Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Headway has been made on smoking in terms of reducing the number of smokers, not in making it illegal. Gambling seems to be bigger than ever.

Both behaviors are unwise, but legal. And should remain so.

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

So you're ready to ban gambling and smoking? Good luck with that.

Those are personal choices people make. They affect society on one level -- but so does blind faith in an invisible, all-powerful super being.

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"When we stop believing our behavior is a matter of choice, what behavior can't be justified?"

Easy - behavior that demonstrably affects others. You can't murder, steal, abuse, etc. You CAN gamble, drink, smoke, have sex with whomever you like, listen to Kenny G, mouth off to your mom, etc.

Clear?

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Loss -

It's not like skin color, which is entirely genetic. It's more like handedness. Some people are right-handed, a small percentage are left-handed. A left-handed person CAN choose to do things right-handed, but why? Well, they USED to try to change because people thought left-handedness was of the devil, or disordered. As recently as the last century, some parents and teachers would physically compel left-handed children to use their right hands to write, etc. Doesn't work.

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Imposing OUR lifestyle?! You're kidding, right? Have you ever had a gay person come to your door and ask you to join with them? Have they ever handed you a pamphlet telling you you are in for an eternity of hellfire unless you turn gay?

Because I've had Christians come to my door and approach me on the street doing just that. And that's when they didn't even know I was gay!

Ballot Summary for Calif. Marriage Amendment Changed

mistereks »

Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:39 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

Don't Christians have better things to do with their Christianity than to fight to limit the CIVIL rights of people who want to commit their lives to caring for and loving each other?

Are all the homeless housed? Are all the hungry fed? Are all the lonely aged being visited and cared for?

If you're so hot on following the Bible at its word, I imagine you have already given all you have to the poor?

In Defense of Marriage – Part I

mistereks »

Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

There is almost nothing written here about the value of marriage that couldn't also apply to same-sex civil unions. Same-sex couples support each other, are complementary to each other (just not in traditional terms of procreative plumbing), care for each other, etc.

The only argument remaining to deny marriage equality is the religious/moral one. And that simply doesn't hold water, Constitutionally-speaking.

Gay 'Marriage' and Soft Despotism

mistereks »

Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

john14-6: If Fred Phelps can spout his nonsense about gay people at military funerals (of all places!), I think the First Amendment is safe.

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"either you believe the Bible is GOD's scripture or you don't"

Then have you given all your money to the poor yet?

And in terms of Mormon scriptures, they believe they are true as fervently as you believe the bible is.

If civil unions were required of ALL couples, I'd be fine with that. Leave marriage to the churches. That simply isn't practical given our legal system.

In terms of domestic violence, a recent study shows exactly the opposite -- gay couples get along BETTER than straight couples, resolving their arguments more amicably and with greater understanding of their partner. New York Times, June 10, I think.

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

artm and others -

First, dancing may be not strictly prohibited in the Bible, but it has been forbidden as a sin by some Baptists. Drinking coffee is a sin to Mormons because it is stated so in one of THEIR scriptures.

Second, I'm fine with all of you who believe homosexuality is a sin, but the issue here is CIVIL marriage.

That's why I was mentioning things that are sins, but are still allowed legally. Drunkeness is a sin according to the Bible, but it's not illegal so long as you don't do it while driving or in public. Gambling is a sin. I think usury (lending money at interest) is also forbidden. Coveting your neighbor's possessions is a sin, but not a crime. (As long as you keep it at coveting.) Not to mention all the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament.

Then there are things that are "legal" in the Bible (slavery, polygamy) that our civil society has determined are forbidden.

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

ARTM and Prophet - I fully honor your right to hold your beliefs. But in terms of CIVIL marriage, your religious viewpoint has no more weight, constitutionally-speaking, than anyone else's religious viewpoint.

Mormons believe drinking coffee is a sin. Yet there are plenty of Starbucks in Salt Lake City. Some Baptists believe dancing in sin, yet it's legal pretty much everywhere as far as I know. Adultery is sin, many sexual practices engaged in by heterosexuals are sin, yet we don't deny civil marriage to people who have engaged in those sins. Why do we deny civil marriage to homosexuals? Is there sin worse than others?

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:45 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Believer - I hope you slept well. My answer about why the word "marriage" is important is because it is used in thousands upon thousands of laws across the country. My understanding is it would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming and generally impractical to try and change them all to apply to civil unions or domestic partnerships,as well. What's more, many civil union and domestic partnership laws give some of the benefits of marriage, but don't usually require the same responsibilities, especially the most important ones, like taking on any debts the partner takes on during the relationship, or the difficulty of dissolving the union.

I do appreciate how important the term "marriage" is to people of faith, but it's important to gay folks, too. I hope it's something we can share. Perhaps the religious can take on "covenant marriage" and we can have "civil marriage." Who knows? But denying important benefits to millions of Americans just because another group wants to define a word one way seems unfair to me. And after all, "marriage" has changed over the years: it meant polygamy in Biblical times, women as the property of men for hundreds of years after that, etc.

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I agree with you -- I'd be fine if EVERYONE who wanted the benefits of civil marriage/union had to go to the courthouse first and do the legal bits. Then if they desired, they could go to whatever church they wanted (and would allow it) to sanctify their marriage.

But I disagree with you on allowing multiple people to do this. Because that creates INequity -- if you have more than one civil partner, who gets the health benefits, the Social Security benefits, etc. I think we need to limit it to one.

For now, civil marriage equality seems to be the fairest way to deal with this issue, on a legal basis.

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:46 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Believer -- yes, plenty of ridiculous law suits out there. Some people have sued to allow prayer back in schools, the Ten Commandments in civil buildings...so lawsuits on both sides of the religious/secular divide have been filed.

I have a true story for you, and would like your response:

I had an uncle-in-law who was a gay man. He lived with his partner for over 35 years. They did all they could legally to formalize their relationship. But they could not marry.

When this uncle died of lung cancer, his surviving partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits -- as he would have if they had been able to marry.

What's more, he had to pay inheritance tax on the 50% of the house they shared that he was bequeathed by this uncle. Again, this would not have happened had they been able to marry.

Finally, the property tax basis on the house changed because it was considered a change in ownership -- and again, this would not have happened if they were a married couple.

These three things combined meant that his partner could no longer afford to stay in the house they had shared for over three decades.

Does this seem fair or equitable to you?

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here's a question for you.

Let's say Lewis Farrakhan instructs his followers that it is sinful for white people to drive. A bit of a stretch, I realize, but he's said some crazy things.

Could a follower of Farrkhan's who works for the DMV refuse to issue driver's licenses to white folks, and cite "religious belief" as their reason for not performing their duty?

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

mistereks »

Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer -

The Catholic church does not allow divorced people to marry in its churches.

The Mormon church only allows members in good standing to marry in their temples.

Churches will still have the right to deny marriage to anyone they wish. People can sue all they want. Suing successfully? That's something different.