When your religion promotes willful ignorance as bliss and grace and knowledge as being uppity in the face of your deity... what do you expect?

Only a fool can find something "good" about removing the rights of a segment of the population.

Isn't "less educated, more religious" awfully redundant?

And if we are to be perfectly honest, they also tended to be more black. The higher black turnout and support of Prop. 8 votes from black voters (not Mormons) provided the critical margin that put it over the top.

If gay groups were honest and had courage, they would boycott black businesses and go after the black community in protest; but I guess it's easier, safer and more PC to lash out at religiosos.

submitter: Shocking results of new poll show that Prop. 8 supporters tended to be less educated, more religious

So? That's the majority of voters. Get over it you cerebral pole smokers.

Il Douchey: If gay groups were honest and had courage, they would boycott black businesses and go after the black community in protest; but I guess it's easier, safer and more PC to lash out at religiosos.

They are being disingenuous, but they're also being somewhat intelligent as well. They know they can't convince the Church to support them so they lose nothing by being dicks to the Church. They might eventually convince the minority communities to support them so they don't want to burn bridges.

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I suspect that's the reason.

Il Douchey: If gay groups were honest and had courage, they would boycott black businesses and go after the black community in protest; but I guess it's easier, safer and more PC to lash out at religiosos.

The two (black, religious) aren't mutually exclusive.

Even if they are less educated and more religious, guess what -- their votes count just as much as the more educated and less religious.

Or, as the Obama supporters said to GOP fanboys: You lost, get over it. Do a better job winning the election and this is moot.

...the $73 million spent for and against the measure did not do much to change public attitudes on allowing gay couples to wed, said survey director Mark Baldassare.

Baldassare found the awful truth. Ads funded by Mormons and Catholics aren't the reason why Prop 8 passed. The voters were not inclined to support gay marriage in the first place.

SkinnyHead: ...the $73 million spent for and against the measure did not do much to change public attitudes on allowing gay couples to wed, said survey director Mark Baldassare.

Baldassare found the awful truth. Ads funded by Mormons and Catholics aren't the reason why Prop 8 passed. The voters were not inclined to support gay marriage in the first place.

It's a shame so many people are so utterly stupid in that regard, you know?

MindfulModeration: It's a shame so many people are so utterly stupid in that regard, you know?

What's stupid is the way the debate is being framed. If gays want the same rights as married people then they should frame the debate that way. If they just want to claim the title "married" then that's an entirely different debate.

I recall seeing a poll done that most religious people (including those that voted for Prop 8) would support a referendum giving the same legal rights to gays as married people have.

lexnaturalis: MindfulModeration: It's a shame so many people are so utterly stupid in that regard, you know?

What's stupid is the way the debate is being framed. If gays want the same rights as married people then they should frame the debate that way. If they just want to claim the title "married" then that's an entirely different debate.

What debate have you been listening to?

I recall seeing a poll done that most religious people (including those that voted for Prop 8) would support a referendum giving the same legal rights to gays as married people have.

Just, you know, separate but equal from our normal white straight marriages.

/in before someone accuses me of inappropriately using the Civil Rights era
//Just because black people "had it worse" doesn't make the analogy invalid

KaponoFor3: Or, as the Obama supporters said to GOP fanboys: You lost, get over it. Do a better job winning the election and this is moot.

GOP fanboys weren't denied basic fundamental rights.

Am I the only one to notice that the link is farked?

GAT_00: GOP fanboys weren't denied basic fundamental rights.

Get over it. You lost. Work harder next time.

KaponoFor3: Get over it. You lost. Work harder next time.

... and I say that as someone who voted NO on Prop 8 and had to explain my vote to my co-workers. No on 8 didn't do a good enough job. Yes on 8 was better organized and had a better message.

You want to know what I really think though? I think Gavin freaking Newsome is the reason Yes on 8 passed. That ad they played all up and down the state of him saying "It's coming... whether you like it or not!" was so effective its not even funny. It really embodied the whole attitude that caused the Yes on 8 people to get a huge turnout.

MindfulModeration: Just, you know, separate but equal from our normal white straight marriages.

That depends on how much baggage you tie to a single word. If a gay couple has identical rights (legally) as those of a straight couple, what is the issue? I'm genuinely curious.

By rights I mean that your partner can inherit your estate, has medical visitation rights, you get the tax break, and so forth.

lexnaturalis: That depends on how much baggage you tie to a single word

That's the point -- its not a fight over rights, its a fight over language and societal acceptance. What the No on 8 people don't realize is that societal acceptance will not come from ballot initiatives or court decisions. It will just come with time.

KaponoFor3: That's the point -- its not a fight over rights, its a fight over language and societal acceptance.

That's also my point. If the fight is for legal rights then I completely support the gay community. I think they should have the same legal status as straight couples.

Of course, my solution is to have civil unions that are completely divorced from religious marriage. All couples (gay and straight) would be required to be in a civil union before they could get "married" in a church (or other religious institution). The government would give zero credibility or weight to a religious marriage.

lexnaturalis: MindfulModeration: Just, you know, separate but equal from our normal white straight marriages.

That depends on how much baggage you tie to a single word. If a gay couple has identical rights (legally) as those of a straight couple, what is the issue? I'm genuinely curious.

By rights I mean that your partner can inherit your estate, has medical visitation rights, you get the tax break, and so forth.

Well the problem is, a.) Separate but equal is inherently unequal, and b.) Civil Unions, which are meant to hold all the rights of marriage, save for out of state recognition and federal benefits, are still discriminated against.

Take for example a case in Florida where a lesbian couple couldn't meet in a hospital because the staff there didn't believe civil unions were "equal" to marriage. One of them died without ever seeing her partner again. How unbelievably terrible is that? And all because of the misconception that a union that is meant to hold all the same rights as marriage (again, save for out of state recognition and federal benefits) is not "as good" or "proper" as marriage.

Il Douchey: If gay groups were honest and had courage, they would boycott black businesses and go after the black community in protest; but I guess it's easier, safer and more PC to lash out at religiosos.

Black people didn't organize as a tax-exempt church to support this piece of legislation. The acts of an individual does not warrant the boycott of a segment of the population who in no way chose to be affiliated with those individuals. The acts of an organization does warrant the boycott of that organization when all individuals within that organization chose to participate and chose to obey their leaders.


MindfulModeration: //Just because black people "had it worse" doesn't make the analogy invalid

This. Oppression is oppression, and the methods by which we oppress a segment of the population are the same; ostracizing, marginalization, denial of privileges and rights, terrorizing... It doesn't matter who or when people were oppressed, but that we continue to recognize when oppression is occurring and act to stop it.

lexnaturalis: That depends on how much baggage you tie to a single word. If a gay couple has identical rights (legally) as those of a straight couple, what is the issue? I'm genuinely curious.

Because Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. End of story. Right now homosexuals are not a protected set of the population; this is wrong and we should work to correct it... but the principle remains the same - that separate but equal is rarely equal.

Not to mention the sheer amount of paperwork and money that will need to be spent to create a whole new set of forms and procedures, not to mention to change every single law that references marriage to also reference "civil unions," in order to create this separate and "equal" institution.

It would be much easier, and much more likely to be equal if we just call them the same thing.

I remember a thread a few weeks ago (man I wish I had a link to it) where this one asshat must've wasted twenty or thirty posts going through this cycle:

Him: But what if it only has a different name?
Everyone else: Separate but Equal was ruled unconstitutional (citation).
Him: What if we treat them exactly the same?
Everyone else: They aren't being treated exactly the same where gay unions are "protected" (citations); and unless we change every law "civil unions" will not be written in the law providing loopholes to not treat them the same.
Him: But if we treat them the same, what difference does it make if it only has a different name?

Repeat ad nauseum.

I point this out in hopes of pre-empting a similar incident here.

MindfulModeration: Well the problem is, a.) Separate but equal is inherently unequal

That precept came to light when dealing with school facilities, if I remember correctly. The difference in the situations is clear, especially when there are no physical manifestations of the underlying rights at issue that can be different.

Talon: Because Separate but Equal is unconstitutional.

I'm not arguing a separate but equal situation. There would be no separation from a legal standpoint. The law would view everyone the same. There's no sense of separation.

How society views a gay couple vs a straight couple is irrelevant as long as the law views them the same.

KaponoFor3: The difference in the situations is clear, especially when there are no physical manifestations of the underlying rights at issue that can be different.

You said it more cogently than I did. That's exactly the point I was trying (and failing) to make.

KaponoFor3: That precept came to light when dealing with school facilities, if I remember correctly. The difference in the situations is clear, especially when there are no physical manifestations of the underlying rights at issue that can be different.

This fact makes opposition to gay marriages that much more baffling. I mean, I can sort of understand if some racist white guy doesn't want to send his kids to school with black children. By giving blacks their rights, his racist lifestyle was compromised.

But what is compromised by giving gay people the right to marry? It's not like your (straight) marriage will change. This will have a huge benefit for the gay community and NO COST WHATSOEVER to the straight community who objects to it.

Dr. Rosenrosen: But what is compromised by giving gay people the right to marry?

None. Like I said, I voted No on 8. But I'm also not so arrogant to refuse to listen and attempt to understand the thoughts of the other side.

They fight so hard not because something is compromised by giving gay people rights -- it's all about the word marriage for both sides. Heterosexual/religious couples refuse to accept that a gay union is "marriage" because they see marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples want their personal relationships to be recognized, on a societal level, as being equal to heterosexual relationships. The best way to do this is with the use of language and the label of "marriage".

It's a losing fight for the pro-gay marriage folks, because the religious will fight them to the death for the usage of the word marriage.

Dr. Rosenrosen: This will have a huge benefit for the gay community and NO COST WHATSOEVER to the straight community who objects to it.

It's literally an issue of language. Marriage has always been a religious institution. Recently (the last 100-150 or so years) governments started recognizing marriages and giving certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, and then the government began regulating marriages. To most religious people, marriage is still a religious institution despite the government regulation.

That's why I mentioned framing the debate in terms of legal rights and not marriage. I'm just as opposed to government regulation of marriage as I am denying visitation rights and legal status to gay couples.

Many religious people also fear that if gays have the right to marry, their churches will be sued for denying gay couples the right to marry in their church. Whether that would happen or not is irrelevant, because that's what they fear.

Take away the stigma of the phrase gay marriage and suddenly religious people everywhere agree that discriminating against gays is a bad thing.

lexnaturalis: It's literally an issue of language. Marriage has always been a religious institution. Recently (the last 100-150 or so years) governments started recognizing marriages and giving certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, and then the government began regulating marriages. To most religious people, marriage is still a religious institution despite the government regulation.

Seems like the religious folk lost control of the institution of marriage as soon as they let the government get involved all those years ago. Either they should fight to take back ALL marriage from government control (and let the gov't handle civil unions only), or they have to acknowledge that it is a gov't institution now and that the gov't cannot discriminate against its citizens.

lexnaturalis: Talon: Because Separate but Equal is unconstitutional.

I'm not arguing a separate but equal situation. There would be no separation from a legal standpoint. The law would view everyone the same. There's no sense of separation.

How society views a gay couple vs a straight couple is irrelevant as long as the law views them the same.

You are not arguing separate but equal? What's the difference between a "blacks only" school "Heterosexuals only" marriage and a "whites only" school "homosexuals only" civil union? They are both "schools" civil unions and institutionally they are the same thing... All that's different is the name and who is allowed to go to utilize which institution.

If you argue that "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals and "civil unions" be reserved for homosexuals and that they be the same thing, but just called something different and used for different segments of the population... you are arguing for separate, but equal.


lexnaturalis: It's literally an issue of language. Marriage has always been a religious institution. Recently (the last 100-150 or so years) governments started recognizing marriages and giving certain legal rights and benefits to married couples, and then the government began regulating marriages. To most religious people, marriage is still a religious institution despite the government regulation.

Marriage has also historically been a business transaction where the woman is nothing more than property, there is no love, and the sole purpose of the marriage is to benefit the man via male heirs.

Just sayin' that "but it's always been this way" doesn't really mean anything.

Are you saying that ignorance and bigotry are common among the less educated and more religious? WHAT A SHOCK! The backlash is getting costly.

Talon: You are not arguing separate but equal? What's the difference between a "blacks only" school "Heterosexuals only" marriage and a "whites only" school "homosexuals only" civil union? They are both "schools" civil unions and institutionally they are the same thing... All that's different is the name and who is allowed to go to utilize which institution.

You're seriously arguing that an underlying physical institution that has clear differences is the same as a semantic designation with no physical or legal differences?

lexnaturalis: Talon: You are not arguing separate but equal? What's the difference between a "blacks only" school "Heterosexuals only" marriage and a "whites only" school "homosexuals only" civil union? They are both "schools" civil unions and institutionally they are the same thing... All that's different is the name and who is allowed to go to utilize which institution.

You're seriously arguing that an underlying physical institution that has clear differences is the same as a semantic designation with no physical or legal differences?

YES. THAT'S THE WHOLE FARKING IDEA BEHIND BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

submitter: Shocking results of new poll show that Prop. 8 supporters tended to be less educated, more religious

sepuku2: So? That's the majority of voters. Get over it you cerebral pole smokers.

Yes! Take pride in your weaknesses!

MindfulModeration: YES. THAT'S THE WHOLE FARKING IDEA BEHIND BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

No it's not. Brown v Board of Education held that separate physical institutions were inherently inequal. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantic designations that carry no legal differences.

Asserting that this is an issue even remotely similar to Brown v Board of Education is disingenuous at best and only serves to rouse the emotions. Using different terms, but maintaining no legal differences, is not even remotely de jure discrimination.

The fact that you'd even attempt to draw a comparison between this issue and Brown v Board of Education demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of modern jurisprudence.

lexnaturalis: MindfulModeration: YES. THAT'S THE WHOLE FARKING IDEA BEHIND BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

No it's not. Brown v Board of Education held that separate physical institutions were inherently inequal. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantic designations that carry no legal differences.

Asserting that this is an issue even remotely similar to Brown v Board of Education is disingenuous at best and only serves to rouse the emotions. Using different terms, but maintaining no legal differences, is not even remotely de jure discrimination.

The fact that you'd even attempt to draw a comparison between this issue and Brown v Board of Education demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of modern jurisprudence.

That's hot.

lexnaturalis: is the same as a semantic designation with no physical or legal differences?

All rights afforded to "marriage" are not afforded to "civil unions".

I mean...hell...all the states don't even recognize them.

There are rights or privileges or benefits automatically afforded to a married couple that range from power of attorney or inheritance issues to issues relating to hospitals refusing entry for partners because they aren't married. I'm pretty sure there is a tax break in there somewhere too.'

So, a "marriage" is not the same as a "civil union" in the legal sense. I would guess they are both civil contracts entered in to by two consenting adults but they aren't the same.

Personally, I agree that everybody should get "civil unions" and the government should completely get out of the business of "marriage", but they aren't working towards that. People are fighting for the idea of leaving "marriage" alone and they seem to be missing the part about how "marriage" has legal definitions.

As for the fight for societal recognition...I don't even know what that means. But, I know that "civil unions" are not recognized the same as "marriages".

Also, I would like the Supreme Court to look at the 14th Amendment and say that "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." means "all persons" without the stupidity of things like "well, they are equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex".

lexnaturalis:
I'm not arguing a separate but equal situation. There would be no separation from a legal standpoint. The law would view everyone the same. There's no sense of separation.

How society views a gay couple vs a straight couple is irrelevant as long as the law views them the same.

If a civil union is exactly the same as marriage then call it marriage.

But I don't see how you can call it civil union in one state and have federal marriage laws apply the same as they do in states that have marriages.

Il Douchey: If gay groups were honest and had courage, they would boycott black businesses and go after the black community in protest;

Did they vote for it because they were black or other reasons? Most gays and lesbians realize that skin colour is not the causative link, but most likely a different variable such as religion.

KaponoFor3: MindfulModeration: Well the problem is, a.) Separate but equal is inherently unequal

That precept came to light when dealing with school facilities, if I remember correctly. The difference in the situations is clear, especially when there are no physical manifestations of the underlying rights at issue that can be different.

But the rights would not be the same. There are laws that specifically mention marriage. Rights between states would not be supported. Unless every single piece of legislation that mentions marriage is changed to include civil unions, it will still be two different things.

And if they are made to be exactly the same, why spend the money to have two different institutions that do exactly the same thing?

In all seriousness, we need to enact a law stripping churches of their tax-exempt status in this state. All of them. I'm tired of this stupidity.

submitter: Shocking results of new poll show that Prop. 8 supporters tended to be less educated, more religious

So...supporters of gay marriage tended to be more educated. Does this mean that the ghey can be taught?

Cagey B: In all seriousness, we need to enact a law stripping churches of their tax-exempt status in this state. All of them. I'm tired of this stupidity.

Put it on the ballot and see if it gets a majority vote.

I_C_Weener: submitter: Shocking results of new poll show that Prop. 8 supporters tended to be less educated, more religious

So...supporters of gay marriage tended to be more educated. Does this mean that the ghey can be taught?

I believe that the implication is that more educated people are less likely to ascribe to irrational prejudice.

darkyn: I believe that the implication is that more educated people are less likely to ascribe to irrational prejudice.

But, the question remains...is prejudice genetic or learned behavior?

lexnaturalis: All couples (gay and straight) would be required to be in a civil union before they could get "married" in a church (or other religious institution).

So you want the government to be able to tell a religion who they can and can not marry? You do realize homosexuals can get married in their church right?

I_C_Weener: But, the question remains...is prejudice genetic or learned behavior?

I believe most studies have concluded that children must be taught prejudice. Unless taught that "blacks are bad" or "jews are evil" a child will not form these ideas by themselves.

When are you people going to let this go? Jeez...You lost...QQ some more.

Prop 8 supporters less educated? That what, Obama supporters?

Yes, ignorance and bigotry both remain shocking in a supposedly enlightened country still stuck in the 20th Century...

It sure would be nice if we could join the rest of the civilized world...

They ARE waiting for us.

Il Douchey: And if we are to be perfectly honest, they also tended to be more black. The higher black turnout and support of Prop. 8 votes from black voters (not Mormons) provided the critical margin that put it over the top.

And those black and Hispanic voters predominantly did so out of religious beliefs.

YEH BUT WER SMARTER THEN THE FAGZ

GOD BLESS