Utah Billionaire donates $1 Million AGAINST Prop eight

[_scipio337]

The California Supreme Court decision resulted in the requirement of local governments to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The argument that money should be spent to reverse this, while allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions which are argued to be exactly the same thing, other than the particular choice of noun, is petty.

Agree, but I'm missing the part where pushing a case with no legal relevance through the courts, other than the particular choice of noun, is equally petty.

[The passing of the civil union bill didn't change any of the facts or relevent law with respect to the existing court cases at the time .

Then why did the Court mention it in their decision?

["Separate but equal" was rejected as a valid justification for discrimination decades ago in the US. Playing "separate but equal" word games with marriage is petty, viscious, and wrong.

False analogy. There were no legal services being denied to civil union couples, and there was no segregation.

The repressed "Common Law Marriages" must rise up and strike for equality!

But let's not fool ourselves. Not everyone agrees with civil unions that are exactly the same as marriage in every respect, but for the name. Do you think that the LDS church is OK with gay people entering into full-on-marriage-replica civil unions, particularly if the law actually defines the partners as spouses? Get real. This isn't about protecting the word. That's just a desperate argument thrown out there by some factions. Many if not most of the same people who are so vehemently against gay marriage are against gay ersatz marriage/civil unions as well. The word argument is a big red herring.

I wouldn't know, I'm not LDS, and never have been. From a secular point of view, I think the "word argument" carries weight, as a time honored part of western common law, "marriage" hasn't included same sex unions.

...if you could explain to me which rights or priveledges were provided after In RE that weren't provided under the CA civil union code, we might be able to rationalize your overuse of " bigoted ".

The court case involved the issuance of California marriage licenses. The ruling pertained to California marriage licenses. The civil union bill, which you say passed before the Supreme Court ruled on the marriage license thing, was not relevant. It wasn't the law in dispute, and I don't believe that its passage rendered the court case moot - the California marriage license law was still as deficient as it had been when the court challenge was filed.

I take that as a pass?

The "bigot" title, is bandied about quite a bit in the argument. Those favoring gay marriage portray an Inquisition if Prop 8 passes, with those in favor of the ban burning gays at the stake in CA. It isn't the case.

[_Sethbag]

Scipio, I'm just not interested in bandying words with you over whether people are bigoted in their religiously-based disapproval and wish to take away rights currently enjoyed by gay people. I think it's pretty clear that they are in fact bigoted, but if your own personal understanding of the word "bigoted" leads you to a different conclusion, well enjoy your freedom to your own opinion.

In my opinion, I haven't yet seen a pro-Prop 8 argument that doesn't rest on a foundation of bigotry against gay people. Go back and read the Orson Scott Card comments mentioned in another thread, and tell me that's not bigoted. The guy's a raving lunatic on the issue. And there are plenty of others just like him.

There's no constituency of Americans in this country willing to pony up millions of dollars in some pedantic bid to secure the purity of a particular word in the English language. This isn't about the word. This is, to the Orson Scott Cards of the world, a battle of good versus evil. They perceive a threat to society not from the corruption of a particular word, but from they view as an implicit approval by the government of a lifestyle and sexual orientation which they believe to be the direct result of people forsaking God and obeying an imaginary bogeyman named Satan.

Anyhow, I'm done arguing about it. If you see that as a copout or whatever, I couldn't care less. Sorry.

[_The Nehor]

There's no constituency of Americans in this country willing to pony up millions of dollars in some pedantic bid to secure the purity of a particular word in the English language. This isn't about the word. This is, to the Orson Scott Cards of the world, a battle of good versus evil. They perceive a threat to society not from the corruption of a particular word, but from they view as an implicit approval by the government of a lifestyle and sexual orientation which they believe to be the direct result of people forsaking God and obeying an imaginary bogeyman named Satan.

Yes, now you understand (except the imaginary bogeyman part).

The reason we're fighting on this seemingly petty and pedantic point is it's the only ground not yet conquered on this issue. Where else do you expect the fight to take place? When we lose (which will happen soon or in 5 years or in 20 years or whenever) we'll have gone down fighting. In the battle between good and evil you get points for fighting losing battles. When this and other issues start to unravel society we also get the satisfaction of eventually saying, "We told you so." though on this issue I expect the other side will not accept the causality this side of the veil so we may even miss that. Oh well.

[_Sethbag]

That's the spirit Nehor. Fight it out down to the last man and the last bullet. Your Emperor Sky Daddy will reward the martyrs with their 72 virgins in Paradise, and all will be well.

[_Roger Morrison]

Nehor said: (Into which i inject in italices)

Yes, we miss the wonderful opportunity of having our house divided against itself and all the wondrous learning opportunities that leads to.
Since you think and feel that way, IMSCO, you will be the loser. So be it.
The true sense of the word Christian is follower of Christ. Agree He taught that a house divided against itself can not stand. He encouraged unity.

Exactly! Which is what this issue is about: "Unity!" No prejudice. No discrimination. Equal opportunity. Equal love. Unity before God & humanity. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists' minds are closed on the issue of Gay Rights as they were re the rights of Blacks in yesteryear.

Nowhere in his teachings will you find praise for accepting other's views simply because they exist or a call for tolerance of sin. Respectfully Nehor, this is not about accepting "views". It is about accepting other humans who are equal in all respects to other of God's children. In many cases they happen to be Christian--if that has any relevancy--and follow the admonitions of Christ to live Charitably--the highest of God's laws; according to Paul.

This does not mean that we murder them or attack them. It means we leave them to the judgement of God, IF you were to do that you would be on the higher road. Why don't you do that, instead of taking matters into your own hands? boot those who call evil good out of the flock (wolves among us), and teach the truth even if it offends which it often does.
It most surely does, as I see you being offended by the truth of this matter. Christ was executed for it after all. True, and by whom? Religious extremists who were threatened by his new message: God is a God of love, not a jealous God of vengence and prejudice.

Really Nehor, I do not know what you, and your camp, fear. Gays and Lesbians are as good a segment of society as any other. They are responsible. Generally better educated. Better employed. Contribute to arts, sciences and business in a higher per-capita ratio than heteros. A lower per-capita are in jail than heteros. They do not proselytize as do some religious groups, but respect the beliefs of other. They simply want in to enjoy in the USA, what is enjoyed in other countries that haven't fallen apart by accepting them equally.

Just somethings to have in mind as you pray about Gay & Lesbian rights in your country that lawds freedom to the extreme. Walk the walk Bro, grant it to all.

[_truth dancer]

I so do not get this whole issue. I really don't.

I can't figure out how a gay or lesbian couple is going to harm society? Seriously, try as I might I don't see it.

In fact I think giving SSA couples the right to marry is actually helping society, helping families, and helping the world.

Without exception those I know personally with SSA are amazing, outstanding human beings who contribute in fabulous ways to society.

I Really can't figure out what the problem is. I understand that there are those who don't like the idea of homosexual couples. I understand they think it is not natural (which makes no sense to me... nevertheless), but I don't understand equating SSA couples to evil or the downfall of society.

As I have posted before, a few houses down from me is a WONDERFUL lesbian couple who have adopted two children from an orphanage in Siberia. They have truly given life to two children who otherwise would most likely be dead. They are a great couple contributing to the world. I don't understand why anyone would not want them to be married? Or why they think this is a problem. Or how allowing these two amazing women to get married would somehow hurt society.

If someone is worried about families falling apart, or society crumbling, why not put this effort and money toward, I don't know, child abuse? Or domestic violence? Or helping couples stay married? Or teaching parents how to be good parents? Or preventing unwanted pregnancies? Or educating young people on healthy relationships...

I mean seriously, this issue is not even on the list on what is harming families and society.

td