While Republican standard bearer John McCain garnered only thirty-seven (37) percent of the vote in California, a constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman passed fifty-two (52) percent to forty-seven (47) percent.

With Proposition 8 carrying the day in the home of such stalwart Liberal political icons as Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the stage is set for an extended fight between gay rights activists and defenders of traditional family values in the Golden State.

While opponents of the constitutional amendment vow to carry on the battle to legalize same-sex marriage in both the courts and the voting booth, they are heartened by the fact that sixty-one (61) percent of voters supported a similar measure in 2000. The resulting nine (9) percent shift over the past eight years suggests time and evolving views on social mores and traditions are on their side.

This belief is reinforced when one considers current views on interracial relationships and marriage.

Once considered an abhorrent social taboo, interracial relationships and marriages are now commonplace across the nation. Social mores that once aggressively condemned black and white unions and supported public ostracization of interracial couples have evolved to the point where they fail to illicit even a second glance from the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, the previous taboo status of homosexuality that kept generations of gays and lesbians “in the closet” has likewise lost ground in the ongoing culture wars in America.

Openly gay and lesbian celebrities such as Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell are now warmly embraced throughout the heartland as well as in the Meccas of gay American culture, New York and San Francisco.

Though one might safely assume that time and changing social norms will eventually resolve the matter to the liking of the gay community and their supporters, I would suggest that both sides consider a compromise that recognizes the desire for expanded civil and legal rights in the gay community while respecting time-honored and traditional views of marriage.

The separation of church and state is the point from which a compromise should be launched.

Gay activists protest that the ban on same-sex marriage is an enforcement of religious dogma via governmental power.

Meanwhile, defenders of traditional marriage insist that gay marriage would undermine the foundation of society and would equate societal endorsement of an alternative lifestyle that is both sinful and destructive in the opinion of many among their ranks.

The compromise lies in the removal of state involvement in the religious institution of marriage and the wedding sacrament.

In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority.

Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine.

Should couples married in a church service wish to formally record their union, they would be able to do so with the local registrar authority at their discretion.

The heart of the compromise is the extension of legal and civil rights to an excluded segment of society while honoring a religious institution that is sacrosanct to another.

As one infamous Los Angelino so famously asked, can’t we all just get along, faithful readers? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if civil unions guarantees the maintenance of civil society.

__________________
THE BARE KNUCKLED PUNDIT

I'm all for another Civil Rights movement. I don't really get how the ban works, exactly--can pastors who marry off gays be punished? Can gays who get married be punished? That needs to be established before we can start our movement.

Assuming this illegal crap isn't struck down by the courts as it should be.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And a large number of the people who voted for Prop. 8 were black folks - probably because they're so damned sick of a bunch of homos comparing themselves to being black. ******ry is not a race!

Simple solution: the state should just get out of the marriage business entirely and should stop this sick, perverted notion of defining people by these various group associations. Why the hell can't they all just be Californicators or, better yet, Americans?

Their best bet is to argue on the basis of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. However, no one (breeders, homos, or anyone else) has a right to have their shacking up recognized by the state and granted SPECIAL rights, privileges, etc.

See, this is why blacks are so pissed at the homos! There is NO COMPARISON between race and sexual proclivities.

And once the homos get what they want, who's next? The zoophiles? The pederasts? The states should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If people want to shack up, then let them bear the costs, let them sign various contracts or wills or proxies or whatever to accomplish things like recognition as next of kin, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Yes, but we don't really give a rat's behind what a bunch of "celebrities" have to say.

Absolutely not! There is nothing that prevents anyone from entering into a "marriage" as far as certain religious groups are concerned. The only issue is the benefits, privileges, etc. that the state grants to MARRIAGE, thus making civil unions just another name for marriage. In that regard, the state needs to get out of the business of giving these special privileges, benefits, etc. to people who choose to shack up. I'm sure most single people are sick of having to pick up the tab (through the higher tax rate) for these people who are shacking up.

It doesn't have a damned thing to do with the Church! The only thing we're talking about here is the GOVERNMENT giving recognition to people who choose to shack up and government has no business giving special rights to any group of people, including people who choose to shack up.

What a crock of b.s.! Shove your anti-religious bigotry up your backside! It's about government choosing to give special recognition to certain relationships - recognition it has no business giving.

Whether ******ry is going to destroy the fabric of civilization doesn't have a damned thing to do with whether the government chooses to give certain recognitions, benefits, privileges, etc. on the basis of two people choosing to shack up.

No, the only acceptable solution is for government to get out of the marriage (civil union) business entirely.

What a crock of b.s.! Civil union is just another name for marriage in terms of what the state gives to people who choose to shack up.

They can already do this.

The Courts have no authority to compel any religion to violate its doctrines.

The government needs to get out of the marriage (civil union) business entirely.

No, it's still discriminating against single people because it is adding yet another group being given SPECIAL rights. And, yes, it is special rights because the benefits, privileges, recognitions, etc. only apply to a specific group (people who choose to get married/enter into civil union).

No. The state needs to get out of the marriage/civil union business entirely!

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

There is no law against homos shacking up. The only issue here is the benefits, privileges, recognitions, etc. that the state gives on the basis of marriage. If a couple of homos want to go before the pastor of some Unitarian Universalist Church and get married, they're free to do so. There is no law against it. However, the state doesn't recognize the relationship; so, as far as the state is concerned, the "marriage" doesn't exist.

Government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. There is no valid basis for government to give special rights to anyone on any basis and government recognition of marriage gives special rights to those who marry. And, as far as this government recognition is concerned, marriage and civil union are the same thing.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Please stop saying the word '******' and/or its variations. Stop calling gay people homos. This is total bull****, black people voted for Prop 8 because their religious beliefs compel them to dislike the idea of gay people.

You're the one calling gay people things that are derogatory. They are not treated as any other American would be.

Not the issue at hand. And don't say the word "homos" to refer to gay people, please.

Mind explaining the practical differences between the two? And note I said practical, not literal. I know that race and sexuality are two different things, you don't need to tell me that.


Way to be dishonest by comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and 'zoophiles.' Not the same thing at all. Adult-child relationships are not consensual relationships, nor are human-animal relationships.

Disgusting. Your borderline-genocidal hatred for gay people is what's sick and perverted, not the notion that government should recognize marriages.

Yes, but that's not the issue. See if you can tell what it really is.

They have a choice as to whether or not to get married. Also, there are not really any tax breaks for married individuals as opposed to single individuals... The issue is that gay people do not have this choice.

Cut the ****. It has everything to do with the church. People's religious beliefs have everything to do with their opposition to gay marriage in almost every case.
I'm also getting tired of you trying to shift the issue. The millions who voted for Prop 8 in order to protect marriage certainly don't have a problem with government recognition of marriages in general. Just not certain ones.

So, all of a sudden it's the religious people who have just legally enshrined persecution that are the victims of bigotry. How dishonest can you get?
And, for the last time, it isn't about government recognition of marriage for the millions of people who want to defend the sanctity of marriage and protect the institution of marriage by providing a legal definition. They have no problem with government recognition of their marriages, just with icky disgusting gay marriages.

Once again, trying to change the issue. And don't use the word '******,' please.

Correct.

No, because single people are not the same as married couples. The rights in question apply to married couples, not married individuals.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am confused as to how in the world the state government would "get out of" the marriage business. Should there be no legality or recognition of marriage? That would have very serious practical and legal consequences, I would think.

My wife and I weren't married because some pastor babbled some magic words. We were married when we signed and notarized the legal documentation and gained the recognition of the state.

Chan, once again, your government-should-never-do-anything stance is impractical nonsense.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

By no longer giving marriage (civil unions, whatever the hell you want to call it) special rights, privileges, recognitions, etc.

No. However, that doesn't make it "illegal" for people to enter into such relationships. It only means that the government wouldn't be involved in any way whatsoever.

As in, no more tax breaks for certain married couples no more government benefits based on marriage. As for any of the other things that automatically accrue with marriage, these can be addressed through contracts entered into by the parties and it wouldn't involve the government.

No, you were married because you chose to enter into that relationship. It isn't up to the government to declare that you are married.

I have never said the government shouldn't do anything. Stick to the damned topic! There is no valid basis for government giving people special rights, recognition, privileges, benefits, etc. just because they choose to shack up.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Get over it!

How much you want to bet that the vast majority of the blacks who voted for Prop. 8 are not religious (as in they don't live their beliefs)?


I'm not the government and having the government get out of the marriage business entirely would result in the government treating everyone equally in terms of the relationships people enter into (meaning the government wouldn't be involved).



It is entirely the issue. Anyone who wants to can enter into that most intimate of human relationships we call "marriage." The only difference is that government chooses to recognize some marriages and not others and it is the government recognition that is the entire issue.

Chosen behavior.

Not that there was any actual comparison being made but you may consider heterosexuals to also be included in it. You're essentially saying that consent is the standard we must go by. If that's the case then the homo rights activists' argument that their sexuality is not a choice goes out the window (not that anyone woke up one morning and actually chose to be gay, straight or otherwise but you can't argue consent as the basis for gay marriage if the basis for treating gays the same as straights is that sexual "orientation" is not chosen).

I'm an equal opportunity offender. And, yes, I am opposed to the government recognizing marriage. If two (or more) people want to shack up and share expenses and property and name each other next of kin and whatever else, that's up to them: the government has no business getting involved.



In the narrow context of the sentence to which I was responding, it is the issue. In other words, I'm dismissing your silly notion of "oh, now homo celebrities are being warmly embraced by the American public" out of hand because I dismiss that whole notion of celebrity out of hand.



The fact that there is a lower tax rate for certain married couples IS a tax break. You again stupidly miss the point, little boy. In order for there to be equality ALL citizens (meaning individuals, not couples, not groups) must be treated, say it with me, EQUALLY under the law.



No, damn it, it doesn't! The LAW applies specifically to the GOVERNMENT'S RECOGNITION of marriage (or civil unions or whatever the hell you want to call them). That is the only issue. It doesn't matter what a bunch of religious fanatics say. Churches are entirely free to recognize or not recognize any relationships they want; so, they're not in any way affected by this. It's all about trying to force the government to not give government recognition to homosexual relationships.


Thank you for finally seeing that it's all about government recognition of marriage! That is the only issue here.



Why else do you and others keep trying to pin all this on religious people as if to say that only religious people supported Prop. 8. I've got news for you: if you look at the lives of the people who voted for Prop. 8, you'll find that most of them don't live particularly religious lives and you would never even know that they were religious (which suggests that they're really not).


It's ALL about government recognition of marriage. In this case, a bunch of people trying to keep that government recognition only for heterosexuals. Thank you, again, for finally recognizing that it's all about government recognition of marriage.

Citizens are all the same under the law. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for individual citizens, not groups. If we follow your idiotic argument, homos are not the same as heteros and, therefore, should not be treated as if they are heteros.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I just don't see how that would be practical whatsoever, given all the legalities and whatnot (like tax filing statuses).

No valid basis? Try thousands of years of common precident, let alone that the fact is accepted by everyone except a few malcontents like yourself.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that governments and societies promote marriage to encourage exclusivity, procreation and the continuance of the society.

I am afraid you are swimmimg against a few thousand years of human history. Good luck!

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Eliminating the preferential treatment for marriage would result in only one tax filing status. Other things like hospital visitation, making medical decisions, inheritance, etc. can be accomplished through private contracts.



Precedent means nothing and merely being accepted by people doesn't make it valid.

And I would suggest that none of these are valid functions of government.

Actually, I'm not. This silly notion of special privileges being given by the government to people on the basis of shacking up is a modern contrivance (within the last few hundred years at most).

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."