Protest the passage of Prop 8

[dumbledore11214]

> Carol responds:
> 
> Thanks for having the courage to express an unpopular view. I don't
> know anything about Proposition 8 in California, but Proposition 101
> (I may have the number wrong) in Arizona defined marriage as the 
union
> of one man and one woman. It didn't deny homosexual couples the 
right
> to tax benefits or to civil unions or anything else; it just defined
> marraiage in traditional terms. (Polygamy, a concern in parts of
> Northern Arizona, also falls outside that definititon of marriage.)
> People who voted for that proposition weren't thinking in terms of
> oppression. They were thinking in terms of what they consider to be
> the sanctity of marriage. Whether they're right or wrong, or whether
> there is no right or wrong on this question, they have a right to
> express their convictions and vote accordingly.
> 
> Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of 
opinion
> in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
> disagree with as bigotry or oppression
>


Alla:

Well, but see, when voting means that homosexual couples would be 
denied certain rights yes, I consider it oppression. I agree with 
Cabal - nobody would force churches to perform same sex marriages and 
if anybody would, they have a right to refuse to. Heck, my colleague 
is going to be married ( to a guy) and she wants to get married on 
Thursday instead of Saturday or Sunday and her church initially said 
that they do not marry people on Thursdays. WTF. And she really 
wanted to get married in her church, where she went all her life, 
where her parents went and still go, etc, etc.

However, when same sex couples are being denied the legal right to 
get married by the **state**, yes I call it oppression. That is my 
opinion and I have a right to express it too.

I mean, even in terms of concrete legal rights, as far as I 
understand, sadly couple who enters into civil union - **still** can 
be denied certain rights, even if in theory they should not be. I 
seem to remember reading on somebody's lj how employer would refuse 
to put another partner on for the medical benefits, since they only 
have civil union, and not marriage.

What I am trying to say that it seems to me that couples who are not 
officially **married** are still vulnerable to homophobes, who would 
use the fact that they only have civil union to refuse them rights of 
inheritance, adoption, making decisions for the partner who is in 
intensive care, etc.

Even from that view only I think that same sex couples should have a 
right to have their marriage as legal.

But say in the perfect world couples who enter into civil union will 
have same benefits as couples who are married. It is still IMO 
denying them equal rights. I am pretty sure that as Cabal said 99.99% 
same sex couples will be delighted to have a right to be married by 
the non religious officials. That is why I do not see the problem 
here.

Feel as strong as you want that religion precludes you from 
recognising same sex couple marriage as marriage ( not you, generic 
you), but the thing is on side of the scale are your feelings, no 
matter how strong they are and on the other side of the scale are 
people who are being denied certain right because of your feelings.

I know which side of the scale takes precedent for me. Especially 
since again nobody is forcing churches to do anything, as far as I 
understand. So, how about they will just stay out of gay and lesbian 
couples lifes and would not work against them getting married by non-
religious ceremony.

JMO,

Alla