#47600 Proposition 8

[Nanti-SARRMM]

How would the temple operations be affected? We already discriminate against non-Mormons (and non-temple-worthy Mormons) and there's no problem, plus the California constitution includes a provision that says that churches don't have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to.

I did not know there was that provision.. So I guess it is a fight over the word of marriage after all...

[Katya]

How would the temple operations be affected? We already discriminate against non-Mormons (and non-temple-worthy Mormons) and there's no problem, plus the California constitution includes a provision that says that churches don't have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to.

I did not know there was that provision.. So I guess it is a fight over the word of marriage after all...

Yeah, there's been a lot of misinformation in that area -- that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. It's not true.

[NerdGirl]

How would the temple operations be affected? We already discriminate against non-Mormons (and non-temple-worthy Mormons) and there's no problem, plus the California constitution includes a provision that says that churches don't have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to.

I did not know there was that provision.. So I guess it is a fight over the word of marriage after all...

That's exactly why I've been saying it's a fight over the word. And the Church didn't say anything when same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, but I believe (and I could be completely wrong) that there is some sort of legal distinction between civil and religious marriage in Canada, although if you have a religious marriage, that automatically counts as also having a civil marriage, so you don't have to get married both in and out of the temple like you do in some countries with that legal distinction.

[NerdGirl]

and has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

No offense intended Portia, but what a load of crap. It has everything to do with being straight or gay. In one case, it happened, and in the other it wouldn't have.

I'm inclined to agree with Portia here. If the guy in question sexually harassed his roommate, he didn't do it because he's gay, he did it because he's a creep. None of the gay people I know like to go around attacking people. If the guy in question sexually harassed himself, well, straight guys do that too.

[Fredjikrang]

I think it would be a mistake to rule out either part, creep and gay. I think that both were necessary.

[Imogen]

and has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

No offense intended Portia, but what a load of crap. It has everything to do with being straight or gay. In one case, it happened, and in the other it wouldn't have.

I am all for tolerance, and all of this Prop. 8 stuff has been both confusing and annoying to me. In many ways I'm a libertarian at heart, but I also believe that some things are just wrong. My point of confusion has always been over what should the government regulate.

Do I think that homosexuals are doing something wrong if they act on their desires? Yes. Do I think that because of those actions they should be denied rights or be unequal to the rest of us in the eye of the United States? Not at all, and I think that any attempt to do so should be punished. So why the dichotomy? Because I don't think it is the governments job to dictate personal morality.

So where do I stand on Prop. 8? I probably would have voted for it, though I would have to read it to be sure. If it was simply defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, then I definitely would have voted for it. Why? Because that is not a moral decision. It is a linguistic decision, and one that I think would be unnecessary if the government wasn't already regulating "marriage," which I don't understand anyway.

Does anyone know why the government regulates marriage? That is what I would like to know.

but voting for something that defines "marriage" as between a certain group of people IS discriminating against them when marriage has certain protected rights that california's domestic partnerships do not include. and a lot of people view it as an issue of morality. your church encouraged people to donate to the "yes" campaign as an issue of morality, not linguistics.

and how do YOU know what would have happened if that roommate was straight? some girl could've put her hand down his shirt in public. maybe roommate 3 is also a creepster and sexually harassed one of roommate 2's friends, so he was getting back at him. we don't know all the surrounding details, so one person being gay is just being used to make people think gays are promiscuous and can't keep their hands of poor innocent straight people. without more details it's unfair to say his being gay had anything to do with the incident. that's like saying i yelled at someone because i'm black. you don't know WHY i'm yelling or what i'm trying to accomplish, so it's just an unclear, inflammatory tale.

[Fredjikrang]

but voting for something that defines "marriage" as between a certain group of people IS discriminating against them when marriage has certain protected rights that california's domestic partnerships do not include. and a lot of people view it as an issue of morality. your church encouraged people to donate to the "yes" campaign as an issue of morality, not linguistics.

And I don't think I would have voted for it based on a morality argument.

As for the rest of what you say here, it seems like it all has to do with the final question I asked, and so I will ask it again.

Does anyone know why the government regulates marriage?

It seems like all the rest of the arguments that I have heard depend on this question, and yet I have never heard anyone try to explain it.

[Sharona Fleming]

Did you get to listen to Dr. George's forum a couple Tuesdays back? He addressed government regulation of marriage briefly.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=browse&spe ... =&x=10&y=4

[Katya]

but voting for something that defines "marriage" as between a certain group of people IS discriminating against them when marriage has certain protected rights that california's domestic partnerships do not include. and a lot of people view it as an issue of morality. your church encouraged people to donate to the "yes" campaign as an issue of morality, not linguistics.

And I don't think I would have voted for it based on a morality argument.

As for the rest of what you say here, it seems like it all has to do with the final question I asked, and so I will ask it again.

Does anyone know why the government regulates marriage?

It seems like all the rest of the arguments that I have heard depend on this question, and yet I have never heard anyone try to explain it.

There are a lot of legal rights that come with marriage or that are phrased in terms of it, including everything from being considered next of kin upon the death of a spouse to not having to testify against a spouse in court. You could create separate civil unions to give the same benefits, but then you'd have to rewrite every single law and regulation to stipulate if civil unions got the same rights. (Of course, some organizations already do that locally, such as companies which extend health insurance benefits to "partners.")

[Nanti-SARRMM]

There are a lot of legal rights that come with marriage or that are phrased in terms of it, including everything from being considered next of kin upon the death of a spouse to not having to testify against a spouse in court. You could create separate civil unions to give the same benefits, but then you'd have to rewrite every single law and regulation to stipulate if civil unions got the same rights. (Of course, some organizations already do that locally, such as companies which extend health insurance benefits to "partners.")

Ok, big question then. How does the California Family Code not do that when it says

297.5. (a) Registered 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.

297.5 C I believe grants the next of kin thing...

california doesn't have civil unions, they have domestic partnership which is not the same. to claim domestic partnership, both parties have to live together for a certain number of years, which people don't have to do to get married.

From what I can find, that isn't true. In fact the link above to the California law code states the requirements for a domestic partnership and time isn't one of them.

any children in the relationship must be adopted by the other parent, and only one parent can claim that child on taxes even though both parents presumably share financial responsibility.

For adoption, see the heading How does the law affect parenting rights?

Also, domestic partnership does not guarantee power of attorney and visitation in the case of a medical emergency. these are some things guaranteed by marriage that gay couples are fighting for. why should they have to spend more money on adoptions and power of attorney documents (which means lawyer fees)? those may seem like small things to you, but they can be a huge deal when the time comes.

From what I can see, under california law, hospital visitation rights are allowed. I am not sure of power of attorney but it may also be implied in the family code. Also, in the link that I just provided, slightly below it states what the differences are

The law does not give same-sex couples any of the more than 1000 rights and benefits that the federal government gives to married couples, including:

* the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes;
* the right to family-related Social Security benefits;
* the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and
* the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job.
...
Even under California law, same-sex couples are not completely equal. Domestic Partners cannot file joint state income taxes and state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package.

So as Katya said, they cannot get federal rights lists, file joint income taxes, and state employee benefits. Even had proposition 8 failed, gay couples still would not have any of the federal rights, because on the federal level their marriage isn't recognized, which is probably why they have to fill out separate tax forms, which as Katya said could be rewritten with legislation. So any rights that California can grant that haven't can be added in. It's shouldn't be that difficult when gay couples in California have most of them already.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Oh, as for Tax Returns, Wikipedia links to the 2007 tax code that provides the obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple.

[Katya]

So as Katya said, they cannot get federal rights lists, file joint income taxes, and state employee benefits. Even had proposition 8 failed, gay couples still would not have any of the federal rights, because on the federal level their marriage isn't recognized, which is probably why they have to fill out separate tax forms, which as Katya said could be rewritten with legislation. So any rights that California can grant that haven't can be added in. It's shouldn't be that difficult when gay couples in California have most of them already.

Are any marriages recognized on the federal level? My understanding was that marriage laws all operated on the state level, which is why this is turning into such a mess.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Are any marriages recognized on the federal level? My understanding was that marriage laws all operated on the state level, which is why this is turning into such a mess.

Some Federal rights and what not granted to married couples are:

• the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes;
• the right to family-related Social Security benefits;
• the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and
• the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job.

And from how I understand it, this is for heterosexual couples only, so even if Proposition 8 had failed, same gendered couples still wouldn't have those benefits and rights.

[Portia]

and has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

No offense intended Portia, but what a load of crap. It has everything to do with being straight or gay. In one case, it happened, and in the other it wouldn't have.

Well, it was ambiguous . . . my point was straight or gay people can sexually harass you. For example, if you lived with a roommate of the opposite gender (yeah, yeah, couldn't happen at BYU-I, but work with me), and they came on to you, I'm sure that would not be a pleasant experience.

My point is I don't think gay people are more likely to sexually harass people, and so his comment seemed rather . . . incidental to the point of the overall thread.

[Portia]

So . . . one thing I wonder is what exactly the LDS Church intends to do with its gay members who want to remain active. Eponine earlier made some comments about "struggling" with homosexuality versus being--so my question is, are there still those who believe that this is something like alcoholism or influenza that can be "cured"? Because the more I study and learn about it, from a scientific viewpoint, the less likely that seems. Perhaps it is true in a very small minority of cases, but I highly doubt that most people's sexual orientation is somehow malleable. The more recent official literature on the subject (that Cognoscente linked to) seems to agree that this is something that might not go away.

That being the case, it seems we are requiring gays in the Church to be celibate for their lifetimes--okay, no more than what we require of unmarried straight members--I wish we would acknowledge that, though. Because "struggling" seems to imply a "cure," I suppose this cure would be marrying a woman? As one myself, that seems like a rather dismal fate for the female party. I don't think it's that much to ask that one's husband at least be attracted to you.

So, those of you emphasizing the struggle--is this a struggle to remain celibate, or to reverse your orientation, in your mind?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So, those of you emphasizing the struggle--is this a struggle to remain celibate, or to reverse your orientation, in your mind?

Maybe a little bit of both I suppose. Those who struggle to see if they can be attracted to the opposite gender and those who struggle to live a celibate life.

I guess that for some that do struggle with living God's law and doing what is right, the only cure/reversal/remedy probably would be the resurrection.

[361]

What I can't understand is why people are getting all worked up over the LDS / Utah's influence in the vote...

No one in Utah voted for or against prop 8... It was passed by CALIFORNIA voters...

So the LDS Church dumped some money into the "Yes on 8" movement... No more so than national and international GLBT groups poured into the "No on 8" movement...

Nobody is standing there at the booth forcing you or bribing you to vote for or against 8...

California chose what California wanted because Californian voters voted as they saw fit.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Kieth Olbermann has something to say about this...

[Werf_Must]

Is it just me, or is it cheaper not to be married for tax purposes, a lot of times at least? I know I have looked through info on that before and come to the conclusion that if I were not a member, I wouldn't get married if it were cool with my future dh....

Not that not letting them get married is right, just that I am not sure that I would even care if I were in their situation...


One of the things that was most upsetting about this for me was the commercial shown by MSNBC and Comedy Central... I mean comedy central isn't exactly clean and kind tv, but at least MSNBC... I mean I understand we are in hard economic times, and money is a good motivator, but come on

[crmeatball]

Black Sheep today claimed that allowing homosexuals to marry each other infringes on absolutely zero of your rights. This is not accurate. As stated in prior posts in this forum, this is a state issue, and at the state level, all the civil rights marriages enjoy are protected for civil unions. The only difference between a marriage and a civil union is the implied social status granted by using the term "marriage." This implied social status is granted by society due to the universal acceptance of marriage. Note, however, that social status is not a civil right and is not protected by our government. However, by forcing marriage to include homosexual unions, it is forcing everyone in society to accept homosexual behavior as socially acceptable. Social behavior and social acceptance are not governed by civil law. Socially acceptable behavior is defined by groups and individuals within society, and each will define what is socially acceptable differently. They have this right, as defined in the First Amendment via the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Universal acceptance only occurs when a vast majority of these groups and individuals find some behavior acceptable.

So by forcing gay marriage, it is forcing this universal acceptance, or in other words, not allowing each group and individual the right to define what they find socially acceptable. This is not permitting these groups the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Defining the use of the term "marriage" as between a man and a woman does not violate anyone's rights, since social acceptance and status is not a protected right (so long as civil unions are in place).

The issue of gay marriage is being spun as a civil rights issue. But the issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with civil rights, but everything to do with acceptance. Gays and lesbians are not seeking for equality of rights. They already have such. They are seeking universal approbation for their choice in lifestyle. This goes beyond tolerance for their choice, which allows them to live however they choose, but does not extend moral approval. This is where the trampling of rights occurs, where we do not have the choice to say "Live as you choose, for we all have the freedom to choose, 'but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.'"