A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

Same Sex Marriage

more about “How My Same-Sex Wedding Made Me An Ac…“, posted with vodpod

 

 

Something on Same Sex Marriage from Helen Philpot http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/

“several of you have emailed me about something happening in California.  Now, a lot of crazy stuff goes on in that state and so I may be getting this a little mixed up.  Evidently they are wanting to pass a constitutional amendment to make only marriages between a man and a woman valid in California.  Talk about an ignorant pot calling a gay kettle black.  Somebody really should check the latest divorce rates because clearly many marriages everywhere are not valid.

Now I am an old broad.  We didn’t talk about this stuff.  I really don’t know why gay people want to get married.  It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.  Just ask Harold.  But I guess if one consenting adult wants to declare their love for another, why would anyone have an issue? I do know one gay couple.  Margaret’s nephew and his friend have been together for several years.  They are a lovely couple and make me laugh and feel special every time I see them.  A couple of years ago Texas passed one of these constitutional amendments.   The place where Harold and I go to vote is actually an elementary school in the neighborhood.  On that particular election day I was appalled to see all the signs that said “Marriage Should Be Between a Man and Woman Only”.   As Harold drove us into the parking lot to vote, I looked out the window at those signs and realized that many parents had driven their kids to school that morning driving past those very signs.  I wonder if any of them had the same reaction I did – those signs reminded me of the little signs we used to have back in the day that said “Whites Only”.  Think about it.”

That was from the 82 year old grandma. How do you feel about the subject?

 Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage

SAN FRANCISCO — A giant rainbow-colored flag in the gay-friendly Castro neighborhood of San Francisco was flying at half-staff on Wednesday as social and religious conservatives celebrated the passage of measures that ban same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.

marriage190

In California, where same-sex marriage had been performed since June, the ban had more than 52 percent of the vote, according to figures by the secretary of state, and was projected to win by several Californian news media outlets. Opponents of same-sex marriage won by even bigger margins in Arizona and Florida. Just two years ago, Arizona rejected a similar ban.

The across-the-board sweep, coupled with passage of a measure in Arkansas intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children, was a stunning victory for religious conservatives, who had little else to celebrate on an Election Day that saw Senator John McCain lose and other ballot measures, like efforts to restrict abortion in South Dakota, California and Colorado, rejected.

“It was a great victory,” said the Rev. James Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego County and a leader of the campaign to pass the California measure, Proposition 8. “We saw the people just rise up.”

The losses devastated supporters of same-sex marriage and ignited a debate about whether the movement to expand the rights of same-sex couples had hit a cultural brick wall, even at a time of another civil rights success, the election of a black president.

Thirty states have now passed bans on same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage in California, where the fight on Tuesday was fiercest, appeared to have been outflanked by the measure’s highly organized backers and, exit polls indicated, hurt by the large turnout among black and Hispanic voters drawn to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy. Mr. Obama opposes same-sex marriage.

California will still allow same-sex civil unions, but that is not an option in Arizona and Florida. Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban. Slightly more than half of Latino voters, who made up almost 20 percent of voters, favored the ban, while 53 percent of whites opposed it.

Julius Turman, a chairman of the Alice B. Toklas L.G.B.T. Democratic Club, a gay political group here, said he called his mother in tears when Mr. Obama won the presidency, only to be crying over the same-sex marriage vote in a different way not much later.

“It is the definition of bittersweet,” Mr. Turman said. “As an African-American, I rejoiced in the symbolism of yesterday. As a gay man, I thought, ‘How can this be happening?’ ”

Proposition 8’s passage left only Massachusetts and Connecticut as states where same-sex marriages are legal, though both Rhode Island and New York will continue to recognize such ceremonies performed elsewhere. Civil unions or domestic partnerships, which carry many of the same rights as marriage, are allowed in a handful of states. More than 40 states now have constitutional bans or laws against same-sex marriages.

On Wednesday, five months of same-sex marriages in California — declared legal by the State Supreme Court in May — appeared to have come to a halt. “This city is no longer marrying people” of the same sex, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, announced at a grim news conference at City Hall, where hundreds of same-sex couples had rushed to marry in the days and hours leading up to Tuesday’s vote.

The status of those marriages, among 17,000 same-sex unions performed in the state, was left in doubt by the vote. The state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, reiterated Wednesday that he believed that those marriages would remain valid, but legal skirmishes were expected.

The cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and Santa Clara County, as well as several civil rights and gay rights groups, said on Wednesday that they would sue to block the ban.

Some opponents of the proposition were also still holding out slim hopes that a batch of perhaps as many as four million provisional and vote-by-mail ballots would somehow turn the tide.

The victory of the social and religious conservatives came on a core issue that has defined their engagement in politics over the past decade.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor in Florida, said many religious conservatives felt more urgency about stopping same-sex marriage than about abortion, another hotly contested issue long locked in a stalemate.

“There is enough of the population that is alarmed at the general breakdown of the family, that has been so inundated with images of homosexual relationships in all of the media,” said Mr. Hunter, who gave the benediction at the Democratic National Convention this year, yet supported the same-sex marriage ban in his state. “It’s almost like it’s obligatory these days to have a homosexual couple in every TV show or every movie.”

Supporters of the bans in California, Arizona and Florida benefited from the donations and volunteers mobilized by a broad array of churches and religious groups from across the ethnic spectrum.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a pastor in Sacramento and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said the campaign to pass Proposition 8 had begun with white evangelical churches but had spread to more than 1,130 Hispanic churches whose pastors convinced their members that same-sex marriage threatened the traditional family.

“Without the Latino vote,” Mr. Rodriguez said, “Proposition 8 would never have succeeded.”

Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind Proposition 8, agreed that minority votes had put the measure over the top, saying that a strategy of working with conservative black pastors and community leaders had paid off.

“It’s a big reason why we won, no doubt about it,” he said.

Proposition 8 was one of the most expensive ballot measures ever waged, with combined spending of more than $75 million. Focus on the Family and other religious conservative groups contributed money to help pass the same-sex marriage measures in all three states.

Forces on both sides viewed California as a critical test of the nation’s acceptance of gay people, who have made remarkable strides in the decades since the 1969 riots in New York at the Stonewall Inn, considered the beginning of the gay rights movement.

Scholars were divided on how large a setback Tuesday’s votes would be for that movement. Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law at Northwestern University and the author of “Same Sex, Different States,” a study of same-sex marriage, said the outcome had a silver lining, namely that it was closer than in previous statewide measures.

A 2000 ballot measure establishing a California state law against same-sex marriage passed with 61 percent of the vote. That law was overturned in May by the State Supreme Court.

In Arizona, where same-sex marriage was already against the law, the victory for Proposition 102, which amends the State Constitution, was met with a shrug by some.

“I think the country was like, ‘Look, you get Obama, call it a day and go home,’ ” said Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative who led opponents against Proposition 102. “And frankly, I’ll take it.”

 

Jesse McKinley reported from San Francisco, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.

 

 

Published: November 5, 2008

Fact vs Fiction

 

 

 

check out this interactive map http://www.newsweek.com/id/142307

 

 

19 Responses to “Same Sex Marriage”

  1. dorian9 said

    i wanted to create this page because a friend from san francisco called and told me that the results for proposition 8 was “too close to call” and that there’s a chance it might win. i remember telling him not to be too sure it will be voted down because california may be a democratic state but this subject is still a sensitive one for many. demographics will play an important role in this votation. you have urban california -los angeles, san francisco- and the rest of the very large state that is mainly suburbia and rural. i had a feeling this would be a very close call and won’t be surprised if proposition 8 is passed. this amendment would be unconstitutional and discriminatory. what right does government have say who can and cannot marry? i don’t think God will be offended if two people who happen to love each other would want to marry.admittedly liberal as i am i still kind of wince a bit when i see two men in tuxes or two women in a wedding dress getting married but that’s the knee jerk reaction to a catholic upbringing and i get over it after a few seconds. what this is all about is denying americans their rights and religious beliefs encroaching upon governance, which brings us back to thomas jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state. i am all for that wall.

  2. tothewire said

    Dorian I added the video, I hope that was ok, if not just remove it from the page. Very sad.
    Here are my thoughts on same sex marriage:
    Equality under the law is a fundamental freedom. Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong. Prop. 8 won’t affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law.

  3. Lawman2 said

    SAD?? what about the 61% of voters who already voted on this before the 4 judges overturned it? proposition 8 isn’t government control it is the opposite. the PEOPLE voted on the issue!let the vote should have stood. proposition 8 restores what 61% of voters already approved: marriage is only between a man and a woman. four judges in san francisco should not have overturned the people’s vote. Prop. 8 fixes that mistake by reaffirming traditional marriage, but doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.

  4. Lawman2 said

    government control is when the people have spoken and then 4 judges overturn the peoples vote! i don’t care if gay people marry, but the majority rule is what makes this country a FREE country

  5. tothewire said

    Take it up in on the debate page lawman. AND get off my laptop and GO HOME.

  6. dorian9 said

    yes, SAD. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the evolved minds of his day had the foresight and understanding of human nature and added specific articles to the constitution, no doubt hoping this would protect people from each other. i’m sure the salem witch hunts/trials and hysteria and the european inquisitions were in mind. ttw, maybe i should have taken this to the debate section…this is a real debate topic, has a real divide, touches a raw nerve specially w/ religious people – even gay-friendly people are ambivalent on this.

  7. Brian said

    It was sad to see that on the same day a black man was being elected to the highest office of the nation, that gay people were being systematically oppressed. I myself am not gay, but I believe that gay people should be able to marry if they like.

    I imagine gay people want to get married for the same reason that straight couples want to get married. It’s a sign of commitment, a tradition. For those of you who want to blab about it being a sacred covenant of god, I say 99.9% of all couples are having pre-marital sex, so obviously it’s not that big a deal to them.

    People have a hard time seeing inequality when it doesn’t effect them. There was no internet back then, but I’m sure in parlors and beauty shops around the land there were probably echos of ‘The blacks get taught the same education in their schools, it’s perfectly equal’.

    The majority is not always right. In every instance of this nations history the majority has tried to suppress the minority. Slavery, Segregation, Sufferage, the Civil Rights Movement. And now we’re on to the next battle.

    Those of you who are fair minded and believe in the equality of all and the pursuit of happiness, keep up the good fight.

  8. speekntungs said

    I remember how Bush came out so strongly against gay marriage during his first term. I was watching CNN one afternoon and they showed an interview with Governor Schwarzenegger shortly after Bush had started whining and threatening legislation that would ban same sex marriage etc etc. The terminator stated in this interview “I dont agree with two men gettig married, but if its what the people vote for, I am all for it.” Shortly after this interview Emperor Bush was on the phone with futuristic killing machine changing his mind for him. Arnold gained my complete respect in going against the president on this issue and doing it on record, but then the politics of it all just ruined it. The point in this is that this country was founded and based on the right to choose. A “free” country..the idea of a people who were bright enough to make decisions based on their own beliefs and ideals. If the government can control who we marry, then we are no more free than than the chinese couple who has to PAY the government to have a second child. Our basic liberties have been molested in ways we dont even realize, because someone else believes something different and sadly, those who normally make the rules are doing so for all the wrong reasons ……money, power etc etc.whatever benefits them or their kind..

  9. Lawman said

    the conservative right wingers will continue to oppress the nation as long as the people of the us allow the “scare tactics” the conservative religious base to influence politics in this great nation.

  10. tothewire said

    http://www.JesusNoRepublican.Org/ which shows why Jesus would abhor
    today’s Republican Party, &
    http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ which shows why Liberal Democrats are
    more like Christ than are Conservative Republicans!

  11. What would those who oppose gay marriage prefer?

    Speaking only of homosexuals being allowed to marry in the eyes of the state, not the church – which is an entirely different issue – I would love to ask all those people vote against gays being allowed to marry other gays what they think homosexuals should do (i.e. what these people would vote for, if asked):

    a) Would they prefer homosexuals live a promiscuous life style?
    b) Would they prefer that homosexuals “choose to be normal” and marry a person of the other gender?
    c) Would they prefer that homosexuals live celibate lives (the choice often recommended by the supposedly expert celibate Catholic clergy) ?
    d) Would they prefer that homosexuals just put themselves out of their misery and commit suicide, as many of them do ?
    e) or is there some other more rational option for all concerned, like marriage recognized by the public at large, if not by particular churches?

  12. dorian9 said

    rev ray, i have a feeling most of those who voted for the gay marriage ban would not even want to address those questions – it would force them to take this “homosexual” issue at a human level..
    empathy would be too much to ask of those who believe that there is a provision for discrimination in civil rights.

  13. tothewire said

    I agree with Dorian, and it really does sadden me.

  14. It is sad but that is what fundamental Christianity is doing to the country making us afraid of something that we should not be afraid of.

  15. Idomperee said

    Excellent site tothewire.wordpress.com and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. It’s taken me literally 2 hours and 50 minutes of searching the web to find you (just kidding!) so I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor :)

  16. tothewire said

    Welcome Idomperee to the blog! We love to hear from our readers! And please do visit us again!

  17. Gal Qaeda said

    I was married for 15yrs, to 20 different guys. “So what?, who cares?”

    I’m having the constitution amended so i can marry my car.

    then im going to paint “JUST MARRIED” on it, drive up and down MLK,Jr Blvd and honk and laugh at the “Mediocre Whore”.

  18. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I am still trying to figure out how the government ever got into the practice of sanctioning a religious rite. It is like the government deciding who to baptize or confirm. Marriage is a relationship and the government turned it into the last vestage of slavery. On what could the government base a rationale for marriage? It cannot be based on a religion.

    I was looking at those ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN and thinking ONE MAN/THREE WOMEN would be more to my tastes. I have been in relationship with two women for almost seven years. We all take care of each other. In the bad times we have pulled together, including health conditions from disabilities to cancer.

    One had a cancer scare. One had cancer of the cervex. I was off work for 13 weeks due to severe back problems. Last month my gallbladder died and I had to have an emergency operation. Then there was a scare that I might have cancer of the kidney. It turned out to be normal tissue.

    My mother died last year and one of the girls is losing her mother to cancer. My family of birth and my family of procreation were never this good to me or each other. Marriage as a justification for sex is profane.

    Perhaps, if you want to see gays punished, marriage as done by the government seems most apt. I hate to see the gays I know get married. They will begin with disappointment and end in disaster. There are civil contracts other than marriage that let people support each other. Government should stay out of religious acts.

    On the other hand, if the government is going to regulate relationships, then they have to treat all alike without bias. Under Jewish and Christian doctrine and Scripture, same sex marriage is not allowed. On the other hand, there are certainly far worse things done in regard to marriage. Government has turned the sacred into the profane.

    If people love each other, do you honestly think the government should regulate that? Would you like the people who run the post office to run your personal life?

  19. you cant have same sex marriage. marriage is the special bond between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. not 2 men, not 1 man 2 women, not 1 woman and her pet horse. you see what im getting at? you have to have 1 of each opposite or it doesnt logically fit. it’s like a magnet, opposites attract. 2 women can be together, a man and his german shepard can be together, but they cannot be married. you bend the rules for one minority, then they will only bend more in time. yeah they can go and have their ‘pretend gay weddings’ but they still are not married. otherwise, i want to marry my cookie jar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: