It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
The gay marriage ban passed EVERYWHERE. What do you expect when none of the presidential candidates believes that gays should be married, even the one that fervently advocates “change”.
Don’t count on it. Obama has more important things to worry about, and wasting his political capital on a civil unions law is exactly the kind of thing he can’t afford to do if he wants to avoid a repeat of Clinton’s first two years. Clinton tried a few moderately left things (healthcare, gays in the military) and got smacked down. Obama’s no fool; he won’t repeat those mistakes. He still needs the votes of Republicans in the Senate and Blue Dogs in the House. A national civil unions law is wishful thinking.
As I have always said, why should it be up to straight people to decide what gays can or cannot do?
And if you feel that gay marriages somehow threaten your marriage, you’ve got much more serious issues to worry about, buddy.
“The gay marriage ban passed EVERYWHERE. What do you expect when none of the presidential candidates believes that gays should be married, even the one that fervently advocates “change””
That’s a good point.
And Dammit, Blackcloud, if I have a so-called liberal president, and liberal majority in both senate and congress for once in FOREVER, I you better believe that I fucking expect the guy to pass laws that are exreme fucking left wing to the nth degree at least part of the time. I do not want him looking over his shoulder at conservatives at all times. Not realistic? I want him to be a fucking bouldozer of change.
Hey, I’m all for gays doing whatever they want but why would Obama pass a law that clearly *more* people are not in favor of than are?? Plus, he’s not a liberal as many will come to find out once the rightie accusations of him being one wear off.
Prop 8 (in CA) was left up to the people and they spoke…as insane as it may seem.
“Prop 8 (in CA) was left up to the people and they spoke…as insane as it may seem.”
Tis true, unfortunately. It means there is more work to be done.
“And Dammit, Blackcloud, if I have a so-called liberal president, and liberal majority in both senate and congress for once in FOREVER, I you better believe that I fucking expect the guy to pass laws that are exreme fucking left wing to the nth degree at least part of the time. I do not want him looking over his shoulder at conservatives at all times. Not realistic? I want him to be a fucking bouldozer of change.”
I hope you’re ready to be disappointed. You will be.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story
The picture at the top is just said. “Yes, we succeeded in continuing discrimination.”
Sorry, sad, not said.
California is often embarassing.
Look at our Governor. And former Guvs…
Though I certainly wish he was for gay marriage, I’ve been pleased with Barack’s positions on a lot of other gay issues and I appreciate how he’s mentioned us in so many speeches. I have hope that he will help to push some issues at least a little bit more forward for us.
Ironically, it appears that African Americans who came out in force for Obama in CA were one of the largest voting blocks for “Yes” on Prop 8. Just are we’re starting to get over one form of discrimination we’re building blocks to enforce another form of it.
I encountered a ton of homophobia from African Americans during my 2+ years of teaching at a high school with a 100% black student body and a 99% black staff.
It’s too bad there wasn’t another way to give that douchebag Newsom the comeuppance he so richly deserves.
“Ironically, it appears that African Americans who came out in force for Obama in CA were one of the largest voting blocks for ‘Yes’ on Prop 8.”
So, as odd as it may seem, if Obama hadn’t been the Democratic nominee, Prop 8 might have been defeated.
I don’t know who sounds more absurd defending Prop 8 – Democrats or my fellow “small-government” conservatives. It goes against what both groups should stand for.
“I hope you’re ready to be disappointed. You will be.”
Come on, how naive do you think I am. This was what I wanted not what I expect to get. though I do expect to get some things and I think that fear of backfiring should not hold him back.
Then you’d agree with me, Roman, that there are some “liberal” things that Obama can get done, but that culture wars stuff like civil unions isn’t on the list?
I’ve always been amused at how much black people discriminate toward gay people. Just a vicious cycle in which one has to have someone in a worse position than his.
Blacks aren’t the only one to blame here. I woke up two Sundays ago to a parade of cars driven by Mexicans bearing Yes on Prop 8 signs honking wildly.
I don’t want to say these people deserve any discrimination that comes back to them, but it is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The real enemy here, however, is religion, and more specifically, church groups, who are the ones who organized and contributed so strongly for this cause. Until this country truly severs its religious beliefs from its politics, we will remain in our infantile stage, black president or no.
I’ve been Debbie Downer all day, reining in people’s enthusiasm by reminding them of the gay marriage bans.
However, here in genuinely progressive Massachusetts, it means more gay tourism dollars for us!
Regarding religion & Prop 8, I read about a recent massive gathering at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium in which the organizer called for martyrdom if necessary in the fight to pass Prop 8. That’s some scary stuff. The piece also touched upon the behind the scenes religious players that funded Yes on Prop 8, including Howard F. Ahmanson, who sounds truly frightening.
Indeed it is “sweetbitter” as Prop 8 went down to defeat…a great battle lost while winning the war.
Two thoughts run through my mind today. Last week, talking to my parents, I mentioned how friends of mine were afraid McCain could steal the election. My father, who voted for Obama by the way, responded flatly that “if he won, it might be because he just got more votes.” The people speak. They spoke in California, and while I don’t like it, it is what it is.
That being said…I am a very religious man, and I despise all forms of prejudice, but anti-gay prejudice particularly rankles because Jesus boils down all the commandments and laws to three words: “Love one another.” To tell someone they’re not really allowed to love in a certain way…that doesn’t fly with me. And as an Episcopalian, my church was active against 8, my friends were active against 8, and we gave it a try. It simply wasn’t enough.
But America already said yes to one profound change. Here’s hoping that next time around, they’ll embrace a little more.
Gay Marriage and Civil Unions are not the same thing and America doesn’t see them as the same in polling.
America is okay with civil Unions – as is Obama – and not okay with changing what is perceived as a social standard of the meaning of marriage.
While I feel that the state should have an interested in these unions all being called one thing, I understand the notion that sticks in people’s craws that a gay marriage, not meant for sexual procreation, is not exactly the same… even before you get to the homophobia.
It is ironic that the one-sided vote in the black community is, at least by the numbers, the reason this didn’t pass. Oy.
So let’s do the first thing first… and “marriage” will be an issue for churches and, to some degree, states to decide.
http://www.civilunionsdontwork.com/
I agree with Blackcloud, Obama will learn the lesson of the debacle that was Clinton’s first year in office and take a hands-off, non-culture-warrior, let-the-states-decide position on this issue. Which is not only the most politically expedient, but probably also the wisest – he needs to spend his political capital on economic issues and the two wars.
I mean, yeah, it sucks, but for Obama to try to hit this issue would be to claw at what is currently the biggest festering wound in American politics, and he has bigger fish to fry. Was that the greatest mixed metaphor of the week?
Also, Prop 8 will be halted by an injunction from taking effect, and go to the Supreme Court. That’s what happened to Colorado’s Amendment 2 which passed in 1992.
“So let’s do the first thing first… and ‘marriage’ will be an issue for churches and, to some degree, states to decide.”
That’s just another way of saying “separate but equal.” If it’s really a civil partnership that brings with it certain rights and privileges, then religion should have no role in it anyway. Whether the government calls it a marriage or a civil union, it should be the same for everyone.
I am not a fan of civil unions either. I know I speak for my wife when I say that our marriage is not threatened in any way, shape or form by gay marriage. Why should it be? If two consenting adults want to get married, they should be allowed to regardless of sexual orientation. More loving couples getting married strengthens the institution of marriage, not the other way around. If it ends in divorce, well, so do countless heterosexual marriages. Such is life.
“Also, Prop 8 will be halted by an injunction from taking effect, and go to the Supreme Court. That’s what happened to Colorado’s Amendment 2 which passed in 1992.”
Probably not. The likeliest avenue of appeal at the federal level, the Contract Clause, has NEVER been held by the SC to apply to marriages. And Baker v. Nelson established that there is no federal question involved in state laws banning gay marriage. So that avenue is closed as well.
They’ll use the 14th Amendment, especially on the grounds that a large number of people have already gotten married and would thus be immediately deprived of equal protection (not to mention due process).
By the way, Baker v. Nelson is over 35 years old and could be considered out-of-date.
Personally, I feel that gay marriage is an inevitable thing, such as civil rights for blacks and voting rights for women. It will happen and will be passed as law at some point in the future. Just that I’d want to enjoy its benefits in this lifetime.
Until Baker v. Nelson is overruled by the SC, it’s the law of the land. No lower court can overturn it. Do you see this SC overturning it? Until that happens, there are neither due process nor equal protection grounds on which to litigate against Prop 8. Since those grounds don’t exist in the first place, there aren’t any grounds to get a federal injunction. The state courts are the only avenue for those affected, and even then, the best that can be hoped for is for those who already got married to stay married. Those who didn’t are SOL, as there are no doubts about the prospective applicability of Prop 8, only its retroactivity.
I’m saying it’s a possibility (no ruling has ever been overturned until it got overturned), and retroactivity is precisely the angle from which to attack it in the courts.
It’s highly unlikely that retroactivity will get the whole amendment overturned. As I said, the likeliest (and even that’s not likely) result is to get the existing gay marriages grandfathered in. Otherwise, if they go by the plain language, California will recognize no gay marriages of any kind, its own or those of another state.
http://volokh.com/posts/1225907782.shtml
My point is simply that I’m sure there are many very smart, highly-paid lawyers out there who are preparing the case that the amendment is unconstitutional on its face on the basis of equal protection.
I think they’ve already prepared the case. All that’s left is the filing.
Of course.
By the way, are you perhaps some kind of judicial cyborg?
Me? I am neither judicial nor a cyborg. Not sure what you mean, Jeff. I’m not claiming any expertise on the issue of gay marriage or its legal implications; but since the same issues come up every time, I have retained a bit of the legal mumbo jumbo. I’m only repeating what what the lawyers are saying, like Volokh, and also Kenji Yoshino, who I think is at Yale Law. I wish I could find his comments. He is a big proponent of gay marriage, yet he said he could find no evidence anywhere of SCOTUS applying the contract clause to marriage, which makes getting Prop 8 overruled a lot harder. So not a cyborg, just skeptical that legal efforts to overturn Prop 8 will go anywhere. The people spoke, and they’ll have to speak again. That’s the only way.
So not a Lawbot.
You just seem rather perversely distant on the issue.
The gay marriage ban passed EVERYWHERE.
California, Florida and Arizona to be precise.
David Poland wrote: It is ironic that the one-sided vote in the black community is, at least by the numbers, the reason this didn’t pass. Oy.”
Not sure why all the resentment towards the Black community that Prop 8 didn’t pass. Sure it may seem that if one group has faced discrimination, it should fight for all groups but my question would be,
I don’t expect anything from any particular group, Triple… but the split from the black community was by far the widest in favor of this prop.
And as far as civil unions… sure, they don’t work if they have no force of law… obviously a problem.
The separate but equal thing is a fair criticism… but I actually would be fine having my “marriage” become a “civil union” as far as the state is concerned and a “marriage” by whatever other name.
There must be a good answer other than just, 1. fighting “those fucking haters” or, 2. having no rights.
If we spend the next decade obsessing on the word “marriage,” one of the few places where church is still definitively intertwined with state, little progress will be made.
As far as I am concerned, “marriage” is a matter of person belief and the state’s vestment of special rights on those in what is mostly called “a marriage” is a matter of law. They are separate ideas… or should be.
To quote Elizabeth Edwards: “I don’t know why someone else
I hate that there’s so much tension between the black community and the gay community. I don’t resent the black people who voted for prop 8, but it is disheartening. We have to find a way to reach out to them and make them understand that the struggle for gay rights is a valid one.
It’s also very disappointing that Obama himself didn’t do more – if he had cut a TV ad urging his supporters to vote no on 8, it would have made some difference, and probably wouldn’t have hurt his nationwide numbers much.
Schwarzenegger, not so surprising.
“America is okay with civil Unions – as is Obama – and not okay with changing what is perceived as a social standard of the meaning of marriage.”
Thank you for stating this.
To futher solidify my standing on this board, I will say this: I am not against civil unions; I’m not against partners having visiting rights, or a particular tax status, etc; I am not against partners having a ceremony, walking down an aisle, exchanging vows, etc. What I am against is using the State’s acknowledgement of marriage as a backdoor to change the definition of marriage.
Just as you cannot replace the hoop with goalposts and still call it ‘basketball’, you cannot change the man/woman dynamic of marriage and still call it marriage. In many people’s opinions.
Mystery, did you see the above link for civilunionsdontwork.com?
what skin is it off your nose, mystery? why do you care if gay people play basketball with hoops…wait, huh?
what do you care if gay people actually get married instead of civil union-ed? (cu’s have been legal here for a few years now and gay people are still fighting for the right to marry, to have the same rights as male/female couples, because marriage is more than just a legal union, it is symbolic of the ultimate commitment two people can make) how does same sex marriage effect you, mystery? seriously, i’d like to know.
(like letterman says, gay folks should have the right to be miserable the same as the rest of us)
By this logic, it would be appropriate to go up to adopted kids and tell them, “you know you’re not really a member of this family”.
“Mystery, did you see the above link for civilunionsdontwork.com?”
The Commission’s report makes some compelling arguments. I’m not convinced that the inadequacy of the law could not be remedied in large measure by a reworking of the language.
“By this logic, it would be appropriate to go up to adopted kids and tell them, “you know you’re not really a member of this family”. In the framework of your analogy, I would only be telling a child that they’re adopted, not that they’re not a member of the family.
Telling them that they’re of blood relation would not actually make them of blood relation, would it?
leahnz- What do you care about a piece of paper from the State? Does it legitimize your relationship? I’ve thought about the license I signed for all of two minutes in seven years. You can have the benefits it gives me (although we could argue about whether you’re entitled).
So I can make the argument that you shouldn’t care, and you can make the argument that I shouldn’t care. But we both care, and have the same impetus for caring. Its symbolic for you, its symbolic for me, and a legal redefinition of marriage carries symbolic weight for both of us.
But like I said, my main objection is the attempt to use the State’s legal recognition of marriage as a loophole to change the legal definition of marriage. I contend that its not their place to do so. I’d rather the State dispense with the issuance of marriage licenses altogether.
mystery, you should consider a career in politics, you talk around a subject with troublesome ease.
first of all, this isn’t a personal fight for me, i’m ravenously heterosexual (and divorced after a long and mostly happy marriage), it’s an issue of equal rights for all people for me.
‘But like I said, my main objection is the attempt to use the State’s legal recognition of marriage as a loophole to change the legal definition of marriage. I contend that its not their place to do so. I’d rather the State dispense with the issuance of marriage licenses altogether’
wtf, are you a lawyer? this gobbledygook doesn’t answer my question, i asked what skin gay marriage is off your nose, not the basis of your legal challenge to the state supreme court.
Mystery, two things:
‘blood relations’ are something determinable by objective scientific fact. ‘Marriage’ is a conditional human institution and, therefore, can be defined as whatever we want it to be. Not comparable.
Next re: ‘caring’, the difference is, your marriage license concerns you. Your insistence on other peoples’ marriage licenses concerns them. It’s fundamentally unfair to allow yourself one set of rights and to deny a class of people the same set.
But, if the answer is a nationwide ban on state-issued ‘marriage’, that’s fine with me, although it sounds like at that point we’re getting into semantics, and that it’s really just the word that you’re objecting to.
Why is it such a big deal to change the “legal definition” of marriage? If marriage is such a strong, enduring institution, is gay marriage really going to change that? Will gay people damage it more than heterosexual people already have? Will your marriage suddenly have less meaning because gays can marry? People go on and on about this sacred institution that has been around for thousands of years as if it this flawless thing whose purpose and meaning has never, ever changed during that whole time.
“i asked what skin gay marriage is off your nose”
If you’re asking whether it would tangibly affect my marriage then, barring some unforseen consequence, I’d say no. But beyond the benefits that come with the legal recognition of marriage (which I will cede), the redefinition of marriage doesn’t have a tangible affect on a gay relationship either. We’ve talked about the symbolic effects, for both sides.
“‘Marriage’ is a conditional human institution and, therefore, can be defined as whatever we want it to be. Not comparable.”
Marriage is considered by many to be a religious institution defined by God, that no one has the power to change.
“It’s fundamentally unfair to allow yourself one set of rights and to deny a class of people the same set.”
They’re welcome to those BENEFITS, however, I would stop short at calling them “rights”. Marriage licenses, like all state-issued licenses, have prerequisites one must meet. My marriage license didn’t ask me if I loved my significant other. Thats not a requirement. It didn’t ask my sexual orientation. I, as a heterosexual, am not allowed to legally marry another heterosexual male. So as you can see, the State was focused on the encouragement of what they saw as a beneficial societal stabililizer, and not focused on providing The Official Definition of marriage. If they were, I’d think you’d agree that these laws would have looked a lot different in their conception.
“Marriage is considered by many to be a religious institution defined by God, that no one has the power to change.”
So what? Many people, my wife and I included, do not see it that way. Religious nutjobs should not be placated to hear in order to permit discrimination.
Marriage can still be viewed as a “beneficial social stabilizer” if gay marriage is legal. A loving couple getting married and maintaining a strong marriage is good for society and the couple’s sexual orientation should not/does not matter.
Sorry, here, not hear. Yikes.
“Religious nutjobs should not be placated to hear in order to permit discrimination.”
I’m pretty sure the measure wouldn’t have passed if only religious nutjobs were for it.
That isn’t what I meant. It was in reference to mystery stating, “Marriage is considered by many to be a religious institution defined by God, that no one has the power to change.” I think that is a weak argument in defense of being anti-gay marriage. Many people do not believe that God has defined marriage and nothing can ever change it because of that.
“I think that is a weak argument in defense of being anti-gay marriage.”
Feel free to. Preserving religious tradition remains a substantial impetus in voting for such a measure (and voting for it again, after some judges throw out the first vote).
And why should religious belief trump all else when deciding whether or not to legalize gay marriage? Is marriage strictly a religious tradition? Or is it more a cultural/societal tradition?
the reason prop 8 passed is the elephant standing in the middle of the room: good old fashioned homophobia. and in my experience, homophobia is largely fostered by religious brainwashing.
marriage is no longer exclusively a religious institution; if it were, then elvis must be god. that was then, this is now.
The benefit of these kind of extended, good-faith conversations, which Mystery has very generously taken part in, but someone like Nicol would have proceeded to dance around dishonestly, are that they allow us to get down to the bedrock motivations driving our thoughts.
For example, I’m curious to hear why gay marriage would not be considered a ‘social stabilizer’ when one of the primary complaints about homosexuals is that they’re promiscuous disease-spreaders, which clearly would be tamped down by the stabilizing effect of marriage. That’s just one argument, there are plenty more. Also it’s important to remember that that only applies to men – nobody ever seems to be threatened by two women getting married for various and sundry reasons.
Also, “Marriage is considered by many to be a religious institution defined by God, that no one has the power to change.”
This is not an argument for anything other than political (i.e., popular vote-gaining) reality, that is to say it is not an argument based on shared democratic principles. There are plenty of churches out there who do not share this belief, which one of these religious tests are we going to give preferential treatment to?
“And why should religious belief trump all else when deciding whether or not to legalize gay marriage?”
For the same reason that any other single factor could be THE determining factor– the majority rules. For a combination of reasons, more people voted for Prop 8 than against it. I’m guessing that “religious tradition” played a prominent role, but regardless of the legitimacy of any one reason, one vote = one vote.
“Is marriage strictly a religious tradition?”
No.
“Or is it more a cultural/societal tradition?”
More? I don’t know.
“I’m curious to hear why gay marriage would not be considered a ‘social stabilizer’ when one of the primary complaints about homosexuals is that they’re promiscuous disease-spreaders, which clearly would be tamped down by the stabilizing effect of marriage.”
Gay marriage may well be a societal stabilizer; my point was that it is reasonable to assume, when drafting these laws, that had the prospect of gay marriage been considered, said laws would have been worded to explicitly prevent the conundrum we now face.
“This is not an argument for anything other than political (i.e., popular vote-gaining) reality, that is to say it is not an argument based on shared democratic principles.”
I disagree. People were OK with government involvement when it was something innocuous like offering favorable tax status; it became exponentially more troublesome when that foot-in-the-door turned into a rearranging-the-furniture. Behold the seductive serpent of SOCIALISM!!!
I’ve grown up in the church, and the connection between God and marriage runs deep.
“which one of these religious tests are we going to give preferential treatment to?”
In a simple democratic vote? Who do you think?
Okay, so my collective response to most of what you just said is:
So?
More specifically, that in our society, we have safeguards to protect the tyranny of the majority from democratically trampling the rights of minorities.
I also notice that you keep speaking in the third person. Which of the above statements are you applying to ‘voters’ and which to yourself (assuming you live in California)?
“More specifically, that in our society, we have safeguards to protect the tyranny of the majority from democratically trampling the rights of minorities.”
Your side has failed to prove that marriage is a right. If it had, this issue wouldn’t have been left to a simple majority (of course, it inevitably won’t be). I’ll refer to my discussion of licenses. A driver’s license is not a right. There are prerequisites that must be satisfied. These requirements can change at the whim of the legislature, added to or taken away, and do legally discriminate. So I’ll state it again: marriage is not a right. I’d rather not get too deep into the legal ramifications of the matter; people more qualified than me have dissected the matter in great detail (I’ll refer you the the back-and-forth between Andrew Sullivan and Stanley Kurtz).
So let’s call this what it is– the pursuit of an official stamp of approval on gay relationships. I understand why. Perhaps I cannot make anyone understand why not.
“I also notice that you keep speaking in the third person. Which of the above statements are you applying to ‘voters’ and which to yourself (assuming you live in California)?”
First person = me. Third person = a segment of the population that doesn’t include me when it involves Prop 8 voters. I’m not in California.
Mystery, your argument is still drawing a false comparison. Drivers’ licenses are not denied to people based on their race/color/creed/gender, and the barriers to marriage are, what? Consenting adults who aren’t related as, as far as I’m aware, the only requirements.
And my ‘first person’ question was my way of asking, which of these arguments that you’re putting forth do you actually believe in vs. which ones are you using as theoreticals for what ‘voters’ believe in? I know all the practical reasons voters did what they did. None of that makes them right.
“Consenting adults who aren’t related as, as far as I’m aware, the only requirements.”
You also must be single. But why? I should have the right to marry more than one person. And why can’t cousins marry? Actually, in California, they can. Where I live, they can’t. Isn’t that discrimination? How does it affect you if I’m married to several people, a couple of whom I’m related? Can I marry an animal? How does that affect you? Answer the question I’m repeatedly asked.
As for my personal beliefs– I believe that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government, therefore I object to using the State as a legal loophole to redefine marriage. I’ve got enough going on to care about who you (the generic “you”) love, or are living with, or who you gave power of attorney to, or left your belongings to in a will, or who you put as a contact on your Medic Alert Registration and Emergency Card, or if you had a ceremony and exchanged rings.
We should both be diligent to prevent minority rights from being impinged by the tyranny of the majority, while preserving the traditions of the majority from dilution/eradication by the tyranny of the minority.
You think gays wanting to marry are trying to eradicate the tradition of marriage? Aren’t they trying to join the tradition?
Also, mystery, when states that banned interracial marriage changed their law, were they being forced to redefine marriage? Has marriage ever been redefined before? Or has it in no way changed for thousands of years?
“You think gays wanting to marry are trying to eradicate the tradition of marriage?
No, but the watering-down of marriage, along with the uncoupling of marriage from its religious roots, has led to a significant increase in mere cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childrearing, and family dissolution in Scandinavian countries where gay marriage has been in place for over a decade. So while it may not be intentional, the effect is the same. If marriage is a societal stabilizer, its accelerated decline is a problem.
“Also, mystery, when states that banned interracial marriage changed their law, were they being forced to redefine marriage?”
Not in a way that contradicted the traditional religious definition of marriage.
“Or has it in no way changed for thousands of years?”
The traditional religious definition has not.
I should say, the Christian tradition (on which our society’s tradition is based) has not changed.
And by traditional Christian marriage you mean a man and a woman? But has the meaning of marriage changed during that time? Or the reasons for marriage, and by extension the way we look at marriage?
If marriage has been watered down, aren’t the culprits unrelated to gays getting married? Haven’t sraight people cheapened marriage by not taking it seriously, getting quickie marriages and quickie divorces?
My marriage does not have “religious roots.” Neither does my sister’s or my friend’s or a lot of people I know. I don’t think that makes them any less significant.
I agree that the decline of the meaning of marriage is a concern. But straight people are to blame for that, not gay people. Heterosexual couples have cheapened the meaning of marriage all on their own.
Mystery, I respect your continued participation in this discussion, but you have yet to provide a reason to favor continued discrimination than ‘religious tradition’ which, as far as I’m concerned, is inadequate, especially in a secular (with a capital S) democracy.
“I agree that the decline of the meaning of marriage is a concern. But straight people are to blame for that, not gay people. Heterosexual couples have cheapened the meaning of marriage all on their own.”
That’s hard to argue against. I guess its a “this far, no further” thing.
“you have yet to provide a reason to favor continued discrimination than ‘religious tradition’ which, as far as I’m concerned, is inadequate, especially in a secular (with a capital S) democracy.”
My main argument is that marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government, and as such, is not an institution that government has the right to redefine. The discrimination is innate.
Since the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is not an inalienable right, the decision to approve such a measure was left to the voters, who rejected it.
Christmas is a federal holiday; Ramadan is not. Tell me, how is this governmental discrimination allowed to stand?
All I can give that is a huge eyes-roll, Mystery.
http://www.invalidateprop8.org/