Does the overturning of Prop. 8, effect you personally?

I’m gay and a Californian, so it affects me quite a bit. Hopefully by the time I may decide I want to marry the man I love, I will be able to do so.

It effects me in the sense that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

It will also probably increase spending on weddings in California, which will benefit my state’s economy.

It doesn’t effect me personally, but the ruling made my day!

It has an effect on me because I’m an sick of living in such an ignorant and intolerant society; this gives me hope lol…...

Only in that it points to a positive change in attitude towards freedom for all.

@YARNLADY so it really doesn’t effect you personally. But you are happy for others.

@filmfann I know it made your day from the other post on the other thread. This thread is about the prop. effecting you personally.

I’m not personally affected, but perhaps now my friends here in NYC can look forward to some laws changing for them. I know at least 3 couples who’d get married right now if such a provision were the case here.

It doesn’t effect anyone; it affects millions of people, though.

It affected me personally by making me happy which has a direct chemical reaction on my person.
I imagine the same with @YARNLADY and @filmfann . :-P

@Blackberry Beautiful answer. I could hug you right now.

Btw, no homo.

I meant to say “I’m sick of living..”, thanks @FutureMemory

Yes! I’m hoping I’ll get to go to a lot more weddings!

@nikipedia How does this effect (bring about) changes for you personally?

@Rangiebaby How does this major stepping stone in progress affect you?

It does not affect me personally, one way or the other. But thanks for asking. I am woman, married to a man.
I am unable to understand this sort of thing unless I can hear from those it affects directly and how.

@RANGIEBABY You can’t understand discrimination unless you’re the one being discriminated against?

I’m happy as a pig in poop. :)

Lesbian and so happy.

How does this affect me personally? I am finally one step closer to living in a country where all people really are treated equally. There is now a glimmer of hope that the rest of the country will get there, and that glimmer is one of the few things that makes me proud of America and keeps me going.

As a gay man living in a state that banned same-sex marriage using a ballot initiative, it affects me greatly. I have every hope now that it will be overturned in my state and even the whole nation within the next few years. I will have the same right to marry the person I love as a heterosexual couple.

Yes, it means I live in a country where bigots don’t always get their way.

@RANGIEBABY The original question is “Does the overturning of Prop. 8, effect you personally?”
My answer was that it did not.
Why do you slam me for answering?

Prop 8 was such a backward move from such a progressive state. It surprised and saddened me. It also illuminated the reason for the separation of church and state, and revealed to all the financial and political clout of the Mormon church (which I never perceived as a threat before this issue) and it’s williness to use it to force it’s religious beliefs on the rest of us. This was such a tragedy, very depressing to witness.

Yes, although I am a Floridian, the repeal of 8 affects me very personally as an American citizen, a heterosexual in support of LGBT rights and the preservation of all our civil rights. Let freedom ring.

No. The only way it might affect me is if my brother moves from CO to CA, or if the case eventually reaches the USSC and causes a national law allowing same-sex marriage. Then I’d have another potential wedding to attend. My cousin lives in MA, so she could already get married if she wanted to. <shrug>

@Espiritus_Corvus California has many areas that are progressive, and many others that are very conservative. Keep in mind California produced Nixon and Reagan.

@FutureMemory I have not personally felt the affect of discrimination. Except I was not hired for a job years ago, because I was not the same religion as the owner and all the employees. It was a music store. I was qualified for the job, but when I was what my religious preference was, his face went sober, and I was told I just would not fit in.
Oh well, I just moved on to some other job.

@RANGIEBABY gay men and women who are denied marriage because of their orientation cannot “move on” to another gender.

@filmfann Yes, I am well aware of Orange County and the ilk. However, I went to HS and university in the Bay Area, lived for awhile in Bodega Bay and Bolinas and am forever in love with NoCal and that is the way I remember it, progressive and very unique. Everything south of Big Sur seemed so… alien, conservative, average and commonplace—- Not California.

Directly, no—personally, yes.

@MrItty I didn’t mean to imply that the issues were one in the same. I merely expressing the fact that I really don’t know what it is to be discriminated against. My issue was easily resolved. I know there are all levels of discrimination.

Now I must wait to leave my spouse since the sanctity of marriage has yet to be undermined.

It affects my best friend personally and others I care for – that’s first. As a queer activist, it affects me because Prop 8 was disgusting and hurtful. We’re not out of the woods yet because I do think this will go to the Supreme Court but I’m hopeful.

I’m married to an opposite sex partner. I know my two sons are straight, and as far as I know, all 11 grandchildren are too. But it definitely affects how I feel about being an American. Whenever one minority or another is singled out for persecution or discrimination, I am on the side of equality. That to me is what America is about, and bit by pit we are peeling back the many layers of unfairness, bigotry and misogyny that prevented us from living up to the high ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

It does not affect me indirectly, but it will probably have indirect effects. By cutting down on narrow minded taboos, it opens the door to greater freedom. For example, the legalization of marijuana is now closer to become a reality.

Yes. Now my girlfriend can make an honest woman of me . . .

Oh no! The sanctity of marriage is gone! My heterosexual marriage will blow apart! ... or not.

I just want to know, how in the hell did Iowa get ahead of California with this?!

Yes, it affects me. Now I have over a thousand miles to travel to see my brother in-law marry his partner of 16 years. If he came to Iowa, it wouldn’t take me as long to travel. :/ (joking)

It affects me because I’m hoping to move to CA in a couple years, and I may find some woman and want to marry her.

Now I’m waiting for the legalization of beastiality and the marriage of dogs to humans by the “Godless Progressives” as predicted by Glenn Beck and the Mormon leadership as a next step if Prop 8 wasn’t passed. California dog and horse owners, they are watching you!!!

@Espiritus_Corvus So that’s why my best friend has 4 horses and 5 dogs.~ (she’s Mormon) yay! for believing every sound bite you hear

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

@mycatsnameismaceo Oh, Right. The Mormon church didn’t pay for the ugliest of the ads that flooded California stating this and other insanity during the runup to 8 and Glenn Beck didn’t spend weeks during the same time period raving at America about the coming beastiality legislation. Your head is in the sand. Wake up to the lying piss ants who bring you non-existent WMDs, death panels, birthers, communism in the White House, Teabaggers who want to “Keep the government out of my Medicare” and now the imminent threat of violent marauding immigrant hordes from Mexico to steal our public services from us and other such horseshit sideshows to get ill informed mindless dupes to the polls. Your friend is probably a very nice person, but she is not responsible for the Church of the Latterday Saints admin’s decision to force their religious beliefs on all Californians with their significant political and financial clout by backing 8.

@Espiritus_Corvus lol…you don’t know me, and I don’t need to wake up. The Mormon’s didn’t make anyone vote.

It gives me hope. I’m thrilled for the LGBT community, and for humanity as a whole.

I personally believe that legal homosexual marriage is inevitable.

However I’m concerned It will be achieved through circumventing correct legislative procedure.

The people of California had spoken then a single individual turned the ruling on it’s head.

@MeinTeil “The people” aren’t supposed to be able to vote on basic human rights. It was a mistake for that vote to ever come to be to begin with.

What should have happened instead?

@MeinTeil The legislative and executive branches should have fixed the problem. That’s what they’re elected to do.

@MrItty I would like to know why the people aren’t suppose to be able to vote on basic human rights. Isn’t this government made up by the people for the people?

@RANGIEBABY “We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Our rights are not granted to us by our fellow citizens. They exist, by whatever natural force, process, or intelligence (depending your beliefs, about which I don’t care) has formed human beings.

@RANGIEBABY in more practical and historical terms and less idealistic, do you think a popular vote should have been held instead of Brown v the Board of Education?

@MrItty Brown vs the Board of Education is entirely different. Of course I don’t think a popular vote should have been held instead.
you said The legislative and executive branches should have fixed the problem. That’s what they’re elected to do.
tell me when do they ever do what they were elected to do? They do what ever they damn well please and there is nothing we can do about it. Yes we can not reelect them, but the damage is already done.
Now for the marriage issue, I guess I am guilty of thinking the “word” marriage is between a man and woman. I completely agree that every individual has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I have no problem with same sexes living together and having the same rights as married people, but to me it is a conflict with the Bible. So it is their issue with God, not mine. There are many ways I could go with this, but I will not. I prefer to stick to the question only.

@RANGIEBABY no. It’s not entirely different. It is, in fact, 100% the same. It’s about equality for everyone, not just those that the majority feel agree with their own religion-imposed morals.

And it doesn’t matter if it conflicts with the Bible. Your Bible conflicts with the US Constitution. And it’s the Constitution that governs our laws, not your Bible.

“Marriage” is a federally recognized and legal institution. The fact that it shares a name with your religious institution does not mean that your religious institution gets to decide who’s allowed to participate.

@MrItty Okay, here it goes, why not let mothers marry their sons or daughters, 1st cousins, sisters and brothers, etc. if it will insure they are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness according to the United States Constitution?

@RANGIEBABY That is actually an awesome question and one that deserves a more careful consideration than I think you’re giving it.

@RANGIEBABY 1) Because people in this country are still under the misbegoten impression that “marriage” = “reproduction”, and those unions would produce genetically deformed offspring.
2) Because the desire to marry your own family is a sign of mental illness, and therefore would not be between two able and willing parties

Now that I’ve answered your question, I find your comparison of two homosexuals in love with each other to incest to be revolting in the extreme.

@RANGIEBABY

Oh, here we go again with this…the Gay Marriage Slippery Slope. “If we allow gay marriage, the next step is to allow incestual marriage, polygamy, pedophile marriage, bestial marriage, and then society will collapse!”

@MrItty If everyone is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not let them marry anyone they want? Why not 1st cousins? Why not sister and brother?

@RANGIEBABY which part of my answer to that question was confusing to you?

Ah yes, the “Gays aren’t like other sexual deviants—those people are fucked up.” response.

@RANGIEBABY: Out of curiosity, what would be so awful about first cousins marring? Or sister and brother?

Like I said, I don’t care what anyone does with their life or who they marry or partner with. My religious belief is two men and two women should not “marry”. Quite frankly I don’t understand the whole same sex stuff anyway. Sorry folks, I am just being honest. It just does not make sense to me, probably because I have never had feelings of that nature for anyone of the same sex, therefore how could I understand it. Don’t call me names for it, I am not calling you names. @MrItty I am sorry you are revolted, but you will just have to get over it. I am trying to express myself as all of you are.

@lapilofu Gays aren’t sexual deviants. Every scientific study on the planet has shown that conclusively. Believing other wise, in this day and age, is ignorant to the point of stupidity.

@RANGIEBABY Of course you haven’t had feelings for someone of the same sex. You’re straight. Gay people don’t have feelings for people of the opposite sex. They’re gay. That’s the point. It’s not a choice, you don’t decide which gender to be attracted to, any more than you choose your height, heritage, or skin color. You’ve expressed yourself just fine.

@MrItty Yes, but neither are polygamists or people who enjoy incest is what I’m saying.

I see it as a major problem in the gay rights movement that they feel it necessary to distance themselves from others who don’t fit society’s perceived norm in order to normalize themselves. So for that reason, the “I find your comparison of two homosexuals in love with each other to incest to be revolting in the extreme.” argument rubs me the wrong way. Consider that you had to even add the words “in love” to normalize them more. Would the comparison have been more apt if the homosexuals were not in love or the incesters were?

@lapilofu You are wrong on both counts. Do some friggin research on the science of the topic, would you?

We are talking about marriage. Marriage means love. “Love” does not exist between two people engaging in incest.

@MrItty: Why not? If they’re both consenting adults?

@nikipedia They’re not. Show me one case – ONE CASE – in which A) incest occurred, B) it was between two adults, C) one adult did not force him/herself upon the other, and D) neither member suffered from a mental illness.

@MrItty I can’t mention names of course, but I know a brother, sister that united, and 2 children, and spent their entire lives with each other. They were every bit as loving to each other as anyone else. The sister died of old age and the brother is in a rest home the last I heard. The boys are living in Oregon.

@RANGIEBABY So you can understand that, but you claim that gay marriage is wrong because you can’t understand it, because it conflicts with the Bible. I call BS. And I see no reason to continue debating when you’re going to blatantly contradict yourself like that.

@MrItty The science of the topic? I’m curious to see the scientific papers you’re talking about that regard polygamy and incest, but not homosexuality, as examples of sexual deviance. Also the scientific papers that say members of the same family cannot love each other. Are they easily available?

@lapilofu googling for “sexual deviance” and either incest or polygamy will return you a host of results from their “scholarly works” section. I’ll start you off, and leave you to continue your research:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6t338554u832427/

With that, good night, folks.

@MrItty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muth_v._Frank

And since you bring it up, what’s wrong with polygamy between consenting adults?

@nikipedia the “siblings” in that case were siblings in genetics only. They were separated 3 months after birth. You are right that I should have clarified that I was not talking about “incest” in the technical genetic sense.

Do none of these count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coupled_cousins

@MrItty I don’t have access to that article from here, unfortunately, but the summary appears to be conflating incest with child molestation. I’m afraid I can’t count that as evidence against incest—only against child molestation which I have no intention of arguing for. I’m finding it very hard to find any articles making a determination on incest between consenting adults—even when searching on Google Scholar—so once again I’ll have to ask you to help me find them.

I find it interesting that you think you’re so open-minded about homosexuality but you’re not about incest. Do you actually believe incest and polygamy hurts consenting adults in some way or is it just obviously wrong? How is your belief different from homophobia?

(Especially since the genetics are not important to you—you don’t even have the ever so common mutated children argument on your side.)

(I want to clarify that the article sounds pretty OK, actually. It’s just not what I’m talking about when I say incest.)

@MrItty: I think this probably fits the bill too, if you consider it a trustworthy source.

Look, I’m not condoning incest. It grosses me out. But the fact that I have a visceral repulsion to it doesn’t make it immoral. If no one gets hurt, who am I to judge.

@MrItty Sorry you feel that way, I am running back and forth trying to answer several threads at the moment and it can become confusing. Yes this issue of marriage between men and men or women and women, confounds me. But just because I don’t understand how this is the kind of love, that I know to be physical and sexual, can be, doesn’t mean I want everyone to follow what I think. Perhaps I am contradictory, but this is a very difficult issue for me. I would not want to deny anyone their happiness with another person, but I just can’t see it as a “marriage” the way I know it to be. Sorry, I don’t say what you want to hear or the way you want to hear it. So, you go do and say what you want about me, it really doesn’t matter. Why should I let what you say offend me anyway? I will think the way I want and you can do the same. I have nothing more to say on this subject, except I am sorry the Judge overturned prop 8. Sorry @DominicX . Form your union, I just don’t think it should be compared with the normal “marriage”.

@lapilofu & @RANGIEBABY The science of the topic on incest is quite clear. The concern isn’t so much moral opprobrium when it occurs between consenting adults, as in a brother and sister. It’s the genetic effects of inbreeding. As the European blue-bloods eventually learned, the percentage of birth defects it creates are a problem.

With the long history of polygamy in many cultures, I do not believe it is justified to call it a perversion. The US laws against polygamy adopted when the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later Day Saints (Mormons) adopted the practice in the mid 1800s. Today’s sensitivity against it probably corresponds to Western culture slowly moving away from misogynistic views. While polygamy isn’t “defined” as one man, lots of women, that is how it almost always ends up.

Neither issue can correctly be conflated with the same sex marriage debate. In the case of incest, the state does have a compelling interest in preventing it—that being birth defects and genetic damage to DNA. In the case of polygamy, it isn’t an equal protection issue under the 14th Amendment as same sex marriage is.

@MeinTeil Would it be fine if the 51.3% protestant US population voted that Catholics must renounce the Pope and their faith, and join a Protestant denomination. Don’t you see the problem of ignoring Constitutional protections in favor of majority rule. As has been pointed out, if majority rule had determined our course, the South would have Apartheid still today and in many states interracial marriage would still be a felony. At the time the US Army integrated under orders of President Harry Truman, a large majority of the public felt Blacks and Whites should be segregated. The DOD surveyed the Army and found soldiers overwhelmingly objected to barracks and showers being integrated. That is why we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic and not a direct democracy. The Constitution guarantees us all equal treatment under the law. That isn’t up for a vote.

@ETpro: Sorry, but the “genetic defects” argument holds no water unless you maintain that marriages are not legitimate without offspring. If two consenting adults want to have an incestuous relationship without producing children, there is really no moral argument against it.

@nikipedia I suppose the state could insist on sterilization as a condition of incestuous marriage. I am sure religious opprobrium has a great deal to do with our current legal postion as well. But barring sterilization or enforced abortion (which would have its own very vocal group of critics) the state indeed does have a legitimate interest in legislating against incest. Marriages are certainly legitimate without offspring, but offspring are often a result of marriage. Drinking and driving doesn’t always result in property damage or loss of lives, but it does often enough the state has a legitimate concern in limiting it. Even insisting I can drink and drive without having a wreck isn’t good enough. The same would go for insisting I can marry my sister and not ever get her pregnant.

@ETpro: Your point is well taken but it still sounds an awful lot like you are using an orthogonal circumstance (pregnancy) to defend a faux-moral stance on something that people find icky (incest). It seems entirely reasonable to me to outlaw incestuous offspring without outlawing incestuous relationships.

@nikipedia Actually, I was drawing on the Findings of Fact Judge Walker considered in his opinion, and trying to apply what same like the same sort of reasoning to incest. I will admit I have not done a great deal of research on laws against either incest or polygamy. As an only child, incest had no interest to me and given how hard it is to get along with just one spouse, I need no law to compel me to reject polygamy!

One thing that the decision does is to help redefine the purpose of marriage. Traditionally the primary purpose of marriage has been to raise children. It does not get mentioned in the wedding vows, but the law is pretty clear about the responsibilities that parents bear toward their children. You are not obligated to have children, but if you do have them, you better take proper care of them. Since in the past it was not possible to determine for sure who the biological father was, marriage ensured that the person who traditionally was the primary bread winner would be able to provide support. This has all changed. We can determine the biological father. Women are out in the work force. People are also living longer, meaning that marriages go on way after the children have left the home. All of this means that we have to look anew at what we mean by marriage.