Why Marriage Matters
By Nicole Belle Friday Oct 31, 2008 10:46amThe ACLU has put together this video to help get across the importance for Californians to reject Proposition 8, which will change our state constitution to write in discrimination for citizens because of their sexual orientation.
We're still looking for your help. Please donate to No On 8, even if you're not a Californian. The precedent set in this state will be used in others.
Samuel L. Jackson narrates a video by the No on 8 campaign about the history of discrimination in California and how we cannot allow it to happen again.
Calitics has some insight that may give some hope, but don't think the fight is over.
Login or Register to post comments.
But allowing teh gay to marry will then force all homeless men to have
sex with animals, end all hetero marriages, turn all junior high
students bisexual (like weird Andy Dick bisexual) and stop flowers
from growing. It's like when you hang out with tall people, you know
what happens...you will invariably get taller.
When I worked in the bank I swear there were so many vice-presidents you couldn't swing a dead cat around your head without hitting one of them.
They seemed to be promoted on the basis of their height.
At 5'3" I'd never be promoted, but it was cool with me. It meant when I had to to talk to a young female vice president it was generally eyeball to nipple.
If you are outside California and want to help protect same-sex couples, consider fighting Amendment 2 in Florida.
Support SayNo2 -- http://www.sayno2.com/
“I’m a Christian,” Mr. Obama said on a radio program in his 2004 race for Senate. “And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Its nice to see Sam Jackson not phoning in his performance like he usually does.
Raise your hand if you want to see a debate between Sam Jackson and Victoria Jackson.
Prop. 8 sucks because SAMUEL JACKSON SAID SO!!!
Heehee. Couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjo01sbmzrg
Yeah, let the gays be as miserable as the rest of us.
prop 8 is an embarrassment. in 20 years from now we will look back at this age of intolerance with shame. how many times are we going to repeat the same mistake? how many times are we going to refuse fellow americans their rights/equality?
i will be embarrassed for my country if prop 8 is not voted down...i'm already embarrassed this prop exists.
I personally don't want left handed people to marry, it is a choice to act left handed and they do it just for the attention. People have the right to do things left handed all they want in their homes but why should the state sanction the left handed agenda. Next thing you know teachers in schools will be forcing our children to write and throw left handed. This is a right handed country, founded by right handed men, for right handed people.
I'm gay and left handed!
I chose to be left handed, but was born gay. just kidding. I was born gay and left handed, but was forced to be catholic.
all through school i had to walk around with a blackened left hand (from writing backwards). all the desks were made for right handed folks. i guess you dont know what its like to be different. come to think of it perhaps the left handed bias I endured made me..... gay??
ha ha.
no on 8.
gracias
From the Calitics site:
Are they crazy? I don't think I'll be quite convinced of anything until Nov. 6, much less 6 pm on Nov. 4.
I have a lawyer associate/friend who cheats on his wife all the time, spends a treasure on absolutely worthless skanks, ignores his kids(except when beating them), etc. This fool preaches his "I'm totally against gay marriage" bullshit to me frequently. I don't argue with this clown except to remind him to "keep his own ass clean". I'll bet quite a few of these "decent normal people" who oppose gay marriage are equally hypocritical.
Just as there are many anti choice politicians and televangelists who wouldn't hesitate to rush their under-aged daughter off for a quickie abortion when she gets knocked up by her jock stud boyfriend (unless of course the poor girl's plight can be used to score points with the jeebus crowd during oh, let's say, a run for the Vice Presidency).
This issue should be fought on grounds of religious freedom. A gay-friendly church should sue for the right to perform same-sex marriages.
Marriage is a domestic partnership contract. No other partnership contract has restrictions on gender. The other part of the relationship is religious, and should be up to the particular congregation's doctrine.
Of, course, this opens up another can of worms, as partnership law doesn't limit the number of partners.
Rockytonker:
And why shouldn't it open that can of worms? To me, this issue is not about equality alone. It's about equal liberty.
Indeed, marriage is a partnership contract. It is a contract that should be defined by the parties to it, not the state. If three people want to enter into a marital contract, and they all consensually agree to its terms and conditions, its attendant rights and responsibilities, why should the state be allowed to interfere?
Yeah, that certainly turns the issue on its head. Or, back on its feet, more appropriately, from those who are arguing that their freedom of religion would be undermined by the state's refusal to discriminate.
To me, the gay marriage issue is a matter of that self evident, inalienable right upon which our country was founded: the pursuit of happiness. Each individual is equally entitled to choose the means to his or her own happiness, and the government may not interfere, except to protect everyone else's equal rights.
If I choose to enter into a marital contract with a woman, that's my pursuit of happiness, and I should be bound the terms and conditions I work out with my partner. And if three men, or two men and two women all enter into such a contract, so be it.
But, isn't this the reason courts keep ruling for gay marriage?
casper46:
Not really. Some courts have deemed anti-gay marriage laws to violate Equal Protection only. And the pursuit of happiness has never been deemed a fundamental right under the Constitution.
The California Supreme Court did go so far as to say that marriage itself is a fundamental right, and thus allowed people to decide precisely whom they marry, but the parlance of fundamental rights is convoluted and frankly absurd.
Strange as it may seem, in the United States of America, you are not Constitutionally entitled to the pursuit of happiness.
... it means that it is the business of the state what the contract is.
You can have all the contracts that you want, but in order to be legally binding... then you have to follow specific rules and regulations.
Living in a society of laws, means among other things, that you do not get to pull laws and binding conditions out of your own accord/arse.
Oh, you again.
Tyler Durden:
It doesn't mean that at all. If you hire someone to paint your house, the terms of the contract are up to you and the person who paints your house, not the state. You want your bedroom blue and your living room yellow, and you're willing to pay $500 for the job, that's up to you and the painter. A court will interpret the contract in order to decide if a party has breached it, but the state is not going to set the terms of the contract itself.
Under American contract law, there are certain terms that are considered to be implied by law, and others that are deemed unconscionable. But you have to argue as to why they are so. You can't just say, "People don't get to do whatever they want." That's the same argument the anti-gay marriage faction makes.
Funny thing, though --- it's you who is doing that, not me. You want the state to be able to make arbitrary rules.
I have already explained my philosophy. Each person is equally entitled to pursue his or her own happiness. The state can come in to secure equal rights. To me, to declare that people may only have one marital partner is just as arbitrary as declaring that people may have marital partners only of the same sex. Such rules are not designed to secure equal rights. They only interfere with the pursuit of happiness.
I said this in our last exchange: It does not suffice simply to say, "You don't just get to do whatever you want." You have to provide a reason and rational for state interference with civil liberties. Otherwise, you're no better than the people who say to those who want gay marriage, "You don't just get to do whatever you want. There are rules and boundaries, and gay marriage is outside of them."
There may be good rationales for limiting the number of partners, or at least the many terms and protections state will afford to them (such as hospital visits -- can't necessarily have all twelve of your partners in the room at the same time -- but such a rule would entail the good functioning of a hospital, which protects all of our equal rights). But you have not offered any.
your philosophy and opinions ain't the same as reality. In the same sense you feel, as your opinion, that everyone is entitled to marry however many people they want. What about the people who feel that you marrying a person of the same sex is very offensive, and as their own opinion goes... it should also be reasonable for them to expect their opinion to be respected, right?
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and no one is denying that. However, living in a society of laws requires compromises. I suspect that you must be a libertarian, if you feel that government laws are purely arbitrary when they interfere with your interests...
There is where the fallacy of your position lies. You can make any contract that you want, do not... however expect it to be binding or enforceable. I could make a contract in which I can get people to work for me under a condition of slavery, would that be a binding contract?
I already discussed with you why equating polygamy with gay marriage is not only not equivalent intellectually, but actually is detrimental to the interests of those fighting for gay marriage. The reason, and I am repeating myself here, why polygamy was outlawed had little to do with interfering with individual freedoms and much more to do with defending children rights. You can not deny the historical connotations of polygamy in this country.
Since the only way you are able to conduct an argument is via strawmen arguments, this will probably the last time I make the mistake of trying to pursue a rational argument with you.
Cheers...
Tyler Durden:
I think it is quite clear to any reasonable reader that I am arguing fully cogent points, and that you have not actually responded to them. If anything you have straw-manned me. You can withdraw from the argument content that you have made sense that cannot get through my thick skull if you must.
I'm quite aware that my opinions are not shared by most people. Other than that, I don't know what you mean by that.
If someone believes that my marrying a woman is offensive, he has every right to say so. To shout it from the rooftops, if he feels like it. None of us has a right to have our opinions "respected." I find most religions offensive. And I have every right to say so. I do not have a right to have my opinion of their religion respected. Nor to I have any right to interfere with their practice of their religion unless their religion somehow infringes upon the rights of a non-consenting other.
I'm a civil libertarian, but I do not believe laws are arbitrary merely because they interfere with my interests. To say so is to straw-man my argument.
I'm not sure what's so difficult about my position. Each person is equally entitled to pursue happiness. That means we may each pursue happiness to the extent that we do not infringe on the rights of non-consenting other people.
If you can explain to me how preventing three consenting adults from entering into a marital contract with one another infringes upon the rights of a non-consenting other, you will have convinced me that it should be illegal to enter into that contract.
Instead, you just rely on assertions like, "living in a society of laws requires compromises." That's just an assertion. It does not explain which compromises are legitimate, and which merely interfere with civil liberties.
You do not understand my position.
What part of "infringing upon the rights of a non-consenting other" do you not understand?
Why don't you articulate precisely why you feel such a contract would be unconscionable and unenforceable. Don't just assert it. Argue for it. And then make the analogy to consensual polygamy. Can you do it? Or will you just say I'm too irrational for you to bother with?
I don't deny that, historically, polygamy has been practiced in non-consensual, grotesque ways. (So has monogamous marriage. So what?)
I'll repeat myself here: To the extent that an action infringes upon the rights of a non-consenting other person, the government may prevent it. To the extent that an action entails consenting adults engaging in consensual behavior that affects nobody else, the government may not prevent it.
Thus, a church forcing (by definition) non-consenting minors to marry an elder man --- illegal and unenforceable.
And, three men consensually entering into a private marital contract the terms, rights and responsibilities of which are consensually defined by them --- legal and enforceable.
That you continue to call such an stance a fallacy speaks more to your own prejudices than my logic.
Good riddance.
Thanks for proving my point: your only recourse is to throw straw men in order to put words in my mouth so as your flawed points to hold any water.
Again, no matter how hard you try to tap dance around it: there is a big difference between "who" can marry, and "how many" can marry.
I am repeating my arguments here, but since you are so dense (that is why it was so obvious you were a libertarian). They bear repeating: A room for "whites only" affects the civil rights of non-whites. A room with a stated capacity for "two people" does not affect any one's civil rights since no one is forcing you to be in that room and you are free to leave.
You are confusing your lack of capacity to compromise, with your civil rights. Which is a very dangerous, and misinformed position IMHO. You can't have it both ways: Want the legal protection offered to a marriage, without having to observe the implicit contract of commitment between two consenting adults.
Polygamist relationships, and the people involved in them, should find their own legal set of requirements. Trying to overload something designed for 2 people is rather silly. What works in a marriage, as traditionally defined in the Western world between 2 consenting adults, don't necessarily work with a polygamist union and vice versa. And there the main limiters are the number of people (distribution of goods, divorce arbitration, what is the definition of equality, etc), not the sex of the people involved.
Good riddance indeed, always a pleasure to see libertarians missing the concepts of pork and speed (European idiom).
Please show how.
Brad:
He can't. He can't actually respond to what I'm saying, so he hurls insults, calls me (and all libertarians --- I'm not actually a libertarian, but I'm a civil libertarian) "dense."
He does not understand what I'm saying.
So dismissive, Tyler. Tsk. Tsk.
The least you could do is make grammatical sense. You have not been able to demonstrate how I am actually straw-manning you or putting words in your mouth. You just keep saying it.
Yes, there's a difference. I never said there was no difference between the two. There is a difference between claiming the right to free speech and the right to eat pizza. And while the former is unarguably a more fundamental right, I still don't think the government can legitimately prevent people from eating pizza.
Laws that limit every person to a number of marital partners treat everyone equally. Laws that allow people to choose the number of partners they will have treat everyone as equally free.
You were so easy to manipulate into coming back and
arguingassertinginsulting. By the way, I'm not a libertarian altogether, but I am a civil libertarian.I would love to see you articulate how that translates into "therefore three consenting adults should not be allowed to marry."
I'll repeat my stances, which you continually ignore (You don't even make an attempt to deal with them.):
Each person is equally entitled to pursue happiness. Thus, each person may pursue happiness to the extent that she does not infringe on the rights of non-consenting others.
If a room has a maximum capacity of two people, it means that the room physically cannot accommodate more without risking the safety of other people. Thus, the third person who enters endangers the safety of the (non-consenting) other two.
That analogy does not hold for marriage.
I told you precisely how you could convince me that it would be legitimate for the state to force me to compromise. Show me how a consensual marital contract between more than two people INFRINGES UPON THE RIGHTS OF NON-CONSENTING OTHER PEOPLE. You simply can't do it.
I seek only that people be allowed to pursue happiness on their own terms, not society's and not the state's. There's nothing duplicitous about that stance.
I would have more respect for you if you came right out and said, "I do not believe people have the right to pursue happiness as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of non-consenting others. I believe that the majority of society gets to set limits on anyone it wants."
I missed one of your paragraphs, Tyler:
That's what the anti-gay marriage folks argue about gay people.
And the anti-gay marriage people say that it is silly to overload something designed for heterosexuals.
This is the closest you've come to arguing for a rational basis to limiting marriage. Why did it take so long?
As for the "traditional definitions of western culture," I do not believe they have a place in the law. At least not insofar as they will be enforced on people who do not wish to abide by them. After all, the anti-gay marriage faction argues from tradition as well.
All I'm saying is that the terms of a contract should be up to the parties to the contract, not society, not culture and not the state.
How property would be distributed upon a dissolution of the marital arrangement would depend on how the contract is arranged. Courts interpret individual contracts on case-by-case bases all the time.
If default laws are needed when the contract is unclear or unconscionable, it's not that hard. You can, after all, create a joint tenancy with three people, so why not a marital relationship?
Tradition is not a sufficient reason to limit people's liberty and rights to contract. So, stop acting like your points are self evident, and that people who disagree with you are stupid.
Religious freedom clearly mean freedom FROM religion!
A thug-like society must be restrained by laws and consequences to keep it from forcing and coercing it's fading, iron-age mystical notions on freedom loving atheists.
If adults agree to multiple adult spouses, it is their own business, as much as whether or not to produce offspring.
Brad:
Hear, hear! Indeed, a comprehensive model of freedom is uncomfortable to so many people. Somehow, we all manage to find rationalizations to outlaw what we simply do not like.
Why it is any of the state's business whom I marry, a man, two men, a woman, three women, is beyond me.
I know what you mean, Karen, but I know it's not beyond your comprehension. You are too modest!
People tend to be lazy in areas involving critical thinking. By accident or design, for many, it produces enough real pain that they willingly bind-up those areas to prevent painful, but needed, growth.
Most individuals gratefully abdicate their ultimate, personal authority to myriad leeching parasites who create fake problems in order to extract a good income, and maybe enjoy a pretended feeling of self-esteem, offering myriad "truths."
Hopefully more and more of us individuals will recognize these burdens on our society and dismiss them, and marry ourselves to our own volitional, effort-driven honesty-processes. A process that unlike spouting truth, remains identical from individual to individual.
OT - sorry but this one is a real belly-buster! Each time Sarah Palin opens her mouth, she cinches the fact that she is totally misinformed and uneducated. Today she gets the "First Amendment" totally wrong.
You'd think McCain would muzzle her but she continues to be the "Augmented Gift That Keeps on Giving".
BTW, It is Day #8 of HealthGate for Palin. We know why those health records are not forthcoming now - breast augmentation? Abortion? Maybe both during those wild and crazy beauty queen wannabe daze?
We know why McPappy's keeping his cancer records under wraps as well as his psychiatric records. Since Sarah is such a "healthy specimen" (her own words), why not show us the goods, chickadee?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/pali...
for spotting the silver lining.
ysbaddaden by the way
republicans don't want gay marriage, because they don't want gay men raising boys the GOP could be shagging.
I wonder if these goof balls give a damn about gay marriage or if it's just a dog whistle to get their right wing lazy asses off the couch and to the polls.
have an uphill battle Nicole. Possibly this is due to the post-apocalyptic wastelands that countries like The Netherlands and Canada etc. have become since permitting gay marriage. It is a sad reflection on humanity that some people cannot enjoy a feast unless the starving can be made to suffer.
both The Netherlands and Canada are more tolerant societies. Hopefully, the people of the United States can put aside their differences and get on with living their lives. A big fat juicy NO to prop 8.
have anyone believe that the "some people" I was referring to meant Americans. I'm a Canadian and getting gay marriage on the books up here was quite a battle. Truthfully I'm not sure the battle is entirely over.
Fabulous videos and very moving... I agree wholeheartedly with this stand: everyone is a person, a human being... why deny some people the same rights that other people take for granted?
It's time for a kinder, more compassionate world, not just state or country.
No disrespect but,
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
Trick or Treat from the assclowns of the Republican party!
Equal rights for EVERYONE. Anybody that cries polygamy or beastiality, can be silenced with three simple words.
TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.
in Texas seem to have concluded that polygamy is not all that prosecutable. Such charges as remain in Warren Jeffs case relate to the age of the brides and not polygamy per se.
... there was a reason why polygamy was outlawed. And it had very little to do with the rights of people to marry multiple times, but with children rights.
It turns out that it is very hard to find an educated, adult woman, who is willing to be in a polygamist relationship on her own accord. Hard in like 0.000000001% of population hard.
Funny, how the mormon church is now placing itself as the bearer of the moral sanctity of marriage, when they used to force little girls to wed those creeps.
do not think that I was writing in favor of polygamy. Your comment on how polygamy works in practice is spot on. I merely point out that it has long been tolerated under the pretense of religious freedom.
I mean, as Christians I would assume that most of their energies would be devoted towards feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, providing roofs for the homeless, making this a more equalitarian society, stopping wars and crime, taking care of each other.
All those thingies seem to be pretty time consuming, I am a bit confused how these "christians" have enough time left to care about how two consenting adults express their love and commitment to each other.
It sucks because SAMUEL L. JACKSON SAID SO!!!
Heehee. Couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjo01sbmzrg
I've been fortunate to have parents who provided me an education(mainly at home), I believe any black person that supports this bigoted and hateful gay marriage/rights ban should renounce the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment because this bill violates the spirit of that act.
LeftandLeft:
As I have gone around my heathen city of San Francisco to campaign against Prop. 8, the only mean-spirited resistance I have encountered has thus far been from racial minorities. I find it as sad as you do.
One African American man came up to ask me about the fliers I was handing out. I explained what it was as I handed one to him. He said, "You mean the gays? They god damn should have their rights taken away!" And he shoved the flier into my chest.
This, of course, is only my personal experience. But it does make me very sad, and I am heartened to see Samuel Jackson's commercial.
....I'm sorry that you experienced bigotry from people (more than any other people in our Nation)who should know better. It is appropriate that on Halloween I tell you I hear the ghosts on this human rights issue, and that I will never side with George Wallace or Bull Connor(we know whose side they'd be on). You are on the just side and will eventually win.
It was a tough slog, but it involved a series of court decisions scattered across the provinces, before Parliament caved to reality and allowed for the establishment of same-sex marriage.
There was much wailing, gnashing of teeth and in the case of Alberta, my home province, an empty threat by the fools in power to enact the Not-Withstanding Clause, which in effect, allows the province to set aside compliance with select ammendments within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a period of 5 years before re-evaluating the situation.
But that went nowhere in the face of widespread acceptance of reality and the decisions of the Supreme Court. We have a very different system of government and the power of our judicial system is very much the standard in cases such as this.
I really am pulling for you guys... not that you should become like Canada, after all our nation has completely fallen into the clutches of Satan and become an abyss of Evil since same-sex marriage was enshrined in the Charter... oh, no that did not happen.
I have always been proud of my country and prouder to be a Canadian, but that day made real the strength of democracy and freedoms that are not a dream or a goal in some far off date. It is here and now where we live and we must fight for our rights against those who would poison our lives and destroy our right to live as we choose.
Keep fighting, we are all there with you!
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".
[former Justice Minister, later Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Eliot Trudeau on the decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada, 1969.]
shit...im so sick of seeing moral issues on the ballot
if gays wanna be as miserable as straight people....so be it
"You want an amendment against same-sex marriage? Anyone who's ever been married knows it's always the same sex!" - Robin Williams in 'Man of the Year'
think a wife beating daughter molester always out trumps a loving homosexual couple. Truly ignorant.
You know, back in the 80's when AIDS was a new mystery disease, and so many of my friends lay dying in the hospital, their partners were now allowed to visit or make healthcare decisions. Family members, that had disowned them (in some cases) for their sexual orientation were the only people allowed to make those decisions.
Imagine yourself, lying in a hospital bed, knowing death was imminent, and the one you loved the most in the world could not come in to visit you, or decide on your healthcare, or what would happen to your shared property.
After they died, these same families that has shunned them, swooped in like hawks and took their houses and material wealth, leaving their surviving partners with nothing-- and it was legal.
Now we have gay marriage in Canada, and that won't happen again.
It's not about genders, it's about love.
You'd think christians would understand this. From what I hear, western religion is based on love and forgiveness. Any more these so called christians preach hate and fear. I gave up my faith many years ago when "my church" wouldn't allow my sister to marry in 'my church" because she was pregnant out of wedlock. Where's the forgiveness in that.
I pray to my god I believe in nightly without the walls of a church or a temple because man has changed the meaning of religion and god to fit their wallet.
If anyone is going to be damned to hell it will be the Falwell's and his ilk.
Do these same people love the pregnant Palin kid? I can't keep track of their names.
Words and names. Both sides of this are arguing and spending millions of dollars over gay unions. The supporters of this Proposition don't want gay unions called marriage. They are OK with civil unions and granting gays all the rights of marriage just don't change the traditional meaning of marriage, which has always been between men and women. Gays say they are for rights but they won't take those rights unless they are granted using the same name for something that has always been between different sexes. Would it really hurt to come up with your own name rather than redefine the meaning of something that is thousands of years old?
So ultimately we are fighting over a name. The whole thing is fucking stupid and the only people who benefit are the people who make money on running political campaigns.
My prediction is that Prop. 8 will win because of the Rosie Effect. People will say they are OK with gay marriage to their gay co-workers but when they get in the election closet they will vote against it.
It not just over the words, Amendment 2, in Florida even bans gay civil unions (in the process also bans heterosexual domestic partnerships)
In California, where Proposition 8 in on the ballot, the battle is over words. What happens in Florida is immaterial to the Golden State. We have a civil domestic partner law and have had one for years.
Why oh why did they fail to segue Jackson's bit from Pulp Fiction in at the finish? As righteous a message as it certainly is, "..and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance.." would have made it an immortal bit of political theatre.
Beat me to it, bastard.
The shot of the two moms kissing their son broke my heart. My mom is straight, & has banged most of all five NYC boroughs. She abused me horribly since birth, & is such a demon that I haven't spoken to her since 1992.
What do I have to do to be adopted by two lesbian moms?
Login or Register to post comments.