Topic: What are you voting on 8?

[Aperion]

A marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!

To be a hard ass, that's not a problem with the laws but peoples perception. I'm sure given time people will come to accept domestic partnership in the same way as marriage.

Thanks guys for the discussion, I know how I'll vote now and be at peace about it. I've had A LOT of termoil about how to vote for this proposition.

[xtatik]

A marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!

To be a hard ass, that's not a problem with the laws but peoples perception. I'm sure given time people will come to accept domestic partnership in the same way as marriage.

Thanks guys for the discussion, I know how I'll vote now and be at peace about it. I've had A LOT of termoil about how to vote for this proposition.

Hmm, Yeah. I'm not so sure there is a difference in emotional commitment. This might be where Aperion is having a problem with the way the issue is being handled. Just Rick, unless you're referring to the additional religious/spiritual aspect that is introduced in marriage, then perhaps your point is valid. But, as much as I am troubled by the term of "Gay Marriage", I don't believe they are necessarily less emotional or less committed to the idea of partnering.
If the differing faiths are true to their scriptures, no individual government, church or pastor can "marry" them. We can fool ourselves and attempt to re-define and re-interpret, but it would all be for selfish indulgence and would only amount to a lowly humanistic contrivance. Now, some in the gay community would argue that religion in itself is just that. If so, why are they putting so much energy into achieving religious recognition of their union? It makes no sense! It seems as though they are seeking religious equality on the issue....no matter how hard they push for this, thay can never truly achieve it. They can force governmentst to force churches to force pastors, priests etc. But, it's all for nought. Ultimately, none of the entities they are seeking approval from have the Authority.
It almost seems as if the gay community is seeking retribution for the past rebuffs from the religious community. It's sad because the religious community has always had fairly succinct scripture to abide on this issue. Being mean had nothing to do with it. It was in black letter and they were bound to it. The black letter will not change despite any governmental attempts to re-write Christianity or any other faith.

[Soylent Yellow]

Hey Randy, good to hear from you.  I agree with you on the emotional aspect of marriage being the same.  What I am unclear on though is the part about the government forcing churches, ministers, whoever to perform marriages for gay couples.  How is this possible?

[xtatik]

Hey Mitch, good to hear from you as well.
It would begin in the subsequent rounds of lawsuits. If "marriage" were to become a religious right to all by statute, it would give gays the capacity to sue churches that can now rightfully deny them based on the religious freedoms preserved by the Constitution. By rightfully, I'm saying they hold that right if it is in opposition to their religious/scriptural beliefs.
They'd be faced with the decision to either wed them in complete opposition to their scripture and beliefs or succumb to a barrage of lawsuits that would inevitably break and disband most community churches. Keyword is lawsuit.
If a Black couple were denied "marriage" by a church or pastor based on "race" they would have grounds for a suit.....and it's happened. Fortunately, no religions I know of have any scriptural basis (or, argument) for not marrying persons based on "race"....they may exist, I know of none. As for gay "marriage", there are strong scriptural renderings against it in most all faiths and it forms a strong argument for the churches.
Loss of their tax-exempt status would probably be one of the first tools the government would use to impune them.

[Soylent Yellow]

But if the government, be it state for federal, were to attempt to force churches to perform gay marriages, wouldn't that cross the line of seperation of church and state?

[Aperion]

Are Pastors currently required by law to marry someone? I mean you don't have to have a pastor marry two people, my sister had her physics professor marry them.

It's confusing because as far as I can tell gay couple have all the same legal rights as a straight couple, which is why it's confusing as to what this proposition is really denying.

[just_rick]

no one is going to force a church to do anything it does not want to do... this is just more of the b@llsh#t made up by the supporters of prop 8... in California marriage can have 2 components; civil and religious... the religious component is not required for a civil marriage and the civil component is only required for a religious marriage for state bookkeeping purposes... in fact, if you obtain a marriage license, get married, but never return the signed license to your county clerk, you are still validly married... the differences between domestic partnerships and marriages have been narrowed considerably in recent years to the point that if you wish to end your registered domestic partnership you will need to get a divorce... nevertheless, the fact that there are people who want to distinguish domestic partnerships from "real" marriages does demonstrate that a lot of people see them as different which, unfortunately, gives domestic partnerships a 2nd class stigma...

enough said... I hope you have all voted by now and that our country will now get back on track with President Obama