America...

[grawk]

I'd say it's blowback from pushing too hard on the issue via the courts. I would prefer it if marriage wasn't an issue for the government at all, really.

[Sherwood]

I would prefer it if marriage wasn't an issue for the government at all, really.

Q effing T.

[tkam]

I'd say it's blowback from pushing too hard on the issue via the courts. I would prefer it if marriage wasn't an issue for the government at all, really.

Agreed, marriage, abortion and similar issues have zero place being in government. Our government needs to focus on a smaller number of large issues instead of trying to spend half a second on everything.

[grawk]

The cynic in me says the issues get attention to distract voters from the fact that in terms of how they actually govern, both parties are basically the same, doing what their corporate backers tell them to do.

[n_maher]

I'd say it's blowback from pushing too hard on the issue via the courts. I would prefer it if marriage wasn't an issue for the government at all, really.

I believe that it's largely an issue of semantics. The religious folks feel unhappy that their term "marriage" is being used to sanction an event that clearly has nothing to do with the church and those who don't qualify (that seems like wrong word) for a traditional marriage don't want have to call it something else like a "civil union" as they believe they are entitled to equal rights as a couple. Now I can't think of one legal reason why two people shouldn't be able to make their union legally binding regardless of the genders involved but I can also see what about it might offend certain religious groups. So maybe a compromise is the best solution, eliminate the use of the word marriage in the legal sense and call any non-religious event a "legal union" or something like that. Of course when you really start to debate this topic you open the huge can of worms that is why does the state have anything to do with it in the first place and fun things like polygamy which gets a whole different group up in arms.

[guzziguy]

wow, the gay marriage ban passed in California. that's some fucked up shit.

Yep. I really find this disheartening. At least it was razor close.

Yeah, I was very pissed off: I voted absentee just so that I can vote "no" on that prop. And here I thought Californians are among the more "tolerant" people in the country.

Good job. Californians are among the most tolerant people, at least the ones on the coast. It's very different inland. There were similar measures passed in Arizona and Florida:

Arizona: 56% for, 44% against

Florida: 62% for, 38% against

These results are a lot less "tolerant" than the California result.

how the hell did that happen in California?

Lots of money was thrown into both sides from out of state. The "for" side ran a typical fear-mongering ad campaign and it seems to have worked.

To take a page out of another HCer's book, this is very much like the Civil Rights movement in the 60's. At the time, there was a lot of resistance. Now, almost everybody looks back and can't really understand why. It's obvious that Gay Rights is moving the same way. Prop 8 will be overturned in the not too distant future and forty years from now, most people will wonder why it was an issue now.

As I stated in the America thread, I'd really like to reestablish and strengthen separation of church and state. Most of the "for" money and some of the "against" money came from churches. IMO, churches should stay out of elections. I'd like to see the laws changed that churches can't give money to elections and maintain their tax free status.

[grawk]

Churches are just groups of people. What we have is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. You can't stop churches from voting for the things they believe in and against the things they don't, or spending money in that direction.

[Icarium]

As I stated in the America thread, I'd really like to reestablish and strengthen separation of church and state. Most of the "for" money and some of the "against" money came from churches. IMO, churches should stay out of elections. I'd like to see the laws changed that churches can't give money to elections and maintain their tax free status.

I agree somewhat but where does it end? Should any special interest groups be allowed to give money? Do special interest groups exist for the purpose of informing people or manipulating them?

[blessingx]

All marriage is is an issue for government. It's a contract, which is deemed to have some social advantages (correctly or incorrectly). Religion didn't invent it nor took control in most Western nations until I think 12 century. Certainly modern heterosexual marriage isn't traditional in most senses (assuming majority aren't done for land/wealth acquisition, that they haven't requested community approval to marry, females are allow to speak up or form own opinions or choose partner or divorce - not to mention regularly beaten, isn't singularly about procreation, no dowry was given, may be formed over something as insignificant as love between two people, etc.). Anyway, we crossed out of traditional marriage a long time ago. See [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225912719&sr=8-1]Marriage: A History[/ame] for fun reading. And for those curious about the origins of Prop 8, my I present...

The Man Behind Proposition 8 - The Daily Beast

Sucks that the day we get our first African-American president we lose the rights for gays to marry, due mostly to a reported multi-million dollar infusion of Mormon inter & outer-state cash (which I hope proves to be untrue). Interesting election year.

Is it true Arkansas just made co-habitating adults illegible to adopt (knocking aside non-married heteros to get this pesky homos), but singles can?

[Sherwood]

I'd like to see the laws changed that churches can't give money to elections and maintain their tax free status.

Those laws already exist, and more than one church has lost their tax-free status as a result of direct electioneering from the pulpit. Enforcement is the problem.

Edit: I'm looking for harder facts on this than just my word. Stay tuned...

[n_maher]

I just think the tax-free status should be revoked.

[guzziguy]

I'd say it's blowback from pushing too hard on the issue via the courts. I would prefer it if marriage wasn't an issue for the government at all, really.

Me too. Again, it's that increased separation of church and state I'd like to see. The state controls the legal meaning of what a "union" is. I'd call it a "civil union". Marriage can then refer to the religious term and each religion can define marriage any way they want. Of course, it has no legal standing.

The cynic in me says the issues get attention to distract voters from the fact that in terms of how they actually govern, both parties are basically the same, doing what their corporate backers tell them to do.

I'd agree that there recently (the last 40 years at least) has been little difference between the two parties except for who is backing whom. But then I'm a known political cynic too.

I believe that it's largely an issue of semantics. The religious folks feel unhappy that their term "marriage" is being used to sanction an event that clearly has nothing to do with the church and those who don't qualify (that seems like wrong word) for a traditional marriage don't want have to call it something else like a "civil union" as they believe they are entitled to equal rights as a couple. Now I can't think of one legal reason why two people shouldn't be able to make their union legally binding regardless of the genders involved but I can also see what about it might offend certain religious groups. So maybe a compromise is the best solution, eliminate the use of the word marriage in the legal sense and call any non-religious event a "legal union" or something like that. Of course when you really start to debate this topic you open the huge can of worms that is why does the state have anything to do with it in the first place and fun things like polygamy which gets a whole different group up in arms.

I love that fact that many people seem to believe that the church invented marriage. Marriage was around long before any modern religions were. What exactly is a "traditional" marriage anyway? There are examples of homosexual marriages, polygamy and polyandry everywhere, including the bible. In the US, tradition marriage for years didn't allow for divorce. The traditional idea of Morman marriage includes polygamy.

The ideas of what a "traditional" marriage is have changed over the years. They're going to continue to change.

[guzziguy]

I just think the tax-free status should be revoked.

Wouldn't bother me. Then they could lobby just like any other PAC.

[Jeepster]

Seems like people always end up doing evil shit in the name of religion, personally I have no use for religion. I say go ahead and tax them and watch how many rats jump from that sinking ship. I don't know about the rest of you but when a presidential candidate gets up in front of the nation and starts endlessly spouting off about religion then I know for a fact that person is a bad apple. If people want to be religious then I am all for it 100%, this is a free country but there is a time and place for everything and I think we found out it will take more than a bible in one hand to win elections any more. BTW, didn't Obama mention something about equality for everyone no matter sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. during his acceptance speech?

[Voltron]

Is it true Arkansas just made co-habitating adults illegible to adopt (knocking aside non-married heteros to get this pesky homos), but singles can?

Arkansas passed a measure banning unmarried couples living together from serving as adoptive or foster parents with a 57% vote. Not sure if singles can, but it would seem like it given the language. The supporting group, the Arkansas Family Council, said its proposal was a battle against a "gay agenda."

[Jeepster]

Arkansas passed a measure banning unmarried couples living together from serving as adoptive or foster parents with a 57% vote. Not sure if singles can, but it would seem like it given the language. The supporting group, the Arkansas Family Council, said its proposal was a battle against a "gay agenda."

This is a problem in Va as well, we were told one of us had to move out and the other could adopt and then later at some point after the adoption was complete then we could reunite. We said, OK that is simple we will get married, and were told sorry Charlie, you need to be married for a period of time like 1 year or 3 years. I do have to say this was for a foreign adoption. Im not sure about adopting children from the US.

[Sherwood]

BTW, didn't Obama mention something about equality for everyone no matter sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. during his acceptance speech?

Despite my political voting history, including this election, and my churchy ways, I sincerely hope Obama can get some sort of nationwide pproval on gay marriage in the next two years, and that we can put it behind us as a nation. It is inconsequential to all but the people it directly affects, and I can see no reason to prohibit them from enjoying the full social and economic benefits associated with marriage. That's one issue I would rather just get out of the way so we can focus on things that actually matter to this country. They're adults. Let 'em do what makes 'em happy within the traditional boundaries of law.

[blessingx]

So Jeepster you didn't vote for Ms. Dole?

Dole Ad Fabricates Audio Of Opponent Yelling "There Is No God"

And Voltron why is it easy to imagine the kind of nightmares people have when they start using the phrase "gay agenda"? Now "gay armada" sounds kinda cool though.

[Sherwood]

"gay armada" sounds kinda cool /quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIg6DzF3Q4

[Jeepster]

No, I didnt. I get so sick of people struggling through life because some religious asswipe wanted to shit their opinion all over other people.

[aardvark baguette]

wow, there is a lot of hatred of religion here.

[JBLoudG20]

wow, there is a lot of hatred of religion here.

I'm all for the Church of Atom

[tyrion]

I have no use for religion myself. I just wish those that are religious would keep it to themselves and not try to force their religious views on the rest of us.

[Torpedo]

I have no use for religion myself. I just wish those that are religious would keep it to themselves and not try to force their religious views on the rest of us.

X2 This World would be a much better place if all the religion fanatics around it kept it for themselves.

[aardvark baguette]

Thats a very open and tolerant view