California Prop 8 Rally at the Capital!


Go!  Rally!  Bring Your Signs and Spread the Word!

This resolution would put the Assembly on record as supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and declaring that the initiative was an improper revision to the California Constitution. -Equality California Website

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

State Assembly and Senate Considering Resolution Encouraging State Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8!!!

SR7 and HR5

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

Read HR5 and Read SR7

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, “Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike….Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.”

Don’t let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.


What You Can Do

DOT.jpg Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

DOT.jpg Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7
Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Committee Members District Phone E-mail

Dem-42 (916) 319-2042

Rep-68 (916) 319-2068

Dem-41 (916) 319-2041

Dem-7 (916) 319-2007

Dem-9 (916) 319-2009

Rep-36 (916) 319-2036

Dem-43 (916) 319-2043

Dem-53 (916) 319-2053

Dem-27 (916) 319-2027

Rep-2 (916) 319-2002

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003

Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

United Families California



  1. TC said,

    February 13, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    The committee members will be debating and voting on Tuesday, my sources say it’s supposed to go quietly through committee without a problem. Then a day or two following, it’ll go through to the floor of both the state house and senate for a full vote. This is also supposed to go through without a hitch. Well, we’re the hitch. We need media, and grassroots outrage to shine on them. They can disrespect the vote of the people, but it shouldn’t be done in a quiet corner. Let them do it with everyone watching.

  2. Pearl said,

    February 14, 2009 at 2:22 am

    I’ll be there. Absolutely. So much for our legislators representing the people. I will make my voice heard and my vote count.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    February 14, 2009 at 11:09 am

    I’m taking my kids, our whole family will be there!

  4. Liberty Belle said,

    February 14, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Check out the facebook event! Join the event and invite your list! They want to reach every California Voter!

  5. James R. said,

    February 14, 2009 at 11:19 am

    This just riles me. Don’t they respect the will of the people? We voted on this TWICE already!

  6. Raytmimer said,

    February 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    The legislature is trying to give the Supreme Court cover for overturning p8. Any excuse will do. We can’t let it happen. If marriage falls in California, other states will follow.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    February 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I couldn’t sleep last night. I kept having sign slogans running through my head like:

    “What about democracy don’t you understand?”
    “You’re called “representatives” for a reason!”

  8. TC said,

    February 14, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Ok, so the most recent word is that the opposition is going to be busing people in from San Francisco for the hearings so seating at the actual hearing may be limited, come early. If you have kids, bring water bottles and a few snacks, comfortable shoes. Security is tight there, so remember, no pocket knives etc.

    Proposition 8 Hearings will be held in these rooms:

    HR 5
    Tuesday, February 17
    State Capitol
    Room 4202

    SR 7
    Tuesday, February 17
    State Capitol
    Room 4203

  9. February 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    […] California Prop 8 Rally at the Capital! […]

  10. February 16, 2009 at 1:37 am

    […] more over at Beetle Blogger here and […]

  11. February 16, 2009 at 7:01 am

    […] links are courtesy of Beetle Blogger: Read HR5 and […]

  12. February 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    Ridiculous!!! I’m outraged. Wish I could make it to SacTown, but work makes that impossible. However, I will definitely be doing some emails to the committee members today. Thanks for the info, BeetleBlogger!!!

  13. James P. said,

    February 16, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    It is terrible that you are encouraging further misinformation about an illegal revision of our state constitution by perpetuating support for Prop 8. The general electorate does not have the right to put civil liberties up to a popular vote. If that were the case, the rights of blacks, women, jews, catholics, etc. would be up for grabs. There is a distinction between marriage as a legal contract recongnized by the State and a marriage performed and recognized by a church. This is an issue of law and should not be influenced by religious beliefs. The separation of church and state is in place to protect ALL of us, regardless of our beliefs … whether you are evangelical, catholic, lutheran, baptist, jewish, buddhist, agnostic, whatever, you have a right not to have someone else impose their beliefs on you or fundementally restrict your right to fair and equal access under the LAW. Right now, churches can, and some do, perform same-sex marriages … but the state does not recognize them. No one is asking any church to recognize a marriage certificate issued by the state – that doesn’t happen now, it won’t happen when marriage equality is acheived. Please stop the misinformation and hate and support your fellow human beings in their endeavor acheive equal rights under the law – because if you don’t, someone will be coming down the line for you when they need someone else to scapegoat.

  14. Wayne said,

    February 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    I’ve linked to your post with a quotation from Jeremiah Films Action Alerts

  15. beetlebabee said,

    February 16, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    It’s not a civil rights issue. That’s the difference we have. I’m all for equal rights, but not special rights.

  16. James P. said,

    February 16, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Dear beetlebabee – It is not a special rights issue if everyone has equal access under the law. It is disingenuous to say you are “all for equal rights” and then campaign to strip a targeted group of their constitutional rights, which is what Prop 8 does. Prop 8 opponents are not looking for special treatment, rather equal treatment … perhaps it would be better to take the word “marriage” out of the legal lexicon (actually, I am all for that) – that way, no person, regardless of gender, may enter into a marriage contract with the State and all persons, regardless of gender, can obtain a civil union with the State – that way, everyone gets the same thing (thus the definition of “equal”). You can still be “married” in any other institution that suits you, but your “license” from the state is no longer a “marriage license” – it’s a “Civil Union License.”

  17. beetlebabee said,

    February 16, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    It’s not a civil rights issue. I’m sorry we have to disagree on that point. It’s just not. Civil Unions are different from marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any man and any woman in a civil union can have a marriage if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex as long as they abide by the guidelines. (age, sex, no cousins, animals, multiple marriages…etc.)

    That’s as equal as it gets. I’m very sorry that you don’t like it, but like Elton John said, they’re two different things. Sure, go ahead, have the legal benefits, but don’t call it something it’s not. That just opens up a whole can of legal and moral worms.

  18. James P. said,

    February 16, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Then we don’t disagree … your church can perform your marriage and my religion can perform mine … and the state doesn’t get involved. You have no marriage rights under the law and neither do I – rock on! But we both get civil unions. I’m down with that – because right now, the LAW discriminates and that’s not okay.

    And yes, we disagree STRONGLY b/c it is most definitely a civil rights issue.

  19. James P. said,

    February 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    And sorry, I meant indicate we agree in principle to equal access under the law, from you said, and disagree on the semantics of marriage and how that relates to civil rights.

    And I want to thank you for posting such comprehensive contact info for the judiciary committee members .. I’ve contacted them all and sent their info to 182 of my closest friends and family in CA so they can do the same.

  20. Chairm said,

    February 17, 2009 at 5:55 am

    182 of your “closest friends”?

    Prop 8 removed no right. It simply restored the status quo ante. The court erred first by creating a new special status based on “sexual orientation”; second by using that to provide a fig leaf for the presupposition that marriage is not both-sexed; and third, for refusing to staty its decision in light of the upcoming amendment campaign.

    That sort of mischief, produced from the abuse of judicial review, does not make this a civil right issue.

    But it makes it an issue of governance and THAT makes it an issue of liberty and republicanism in the state of California.

  21. guess who said,

    February 18, 2009 at 2:09 am


  22. James P. said,

    February 18, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Yea, I have a lot of friends – and grateful for them!

    When the court interpreted the constitution to ensure the rights of same-sex couples to marry, Proposition 8 was written to RESCIND that right, so yes, in fact, Prop 8 absolutely removed a right.

    It is the duty of the court to protect minorty rights from a majority that seeks to bar them from equal access UNDER THE LAW. The court was absolutely correct in its determination; it is an abuse of the initiative process to strip a minority group of their rights and sets a dangerous precedent for the electorate, at it’s whim, to revise the constitution to take away other groups’ rights as well (which is why the NAACP and Latino and Asian rights groups OPPOSE Prop 8).

    Really, why does this issue threaten so many of you? Has England, Spain, Denmark, Canada, Massachussetts or Rhode Island fallen apart as a result of recognizing basic human civil rights? It is the same old struggle with a different wrapper.

    If you people were so concerned about protecting “marriage,” you might concentrate some of your efforts on helping couples in crises, or perhaps working so stridently to MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL.

    Your priorities are WAY out of line.

  23. mommycatz said,

    February 18, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    James P. you are asking repetitive and tiresome questions that have been answered a million different ways on this and many other websites like it. Your view of the law and what you claim you deserve and what everyone else owes you is a flawed view. If you want to know why, all you have to do is read about it.

  24. Frank said,

    February 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    the proponents of prop 8 have revealed themselves not as protectors of any institution but as murderous persecutors of a minority. this week the last proposal to grant same sex couples minimal rights in Utah was defeated by a Mormon dominated legislature. the last proposal was to create a registry for partners to allow hospital visitation for partners in intensive care and medical decision making by partners. less than one month ago the denial of such rights killed a lesbian woman in Miami.

    now we see the real colors of the “pro-marriage” crowd. you’re all murderers. god damn you.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    February 20, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Murderers….really? Don’t you think that’s a little over the top?

  26. Frank said,

    February 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    As a cancer patient who happens to be gay who would die without a medical decision maker, I consider the term “murderer” entirely appropriate.

  27. beetlebabee said,

    February 20, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    So, you’re telling me that there is no other way for you to get a medical decision maker besides getting married? If that is true, then how is it a gay issue? Wouldn’t all singles have the same issue? I find it hard to believe. Perhaps you should take that up with your senator, or a lawyer who can help you have those legal contracts put in order, however, calling names and implying “murder” is way over the line.

  28. Frank said,

    February 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    Health care providers with religious objections are free to challenge or ignore the health decisions made by a same sex partner. They do so even in cases when there is a contract. Moreover, some Catholic politicians have written and enacted laws invalidating all such contracts (in Virginia, for instance). The motive is not morality; it is simply murderous hatred.

  29. beetlebabee said,

    February 20, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    I am sorry for your situation if this is the case. Could you provide some evidence of this beyond mere characterizations?

  30. Euripides said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:03 am

    Wow. I’m impressed by Frank’s emotionalism without any conscious thought on this topic. The name calling, misuse of an excessive descriptor (murder) and loose cannon approach works wonders to prove there is absolutely no merit to his comments.

    A point or two about what James P. said:

    The California Supreme Court majority opinion which declared the 2000 law unconstitutional was not an opinion based on any legal precedent, nor was it argued with any reference to civil rights. (This includes what James P. referenced as “equal access under the law.” I think he was referring to the 14th amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection, not access.) Chief Justice Ronald M. George, instead of arguing on the basis of civil rights, which he well knew would never be accepted, argued for a new definition of a fundamental (or inalienable) right – the “right to marry.”

    Even the California Supreme Court didn’t consider homosexual marriage to be a civil right. The problem with the court decision is that there is no fundamental right to marry either. Justice George had to make up a right in order for his opinion to have any chance of viability when brought to a court vote. He hoped that his interpretation would become accepted within the state, and hence would open the door to redefine marriage into something it is not.

    But the gay community did not understand the court’s nuance, or chose to ignore it, instead highjacking the ideals and verbiage of the civil rights movement. Not even the California Supreme Court considers this a civil rights issue.

    A second, related point, needs to be addressed. James P. does not understand what a civil right is. By definition, a civil right is a right that is expressed by constitution or by law. For example, the first amendment to the US Constitution indicates several civil rights. One of these is the civil right of religion to free exercise without government interference. (That civil right tends to get lost in the flames of fury leveled against religions.) Another civil right is free speech, allowing even religious people to speak up and be heard in their beliefs about how government ought to be run (another point lost on the anti-religious).

    When the California voters created a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman, they followed the precedent of 29 other states which have similar amendments. (Here’s the part that upsets gay activists the most.) By creating a constitutional amendment, Californians created a civil right. This civil right protects marriage by defining it as a union between one man and one woman. And here’s the real “kicker.” If the California Supreme Court decides that the marriage civil right is unconstitutional, you guessed it, the court will be taking away the civil rights of monogamous people to preserve marriage.

    Anyway…. Keep up the good work bb.

  31. Chairm said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:35 am

    Quote: “Prop 8 opponents are not looking for special treatment, rather equal treatment … perhaps it would be better to take the word “marriage” out of the legal lexicon”

    So you favor not only abolishing the man-woman criterion in marriage law but also abolishing marital status as well.

    If your many friends oppose Proposition 8 and agree with your idea of flattening marriage, then, the talk of gay this and gay that is clearly irrelevant.

  32. Chairm said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:38 am

    Quote: “Your priorities are WAY out of line.”

    So are yours, it seems, since you oppose marital status in our laws and yet argue for special status based on gayness and lesbianism.

    Of all the nonmarital arrangements, why show preference for those that are identified as gay and lesbian?

    You point to Canada but the marriage rate has continued to fall and the nonmarital trends have continued to rise.

    Priorities that are gaycentric do not match the priority to defend and to strengthen the marriage culture in our society.

  33. Chairm said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:41 am

    Quote: “When the court interpreted the constitution to ensure the rights of same-sex couples to marry, Proposition 8 was written to RESCIND that right, so yes, in fact, Prop 8 absolutely removed a right.”

    No, the marriage amendment was written almost a decade prior to the court’s diktat. The amendment uses the same language that appeared in Proposition 22 and which remain in the statutory law.

    And both Prop 8 and Prop 22 reaffirmed the man-woman basis of marriage law.

    What was corrected was the error of the judiciary.

    Tell me, what rights were taken away in Californian law? Domestic partnership was not repealed.

  34. Chairm said,

    February 21, 2009 at 6:51 am

    Euripides, excellent summary re the California Supreme Court.

    I’ll add that the marriage amendment did not take away a civil right for it made explicit the meaning of the word, marriage, which was in the state constitution long before SSM was pushed to the top of the political agenda.

    Marriage in the state constitution has always meant precisely what the amendment reaffirmed. The amendment added clarity where the judiciary conjured up confusion.

    SSMers ought to be more forthright and admit they seek to press identity politics into constitutional jurisprudence.

    They shy away from this because this is a fact that would contradict their use of the racial analogy.

    The racist identity politics of the anti-miscegenation laws was rejected as unconstitutional by the California State Supreme Court. That is closely analogous with the pro-SSM demand to press gay identity plitics into marriage law through the creation of a special class based on gayness.

    The marriage law has never discriminated based on gayness. The constitution has never and does not include such a basis for discrimination, contrary to the whinning complaints of the anti-8 side.

  35. Mark said,

    February 25, 2009 at 3:27 am

    Actually, marriage is a fundamental right (also called “civil” right). Here are some facts. Verify them if you aren’t sure:

    The right to marry has long been termed a civil right by the U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts. Some examples:

    Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) The U.S. Supreme Court first referred to the right to marry as “one of the basic civil rights.”

    Perez v. Sharp (1948) In this case, the California Supreme Court was the first in the 20th century to declare that its state law prohibiting marriage between interracial couples was unconstitutional. The Court said: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.”

    Loving v. Virginia (1967) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples were unconstitutional. The Court said: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Since the right to marry is a civil right, any issue involving marriage IS
    a civil rights issue.

    And why was it wrong for Prop 8 to be on the ballot in the first place?

    Our constitutional democracy is first based on the principle of EQUALITY; everyone is guaranteed the same fundamental rights as one another. Our democracy is NOT based only on the right to vote; it goes well beyond the principle of “Majority rules.”

    It is undemocratic for the majority to use the right to vote to take away a fundamental right from a minority, thereby making them unequal to other people in our democracy. This “cracks” our democracy’s base of equality.

  36. Mark said,

    February 25, 2009 at 3:50 am

    Those are my facts. I do have a favor to ask though. I would ask the people who frequent this blog to actually really try to put yourself in a gay person’s shoes. Have you every tried to do this–I mean really tried. I’ve actually tried to understand why it is that people have such a problem with marriage for gay and lesbian couples. And while this may not be true for everyone, here’s my best guess:

    You (understandably) consider your “marriage” to be a symbolic representation of the importance of your relationship with your spouse. Makes sense to me. And whether it’s easy to admit it or not, my guess would be that you don’t consider gay relationships to match the status of your relationship/marriage. It just seems too “different.” Too “unlike” what you and your spouse have. So, to have gay couples call their relationship a “marriage” just seems well, inaccurate, right?

    I’m guessing it would be like if they had a new 2-year course that gave you that title of “doctor.”But that wouldn’t be fair, right? To get to be called a doctor, you have to go through 8+ years worth of schooling. It’s not fair to call it the same thing, right? The 8-year doctor is a REAL doctor, while the 2-year doctor isn’t.

    Well, would you be willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, the love that you have with your spouse, feels the same as the love that two committed gay men or women feel for each other? Please remember, we all want the same thing–to be able to have that special someone by our side. I can hear you thinking already, “Well, that’s different, the relationship I have with my spouse isn’t the same as two men living together…” But what if it really wasn’t that different? What if that warm, enveloping feeling of love can exist for both straight AND gay couples? Of course, not everyone’s actual relationships are the same–this is the case even among straight couples (ever watch Wife Swap?)

    So, gays and lesbians want their committed relationships (made up of the same type of love that exists in your relationship) to be legally recognized. I now that you may still disagree, but I hope that you can do as I asked and put yourself in a gay person’s shoes? What if someone were to tell you that your relationship didn’t deserve to be treated the same as everyone else’s? Wouldn’t that feel just horrible? What if your friends and family told you that? Imagine how that would feel? Pretty crappy, right.

    So, thanks for reading this. Really, thanks.

  37. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Mark! Welcome to Beetle Blogger. It looks like you’re kind of new here. Take a look around. There are many examples on these comment threads to refute the “marriage is a civil right” idea. Chief among those are the notion that people are equal, not choices.

    We may disagree on many things but civil rights is not one of them. I believe you are due every civil right that I am. We are all equal people. Does that mean you are entitled to do whatever you want and call it whatever you want? No. But neither am I.

  38. Mark said,

    February 25, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    I don’t get it. I’m not clear what there is to refute. Here’s a dictionary definition that I found a while ago that seems clear to me:

    civil rights: the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination

    The Courts have pretty clearly said that the right to marry is indeed a fundamental (civil) right that we all should be able to exercise. In Loving v. Virginia they clarified it further by saying that embedded within the right to marry is the right to marry the one person of your choice. I’m not sure what there is to argue about here. I think that this makes sense in that if I can’t marry the ONE person that I want then the right can’t be exercised and is then actually not available to me. So, when the state of Virginia told the Lovings (an interracial couple) that they can get married, but just not to each other, then that resulted in them not being able to truly exercise their fundamental right to marry. And that was deemed to be unconstitutional.

    The point of contention is more focused on whether or not that a person can choose a spouse of the same gender to marry. And also, whether there’s a compelling interest for the state to limit that (which I think we can all agree that there are certain relationships that obviously shouldn’t be sanctioned: multiple partners, adult/child, brother/sister). And whether it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marry the one person of your choice based on sexual orientation. The main point here is that we should all be treated equally under the law according to the Constitution. I’m sure we won’t agree too easily on this aspect of the issue.

    My guess is that you think that extending the right to marry to include the ability to marry a person of the same-gender is an “extra” thing that is added on to this fundamental right to accommodate a minority. To me, it makes it so that I could actually utilize this right at all, so it just makes me feel that I’m finally being treated equally. This is just how I feel. So, if you disagree with this, then I’m not sure what to say other than that’s up to you, I guess.

    So, to sum up, I think that we disagree more on what limitations should apply in the exercising of a fundamental/civil right. Does that make sense?

    I noticed that you didn’t respond to my second post. What are your thoughts there? Is it possible that I may be somewhat accurate re: my guesses on why some don’t support marriage for same-sex couples?

  39. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Sorry, I should have clarified my statement, “marriage without limitations” (as you are advocating) is not a civil right, so then the argument becomes why do we have limitations? and are emotional feelings enough to set aside those limitations?

    So far you have argued that marriage between a man and a woman is a civil right, so, calling the physical relationship between two men or two women “marriage” must also be a civil right, and the evidence you put forth is because a man can love a man with the same emotional intensity as a woman can love a man.

    The problem is in the idea that marriage can be boiled down to something as base as love or physical desire. It is not so simple, neither are you so naive as to believe that is all that is involved either. There is more to marriage than self gratification, and that’s the part the gay activists like to skip over, because the rest of the equation is where the damning limitations come in.

    If the only requirements for marriage were love and physical gratification, there would be no reason to withhold it from anyone, since love is a nurtured emotion and sex can be physically had with any number of people, children, objects or animals.

    There are real limitations on marriage for reasons beyond what your arguments have introduced. What is your reasoning for including homosexuality while also excluding group marriage, polygamy, polyandry, incest, manboylove etc.?

  40. Mark said,

    February 25, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Okay, so my original goal was to move on from the back and forth that often occurs on these blogs and to actually gain some understanding here.

    Could you please look at my second post and see if I have a point there? To sum up, my feeling is that when people say to those people who are against same-sex couples marrying, “What do you care if gays and lesbians marry? It doesn’t affect you,” this isn’t fully accurate. It DOES affect you or else you wouldn’t feel so strongly about it, right? So, please look at my original second post and let me know what you think about what I said.

    To answer your question briefly, I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to marry (as opposed to those other couplings that you mentioned) for the same reason the California Supreme Court does. The state (and you and I for that matter) can provide a variety of reasons why there are “compelling state interests” to restrict those relationships.

    The Court found that there was no compelling state interest that should restrict a gay man or a lesbian from being able to exercise their fundamental right of being able to marry the ONE person of their choice. (and of course, there are still limitations on that too–two brothers, a man and boy, three men are still not able to be married). So, the Court was reinforcing that we should all be treated equally under the law and not be separated and discriminated against. You most likely don’t agree with me here, but that’s ok, let’s take that as given.

    So, I look forward to taking this conversation in a different direction.

  41. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Mark, you are right, whether gay unions are called “marriage” or not does make a difference. It makes a difference for all the reasons that are not stated yet in our conversation. Let’s talk for a minute about your second post. You’re basically bringing up the ick factor argument. That is to say, that the main reason I don’t want you to marry is because I think it’s disgusting, distasteful, icky, twisted, add your own adjective here etc. The very emotional solution to the ick factor argument is, well, we’re just like you. So we should be able to marry. Did I get it right?

    The problem with that argument is it’s completely framed around you. An individual. It puts self before anything else and waters marriage down to a physical relationship only, which it is not. Do you see where my response did address your comment? Marriage is more than raw emotion or base sexual attraction. Those things can be had with anyone or anything. Tell me how the jails full of pedophiles see their relationships any differently? Take the ick factor out for a second and really look at it. As they see it, there is nothing wrong with two consenting individuals engaging in sexual activity. Differences in age don’t matter. How can you tell them that their relationship is different from marriage?

  42. Mark said,

    February 26, 2009 at 12:51 am

    I’m a bit hesitant to continue this discussion as I’m not sure of how productive it will be, but I’m willing to give it another shot.

    First, I wasn’t suggesting the “ick factor” in my post. I was more trying to point out that if people think of gay relationships as just “different” than it is more difficult to be comfortable with marriage for same-sex couples. I was trying to understand if there’s more to it than that. I’m not trying to trick you here. I’m just trying to broaden both of our understandings of the issue (if possible). And by the way, once you actually get to know people (including gay couples), you obviously understand them better. I have one straight friend who wasn’t sure at first if he would understand when I talked about dating guys. But I started talking about it anyway, and he very quickly realized that the same emotions are involved as is the case with his wife. When I would talk about dating issues, he would listen and then just talk about his previous dating life. It’s pretty cool actually.

    And you said that the argument is framed around me. I’m not clear here exactly how this is just about me. If by that you mean that I want to have the same opportunity as a straight man does, then I guess you’re right. But I don’t see that as selfish–it’s just being fair.

    And your statement about marriage being “watered down” gets at the point that I was trying to make actually. If “marriage” refers to straight AND gay couples, it feels “watered down” to you. I guess all I can say is that I’m sorry that you feel that way. And I agree with you that marriage is more than just raw emotion or sexual attraction–it’s the commitment recognized by the gov’t that this is THE person that you want at your side for the rest of your life. Whether you choose to believe it or not, gay people value commitment (and therefore marriage) just as much as you do.

    Now here’s where I’m hoping that I misunderstood you. I am hoping that you’re not comparing gay relationships (between two consenting adults) with a pedophile and his/her victim (there is no relationship there since it is based on one person dominating and abusing another person who is too young to be able to consent or not). Is that really the comparison that you’re making here?

  43. beetlebabee said,

    February 27, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    still working on my reply to this one, don’t give up, been busy….I just put up the twist list, it helps iron out some of the logic behind my side’s positions if you’re interested:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: