Just say, “NO!” to theocrats! Marriage is a civil matter involving the assignment of legal rights and obligations, not a sacrament. Sanctification or blessing is purely optional and not present in most cultures in the world. Wasn’t even present in Christianity until the later Middle Ages. In Islam, it remains a civil contract with no religious connotations at all, though families my seek a blessing from holy man.

The demographics of this issue seem pretty clear- it’s the older americans who are afraid of gay marriage and younger voters could care less….the issue will eventually shift dramatically. It would only have taken a two point shift to reverse the results on proposition 8…

Even then, they only won the Prop H8 battle after a massive infusion of cash from the Mormon Church which funded a massive disinformation campaign. Prior to that the polls had it going down in flames by a sizable margin.

You know, here’s the problem with “eventually” — eventually, we’ll all be dead. I’m really tired of people saying that “eventually” this will work out. People’s rights were taken away less than a week ago; telling me that “eventually” I’ll be able to marry doesn’t cut it.

I could marry a week ago. I cannot now. “Eventually” doesn’t comfort me.

Well there’s no reason not to act now with an equal and opposite ballot measure or law suits—no need to wait.

“Eventually” doesn’t comfort me.

It shouldn’t. I really think the protests in the aftermath may well be the right tack to take on this. The meek may eventually inherit the earth, but they get damn all in the here and now. What Obama has shown us is that you have to fight for what you want. He is not president because Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and the others waited for “eventually.”

there was supposed to be a protest at the Oakland Temple at noon today. I think I’ll go for a drive…

Oh, great.

(((Teddy!)))

The fundies keep conflating the religio-social aspect of “marriage” with the legal entity with the same name. I don’t hold out any hopes that they will ever figure out the difference.

Jaysus said– “Hate thy neighbor as thyself”.

teddy, they’ve tried here in MA before and we’ve been able to stop them…. but good to be warned. thanks.

yup, i’m on the MassEquality email list. we’re vigilant, too.

You go, Jacrat!! more power to you.

I know a few people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds- to them I say “HEY- as far as I’m concerned it’s up to your religion whether or not they want to marry gay people- let each religion decide for itself”..

This at least slows em down.

I kept saying all fall, “What will they come for next? Where will they come for it?” I think we have our answer. They are coming for it right where it started. And, in an economic depression, people look for scapegoats. I hope the Massachusetts legislators remember who got re-elected: those favoring marriage equality.

They have no intention of figuring out the difference. This is a deliberate appropriation of an inherently secular transaction to further their agenda of imposing their religion on the rest of us.

IIRC they got the signatures before but the legislature wouldn’t put it on the ballot.

Now that you mention it, I think the problem here is that they really do “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

link to study on current attitudes toward gay marriage and civil unions along with trends and demographic breakdowns.

That’s my recollection as well, and see how well that plays into their persecution/victim complex? “Our legislature won’t let us vote on it, even when we follow the procedures!” It makes for easy fundraising from elsewhere by these poor discriminated-against Xtianists.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The Doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[3] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[4]

In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of “access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue…” but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had voluntarily complied with the spirit of the Doctrine. It warned that “should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of voluntary compliance] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated.” [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Mormons like Mitt own ClearChannel and Russ Limbaugh the fairness doctrine would help counter balance the lies.
Breaking up the big media companies would also help.

Boycott Home Depot Mitt’s Hedgefund Bain Capital owns that and in this housing market Home Depot does not need any more bad news.

In California- the “no on 8″ group appeared to be poorly organized and poorly funded- the Mormons seem to have caught everyone napping and flooded the airwaves with bullshit commercials.

If Mormons can take away Gay people’s right to marry with a vote can Gay people invalidate Mormon marriages with a vote?

Kris Mineau has repeatedly had his ass handed to him on the topic of gay marriage here in MA. It’s not going anywhere, and his statement is the empty bravado of a dead-ender.

By bringing up the point that way we can show just how stupid and unconstitutional this Prop is.

My guess is that the mormons are going to overplay their hand- making a big stink to legally annul all existing marriages—that provides a great inroad for political action.

I’m so tired of hearing people say why don’t they settle for Civil Unions…… besides the fact that again a class of citizens are second class and not have the benefit of full rights……

THE BIG issue is that across the country there are 1000’s of laws, statues and regulations that provide benefits using the word “marriage”…….. and civil unions can exclude many of those benefits…… something as simple of being married and having a pension that would continue to pay my spouse after my death but might not apply with a civil union.

Do any of these dimwits EVER give why heterosexual marriage is threatened by same-sex(homosexual) marriage? Besides the fact that they never ‘had me’ – I’ve never understood that. What’s the fucking BIG DEAL?

As always, my motto: “I don’t give a fuck who marries whom as long as NO ONE marries me.” (should trademark THAT!)

I bet Mitt put his people on Prop 8 after his Presidential run folded. The Mormons want us to drop the protest not going to happen.
We need to up the amps and convince the Mormons that there will NEVER BE A MORMON PRESIDENT EVER as long as they support Prop 8.
Plus we need to keep reminding the Fundamentalists that it seems like Mitt and the Mormons are leaking all this bad stuff about Sarah Palin.
We must set our enemies against each other.

These people can go fuck themselves. I’m an asshole, too. I sound like a Bush neo-con talking about Iraq but…… a couple years ago, I never could have imagined. Naive. Stupid. Yeah, i knew lotsa people hated gays but i just never appreciated they would organize into a movement–nationwide!!! I thought those who were organized and gave and really wanted to do this shit were fringe whackos.

I read – might have been an LTE – where somebody down here asked “Do you think there will now be an effort for civil unions in FL?” First of all, that’s nuts. Second of all, Amendment 2 already took care of that by banning not only marriage but the “substantial equivalent thereof.” So what does Disney do since its gay employees can have partners covered by its health insurance? Ditto the City of Orlando.

This is not a rant. Honest. I’ll end as I began, thereby proving this comment has structure and is not a rant.

These people an go fuck themselves.

Exactly. That is ultimately what marriage is about – in all times and all places – the assignment of those kinds of legal rights. In most cultures it is not a sacrament and was not in Christianity until the later Middle Ages (part of an effort by the Catholic church to extend its control over people’s lives). Churches and religious groups have no standing whatsoever in this matter as it is entirely civil and legal. They have the right to refuse to sanctify the unions of anyone, just as they always have, for whatever reason. Nobody is forcing the Catholic church to perform weddings for divorced people and nobody will force churches to marry same sex couples.

What’s probably needed is some damned good political action….California is a good place to do it- even though Californians have now voted twice against gay marriage- the margin this time was razor thin. Need to raise lots of money- do a drive for a ballot initiative reversing the constitutional change and out do the Mormons.

ya know, I have a dumb question…. is Prop 8 now part of the CA constitution?

Massachusetts and Connecticut are two states where the United Church of Christ is a significant voting block. The LDS may be about to find out how tough the UCC can be when we think something is important.

Of course, we need to be ready to fight this crap wherever it rears its head, but I’m not worried about Massachusetts. MassEquality has done and continues to do a very good job of helping to elect strong supporters of marriage equality.

Because of prop 8 the consitution has been amended to ban gay marriage. County clerks have been instructed to discontinue issuing licenses to same sex couples.

I remember your ad about accepting anyone. They should worry. 8-)

People pay lawyers many thousands of dollars to draw up documents to protect themselves — and their children — in a simulacrum of marriage. Then, two years later, one partner is offered work in another state, and they move there. They have to spend that money all over again.

There’s a reason civil marriage exists. There’s a reason it can’t be denied to anyone.

that’s what i thought. so it can’t be said to be “unconstitutional.”

They’ve pissed ME off.

I grew up in a small farming town where 95%of the folks were Mormons. My sister married a Mormon, and my 21 year-old nephew (my fav nephew, btw) is on his mission in Wisconsin. I’ve been as respectful as I can when it comes to their ‘religion.’ Interfering in this was the line in the sand for me.

That was the intent—-of course someone could claim that it violates the US Constitution- or that it is in conflict with other parts of the California Constitution I suppose…we are already seeing a rash of lawsuits.

Those companies in Florida that offer domestic partner benefits will soon find stockholders challenging management at the next meeting. Constituents in towns offering domestic partner benefits will soon attend public meetings and demand that their city leaders comply with Amendment Two.

I don’t think folks understand that these people DO NOT STOP. Their goal — expressly stated in the Mormon church — is a theocracy here on earth. For LDS, it’s the only way to ensure Jesus’s return.

They will not stop unless they are stopped by fair-minded reasonable rationalists. And once pushed back, they will press on. Their faith cannot let them rest; their successes have emboldened them.

Newberryness in a new thread

I agree with Glenn Greenwald that DOMA needs to be repealed ASAP…… Those provisions where states have the right to NOT recognize the legal MARRIAGES in one state…….

There is already a good argument that it is unconstitutional, though no challenge has gone through the courts yet to my knowledge.

Good luck with flipping the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. This election made our legislature even more liberal and Democratic. Marriage and civil rights won’t go on the ballot here.

Even if same sex marriage made it on the ballot I think the voters would approve it. We’ve had five years of experience with equal marriage rights and the sky did not fall, locusts did not plague, and we continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation, so hetero marriages didn’t suffer either.

Same sex marriage is here to stay.

While Mass is probably safe, truth and facts will not daunt nor sway these asshats in their zeal to impose their fantasy of Zion on the rest of us (I include both the Fundies and the Catholics, in addition to the LDS here).

Hmmmm. Will the Mittster lead the charge? Or will he hang back so he can later deny involvement if all this blows up in The Angel Moroni’s face?

Can’t wait.

Geez, I just got home from a trip to the farm.
Again?
What the hell did Massachusetts do to deserve another round of Fundamormontalism?

You were sane, rational, and compassionate – three things they absolutely cannot tolerate in any form.

I drove past the Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA today, and there was an orderly crowd of demonstrators shouting:

“What do we want” Equal Rights!

I don’t perceive Prop 8 as a success for those opposed to Marriage for all. I see it as a flash point. A trigger for another round of “separate is not equal”. And the churches have much to lose – their tax exempt status.

And yes, I, a heterosexual married male, voted NO on prop 8. I don’t believe what happens between two consenting adults in private any of my business, any of the government’s business, nor any other person’s business.

Well, the tricky thing here is the convergence of Mitt’s Mormons, evangelical churches the size of Home Depot (paid for by US taxpayers) and a strong Catholic presence.

It will be a fight and the politics will be brutal.

Whoever, upthread, wrote about the UCC, I offer hope with a caveat. In a large, powerful church in which my father has been involved, gay activists in the ministry pushed the gay rights agenda forcefully and relentlessly for a few years. The church was turned upside down and half the congregation left.

As an example, the rainbow flag was moved into the church and the American flag was moved out. Gay rights were discussed every week. People who had voted for their congregation to become open and affirming felt alienated by the new leadership – people who had spent a lifetime and their family’s lifetime before them in that very church – were no longer feeling that they mattered. And as I said, half left.

I am honored by my father’s steady presence in the face of change. He’d retired from another UCC Massachusetts church and came back to his hometown. He stayed. His calm, steady presence and guest preaching began to work in tandem with the activists who began to look at what happened. They are all working together, but the feelings of those who felt pushed out remain.

The politics of this are important.

I hope we have had enough time before another assault.

No, just make mariage illegal for all – that would be equality.

We need another CA prop (prop 69 :-0)

Marriage is legal for all. If not legal for all, illegal for all. – yes, or no.

Redefine marriage as the union of two consenting adults. The notion of one man and one woman is a religious one. Since certain religious doctrine discriminate against those who don’t tow their line, their definition should not be used as the bases of rights in a society where all are equal.