved
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Okay, now I see what you are saying. When you said that marriage was never about children, you meant that it wasn't about children as children _per se_, but only what function they could serve, in this case, as inheritors. Or in the other example I gave, as a workforce.

L


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

This comment I wish to make as a stand-alone post in this thread.

There has been no "discussion" because only one point of view is being aired.
And that is ok.
But just to be sure that when we respond to Jeff's concerns we are clear that, if you re-scan this thread there have been only a few vaguely dissenting statements to the original post's opinion.

Just sayin......


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Okay, now I see what you are saying. When you said that marriage was never about children, you meant that it wasn't about children as children _per se_, but only what function they could serve, in this case, as inheritors. Or in the other example I gave, as a workforce.
> 
> L


Right. The only reason to bring marriage into it is because of property rights. All other reasons for having children, even as a labor force, do not require legal sanctions. Because, of course, as I understand it, people CAN have children without being married.  But I'm sure that never happens. 

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> if you re-scan this thread there have been only a few vaguely dissenting statements to the original post's opinion.
> 
> Just sayin......


Just to be clear, the original post was a simple news announcement. No opinion was stated. And I think there has been discussion with clear viewpoints on both sides and I applaud the civility.

Betsy


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

I think the whole issue comes down to a simple argument of semantics.

I know a great many folks who disagree with calling the union of same sex partners a "marriage" for any variety of reasons.

Those same folks, however, have absolutely no problem with conferring upon that union the exact same rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

It is my personal belief that had this argument for common rights been put forth without insisting on calling the union of like sexed couples a "marriage" it would have resulted in overwhelming support across this country and likely would be the accepted norm.

I feel that the whole idea of taking the longtime accepted definition of a term and insisting that it be changed to something else in order to further the cause is wrong.

If it truly is about the rights then address the rights issue and keep the semantics out of it. Historically a marriage has been between a man and a woman -- leave it at that -- there is no need to redefine the term in order to be successful in furthering the issue. 
The rights conferred by marriage on a heterosexual couple should absolutely indeed be conferred to same sex couples who enter into a similar bond. Hades, we create new words and terms all the time -- don't insist on calling it a marriage -- call it a "weddage" or something else and I think you'd find the whole issue would be pushed to a resolution much much quicker than it will be if the insistance on calling it a marriage remains.

Let's face it folks -- the semantics of it really *shouldn't* matter but to a great many folks it *DOES*. If the whole thing truly is about the rights of the same sex couples then drop the semantics and push the rights issue.

To continue to insist that it be called a "marriage" is hindering the cause.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Combining elements of Tip10s response and an earlier post from Betsy,
I would suggest that many would prefer to find a way to provide all of the legal/tax/financial benefits of "marriage" without actually having the ceremony.  And I do agree that that should be done.  There are many non-romantic long-term living situations that are not covered by the current situation unless people who have no desire to enter a romantic or sexual union get married.  Dumb.
Changing the meaning of marriage does not get to the heart of the matter in the above example.

And it could be called Gezordoplatz and that would probably make everyone happy.

Except those who really don't care about the legal/tax/financial benefits and just want to be "married" darn it!

So which is it that we want?
Just curious.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> So which is it that we want?
> Just curious.


Why can't everybody have both?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I guess because some of us when we say we are married, don't want to have to say - "oh yeah -- to a woman".
Because I have not had to make that qualification for 45 years and don't think it should have to become necessary.

The new status, just like marriage, could be called gezordoplatz.
Makes me happy.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> I guess because some of us when we say we are married, don't want to have to say - "oh yeah -- to a woman".
> Because I have not had to make that qualification for 45 years and don't think it should have to become necessary.


Why would you need to qualify it? Does it matter? Married is married (for whatever reason you choose to get married, be it for love or convenience or both).


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> I guess because some of us when we say we are married, don't want to have to say - "oh yeah -- to a woman"


People would deny other people the right to marry the person of their choosing because they may have to qualify a simple statement?


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> I guess because some of us when we say we are married, don't want to have to say - "oh yeah -- to a woman".
> Because I have not had to make that qualification for 45 years and don't think it should have to become necessary.
> 
> The new status, just like marriage, could be called gezordoplatz.
> Makes me happy.


I understand what you are saying about Gezodoplatz vs Marriage, but I personally can not come up with an existing or newly minted word that conveys the same message. Civil Unions doesn't cut it even if all the same privileges are given. After all, all marriages are currently civil unions, aren't they? You have to have a legal license from the State regardless of whether you have a "marriage" ceremony in a religious institution, a garden or your living room.

Because the semantics do matter to many, what word can KBers come up with that says the same thing as marriage but means same-sex vs. heterosexual so couples don't need to add a qualifier "to a man or to a woman"?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> I guess because some of us when we say we are married, don't want to have to say - "oh yeah -- to a woman".
> Because I have not had to make that qualification for 45 years and don't think it should have to become necessary.
> 
> The new status, just like marriage, could be called gezordoplatz.
> Makes me happy.


Do you really think that anyone would expect a clarification from you that you are married to a woman? I don't think so.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I guess I don't understand, Geoff...  Even though I went to the wedding of some friends who were gay, about 10 years ago now, I've never felt I had to qualify my own marital status becauae of it.

Betsy


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

crebel said:


> Because the semantics do matter to many, what word can KBers come up with that says the same thing as marriage but means same-sex vs. heterosexual so couples don't need to add a qualifier "to a man or to a woman"?


I just checked the thesaurus, and I'm voting for _spliced_.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> I just checked the thesaurus, and I'm voting for _spliced_.


Good one! "And the two becomes as one, I now pronounce you spliced."


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Grafted?

Betsy


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> I just checked the thesaurus, and I'm voting for _spliced_.


LOL...beats Gezordoplatz!


----------



## dimples (Jul 28, 2010)

I can't even put into words how much some of this saddens me. I am lucky enough to live in a country where gay marriage is legalized. I have never heard anyone clarify the gender of their spouse, except for gay people. Gay people can get married, but in general people still assume everyone is straight. And that's the only reason these gay people had to clarify the gender of their spouse. 

I have many, MANY American friends. Gay friends. All they want is to be treated equally, both by law and people. For lack of better words, it just plain sucks when people treat you like you're less than them. And that's what's happening. "You are gay so you cannot celebrate your love the same way we do. You can have a ceremony but it can't have the same name we give it, even if it gives you the same legal rights." 
Imagine that we'd have to do that for every minority. Straight people can get married and we call it marriage. Gay people can get married but for them we call it gezordoplatz. While we're at it, let's exclude african americans from marriage as well and call it whatchamacallit. And let's also create a different kind of marriage for all Latin Americans. Once it starts, it just doesn't end. And I can assure you, when you look real closely, gay people are just like straight people. The gay community is just as diverse as the straight community, we want the same things out of love and life as anyone else.  
Maybe it's just something that's too close to my own heart, I don't know. I guess I just don't see why it's necessary to claim marriage just for straight people.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

dimples said:


> I can't even put into words how much some of this saddens me. I am lucky enough to live in a country where gay marriage is legalized. I have never heard anyone clarify the gender of their spouse, except for gay people. Gay people could get married, but in general people still assume everyone is straight. And that's the only reason these gay people had to clarify the gender of their spouse.
> 
> I have many, MANY American friends. Gay friends. All they want is to be treated equally, both by law and people. For lack of better words, it just plain sucks when people treat you like you're less than them. And that's what's happening. "You are gay so you cannot celebrate your love the same way we do. You can have a ceremony but it can't have the same name we give it, even if it gives you the same legal rights."
> Imagine that we'd have to do that for every minority. Straight people can get married and we call it marriage. Gay people can get married but for them we call it gezordoplatz. While we're at it, let's exclude african americans from marriage as well and call it whatchamacallit. And let's also create a different kind of marriage for all Latin Americans. Once it starts, it just doesn't end. And I can assure you, when you look real closely, gay people are just like straight people. The gay community is just as diverse as the straight community, we want the same things out of love and life as anyone else.
> Maybe it's just something that's too close to my own heart, I don't know. I guess I just don't see why it's necessary to claim marriage just for straight people.


You put that better than I ever could.


----------



## dimples (Jul 28, 2010)

Thank you, luvmy4brats. English is not my first language and -as I said- it 's a matter VERY close to my own heart so I struggled to put it all down. Hopefully without offending anyone. It's such a sensitive subject...


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Growing up, I lived in a very white town and went to a very white school. There was one black kid in my high school class--and I wasn't friends with him.

Our school had tracts that divided us up by academics: Honors, Regents, General, and X. I, and my little band of 30 friends who primarily made up the honors classes, looked down our noses at the G and X kids and barely tolerated the Regents students. Students with severe learning disabilities, such as kids with Down syndrome, weren't even in the school--they were shuttled off to special education classes somewhere else so we wouldn't even have to interact with them.

At the time I thought this was all perfectly fine and in fact, for years, I argued that splitting kids up by Honors, Regents, etc., was a good thing. I don't believe that anymore. My change in thinking on that issue began when my children started school and I learned there were no academic tracts, no separate special education schools, and was introduced to the concept of mainstreaming. It took me awhile to fully understand and appreciate this new reality but over time I could see the superiority of a diverse educational learning environment vs. a school that was segregated by how smart you were (or weren't).

When we moved here to Maine 30 years ago, Maine was one of the "whitest" states in the nation. No more. We have had an influx of people from all over the world but primarily Africa and southeast Asia. In the Portland school system, 56 different languages are spoken. My children have grown up and been educated in an incredibly diverse environment, with all different kinds of students, teachers, support staff, parents, and friends. Part of this diversity includes sexuality: my children have had openly gay teachers and classmates. They are part of the "fabric of their lives" as I like to think of it. 

While my children understand the legal issues and why we have a debate about same-sex marriage going on in this country, at the same time they think the issue is sort of ridiculous. They are much more accepting, having grown up in a very accepting and inclusive environment--unlike their ancient mother! LOL. People who want to be married, should be able to be married, they say to me. End of discussion.

As the world becomes more diverse, some of us--like me, who as I said, grew up in a different time and climate--have to, on occasion, struggle with being inclusive. I gave an example of myself dealing with this, above. As I listen to the arguments and debates about same-sex marriage, I remind myself that that is what I am hearing: a struggle with inclusivity. We've been down this path before in history: women getting the vote, civil rights. This is just the latest hurdle that needs to be overcome as we move forward as a nation. And I remind myself that as Americans, we tend to do what's right and good--that's the foundation that our democracy is built on, after all. I believe that in the end, we will have full marriage equality in this nation and the institution will be called marriage. Getting there will take time--it is a process--but the ruling in California gives me great hope that we are moving in the right direction.

L


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

dimples said:


> Imagine that we'd have to do that for every minority. Straight people can get married and we call it marriage. Gay people can get married but for them we call it gezordoplatz. While we're at it, let's exclude african americans from marriage as well and call it whatchamacallit. And let's also create a different kind of marriage for all Latin Americans. Once it starts, it just doesn't end. And I can assure you, when you look real closely, gay people are just like straight people. The gay community is just as diverse as the straight community, we want the same things out of love and life as anyone else.
> Maybe it's just something that's too close to my own heart, I don't know. I guess I just don't see why it's necessary to claim marriage just for straight people.


While I understand your feelings, I don't think that in itself is a good argument. Its apples and oranges to compare race and behavior/orientation and gives a false emotional weight to the argument (its like slavery!!)

A disapproved or not accepted behavior in general is not the same as racism. Even if I agree with gay marriage there will be other marriages that remain outside the pale because of the behavior involved is "not approved" (polygamy, pedophilia, incest etc.)

I'm sorry but not allowing some one to get married because of race is not analogous and just makes the discussion less useful.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I'm sorry but not allowing some one to get married because of race is not analogous and just makes the discussion less useful.


I don't agree. The label isn't the same, but the hurt feelings are.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> While I understand your feelings, I don't think that in itself is a good argument. Its apples and oranges to compare race and behavior/orientation and gives a false emotional weight to the argument (its like slavery!!)
> 
> A disapproved or not accepted behavior in general is not the same as racism. Even if I agree with gay marriage there will be other marriages that remain outside the pale because of the behavior involved is "not approved" (polygamy, pedophilia, incest etc.)
> 
> I'm sorry but not allowing some one to get married because of race is not analogous and just makes the discussion less useful.


I disagree with this. It's still exclusion just because somebody is different.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I believe that invoking pedephilia in a discussion of marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex also attempts to add emotional weight to one side of the discussion.  As for polygamy, it's unclear to me why (other than the simple weight of impracticality and the inherent misogyny of its typical application) it's not legal; it was in the Old Testament.  

Betsy


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I was really happy to see it overturned. I never bought the argument that allowing Gay/Lesbians to marry like anyone else will somehow damage or destroy the so called "normal" idea of marriage. One does not exclude the other. There aren't going to be any less man/woman marriages just because same sex partners can get married. 
They will be just added to the usual number of marriages. That's it. Doesn't affect anyone else's plans for their own marriage or their kids marriage etc. 
Anyone can still do and practice whatever their traditions are, what someone else does isn't really any of their business anyway. 

Also it very much compares to civil rights. Being Gay is not a behavior, its what someone is. My eyes are green, I didn't chose that nor did they become green for anything I do in my daily life. I have dark blond hair, I can dye over it and pretent its red, but its still dark blond underneath. 

There was a time when blacks and whites where not allowed to marry, which I was reminded off not so nicely by a few folks when I married my first husband and we were off 2 different skin colors. 

For me it comes down to human rights. 

As to marriage being only about having kids? Nope sorry. I don't want kids, I got married anyway. I am not a breeding incubator, I am human. Doesn't make my marriage any less valid then those that have kids. Plenty of people have kids just fine and don't marry at all. They just do what they suppose to do for their kids, be parents to them. 

Every consenting adult should have that choice though, to get married or not. To have children or not.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Regarding the question of semantics, I have gay friends and relatives with differing opinions. Some would rather leave "marriage" out of it, because of the religious association, and would just be happy with having the same legal rights. Others feel that they want the term because of the spiritual association (my mother falls into this camp). Personally, I'm for using the term universally as a civil rights issue, although I'm very tempted by "gezordoplatz". I love words that end in "z".


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

rjkeller said:


> Regarding the question of semantics, I have gay friends and relatives with differing opinions. Some would rather leave "marriage" out of it, because of the religious association, and would just be happy with having the same legal rights. Others feel that they want the term because of the spiritual association (my mother falls into this camp). Personally, I'm for using the term universally as a civil rights issue, although I'm very tempted by "gezordoplatz". I love words that end in "z".


LUTZ
PUTZ
FUTZ

Can you tell I have been playing words with friends? LOL. Interestingly, SITZ (as in sitz bath) is not an acceptable WwF word.

Okay, I digress. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

L


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I believe that invoking pedephilia in a discussion of marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex also attempts to add emotional weight to one side of the discussion.


I was worried about this topic when Leslie first posted it because emotions run very high on both sides of the issue and no argument, regardless of how eloquently it's phrased, is going to change anyone's mind.

Those who support same-sex-marriage do so from a deep belief in love and inclusion of their neighbors. Countering that kind of belief is impossible.

Many of those who oppose same-sex-marriage do so from religious belief. They have been taught from the cradle that homosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible. Countering that kind of belief is impossible.

Jesus said that there were only two important Commandments: Love God with all your heart, soul and body, and love your neighbor as yourself. Finding a way of doing both is a challenge of the 21st century.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

For those who don't frequent the iThings board under Other EReaders, Other Devices, Words With Friends is a Scrabble clone that one plays on iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches....Leslie is beating me badly at the moment.  I have one word for her:  Quean  

Betsy


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

@Leslie: LOLZ!

@Jeff, I agree that nobody's mind is likely to be changed here. I do think it's important to come to an understanding of the opposite point of view (which you stated so well) without the prejudice that people from both sides have so unfortunately been prone to display.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> @Jeff, I agree that nobody's mind is likely to be changed here. I do think it's important to come to an understanding of the opposite point of view (which you stated so well) without the prejudice that people from both sides have so unfortunately been prone to display.


Hearing an opposing argument to my own beliefs always helps me unravel why I feel the way I do, and helps me challenge my beliefs and strengthen them in the process. I think it's always important to hear the other side of the argument in any issue. That's why I like these sort of logical, calm discussions where many people of different beliefs can come together and discuss an issue.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I was worried about this topic when Leslie first posted it because emotions run very high on both sides of the issue and no argument, regardless of how eloquently it's phrased, is going to change anyone's mind.


Yet, it is in talking to each other about difficult issues that we learn about each other and learn to understand where we are coming from on our respective sides. I appreciate and respect the viewpoints expressed here and that people have been willing to take the risk of speaking their feelings and have been able to do so calmly. (I'll note that we have had incidents in the past where members who spoke their minds on these boards have received unpleasant PMs. If that should happen, please report it to a moderator.)

Plus, I'm going to work gezordoplatz into as many conversations as possible. 

Betsy


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Gezordoplatz sounds like a town square in a small german town. Says this german


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I was worried about this topic when Leslie first posted it because emotions run very high on both sides of the issue and no argument, regardless of how eloquently it's phrased, is going to change anyone's mind.


If I might politely say, I disagree. I see it as a continuum. Those at the extreme ends of the continuum (either end) probably won't change their minds. But there are a lot of people in the middle -- and I count myself among this group -- who do, after thought and reflection, come to believe something other than what they originally believed. That is what I was trying to illustrate in my other post re: academic and racial segregation. There was a time when I believed that civil unions were an appropriate alternative to same-sex marriage. I don't believe that anymore, but it took time, thought, and study on my part for me to come to that understanding. I know people who were adamantly opposed to civil unions or any sort of same-sex getting together. Now they support marriage equality. For each of those people, getting to that point of understanding and acceptance has been a different, and sometimes difficult, process. But they got there. And there are also people who have thought about the issue, weighed it in the context of their beliefs, and haven't changed their mind. That's okay, too.

It is okay to change your mind and thinking people know that and do it all the time. It's the people who say, "I believe this now and I will believe it forever, no matter what!" and refuse to think that make me angry. But then I remember, those aren't the people who I should be trying to have meaningful conversations with.

I believe this whole thread has been a meaningful conversation and I respect everyone's opinion, openess, and the civility that you have all brought to the discussion. Thanks for that.

L


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> If I might politely say, I disagree. I see it as a continuum.


You're right. I changed my mind.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I will have to say that when I first heard of the issue (just before some states brought it up to vote on -- about 2006?), I thought "why would they want to get married?" but  once I thought it through, I accepted it.  It was never a religious problem for me.  I always thought that if it were a religious issue, why would anyone impose their religious beliefs on other citizens?

It didn't hurt that I have a number of gay friends.

Guess my "why would they want to get married" thought came from all the messy divorces I have observed over the course of many years.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Jeff said:


> You're right. I changed my mind.


Thank you, Jeff. You are a sweet friend and I am sending you a big hug. {{{Jeff}}}

L


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

mlewis78 said:


> Guess my "why would they want to get married" thought came from all the messy divorces I have observed over the course of many years.


That's the thing. Even though there are so many divorces--which makes me sad--there is still the drive to get married in the first place. And I would like to believe that for most people, it's an honest and good emotion.

L


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

I do not wish to start this discussion again.
It was great and ended on a terrific note.

I just want to say that the members of KB have done a terrific job of discussion without creating division or hurt.
We had creative insights from members in GB and the Netherlands.
I apologize for getting us slightly off track.
I am happy for those whose lives are enriched by the decisions made within our society.

I personally wish love to “all men”.
And at my worst I believe in “hate the sin, love the sinner”.  I am not implying that that applies here. I am guilty of not always expressing myself clearly. I ask your forgiveness.

I believe that society needs to change itself and that is always painful – growing pains.

A different subject (but unfortunately intertwined with this one) is that of how should laws be made, what is right and wrong, and how should society work vs how “does” it work.  But these are questions far bigger than all of us.

So at the end of the day, I wish you love.

Just sayin……


----------



## tubemonkey (Aug 10, 2010)

geoffthomas said:


> Now 1 judge has decided that the voters don't count.
> This is a crisis that exists also about illegal immigration.
> And people from other countries coming here to give birth and then leave - just so their children can be US citizens - mostly for college tuition reasons.


In this instance, the voters don't count. They violated the 14th amendment and deserved to get slapped down.

As to the issue of illegal immigrants giving birth in this country, that's easily remedied by amending the 14th amendment.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> I believe that society needs to change itself and that is always painful - growing pains.


A "right back atcha" to your whole post, and a special "Amen" to that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, let's not resurrect this thread...it ran its course some days ago...

Betsy


----------



## tubemonkey (Aug 10, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks, let's not resurrect this thread...it ran its course some days ago...
> 
> Betsy


I don't read all the way through threads before responding. I start at the beginning and respond to the first post that strikes my fancy.

As to resurrecting threads, they die on their own and don't need to be told when to die. If it's that much of an issue, then lock the thread.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> A disapproved or not accepted behavior in general is not the same as racism. Even if I agree with gay marriage there will be other marriages that remain outside the pale because of the behavior involved is "not approved" (polygamy, pedophilia, incest etc.)


These are common objections, but they're unique situations and are therefore banned for different reasons. They're also very different from either interracial or same-sex marriage for many of those same reasons.

Polygamy is primarily disallowed from a legal perspective because it'd be a royal pain in the ass to implement. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of pages of law that assume that marriage is a contract between two people with regard to property rights, end of life care, what have you. It's basically an "if not A, then B". This requires a lot of rewriting of those things to "if not A, then B, if not B, then C" or "if not A, then divide equally between B and C", and a variety of other arrangements. This will take time, but is doable from a legal perspective. Contrast this with same-sex marriage, which is basically a global find for "husband" or "wife" and replace with "partner".

Pedophilia is easy--you don't even need to delve into the area of sexual contact between an adult and a child being a felony. Marriage is a contract, and minors can't sign contracts. This also applies to the often-proffered example of marrying dogs, turtles and fish (which I applaud you for taking the high road and avoiding). Entities without legal standing can't sign contracts.

Incest is admittedly a little more tricky. This is one of those "for the greater societal good" prohibitions. We know from the history of European royalty that inbreeding is bad for the gene pool, and therefore permitting it to occur on a wide scale is deleterious to society as a whole. The legal problem isn't so much with the contract as it is with the relationship itself, which is a criminal act. This is not the case for same-sex relationships, which are no longer illegal in any state as of 2003 thanks to _Lawrence vs. Texas_. Additionally, there's no proof of societal harm as there is in the case of incest, so this is also not comparable.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I think that was my original point: that each should be evaluated on its own merits and not painted with the "equals racism" or "people who love each other should be free to marry" brush that gets used so much.


----------

