Miss California and Gay marriage

[BJean 16]

patty: "But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)"

What people do not seem to understand is that according to the law, this is not a religious issue at all. It is a proposed law that seeks to ban people from being married based on the religious views of some of our citizens. It would ignore the fact that people in this country are supposed to be treated equally under the law and that all individuals have the same rights.

The government is not supposed to discriminate against a minority of people siimply because they are different than the majority of the people.

This simple fact falls on the deaf ears of those who want to discriminate against others based on their personal beliefs and prejudices.

It is for these reasons that there should be a distinct separation of church and state in this country. I'm not saying that we should not be able to pray, I am saying that one group of people should not be able to take away another group of people's basic rights, based on religious beliefs; ANY kind of religious beliefs, not just Christianity.

To ensure that our form of government will always stand the test of time, we cannot have whatever religion may be popular at any given time, to infiltrate our laws and cause harm to any group of people who do not share that particular religious belief.

If we did not work hard to preserve this feature that our government documents promise us, we might eventually become the kind of country that insists that we all must worship _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever religion is in power) religion.

It should be obvious to Americans that this is actually not all that different than the human rights issues that we do not condone in other countries. We even go to other countries to intervene in the oppression and human rights violations that some governments impose on their citizens.

We are very aware that religious beliefs are the bases for all kinds of discrimination throughout the world. These kinds of issues are the very things that separate us from being a government like they have in Iran and Afhganistan and so many others where people are unable to vote in an open election, women are made to cover their bodies or forced to have mutilation surgery and other even more horrible atrocities.

Everyone of us Americans should work very hard to ensure that all our citizens are guaranteed the freedom to live their lives as free Americans, not oppressed victims of unfair laws.

Edited May 11, 2009 by BJean

[BethFromVA 5]

BJean, for the umpteenth time, marriage is not a right. If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see it.

[BJean 16]

Beth for the zillioneth time, our laws distinquish between married and unmarried people in this country. That's what it's about. If we do not allow gays to get married, we are discriminating against them because of the distinction that our laws make between married and unmarried people. Keep at it, you'll get it. I have confidence in you.

[BethFromVA 5]

But to continually harp on marriage as a "right" is, well, WRONG (no pun intended). However, if you can prove otherwise, I'd LOVE to see it.

And for what it's worth, on tax day, the married people are more discriminated against than those who are not. :frown:

[BJean 16]

You want harping? I'll show you some harping.....:frown: Just kidding~

I am not harping on a religious marriage being a right, and I'm pretty sure that you get that. But not positive.

So to clarify further, I'm talking (harping, eh?) about civil rights. You have a government that uses the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two eligible folks in the United States. You do get that, right? It is other folks who want to make the term "marriage" have a religious meaning under the law.

Btw, there are a number of things besides taxes that are affected under our laws, based on whether a person is married or single.

[Gone4Now 4]

patty: "But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)"

What people do not seem to understand is that according to the law, this is not a religious issue at all. It is a proposed law that seeks to ban people from being married based on the religious views of some of our citizens. It would ignore the fact that people in this country are supposed to be treated equally under the law and that all individuals have the same rights.

The government is not supposed to discriminate against a minority of people siimply because they are different than the majority of the people.

This simple fact falls on the deaf ears of those who want to discriminate against others based on their personal beliefs and prejudices.

It is for these reasons that there should be a distinct separation of church and state in this country. I'm not saying that we should not be able to pray, I am saying that one group of people should not be able to take away another group of people's basic rights, based on religious beliefs; ANY kind of religious beliefs, not just Christianity.

To ensure that our form of government will always stand the test of time, we cannot have whatever religion may be popular at any given time, to infiltrate our laws and cause harm to any group of people who do not share that particular religious belief.

If we did not work hard to preserve this feature that our government documents promise us, we might eventually become the kind of country that insists that we all must worship _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever religion is in power) religion.

It should be obvious to Americans that this is actually not all that different than the human rights issues that we do not condone in other countries. We even go to other countries to intervene in the oppression and human rights violations that some governments impose on their citizens.

We are very aware that religious beliefs are the bases for all kinds of discrimination throughout the world. These kinds of issues are the very things that separate us from being a government like they have in Iran and Afhganistan and so many others where people are unable to vote in an open election, women are made to cover their bodies or forced to have mutilation surgery and other even more horrible atrocities.

Everyone of us Americans should work very hard to ensure that all our citizens are guaranteed the freedom to live their lives as free Americans, not oppressed victims of unfair laws.

:frown:

Amen!

[BethFromVA 5]

You want harping? I'll show you some harping.....:frown: Just kidding~

I am not harping on a religious marriage being a right, and I'm pretty sure that you get that. But not positive.

So to clarify further, I'm talking (harping, eh?) about civil rights. You have a government that uses the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two eligible folks in the United States. You do get that, right? It is other folks who want to make the term "marriage" have a religious meaning under the law.

Btw, there are a number of things besides taxes that are affected under our laws, based on whether a person is married or single.

LOL, nice to see your sense of humor. :thumbup:

But still, is marriage even a civil right?

And I know tons of people who are NOT religious who don't want to see marriage changed. As a society, the PEOPLE have a right to vote on what is acceptable and what is not. You keep saying it is the government that is in the business of denying people these so-called rights, but it is society as a whole who either has or is in the process of specifically defining what they accept as marriage.

If the PEOPLE don't want it (and I am all for a state-by-state vote), then I am for the PEOPLE deciding and the government (via the judicial branch) keeping out of it and letting the PEOPLE speak.

[BJean 16]

If you want the people to vote on changing the terminology, that's a reasonable approach to consider. Clarafication of poorly defined (worded) laws can be a necessary and good thing. If you're saying that people should vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry, with the current terminology, then that's a sham. Individuals shouldn't get to define constitutional rights for everybody else. It's a process.

[BethFromVA 5]

If you want the people to vote on changing the terminology, that's a reasonable approach to consider. Clarafication of poorly defined (worded) laws can be a necessary and good thing. If you're saying that people should vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry, with the current terminology, then that's a sham. Individuals shouldn't get to define constitutional rights for everybody else. It's a process.

BJean, this is beginning to sound like the skit "Who's on First."

There IS NO Constitutional right to marriage. Never has been. Since the beginning of time, people have voted as to what they find socially acceptable terms.

However, if you want to spin it another way, I will repeat something I said last week sometime: If you truly want separation of church and state, then the STATE/GOVERNMENT has no right to redefine marriage since it's been a RELIGIOUS institution since the beginning.

[BJean 16]

Bonk, bonk, bonk. That's me, hitting my head against the wall trying to talk to you. oooz, ooze, dribble. That's blood running into my eyes. Blink, blink.

The country has every right to use the word marriage to refer to a civil union of two people in this country. If YOU have a problem with that, then YOU can get it brought before the citizenry for a vote so that your religious sensibilities are soothed.

You do not have the right to tell people that they cannot get married down at the courthouse, just because they do not fit within YOUR definition of marriage. Clarify the terminology if you wish, but don't try to deny gay people their rights. By barring them from civil unions because the government uses the term "marriage" instead of "civil union" (or some other acceptible term to you), you are abridging their rights as citizens of the United States.

NOT because of the actual marriage or civil union or legal joining of two people of the same sex, but because the government uses "marriage" to identify couples and apply the certain rules to them.

When the government uses the word marriage, it must be careful not to discriminate. They cannot exclude couples by using it to disallow all couples all the same rights that marriage affords.

I dearly hope you're just yanking my chain and not really this obtuse.

[donali 57]

Amen, BJean.

It is up to all of us to protect the rights of everyone. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for blacks to marry whites, and if you put THAT to a vote in some areas of the country, it still wouldn't be allowed. The majority doesn't count when it comes to protecting civil rights - that's the whole point of minority protection.

It's just a matter of time before these final discriminations fall away (the younger generation cares less and less about these kinds of discriminations, and tend not to support them), but in the meantime there are real people suffering the effects of this last bastion of bigotry.

Equality for all can't come soon enough.

[BethFromVA 5]

Bonk, bonk, bonk. That's me, hitting my head against the wall trying to talk to you. oooz, ooze, dribble. That's blood running into my eyes. Blink, blink.

The country has every right to use the word marriage to refer to a civil union of two people in this country. If YOU have a problem with that, then YOU can get it brought before the citizenry for a vote so that your religious sensibilities are soothed.

You do not have the right to tell people that they cannot get married down at the courthouse, just because they do not fit within YOUR definition of marriage. Clarify the terminology if you wish, but don't try to deny gay people their rights. By barring them from civil unions because the government uses the term "marriage" instead of "civil union" (or some other acceptible term to you), you are abridging their rights as citizens of the United States.

NOT because of the actual marriage or civil union or legal joining of two people of the same sex, but because the government uses "marriage" to identify couples and apply the certain rules to them.

When the government uses the word marriage, it must be careful not to discriminate. They cannot exclude couples by using it to disallow all couples all the same rights that marriage affords.

I dearly hope you're just yanking my chain and not really this obtuse.

Okay, mostly I'm yanking your chain because you never fail to entertain. :thumbup:

HOWEVER, the fact is, marriage was a religious institution before it ever became what some believe is a governmental one. You want separation of church and state, but in THIS case it appears you simply want to redefine a religious institution. AND you want people who believe it to be a religious institution to roll over and let go of our beliefs to appease those who abhor what we stand for. Hm, a bit of a panacea if I do say so.

It's not quite fair to scream, "Separation of church and state," but when I say marriage is religious and keep out of it, THEN all of a sudden you want these two entities linked. Bizarre.

You don't want the religious to dictate state matters; the same goes the other way. The religious (and even some who don't claim religion but simply adhere to the status quo) don't want you coming into our religious union and dictating how we do this.

[BethFromVA 5]

Equality for all can't come soon enough.

Who is "all," though?

People who belong to NAMBLA want to marry little boys. They believe it is within their right to do so because they have a "legitimate" love for children the same as I love men or lesbians love women, etc. I'm not saying that being gay is akin to being a pedophile, but what I am saying is that there are those who believe they are in the same boat as gay people -- misunderstood individuals. It could go on to such extremes as to make one's head spin.

[pattygreen 5]

Amen, BJean.

It is up to all of us to protect the rights of everyone. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for blacks to marry whites, and if you put THAT to a vote in some areas of the country, it still wouldn't be allowed. The majority doesn't count when it comes to protecting civil rights - that's the whole point of minority protection.

It's just a matter of time before these final discriminations fall away (the younger generation cares less and less about these kinds of discriminations, and tend not to support them), but in the meantime there are real people suffering the effects of this last bastion of bigotry.

Equality for all can't come soon enough.

I get tired of people who like to compare homosexual marriage with biracial marriage. Marriage is for one MAN and one WOMAN no matter what color they are. When people were trying to stop people from marrying someone of another color, that was definitely wrong, for there was no sin in that. The color of a persons skin can't be helped, or changed, and God made mankind with many differing skin colors. But homosexuality is a wrong doing. It's not about a person 'right'. It's about 'what's' right. We don't give people who don't do what's 'right' privilages. No matter if they feel that what they do is right or not.

[plain 12]

Those hateful people in that church are from Arkansas not Tennessee. The tried to disrupt a funeral here in TN, but were run out of the state by some biker group.

These are the type of people who give Christians a bad name.

Spoken like a woman from TN, heehee....J/K.....I'd want to clarify that they weren't in my state too. They're a bunch o' nuts.

So to clarify further, I'm talking (harping, eh?) about civil rights. You have a government that uses the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two eligible folks in the United States. You do get that, right? It is other folks who want to make the term "marriage" have a religious meaning under the law.

So, why do gays not want civil unions (with all applicable rights) legalized. Seriously, the right to co-habitate with all legal rights spouses have ....is that the end goal? Is it worth giving up the word "marriage" in favor of "civil union" if it achieves the goal?

Or would gays see legalizing "civil unions" (again....with all legal rights....just using a different name) as a "seperate but equal" thing? I can kinda see both sides on that.

Individuals shouldn't get to define constitutional rights for everybody else. It's a process.

I get what you're saying, but.....that's kinda the point of a democracy. The body votes for what they think is best for the whole. There will ALWAYS be minority dissenters, on every issue. And marriage has not yet been defined as a constitutional right. It may be, in the future (by the supreme court), and something tells me you'd be ok with THOSE individuals defining constitutional rights for everybody else.

When the government uses the word marriage, it must be careful not to discriminate. They cannot exclude couples by using it to disallow all couples all the same rights that marriage affords.

Well sure they can. They're the government. They don't HAVE to play fair. What about the supreme court's decision that government can seize private property to up tax revenues (by building new stuff)? That's discriminating against the individual, no?

An analogy would be for white people suing the government because they pay for the college tuition of kids on the Indian Rez. "Why, they can't discriminate. If the government does X,Y, or Z for one group, they have to do it for all". Not really. The government sets the rules as they go (unless the specific "right" is protected by the constitution.....the government won't be able to force individual citizens to give room and board to soldiers, for example). That's why the cruxt of this arguement is to whether marriage is a "right" protected by the constitution. Personally, I think no, and each individual state should vote for themselves (I'm a states-rights' kind o' guy), but obviously others disagree.

Edited May 11, 2009 by plain