Proposition 8 - Same-Sex Marriage
These are serious consequences. And if it fails in California, it will be like dominoes in other states in the U.S. ... The laws will be changed all over, and our freedom to believe and act according to our own will and conscience will be altered dramatically.
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
I'm currently enrolled in a tax return preparation class, and unbeknownst to me, California already has same-sex couple provisions -- it's called Registered Domestic Partners. They have the same protections as married couples have already! Here is a clip from the Franchise Tax Board's Publication 737, from 12/2007:
QUOTE |
In general, California affords the same rights - and responsibilities - to RDPs that previously were available only to married individuals. For California tax purposes, the same long-standing rules applicable to married individuals (relating to filing status, community property income, etc.) now apply to RDPs. However, because the federal government does not recognize domestic partners as married individuals for federal tax (IRS) purposes, RDPs will continue to file as unmarried individuals on their federal returns. |
QUOTE |
I"m proud to tell you that today the NO on Prop 8 forces were the first to hit the airwaves with a television ad urging people to vote NO on the proposition that would repeal the right [Note - this isn't true!] of same-sex couples to marry. We did what many thought was not possible. In spite of the fact that extremist forces behind Prop 8 have dubbed this "The Armageddon of the culture wars" and mobilized anti-gay churches throughout the land to send in contributions, raising millions more than we have over the last few weeks, we were able to get our ad on the air first. This was critically important because it allows us to frame the debate, which our polling and focus groups have told us is vitally important to a victory on November 4th. We were able to do this thanks to you-your generosity and that of many like you. But now we have a tremendous challenge ahead. We must stay on the air and we need your help to do it. Running TV ads is expensive. Very expensive. But even in this high tech age, it's still proven to be the most effective way to reach the voters. If we are to defeat Prop 8, we must be on the air every single day between now and November 4th! That's why we"re urging you to send a generous contribution right now. It's not only important for California, it's important for the nation. If they win in California they"ll turn their attention to the rest of America. They"ll stop at nothing in their horrible and divisive attempt to take away our rights. We can't stop either! We must defeat them in November! We have to fight back with our own ad campaign. |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Google has decided to come out in opposition to Proposition 8. This is from the official Google Blog, in its entirety:
QUOTE |
Our position on California's No on 8 campaign 9/26/2008 03:23:00 PM As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on. However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love. Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Now, I have seen some constructive conspiracy thoughts, and some bad ones. This is actually pretty bad. This bill, from what I understand, is completely Constitutional. It goes along with everyone having the right to the pursuit of happiness. So maybe forcing religious institutions to accept same-sex marriage is a bit socialist. But, If your gay and you want to get married, you can't do it because Churches ban the idea. Being gay isn't Heresy, they are not condemning God or any other religious figure. And to think that they are possessed by some demonic entity would be a better argument than, they are not accepted by your religious figurehead. Because by banning them from any sort of public service just because they're gay is Politically Incorrect. Now, I thought that, when you accept Christ as your lord ans savior, you then live by the 10 commandments right? What happened to Thou shall not Judge? Is it Honestly us as humans, to tell what god wants? and I though God created all things? Then why did he make them gay? and I am sorry I cannot present an argument with those who aren't christian. I am only a christian and do not know the works of other religions.
I am not sure what laws are currently in place in the United States, but could there not be a smaller, simpler bill to start off with, such as the right to marry legally as opposed to religiously?
That way, same-sex couples can have the same rights as every other couple.
I don't think that members of a church should be legally forced to do anything that is outside of their beliefs.
If a large number of same-sex couples want to be sanctified religiously in marriage, it would have to be in a church under a new religion or a religion that allows this type of union. It doesn't make sense to be married under a religion that says you can't be married in that situation.
This is a possible question that may merit its own section but:
Who should define Marriage?
Should it be the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, the Judicial (which has been the case of late) or should it be the people?
Or should marriage not be defined by society.
This is what this prop 8 is about: It should be the People who decide this issue and not a small group of unelected Judges?
I say let the people decide, and then we live with the consequences of that decision.
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 109 10.9%
How can they pass legistation dictating what churches preach from the pulpit? It goes against everything this nation is founded upon. Regardless of what folly man might pass into law it in no way has jurisdiction over God's laws.
I agree with dbackers the people should vote, the majority rules and the judges should stay out of issues such as this.
International Level: Activist / Political Participation: 32 3.2%
QUOTE (alskann @ 8-Oct 08, 4:59 PM) |
How can they pass legistation dictating what churches preach from the pulpit? It goes against everything this nation is founded upon. |