More Fun on the Prop 8 Front

[annewandering]

Haha, It took me awhile to login because i spelled it wrong and kept trying when i typed it the right way lol..

Sorry if I hvae the wrong group and not the FLDS.

But from what I've seen and read about, the LDS were the initiators of Prop 8, and I just don't see that as something that should be occurring. Demanding families to donate large sums to the church to fight the ban of marriage is not something a church should be involved with when they have different fundamental beliefs to the norm as well.

And sorry for the name, I should ahve made it something else, but it was refering to the judges and how one was gay but one was also LDS so anyone complaining that one was gay needs to realize that one other guy was also bias.

The church did not initiate anything. We were asked, as I understand it, to help by other groups fighting this.

No one was told to donate money, time or effort. That is never how the church works.

Some of our beliefs are not mainstream but does this mean we have no right to speak up against something we believe is wrong? I should hope not. And you might keep in mind that we are free to have our own opinions on this issue. Many, probably not most, LDS people are in favor of same sex marriage. That is their choice.

[LittleWyvern]

I think it's inaccurate to say the LDS were the initiators of Prop 8. Sure, most of them contributed, but Prop 8 was mostly a response to the striking of Prop 22, and so if it was initiated by anybody, it was initiated by the Prop 22 crowd. The original argument was that if Prop 8 (which was really just a copy of Prop 22) was presented as a constitutional amendment instead of a civil code change as Prop 22 was, then the arguments used to strike Prop 22 wouldn't hold. Now, however, as courts have ruled that marriage is a civil right, the argument is a poor one at best.

EDIT: Besides, most analysis of the Prop 8 vote shows that the issue mostly is decided on generational lines more than faith lines.

[annewandering]

Some courts, LittleWyvern, not all or even most courts have ruled that marriage is a civil right, open to homosexuals.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

I know I apologize for the use of retarded in my name..And same for not realizing there were two groups and not just the LDS. I've just read up the differences between the two church's and the separation after the third leader.

So is Mitt Romney LDS and not FLDS?

So are LDS in support of this decision on the marriage ban? Or is it the FLDS who put the campaigns together to support prop 8?

And once again I apologize for the name, I should have made it something else but was thinking more of a specific example of the disagreement...

[LittleWyvern]

Some courts, LittleWyvern, not all or even most courts have ruled that marriage is a civil right, open to homosexuals.

I suppose I should have been more specific: the supreme court in California, specifically, decided that marriage was a civil right, which is one of the key arguments behind overturning Prop 8. This may or not be the opinion of other states, but if a state decides to overturn a gay marriage ban, this is usually one of the main arguments behind it.

So is Mitt Romney LDS and not FLDS?

That's correct.

So are LDS in support of this decision on the marriage ban?

Depends on who you ask. Some do, some don't. I think most LDS in California don't, though.

Edited February 8, 2012 by LittleWyvern

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

Ok I guess initiate is the wrong word. But do know that either the LDS or FLDS were HUGE/MAJOR contributors to the campaign.

Of course everyone can speak up for whatever they think is wrong..I'm gay and would never even want to get married. But I'm not going to go stop gay people for fighting for that right of equality.

It is not even in the traditional religious sense that i would favor marriage equality, but in pension benefits or hospital visitation rights. Should I not be allowed to have the person I chose to spend my life with visit my hospital room much like your husband or wife would be allowed to?

So for me, marriage isn't an issue or the issue, but equal rights in terms of marriage benefits are what is needed.

I'm not sure most people would disagree with that, and I think there needs to be clarification on equal marriage rights to be granted even if not recognizing the union as a religious one.

[LittleWyvern]

It is not even in the traditional religious sense that i would favor marriage equality, but in pension benefits or hospital visitation rights. Should I not be allowed to have the person I chose to spend my life with visit my hospital room much like your husband or wife would be allowed to?

So for me, marriage isn't an issue or the issue, but equal rights in terms of marriage benefits are what is needed.

You'll probably be happy to know that the LDS Church has, in the recent years, come out in favor of all applicable civil rights for same-sex couples. See this article:

The church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

That article quotes from an offical statement from the LDS Church, which you can view in its entirety here. The Church does, though, stand firmly against calling same-sex unions "marriages," but generally supports the civil rights that you list.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

I thought the problem though is that without being engaged in a legal 'marriage' in every sense of the word, that society institutions/hospitals/insurance companies do not need to grant these civil rights.

I guess it's a matter of separating the two issues.

But I know it's up to individual hospitals if they want to accept that union, but if it is an equal marriage then there is no dispute.

At this point I don't think you can allow the equal civil rights without marriage until the courts can rule this in some way, which would be a satisfactory middle ground I think for most.

But even with there being gay marriage, I still don't think people's pensions are paid to the remaining surviving spouse.

I'd prefer to be fighting the gay civil union rights without or with the term marriage. But there are society institutions opposing the equal standings if the word marriage is not involved.

Thus government is upsetting religious people by making gay people seek marriage equality because society's institutions do not accept unions in the same manner legally yet.

[Just_A_Guy]

AreYou, it's good to have you here and if you're up for respectful dialogue I hope you stick around. However, I would respectfully suggest that you use this board's private message feature to contact the site's head moderator Pam, and see about changing your account name.

Best--

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

where's the private message? I wanted to change the name after the 2nd post lol...

Hahaha, i was heated about the judge thing and the hypocrisy i was reading elsewhere before I found this site to post.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

where's the private message? I wanted to change the name after the 2nd post lol...

Hahaha, i was heated about the judge thing and the hypocrisy i was reading elsewhere before I found this site to post.

[annewandering]

If your opinion on marriage was the norm we probably wouldnt be disagreeing. My personal opinion on having loved ones being with you when you are in the hospital is that it is cruel to interfere at all at such a time.

I wish civil benefits were applied on a household basis with nothing to do with love or romance, etc. People in a long term shared household should receive benefits for the household regardless of relationship. So many widowed parents and a child live in the same household for years yet there are no considerations at all for that household. Elderly siblings often share a household. Why should they not get consideration? In these times siblings often live together to save on expenses.

[AreYouPeopleRetarted]

But these are marriage rights, or should be civil-union rights as well...

For equality purposes in the marriage sense (with or without the use of the word marriage) gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples...Thus why they are in the union or marriage together.

Household rights i also agree with, but in terms of a marriage equality debate, gay couples need to be granted the same rights as straight couples...Then it can be taken further outside of union and marriages, but at least things would be equal in terms of a union and a two person lifetime bond much like marriage. But these are the reason gay people are fighting for gay marriage is because these rights are not granted much like they are with straight couples..

Even if it is not marriage recognition, union recognition with equal civil rights is what is needed. And I don't care to even get married but i want the ability to have these rights.

So all people should get these considerations, but the fight right now is on marriage/union and a single sexual lifetime relationship. If that can't be held as equal in terms of a relationship earning these equal rights, then a brother and sister's household rights has even less chance as there's no union involved there which would be on par with a marriage union

[prisonchaplain]

AREYOU...it won't be enough. We've discovered this in Washington State. Less than two years ago we passed an "Everything but the Name," law, that grants same-sex couples all the legal rights and privileges of marriage, but calls them civil unions. This year our governor has introduced a gay marriage law. It appears the public will not even vote on it.

To me, this is becoming just like the issue facing Catholics and other faith groups now--will we be forced to provide contraceptives and abortifacents, or fined for failure to do so, irregardless of our deeply held religious convictions? Apparently so. And now, at least in my state, we find that folks will not just live and let live. They demand that everyone recognize the moral and spiritual rightness of their lifestyle.

I was with okay with civil unions that granted equal protections. Now I see that those at the forefront of this seem to want to destroy any rights of faith groups to object, withdraw, or otherwise maintain their spiritual integrity. It's win-lose, and they are determined that I lose.

[Traveler]

AREYOU...it won't be enough. We've discovered this in Washington State. Less than two years ago we passed an "Everything but the Name," law, that grants same-sex couples all the legal rights and privileges of marriage, but calls them civil unions. This year our governor has introduced a gay marriage law. It appears the public will not even vote on it.

To me, this is becoming just like the issue facing Catholics and other faith groups now--will we be forced to provide contraceptives and abortifacents, or fined for failure to do so, irregardless of our deeply held religious convictions? Apparently so. And now, at least in my state, we find that folks will not just live and let live. They demand that everyone recognize the moral and spiritual rightness of their lifestyle.

I was with okay with civil unions that granted equal protections. Now I see that those at the forefront of this seem to want to destroy any rights of faith groups to object, withdraw, or otherwise maintain their spiritual integrity. It's win-lose, and they are determined that I lose.

I have often wondered what was so evil prior to the flood that G-d had to destroy the societies of man. The Book of Enoch (though not part of modern canon) does say something interesting. One of the two reasons, according to the Book of Enoch, was that the pre-flood society "changed the order of marriage". I have wondered what that means? I think it could be the discipline or lack of discipline as in divorce or it could be the definition as not between a man and woman.

The Traveler

[sdl54]

Hey there,

thanks prisonchaplain...I did hear about this yesterday about Washington State. I'm happy about the situation, but more so because big insurance companies still aren't equating civil unions on par with marriage rights. Marriage has nothing to do with marriage for many of these gay couples, maybe this is something that can make things a bit easier to grasp in the long run as no one is trying to destroy any sanctity of marriage.

I'm not sure it's gay marriage as something destroying society, but rather feel religion in general is the cause of much of today's problems.

Would Palestine/Israel be at war? Would any individuals care who gets married, or would people just go on with their own lives and mind their own business?

People can say it is in intrusion to their lives, but it is no ones concern..There is social inequality being carried out, and if an equal marriage title is the only dispute here, but not the civil rights, then people just need to pretend it didn't happen and keep living the straight and moral life yourselves under the proper guidelines as presented in whatever holy book in question.

I myself don't care about the marriage title, but the injustice is the larger thing here. However it is carried out is fine as long as civil rights are addressed. If only civil rights were being granted fully the same as marriages, without a marriage title, i dont think there would be this push for gay marriage. I think because insurance companies etc. wont recognize civil unions there is a need to call it marriage to appease the larger institutions that want to discriminate against non fully legal marriages in the full sense of the word.

[prisonchaplain]

I have often wondered what was so evil prior to the flood that G-d had to destroy the societies of man. The Book of Enoch (though not part of modern canon) does say something interesting. One of the two reasons, according to the Book of Enoch, was that the pre-flood society "changed the order of marriage". I have wondered what that means? I think it could be the discipline or lack of discipline as in divorce or it could be the definition as not between a man and woman.

The Traveler

Perhaps both!

[prisonchaplain]

Hey there,

thanks prisonchaplain...I did hear about this yesterday about Washington State. I'm happy about the situation, but more so because big insurance companies still aren't equating civil unions on par with marriage rights. Marriage has nothing to do with marriage for many of these gay couples, maybe this is something that can make things a bit easier to grasp in the long run as no one is trying to destroy any sanctity of marriage.

In a country that is 76% Christian, and still over 90% theist, it's amazing to me that the 2-3% can demand, and receive marriage. For most of human history, this has been an institution ordained by religious authority, and the means by which a man and woman form a family unit. In a democratic republic with enshrined individual liberties, people do have the right to live together in various arrangements, so long as age is appropriate, and there is no coercion. Through public persuasion, most today believe that same sex couples should have most, if not all, the legal protections of marriage. However, most still oppose give that sacred, traditional title. After all, marriage is when a man and woman join in holy matrimony. That's how it's defined.

So, perhaps there are some technical rights that insurance companies won't recognize on the edges. However, such does not trump the basic right of societies to draw the line between individual liberties and public mores and standards. We don't have to recognize same sex marriage anymore than we do polygamy. Why force this on us?

I'm not sure it's gay marriage as something destroying society,

No, but it feels like an in your face way of saying, "We don't care about your religion and values--your courts will give us every blessing you get. I see couples that have lived together for decades, crying with joy over this public recognition. Frankly, how shallow is that? Take your joy in each other, but not in forcing my civil representatives to bless you in something that most of our faith traditions say is wrong.

but rather feel religion in general is the cause of much of today's problems. Would Palestine/Israel be at war? Would any individuals care who gets married, or would people just go on with their own lives and mind their own business?

The war thing is a red herring. Atheism, through it's Communist manifestations killed off tens of millions in far less time than religionists have done. Truth be told, most "holy wars" were political wars, where evil men used religion to manipulate people. How much difference faith made is a matter of historical debate. I'd argue that at most, it may have added some fuel to an already raging bon fire.

Your last matter is most crucial though--religion is bad because it generally condemns homosexual practice--and certainly marriage. I'm convinced some "atheists" are actually just ticked off at any religion or God that condemns what they do.

People can say it is in intrusion to their lives, but it is no ones concern..There is social inequality being carried out, and if an equal marriage title is the only dispute here, but not the civil rights, then people just need to pretend it didn't happen and keep living the straight and moral life yourselves under the proper guidelines as presented in whatever holy book in question.

Except that our pesky holy books encourage us to bless society with our good morals and religious wisdom. No man is an island--we do live in communities. So, yeah, we still get in each other's bizness from time to time.

I myself don't care about the marriage title, but the injustice is the larger thing here. However it is carried out is fine as long as civil rights are addressed. If only civil rights were being granted fully the same as marriages, without a marriage title, i dont think there would be this push for gay marriage. I think because insurance companies etc. wont recognize civil unions there is a need to call it marriage to appease the larger institutions that want to discriminate against non fully legal marriages in the full sense of the word.

Would you grant the same rights to Muslim immigrants or Fundamentalist sects that want to practice polygamy?

[sdl54]

"So, perhaps there are some technical rights that insurance companies won't recognize on the edges. However, such does not trump the basic right of societies to draw the line between individual liberties and public mores and standards. We don't have to recognize same sex marriage anymore than we do polygamy. Why force this on us?"

I'm not forcing this on someone, but when there is injustice it is up to everyone to solve it. If you object to the marriage aspect of solution solving than offer another way or proposition for the civil rights to be granted.

Otherwise, you are forcing religion on government, which operates independently of religion. We have a separation of church and state.

If it is just a technical glitch to you that gay people don't get these same rights, and just oh well, then maybe to promote equality we should let the insurance and pension companies save some money and not offer these extending benefits on to the surviving heterosexual spouse. Because if a gay civil union can't have it neither should a straight couple. That sounds a bit absurd to me. (But hey the employers pension fund would sure love that, they'll do anything to save a buck!)

It need to be fixed whether the title of marriage is included or not.

Your last matter is most crucial though--religion is bad because it generally condemns homosexual practice--and certainly marriage. I'm convinced some "atheists" are actually just ticked off at any religion or God that condemns what they do.

I did not want to put Athiest as my religion for specific beliefs that I'm just against any religion. For me it is more about evolution vs creationism, I just get upset over all the stuff in the world and do not see religion as anything that aids the situation for the people that are victims. It may give some inside hope and a guide to live their life, but it does not get them out of the situation.

If someones field is destroyed in Africa and they'll run out of food, their solution is not to ask god what to do, but to go take action themselves.

This is a whole other issue lol.

Would you grant the same rights to Muslim immigrants or Fundamentalist sects that want to practice polygamy?

And yes I would grant the same rights to Muslim immigrants (I'm not sure what you refer to by muslim immigrants and which rights you're saying they should not be allowed?)

I would also, myself personally, consider some form of plural marriage. (This comes only after seeing the show sister wives, and how they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.)

But as you said, it is not the civil rights you are arguing against but the title itself. Our differences I don't think are that great on the issue as personally I could care less about the title but just the equality of benefits for surviving spouse, and hospital visitation..

Edited February 8, 2012 by sdl54

[prisonchaplain]

Otherwise, you are forcing religion on government, which operates independently of religion. We have a separation of church and state.

I'm lobbying for a public consensus on particular values. It happens that my own motivation for those values is religious. However, in our form of government we have democracy and the Constitution. Most often, the majority rules. Sometimes basic human rights trumps the majority's will. I'm arguing that marriage falls in the realm of public mores, and society is not obligated to give equal honor and recognition to relationships that the supermajority of its citizens find sinful. We agree that criminalizing those behaviors is out of bounds, in a society with freedom of religion. On the other hand, we disagree about marriage being a basic human right for all types of committed relationships.

If it is just a technical glitch to you that gay people don't get these same rights, and just oh well, then maybe to promote equality we should let the insurance and pension companies save some money and not offer these extending benefits on to the surviving heterosexual spouse. Because if a gay civil union can't have it neither should a straight couple. That sounds a bit absurd to me. (But hey the employers pension fund would sure love that, they'll do anything to save a buck!)

It need to be fixed whether the title of marriage is included or not.

I'm not sure that private insurance companies should be obligated to cover domestic partners. It's a worthy discussion though. My sense is that in Washington this is more about crushing the religious opposition and winning the war. King County (Greater Seattle) is 63% religiously unaffiliated, so it is likely we will have gay marriage. Some of us will complain, but it will be difficult to overturn in our bluer-than-blue state.

I did not want to put Athiest as my religion for specific beliefs that I'm just against any religion. For me it is more about evolution vs creationism, I just get upset over all the stuff in the world and do not see religion as anything that aids the situation for the people that are victims. It may give some inside hope and a guide to live their life, but it does not get them out of the situation.

If someones field is destroyed in Africa and they'll run out of food, their solution is not to ask god what to do, but to go take action themselves.

This is a whole other issue lol.

Religion does not make people complacent. It was a major force to bring literacy to Europe, and throughout the world (they gotta read to read the Bible). Many hospitals and universities around the world were built by faith communities. Have some been taught unbalanced doctrine that lead to rejecting practical helps and staying in misery? Sure. Again, wicked or ignorant people can use religion, political philosophy, or many other tools to manipulate people. You may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

And yes I would grant the same rights to Muslim immigrants (I'm not sure what you refer to by muslim immigrants and which rights you're saying they should not be allowed?)

I would also, myself personally, consider some form of plural marriage. (This comes only after seeing the show sister wives, and how they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.)

Actually I had polygamy in mind for both immigrants and fundamentalist sects. So, you're okay with that? I asked because I see a direct parallel between judges legislating approval for gay marriage and polygamy. In fact, the latter has historic and religious precedent.

But as you said, it is not the civil rights you are arguing against but the title itself. Our differences I don't think are that great on the issue as personally I could care less about the title but just the equality of benefits for surviving spouse, and hospital visitation..

Some of my fellow religionists fight any support for same sex couples, but I agree with you that protections should be nearly the same for all. I might have questions about how much private entitites should be forced in this matter though. Again, I think of Catholics being forced to provide coverage for abortion-inducing "morning after pills." I find this outrageous.

Edited February 8, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

I'm not sure it's gay marriage as something destroying society, but rather feel religion in general is the cause of much of today's problems.

Would Palestine/Israel be at war?

Yes. The human desire to gain power over something/somebody else is ingrained in our psychology. It is a subset of the human instinct of survival. With humans, survival of the fittest is not the only way the next generation is guaranteed - our capacity to reason can overcome physical weakness. Palestine/Israel goes way beyond religion. It goes deep into human nature using religion as just one of the easily brandished reasoning weapons. If it's not religion, it will be something else - like the apartheid wars of Africa.

So, you can malign religion all you want. The fact of the matter is - religion provides more reason to do good than reason to wage war.

Edited February 8, 2012 by anatess

[RMGuy]

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

"Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.

"We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today's ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion."

LDS church, others respond to Prop 8 decision | ksl.com

-RM

[HEthePrimate]

Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.

Sorry, but I disagree. One job of the courts is to decide whether or not laws are constitutional. If you say a simple majority of the voters can overrule the constitution, without regard to the established process of amending the constitution, then you may as well throw the constitution in the garbage can and say "Bye bye!" to the rule of law. IMO, someone at the COB needs to take a freakin' civics class...

[RMGuy]

Sorry, but I disagree. One job of the courts is to decide whether or not laws are constitutional. If you say a simple majority of the voters can overrule the constitution, without regard to the established process of amending the constitution, then you may as well throw the constitution in the garbage can and say "Bye bye!" to the rule of law. IMO, someone at the COB needs to take a freakin' civics class...

For a second there He, I read that as you thought I had said that....then I caught your reference to COB.

For others clarification, what I posted above was the church's press release on the ruling.

-RM

[HEthePrimate]

For a second there He, I read that as you thought I had said that....then I caught your reference to COB.

For others clarification, what I posted above was the church's press release on the ruling.

-RM

Nah, you didn't actually comment on what the press release said. As a result, I have no idea what your opinion on the matter is, or whether or not I disagree with you!

Shalom