Right on Deepak!

I agree, take the power away from the dull and ingorant masses and let the few "awake" judges determine our future.

Power to the few!!!

Amen,

Steve

Pure Democracy...is evil?!

sounding more and more like stalin...power to a few....or was it marx...or was it lenin....hmmm!

If the citizens make the law though voting upon this initiative how then is this elite judges making law Shmuel?

What this country needs is a pure democracy Norm!

Vote NO to Proposition 8!

Separation of church and state!

peace

I have no stake in other people's money, I just know that anyone or everyone is capable of being loved.

Why don't those for banning gay marriage go out and kill a harmless deer for fun?

I fully agree with Deepak-ji's comments "In a democracy, majority rule is based on respect for minority rights, the basic idea being that a bond of trust allows minorities to feel safe when they are outnumbered".
Let us remember that even basic things like voting rights for minorities were given based on the Constitutional rights and not necessarily dependent upon majority vote. We should also remember that Democracy need not always be simply based on 'Majorityism'.

Craig...see the question mark? I wasn't saying pure democracy is evil....Deepak essentially is..reread the whole thing.

Deepak is basically praising the idea of a few 'enlightened' judges changing the face of society...HE doesn't like the idea of pure democracy....get it?

C'mon..you're the smartest guy I've ever sort of met...surely you can figure that out!!

:)

Wh..wh...what?!?!?!
OK, I'm not going to even address the part about "shameless intrusion"...because that is so backwards. I just won't even comment.
But, with the gay marriage part, can I ask a question? HOW is anyone's life, that includes gay people, going to be improved if gay marriage is legalized? Other than a few financial things with taxes, etc. Why the huge uproar from gay rights activists? I ask honestly, sincerely, will their lives improve if they are allowed to marry?
I care not what other people do in their bedrooms. It is not a matter of that. It is a matter of, what do they gain by being able to marry? I am not amongst those who feel homosexuality to be pathological. But, Deepak, gay people are asking to take part in a sacrament that has long been regarded to be reserved for a man and a woman to unite for the purpose of creating children(but that is a whole other part of the story). Their lifestyle is different. I am not saying it is bad, or wrong, or pathological, it is merely different. Why do they want to partake in a sacrament that is reserved for a man and a woman? I ask this question sincerely--are they trying to actually "change" the sacrament or are they trying to in some way "neutralize" things so that now a man marrying a man is in NO WAY different than a man marrying a woman. That it is simply no different. Because that is just simply NOT the case and one does not need to think that homosexuality is bad or wrong or pathological (because I don't think that) to realize that--that a woman marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a man). And even if gay marriage is legalized, that will not change anything, no one will think that--noone will think those 2 different things are the same.
I simply want to know why gay people feel that they are somehow not complete in their love relationship with another unless they can partake in a sacrament that has always been for a man and a woman for the purpose of creating children. (I did not make that rule--religion did, and that is a fact).
HOw will their lives improve if they are able to have this sacrament? How? Do they think others will look at them and change some kind of fundamental prejudices they might have towards them because by golly they are married...Steve and Adam are married just like Sarah and Bill....so now I realize that I no longer am prejudiced. (Not me--I am not prejudiced, I am speaking of others who are.)

Let Californians create a Wave of their own. There's democracy at work. Too young to know what a Wave is? Synonyms: Sheep, the SS.

In my rush to judge, I paid not attention to particulars, sorry Norm! Damn: hate it when that happens!

Ok, we have a Constitution that is the law of the land, every consenting adult individual in this land is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

Barring two adults from marrying is an abhorrent encroachment upon their rights.

The Constitution, and by extension our judicial system, are meant to protect minority populations from the danger of mob rule.

"Marriage" is simply a word. Only social convention, albeit religiously charged, has sustained the meaning of marriage to mean between a man and women only; so this controversy centers around a group of people who want to legally define “marriage” as a word that means a civil union between two people of opposite sex, and another group of people who do not feel they should have to legally be defined by the phrase “civil union” and feel that they too can use the term “marriage” to legally describe their legal union . . .

Hmmmmm

Well we know there are a lot of happy lawyers in California right now.

No to proposition 8
Separation of church and state!

peace

I'm trying to imagine what one would say to one's 'in marriage' or stable relationship children when they reach the stage of asking how they came into this world. I have to admit certain mechanics, though not necessarily gay, do bother me and this I set in the context of agreement with Olivia's view.

Ya, what Norm said.

I know it's not easy to decifer the raw unedited Chopra, but he makes no bones about his disdain for democracy, certainly not a power to the people kind of guy. Afterall if the human experient doesn't work out, well Chopra will have chalked it up to the dust heap of failed cosmic experiments, easy come, easy go.

If I can find the interview with his dust heap analysis, I will post it.

Good Shabbos from Shmuel, btw Craig, this week marks the beginning of the new cycle of Torah reading for the new year with good 'ol everyone's favorite Bereshis

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I have to believe that our Democracy is strong and that it will overcome the republican's attempt to take it hostage in order turn our Nation into the image and likeness of their own predjudicial religious belief perspective.

Living in a democracy doesn't mean we are guaranteed that our individual rights will come without a struggle, without a fight and proposition 8 is an example of this. Recognizing a denial of rights and setting out to change it is what this Nation is all about, what it has always been about and what it will continue to be about...

Deepak you write, "If the answer is that a sacrament is at stake, these religious groups have no business interjecting their beliefs into public policy"

You can take that to the bank...it is worth it's weight in gold. and amen to that...

have a grand eve....ruth

I bet there were many while folks who asked this question..."why do they want to go to our schools," why do they want to sit in the same part of the restaurant as we do," why do they want to live in MY neighborhood," "why do they want to drink out of the same water fountain as we do.".....huh? why....would someone please tell me why..........I will....another white folk may have said...."heck...they just want to cause trouble"....that's why......

the thing is....a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is exactly the same as a woman marrying a man just because it has always been defined "as this" does not mean, in any way, shape or form that that definition cannot be expanded to mean "this too" .....as far as it being a "sacrament" that is a "religious" term ONLY....the rule about the marriage being about procreation is also a "religious" rule...has no business influencing our laws......

have a grand eve..ruth...vote yes to Prop..8 all you forward looking Californies.....ruth

oh....silly me.....

correction.....:))

vote NO....THAT IS A NO TO PROPOSITION 8.......RUTH

Perhaps the sacrament has a more esoteric meaning, in that one learns to love and help another human being in their spiritual growth.
And that is followed by loving children, and then by loving neighbors, and then ....
(...as the community grows by loving other communities as one self.)

Ruth,

I was anticipating someone would respond as you did in #12 (someone of high intellect) and so it is not surprising that you responded that way. And, on the surface, it is a good comparison--with the civil rights movement. Only, it is really not the same thing.
Marriage, like it or not, IS a religious sacrament. It was created to unite a woman and man. I am not saying I agree--it just is what it is. Another sacrament is communion. Now, I could say I don't agree with the rules of that sacrament, rather than receive a bit of bread we should all do jumping jacks and then do 7 push ups, but it would seem, that change, although seemingly harmless, would change the entire symbolism of the sacrament.
No more receiving a bit of bread to symbolize receiving Christ, no, we would do jumping jacks instead. Marriage is what it is, between man and woman, and one's comprehension can easily expand to understand, using only a little common sense, why that would be.
A man marrying a man IS different than a man marrying a woman, and if it is not different, then why would that man who is marrying a man not just as gladly marry a woman. Clearly there is a difference. A profound difference. Saying they are the same thing, in a way, would mean that someone should have the right to tell Steve, who is marrying Steve, that he should be just as happy marrying Sarah. Because, as you yourself have pointed out, there is no difference between these two things. (These names I have just picked randomnly).

Also, wanted to add, the common sense can be applied here in that married gay couple will never know the challenges or joys of raising children (again that is not my fault, that is just reality, that is the way nature works). They will not know the challenge of dealing with the opposite sex in marriage, someone who is unlike them in fundamental ways. Again, that is not my fault. All I am saying is that it is different when a man marries a man. It is different. If someone says it is exactly the same they are mistaken.

I never understood this debate. It still baffles me.

I guess apart from the symbolism of it (which is probably what fires up all the emotion around it) there are various other issues.

Gays have had problems defining their relationship in cases where their significant other falls ill. There's numerous roadblocks in insurance policies, visitation rights, and also issues of the person's property and estates if they die. In marriage the spouse is typically first in the inheritance line, but if they cannot be legally married, then the dying person's will can be thwarted.

And there's raising of children by same-sex parents. It seems to be a legal custody problem in many states, but I don't know why. As long as the adults are deemed competent and not abusing or neglecting the children, what's the problem?

My attitude is that marriage is a legal contract between two individuals, and a marriage usually entails all kinds of problem solving and relationship issues, and economic problems if finances are shared.

What's the big deal about letting gay people have all the same privileges and problems as the rest of us?

I just don't get it. It has always seemed like such a no-brainer to me.

Yogi-one,

You raised some interesting points.
Actually, I was thinking about what I wrote today, and now reading your post, I feel like I would like to somewhat change my position.
I say if gay people want to get married, they should be allowed.
My only question is I am not sure why they would want to get married. This is why: I have no problem with saying hey tradition doesn't matter--it's traditional for a man to marry a woman, but I really see no problem in just progressing past that tradition. Only question is why do gay people want to embrace something so traditional while simultaneously casting tradition aside? It's an oxymoron. But I have no problem with it if it provides gay couples with more rights, financial rights, etc. (As for the hospital visitation thing, I have never in my life heard of a person being forbidden to visit someone in the hospital just because they are not married to them.) But anyway.

Hi Olivia,

You wrote; "I have never in my life heard of a person being forbidden to visit someone in the hospital just because they are not married to them."

It has happened, because some hospitals, when the patient becomes very seriously ill, or critical or intensive care, have rules about only the next of kin and immediate family being allowed to visit. The lover, not having any family relation, and not being married, has been blocked in some of these instances. Sometimes,anti-gay relatives have made it extremely difficult for the lover to visit.

As for tradition, actually a pretty stable percentage of the population has always been gay. They have just been suppressed and it has been swept under the rug.

Like you, I have no same-sex attraction, and physically I am adverse to it. I don't know if its a genetic thing or what. Sometimes families with no other gay people suddenly find one of their members is gay, so it probably isn't just some kind of enculturation issue.

In closely related species like chimpanzees and bonobos, it has been found that a small, and relatively stable percentage of the population of a group turns out to be gay.

I don't why they are gay. But since it isn't a crime, and the psychologists, doctors, and sociologists don't consider it pathological or a disease, then it follows, at least to me, that they should be given the full range of rights and privileges as everyone else.

I don't think it will destroy the fabric of society or even change it that much (except for the gays who have been denied the right to marry). Again, the science indicates that a relatively small and stable percentage of the population will always be gay. Allowing them marriage rights will not suddenly cause a lot of hetero people to become gay, nor will it cause the downfall of anyone's religion.

It is not evil, and it is not some kind of contagious disease, so there's no reason I see to legislate against it.

Deepak Chopra: "Popular democracy sorely tests the bond of trust. Therefore, we have certain bodies, such as courts and the Senate, where the tide of popular sentiment can be checked. In California, the system of ballot initiatives for changing the state constitution is pure democracy at work, without restraint of any kind. If half the citizenry favor a change, their whims override all checks and balances. Prop 8 is the latest in a long line of disturbing, misguided initiatives that amount to a roll of the dice. "

EXACTLY

...

A little history about the Mormon church:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States and the largest and most well-known denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830."

"The Church's later settlement in western Missouri stoked political turmoil, culminating in the 1838 Mormon War. After the Church relocated to Illinois, religious and political controversy persisted, leading to Smith's 1844 assassination. As the Church began openly practicing plural marriage under Brigham Young during the second half of the 19th century, the Church became the target of nation-wide criticism. In response, the U.S. Congress passed laws designed to weaken the Church. Controversy also surrounded the Church's temple ceremony and the Oath of Vengeance, which led directly to the Smoot Hearings. After the 1890 and 1904 "manifestos" and Church president Joseph F. Smith's testimony before the U.S. Senate, national criticism of the Church eased. In the 20th and 21st centuries, critics have made claims against the Church alleging intolerant attitudes, racism, sexist policies, and inadequate financial disclosure, as well as allegations of Church responsibility for the Mountain Meadows massacre. "

When you put the fundamental rights of gays on ballot, let's also put the Mormon Church recognition and status on the ballot, in say the state of Massachusetts, for starters.

(Mormon Church was formed in 1830 by Adam Smith after his dubious claims of visitations from God and Angels who later penned the revealations in the Mormon Book.)

I am sure, with a moderate campaign, we can easily ban their church and their bigotry.

Talk about democracy.

Roll on uniquity.

Yogi-One,

That is a shame about the hospital rule that has sometimes affected these partners. Thank you for pointing it out.
I agree with what you have said. I certainly don't think it is harmful for gays to marry. Also, noone here at intentblog would guess, but I have many times argued with conservative family members in defense of gay couples being allowed to adopt. I think it is a travesty that there are so many children needing homes and that some people say that a gay couple would not be good enough parents. I disagree with that, and I disagree strongly. I think gay people should absolutely be allowed to adopt and it is sheer ignorance for people to say otherwise.
Perhaps in my heart of hearts I am skeptical of marriage itself. But for those people who are not, gay or straight, I hope that they will be allowed to marry.

Seems like people who have posted here are very knowledgeable so I ask this question to them:

Why this same sex marriage is so important? The urgency shown is even more than what is been shown to cure dreaded diseases like Cancer, AIDS etc.,

Part of any society Marriage has been there since early periods of any civilization and no one thought that is important for 2 men or 2 women to get married. Some of these civilizations were much more sophisticated than ours.

I hope this does not become the case of , I quote a Sanskrit saying “Veenasha KalaYA Veeparith Budhi” which translates to “When end is near Man starts acting too smart”.

Personally, I don’t care one way or other as long as they keep the innocent young school kids out of this.

Proposition Crazy 8, huh? Only in California. We also have a proposition about marriage in the state of Arizona.

Again, the electorate have the right to decide, but a court will end up deciding if it is constitutional or not.

Legal binding is what this should be called...not marriage. A bond between couples that unites them in a state of partnership should be properly stated so that the word "marriage" is eliminated from the discussion.

Marriage as such is a tradition upon which every little girl and every little boy learns that someday he and she will enjoy. The lifestyle of gays appears to be taught, conditioned, and often a result of child abuse.

Think when one votes!

Can some one explain me why Suddenly Same-sex marriage is so important to people of Western Civilization. The importance given to it is so high that some times I feel the attention it is getting is even more than what is given to the cure of dreaded diseases like Cancer, AIDS and ongoing wars around the World. Marriage as an institution existed in almost all the Civilization and some of them were more liberal and advanced than the one we are living in right now.How come all of those civilization thought that the marriage means it is between a Man and Women only ? Can someone please explain this to me. I know this post will not be liked by Liberals who dominate this website and I am 100% sure that this will not be approved by the moderator since they like to read only the postings that appeal to the left.

Can some one explain me why Suddenly Same-sex marriage is so important to people of Western Civilization. The importance given to it is so high that some times I feel the attention it is getting is even more than what is given to the cure of dreaded diseases like Cancer, AIDS and ongoing wars around the World. Marriage as an institution existed in almost all the Civilization and some of them were more liberal and advanced than the one we are living in right now.How come all of those civilization thought that the marriage means it is between a Man and Women only ? Can someone please explain this to me. I know this post will not be liked by Liberals who dominate this website and I am 100% sure that this will not be approved by the moderator since they like to read only the postings that appeal to the left.