I read the entire post, including the letters from the men involved.

It seems to me that too much emphasis is placed upon what other people think about this relationship instead of simply enjoying the fact that each has found his "soulmate" and has found true happiness with each other.

Since this is mostly an effort to impact an election, and I found the information about the Mormon church's impact on the election as most meaningful, I have to admit that polygamy practiced amongst members of the same sex would probably be anathema to the Mormon faith.

I believe that too much is made of ceremonial dressings such as weddings, but the practicality of laws to protect relationships, whether of sanctified church marriages, or of unsanctified legal state ceremonies, is a subject about which the electorate really should not determine until the need for such laws is fully understood.

Until the public is educated as to why a marriage law regarding same sex marriages should be enacted, the entire bill should go down to defeat.

Thanks for an interesting story. True love does not need "paper" as such to insure happiness.

Kos raises an alarm in the fundraising plea for No on Prop 8 campaign in CA:

"I don't think this can be stated strongly enough -- if this amendment passes, the cause of marriage equality will be set back decades. There's a reason the Mormon Church and wingnut "family values" groups are investing everything they can into this thing -- if they stop gay marriage in California, they halt all momentum earned the past few years. And right now, they've outraised the good guys by about $10 million."

"Yes, this is a battle for universal human rights, but ultimately, it directly affects just the LGBT community. [...] This is the line in the sand. We win this one, and progress toward equality will continue. We lose it, and it'll be a real blow to the cause. We can't allow the forces of bigotry that victory."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/9/16478/0653/30/625443

I think we will prevail on the election day.

Of course we had a good news a few days ago! Connecticut joined Massachusetts and California as states proud to offer marriage equality to all its residents. Momentum is on the side of equality. But if the Mormon Church and its bigoted allies can eliminate the right in California, it'll set back the cause for equality for decades.

Equality for All

If the bad guys eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, as they’re trying to do with Prop 8, it’ll severely set back the cause of equality across the entire country for decades. We are winning this battle—California, Massachusetts, now Connecticut. Let’s show the Mormon Church and their bigoted allies that they can’t stand in the way of progress.

Daily Kos fund raising page at ActBlue added this a few days ago to the list of "Orange to Blue" Senate and House campaigns/candidates they are helping out this November:

http://www.actblue.com/page/orangetoblue

If you care about marriage equality for all, you can help out by making a donation.

It's an issue used to divide and to distract. It doesn't need to be an issue.

Marriage is a religious artifact and the state should have nothing to do with religion. The state should only be involved with partnership agreements and rights. That is what I would take to the Supreme Court. That any attempt to define marriage is attempting to control or mandate a religion.

The last place those that benefit from the current systems want your attention are in those areas that really matter for example the financial fiasco and policy.

There also seems to be an attempt to preserve the old consciousness and the illusions associated with it.

Mallika,

It is wonderful how much you care about this couple. I have to say though, that I mostly agree with arizonasunset. I do feel that these two are lucky to have found and embraced love--a piece of paper will not change that in my opinion. Obviously that is just my opinion and not the opinion of the couple. But I do feel that people who are seeking to have same-sex marriage accepted and legalized need to realize what they are up against. Thousands of years of traditions mandating that marriage is between a woman and a man.
Do I agree with that? No, I think if 2 people love each other--how wonderful! Doesn't matter to me if it is 2 men or 2 women or a woman and a man!!!
But the institution of marriage has always traditionally been between a man and woman. Doesn't it come down to that same sex marriage supporters will actually need to change religions first? And how difficult that will be!!!

Miscegenation:

"The term "miscegenation" has been used since the nineteenth century to refer to interracial marriage and interracial sex, and more generally to the global process of racial admixture that has taken place since the Age of Discoveries, particularly through the European colonization of the Americas and the Atlantic slave trade.

Historically the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, so-called anti-miscegenation laws.

It is therefore a loaded word and is considered offensive by many."

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

Proposition 8, California:

"Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.

If passed, the proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The Roman Catholic Church opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that... secular government recognition of any other union within the definition of "marriage" would therefore reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women.

Conservatives and some moderate Christians further note that homosexuality goes directly against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Can you tell the difference?

Because, frankly, I can't.

In 100 years I guarantee the Wikipedia page for gay marriage will look EXACTLY like the one for miscegenation.

Here's where you learn all about it:

http://www.noonprop8.com/

Re. 6

The funny thing about all this is the opposing side's argument sums up my objection to Prop 8:

"The Roman Catholic Church opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that... secular government recognition of any other union within the definition of "marriage" would therefore reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women."

Until you can give me an argument as to why there isn't a "moral equivalence of act between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women", you don't actually have anything that can't be summed up as "we don't like you so you having equal rights should be illegal".

The right is correct in thinking this is a moral issue. The problem is their side is objectively wrong on it.

It is wrong when people who take the Bible literally ignore parts of it like 'we shouldn't charge usury', which is 'interest'.

There are other things, like cutting off your right hand, if it offends you.

Not to mention that the primary prohibition on homosexuality comes from the law code of Leviticus, a code of behaviour that Jesus supposedly rescued Christians from when he died for their multitudinous sins.

If that weren't the case, Christians would have the same dietary and lifestyle restrictions imposed upon them as Orthodox Jews do; but it is much easier to gloss over the 'don't eat shellfish', 'don't eat meat with cheese', 'don't mix fabrics in the same garment' sections and focus in on the 'GAY PEOPLEZ IS ABOMINATION UNTO GOD' part.

I think we should ban 'multiple' marriages (divorce related) to so called Christians in this country. We should create laws 'specific' to them based on their religious beliefs and make sure they live up to those standards. How's that proposal?

Testing

If we go by "Biblical Law": A person who is divorced and remarried is committing adultery. A man has the right to sell his daughter. Genocide is good if it is committed against people who worship a different god....

As an historical lesson, the Old Testament is a wonderful resource. As a morale code, not even close.

That's the whole point. Religion is unfair, intolerant. Is it "fair" that a divorced person cannot receive communion? NO, but that is the rule. Is it "fair" that two men cannot be married in Catholic Church?
No, but that is the rule. I myself feel the natural thing to do is to recoil from religion rather than seek to be embraced by it. As I feel religion is one of the great foundations of intolerance.

Sacchin,

In response to your post #7: Catholic Church feel that the intention of marriage should be to create children. Of course then they are never going to say that same-sex unions are equivalent to unions between a man and a woman. I am not saying I agree. I am just explaining how seemingly impossible it will be to get the Catholic church to embrace same-sex marriage.

Think about it.

CA Marriage Equality: Prop 8 IS a violation of religious freedom
by Killer of Sacred Cows

Sun Oct 05, 2008

You know that claim from the fundamentalist crowd that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, if Proposition 8 doesn't pass, it will violate their religious freedoms?

Well, if Proposition 8 passes and encodes discrimination into my state constitution, it will violate my religious freedoms, and the religious freedoms of every Unitarian, liberal Christian, liberal Jew, liberal Muslim, and any other religious person whose faith supports the inherent worth and dignity of every person and their right to choose their partner. Why? Because we'll only be allowed to marry those couples who fit the state standard of "one man, one woman." Our freedom to choose who we can marry as a denomination will be taken away.

It's interesting how the fears the fundamentalists have about the passage or non-passage of an amendment banning marriage equality actually do apply to people and churches of a liberal faith tradition. Let's be honest: Proposition 8 is an outright attack on the liberal faiths and values of a number of religious groups.

More after the jump.

Killer of Sacred Cows's diary :: ::
For those who didn't already know, I am a Unitarian Universalist. I believe strongly in the principles of my faith tradition, including the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Like the United Church of Christ across the street, my church marries same-sex couples gladly and openly. It's part of our belief and value system that same-sex couples deserve marriage equality. We have a big banner on the side of our church annex building which says "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right." We've heard several sermons on the topic over the summer, since the Sunday following the May 17th decision, and the church community is united behind defeating Prop 8. Groups from our church handed out roses and wedding cake to couples getting married down at the courthouse on the first day it was legal, and one of those groups stood around myself and my husband as our pastor married us on the courthouse steps on June 17th. Last Sunday there was a phone-banking event organized in our church annex by Equality California. Yesterday, two of our friends and members of the church, John and Bill, celebrated their wedding.

So as Unitarians, we talk the talk and we walk the walk.

Even so, our sermon this morning was on marriage equality. It was titled, "Why do we need yet another sermon on marriage equality?"

Our pastor, Matthew, talked earnestly about Proposition 8, and how important it is, as a faith community, for us to defeat it. He's afraid, he said. And he has good reason to be. Despite all the wonderful Field Polls that have come out saying that Californians are 55% against and only 38% for the amendment that would negate recognition of my husband's and my marriage, our pastor is afraid. In fact, the polls made him more afraid, not less.

First, he pointed out that right now, we're ahead - but at the time that poll and all the ones prior to it were taken, no advertising and no campaigning had happened for or against Proposition 8. Not one bumper sticker. Not one yard sign. Not one television or radio advertisement.

I can see his point. Once the media saturation of anti-gay and pro-Prop-8 messages starts, with claims from "Our churches will be FORCED to marry gay couples!" to "Homosexuals will force your children to be taught their lifestyle is normal!!!" we could easily face a huge backlash. We can't afford that. And it's coming. We won't know if we're really successful at getting the message out until the next poll comes out. And then, it may be too late.

Pastor Matthew also said he was afraid because those polls could easily lead to complacency. He talked about the Olympics this summer, and Michael Phelps' bare-split-second win in one of the races. He said, "Phelps' competitor thought he was ahead. He coasted the last few inches. And because he did, he came in second place when he thought he was in for gold. Do we want to be that guy? Or do we want to be Michael Phelps, and push on as if we were ten seconds behind in the race all the way to the wall?"

And then he talked about how angry this proposition makes him. Angry, as a person of faith. This proposition would encode discrimination into our state constitution. It would violate our rights as a religious faith that affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, by restricting who we were allowed to marry in our churches. He talked about how angry it makes him, that we might just let this proposition pass out of complacency, and let our rights be violated as a religious tradition and faith community.

It would, in fact, severely impact our religious freedom.

Now, let's be honest here. The fundamentalists cannot say that. A defeat of Prop 8 would not force them to suddenly start marrying same-sex couples in their churches - and as I said to a couple of our lesbian friends over lunch in the church hall after the service, if anyone tried to force that issue, I'd be out there with the fundamentalists fighting on their side, to protect their religious freedoms to choose whom they will marry. And everyone at the table agreed with me. But if Proposition 8 passes, it would force us to stop marrying same-sex couples, in clear violation of our religious beliefs.

Finally, Pastor Matthew called for action. He called for us to do more than just vote against Proposition 8. He called for us to talk to that 20% - those people who were on the fence and undecided. He called for us to phonebank, to emailbank, to put a bumper sticker on our car and a sign in our front yards. To talk to our neighbors, our co-workers, and our extended families.

In short, he called us to follow our faith tradition, and get the word out that Proposition 8, in addition to violating personal liberties, violates religious freedom. And that if that chink into religious freedom happens here, it can happen to any religion's freedoms, anywhere, anytime.

This must not happen.

I was pretty shaken after the service was over. So were a lot of other people in the church. I'm terrified of calling strangers on the phone. But as you all know, I can write fairly persuasively. So I'm going to start emailing my family and friends, and most especially my in-laws, who are having severe problems with the idea of marriage equality because of their own religious faiths, and see what I can do to spread the idea that this proposition is an attempt to interfere with religious freedom - not the religious freedom of conservatives, but that of liberals.

Actually, it would violate the religious freedoms of everyone. It would provide a precedent for other anti-religion amendments to pass. If the fundamentalist crowd isn't aware of that, and isn't afraid of that, they should be.

EDIT: In fact, it could mean that someday, their right to practice their religion could be limited or halted by the imposition of a legal definition that belongs to some other religion - and if this amendment passes it will set that precedent. They are trying to impose a religious definition on a civil practice. How would they like it if someday a religious definition that came from a tradition they weren't part of was imposed on them?

And yes, I know that certain people will say "but then we should allow child abuse, or polygamy, or bestiality, or the use of drugs, or human sacrifice! There have to be some standards!" Yes, and we have standards. Those standards are:

- The integrity of the individual and his or her choices - The ability to consent to participation
The consent issue wipes away bestiality, child abuse, and human sacrifice without even a second thought. The other two issues - what's the problem? Look at it through the lens of integrity of the individual and their freedom of choice, and through the lens of consent, and as long as those standards are met, it is not an issue.

So maybe this frame - that religious beliefs and practices ARE being violated if Proposition 8 passes - will help get the point across. Any suggestions on how to word it are more than welcome.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/5/2192/73859

And this, dirty tricks by Prop 8 proponents is taking its toll.

CA Marriage Equality: My Pastor's Fears Are Coming True
by Killer of Sacred Cows
Wed Oct 08, 2008

I've been despondent since Monday morning, friends and neighbors.

That's when the new polls started coming out about California Proposition 8 - the anti-marriage equality proposition. Just as my pastor feared, the attack ads from the Mormon Church and other backers of Prop 8 have had an effect. Prop 8 is now leading in the polls by about 5 percentage points.

Tomorrow, I start phone banking against Proposition 8. Come with me over the jump for the points I plan to make.

Killer of Sacred Cows's diary :: ::
Just in the four months since the court decision went into effect, about 11,000 same-sex couples have married in the state of California. That's 22,000 people who have exercised their right to marry the person they love. I am one of those 22,000 people.

The new ads plant a bunch of unfounded fears in people who are on the fence. For the uninformed and the afraid, these are powerful fears. They MUST be refuted at all costs.

First, the ads claim that if Proposition 8 fails, people will be sued and/or open to criminal prosecution over their personal beliefs about homosexuality and same-sex marriage - namely, their religion. This is not true. California law already prohibits discrimination against people due to sex, race, religion, national origin or orientation. The passage of Prop 8 has nothing to do with it. Proposition 8 is about one thing, and one thing only: who has the right to get married and who does not.

The second thing these advertisements claim is that Proposition 8 will keep churches from losing their tax-exempt status, if their pastors or administrators refuse to marry gay people in their churches. This is nonsense. First of all, tax-exempt status is federal, not state. Secondly, the court decision In Re Marriage Cases, which decided that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, specifically exempts churches from having to perform wedding ceremonies that are against their beliefs, and I quote:

“no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Another objection the advertisements have is that the non-passage of Proposition 8 will force children in schools to be taught that same-sex marriage is normal (and, by extension, that homosexuality is, too). This is utter nonsense. The schools are already enjoined by state law that parents have the right to pull their children out of any class in which sex ed, health, or family issues are being taught. The defeat of Proposition 8 will not change that law.

Another smear that these ads are promoting is that it's about controlling activist justices. That's simply untrue. The justices have a job. Their job is to compare a law with the standards set by the state constitution; if it does not qualify, the law is overturned. The job of the justices is to protect our rights and freedoms by making sure that laws do not fall short of the constitutional standard.

This isn't about judicial activism. It's about people who hate gays. Let's be clear about this. All these lies are just that - lies. And they're excuses. They're ways to give people who would otherwise vote to protect rights and freedoms an excuse to vote to eliminate them.

There's one further thing that most people who would vote for this amendment haven't thought about. It's the unexpected consequence of passing Proposition 8. Here it is: It sets a precedent whereby the government of the state of California can prohibit certain religious practices. By enacting this law, the people of the state will have said that they should be able to regulate the free exercise of religion by religious groups who support marriage equality. And the big argument I keep hearing from the anti-gay crowd is that marriage is about procreation - biological procreation. So what's next? A law saying that only marriages that have produced biological offspring are legal? A law saying that you have three years to produce at least one child in a biological manner, or your marriage is annulled? That would undermine adoption as a method of having children, as well as making marriage impossible for infertile people, elderly people, and those who have chosen not to have children.

If we allow one group's religious beliefs to limit the choices of every group, if we enshrine that into law, well, members of most minority religions can kiss their rights good-bye. Do we want that?

Finally, and edited to add this: if this passes, it sets a precedent that the government can take away anyone's civil rights at any time by legislating them away. Do we want that? I don't think so.

Please donate to Equality California. EQCA is running the ad campaign, so donate to them. If you can't do that, please phonebank here: http://noonprop8.com/

Please help us turn those polls around and get enough ads on the air in enough places that we can defeat this amendment before it nullifies the rights of at least 22,000 gay people in this state, me included. My goal is for us to raise $15 million so we can out-spend the haters. Help me do it?

Thank you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/8/125853/894

Again, it is the majority who often have to defend the rights of the minority. Fear of a lifestyle that is different from your own should not dictate the decision on this proposition, but that is the fuel that is making this campaign for a law to be placed on the ballot. It is a shame to realize that the Mormon Church is investing so much money into an issue for which they should not be afraid at all. The point of self government is to make laws for society that are sensible. I do not see the sensibility of a church body exercising its fear of a lifestyle that they consider to be sinful.

Isn't Prop 8 just keeping the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Isn't that what it is? I think although there may certainly be people out there supporting Prop 8 that consider homosexuality to be a lesser way of being than heterosexuality - there are also those, like myself, who are completely non-judgmental and have many close friends who are gay, but also think that it's changing the definition of marriage is kinda like changing the definition of an apple. You can call it an orange, but it's still an apple. I love oranges - they are very juicy and sweet. I love them no less than apples. But it's like I tell my gay friends. Aren't they all just fruits? :-)

When Mormons were engaged in plural marriage, they called it "plural marriage", and they were still persecuted for it. Prop 8 being defeated will actually make "plural marriage" not only legal in California, but will also allow them to just call it "marriage" right? But it's not marriage. It's "plural marriage". To me, this doesn't have anything to do with judging anyone's lifestyle, or inequality. Just call a spade a spade.

Marriage - 1 man and 1 woman
Homosexual Marriage - 1 man and 1 man, or 1 woman and 1 woman
Plural marriage - 1 man and 2 or more women, or 1 woman and 2 or more men

Do you think people are going to be less judgmental if the definition changes? If anything, I think it might make things worse.

Everyone gets the same rights either way. As for myself, I've always been an Apple guy.

@17

"Isn't Prop 8 just keeping the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Isn't that what it is? I think although there may certainly be people out there supporting Prop 8 that consider homosexuality to be a lesser way of being than heterosexuality - there are also those, like myself, who are completely non-judgmental and have many close friends who are gay, but also think that it's changing the definition of marriage is kinda like changing the definition of an apple. You can call it an orange, but it's still an apple. I love oranges - they are very juicy and sweet. I love them no less than apples. But it's like I tell my gay friends. Aren't they all just fruits? :-)"

Can I call it "bullshit" although you might wish I call it "Key Lemon Pie."?

Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. Domestic partnerships are just legal documents. They don’t provide the same dignity, respect, and commitment as a marriage. For example, in a marriage, a paramedic doesn’t tell you that you cannot get into an ambulance with your spouse. Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked. That's just one reason you should vote No on Prop 8.

“Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status.” --Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 8, 2008

That’s what this election is about – equality, freedom and fairness, for all.

Exposing our children to reality is paramount and will help them to grow up with fewer dogmatic handicaps.

Reality is, whether we like it or not, God, evolution or whatever is responsible for our sexual preference at birth, screwed up. One does not chose to be one way or the other; one is born a certain way. Why would a man choose another man rather some gorgeous chick?

Mallika, you and your husband allowed your children something more of us should, in more than one way. But why not also explain to our children the basics of all major religions, including the religion of agnosticism, and let them make up their own mind when they feel ready for it?

Let’s give our children the basic education they deserve so they can chose from reality rather than indoctrinated unreality?

And next time some religious pretender tells you “we all have a choice”, ask him or her at what age s/he decided to exercise that option and be straight?

Homosexuals deserve the choice to get married like everybody else!
Why should they be better off? :-)

Viva Obama.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU