Should California Pass Prop 8?
The California Supreme Court abolished the state’s same-sex marriage ban in May, sparking public celebration in some places and angry protest in others. Now some critics of same-sex marriage are fighting back with an initiative to reinstate the ban, leaving voters once again divided. Should marriage remain between a man and a woman, or is it time to widen the aisle for same-sex couples? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.)
Why I Want to Get Married
- From Laurie McBride
By Laurie McBride - Co-Chair, Stonewall Democrats
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes.....
Laurie,
I fully understand and agree with your point about wanting to be with your spouse when one of you is in the hospital...or when any time of celebration or heartache occurs. You should be able to file joint income taxes, and to be covered together under insurance policies. I understand all of that. I want that for you, too. I want that for my daughter and her partner, too. But whether or not your relationship should be called marriage is not something that I and my fellow voters should determine. That should be determined by your church and mine.
I am weary of government sticking its head into issues which are not the pervue of government. What I do with my body is between me and my God. What you and your partner choose to do after you receive a license from the state to be joined in a civil ceremony would be entirely up to you and whatever religious beliefs you follow. Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion.
Over the years, Government has taken a larger and larger bite into our lives, until it seems that they now want to take control of almost everything - how our children are raised and educated, what we can and cannot do about disclipine, and who we can marry. Both major political parties have lost sight of the intent of our forefathers, who left England to seek a life here free of intrusive government. You and your partner should never have had this problem in the first place....so there...nanny nanny boo boo.
- mh78639
October 22, 2008 5:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
When God makes a decision
God can certainly make the decisions in your church. Unfortunately, he is not in charge of the government. Remember the phrase "give that which is Caesar's unto Caesar?" The government has recognized "marriages" as civil unions in the legal system since the beginning. Unfortunately, we used "that word" instead of "civil unions" or "households" or whatever else you choose to call them. In order for all people to have equal rights, we either need to change the word "marriage" to something like "civil unions" in all of the legal documents and laws, or just take the easier route and allow everyone to use the term "marriage" in the legal sense.
Why can't we allow two different meanings for the same word? It's not like it has never been done?
Michelle
- litebkt October 22, 2008 10:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your slip is showing...
"I am weary of government sticking its head into issues which are not the pervue of government. What I do with my body is between me and my God. What you and your partner choose to do after you receive a license from the state to be joined in a civil ceremony would be entirely up to you and whatever religious beliefs you follow. Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion."
If that is your view, then government should not be involved in marriage at all. All civil rights and benefits of "marriage" should simply be defined as "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" for ALL couples, including all heterosexual couples. If "marriage" is so sacred, then do not allow government to provide any such thing; your next-of-kin legal status, your ability to file joint taxes, etc. should all be due to your "civil union" status, and your "marriage" will be completely between you and your church.
If, as you say, "Marriage simply does not fall under the items over which the government has dominion," then "marriage" should have no legal or civil benefits or repercussions at all. Let the churches or other private institutions deal with marriage, but your legal and civil statuses will then need to be established by the same "civil unions" that you proscribe for homosexuals: you can't have your cake and eat it too.
- cptspith
November 4, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your slip is showing...nope...I wear it that way
I agree with you. I don't want it both ways. Like I said...the license is the same for everyone...what you do with it is up to you. Go to a church and get married under the eyes of God. You have a license for a civil union from the government - not a marriage license. Your church lets you get married. The government lets you file taxes as a union...not as a married couple. Your company lets you buy insurance as a union, not as a couple. You file a will as a union...not as a couple. Whatever ceremony you choose to celebrate is up to you.
So where do I want cake and to eat, too??????? DUH? I want the government OUT of my life. But YOU can't have them in my life about other things...like how I raise MY children. If I want to spank MY child, it is none of your business. I was spanked by a wonderful father who NEVER raised a hand to me in anger. When I had misbehaved, he sent me to my room until he was no longer angry. Then he came in and talked to me about what I had done wrong. Then he told me that he had to spank me to make me remember not to do it again. Then he gave me a spanking ...not a beating. I never had a mark. Not a red bottom.
So I believe he did a good job, and the idea that some knee-jerk reaction from a do-gooder could have me arrested for disciplining my child makes me FURIOUS. It's not the government's business. I want the government out of my business. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a family...a whole family, a loving whole family with proper values and a Mom at home to pay attention and a Dad who comes home and pays attention. It takes FAMILY...not Government...and I want them OUT of my life.
- mh78639
November 5, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anti-government?
I know this is a discussion on gay marriage but I felt like I had to jump in here. I am gay and I think I should have the same rights and resposibilities as everyone else. I am also a child protection worker and have some experience as part of the government you rail against. I think you would agree there has to be intervention from our government and society when you see a child that was not merely spanked but beaten, burned and emotionally scared from abuse. What people don't realize is that no one is going to go after them if a child is spanked once in awhile or disciplined harshly. If there was a mark left, then there is a problem. Trust me, no one is going to tell you how to parent your child unless you are hurting your child which is against the law of our land and agreed upon by our society. It is incredibly hard to balance laws and acceptable society norms when investigating child neglect. "The government" or child protective services is often caught in the untenable position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when either a child has been found to be severely abused or child protection investigates parents that did nothing wrong. To make matters worse very little information about any case can be released to the public because people have privacy rights as they should. I suppose this will always be an arguement with folks that have had no experience or bad experiences with protective services. The fact is protective services investigates and works with hundreds of thousands of cases a year where families were helped and given resources or kids were saved from further abuse and neglect. I will tell you one thing, I love my job because I get to work with families to make thier lives better and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I am not the monster that wants to steal your children as is often portrayed in the media. I also have been a parent and stood on that line where the three year old pushes you to your limits and you stand there in a haze of anger and you want to hit him. Some people hit him, some people don't and then some people beat him to within an inch of his life or further. There are choices and then there are consequences for those choices. By the way, I am no longer a parent because my kids could only be adopted by one same-sex parent and she took them out of state when we split up. I have no legal recourse. No marriage or civil-union, no parental rights or joint adoptions.
- tjhawknest33
December 17, 2008 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, I am a little "anti-government"....
...I just don't want them in my face. I am capable of doing for myself, thank you very much. One of the things that spanking father taught me was independence. When I finished college, I was NOT invited home to lounge around while I looked for suitable employment. I was expected to take whatever was available and make do while I found a better paying, more suitable job in my career field. But that was then; and children didn't run families - parents did.
Meanwhile, back at the issue: I agree with you about the abuse of children - it's rampant. Having worked with CASA, I am appalled at the flagrant abuse and neglect this generation of drug-using, irresponsible, sleep-around, me-me-me, gimme-another-tattoo-instead-of-paying-my-child-support jerks is perpetrating on their children. Teenagers having babies without a partner to help raise the child, then discovering that babies are LOTS of trouble. LOTS of work. LOTS of responsibility.
I don't blame CPS in the least - I blame the media, for spreading the idea that anyone can have a baby - who needs to be married? If "Murphy Brown" can do it, so can I. And Follywood wondered why Middle America objected so much back when ole Murphy got pregnant. The little black box which came into our homes took over our lives and our families back when I was a child, and has created a nation of brainwashed people. When the sound of that crying, sick baby needing to be fed and bathed and changed rises above the roar of Jerry Springer, that teenage mother is tempted - very strongly - to hold a pillow over its mouth just so she can hear about the abusive parents on TV.
- mh78639
December 18, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So true.
I want to marry my girlfriend so bad, and it saddens me that I can't because the rest of the world thinks it's wrong. I just hope that prop 8 will pass in November!
- ChristinaLovesMariaForever October 15, 2009 3:14AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.