ESSAY

How Getting Married Made Me An Activist

This NEWSWEEK editor's wedding has put him in the middle of the culture wars. Now, as he and his spouse wait to see if their marriage is valid, they wonder if history will be on their side.

By David J. Jefferson | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 15, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: NTerry @ 04/03/2009 3:14:36 PM

    This land is your land
    This land is my land
    From California
    To the New York Island
    From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
    This land was made for you and me...

    Whatever happened to United We Stand? When did we go from melting pot to social dictatorship? Why can't we all just get along...

    -N. Terry, 18

  • Posted By: darkwolf33333 @ 02/23/2009 1:24:16 PM

    It amazes me that so many fundamentalist Christians are here on this site. It is unfortunate that their inability to site scripture in the context of today erects this pseudo reality in their minds that creates a hostile environment towards those who don't follow their views completely. Those that prescribe to dogma on a more loving accepting ground are considered to be non christian. Even better are the claims against heterosexual people in this discussion, calling them homosexual when they are just supportive of equal rights towards homosexual people. I have seen that in this discussion there has been very little of such a thing. It is more or less rifled with conflict. Those who try to discuss are then attacked by the scriptures of others. It only shows that people who have this view of faith, that theirs is the be all and end all of truth, are not only immoral people but certainly irrational. I don't blame their faith I blame their leaders who force these views into their heads. Can fundamentalist change their view of others? Yes, but the processes for them can take a lifetime, and in the lifetime they can cause massive damage towards those, and their families, they persecute with their scripture.

  • Posted By: OneMeanDude @ 11/15/2008 6:48:23 PM

    Society has a right to define marriage as it has been universally understood - as existing between opposite sex partners only. Marriage is not merely an "affair of the heart" that should not be "put to popular vote". Marriage is society's flagship institution and has a larger role in determining the quality of its rising generations than any other social effort combined. While there may be merits to radically redefining marriage to include same-sex partners, this end should be pursued through open and honest debate, culminating in democratic action. Unfortunationly, the homosexual movement seems intent on subverting the democratic process through the courts and mob action, including vandalizing churches and intimidating individuals with whom they disagree. This deprives the discussion of the honesty and intellectual weight it deserves.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/15/2008 7:29:00 PM

      " Society has a right to define marriage as it has been universally understood - as existing between opposite sex partners only"

      Actually, you're wrong on two points.

      1. Amendment IX prohibits society from using the power of the ballot to deny rights to individuals, and

      2. Society has no rights. Only individuals have rights. That's why the Washington DC gun ban was overturned. That is why Prop 8 will be demolished at the federal level. I know that's gonna drive the bigots nuts, and you know what? I'm going to enjoy every moment that they froth at the mouth.

      • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 11/18/2008 8:35:39 AM

        Individuals do have rights and on Nov. 4th they voted and approved Prop. 8, but yet even though those against it are fighting now, (much like a child when they don't get thier way), to have this overturned based on the idea that the general public shouldn't be allowed to vote on this issue....where does it end? When the gay lifestyle has been thrust on us?

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 4:54:44 PM

          Individuals do not have the right to vote away the rights of other individuals. That's what amendments IX and XIV are for.

          Oh, and I suppose you think MLK was a "child who didn't get his way", right?

          Lastly, nobody is "thrusting the gay lifestyle on you". Allowing gays to marry will not make you gay. All they want is the same rights everyone else enjoys...too bad you're too hate-filled to allow that simple request.

          • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 11/19/2008 9:38:58 AM

            I just have a right like everyone else to have an opinion and to speak it, just because I disagree doesn't mean anything about hate or anything like that. Maybe what I really want is for my children to be raised in a land that isn't so morally eroded thatit has none.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 10:46:13 AM

              So you don't hate them? You just called them morally bankrupt.

              Of course you hate them.

              • Posted By: nyborn @ 11/19/2008 7:17:55 PM

                Many people I know are gay and very good people. You're assuming what my opinion is of these people. Just because I think they are good people doesn't mean that I agree with the lifestyle. Just like you, I have my opinion and morals and will stand up for them.

                • Posted By: darkwolf33333 @ 02/23/2009 1:02:56 PM

                  If they are such good people then why vote to take away their right to their pursuit of happiness? Gay marriage doesn't effect you. I call into question the morality of religious people. So far I have found that although they appear to be polite, kind people, that frame of mind only extends towards those of their "moral community" anyone unfortunate enough to be outside that community is often destroyed mentally and sometimes physically by these people by. Where people who have openness with their faith and accept people with faith and love them all equally, fundamentalist prove in their actions that they have little to no morals towards anyone outside their community. This is a sad fact of life, but also an interesting one to study for my dissertation.

            • Posted By: kevinbgoode @ 11/20/2008 9:45:24 AM

              Right...that's why you rushed to ban marriages of serial rapists, child sexual offenders, and spousal abusers. . .because you want to make society more "moral."

            • Posted By: toogood12 @ 11/20/2008 9:15:24 AM

              Sodomy as far as i remember is still illegal in most states has been since the country was founded, by the by where is sodom located? Famous last words of a sodomite. " My Bob arent the stars unusually bright tonight?

          • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 11/19/2008 9:30:19 AM

            MLK never acted the way that these people are, he never went and protested at another religion's building while services were going on. He never was a advocate of threatening others that didn't have his view. So, no I don't think MLK was anything like this group asking for acceptance of a small population's practices. The idea of being gay and treated just the same as a man and woman couple is wrong and by accepting this as the norm is telling those that come after us as this is an OK way to live and I couldn't disagree more.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:00:56 AM

              "The idea of being gay and treated just the same as a man and woman couple is wrong "

              Why?

              • Posted By: nyborn @ 11/19/2008 7:09:18 PM

                Because it's not natural and not the way we were intended to live.

                • Posted By: kevinbgoode @ 11/20/2008 9:50:35 AM

                  Who says? A heterosexual? Do you honestly believe that your "opinion" is more credible because you are straight and it's about someone else?

                  Yes...there was a time in this country when white people explained the same thing about Black and white couples marrying....

                  • Posted By: nyborn @ 11/20/2008 8:24:08 PM

                    HEHEHE Thats pretty good. I never stated anything about one's orientation relating to one's thought. If anyone has looked the plumbing doesn't match. Maybe think about the fact if people were meant to be this way that many of us alive today wouldn't be here because life isn't ever begun with these relationships.

                    • Posted By: Sara Sota @ 12/10/2008 7:46:48 PM

                      I see you want logic, and facts , people say them and you still cannot see, how life begins between these relationships. That may chnage with technology, but even you take God out of the equation gay makes no sense in the animla kingdom either or evolution. I mean you want everyone to only see your way in the name of all belifs , but guess what? The only way that will happen is if you except the other opinions alos. you do not see that persecution will happen and religion , especially Christianity and its Bible and Christ followers will be killed becasue many will not accept what the gay public is asking that laws be cahnged and people see it there way and that is rights and equality. all the while they deny the God of peace and soveignty of a moral Creator who wants to know us intimitely so guide us to what is right. To protect us from certain disaster, but becasue of your stubbornness and to looking and judgeing all the failures of Christians in the past and the marriages that never worked out for heteros becasue maybe they did not follow God and used there free will incorrect, you belive that that somehow means God's design is not absolute. You are the ones that are blind and you are in the dark, you can have the world we are talking about something eternal. The love you speak of is temporal and half truth, and a lie from the pit. Darkness is the absence of light, we are sinners , all of us, you need to sekk Him, Jesus saves from sin. Then you decide to folow and submit the THE LORD.......systheLord

            • Posted By: kevinbgoode @ 11/20/2008 9:49:05 AM

              MLK didn't protest in front of another church because other churches weren't spending 20 million bucks campaigning to remove his rights - especially a church with a history of blatant bigotry and blind superstition. The Mormons are hardly a mainstream "church" with their magic underwear and their baptizing of the dead of other denominational faiths and their outrageous treatment of ethnic minorities over the years.

  • Posted By: darkwolf33333 @ 02/23/2009 4:47:00 AM

    With attorneys like Kenneth Starr and how much backing the yes on 8 campaign still holds, with their death threats still pouring in towards people who oppose prop 8, I would be prepared to move to Canada. I knew prop 8 would pass. Religious idiocy trumps even human suffering. Then again it causes much of it. With the assumption that there is fear in supreme court, there is a high likelihood that prop 8 will stand and your marriage will be invalidated. It will only get worse from there. People like Kenneth Star and his ilk are also pushing to remove domestic partnerships and hate crimes legislation that put sexual orientation on the hate crimes bill. They wont stop until they can have us executed for the victimless crime they accuse us of. However they forget what god tells them. The righteous will suffer as judged as too will be the wicked.

    Also vmayes why don't you go to this sight and three videos

    http://thegaycivilrightsmovement.ning.com/video/our-family
    http://thegaycivilrightsmovement.ning.com/video/gays-for-god
    http://thegaycivilrightsmovement.ning.com/video/homosexuality-the-debate-is

  • Posted By: vmayes @ 01/23/2009 4:11:22 PM

    If you believe in same sex marriage,,,,,,,,,,,, forget the Bible

  • Posted By: vmayes @ 01/23/2009 4:09:07 PM

    IK same sex marriage!!!!!!Read the Bible!!!!!

  • Posted By: korrectionalkitten @ 12/12/2008 5:55:03 PM

    Perhaps I'll move to a new land and fight for freedom from an oppressive church state. Oh wait, I thought that already happened over 200 years ago.

    I have no problem with people's beliefs and opinions. But there's a big difference between having our opinions, even preaching them, and denying civil rights to fellow American's! This doesn't have anything to do with your religious beliefs. It is very simply a civil rights issue.

  • Posted By: Godfollower @ 12/10/2008 5:53:51 PM

    THE WORDS OF GOD - PEOPLE - TIME TO WAKE UP!!

    Leviticus 20:10 (Whole Chapter)
    "`And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


    Leviticus 20:11 (Whole Chapter)
    And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.


    Leviticus 20:12 (Whole Chapter)
    And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have wrought confusion: their blood shall be upon them.


    Leviticus 20:13 (Whole Chapter)
    "`If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.


    Leviticus 20:14 (Whole Chapter)
    "`And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you.


    Leviticus 20:15 (Whole Chapter)
    "`And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.

  • Posted By: Godfollower @ 12/10/2008 5:26:01 PM

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (Whole Chapter)
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous [Or wrongdoers] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: [1 Corinthians 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 1:9; Heb 12:14; 13:4; Rev 21:8; 22:15] neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts]

  • Posted By: Tara Ngu. @ 12/09/2008 7:23:41 PM

    Sandra,

    The reasons you listed in your comments were the very ones that gave me moral qualms about joining the nationwide protests up to the very morning of November 15. Even if I and millions of others didn't agree with it, the people of California had spoken with their vote, and there was very little we could do about it -- particularly since most of us (myself included) weren't even voting California residents. Besides, legal civil unions could grant many of the same basic rights as marriage. It sounded like a good compromise.

    On the afternoon of November 15, as I marched from Capitol Hill to downtown with three thousand other shouting, spirited Seattleites, I noticed one sign that struck a chord with me:

    "Being second-class is SO GAY. Thanks, California!"

    The semantic and symbolic meaning of marriage is indeed a thorny issue, particularly when involving the religious definitions of marriage. From a civil and symbolic standpoint, however, telling gay couples to be satisfied with their commitment ceremonies is essentially telling them that they are not worthy of legal recognition as a married couple because they are a class set apart -- a lower class than normal, heterosexual people.

    This doesn't sound anything like justice to me.

    True, the passage of Proposition 8 does not declare that gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people may not love each other and declare as much in court. But there should be no such thing as first-class, second-class, or any class in the land of equality. It is our duty as citizens to remind the legal system of what it's supposed to stand for.

  • Posted By: sandra.lemings @ 12/09/2008 5:53:24 PM

    The people have spoken. Accept it.

  • Posted By: sandra.lemings @ 12/09/2008 5:49:54 PM

    You pledged your devotion to each other in front of friends and family so be satisied. You don't need a marriage document to declare your love. No number of legal documents can make people believe or proceive you as a married couple. The passing of prop 8 doesn't care about you declaring your love, it is against renaming the meaning of marriage.

  • Posted By: Megan140 @ 12/08/2008 5:34:16 PM

    Thank you for this article.

  • Posted By: kevinbgoode @ 11/20/2008 9:37:01 AM

    Well let's see here - I'm supposed to "accept" a rapist getting married. . .a registered sex offender getting married, a serial spouse abuser getting married, and if I speak up, it is simply none of my business. I'm supposed to accept marriage for a green card, marriage of convenience, marriage for money, even marriage for a lie, and that's all supposed to be "moral."

    • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 1:47:04 PM

      Actually, the people you've mentioned are considered immoral by the government because they violate other people's rights. Marriage in this country, regardless of nature, is between consenting people (in the case of underage marriages, the parents have to give consent).

      Legally speaking, marriage is simply a legal contract between two consenting parties that allow them to gain certain benefits. Unless one party violates the rights of the other, morality doesn't play into it (basically, just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD or HAVE TO do it).

  • Posted By: bobsyouruncle @ 11/20/2008 9:39:28 AM

    If you believe in evolution then that says that homosexuality is doomed. It certainly doesn't do anything for the continuation of the species, so therefore it is a choice to participate in it or not. Please stop trying to make us believe that you can't help yourself.

    • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 1:42:17 PM

      Actually, same-gendered animal mates will often foster eggs/young that would have otherwise died. So, while the couples may not pass on their genes, they help the survival of the species as a whole.

    • Posted By: bri13 @ 11/20/2008 9:46:47 AM

      There is no choice in being homosexual. And as you pointed out it is not good for the procreation of our species. Is it a bad thing that they cannot reproduce, the growth in numbers of homosexuals might just be best chance for our world to survive the overpopulation crisis that we are in right now. These homosexuals love each other and while they may not be able to procreate they can help to take care of the unwanted, abused, homeless and unloved children in the world. I am heterosexual and grew up with a homosexual godfather. This man was more loving to every child because he knew that he would never be able to have his own. He lived by the moral and ethical code that every person should, such as "love they neighbor". He was never innappropriate with any of his godchildren....which is more than can be said about my uncles. Homosexuality might just allow us some time to save ourselves from the damage that we are doing to this planet....and maybe we should thank them for that and realize that if god did not want there to be homosexuals.....GOD WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED THEM

  • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 9:40:51 AM

    God destroyed two cities in the the bible because of homosexuality and other sins. The cities wee Sodom and Gomorrah. God sent two angels down and the homosexuals of that city tried to sleep with the angels. He destroyed those cities with fire, and truly I am a firm believer that if he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he will destroy cities again or he would have to repent to those cities. I never said anyone was going to hell, but God gives you a choice and it is up to us where we end up.

    • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 1:40:22 PM

      Actually, they were slated to be destroyed long before the incident with the angels. They were destroyed because of inhospitality, public orgies, and gang rape. Also, keep in mind that Lot was willing to give his daughters to the mob (which consisted of both men and women).

  • Posted By: edo1112 @ 11/20/2008 10:24:18 AM

    Humans were given this gift of free will but we unfortunately inherited sin as well meaning all of us have some form of struggling to complete with. Homosexual tendances can be classified as one of the struggles some have to deal with. People aren't born bi-sexual, homo-sexual, pedafiles (priests), into incest, or beastiality . These unnatural practices come from ones who feed off of a bad tendancy in their heart. Homosexuality is just a more popular one. I know a married couple where the wife admits she's bi-sexual. I think this practice is wrong as well but why would they complain if they can get away with it?

    • Posted By: mcopley @ 11/20/2008 10:30:10 AM

      Obviously a Red State

      • Posted By: edo1112 @ 11/20/2008 11:42:44 AM

        That's your argument? That was an easy win. In all fairness, let's look at pornography. It is a breeding ground to feed off of everyone's bad tendencies and has unfortunately been very successful across the board. Perhaps if we start fighting some of these sources instead, sexual perversions and practices will diminish. I don't want kid???s accidently coming across this junk anyways.

        • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 1:12:01 PM

          Homosexuality predates pornography by a few thousand years...

        • Posted By: mcopley @ 11/20/2008 12:07:36 PM

          Who is talking about pornography?

      • Posted By: BrunsKluns @ 11/20/2008 10:56:12 AM

        Pedofiles (priests)? What about corrupt cops who sodomize suspects? The worst sexual pervertions are everywhere.

  • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 10:34:14 AM

    As a christian I am supposed to care about others. True we must be right in our hearts before we can minister to others, but there are some "fights" that God may call one to, and others to something else. That is why there is so many of us because he must be able to use us where we are needed. My cause is children and anything that I see that threatens the future of our children, it brings the fight out of me. There are many sins that could be addressed, but this just happen to be the topic of this blog.

    • Posted By: mcopley @ 11/20/2008 10:38:53 AM

      OK lets get back to the TOPIC.....How does a man & man or a woman & woman having the right to marry and have the same rights as heterosexuals hurt our children?

      • Posted By: BrunsKluns @ 11/20/2008 10:52:42 AM

        Good question; many heterosexual couples are struggling with a huge responsibility to raise children and certainly many of them are so far from being succesful. Maybe we underestimate the capacity of LGTB couples to raise them with love and family values, but that these LGTB couples are not tolerant with the truth that their 'choice' is not moral at all. So, they will raise untolerant children about american family values.

        • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 1:10:12 PM

          Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you find something immoral doesn't mean others feel the same way.

          Stop trying to push your beliefs on others while complaining that others are pushing their beliefs on you.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 1:02:57 PM

          "but that these LGTB couples are not tolerant with the truth that their 'choice' is not moral at all."

          Wait. They disagree with your bigotry, so they are intolerant? LOL.

          • Posted By: BrunsKluns @ 11/20/2008 1:31:50 PM

            Yes they are, and your comment is a very good example of intolerance, but in a democracy is fine to express our opinions. Wish you LOL in your life too.

        • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 11:54:31 AM

          Not everyone is a parent, so to conclude one is failing over the other is a false statement. Studies show that problems with children exist because in the early years certain things were not addressed appropriately. Developmentally appropriate practices are very important in a child's early years. Real parents let their children make choices that are developmentally appropriate for their age, and real parents also protect them from what they feel is inappropriate for their age. When they are older, guess what, we've done our job, they can make their own decisions.

  • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 11:09:12 AM

    Response Part 1:

    I want to start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuals should have the same protection under the law as heterosexuals. What the writer of this article fails to realize that Proposition 8 did not change the rights of homosexuals one bit. Since the writer is a homosexual, I am shocked that he is completely unaware of California Family Code Section 297 and 297.5 regarding domestic partnerships. Quoting a portion of the code "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." It goes on to clarify the rights of domestic partners with regard to children, survivorship, nondiscrimination, etc. So, the only difference is the legal terminology ("marriage" and "domestic partner"). So, why is the terminology so important? Because homosexuals would like it taught in schools that there is no difference between heterosexual marriages and homosexual "marriages." But, there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between "men" and "women." I don't see anyone attempting to ban the difference between men and women under the law, and legally calling all people "men" and banning the legal term "women." I believe everyone would agree that this argument seems absurd. Well there is the same absurdity between calling a "domestic partnership" a "marriage." There are inherent differences between the two. Legally they are the same, but practically they are just as different as men and women. There is the obvious difference that a homosexual couple is physically unable to naturally conceive a child. But, most importantly (which the author would likely disagree), is that they are different in the eyes of God. Biblically, the union of a same sex couple is not recognized as a marriage. The author would argue that religion has no place in an argument about the law. That is where I disagree. Read the first amendment of the U.S Constitution. The free exercise of religion is protected in that amendment. Legal roots are in moral codes. For the majority of Americans, their moral code is derived from their religious beliefs. If a person truly believes that according to the Bible a marriage is between a man and a woman, they should not be making laws to the contrary.

    • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 2:29:47 PM

      Great comment - excellent points. I too am frustrated that few gays seem willing to admit that they already have all the same rights and responsibilities under CA law as married couples, and confront the issue that what they really want is to expand a term with a long-standing definition to include their unions, when the institutions of domestic partnerships and marriages are fundamentally different. Because that is such an insignificant issue to expend energy on, considering the real problems our world is facing at this time, they seek to lend their "movement" the credibility it lacks on its own merits by injecting non-existent issues ("We want equal rights!") or unrelated issues ("Separate but equal" doesn't work!") into this really rather simple concept: "We want the title of marriage and all the warm fuzzy feelings that come along with it for ourselves. Share! Now! Mine!"


      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/20/2008 3:13:05 PM

        That's not what it is at all. They pay taxes just like you--why should they not have tax breaks? Why should they not have the same healthcare rights as you? Fortunately, many larger companies grant their gay employees same-sex health benefits. It's sad that private America is ok with it but the government isn't. And it's NOT just about redefining a term for a traditional institution. If they called it "civil marriage" "government union" "civil union"...you see where I'm going... and said that gays would have the same rights (taxes, health care, death benefits) under that different terminology--you STILL would vote it down. I have a few gay friends that I love dearly, so this is personal to me I guess. I just can't see why someone would deny my wonderful, loving friends the rights to the same taxes, health benefits, etc that heterocouples get. It's so sad that if my good friend's partner of 9 years dies, there's a chance he may not be allowed in the room during his final moments. I mean, all religion and intolerance aside--where is your compassion for humans???

        • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 3:32:23 PM

          Of course they should have the same rights as me ... oh wait, a minute, they do! I realize this is not yet the case everywhere, but in California it is. And I just think that instead of fighting over the word marriage, they should make THAT the battle - bringing equal rights for domestic partnerships to gays across the nation. In California they already have all the rights you mentioned. In fact, here is a list of even more rights that gays in domestic partnerships in California already have, as of 2007 (you'll notice that taxes, health care, and death benefits are on the list):

          Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
          Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
          Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
          Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
          Sick care and similar family leave
          Stepparent adoption procedures
          Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
          Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
          Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
          The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
          Access to some survivor pension benefits
          Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
          The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
          The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
          Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
          The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
          The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

          This is personal to me too. I have gay friends and a lesbian aunt, with whom I'm very close. And no, actually I wouldn't vote down laws allowing them to share in all the rights and responsibilities I enjoy as a married person, if similar laws were brought to a vote in other states. I have no problem with gays receiving equal rights. I acknowledge that they have not always been fairly or kindly dealt with, even that they have not always had equal rights. But the point is that now, in California, they do. The battle for rights has already been fought and won here. Now, there's a battle going on for a title. A word. The institutions of domestic partnership and marriage are different, and should not both be called marriage just because some feel that changing the definition of a word is their "right".

          • Posted By: dragonwolf @ 12/03/2008 12:59:48 PM

            Then why not just let them get MARRIED and be done with it? If marriage and civil union are the same, why not just call them the same thing? If all the same rights are there, then the argument is solely one of semantics.

            See, one of the bigger issues is that, while they may be afforded those rights in California, those rights don't have to be acknowledged by other states. If they go to, say, Ohio, they are strangers in the eyes of the law.

            How would you like it if you got your driver's license in Nevada and went to New Mexico to find that they don't recognize your driver's license. By New Mexico law, you don't have a driver's license and are, therefore, not legally allowed to drive your car in that state.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/20/2008 11:57:29 AM

      The laws should have nothing to do with the bible. That is ridiculous. The world, and our country, are becoming increasingly diverse and you cannot use one group's religious beliefs to define the law or to modify the constitution.

      • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 12:47:37 PM

        Obviously, you didn't pay very much attention in history class. Look back to one of the main reasons why this country fought for its independence in the first place. If you think the Revolutionary War was only about "taxation without representation," you are sadly mistaken. In any case, this doesn't have anything to do with "one group's beliefs." This is a democracy, and this has to do with the majority's beliefs from all groups. While it is true, I was appealing to my ideals of Christianity, both Judaism and Islam teach the same belief as well, as I'm sure many other groups do as well. I agree with the majority, that the law should not be in the business of changing the definition of words. It should be in the business of protecting rights. And the word "marriage" has a very important meaning to may Americans, regardless of faith. I have the right for my children to be properly taught what the word marriage means. To quote a non-religious reference dictionary.reference.com: "the social institution under which a MAN AND WOMAN establish their decision to live as HUSBAND AND WIFE by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." (emphasis added). When considering if a law is just or not, consider who gets hurt. Does redefining the word marriage affect the rights of homosexual couples? No. Does redefining the work marriage undermine and belittle the teachings of the majority of American households? Yes.

        • Posted By: valark @ 11/20/2008 1:00:00 PM

          I am curious, could you please clearly state how it undermines and belittles your marriage.

          • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 1:33:42 PM

            I did not state that it undermines or belittles my marriage. I have a very strong marriage. I said it undermines or belittles my teachings. I believe what the Bible teaches, that a marriage is between a man and a woman. To teach my children otherwise is a direct attack on those beliefs.

            • Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/26/2008 10:47:17 PM

              And to teach my children your beliefs would be an attack as well. What's your point?

              Are we attacking your beliefs by teaching how old the Earth actually is? That dinosaurs weren't Jesus ponies? Because if we have to depend on the bible to teach our children, they're going to believe some pretty meed up stuff.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 5:51:05 PM

              "I said it undermines or belittles my teachings. "

              Well, unfortunately, your teachings are not as important as peoples' rights.

            • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/20/2008 1:44:38 PM

              I hope you can say that you have NEVER done anything that the Bible preaches against.

              • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 3:16:28 PM

                Hahaha. If only I could. There isn't anyone who is without sin, and I would never claim to be. And I have said nothing regarding legislating sin. Have I said homosexulity should be illegal? No, I have not, and it should not.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 1:01:15 PM

          "Obviously, you didn't pay very much attention in history class. "

          Are you suggesting our legal system is based on the bible?

          • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 1:38:21 PM

            No, I am suggesting that one of the main reasons that our country fought for its independance was for religious freedom. So much so that it was later added to the Constitution in the first ammendment. Yes, I am suggesting that many of our founding fathers were religious and that was the basis of their moral beliefs which was translated into law. Should we legislate the Bible? No. But, those that believe in its teachings should use it as a basis to determine what law is just. Just as many of our elected officials have done through our history.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 5:49:53 PM

              "But, those that believe in its teachings should use it as a basis to determine what law is just. "

              No, that's what we have a constitution and a supreme court for.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 1:01:53 PM

          "When considering if a law is just or not, consider who gets hurt. Does redefining the word marriage affect the rights of homosexual couples?"

          Yes.

          • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 1:26:29 PM

            I am sorry, but your argument is ineffective. I have already clearly stated how a homosexual couple's legal standing is unchanged. Merely the legal terminology is different.

            • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 2:01:59 PM

              but a "marriage" brings along alot of other benefits to the table for insurance reasons, health care, credit, home ownership, taxes...so by our laws, for homosexuals to have "free and equal rights" it would have to change to include homosexuals so they see the same benefits as you. so no, its not equal at all. and yes, it does affect the marraige rights of a homosexual couple. the laws even differ greatly from state to state, even from county to county in some places.

              and if its only the "legal defenition" that changes than why does it matter so much if its just a few words huh? why make such a big deal? people are so worried about the change "undermining heterosexual marriages", well, sorry but heterosexual people have undermined legitimate marriages all by themselves with upwards of 50% divorce rates, adultary, lieing and cheating. if most hetero couples arent even honoring the vows why does it matter if a homo couple ACTUALLY love eachother for who and what they are and ACTUALLY honor and value "until death do us part"? i would think teaching the VALUES of companionship and love would overcome and trump that argument... but its all about what the "bible says"...the bible says alot of things, alot of which sounds totally insane these days, alot of which isnt applied to our current daily life, alot of terrible things an "all loving" god did or told people to do. the bible says alot of things...much of which should stay out of decisions such as these... why? because its not up to you and your religion to dictate what others can and cant do if they dont beleive in your god, thats why america exists, because of that very reason. and for that same reason people should be putting they're money where they're mouth is and instead of spending 15 million in to vote down prop 8, they could have done the christ like thing to do and given it away to charities, orphanages, and the homeless. but, low and behold, it was spent on trying to force a religious vote...

              • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 3:41:23 PM

                So, apparently you are not aware that with the laws I have already quoted, that all of those rights are already present. A domestic partner can add their partner to their health insurance coverage and can be a beneficiary of life insurance coverage. They would be treated the same as a spouse under other financial and contract law as well. Granted, I don't believe that they would be treated as a married couple when filing U.S. taxes, but that point is moot since we are talking about California law, not U.S. law.

                And I thought I was pretty clear why it was so important to me for marriage to not be redefined.

                Sadly, you are correct about the path of our culture. Everything you said about divorce rates, adultery, lying, and cheating is true. That is unfortunate, but is a seperate issue.

                As far as how much the Bible applies to our daily life...read it for yourself and make that decision. That is the only way to know for sure.

                • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 5:28:20 PM

                  i have read the bible, all the books...and it doesnt apply to my life. it could i suppose but it does not from my interpretation. i think there are alot of good morals and lessons learned from it, but alas, i think its just a book written over hundereds of years by hundereds of authors that were "talking directly to god" via burning bushes, and voices in they're heads. AND how could we know if pages are missing, there were re-writes, edits, additions...authors that werent talking to god but realized the true power of religion to sway the masses...so they threw in a few lines and opinions of they're own knowing people would abide by it...hard to believe? not for me... i remember an experiment in science class where we all stood in a line, the first person in line had a written message and was instructed to pass the message along orally to the next person, and the next, and so on. well, needless to say the message was very different by the time it reached the last person in line.

                  now take that experiment and apply it to the bible and factor in a couple thousand years, translation problems, and a whole other mess of issues called life... the word has changed dramatically, how we speak is nothing like how people spoke even 200 years ago. picture 2000 years ago, and how much of the language relied on visual perceptions....for all we know, angels with "halos" coming from heaven could have just been some alien visitors... sound crazy? not in comparison to a omnipotent man in the clouds that snapped his fingers and boom everything just exists... and if we were to take the bible literally and i mean very literally, adam and eve would look nothing like we do today because if humanity came from only 2 people, there would be a whole lot of incest going on and if you havent seen the product of incest, well, it can turn your stomach a bit...

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/20/2008 2:26:50 PM

          The Revolution was fought to overthrow colonial rule. I assure you religion was NOT a major factor. Some settlers came to escape religious persecution, true, but many more were given cheap land or were slaves or indentured servants. Our founders didn't think about the Bible when laying down rules; they thought of basic human rights. Benjamin Franklin admitted that he questioned several Christian teachings, and Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

          • Posted By: Anonymous11 @ 11/20/2008 4:07:25 PM

            I will give you Benjamin Franklin since his core values derived from virtues rather than his religious views even though many coincided. But, I have trouble buying that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. There are many historical examples, but this quote from his second inaugural address should be very clear about his views of God:

            "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

      • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 11/20/2008 12:59:13 PM

        Just like you can't use one group's sexual orientation against anothers?

  • Posted By: Gbosa @ 12/01/2008 4:33:49 PM

    This is not a religious battle, but rather a moral battle that the minority gay community lost, not only in California, but also in Florida and Arizona. The voters have spoken. But rather than accept the verdit, the gay community now wants to impose their minority view (a lifestyle of choice) upon the majority voters. Their is a flaunting spirit behind homosexual lifestyle and that is what is glaringly evident now. It is really a shame and a travesty that it is hard for them to swallow that the people have spoken.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse