Where do you fall on the political/ideological spectrum?

[snoogit]

The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear challenges to Prop 8 - I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And don't look for Newt to go away any time soon, snoogit - he's prepping for a run in 2012. Should be interesting - Romney vs Gingrich vs Huckabee vs Palin and each one of them fighting for that all important Focus on the Family vote. I can hardly wait.

[GR_Urbanist]

We just need to get rid of ***hats like Newt Gingrich who call people protesting for their rights fascists. (link)

[GR_Urbanist]

The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear challenges to Prop 8 - I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And don't look for Newt to go away any time soon, snoogit - he's prepping for a run in 2012. Should be interesting - Romney vs Gingrich vs Huckabee vs Palin and each one of them fighting for that all important Focus on the Family vote. I can hardly wait.

[GRDadof3]

We dont like the way the free vote turned out, so we're going to have the courts overturn it....Again.

Great way to run a democracy! Who needs a majority of votes when you can get one judge to out vote them all.

[d8alterego]

First of all, this is a minority issue regarding a civil right. No one can argue that marriage is not a civil right because marriage comes with many tax, inheritance, adoption, medical, and insurance rights (all of which reside in the civil sphere). Since it is a civil right, no one should put a civil right up for a majority vote, especially when it concerns a minority. This is why many minority groups in California (NAACP, Hispanic, and Asian civil rights groups) are challenging prop 8's passage in CA's supreme court; it creates a dangerous precedent that says the majority can strip minorities of their civil rights with a vote. The courts were specifically designed by the founders of this country to safeguard the minorities from the majority. That is their biggest purpose. It is what we call the tyrany of the majority. Imagine having to ask all your neighbors on your street, in your town, your city, and then your entire state to ask for your partner's hand in marriage. How disrespectful is that? People that are not gay don't have to ask their neighbors, and especially their state, for their partner's hand in marriage, they just get married (Like Brittany Spears' 48 hour Las Vegas marriage). Why do the gays? In summary, you never should put a civil rights issue up for a majority vote... period.

It is also a religious matter, one which is very contentious. Marriage has always, and will continue to be, redifined by religions and states (allowing interracial marriage was a redifinition). And what of the religions that accept and support gay marriage? Prop 8 would be denying other religions their rights. Last I knew we had a thing called freedom of religion.

If civil unions were to have exactly the same rights (which are in the thousands) of marriage, then why would you call marriage another name if they are exactly the same? Seperate but equal is never equal. I thought we learned that? Remeber that picture of the seperate but equal drinking fountains in the south?

I thought the great part of a healthy democracy is our right to protest? As long as it is peaceful, which the majority of it has been, a protest should be supported. Why are people shocked when others are angry about the fact that they can't marry the person they love after finally winning the right to do so? Wouldn't you be mad? The day this country stops having protests is the day I get the hell out of dodge.

I know what I just wrote might cause a huge debate on here and I'm sorry. All I was trying to do in an earlier post was shed some light on an issue that affects everyone, even if they didn't hear about it on Nov. the 4th. It was a real tragedy (politically) for everyone in this country, even if some people disagree.

We dont like the way the free vote turned out, so we're going to have the courts overturn it....Again.

Great way to run a democracy! Who needs a majority of votes when you can get one judge to out vote them all.

[jwazzz]

First of all, this is a minority issue regarding a civil right. No one can argue that marriage is not a civil right because marriage comes with many tax, inheritance, adoption, medical, and insurance rights (all of which reside in the civil sphere). Since it is a civil right, no one should put a civil right up for a majority vote, especially when it concerns a minority. This is why many minority groups in California (NAACP, Hispanic, and Asian civil rights groups) are challenging prop 8's passage in CA's supreme court; it creates a dangerous precedent that says the majority can strip minorities of their civil rights with a vote. The courts were specifically designed by the founders of this country to safeguard the minorities from the majority. That is their biggest purpose. It is what we call the tyrany of the majority. Imagine having to ask all your neighbors on your street, in your town, your city, and then your entire state to ask for your partner's hand in marriage. How disrespectful is that? People that are not gay don't have to ask their neighbors, and especially their state, for their partner's hand in marriage, they just get married (Like Brittany Spears' 48 hour Las Vegas marriage). Why do the gays? In summary, you never should put a civil rights issue up for a majority vote... period.

It is also a religious matter, one which is very contentious. Marriage has always, and will continue to be, redifined by religions and states (allowing interracial marriage was a redifinition). And what of the religions that accept and support gay marriage? Prop 8 would be denying other religions their rights. Last I knew we had a thing called freedom of religion.

If civil unions were to have exactly the same rights (which are in the thousands) of marriage, then why would you call marriage another name if they are exactly the same? Seperate but equal is never equal. I thought we learned that? Remeber that picture of the seperate but equal drinking fountains in the south?

I thought the great part of a healthy democracy is our right to protest? As long as it is peaceful, which the majority of it has been, a protest should be supported. Why are people shocked when others are angry about the fact that they can't marry the person they love after finally winning the right to do so? Wouldn't you be mad? The day this country stops having protests is the day I get the hell out of dodge.

I know what I just wrote might cause a huge debate on here and I'm sorry. All I was trying to do in an earlier post was shed some light on an issue that affects everyone, even if they didn't hear about it on Nov. the 4th. It was a real tragedy (politically) for everyone in this country, even if some people disagree.

[crinzema]

"Marriage has always, and will continue to be, redefined* by religions"

[FromCityToRural]

I'm leaning towards libertarianism. I'm fiscally conservative, socially pretty liberal, with a bent against more government rules and regulations.

[GRDadof3]

What the? Marriage has been practically set in stone by religions. Interracial marriage was just a taboo that people got over. Show me the amendments made in the bible that approved interracial marriages.

Do you mean of or from religion? How would freedom of religion be affected.

I am a man of freedom and I believe the government should not interfere in any shape or form in people's personal lives. But Personally, I believe that religious institutions are naturally the means in which people should get married because that is where the origins of marriage came from.

[crinzema]

Very well written - it defies logic that this is even an issue but, as stated in a previous post, it is only a matter of time. In a historical perspective, this will look as ridiculous as riding in the back of the bus.

[crinzema]

So courthouses should stop issuing marriage certificates? Or only with a signed seal of approval from a religious leader?

And the term marriage does not come from any religion. It's derived from the latin word maritare in the 14th Century, and just refers to joining of two things (food and wine, steel and wood, etc..).

[d8alterego]

Interracial marriage was more than a taboo, there were statutes in many states (especially the south) that prevented interracial couples from marrying. The most notable of these was the Racial Integrity Act of Virginia which was challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the Loving vs. Virginia lawsuit in 1967. Just read up on that, which is eerily familiar to gay marriage today.

Fredom of religion is both. It is freedom from one church telling another church how to worship (a gay friendly church allowing gay marriages and one that doesn't). Some United Churches of Christ allow gay marriage but many Evangelical ones do not. It also means that you can believe what you want; be it Atheism, Hinduism, Christianity, Paganism, Islam, Shintoism, Native Americanism and others. We do allow Atheists to marry right?

If you are a "man of freedom" but would vote for a ban against gay marriage, then you'd be a hypocrite. You'd be voting for government intrusion into the personal lives of people. Want an example? Gay partners can't see each other in a hospital due to them not being "married or a family member." Picture a cop outside the hospital room door preventing you from seeing your loved one dying from a car accident (which actually happens). Picture cops preventing you from seeing your deceased loved one at their funeral due to the family of the deceased being ashamed of the relationship (which actually happened to a friend of mine). Wouldn't you say that is government intervention? That person has no recourse, no laws to help them have those rights. It's disgusting and shameful and it ruins people's lives "all for the sake of the sanctity of marriage." You tell me what's upholding the sanctity of marriage? Is it the 50% divorce rate of heterosexuals? The "starter wife or husband?" The marriages created out of money and greed? With all the hate, disparity, hopelessness, and anger in this world, why do people insist on creating more of it by denying people their civil rights?

I hope you realize that gays are just as religious as anyone else. Sadly, some are even so religious that they are indoctrinated by their religion, through ex-gay "therapy," that they believe they're straight. They take on a wife, procreate, and then have a divorce because it didn't work. That's great for the sanctity of marriage. Not one ex-gay group can post a 100% success rating. It's more like a fake 1%. But to get back on track here, some gays go to church and are great pillars in our communities. To argue that gays have "disowned" their biblical traditions is completely untrue and has no basis in fact. It's just your opinion. I'm sure you have gays at your church and you just don't know it or they themselves don't want to admitt it.

By the way, being gay is not a choice. Many leading American institutions have come out against religious ex-gay "therapy" groups.

Here's a funny, yet educational take on that arguement.

What the? Marriage has been practically set in stone by religions. Interracial marriage was just a taboo that people got over. Show me the amendments made in the bible that approved interracial marriages.

Do you mean of or from religion? How would freedom of religion be affected.

I am a man of freedom and I believe the government should not interfere in any shape or form in people's personal lives. But Personally, I believe that religious institutions are naturally the means in which people should get married because that is where the origins of marriage came from. Our secular world has still continued to hold on to biblical traditions like marriage for the sake of tradition. While their are more unmarried couples living together nowadays, why would same sex couples, of all people, reach back to biblical tradition which they have long past disowned? Just a question of mine. Marriage in today's world is not sacred, so why treat it as such? There is even a show called Starter Wife! Why give a dam in this day and age? I do agree that it is wrong for married people to have incentives to get married like taxation, inheritance, medical, and insurance rights except for adoption unless the kids are old enough to decide if that is OK for themselves.

[d8alterego]

So which are you? Are you against "any shape or form" of governmental intervention or are you for it?

I'm not trying to attack you personally crinzema, I think you are just trying to figure this issue out. I am just trying to get people who do not understand this issue to see the facts.

I am a man of freedom and I believe the government should not interfere in any shape or form in people's personal lives.

I do agree that it is wrong for married people to have incentives to get married like taxation, inheritance, medical, and insurance rights except for adoption unless the kids are old enough to decide if that is OK for themselves.

[GRDadof3]

I really don't know why the government is evolved? do you? People have been married long before the 14th century.

[crinzema]

It was a taboo that was given a ban. Marriage has no significant meaning in today's culture. Before it was a joining of two people "of different sexes" before the lord. Now it is just a traditional ceremony. Atheists get married because of tradition.

To put it more clearly, I believe government should not interfere with our personal lives. In this kind of government, I would not vote for a ban because their would be no ban up for vote. But in our government, i could not vote for gay marriage but i would not vote for a ban against gay marriage. So I would vote absent. But personally I'm against gay marriage. To put it in another way, I don't support sex outside of marriage, but is it my responsibility to stop that, obviously not. I don't think there should be any strings attached to marriage like the seeing someone in the hospital like you stated.

There are several gay couples at my church, Reslife. If i got to know them, i would treat them like anyone else. They obviously know what their doing is wrong in the sight of the church and the Lord, but i liken it to any sin. Now that i think about, i lived next to a gay guy when I had to stay at my grandparents for a month. He was the nicest person, I'm not a hater. I don't have gay phobia. But about being gay from birth i whole heartily disagree. I believe that something effects them in early childhood that makes them either hate their sex or want to become the other sex. Studies are sometimes motivated to say certain things so I don't like looking a studies even if it backs my opionion. I believe gays can be very rightous people. What i am saying is that they know they are doing things that are not approved by the bible.

Don't worry. I don't take offense at all. I am 19 and have been a christian for 2 years so yes, i am still figuring things out. So then my question would be, do you have to be married to be able to be allowed to adopt. I will be the first to say i don't know everything, but i hold strong beliefs.

[gymguy2k]

It was a taboo that was given a ban. Marriage has no significant meaning in today's culture. Before it was a joining of two people "of different sexes" before the lord. Now it is just a traditional ceremony. Atheists get married because of tradition.

To put it more clearly, I believe government should not interfere with our personal lives. In this kind of government, I would not vote for a ban because their would be no ban up for vote. But in our government, i could not vote for gay marriage but i would not vote for a ban against gay marriage. So I would vote absent. But personally I'm against gay marriage. To put it in another way, I don't support sex outside of marriage, but is it my responsibility to stop that, obviously not. I don't think there should be any strings attached to marriage like the seeing someone in the hospital like you stated.

There are several gay couples at my church, Reslife. If i got to know them, i would treat them like anyone else. They obviously know what their doing is wrong in the sight of the church and the Lord, but i liken it to any sin. Now that i think about, i lived next to a gay guy when I had to stay at my grandparents for a month. He was the nicest person, I'm not a hater. I don't have gay phobia. But about being gay from birth i whole heartily disagree. I believe that something effects them in early childhood that makes them either hate their sex or want to become the other sex. Studies are sometimes motivated to say certain things so I don't like looking a studies even if it backs my opionion. I believe gays can be very rightous people. What i am saying is that they know they are doing things that are not approved by the bible.

Don't worry. I don't take offense at all. I am 19 and have been a christian for 2 years so yes, i am still figuring things out. So then my question would be, do you have to be married to be able to be allowed to adopt. I will be the first to say i don't know everything, but i hold strong beliefs.

[d8alterego]

Hey gymguy2k, it does not serve us any benefit to ridicule people because they don't know "the world they live in." I've explained my points on this forum and I know you share them with me. I might have convinced people (I hope) or I might not have, but accusing people of ignorance is not going to help our cause. Dude, I know you're just as upset as I am about recent events but we have to be more constructive and have a better arguement. Our arguement is working since more and more states are allowing gay marriage. I even heard today that a Vermont politician is planning on introducing legislation in the state legislature to allow gay marriage. New York state has been debating it as well. It's a slow process, I know, one which is more difficult by people personally attacking others.

I know why your mad, just channel it properly.

OK, this is wide open now. Anyone want to tell a 19 year old about the world he lives in or should we just let him find out for himself? The problem is that until he does, he could do alot of damage by voting for intolerance in every form, if the only lense thru which he sees the world is though the Bible. If for him, he's happy with that, OK. So much of West Michigan is comfortable with that. But when it comes to basic civil rights, many people here need to get out more and see the differences. If only.

[GRDadof3]

It was a taboo that was given a ban. Marriage has no significant meaning in today's culture. Before it was a joining of two people "of different sexes" before the lord. Now it is just a traditional ceremony. Atheists get married because of tradition.

[Par75]

Sorry, but again the Christian church does not own the word "marriage". Never has, never will. In fact, couples were "joining together" in primitive ceremonies long before Jesus was born. Some Christian churches need to stop trying to keep a stranglehold on every aspect of our society. We are not a theocracy (thank God).

[GRDadof3]

Why are we having this debate in a forum that is supposedly about Grand Rapids? Aren't there other, off-topic sections of UP (not to mention other websites) where this discussion would be more appropriate? I find myself checking in here less and less because the discussion is so far off topic (even for the coffee house section).

[crinzema]

OK, this is wide open now. Anyone want to tell a 19 year old about the world he lives in or should we just let him find out for himself? The problem is that until he does, he could do alot of damage by voting for intolerance in every form, if the only lense thru which he sees the world is though the Bible. If for him, he's happy with that, OK. So much of West Michigan is comfortable with that. But when it comes to basic civil rights, many people here need to get out more and see the differences. If only.

[jas49503]

libertarian

I was forced to post something when I went to edit a previous post so these are my views. you can read thier mission statment to get a better idea about what a libertarian actually is. essentially people should be able to go about thier business with minimal government interference as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses ability to do the same.

as to a previous post about needing a third party in government, there are plenty of third parties, you just have to vote for them.

[gymguy2k]

Is it only wide open now because of my age? You are a foolish man. Despite what you think, I'm not sheltered and I probably see the world more for what it is because of the generation i live in. You make me out to be the person who is the one stopping your causes. Did you even listen to what i said? I would not vote up or down on a ban because I believe in FREEDOM. But I am personally against same sex marriage. Is that clear enough for you? I would not stop a same sex couple from being married, but I would not support it. My biblical lense through which i see the world is that people are free to sin if they please as long as they do no significant harm to the community: stealing, murdering.... which then there should be a law prohibiting that behavior. The thing is, your intolerant to my belief. I have the freedom to believe a certain way. You talk about civil rights but do you really understand? continue this discussion in this thread http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/Gay-Righ...40#entry1029772

But to continue on this topic to where it is supposed to be, I am a libertarian who voted for Bob Bar. Ron Paul would of been my first choice if he switched tickets to the libertarian party because he would get us out of this depression we are in by letting the market and capitalism run it's course. Bad companies would be replaced by companies who run their buisness on a strong fiscal plan. Artifically going against capitalism and keeping dead horses alive will drag this economy further down than if we let things naturally run their course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp7UHYbCfBg

[gymguy2k]

I did not intend to insult you. Seriously. I'm sorry about that. I apologize. Indeed, when I was 19 same way you probably do. I the world thru the same lens. For me, it was out of fear. Fear of anything different from my Dutch Calvinist upbringing. But what I discovered eventually is that what I was afraid of was me. I always knew that I was different. At the age of 22 it became clear. I was gay. And once I realized and accepted that, I explored and viewed the world thru that lens.

[d8alterego]

Hopefully everyone that wanted to share a veiw on this issue did, but let's now get back on track. Thank you all for listening anyway.