On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2008, at 1:07 PM, PN Stenquist wrote: > >> Silliness. The law is based on a majority vote. That's how it works in a >> democracy. And it isn't about rights, it's about terminology. "Marriage" vs. >> "Civil Union." Much ado about nothing. > > Without want to delve too deeply into the politics of the thing, Proposition > 8 is posed as an amendment to the California State Constitution. It's > passage by a (slim) simple majority contradicts the due process by which an > amendment to the state constitution is permitted, and a well-founded legal > action against it on that basis is now making its way through the California > State courts. > > (The government of the United States and its member States is not a > democracy either ... it's a representative republic ... but that's more > technical political science than I feel like going to the books and studying > up on at the moment. :-) > > Which is all beside the point anyway. Your notion of "terminology" citing > that "Marriage" and "Civil Union" are synonymous is a simplistic and > ill-founded judgement, not supported by the facts. A "Civil Union" does not > carry the civil rights, provisos and protections of "Marriage" in the eye of > the law ... that's why the LBGT community is so up in arms about this issue. > Were I to be taken terminally ill, simple things like my partner's > capability to assist me in the hospital in my dying days are not provided by > a Civil Union because, under the law, he would not be granted the rights and > capabilities as a member of my family. In some cases, he might not even be > permitted to be at my bedside until a brother or other family member arrived > and provided a legal release for his presence. Or even not at all. That is > unconscionable discrimination in my view. > > So to characterize this issue as 'much ado about nothing', given the > difference in status and rights conferred on supposedly equal citizens under > the law by Civil Union and Marriage, is wholly incorrect. If you feel that > these two instruments of the law are equal synonyms, put your money where > your mouth is by obtaining a divorce and engaging your partner in a Civil > Union instead. I'm sure you will be less than delighted with the difference > in taxation, benefits and rights you receive from doing that. > > Proposition 8 was presented by its proponents in salacious fashion as an > attack upon the "holy sacrament of marriage", which has nothing to do with > the LEGAL entity of Marriage under the civil law. Massive contributions to > its promotion were funded by the Mormon Church and other fundamentalist > radicals who felt it a *political* threat in the name of religious > jurisprudence. It won its slim majority vote by a combination of subterfuge > and scurrilous promotion practices ... like thousands of 'bot calls in the > 24 hours of election day which presented misinformation and misdirection (I > know this for a fact ... I received 13 of these 'bot calls myself on > Election Day many of which used carefully edited clips from Barack Obama's > campaign speeches spliced together to seem like he supported the passage of > Prop 8, which he most certainly did not). It is discrimination by the > politically fearful against a minority community. These facts and the fact > that it is an attempt yet once again to overthrow the due process of > constitutional governance by jimmying the rules of the game show just how > afraid, desperate and hateful these so-called "religious" political > institutions are... > > It will fail, they will fail. It may take more years of those affected by > this discrimination suffering pain, greed, stupidity and hate, but it will > fail. > > Getting back to photography, I think I need to do some adjustment to the > rendering of my photo. Looked at 24 hours later, it seems a bit too harsh on > the bright end of the spectrum. I'll be working on it a bit more... along > with a few other snaps from the event. > > Godfrey
I'll note that the major reason the Church of Latter Day Saints backed the measure was the strong use of the singular in the wording of Proposition 8, not the fact that it outlawed Same-Sex marriages since it banned any form of polygamy at the constitutional level. The LDS is extremely wary of polygamy, for very good historical and recent reasons and Proposition 8's wording is a major win for them irrespective of the Same-Sex marriage issue. Note the LDS have not, as a rule, become heavily involved in the Same-Sex marriage debate anywhere else. It was the particular wording of Prop 8 and its applicability to one of the Churches major bugaboos that predicated the levl of support involved. Needless to say, the LDS are not proponents of Same-Sex marriage but that was not the reason they suddenly came out of the woodwork this time. As a personal take, I'm against the government being involved in marriage in the first place. but I'm a Libertarian sort (I know, odd for someone in Soviet Canuckistan) and think the governments got its fingers in far too many pies as a matter of course. Let the contract define the union, and let the government do nothing but enforce contracts, just as they do for other sorts. Which conveniently gets rid of the biased disasters known as Family COurts. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
