Attention Californians!
http://camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=3672&ptid=9
I like!
No thanks!
Favorite
28 commentsReplies
Superion said, (54 days ago)
It's an element of fear--not just of homosexuals, but that some outsider will insist that their religion will change.
It's probably just a teeny bit more complicated than one would let on.
I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying; so long as the state and religion mix, things will be fucked up.
Angus MacSmitey said, (54 days ago)
Yep. I'm away on election day, but I'm planning to head down to city hall and cast my ballot early, and it's mostly due to Prop 8. But now that I've seen these others, I'll help them out, too.
le_sacre said, (54 days ago)
you know what? i've heard that argument about "they'll start telling my church what to do!" and i don't buy it for one second, and furthermore don't buy that anyone else really buys it either. a moment's reflection is all it takes to realize that it's completely false. i think it's just a convenient lie to seize on in order to sanitize the desire to keep gays from having equal rights.
oh wait, Superion, didn't we have an epic back-and-forth about this earlier? my memory's not so good.
Superion said, (54 days ago)
We did, and the long and short of it is; as long as you continue to ignore the influence, (and, for that matter, respect ) that religion has, you're fighting uphill.
I get it: you think religion is all shit.
But you're fighting uphill. I say this as someone who agrees with you, but recognizes the reality in the US which is that religion, specifically Catholics, hold sway with power and if you don't respect it, and so long as the question is framed with a religious influence, you will fight uphill.
You frame it in terms of legal rights, and suddenly, everyone's on board.
I think it's a question of Irish diplomacy; you tell them to go to hell in such a way as they look forward to the trip.
le_sacre said, (54 days ago)
but goddammit, it's NOT framed with a religious influence! we are talking about civil, legal marriage! no one is talking about, plans to, or ever could tell a church what to do or not do! it just seems like the religious people being grabby and saying, "this legal civil arrangement (that, in the law, is defined completely without regard to religion, and is in fact open to all people completely regardless of religion) actually belongs only to us, and only we get to say who can have it."
it seems crystal-clear obvious to me that it's the prop-8 supporters who are knocking down the wall between church and state, not us.
lay oale said, (54 days ago)
But its not just the controversial ballot in question, there are a few other things on the agenda that basically affect the distinction of California from the rest of Jesus Land
Like
*Parental consent for abortion
*High speed rail
*Cage free chickens
le_sacre said, (54 days ago)
not actually cage-free, though right? just bigger cages?
not to nitpick... i'm still totally 110% against prop 4, but strictly speaking it's parental notification, not consent. of course, in the very situations in which it's likely to be applicable, those two might just be equivalent. sad.
Superion said, (53 days ago)
As long as you use the word marriage, le_s, it IS.
Sorry. That's just the truth of perception, even if it isn't the truth anywhere else.
lay oale said, (53 days ago)
@superion: NO....
Marriage in our society is equated with equal family rights. That is just the way it is, and if you want to toss the word marriage into the religion bin, so be it, but for many people it doesn't really matter
In fact, if it did then why would divorce be SO common?
le_sacre said, (53 days ago)
yeah, i just checked a bunch of dictionaries... the only definitions of marriage that include any mention of religion are when the dictionary lists like ten different definitions, and one of them (NOT the first) is "the legal or religious ceremony..."
i think you've failed to effectively make your case that marriage is inherently religious in today's world. do you have anything objective to back that up with?
i did find it interesting that some dictionaries explicitly define marriage as between people of the opposite sex, and some do not! with connecticut joining the ranks, is it only a matter of time before all dictionaries change? i mean, you can't exactly sell a dictionary where some definitions are flat-out wrong in three states, can you?
Superion said, (50 days ago)
You both are failing to recognize the basic truth:
The perception one.
And as long as that holds true, you will continue to have this argument, with people who are not in your corner.
If I was wrong, you wouldn't be having this fight, would you?
If I was wrong, then when the question was changed to one of 'civil unions' you wouldn't find the overwhelming opinion shift in favor of gay marriage, would you?
I realize what you're both saying, and what I'm telling you is; you're barking up a tree you will have to bark up for the rest of your goddamn lives if you insist on that tree, instead of the one with the stairs.
That's fine, but you might as well recognize the truth of the situation.
And Lady O; nobody gets divorced in the religious sense-at least not in a country where being Catholic is the overwhemling preference. The word doesn't even exist for some religions.
lay oale said, (50 days ago)
Yes...all my replies were put down in boldface
But this is a philosophical and moral relativism argument that I am not really qualified to get into
The real issue I have with this proposition and propositions in general are the fact that people don't read the fine print and know what they are getting into. Like Prop 187 for instance, which had to be struck down in the courts due to its bigoted wording and sheer abuse of hard working immigrants. I think that California lets more idiotic people make decisions than anywhere in the world and that is a bane to all of the good that we do for the rest of the United States.
lay oale said, (50 days ago)
Also, this is just fucking rude
http://jezebel.com/5062548/
If you are Yes on Prop 8, we absolutely need to talk.
le_sacre said, (50 days ago)
we're rehashing old ground, here, Superion, but i'm pretty confident you're mistaken. i'll bring up again my thought experiment: someone i don't know very well asks me, "are you married?" common question, right? what do they mean by it? do you actually think they mean to ask, "have you had a religious marital ceremony in whatever religion you belong too, and by the way are definitely not an atheist?"
far be it from me to say that religion is not standing in the way of equal rights (and a lot of other things). but the central issue here is not about religion (e.g., many religions are fine w/ gays, and jesus never said one word about it), but rather about tradition. i think most people recognize that to the degree we have separation of church and state, churches can't tell the state to change its laws--instead, they say they think it's the job of the state to "preserve" "traditional" marriage.
and i'll repeat another point: there's a very good chance we'll win in california. we won in connecticut now too. residents of those states will not be "barking up the wrong tree" all their lives, because we already won (the elected legislature in massachusetts defeated every attempt for an amendment on the ballot, and so it's unlikely to happen in connecticut either).
i had a bit of cognitive dissonance when i heard the connecticut ruling--i thought, "yay, but also no! too close to the election! backlash!" but then i stopped and thought about it: no way, there's no way i'm going to ask someone to embrace "separate but equal" 2nd-class citizenship status, even for a good "strategic" reason. some things are just wrong.
Superion said, (49 days ago)
Sigh.
Think 'ceremony', would you? And even if you can't, your attempt at a thought experiment proves nothing. Ever. At all. You've already decided and/or loaded the question in such a way (not to mention ignored the fact that some people are denied religious ceremonies b/c one is an atheist/different religion), so you can't see it.
All of your other points have nothing to do with really anything I'm talking about. You will be fighting that fight for far longer, against a much higher tide because of the way the question is framed.
Your insistence that there is a 'separate but equal' stance assumes that religion has some kind of legal status to give to people.
But I'm willing to leave it be. It's not my battle. I wish you luck, as your cause is right, but do not be surprised when you do it again.
le_sacre said, (49 days ago)
wow, it's like we speak different languages.
i thought what people mean by "marriage" was absolutely at the root of what we're talking about. so in what way is my thought experiment not relevant, and in fact, definitive? people just do not assume a religious component to marriage by definition, as is, i think, completely proven by the fact that no one ever doubts that atheists have the ability (and likelihood) to be married.
i'm not ignoring the fact that atheists can't get some religious ceremonies, just like i presume gentiles have trouble booking a rabbi to officiate over their ceremonies.
as for picking battles, i think once again you're overlooking a crucial factual point: this is the only battle to pick in california. we already have the technical equivalent of "civil unions," and we're unlikely to lose them. the prop 8 battle is about whether a legal status currently granted to all people in california can be taken away from gay people. i don't think the outcome here is going to have any negative influence on the fight for equality in other states, whether that's the fight for marriage or the fight for civil unions. it could have a positive influence though, if we win and get to continue demonstrating that society doesn't collapse. other than that, this particular battle doesn't extend beyond california. the nationwide movement is not suffering based on semantics, because those questions simply aren't coming up in the way you are assuming (i.e., there's never been a case of "give us marriage or give us nothing!").
ilikedginger said, (49 days ago)
You can seriously talk among yourselves all day long that marriage isn't a religious institution, but to some it is, and we happen to live in a supremely religious country. That's the way it is.
I'll be voting No and I'll be sad when it doesn't work out (and judging by the sheer number of Vote Yes! stickers I've seen today, I'm thinking this isn't going to be good). However, I can't look at this and say "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY! THEY ARE ALL CRAZY AND WRONG AND STUPID!" because people are going to have their opinions and ideals and that's that.
ilikedginger said, (49 days ago)
Also, everyone I do know voting YES generally are fine with the gays. They don't hate them, they don't hate anyone. They just think they are protecting something traditional and sacred to them.
Superion said, (49 days ago)
Gee, did a topic you start take a direction you weren't expecting?
Oh wait; that's just how things go. Maybe instead of yelling at us, you ought to see how what we're talking about applies to the problem at hand. Especially since we've been nothing but civil.
lay oale said, (49 days ago)
I didn't mean to yell, but I am more concerned with the fact that people feign ignorance on important laws that go into place without checking the benefits/costs of any of them. this is scary.
I can't believe that all these people are spending money to hate gays. I would hope if they come from churches that they get hounded by the IRS for life.