if 8 passes some (but not all) people will not be allowed to marry the person they love but will be limited to marrying only those people that are "acceptable" to the proponents of Prop 8... gay couples married between June and the effective date of Prop 8 would still be married but the rest would have to again settle for domestic partnership (the next target for the Haters)... now you are correct that the legal rights of married couples (straight) are the same as domestic partners (straight and gay) but that is like the "separate but equal" argument that justified racial discrimination well into the 1970's... I realize that most of you are too young to have lived in a world where racial and religious discrimination was a matter of law but when I was young it was illegal in many states for blacks to marry whites and even for Jews to marry Christians... this is the same kind of thing... a marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!
First, I'll tell you I'm not a particularly religious man at this point in my life, although I was brought up to be. Because of my earlier exposure I have a respect or tolerance for it. And, as an American I certainly respect their right to worship as they see fit.
"Marriage" began and has existed as a religious act. I don't care where in the world you travel, this is an unavoidable fact. Most of the worlds religions view it as " a union ceremony witnessed and approved of by and before God".
A "Civil Union" defined as having equal rights under the state would be "a union ceremony witnessed and approved of by the majority citizenry of a state". And, I believe our constitution could provide all necessary protections to both unions. But, this does not appear to be enough and the Gay community has sought for full religious recognition and the assumption of the religious term "marriage". Religions view this as the joining of a man and woman in order to mate, procreate and form family. Gay couples cannot mate and naturally cannot create family. In this regard they are not equal. It's not at fundamental level "a hate thing" with most religions. However, it is a direct affront to their beliefs. And, they have every right to believe and worship as they so please.
As constitutionally prescribed, we should continue to keep church and state as separate. Marriage= religious union....Civil Union= just that, both having equal rights under
only the laws of the state. But, only one having rights under the doctrines of differing religions, and our government should have no right in helping the Gay community force a redefinition of any churches beliefs. For them to seek state assistance in the form of laws that would force religions to acknowledge them as "married" would be entirely wrong.
This is all about the definition of the word "Marriage", and again, I'm not a very religious guy but I would hate to see this religious institution be become diluted in our society.
If the gay community were to have the right to sue and seek remedy because a church refused to wed them, the church would be losing its own rights under the constitution.
I'm voting yes on 8 to maintain the religiously held traditional definition of "marriage" and the American tradition of separating church and state.
If the gay community wants to seek equal rights under a different definition of union (because it is such) they would get my vote as well.
