Please vote no on Proposition 8

[humanbean234]

I am not a resident of California, so I'll not be voting on Proposition 8. My current view of "Gay Marriage" is unimportant, as its primary Real-World impact is in legal matters of property inheritance, child custody, pension administration, and insurance benefits. The most severe arguments regarding Gay Marriage are matters of child custody, where the courts have traditionally sided against custody and adoption rights for same-sex couples in the argument that homosexuality=moral turpitude.

 

My sister is a lesbian, in a committed long-term relationship (three years cohabitation followed by a Civil Union ceremony, which is the best allowable under Missouri law), and they've been together for five years, total. Fortunately, my sister's employer is a sane and humane operation, granting equal coverage to her spouse under their benefits package, and they have no plans to ever adopt or raise children (they've got three cats and two dogs... they're happy with that). This makes life easy in their instance, but it's the exceptions that prove the rule. Were circumstances different, they'd likely be far more militant in their demand for legal Marriage.

 

Regardless of historical factors, it is a proven fact of biology that a certain percentage of any mammalian population will exhibit homosexual behaviors, and that percentage increases in proportion to population density. (Ever raise mice as a high-school biology experiment? Overcrowding, while an adequate food supply remains available, will result in a higher percentage of "Gay" mice. It's not an aberration, nor is it necessarily a conscious decision, it's an effect of population pressure combined with the basic animal instincts of reproduction=copulation. You can't seriously tell me that mice have a moral code...)

[Michlo]

I am not a resident of California, so I'll not be voting on Proposition 8. My current view of "Gay Marriage" is unimportant, as its primary Real-World impact is in legal matters of property inheritance, child custody, pension administration, and insurance benefits. The most severe arguments regarding Gay Marriage are matters of child custody, where the courts have traditionally sided against custody and adoption rights for same-sex couples in the argument that homosexuality=moral turpitude.

 

My sister is a lesbian, in a committed long-term relationship (three years cohabitation followed by a Civil Union ceremony, which is the best allowable under Missouri law), and they've been together for five years, total. Fortunately, my sister's employer is a sane and humane operation, granting equal coverage to her spouse under their benefits package, and they have no plans to ever adopt or raise children (they've got three cats and two dogs... they're happy with that). This makes life easy in their instance, but it's the exceptions that prove the rule. Were circumstances different, they'd likely be far more militant in their demand for legal Marriage.

 

Regardless of historical factors, it is a proven fact of biology that a certain percentage of any mammalian population will exhibit homosexual behaviors, and that percentage increases in proportion to population density. (Ever raise mice as a high-school biology experiment? Overcrowding, while an adequate food supply remains available, will result in a higher percentage of "Gay" mice. It's not an aberration, nor is it necessarily a conscious decision, it's an effect of population pressure combined with the basic animal instincts of reproduction=copulation. You can't seriously tell me that mice have a moral code...)

 

Excellent post, mate. I wasn't going to go so deeply into the argument but thank you, nevertheless.

 

Also, if you don't mind, I think I'll add that tag-line to my personal e-mail signatures..

 

Cheers.

[myrmaad]

By the way, since you've called me out, in your obfuscated and I believe calculated way, I'll say this:

 

I've actually read the constitution, and have a great interest in constitutional law, which was the impetus for me to go back to school after my 40s.

 

The constitution does guarantee equal opportunities "to all men". These days we take that to be inclusive of "mankind", including women and minorities.

 

Most people do not know how bawdy and sexually free the medieval times were. I see the reflection of this in posts regarding Oblivion clothing. People have actually said that revealing clothing is not authentic in the game because of the Medieval flavored theme of the vanilla game. An argument that's quite laughable, if you actually KNOW history.

 

And that's not shouting, I used the caps for EMPHASIS. The fact that you intentionally misconstrued that, only proves to me that you have an axe to grind and are trying to twist my intent to serve your own agenda.

 

And playing devil's advocate is rarely helpful, because it stops straight and honest talk in its tracks. It serves only to obfuscate and trivialize the situation, often introducing unrelated misrepresentations in an attempt to "win" an argument. I don't particularly care what you believe, but do me a favor and don't talk out both sides of your mouth. I personally resent that tactic and see it for exactly what it is.

[Ethre]

I'm not certain how I've "called you out" myrmaad.

 

The constitution itself does little to guarantee individual rights - that's the amendments (though they are in a manner of speaking the constitution). The Bill of Rights protects from Federal discrimination, and the 14th does similar things with the states.

 

If you look at Baker v Nelson though, you'll find that homosexual marriages aren't considered under the equal protection clause. So no, as it stands now (things may change, who knows), the constitution does not guarantee you the right to a gay marriage.

 

Medieval times had both "sexually free" periods, and more conservative ones. You can look at the male brothels of some periods, and argue that it was supported - but you should also remember that some places had specific courts to prevent such things. History's never usually as clear cut as you're arguing it to be.

 

Not intentionally misconstrued - though perhaps shouting wasn't your intent. When caps are combined with exclamation points and you're calling someone "inane" for their views, it comes across as aggressive and as shouting. Try to imagine someone speaking your post, I'd guess most people would feel that the capitalized parts would be spoken, if not in an outright shout, at least in a louder, aggressive tone.

 

Also, I don't have an axe to grind. I'd happily be arguing the other side if the majority of this thread was arguing against gay marriage. I'm not certain how trying to give both sides a voice (in this case the one side already has one, which is why I'm on the other) is a tactic - and don't see what's so offensive to you there. If you're only looking to hear your own side repeated, then you shouldn't be in a debate thread/forum.

[myrmaad]

I suggest the 14th amendment covers it in section 1.

[Dark0ne]

Equality, to me, is an inherently flawed ideal. We are all born different and ergo unequal. Perhaps unequal in intelligence, perhaps unequal in physical prowess, perhaps unequal in looks, perhaps unequal in moral aptitude, but unequal none-the-less. This is a given. There's no arguing that there are people out there that are more intelligent than me and there are people out there less intelligent than me. Does that make that person better than me? Well, it makes them more intelligent than me, but it doesn't mean they're a better human being because of it.

 

Unfortunately it seems (in the UK atleast) that the idea of "equality" is being bent and twisted in order to suit people's needs. We have a terrible benefit system here in the UK that means that people become lazy because they believe they have a "right" to massive financial benefits so that "equality" can be kept. There was an article in the paper last year about a woman who made a living out of having children; she had 13+ children with multiple (5+) partners and was paid benefits of over £50,000 ($90,000) a year across multiple benefit schemes (child benefits, work benefits, etc.). She doesn't work, she just looks after her children all day and the working class foots the bill. This is because she believes she has a "right" to have as many children as she wants. She has a "right" to bear children, but where's the responsibility in this right's system? Shouldn't some rights be earnt?

 

Scientifically (supposedly) homosexuality can be pinned down to DNA, genes, or just personal preference. That's fine; I really don't mind whether a man loves a man or a man loves a woman. What I'm still on the fence about is homosexual couples believing they have a right to adopt children. Perhaps the people who are bringing down the science behind homosexuals can also bring down the science on how a man and a man or a woman and a woman could feasibly procreate and create a child. I'm under the impression it's scientifically impossible! Why does a homosexual couple bear the rights to having a child? Where did these rights come from?

 

I wasn't a big fan of homosexual "marriage" to begin with but didn't mind the idea of civil unions, mainly because I didn't quite see why homosexuals couldn't simply be content with civil unions. Homosexual relationships are different to straight relationships (i.e. the genders are different!) in some areas but possess some fundamental similarities, namely love, and supposedly love transcends all, so I've come around to the idea of homosexual marriage and am sitting on the fence on that one.

 

Personally I believe our natural differences are something to be celebrated (how dull would the world be if we were all truely equal in every sense?) and explored, rather than chastised and removed.

[Skolhamarr]

GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

not guaranteed, by the constitution of the United states. Do not believe that founding fathers had that idea when they wrote the Constitution. Constitution interpreted by the supreme count, which ever way they vote on or how they interpreted constitution would guaranteed or not

 

Gay marriage is a state to state issue an not a federal issue. That issue should not ever go to the supreme count, again it is a state to state issue. United State is Republic and should be hand as such.

 

 

You are so ridiculously inane, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time, and I notice the founding fathers didn't bother to write any laws against it, even though it was certainly just as prevalent then as it is now. Check the actual historical record, lots of homosexuality in the 1780s, and any other time since time began.

 

And I'm guessing, by your definition, granting women the right to vote was a conspiracy of ACTIVIST JUDGES, as well!!!

 

Your taking this onto personal note which it is not. Myrmaad We can interpret constitution as we like you can be right, I can be right we do not know. How they meant, Constitution to read to the masses. Nothing is guaranteed it is how Supreme Count interpret the constitution. Just 3 month go we came very close to changing the 2nd amendment. They interpret the constitution on that issue how I believe the founding father wrote it as. This Proposition 8, can be pushed to a federal level. Again I say the issue it should stay on state level.

 

Mymaad if this proposition 8 is vote yes or no, someone or groups will challenge the out come. It will end up in either state or federal count, at that point what ever we think is out of the window. How the Supreme Count will interpret the constitution. mymaad As we can not show Founding Father, saying they believe in Gay marriage either way. I will meet you in the middle, Benjamin Franklin, you can say he saw something on his trip to France. John Adams might have different view. I say there might have been that thought there, is some Founders minds.

 

by my own definition the note of women rights, should have handle like republic that we were founded after. Rome had women right "some what"from the get go. They could own property, slaves.. ect. They still had more rights than the women of 1750s, at the founding of this nation the ability to vote should be there for women.

 

Didnt someone ask the question why all these other Civilization did not raise an eyebrow to homosexuality. One of the reason why, is those Civilization were Pagan, Rome, Greece, Carthage, Persia, Assyrians..ect.

[Ethre]

I suggest the 14th amendment covers it in section 1.

 

For those who don't know 14.1

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

 

You're not the courts though Myrmaad. The current judicial precedent is that its not covered.

You have a right to your opinion, however saying that it the constitution covers it - without acknowledging that this is simply your opinion - is, as of now, wrong/incorrect.

 

Forsaken epicentre's right that it will probably go to the courts if passed (although similar amendments in other states have not interestingly), but I'm not certain that there is a way for it to get to the courts if not passed.

 

Dark0ne makes some good points about equality, however there's always the need to differentiate between the system, and abuses of the system.

[myrmaad]

I suggest the 14th amendment covers it in section 1.

 

For those who don't know 14.1

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

 

You're not the courts though Myrmaad. The current judicial precedent is that its not covered.

You have a right to your opinion, however saying that it the constitution covers it - without acknowledging that this is simply your opinion - is, as of now, wrong/incorrect.

 

Forsaken epicentre's right that it will probably go to the courts if passed (although similar amendments in other states have not interestingly), but I'm not certain that there is a way for it to get to the courts if not passed.

 

Dark0ne makes some good points about equality, however there's always the need to differentiate between the system, and abuses of the system.

 

On this we can agree, though I should warn you I went back to school with the full intent of becoming a family court judge, and I'm fully committed to seeing that through. On most of what Forsaken said and your post, though, I concede that it's at this moment a matter of legal interpretation. I also fully agree with your qualification against the system as it's supposed to work, and abuses of the system which need to be addressed wherever possible.

 

Currently, it seems to be the vogue to interpret the intent of the founding fathers in the context of religiosity, which I couldn't disagree with more. As for the 2nd Amendment, I'm a gun owner myself, and I will fight tooth and nail to retain that constitutionally guaranteed right, which has also been subject recently to micro-misinterpretation. Thankfully, intelligent minds prevailed.

 

I owe Forsaken an apology for the Ad Homonym, I meant I thought his opinion I referred to in that post was inane. Not him or her, personally, as s/he has shown in the last post a greater degree of thoughtful reflection.

 

And I would like readers to assume when I'm speaking, that I completely understand that perception is paramount, we can only operate, as humans, from our perceptions, and there is rarely a true "right" or "wrong" answer. However there is usually a result or causative effect from putting thoughts into actions, and those actions can be either beneficial or harmful to majority of humankind. That's my stance.

[Landsknecht]

Sorry to those who would be offended, but if I lived in California, I would vote "yes". The reason being that marriage itself is, and should be defined as a union between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Man and man, woman and woman cannot enter into such a contract because they cannot procreate with eachother. This is not to suggest that there should not be some alternative for homosexuals or couples who do not wish to (or can't) procreate, only that the definition of marriage should be limited as such.

 

Couples regardless of gender, should be able to enter into a civil contract which allows joint ownership and transfer of rights and property. Even though same sex-marriage currently exists, these rights are still not granted in several states, and THAT is what needs to change, NOT the definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage has simply become a tool of politicians hoping to gain favor with one particular demographic, and grants little more than the title of husband or wife. It does not make that union acceptable by all, it does not necessarily allow those individuals to be taxed or insured together, it is often just a lie to sway your vote. Furthermore, once passed, it can be revoked in the next term, once revoked it can be reinstated, in all cases solving nothing.

 

This should not be a political issue, it should be a personal issue. If I were to trust another man with my life, property, and well being, I should be able to choose to legally without considderation to gender or sexuality. It is a contract of mutual ownership, nothing more. Making it an issue of gender or sexuallity only obscures the nature of such a contract within social standards and religious dogma.

 

Unfortunately so long as it is framed as a political issue, people will not actively define what it actually means. By making it not allowed you open the door for other possibilities to occur. By passing it you merely keep the issue within play for the next election without granting any of the actual rights.

 

Interesting post, which I mostly agree with.

 

It makes me think that the idea situation would be the government handing out the legal rights of marriage under the label "civil union." Under that plan, the religious "wrong" could not object since it "keeps marriage sacred" and it allows those homosexuals in committed relationships to receive the rights they deserve. In addition to that, it would strengthen the separation of church and state since it would cause the government to leave the business of sanctifying marriage. However, I put the phrase "keeps marriage sacred" in quotes since I personal believe marriage is not a sacred institution of any religion since marriage has historically been about property and family power.