Comments on: Prop 8 Prompts Question: What Should America Become? http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:52:29 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: neha http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3238 neha Fri, 29 May 2009 06:12:42 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3238 If only someone taught our religious leaders to 'live and let live...' If only someone taught our religious leaders to ‘live and let live…’

(Report comment)

]]> By: Emma http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3228 Emma Thu, 28 May 2009 19:14:50 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3228 I agree with Eva. As someone who is not religious, I want the right to get married as well. And yeah, religion is tied to marriage in many communities, but that's not all of the meaning marriage holds for our society. And what does this mean for my parents, to non-religious individuals who are married? Does their marriage get down-graded to a civil union? They signed a marriage contract. They didn't sign "civil union" contract. It's not fair to go back on people like that. There are couples in Californi who got married when same-sex marriages were allowed in San Francisco a few years ago and got married again before prop 8. Are you suggesting taking that away from them again? That solution also creates an array of complications. We would have to rehaul our vocabulary. "Are you married?" "Oh, no, we're civil unioned." There is also a lot of prejudice in American society against non-religious people. Why bring that out even more by giving us a special label? I feel like that would make things worse than they are now. And besides, why does religion get a monopoly on marriage? Marriage has been around longer than the exisiting major religions. Marriage has changed over time, and it can take this change. The only real answer is real equality. I agree with Eva. As someone who is not religious, I want the right to get married as well. And yeah, religion is tied to marriage in many communities, but that’s not all of the meaning marriage holds for our society. And what does this mean for my parents, to non-religious individuals who are married? Does their marriage get down-graded to a civil union? They signed a marriage contract. They didn’t sign “civil union” contract. It’s not fair to go back on people like that. There are couples in Californi who got married when same-sex marriages were allowed in San Francisco a few years ago and got married again before prop 8. Are you suggesting taking that away from them again?
That solution also creates an array of complications. We would have to rehaul our vocabulary. “Are you married?” “Oh, no, we’re civil unioned.” There is also a lot of prejudice in American society against non-religious people. Why bring that out even more by giving us a special label?
I feel like that would make things worse than they are now. And besides, why does religion get a monopoly on marriage? Marriage has been around longer than the exisiting major religions. Marriage has changed over time, and it can take this change.
The only real answer is real equality.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Daniel http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3211 Daniel Wed, 27 May 2009 18:26:07 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3211 I agree with Colin's point. Let the government designate everyone as having civil unions for the economic benefits and let religious institutions continue with religious marriages. I feel that this SHOULD make everyone happy as everyone is getting what they want without bowing to the other side. I agree with Colin’s point. Let the government designate everyone as having civil unions for the economic benefits and let religious institutions continue with religious marriages. I feel that this SHOULD make everyone happy as everyone is getting what they want without bowing to the other side.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Eva http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3210 Eva Wed, 27 May 2009 17:37:01 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3210 For myself, I've never liked this solution because I am not religious, but I want to get *married*. In the same way that civil unions feel like a second-best sop to gays, I would feel like I was being shut out and denied something that others are allowed, because I'm not baptized and can't get married in a church even if I wanted to. Nobody is suggesting forcing the churches to marry gay couples - the Catholic Church has never been forced to marry divorcees, or Protestants, or unbaptized folks, or members of other faiths, so I don't see why everyone is so worried that the "forcing" will start now. The same-sex marriage debate is strictly about civil marriage, and I don't see why civil marriage should be thrown out as an option for all of us just because some religious people - for whom, really, civil marriage isn't an issue at all - don't like it. The idea that marriage is the age-old prerogative of the church/temple/synagogue/whatever is a myth. Until very recently, marriage was almost entirely an economic arrangement. Religions don't own the practice, and I would be very angry to see the option being taken away from me. I hate to put it so bluntly, but for me, the solution is for churches to butt out of civil marriage. They don't object to all sorts of civil/legal practices that contravene their beliefs (hey, they're not lobbying for divorce, adultery or pre-marital sex, etc, etc to become criminal acts, right?) so why the obsession with this one? For myself, I’ve never liked this solution because I am not religious, but I want to get *married*. In the same way that civil unions feel like a second-best sop to gays, I would feel like I was being shut out and denied something that others are allowed, because I’m not baptized and can’t get married in a church even if I wanted to.

Nobody is suggesting forcing the churches to marry gay couples – the Catholic Church has never been forced to marry divorcees, or Protestants, or unbaptized folks, or members of other faiths, so I don’t see why everyone is so worried that the “forcing” will start now. The same-sex marriage debate is strictly about civil marriage, and I don’t see why civil marriage should be thrown out as an option for all of us just because some religious people – for whom, really, civil marriage isn’t an issue at all – don’t like it.

The idea that marriage is the age-old prerogative of the church/temple/synagogue/whatever is a myth. Until very recently, marriage was almost entirely an economic arrangement. Religions don’t own the practice, and I would be very angry to see the option being taken away from me.

I hate to put it so bluntly, but for me, the solution is for churches to butt out of civil marriage. They don’t object to all sorts of civil/legal practices that contravene their beliefs (hey, they’re not lobbying for divorce, adultery or pre-marital sex, etc, etc to become criminal acts, right?) so why the obsession with this one?

(Report comment)

]]> By: Ian http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3209 Ian Wed, 27 May 2009 16:57:18 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3209 Agreed - I think the problem is that marriage is tied in heavily with religion. The government should not be the one to "force" a religion to accept same-sex marriage, as this just leads to bitterness on both sides. Instead, leave marriage to religion and civil-union as the government sponsored alternative. Agreed – I think the problem is that marriage is tied in heavily with religion. The government should not be the one to “force” a religion to accept same-sex marriage, as this just leads to bitterness on both sides.

Instead, leave marriage to religion and civil-union as the government sponsored alternative.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Colin Wright http://matadorchange.com/prop-8-prompts-question-what-should-america-become/comment-page-1#comment-3208 Colin Wright Wed, 27 May 2009 15:59:08 +0000 http://matadorchange.com/?p=473#comment-3208 I was so incredibly disappointed in the Prop 8 ruling (BOTH times). Having lived in Missouri most of my life where people are (in general) much more conservative, I thought I had left a lot of the sexual-prejudice behind. Unfortunately, the problem is a lot bigger than that. I'm hoping against hope that this ruling will lead to a massive overhaul in how 'marriage' is defined in the US. The contradiction that now exists is boggling...there are gay married couples in many states, now, happily enjoying the legal and emotional benefits of that union, while gays in the majority of states are left wondering why they are being treated like second-class citizens. The solution, in my mind, is to remove any legal connotations from marriage to begin with. Let marriage become a purely religious term with no governmental influence (and with no sway in regards to legal benefits) and make civil unions the new, government-recognized relationship between two people (whatever their gender). Anyone who is already married will automatically have a civil union on the books, but any new couplings will require filing for a civil union (with marriage being optional, depending on their beliefs). What do you guys think about this? I was so incredibly disappointed in the Prop 8 ruling (BOTH times). Having lived in Missouri most of my life where people are (in general) much more conservative, I thought I had left a lot of the sexual-prejudice behind. Unfortunately, the problem is a lot bigger than that.

I’m hoping against hope that this ruling will lead to a massive overhaul in how ‘marriage’ is defined in the US. The contradiction that now exists is boggling…there are gay married couples in many states, now, happily enjoying the legal and emotional benefits of that union, while gays in the majority of states are left wondering why they are being treated like second-class citizens.

The solution, in my mind, is to remove any legal connotations from marriage to begin with. Let marriage become a purely religious term with no governmental influence (and with no sway in regards to legal benefits) and make civil unions the new, government-recognized relationship between two people (whatever their gender). Anyone who is already married will automatically have a civil union on the books, but any new couplings will require filing for a civil union (with marriage being optional, depending on their beliefs).

What do you guys think about this?

(Report comment)

]]>