Proposition 8 would change the California State Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
In this emotion-laden issue, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage are grappling with whether amending the constitution to strip rights from some Californians is wise policy.
What is the impact on families and society as a whole?- The Commonwealth Club of California
Donna Ryu is a clinical professor of law at Hastings College of Law.
She is also the co-chair of the board of directors of the national center for lesbian rights (NCLR). NCLR served as council for the same-sex couples for the marriage cases decided by the Supreme Court.
Therese M. Stewart
Therese M. Stewart is the Chief Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco.
She has argued the case for same sex marriage rights before the California Supreme Court.
Paul W. Thorndal
Paul Thorndal is a partner at Wald Law Group in San Francisco.
The group practices family law with an emphasis on same-sex couples.
Why do gay persons want to buy into an institution like marriage? It's the worst idea society has ever had! If there was a Proposition 99 to ban Straight Marriage---- I'd vote for that! Good luck...You can have it. I'll bet Divorce Lawyers are just counting the days before the big gay case boom. Oh right....you all don't expect any problems... true love and all that...
It's religious, pure and simple. As you, I've yet to hear a single compelling argument against; but still the religious, social conservatives tries to spread "secular" lies about it, so they won't have to face the 1st amendment in a court of law.
What is the material benefit to our state (or, for that matter, our country) in outlawing same sex marriages? That has never been convincingly argued to me. "Protecting traditional marriage", while some people feel very passionately about it, doesn't make sense to me because marriage is an individual contract entered into by two people, and no other marriage gets involved. What is the advantage of constraining recognition of family commitment to male/female couples?
That (polygamy/polyandry) has actually been my main grievance about this whole debate. I think the higher probability of the use of force is why I oppose it. It may just be prejudice on my part, but the communities allowing this have to my recollection always been very patriarchal/male chauvinistic. No such history, nor logical connection can be made in same-sex marriages.
I get a little chuckle when I hear everyone in favor of gay marriage say it is for freedom and equality. But if I say "poligamy" they say, "invade their compound, take their children and give them to the state." And I say "what about freedom and equality." And someone will always say, "poligamy and gay marriage is not the same thing!" as if we are in grade school. Then I say "homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage." Then they call me all sorts mean words nobody understands like "arrogant" (which is the bon mot) and "facist".
Nobody wants to preform surgery on the whole being of marriage. Everyone just wants to add their little appendage to it. Or perhaps they want to remove it's gender organs because they find them distasteful. But is anyone considering the nature of the ancient being of marriage that they are operating on?
"It's closing the barn door after the horses get out. If you are a group wanting to equal rights, and just expect to get it with littler effort can you really be mad at the idea that your cause has lost because of arrogance?"
It's baffling that you don't see the glaring arrogance in what you just wrote yourself. How can it be the fault of good people, that bigots run around lying and whining?
I'm curious about something, I'm for gay marriage because I don't care: if 2 people love each other and want to entire this "marriage" scenario with ideology that somehow it validates more. And the analyzing of the term marriage by Therese Stewart I feel is spot on of how empowering it can be for a couple to say that they are married. My question is..
Why not just say it..
I did see a lot of religious groups spread misinformation about prop 8 but the interesting thing I noticed was I never saw 1 TV ad, sign, billboard, newspaper ad, etc countering it. Now I see plenty of information countering what religious groups put out there but it made me question "Where was all this BEFORE!?" It's closing the barn door after the horses get out. If you are a group wanting to equal rights, and just expect to get it with littler effort can you really be mad at the idea that your cause has lost because of arrogance?
Donna Ryu explained it pretty precisely and Fletcher does a nice job supporting that position. I would say that it is also good to note that this country was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, meaning it is the law that we uphold rather than popular opinion.
Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Whenever I hear the word "marriage" I think of two people who form a contract with the State because they don't trust eachother in case of a split or dispute, and need a higher being to resolve it for their case.
Two non-needy people who have everything they want and truly just love each other is a rarity. The best example that comes to mind is Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell who have been domestic partners since 1983.
When someone is free, you know it because they are not married. Michael Bloomberg is another example of a free enlightened man.
There’s a great video I saw on San Francisco IAM on Proposition 8. It shows both sides of the issue and what it means for same sex couples in California. It’s a must see for those concerned about the issue.
I’d recommend checking it out: http://www.sanfranciscoiam.com/videos/d80e34400efa
They also got a lot of other interesting video journalism video.