Jump to content

The whole Mormon thing - prop 8 in CA


Recommended Posts

Yep, it is still leading; but the results are narrowing; and it may take days to sort it all out because there is a large amount of absentee ballots involved. We will see. Then the court will immediately get involved and say it is unconstitutional and tie it up some more. I can see the Ninth Circuit gearing up already.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's very sad to see prop 8 pass. I can't imagine how the couples who now face the possibility of having their marriages declared null and void must feel today. But there is one thing that gives me hope for marriage equality, and that is the enormous generation gap revealed by the exit polls.

 

Yes, among the 30+ crowd, they supported Prop 8 by an average of 55% for 30-64 year olds, and by 60% for the 65+ group. However, among the under 30 crowd, 60% opposed Prop 8. The tide is shifting. Marriage equality won't come today in CA (or the rest of the country), but it will come someday. That is my hope, that is my dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sounds like you have a personal stake in the issue."

 

Yes, I do. And before you start trying to make puerile innuendos about my sexuality (oops, too late!), I have no plans to marry again. To anyone.

 

But yes, I have a personal stake--my loved ones. My 24 year old nephew, who would like to marry someday and have children (probably by adoption; oh wait, not if he lives in Arkansas now). My sister-in-law, who would like to marry her partner of 15 years, but can't in PA. My own son, who, if he is gay, still deserves to marry the person he loves and bless me with grandchildren. He's one of the lucky ones; if he stays in MA, it won't be an issue, even though MA same-sex marriages still do not enjoy federal recognition and the resultant benefits.

 

So yes, it's very personal for me. So when do we get to vote on the validity of *your* marriage?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah! Slow down DanKroh! Everyone knows that letting gay people get married would ruin the sanctity of marriage if we straight people hadn't already got around to taking care of that.

 

Maybe we can come to some reasonable compromise our founders would approve of? Maybe we can count the same sex couples who are already married as 3/5ths of a married couple!

 

Ry

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why not compromise with a civil union that has all the rights of marriage, with a different name?"

 

Because there is no such thing. Civil unions do not have "all the rights of marriage". Right now, even same-sex marriages (in MA and CT) don't have the same rights as heterosexual marriages. There are over 1000 federal benefits that heterosexual married couples receive that same-sex couples, even if they are married, don't receive. That number is even higher when comparing marriage to civil unions.

 

What we need in this country is civil marriage as the standard contract. Then let a couple get the blessing of a Church if they feel the need (and the Church is willing). But the Church blessing should carry no weight in civil matters.

 

Besides, sitting in the back of the bus is just as good as sitting in the front, right? At least they still get to ride the bus. What was Rosa Parks' problem anyway?

 

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to go down the road of why gay couples need to be able to get married. Can we get one reason off the list? Whenever reasons for gay couples to get "married" comes up, somehow hospitals and visitation rights gets mentioned. Now, that is not an issue. Hosptals for several years have recognized the term "significant other" and those designated as the SO has the same right as the spouse or parent. Actually,the term spouse isnt used anymore, SO is. So, lets leave hospitals out of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In February 2007, Janice Langbehn was denied access to her partner Lisa Marie Pond, when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard a cruise ship and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond's hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

 

Pond, 39, was pronounced dead of a brain aneurysm about 18 hours after being admitted to Jackson's Ryder Trauma Center. Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner only for about five minutes, as a priest gave Pond the last rites.

 

I'm sure Janice considers visitation rights a non-issue.

 

Actually, I consider the biggest issues to be inheritance, denial of survivor benefits for social security, and taxing of health benefits for same-sex spouses. But I can't say I consider visitation rights to be "off the table"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure about this story? One of the requirements for by the Joint Commision for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)is to honor the request of the patient to have a significant other. Hospitals have to be JCAHO accredited to receive Medicare reimbursement.

 

If this story is true, I apologize as her life partner had every right to be with her and will have to rethink my whole approach

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...