The Song Fight Bulletin Board

So today, my wife will be attending a rally at Austin's City Hall to protest the passing of California's Proposition 8, the proposition that defines marriage in the state of California as being strictly between one man and one woman. The rally my wife will be attending is one of hundreds of such rallies at city halls all over the country.

I'm a very socially liberal person, and of course the results of the election surprised and saddened me. I could go on about why this is the case, but I could never top Keith Olbermann's word on the subject, so there you go. Point is, I'm as against Prop 8 as the next guy.

That said, when my wife told me she was going to this thing, and invited me as well, I had a few questions, which she refused to entertain, snipping instead "Look, if you don't want to go, then don't go." I feel that my question is valid, though, and if I get a decent answer, I might still go to this thing yet.

How is a rally in Austin, Texas supposed to do anything towards overturning a proposition that the people of California voted for? Even if there are such rallies all over the country, what is the point? As far as I can tell, the main statement it makes is that liberals have little to no knowledge of how the legal system in this country works. There is nobody in Austin City Hall, or even in the whole state of Texas, who has any jurisdiction over California law. So what are they doing out there? I would love to see Proposition 8 overturned, but I don't see how gathering at Austin's City Hall will have any effect on anything, and no one has even tried to offer a decent answer to this concern.

Anyone?

It will embolden and invigorate those who seek to overturn the law in California to see that they have such support in the rest of the country. Perhaps, it will even cause money to flow their way, which would help their cause, as well.

SPUD

I might be a good place to pick up too.

Ooh, now I'm just trying to picture the sleazy pickup artist there... "So, are you G, L, B, T, or... Q?"

I think they should make a Prop 9 and BAN marriage all together...

I'm sure everyone here is pretty reasonable on this topic, but here's my opinion anyway.

Seriously, just ban all government-sponsored marriage right now.

Marriage is a religious institution.

That + first amendment = the government needs to shut the hell up about marriage.

Churches should issue marriages and governments should issue civil union/domestic partnerships. All the rights currently given to married couples should be given to any two (or more?) consenting individuals who choose to participate in a civil union, retroactively including all married couples.

If you really have a semantic problem with the idea of "gay marriage," this is your fix. Your tax dollars won't directly support it. See also: mind your own business.

If you really think people should be deprived of benefits, etc., because they're gay or whatever...then you're a sociopath and fuck you. And mind your own business.

I believe that gay men and women have every right to be just as miserable as straight men and women. It's their fundamental right.

Lord of Oats wrote:Marriage is a religious institution.

Marriage predates religion.

Marriage is a social institution.

(Not that I disagree with anything you said.)

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I believe that gay men and women have every right to be just as miserable as straight men and women. It's their fundamental right.

Bobby Slaton?

Rabid Garfunkel wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I believe that gay men and women have every right to be just as miserable as straight men and women. It's their fundamental right.

Bobby Slaton?

Probably.

Lord of Oats wrote:Churches should issue marriages and governments should issue civil union/domestic partnerships.

Seperate but equal is never equal. All the rights and shit are great, but people want to be marrrrried. No one wants to hear someone go down on one knee and say "Will you unite with me civilly?" or "Will you form a domestic partnership with me?" People want to be married. Calling it anything other than marriage implies that it is in some way different from marriage, and people don't want different. Everyone has an idea of what marriage is and what it implies. Civil unions/domestic partnerships sound so bland, cold and formal. If I was not legally allowed to marry a person that I was in love with, being able to form a civil union with her wouldn't make me feel all that great.

Oats has a point. I don't agree with this point, but it does in fact bear mentioning. For many people, marriage is a religious institution, entered into by means of a religious ceremony, as led by their priest/pastor/rabbi/other religious leader. And our government, which is ostensibly free from the influence of any religion, recognizes these marriages (in most states, and if the husband and wife go through some red tape) by providing legal benefits to married couples.

For instance, I'm eligible for my wife's health insurance. She can't put her mom on her health insurance, she can't put her sister on her health insurance, and she can't put her best friend, whom she's known longer than she's known me, on her health insurance, but she can put me on it. Why? Because about six months ago, my friend Jessie got licensed to perform Jewish weddings, stood underneath a chuppah with us, said a few prayers in Hebrew, made us circle each other and stomp on glasses, and then signed a piece of paper to certify that we'd done these things, which she mailed to Cleveland City Hall.

We can debate till we're blue in the face about whether it's right of our government to recognize marriage at all, but it does. And it's not going to stop doing so. At least, not in our lifetimes. That knot is way too tangled to undo now.

So the issue we face now is whether - given that our government offers legal benefits to married couples, and will not stop doing so - whether it's fair to deny those rights to homo- and bisexuals who wish to marry people of the same sex.

The way I see it, if the government is going to recognize marriages performed by Judeo-Christian officiants, then it should be willing to recognize any marriage performed by any religious official, including same-sex marriages performed by liberal officiants of those same churches or other (for instance, pagan) officiants for whom same-sex marriages are not prohibited by their religion.

Erik also has a point, one with which I agree wholeheartedly. In California, same-sex couples are entitled to Civil Unions which afford them most of the same benefits I've been writing about. But people still wanna get MARRRRIEEED. So sure, they're just fighting for the right to a word, but why should they even have to? Why should they be denied the right to marry, even if marriage ain't nothin' but a word?

The only point germane to my original question was Spud's, which made a lot of sense, so thanks. I wound up skipping the rally anyway, but apparently it was very well attended, nonetheless. Provided I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes, I fully expect to live to see this become a non-issue.

Generic wrote:How is a rally in Austin, Texas supposed to do anything towards overturning a proposition that the people of California voted for? Even if there are such rallies all over the country, what is the point?

It's called "solidarity," you mook.

Plus, if the whole country cares so much about one state's laws, maybe that'll help that one state to overturn said law, as well as open the doors for overturning similar laws in other states.

(I know Spud already said that but I wanted to call you a mook.)

ujnhunter wrote:I think they should make a Prop 9 and BAN marriage all together... ;)

Proposition 9 was to notify victims and their families of someone convicted of a crime against them was going up for parole, and to allow them to participate in the parole hearing. It passed.

Marriage is actually a pretty important thing, legally. It provides power of attorney in difficult legal and medical cases (e.g. terminally-ill and/or braindead patients, or where the patient otherwise can't give consent to a procedure), it makes child custody and adoption stuff a lot easier to deal with, and the tax break for joint filing is very beneficial for couples with children (where e.g. one parent stays home to take care of the children and has limited or no income), which is the entire purpose of joint filing to begin with (you can't get a standard tax deduction against zero income).

One simple example of why the power of attorney is particularly important: In states which don't recognize domestic partnerships, if one partner is injured or dies, the other has no recourse when their committed life partner's family (who did not approve of the "lifestyle choice") decides to seize all of their joint assets.

So, marriage is an important legal construct, as well as a religious construct. "Civil unions" are not the same and are in no way equal, and separate-but-equal has been found constitutionally unsound anyway.

erik wrote: No one wants to hear someone go down on one knee and say "Will you unite with me civilly?"

He's right. That line never works. Even after half a dozen pina coladas.

Generic wrote:Oats has a point. I don't agree with this point, but it does in fact bear mentioning. For many people, marriage is a religious institution, entered into by means of a religious ceremony, as led by their priest/pastor/rabbi/other religious leader. And our government, which is ostensibly free from the influence of any religion, recognizes these marriages (in most states, and if the husband and wife go through some red tape) by providing legal benefits to married couples.

For instance, I'm eligible for my wife's health insurance. She can't put her mom on her health insurance, she can't put her sister on her health insurance, and she can't put her best friend, whom she's known longer than she's known me, on her health insurance, but she can put me on it. Why? Because about six months ago, my friend Jessie got licensed to perform Jewish weddings, stood underneath a chuppah with us, said a few prayers in Hebrew, made us circle each other and stomp on glasses, and then signed a piece of paper to certify that we'd done these things, which she mailed to Cleveland City Hall.

We can debate till we're blue in the face about whether it's right of our government to recognize marriage at all, but it does. And it's not going to stop doing so. At least, not in our lifetimes. That knot is way too tangled to undo now.

So the issue we face now is whether - given that our government offers legal benefits to married couples, and will not stop doing so - whether it's fair to deny those rights to homo- and bisexuals who wish to marry people of the same sex.

The way I see it, if the government is going to recognize marriages performed by Judeo-Christian officiants, then it should be willing to recognize any marriage performed by any religious official, including same-sex marriages performed by liberal officiants of those same churches or other (for instance, pagan) officiants for whom same-sex marriages are not prohibited by their religion.

Erik also has a point, one with which I agree wholeheartedly. In California, same-sex couples are entitled to Civil Unions which afford them most of the same benefits I've been writing about. But people still wanna get MARRRRIEEED. So sure, they're just fighting for the right to a word, but why should they even have to? Why should they be denied the right to marry, even if marriage ain't nothin' but a word?

The only point germane to my original question was Spud's, which made a lot of sense, so thanks. I wound up skipping the rally anyway, but apparently it was very well attended, nonetheless. Provided I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes, I fully expect to live to see this become a non-issue.

Or to put it simply - if person "A" is afforded legal rights which are denied to person "B" because of their sexual preference - then this is contrary to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and officially sucky under international law. It doesn't really matter where your arbitrary state boundaries are.

I could research this, but I'd rather just throw it out there and see what happens. I remember reading that the reason government became involved in marriage in the first place, was to control bloodlines and birth defects as well as recording it for legalities.
As if a brother and sister in the deep south need a marriage license to do it. Cha! Look at me, I came out fine.

Throw. It's throw it out there.

I'd like to upgrade my previous government concerns to, bloodlines, birth defects AND inability to spell correctly. I still remember what my grandmother from my Mom and Dad's side once told me. Boy, you're an idiot. Oh how I miss Gramz. She taught me everything I know about women.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I believe that gay men and women have every right to be just as miserable as straight men and women. It's their fundamental right.

Ok, Homer. (Thats strait from an episode of The Simpsons I think)

I'm with you on this sentiment but on another level.

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that it goes against the sanctity of marriage itself. That's BS if I've ever heard it. There is no sanctity left in the institution of marriage to be preserved as far as the legal concept of it. People getting married just for citizenship or any other reason besides the actual concept of love has been going on for ever and ever. The institution of marriage has been abused beyond the point of it be preserved to illustrate sanctity at all.

In my opinion it has become a civil rights issue. What they are telling me is that only the male / female combination of this union are allowed to cheat the system. That's simply unfair.

Everybody should be able to abuse it.

Again, we are ignoring the fact that many U.S. tax policies were created as incentives. Why is there a mortgage deduction? To encourage home ownership. Why is there a marriage benefit? To encourage marriage. Why is there a deduction for children and a child tax credit? To encourage people to have them. It is much more understandable (albeit just as wrong-headed) when you look at it from this perspective. Some people feel that allowing gay marriage is tantamount to encouraging it, and they don't want our government to do that.

Spud wrote:Why is there a marriage benefit? To encourage marriage

This is like how Sears gives you a free solar powered calculator if you get their credit card at 26% interest. Sure, I wanted that calculator, but now I'm stuck with a credit card bill at 26% interest!
....metaphorically speaking, of course. sigh

The first marriage licences in the US were introduced just after the civil war. They were used to control the mixed race marriages. Originally whites could marry whites and blacks marry blacks, but for a mixed race marriage to take place, you had to get a license. The government just then extended this to everyone. This is also true of the first gun licenses.
They do, and have done this type of thing regulaly. They will keep doing this.
Government are doing more than they should. The constitution prohibits them from doing many of the things that they do do, however, an ignorant populace will, and does allow them to get away with it.