I decided to put this in a blog entry because I seem to be saying it over and over.
Proposition 8
Seems many people are upset because Prop 8 passed.
Let's look at the text of the amendment.
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
#1 the amendment text was obviously written by a person that supports gay marriage hence the "Eliminate the right" phrase.
#2 It doesn't eliminate the right of same sex persons to marry despite the text of the amendment. It does eliminate the ability for any government agency in California to recognize the marriage as valid. Two persons desiring to be married can be by whatever authority they deem valid. The government just can't acknowledge that union as valid.
In light of the fact that in the United States marriage automatically bestows certain legal benefits upon the couple, it would seem that by refusing to acknowledge one couple's marriage but not others would be violating the rights of the couple whose marriage is not acknowledged.
The problem with this line of thinking is if we are going to allow the government to determine if our marriages are valid, then we are also granting the government the power to decide which unions are NOT valid. Otherwise it would be a registration, a process of filing a set of papers at the courthouse so they have a copy. An application for a license means they review your application and make a decision on the validity of it. That decision must be based on some criteria. The people of the state of California have decided one part of that criteria is one partner be female and one be male. It’s not violating peoples rights because
The point here being that if you are going to grant the government the power to decide which unions are valid and which are not, do not be upset when your group isn't one of the chosen few. Keep in mind that homosexuals are not asking for freedom here. They are begging the government to become involved in their personal relationships.
Blame for this problem goes to the following groups
The real solution to this problem is to side with freedom instead of convenience. The purest form of equality on the part of the government is for them to do nothing. A scale with nothing on either side is always balanced. Couples concerned about marriage should be calling for government to remove itself from marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious ceremony with over 2000 years of history to prove it. Government involvement in it is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state clause.
A good chance exists this will go to SCOTUS. Will they rule that the government acknowledging marriage is unconstitutional? I doubt it. SCOTUS doesn’t like making ruling that result in major and dramatic changes to government ways. If they rule that states must acknowledge gay marriage then we are looking at a federal amendment to prevent it. This would be the best example of bad government heaped on bad government to brad worse government.
So what say America? Freedom or convenience?


Re: Proposition 8
Here's something to throw at the fanatical religious zealots basing their bigotry on their Christian faith.
**************************************************************
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.
Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.
Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.
Re: Proposition 8
I believe one of 2 things will happen.
1.) The Calif. Constitution will be found to violate the U.S. Constitution - and prop 8 will be destroyed.
2.) The US Supreme Coiurt will find that Prop 8 is unconstitutional...period.
There is no way this is going to stand. Not a chance in hell....or heaven.
MF EXCELLENT post re: Christian history and same-sex marriage. It's very true...yet the freaks will never admit it.
Re: Proposition 8
I posted that Christian history piece Lynn
Re: Proposition 8
DOH!!! I should have KNOWN that Pagan.
( Sorry.
Good post!
Re: Proposition 8
I'm just giving you shit
Re: Proposition 8
I wouldn't count on prop 8 being found to violate the Constitution or Prop 8 being destroyed. Although it and all other government acknowledgment of marriage SHOULD be eliminated on the basis that it's a unneeded invasion of our private lives.
And IF SCOTUS overturns it, you can bet on an amendment to define marriage.
Re: Proposition 8
See my previous post.
Let's bet a mere $100.
Or......we could go much higher. It's your choice.
Re: Proposition 8
I'll take that bet and raise it. My next bet is that Boan will whine about SCOTUS after its passage as well.
Seriously, this country needs to focus on more important items. This will continue to be used A-G-A-I-N as a lynchpin to upset the normal flow of power back to the liberals.
Re: Proposition 8
Boan:
You argue that Prop 8 doesn't violate the constitution because it applies equally to all people. I have read that several times. So, please answer me this one simple....teeny little question.
If a man has the right to marry a woman. And a woman has the right to marry a man.
Is the law under prop 8 REALLY equal to all people?
If the above is true...then equality states that a man should also be allowed to marry a man and a woman should also be allowed to marry a woman.
This is equality Boan. Telling men they can ONLY marry women...and telling women they can ONLY marry men - is not equal in any sense of the word is it?
Seriously, lets stick to humans here...no pets, coats or shit like that. Lets talk about your notion of equality. Under Prop 8 not only are they dictating who we cannot marry...they are dictating who we CAN marry.
Why are the laws special for women? How come women get to marry men? How come the laws are special for men? How come only men can marry women? This isn't "equal across the board" boan.
That's dictatorship - not equality.
Re: Proposition 8
I am talking about the application of the law.
Hmmm..Let me see how to explain it.
I we got on a huge tower and had all the people in CA surrounding us. We announced "All the people whose marriage to opposite gender people will be recognized by the government raise your hand"
All the people in CA would be able to raise their hands.
If we then announced "Anyone whose same sex marriage can be recognized by the government raise your hand"
No one would be able to raise their hand.
The law applies to everyone EQUALLY not to one specific group.
The fact that people are prevented from doing what the prefer to do doesn't mean the law isn't applied equally.
The Constitution provides that a person must be 35 years old and a natural born citizen to become President. Is it a violation of the equal protection clause? No because even if the law eliminates people from doing what they prefer, the law is applied to all persons equally.
Are you also going to support polygamy and brothers and sisters marriages being recognized by the government?
Re: Proposition 8
Boan, you're playing with semantics. It's kinda like the bible - you are interpreting it the way you want to...not the way it IS.
This isn't a question about raising fucking hands. It's not a question about who is or isn't married. It's a question of equal rights under the law.
It is NOT equal to say that ONLY MEN can marry women.
It is NOT equal to say that only women can marry men.
That's discriminatory by any rational persons definition....And in due time the US Supreme Court will agree with me - not you. If you are willing to...I'll bet ya cash on this one - I am THAT confident.
They are the last straw...........what they say goes. Want to bet me that they will rule in favor of same-sex marriage? Want to bet me that your line of reasoning is NOT in alignment with the Constitution? Want to bet me that your "interpretation" is blatantly invalid? I'm game if you are.
As for poligamy etc......... I am in 100% agreement with Pagan's assessment that I am sure you have already read.
Re: Proposition 8
No, it's a matter of application of the law. No person is excluded from application of the law.
So would you agree that if any person can marry any person there is no need for the government to acknowledge marriage?
And SCOTUS isn't the law word. The Constitution is. Have you not paid attention to the goings on in CA. It's the same thing that will happen on a federal level.
Law is passed to ban same sex marriage.
Court overturns it.
A Constitutional Amendment is instituted to achieve the goal.
Re: Proposition 8
14th Amendment
Re: Proposition 8
Okay, I get it all people are citizens regardless of sexual preference.
If section is not applicable in this instance because marriage is a state issue. This clause only applies when a state law attempts to trump a federal law. Since the only federal law (that I am aware of) concerning marriage is DOMA, Prop 8 doesn't remove any privileges or immunities that are guaranteed on a federal level.
No one is denied anything that another person in California can obtain. Just like people can smoke but not smoke pot. If they are going to allow government to acknowledge marriage government will set the rules determining it.
Re: Proposition 8
Here's what the Mormons must have played at their Proposition 8 Rally to motivate their supporters
Re: Proposition 8
Re: Proposition 8
Boan the blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution comes with the violation of the 1st Amendment with legislation of a religious ceremony which some can spin it as not being a religious issue. Which I find it to be laughable, but they do spin it that way often. What they can't spin, nor ignore is it's obvious violation of the 14th Amendment.
Re: Proposition 8
As I have explained above it's not a violation of equal protection because the law applies to everyone.
Unless governments make it ILLEGAL for same sex couples to marry, it's not violating their rights. They can marry. They can openly say they are married. They can live together and be married.
What we are actually debating here is government giving groups of people benefits based on certain criteria. It's something that government does all the time. Since a benefit from the government isn't a right, I don't see a violation.
Think of this. Same sex couples are begging the government to become involved in their personal life. They are asking for their freedom to be violated based on certain benefits that the government bestows on other couples. It's a rare case of people petitioning for the government to get involved in theri lives instead of asking them to butt out. I don't know that the government refusing to infringe on people's freedom (regardless of the reason) can be considered a bad thing.
Re: Proposition 8
Do you see the obvious contradiction here?
Re: Proposition 8
No. care to elaborate?
Re: Proposition 8
Alright, stoopid.
1. You say it's illegal for same sex couples to marry.
2. You then say they CAN marry.
Re: Proposition 8
I knew when I wrote the post about man marrying men I should have clarified but I presumed it would be a given since I have posted it several times.
The law states
It doesn't make it illegal for people to exercise their right to marry other people. Two men will not be arrested if they go to the Episcopal church and get married.
They just don't get the recognition from the government, which is the way IT SHOULD BE for EVERYONE.
Re: Proposition 8
Then why the pussy-footing around with that wasted post asking me for clarification if you already knew?
That speaks volumes, Boan.
Re: Proposition 8
As I have explained above it's not a violation of equal protection because the law applies to everyone.
This is just wrong.
Re: Proposition 8
By what standard is it wrong? Because some people don't get to do what they want? By that standard every law on the books is wrong.
Re: Proposition 8
It's wrong because it IS a violation of equal protection. Some zealots are just to blind to understand that when you exclude one group of people and label it equal doesn't make it so, especially when claiming some kind of "moral" authority, which I fully expect you to deny here. Sorry, Boan, but you need to take a good, long, hard look at this one.
Re: Proposition 8
Not according to the law. That is the point. This is what you get when you let the government meddle in people's personal affairs. Majority rules. While lots are complaining about the treatment of gays not many are expressing the same sentiment for polygamists or brothers and sisters that want to marry. Unless you are going to support those people also, then don't try to claim some idea of equal protection.
I have read several places convincing arguments that religious orders have a vested reason besides bigotry to oppose the government acknowledgment of same sex marriage. That reason is to preserve the sovereignty and doctrine of their respective churches. How long until government decides that it violates a person's right not to be married in the church of their choosing?
Re: Proposition 8
Pot, meet kettle.
Re: Proposition 8
??????????
Re: Proposition 8
The government is meddling in same sex couples affairs. And, you're all for it. Then, you are against it when it might happen to agree with you. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
Re: Proposition 8
Then please tell me why you are supporting further violations of the Constitution? Why are you not pushing to hold Government accountable to the Rule of Law?
Re: Proposition 8
MMMM let's see, death benefits, immunity like not being forced to testify against your spouse just to name two. I don't know about you but that sure in the hell falls within "privileges or immunities " wouldn't you say?
So laws and State Constitutions that barred mixed marriages between races didn't violate the Constitution either in your eyes I take it?
Re: Proposition 8
The laws that applied to mixed marriages were ALWAYS applied to specific races, in many cases ironically, they were applied to WHITES. As in whites could marry no other race. The law was applied to a specific group of people versus being applied to EVERYONE. Do you see the difference?
Re: Proposition 8
Read the 14th Amendment Boan
Please show me where it excludes "Gay"? Doesn't does it? Please show me where it defines Male or Female? It doesn't, does it? What does it say Boan?
Re: Proposition 8
Well Proposition 8 is also applied to a specific group of people. Take a look at the definition of "Citizen" in the 14th Amendment, please show me where it designates "Negro, Asian, Caucasian, Latino, Gaelic, Mongolian, Native American, Jewish, Arab, Male, Female, Gay, Strait, Religious, Atheist, Buddhist, Pagan, etc. etc.? It doesn't does it?
How is it defined?
Re: Proposition 8
That applies to everyone in the state.
- Everyone in CA is either Man or Woman.
- Any MAN in CA can marry any Woman and vice versa. No one is excluded here.
- NO MAN can marry another MAN and NO Woman can marry another Woman. No one is excluded here.
- No woman or man can be married to more than 1 of the opposite sex.
Everything here is applied completely equal. The law applies to EVERYONE in the state. A gay man can marry, the law doesn't restrict him from that, he just has to marry a woman, which he chooses not to.According to the LAW it's equal.
I don't see what point you are making about citizenship
Re: Proposition 8
OK Boan, let's break it down shall we?
True
Except if a Man or a Woman chooses to marry their same sex. Don't know about you but that pretty much fits the description of "excluding" wouldn't you say?
Aaaah "No" does mean "No", pretty much excluding Man/Man and Woman/Woman relationships eh?
Aaaaaaaah read response above
If a Gay Man Chooses to marry another Gay Man, they don't receive the benefits of a Man/Woman relationship do they? Don't know 'bout you but that pretty much fit's the definition of "exclusion" wouldn't you say? You know you're sounding more and more like the people who argued against interracial marriages, you must be reading from the same book
The point is it doesn't distinguish, please show me were it separates "Gay"? doesn't, does it? So guess what?
Re: Proposition 8
Here Boan, let's take a look at the 14th Amendment shall we? What does it state in section 1?
Here is an example of only a few of the well over 1,000 "privileges or immunities " you get with that "marriage license".
Re: Proposition 8
I nixed the list in the quote for space's sake.
The privileges or immunities clause is intended to preserve a person's rights as defined by the federal government. Since the federal government grants no privileges to same sex couples it doesn't apply here. A state can't abridge immunities or privileges that haven't been granted yet.
The list you provided is all the more reason for the government's distinction of "marriage" to be eliminated altogether.
Re: Proposition 8
Again you're ignoring the very specific points of the 14th amendment
AND
Please address those will you? Those special "privileges or immunities" have been given to citizens and to exclude a whole class of citizens based on nothing but religious doctrine or current majority "opinion" is a direct violation. IMO it's pretty fucking clear period, if one wants pass bullshit bigoted "Defense of Marriage" laws they need to repeal the 14th Amendment and that takes a 2/3 majority. Good fucking luck
And as for your comment about elimination of marriage benefits completely, I agree 100%. That would sure solve a shit load of problems wouldn't it? But in the same breath the solution is not to "enact" more bullshit governmental powers but to remove the bullshit powers we have granted and they have stolen.
Re: Proposition 8
I have address both of these.
The privileges and immunities clause intent is to protect those "privileges or immunities" the federal government grants from being taken by the states. The DC gun ban is a good example. DC can't take away your federally granted privilege to own a gun. Since same sex couples currently do not have any federally granted privileges the P&I clause doesn't apply. Marriage is in essence a states rights issue.
I have explained Ad nauseam the equal protection clause.
The government isn't exercising more power as you claim. Same power. Different exercise of it. As long as we let Government into a couple's relationship, some group is going to get excluded. Such is the way of the government.
Re: Proposition 8
Yet, you admit the contrary evidence is there. I am astounded that this made it to print. Married benefits are at stake here, Boan and you know it. Now, turn your other blind eye to your bias.
What goes unsaid here is the hatred of the so-called religious right and how a group from Utah can introduce recognize legislation in a state where they have no jurisdiction. How those whose "religion" that teaches "tolerance" does anything but. This isn't about government. Its a hot button issue that is used to inflame, incite, and derail the fair practices of government and the populace. It flies in the face of our constitution that was designed to remove religious interference. This being done under the guise of either religion or government is a complete joke.
Re: Proposition 8
Let me clarify that. It's not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the law is equally applied.
If we are going to allow government to decide what is and isn't marriage, there will always be people that are exempted.
If a person wants to marry the following is it a violation of Equal Protection?
- Animals
- Furniture
- Close family members
The answer is No because even though the law results in people not being able to marry who or what they want the law is applied equally. No person may do any of those things.Re: Proposition 8
The 14th directly states "Citizens" and as to "Family" members. You do know it's completely legal to marry 1st cousins don't you?
So are you saying marriage doesn't open up a floodgate of extra Privileges and Legal protections once you have a license?
Re: Proposition 8
As long as one part of the equation is a citizen we should protect their freedom.
What about marrying brothers or sisters?
What about polygamy?
Any privileges and legal protections can be had by any couple by going to an attorney and paying for them.
Re: Proposition 8
Yes Boan, Citizen which it defines very clearly.
As radical, perverted as it is, no the government has no business dictating brothers and sisters either. As offensive as I or others may find it if I force others to abide by my belief I must allow them to force theirs on me, which I will not accept. Also take into consideration, brother sister marriages have been practiced all threw history. Take a look at Royal Families, their family tree does not fork, you might also wanna take a trip through the Ozarks sometime
Also remember this, Eleanor Roosevelt was FDR's cousin, did you know that?
As for polygamy, what the fuck is wrong with that? Give me a valid reason for government to say no? Polygamy has also been practiced for thousands of years, it has only been restricted in a few so called "modern" western societies.
Re: Proposition 8
That clarification falls flat on these old ears, Boan. You might as well say that public whippings are fair if "equally" applied. Or worse yet.... You see where your logic is going here. And, this has nothing to do with governance as previously stated.
Re: Proposition 8
Public whippings (or at least jail time) are, essentially. The government can jail people based on their actions. The law is applied to everyone. Only people that don't meet the requirements of the law are jailed. It's the same concept. Are you going to support people being able to legally marry animals, furniture, multiple partners, and close family members?
Re: Proposition 8
Bull. Just look at the DV laws and tell me that with a straight face. It's perfectly legal to pee on the toilet seat as well, until a law against it is made as well. Then you get your panties all twisted up over that as well. Besides, it's bad form to not mind your manners.
Tell me, do you fart loudly in public?
I mean, it's perfectly legal.....
Re: Proposition 8
OH Please Boan
You were making logical point's of government staying out of marriage until this statement that is spewed from the Radical Religious Zealots. What say you about Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? What makes you think it doesn't apply, please state how so.