Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

California's Prop 8

  1. Nov 1, 2008 #1
    This:

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

    Has led to this:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...5DEBA6-A1B2-41A5-BA45-2ACFEAAA2F48}&dist=hppr

    and this:

    http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14613

    I have to say that as a resident of California I've never seen such discord over a ballot intiative in recent memory. Everywhere I drive, I see gangs of folks on corners with signs. I see more contention over this initiative then over the Presidential race. People are taking this one personally, and passionately. And the commercials are viscious- dragging kids into the middle of it, which though the proposal might indirectly affect, has nothing to do directly with the proposal. IMHO, that smacks of desperation. But as this could have reprecussions on the rest of the country, it's definitely getting a lot of attention.

    People do not like change....

    Discuss
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2008 #2

    Ben Niehoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Weird, I live in LA and I haven't seen any of this controversy. Plenty of stickers and signs for both sides, but no crowds of people or violence. I don't watch TV, so I have no idea how it's being covered in the news.
     
  4. Nov 2, 2008 #3

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, I cetainly think gays must have the same rights as straights. That's just a matter of fairness.

    But there can be a compromise on this, I think.

    All unions between two people should be termed by government to be "civil unions."

    The word "marriage" should be a religious term, defined by each church as they see fit.

    If two people in a civil union want to be married, they should be allowed to go to a church they choose and the church will make the detemination if that should be allowed, based on that church's definition of marriage.

    But if two people in a civil union don't want to be "married", they should still have the all same legal rights as couples who are married.

    This way, everyone gets the same rights.
     
  5. Nov 2, 2008 #4

    siddharth

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Why should "marriage" be a religious term? I don't see why churches should be allowed to discriminate based on an individual's personal sexual orientation just because of the churches beliefs. I think it is bigotry.
     
  6. Nov 2, 2008 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What has always perplexed me about bans on gay marriage is that the logic against these laws seems clear. First of all, if we are talking about marriage in the legal sense only and void of any religious ceremony, then in fact many if not most churches don't recognized these marriages anyway. For example, I know that the Catholics don't recognize a marriage performed by a judge. A marriage must be performed by a priest or it isn't a marriage in the eyes of God. So how can they object to a marriage that they don't recognize as valid in the first place? As long as the Catholics or whomever wish not to recognize gay marriages, that is their right. They can preach about it all day on Sundays.

    What's more, there is no definition of marriage in the Constitution. To use the religious definition for civil matters is a violation of the separation of church and State principle.

    But, in the event that another church might recognize gay marriage, as some do, then those that don't, seek here to deny freedom of religion for those who do. So bans are gay marriage are a violation of not only the separation of church and State, but also a violation of religious freedom. And those who wish to ammend the Constitution to define "marriage" are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law with regards to the Bill of Rights.

    Of course one might argue that we ban other marriages, such as a marriage between a father and daughter, but these bans can be justified because any offspring would be potential victims.
     
  7. Nov 2, 2008 #6
    I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except for this. This is not a justification for the ban on a marriage between close (genetic) relatives, only for a ban on procreation by close relatives.
     
  8. Nov 2, 2008 #7
    yes, marriage is often considered a rite in many christian denominations, right up there with communion and baptism. so it seems a little odd that the churches would want the government involved in a religious sacrament, anyway.

    that said, the institution of marriage has been seen, by the government at least, as procreative. non-consummation of the marriage is justification for annulment.

    as for gay marriage, i think the primary motivation is financial. having a partner legally designated as your spouse allows you to put them on your medical insurance. unless someone would like to provide evidence to the contrary, i don't believe a significant number of gay marriages will result in children.
     
  9. Nov 2, 2008 #8
    It's commercials like this that bother me:



    It's completely untrue. Children are not taught about this in school at all.

    Approximately $68 million has been poured into both sides of this debate-21 million of it coming from outside of California.My personal feeling as that while children don't need to necessarily be taught about this in school, they will be exposed to in some fashion, weather it's through television, the media, through interaction with peers. Anyone who is a parent today realizes how difficult it is to shield a child from these things. Short of home-schooling or strict isolation from society, there's no way to prevent your child from learning about these things, so using that as your premise for passing this proposition is a weak position.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  10. Nov 2, 2008 #9
    Only if the reasons for non-consummation were not known to both parties beforehand (at least in Canada, maybe not in the States?). For example, if a groom is impotent, and his bride to be was aware of this before the marriage, it is not grounds for annulment in Canada.
    There are a number of reasons homosexuals want marriage. Tax reasons are one (but that falls under financial, I guess). Power of attorney for another (both for medical treatment, and for financial/legal matters should one partner become unfit to make decisions for themselves) being married cuts out a lot of red tape for these issues. For many it is simply a matter of pride and fighting back against discrimination, anything a straight couple can do, they should be allowed to do as well. Gay marriage would make adoption a lot easier for gay couples, as they would be able to demonstrate a stable home for the child. In addition, many gay couples who do want children get a surrogate mother (or a surrogate father, in the case of 2 women) to carry the child for them, marriage would change the guardianship situation for such children in the event that one spouse died.

    I think the biggest reason for most homosexuals is pride/discrimination, rather than anything more pragmatic.
     
  11. Nov 2, 2008 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    True, but it would get dicey to make that distinction. You have to either enforce a sterility law, or pass laws dictating which married couples may and may not have sex. As we all know, in the latter case, that is the job of the wife.
     
  12. Nov 2, 2008 #11
    Why would it be any more dicey than the current laws against incest? There are laws against incest, and there are marriage laws, the two don't have to have anything to do with each other. Your point was an argument in favor of laws prohibiting incest, not in favor of preventing relatives from marrying.

    Edit: As it stands now, in most states age of consent is lower than marriage age, so people are allowed to have sex before they are allowed to marry. In the case of Georgia, age of consent is 16, marriage age is 15 with parental consent. That is, if their parents agree to it, they can be married before they can have sex. So there you have it, there are already situations, in US law, where a married couple cannot legally have sex.
    Other states with similar situations: Missouri, Mississipi
    In Pennsylvania, age of consent is 16 (or 14 if partners are within 4 years of each other), but the legal age for marriage without parental consent is 10, provided the girl is pregnant (no restriction on the age of the husband, or even if he must be the father).

    Anyways, all this is just to emphasize that there are already many cases in the US in which a couple can legally marry but not legally have sex (I don't know that charges would ever be brought up in such a case, but it is still illegal).

    Marriageable Age
    Ages of Consent
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2008
  13. Nov 2, 2008 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I already went through this sort of debate when I lived in OH 4 years ago. :rolleyes: It was VICIOUS!

    I agree with lisab that civilly, civil unions should be granted to anyone and everyone willing to fill out the right paperwork to define their rights and obligations under the law, regardless of gender, race, religion, fertility status, etc. There should be no discrimination legally.

    If religious groups want to have other special ceremonies that further define "marriage" among their membership, that's fine, and protected by freedom of religion, but it should have no functional consequence in the public eyes. For example, Catholics who have previously been divorced cannot be married in a Catholic church, because the church doesn't acknowledge divorce, but someone previously divorced still can be married in a civil ceremony. This is an example of a situation where the religious definition of marriage differs from the civil definition. The Catholic church not giving their "blessing" for such a marriage has no influence outside of the church on matters such as taxation and legal rights should one partner of that marriage become incapacitated for the sake of medical decisions. This is how it should be in all cases.
     
  14. Nov 2, 2008 #13

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Now that's just being reasonable.
    You are aware that this is an issue involving religion sex and politics aren't you!
     
  15. Nov 2, 2008 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't agree with the term "marriage" as being a religious one. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony both times, and I was "married", I don't need some religion to allow me that status. Religions need to butt out and realize that all they do is perform a religious ceremony, the church still needs to file the proper legal paperwork otherwise the couple is not "legally" married. Churches are allowed to file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple, that's all.
     
  16. Nov 2, 2008 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In principle I agree, and of course you were married by the legal definition, but the fact is that most objections to gay marriage are religion based. And I would bet that the legal contract of marriage does indeed find its origins in religion.

    Either way, the distinction between religious marriages and civil marriages is already made in the eyes of the churches. So, as you said, let them worry about their own institutions. To me, bans on gay marriage are an imposition of religious beliefs on the general population.
     
  17. Nov 2, 2008 #16

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I voted No. Mainly because Mr. Sulu just got married.
     
  18. Nov 2, 2008 #17
    History of Marriage
    I don't know of any religion which can make this claim. The legal definition may have been clarified by some churches along the way, but marriage definitely did not originate in any modern religion.

    Edit: This was in response to Ivan's post.
     
  19. Nov 2, 2008 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think you've just voiced my opinion quite clearly. I don't really care what the civil union is called. If it has the name "marriage" or just "civil union" it doesn't matter one way or another to me. What's important to me is that everyone be given the same legal rights. Religious organizations can add their own set of rules of who has what status within their organization, and doesn't have to recognize all the marriages or civil unions that the state recognizes, as long as it has no bearing on legal rights.

    Though, as someone who's still single, I also am not fond of the laws that treat married couples differently from single people in terms of things like taxation. I do understand adjusting taxes to account for children being supported by a couple, but if a married couple has no children, I don't think they should get more of a tax break than someone who is still single. If anything, those of us who are single have a harder time affording homes without another person to contribute to the purchase, so I really think it's unfair to give special status to people just because they chanced upon someone to marry.
     
  20. Nov 2, 2008 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I responded to that in the Obama Tax calculator thread: See the marriage tax penalty. Since the late 60s, I think it was, married people actually pay a higher tax rate, for one because the combined incomes take them to a higher tax bracket than they would be in as individuals. There was also an offset for the personal deduction, but I think that has been changed again.

    This may be why Obama's plan gives a larger break to married couples. He may be attempting to correct the unfair tax bias against marriage.
     
  21. Nov 2, 2008 #20

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's quite a myth. Every married couple I know benefits from being married. Of course, that's above a certain income level. There's a range of income where it's a penalty, but it's such a low income level that it's hard to imagine any couple actually earning that low of an income as a couple. If I look at tax tables for my income and look at the married tax tables for double my income (i.e., if I had a spouse making exactly the same income I make), it's always better to be married. It's actually the main reason many people I've known have even gotten married. A lot of my social group are fairly progressive and don't hang a lot of weight on the concept of marriage, but are pragmatic enough to decide to get married if there's an advantage to being married over just living together with their partner.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: California's Prop 8
  1. Prop 8 struck down (Replies: 270)

Loading...