TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › California voters pass Proposition 8,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California voters pass Proposition 8, - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
It's not an international subject I pay much attention to, so I'm not really sure who the mature nations are. Is it generally legal elsewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Not sure if generally but it is not unheard of.

It is possible in Quebec, and Germany has something similar to a civil union. Also Uruguay and a state in Australia (Australian Capital Territory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
It is also legal here in Ontario. There is still controversy from some churches, but same sex couples can get married with all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Off hand, the Scandinavian countries, the UK, France, Switzerland and New Zealand have civil unions/domestic partnerships, too. I believe Israel allows common-law marriages of homosexuals.

The Netherlands and Spain allow same-sex marriages.

Europe is a lot more secularized than the U.S., which is probably why there's less controversy about same-sex unions.
post #62 of 89
Socially, Israel is light-years ahead of us in many repects. Even though many of Israel's enemies are Arab, there are Arabs involved in Israel's government, and Arab citizens. They recognize that people are individuals, and for the most part, they don't profile by race like many in the US do
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
It is also legal here in Ontario. There is still controversy from some churches, but same sex couples can get married with all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Not just Ontario, all of Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...iage_in_Canada
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapunzel47 View Post
Not just Ontario, all of Canada...
Huh, didn't know that. Do you suppose many Americans have moved to Canada for that reason?
post #65 of 89
I know that a lot of gay Americans have gotten married in Canada.
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
That is funny. My ex used to call him Bushy.
I actually left another forum (not cat-related) because the puerile habits of the owner of the forum and the way he would use derogatory names for anyone he didn't agree with. That applied to both left and right, by the way. Bush was always "the smirking chimp," Hillary was "the Hildebeast," McCain was "McSame," and Obama was "Odumbo." And those are the tamest.

My mother taught me that you don't call someone else a name, no matter how much you might disagree with them. It's juvenile, and it's pointless, since it doesn't accomplish anything except to make people angry.

I've never met a politician I haven't disagreed with AND agreed with. Being on one side or another does not make you evil, stupid, or a conspirator in the downfall of the country. Most politicians are smart enough to realize that anything that's too far out of the mainstream will make enough people angry to ensure their defeat in the next election.

I'm disappointed that some haven't learned that lesson, at least not yet. It would be refreshing if our whole populace could just learn about getting along even if you don't want to go along.

I will feel free to criticize Obama, just as I criticized Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and LBJ. If I think he's doing something wrong or stupid for the country (like restricting oil drilling, or taking away the rights of workers to a secret union ballot, or not owning a pet), I'll speak up. And I'm not afraid to say when I think he's doing something good, like getting his staff up to speed quickly (unlike Clinton, who was still trying to staff on Inauguration Day).
post #67 of 89
HOLY COW. Pelosi sure doesn't mind throwing the voters of CA under the bus.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNE0140996.DTL

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."


Not quite sure what she meant by that. It was clear enough on the ballot, especially after the wording of the Proposition got changed to say "denying rights."

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact. Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Maybe the people really did speak, just that it was the answer no one wanted.
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
HOLY COW. Pelosi sure doesn't mind throwing the voters of CA under the bus.
It reminds me of George W. Bush throwing the American voters "under the bus" after the mid-term "thumping".

Quote:
"I thought the American people would understand the importance of taxes and security." ~G.W. Bush~
post #69 of 89
And now Arnold puts in his opinion. Which sounds like a contradiction to me:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4939340.story


In past statements, he has said he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."


So does he want the voters to decide? Or the courts to overturn what the voters decide? Isn't that how they got into this second vote on it?
post #70 of 89
It sounds to me as though he's studied hard and learned all about being a politician
post #71 of 89
Sounds to me like Pelosi just told the people of California that they can't read and are ignortant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
HOLY COW. Pelosi sure doesn't mind throwing the voters of CA under the bus.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNE0140996.DTL

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."


Not quite sure what she meant by that. It was clear enough on the ballot, especially after the wording of the Proposition got changed to say "denying rights."

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact. Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Maybe the people really did speak, just that it was the answer no one wanted.
post #72 of 89
Here's another report on Schwarzenegger, which includes a video interview with CNN.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/...2871226279859/
post #73 of 89
I have been reading through this thread and I hope someone can help me cause I am confused here. I have never thought of marriage as pertaining to a religion. To me it defines the joining of two people. My husband and I went to the county clerks office got the license and had my bishop marry us at a reception center. I have friends who are of the same religion and different ones also that just went to the court house and got married, it is the same for them, both are recognized by they church and the law. If I left the church it would not change. The only thing that would change it is a divorce, a legal process, which I could get any time I wanted and marry anybody else I wanted, no one would tell me I couldn't divorce and remarry. The only time that would be different is if I were to get married in the Temple. Then I would have to have permission of the church and have a pretty darn good reason to do so. Is it different elsewhere? I just never thought of marriage as anything other than a legal process. I am against prop 8 because I feel it discriminates against a group of people. I feel it does because it treats them different than other people who pay taxes and are citizens of this country. My grand-daughter and her partner want the right to get married so they can get insurance, raise a family, have the protection of the courts if needed, make health care choices if one of them is sick or dying and get Social Securtiy if one dies, the same as anyone other married couple. To them and me it has nothing to do with religion. I have just never thought of any differently so I am a little amazed that others do.
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by twokatz View Post
I have been reading through this thread and I hope someone can help me cause I am confused here. I have never thought of marriage as pertaining to a religion. To me it defines the joining of two people. My husband and I went to the county clerks office got the license and had my bishop marry us at a reception center. I have friends who are of the same religion and different ones also that just went to the court house and got married, it is the same for them, both are recognized by they church and the law. If I left the church it would not change. The only thing that would change it is a divorce, a legal process, which I could get any time I wanted and marry anybody else I wanted, no one would tell me I couldn't divorce and remarry. The only time that would be different is if I were to get married in the Temple. Then I would have to have permission of the church and have a pretty darn good reason to do so. Is it different elsewhere? I just never thought of marriage as anything other than a legal process. I am against prop 8 because I feel it discriminates against a group of people. I feel it does because it treats them different than other people who pay taxes and are citizens of this country. My grand-daughter and her partner want the right to get married so they can get insurance, raise a family, have the protection of the courts if needed, make health care choices if one of them is sick or dying and get Social Securtiy if one dies, the same as anyone other married couple. To them and me it has nothing to do with religion. I have just never thought of any differently so I am a little amazed that others do.
I agree with you completely. The Catholic church would not marry us because I was divorced so we eloped and had a big party for our friends later. We are married by law but not according our the church (which we ceased to attend around that time )

I don't feel any less married than if the priest has married us. I do believe in God but don't have much respect for organized religion which I personally find practices more hypocracy than true religion as it was meant to be IMO.

The churches should stay out of legal issues and concentrate on being better institutions for what they are supposed to be teaching.
post #75 of 89
I didn't know the Catholic church takes that stance. In the LDS church you are married no matter if a bishop or a county clerk does it. As I said the only difference is a Temple marriage, that can only be done in the temple and is very hard to get changed. If you do get divorced you can remarry and it is acknowledged by the church but you can't get married in the temple again unless you get a temple divorce. Boy I'm getting an education today.
post #76 of 89
I thought when you where married in the Temple you are, "sealed for time and eternity"

I was privileged to be able to tour the LV Temple before its' dedication.
It is beautiful. The baptismal font is just awesome. The Celestial Room is breathtaking.
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by twokatz View Post
I didn't know the Catholic church takes that stance. In the LDS church you are married no matter if a bishop or a county clerk does it. As I said the only difference is a Temple marriage, that can only be done in the temple and is very hard to get changed. If you do get divorced you can remarry and it is acknowledged by the church but you can't get married in the temple again unless you get a temple divorce. Boy I'm getting an education today.
We can get married in the Catholic Church if I get an annulment from my first marriage which in fact I did but it took so long that we were already married for 3 years and it just didn't matter any more so we never bothered. The whole annulment thing was a joke. You could get an annulment at that time for non-consummation of your marriage (after 4 years of marriage that's a little hard to believe), or mental cruelty. I got mine on mental cruelty which was also a crock of you know what but it made the church feel better.
post #78 of 89
Hey, they really pulled it off. Protests in major cities all over the United States. That's pretty cool! Isn't the internet wonderful

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us...ea6&ei=5087%0A
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I thought when you where married in the Temple you are, "sealed for time and eternity"

I was privileged to be able to tour the LV Temple before its' dedication.
It is beautiful. The baptismal font is just awesome. The Celestial Room is breathtaking.
You are right, unless you get a temple divorce. It is very hard to get a temple divorce, the General Authority has to approve it. This is not a legal action but an action within the church. Without it you are still sealed and may get a legal divorce and marry anyone one you want but as far as the church is concerned you are still sealed. When you die you will be with the partner you were sealed to. My dad had a girlfriend that he moved in with when he was in the Army and mom was here. It took my mom a long time and a lot of work to get hers. I have kids and grandkids that have been married in the Temple and I am happy for them but I do wish they would wait a while and go back when they have been together for awhile. I have never been to one, maybe when they dedicate the one they are building by my house.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Hey, they really pulled it off. Protests in major cities all over the United States. That's pretty cool! Isn't the internet wonderful

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us...ea6&ei=5087%0A
I just read in our Toronto Star that Toronto and Ottawa were among the protest sites outside the US.
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by twokatz View Post
You are right, unless you get a temple divorce. It is very hard to get a temple divorce, the General Authority has to approve it. This is not a legal action but an action within the church. Without it you are still sealed and may get a legal divorce and marry anyone one you want but as far as the church is concerned you are still sealed. When you die you will be with the partner you were sealed to. My dad had a girlfriend that he moved in with when he was in the Army and mom was here. It took my mom a long time and a lot of work to get hers. I have kids and grandkids that have been married in the Temple and I am happy for them but I do wish they would wait a while and go back when they have been together for awhile. I have never been to one, maybe when they dedicate the one they are building by my house.
I think a temple divorce and a Catholic annulment are pretty much the same idea. Basically, the church agrees to dissolve the union and it never happend. A Catholic annulment can be easy, or very difficult, depending on the diocese you are going through (and how liberal or "traditional" they are). We got married in the Church, and the only way I can marry again in the Church is if DH dies (God forbid) or if I can prove he didn't "live up to his vows"....THAT is where the interpretation comes in.
post #82 of 89
Gay activists were going to march here yesterday but were not allowed to as they did not have the necessary permits.

But a few years ago when the immigration thing was hot and heavy, Hispanics were allowed to march with no permits.

Now, how is that fair?
post #83 of 89
If "here" is Las Vegas, there was a protest. So says the Las Vegas sun and here is longer coverage.
post #84 of 89
I know that, they just were not allowed to march.
post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I thought when you where married in the Temple you are, "sealed for time and eternity"

I was privileged to be able to tour the LV Temple before its' dedication.
It is beautiful. The baptismal font is just awesome. The Celestial Room is breathtaking.
You are I think that is why is is so hard to get a temple divorce.
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I know that, they just were not allowed to march.
March/protest, protest/march. What's the difference? They need a parade permit to march?
post #87 of 89
They had a rally outside the Gay/Lesbian place, not sure of the initials.
Pretty close to strip on East Sahara, probably a mile east of the Sahara Hotel.
Far enough away from the Strip that tourists would have been unaware of it.
post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
They had a rally outside the Gay/Lesbian place, not sure of the initials.
Pretty close to strip on East Sahara, probably a mile east of the Sahara Hotel.
Far enough away from the Strip that tourists would have been unaware of it.
It is unlikely the tourists are the ones they need to gain support from anyway so that's probably not a bad thing.
post #89 of 89
I don't understand what you are getting at. We didn't have anything on our ballot regarding this so I don't understand why they wanted to march or rally in Las Vegas. We aren't one of the 30 states that passed some kind of anti-same sex laws.

I did see the gay activists illegally disrupting a church service in Wisconsin that wasn't LDS.

/Side Note:
Also, watched Bill O'Reilly tonight, they did an expose on San Francisco tonight. It was filmed in S.F. last Thursday, the 13th. Whoa. That City looked scary to me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › California voters pass Proposition 8,