« ‘Change’ isn’t always good | Main | Where did customer service go? »

November 14, 2008

California gay marriage ban

Today, people in Kansas City and all over the country will gather to protest the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry in that state. The Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and evangelical groups spent millions to pass the measure.

Although these religious traditions assign significant meaning to marriage, it is also a legal contract in this country. The state, not the church, gives married couples basic rights and protections, including hospital visitation and health insurance eligibility; Social Security, pension and family leave benefits; immigration protection and more.

One of my brothers was married in a church ceremony, the other in a Las Vegas wedding chapel. Neither couple is less married than the other. But both enjoy 1,049 federal rights, protections, and responsibilities that are denied to my partner of 13 years and me.

This is a legal, not a religious, issue. The Catholic Church can keep its sacrament just as it is, the LDS Church its sacred covenant. My gay brothers and sisters and I want only the same civil rights and responsibilities as our straight brothers and sisters. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Michelle Daniel
Kansas City

So Melissa Etheridge isn’t pleased that California’s Proposition 8 passed, outlawing gay marriage? (11/8, FYI. “Stargazing”) That’s her choice, but her statement that she shouldn’t have to pay California state taxes because of it is not. However, what really concerns me is her defense based on “that taxation without representation thing.”

As far as I can determine, Ms. Etheridge was represented and taxed before Proposition 8 was passed and continues to be represented and taxed after its passage. Her representation isn’t lessened simply because the majority of others who are also represented voted against something she supports. Rather, that is just democracy at work.

Perhaps she meant to invoke Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience — refusing to obey laws and accepting the consequences that follow — for her decision to not pay her taxes. Or maybe she could defend her support of gay marriage with a tenet from our country’s Declaration of Independence — “all men are created equal.”

I’m sure many other people were disappointed by the outcomes of the recent elections, too, and I respect their right to make their displeasure known. I hope they, unlike Ms. Etheridge, understand that representation doesn’t mean always getting your way.

Craig Child
Olathe

Comments

Micheal

NMMNG - Wake up. You think only gay, flaming men contract AIDS? Read a newspaper, research what World AIDS Day is all about. I'm sorry you feel you have to tolerate anyone not acting 'Normal' So why don't you tell us what normal is. Ahhhh...wouldn't the world be great if we were all white bread and good lookin'? NOT!

EL

Tracee;
I am new here and don’t know the history of exchanges between you two but calling someone a fool proves nothing.

Art Chick

NMMNG--you are a fool.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Gays should be able to have civil unions and enjoy the SAME rights as any other American citizen, not more rights and not different rights. Regading healthcare, insurance companies should reatin the right to disallow coverage of particular ailments generally contracted by certain sexual behavior, other than that, allow them the same coverage as abyone else. I have looked in to this, and have not found where if someone is gay they can not retain group or individual health insurance provided they do not have AIDS. Be as gay as you want, however, act normal not flaming in public so the rest of us do not have to tolrate your ignorant behavior.

EL

Pub

"OK, how do we work this? How do I get what I want AND respect the rights of people on the other side of each issue?"
The constitution requires some things and forbitd other things. To change these requires a constitutional amendment--passed by congress, ratified by 38 states.

Like it or not, everything else is subject to change by 51% of congress or a state legislature. That is called democracy and it is not perfect. It is compromise and no group gets everything they want.

Pub 17

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning of several threads. I don't want to live in a country with thirty thousand gun deaths a year in the name of some wombat's belief that he's going to stand off the gummint when they come for him. I don't want to live in a country with mandatory births for every female of impregnable age who experiences a "sperm gone awry." I don't want to live in a country with the Ten Commandments posted on the courthouse lawn, unless I'm the one picking the version of the Ten Commandments favor.

OK, how do we work this? How do I get what I want AND respect the rights of people on the other side of each issue? Up-and-down vote? Pay a lobbyist? Pay for ads during the Super Bowl? Burn my bra?

Figure that one out, Jungle Jack, and I'll vote for YOU.

JUNGLEJACK

For the record - I'm not sure where I stand on the whole gay marriage issue. The problem I have is with those in the minority on this opinion claiming that those with whom they disagree have absolutely no right to hold a differing opinion.

It scares me when some people think that over half of the population do not deserve to have their voices heard in the political process.

Pub 17

Sigh. Let's keep it honest, Jungle Jack, even though you've undoubtedly left for the day. Individuals who are members of churches, which is about, what eighty, ninety percent of the population, can now and have always been able to express their opinions freely. Church officials speaking ex cathedra can not (since of course "churches" don't speak), since they're the ones getting tax breaks by virtue of their nature as providers of spiritual services. Quit blowing smoke and find a real issue to whine about.

dolcemusica1

I don't get it. Over 50% of the marriages (heterosexual, of course) - one or both spouses have been unfaithful. But that's legal -it's o.k. to commit adultery. If one spouse is unfaithful, when filing for divorce, we now have "no fault" divorce - the issue of one being at fault (unfaithful) no longer exists. But, 3-5% of the population is gay and would like to get married - however THAT is illegal.

So it's o.k. for heterosexuals to be unfaithful but it's not o.k. for gays to get married? I'm heterosexual - I think we need to clean things up in our own area before we start condemning others. We're definitely not, statistically, showing a good example of being in loving and faithful relationships.

By the way, statistics show that gays are less violent than heterosexuals and more faithful in relationships. Perhaps having a partner and showing respect means more to them than to heterosexuals who just take it for granted.

tomw

"There is nothing preventing any couple of any sex from filing the proper legal paperwork to insure they have the rights they desire."

A legal obstacle that you did not face. Just because you spent thousands of dollars on a banquet hall, sickening sweet cake, a dress to be worn once does not give you any legal rights. One could spend almost no money and be married in the eyes of the church AND the state.

JUNGLEJACK

"Express your opinion freely? Pay taxes like everyone else."

... are you suggesting that the members of the mentioned religious institutions don't pay their taxes?

I like your idea though, maybe the 40% or so of Americans who don't pay income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote - does that sound fair to you?

"... no, we spent many times more on a traditional wedding."

"This was of course YOUR choice."

... that's my point! There is nothing preventing any couple of any sex from filing the proper legal paperwork to insure they have the rights they desire. If they choose not to do so and bitch and moan about the marriage issue they're just wasting everyone's time.

"There is absolutely no valid legal reason to deny gays the right to marriage. Bible thumpers amaze me."

... I find it hard to believe that the majority of Californians are "Bible thumpers". Those on the left are having a hard time dealing with the fact that most of those who went to the polls and voted for Obama also voted against gay marriage. I guess card-carrying Democrat California liberals are now Bible thumpers.

putkidsfirst

Pub, the rate of children born out of wedlock is on the rise in the US as well. But you can't blame it on gay marriage here, can you?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Besides, The Weekly Standard is an extreme right wing source.

Now please answer - why do you care if gays marry? How do their marriages affect YOU?

EL

mike d

Really?

"someone being worried about what someone else is doing." Like passing laws against drugs?
"If the church so values the sanctity of marriage, why not fight to make divorce illegal?" Or force everyone to marry both a man and a woman?

"There is absolutely no valid legal reason to deny gays the right to marriage." US supreme court 1972, Wilson v Iowa, "There is no constitutional right to marry" States can regulate marriage"

"Bible thumpers amaze me." As opposed to
devil worshipers?
"You worship at and give your money to some of the most corrupt and perverted institutions in the history of mankind," So you worship Hitler and Stalin who were much nicer?
"and then have the audacity to judge how others live their lives." Like you just judged them?
"How ironic that the majority of victims molested by priests are male. I guess its ok to rape them, you just can't marry them." If you believe this you need help.

mike d

Once again, another example of someone being worried about what someone else is doing. This is a nation of crybabies. The only threat to marriage is heterosexuals. If the church so values the sanctity of marriage, why not fight to make divorce illegal? There is absolutely no valid legal reason to deny gays the right to marriage. Bible thumpers amaze me. Get over yourselves. You worship at and give your money to some of the most corrupt and perverted institutions in the history of mankind, and then have the audacity to judge how others live their lives. How ironic that the majority of victims molested by priests are male. I guess its ok to rape them, you just can't marry them.

kcstar_is_one_sided

Don't worry, the Cali Supreme Court will swoop in any day now to disenfranchise these voters and make gay marriage legal just like last time.

dolcemusica1

The article regarding same sex marriage is contributing to having children out of wedlock doesn't make sense at all.

1) 3-5% of the population is gay - the remaining 95-97% are heterosexual.
2) How can legalizing marriage for gays contribute to heterosexuals DECREASE in getting married - but cohabitating? Doesn't make sense. If marriage is SO important to gays and something to strive for - wouldn't that be a contributing factor for heterosexuals to get married?
3) We're seeing trends whereby fewer people are getting married and cohabitating instead (look at Hollywood - plenty of couples who have been together for some time but not married). AND it's in areas where gay marriage is NOT legal (or was short lived).

Based on those facts, it seems that the trend towards cohabitating has nothing to do with gay marriage. Actually, gay marriage should help influence heterosexuals towards marrying. Wonder what the statistics would be if the Scandinavian countries had not legalized gay marriage - probably even fewer heterosexuals would be married. Then where would the ultra conservatives blame it on (along with the increasing children born out of wedlock).

Pub 17

Kee, don't be an idiot all your life: get away from the hate papers and try to figure things out for yourself. Quoting the Standard on Scandinavian social mores is like quoting Der Sturmer on Jewish family life.

Kee

"Putkids" same sex marriage is slowly destroying the roles of parents where it is practiced.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

putkidsfirst

I have struggled for several years now to understand how gay marriage is a threat to my heterosexual marriage. My husband and I are friends with several gay couples and we have neighbors who are gay. We also frequent a business owned by a gay couple. Yet, after 33 years, we are still happily married.

Am I going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly feel the threat from all these gay people in my life?

tomw

"Calling it marriage makes it a religious issue."

Did you get your "marriage" license from the church or the government?

"... no, we spent many times more on a traditional wedding."

This was of course YOUR choice. Was the big expense the ceremony or the pary after?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright