Comments on: What is “Marriage Protection”? A Social Conservative’s View on Prop 8

By: gameover

gameover — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:00:05 +0000

I really don’t care if gays get married or whathaveyou, I am sure that they will get equal rights in time. I’m just not sure if I’m ready to see the after effects of all that. I’m not a homophobe, but there are certain things you don’t want to see, like your parents naked or fat chicks pretending to be skinny or dudes french kissing in public.

Playing devils advocate, what’s to prevent people from twisting marriage into lots of things it’s not supposed to be? If we’re talking full equal rights for all and marriage doesn’t have to be just between a man and a woman, then could it be a man and women? Or man with multiple men? Or woman and men (only in porn)? Or thinking more practically (and this would be pretty sneaky), but could you deny a man marrying his daughter or son then? By doing so, they could avoid the death tax as all your assets pass tax free to your spouse.

By: Rengirl

Rengirl — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:23:49 +0000

@Really: I’m not gay but I imagine gay people want to marry for the same reasons anyone else wants to marry – they want to commit themselves to one person for the rest of their lives. Maybe they want to throw a big party to celebrate their relationship like straight people do? Or maybe they want to be able to add each other to their insurance benefits and such… or be considered “immediate family” in cases that warrant such titles.

I don’t think you have to be heterosexual to want such things.

By: Really?

Really? — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:39:49 +0000

I don’t understand why it’s so important for gay people to marry since marriage is a ritual thats probably the most a heterosexual thing to do since the beginning of time.

Perhaps they should find a other ways of demonstrating their union that is not anything so heterosexual-like?

By: Allen

Allen — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:20:38 +0000

I voted no because of the civil, legal, and financial protections that are stripped from gay couples if this amendment were to be passed.

That said, “marriage” has been defined, perhaps implicitly, as a religious union between a man and a woman for ages and ages. Yes, the fact that there have not been gay marriages for hundreds of years means that that’s part of the definition (even if it’s implicit).

It doesn’t make much sense to me to expand definitions to “protect” people, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people who are religious to protect that meaning because it is something sacred to them.

For the record, I voted no, I don’t attach any religious or sacred meaning to marriage, but I think there are people out there who do, and they get unfairly attacked and characterized as ignorant or as bigots.

By: Akrypti

Akrypti — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:37:35 +0000

Jason:

Please see:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8

If Prop 8 is passed, the new clause in the Constitution will be referred to as the “Marriage Protection Act.” See “Section 1″

Taken from the actual language of the initiative.

Government website on Prop 8:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:22:16 +0000

Actually, Prop 8 is titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” not “California Marriage Protection Act”

Also, Akrypti wrote: “Passage of Prop 8 means significant revenue loss”

Could you please give some examples of how the passage of Prop 8 would cause revenue loss for state and local governments? Sales taxes on what?