Arkansas banned gay couples from adopting, which is legal in California.
jellyblue, I agree with almost everything you wrote in principal (although I suspect you know it would never fly; separation of church and state is the last thing these people want), except that the church should set its own rules regarding divorce, offspring, etc.
Well, that’s the history of organized religion, ain’t it? That money you donate to your church every week is more likely to end up as an Uzi in the hands of an Afghani terrorist child, or the pockets of a major political party, or the blood spilled by some abortion doctor getting shot or a person who died of cancer because stem cell research has been halted. Organized Religion is inherently evil, and all who plead fealty to it’s auspices (esp. Catholicism and Mormonism) shall have to answer for their transgression in this current life very soon, and this isn’t God’s Vengeance but the Vengeance of SCIENCE and LOGIC and REASON, fundamental natural forces which have been bottled up for far too long and cannot be held back any longer. (And those Yes On 8 posters sure disappeared quick, didn’t they? Wish I’d paid more attention to which houses hosted them…)
In other words, I sure ain’t ordering a Pepsi at Taco Bell again, ever!
I don’t think I understand the Arkansas thing. I’ve read that it’s a ban on “unmarried couples” adopting. Is that just codeword for gay couples, or would folks like Brad and Angelina be out of luck, too? Either way, it’s going to keep a lot of kids out of good homes 
You know, this whole rash of bans on gay marriage/civil unions makes me feel even more depressed about this election. I’m fairly conservative except that I fully support civil unions and adoptions by gay couples. So until I read the headlines yesterday, I thought that maybe there could be one thing I support being forwarded by electing a slew of democrats. Apparently not.
First, why? What would you do to the people who had those signs?
Second, what about Taco Bell???
The Prop. 8 people are claiming it protects marriages and families. I saw a photo in the paper of a married gay couple at a rally with their adopted son. What about their marriage? What about their family? Don’t they deserve protection as well?
Amendment 2 in Florida does, though. The text of the amendment read:
“This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Remember: every time God opens one door He slams another one in your face.
That seems like rather the over-reaction.
If a legal category, perfectly open to both same sex and opposite sex couples were created, with the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage, but rebranded as it were, there is nothing inferior. Leaving marriage as a term to those with religious sensibilities seems a reasonable compromise.
I’m not religious at all. Screw these compromise ideas. I wish to retain the word marriage. I got married, I did not get ‘unioned’. Keep fighting for full rights and take the compromise as only a brief step not a final step. I use to agree with KGS, but I don’t and it is for much the reasons that **Der Trihs **wrote.
These props were passed out of fear and in many cases hate. It is that simple.
That would never, ever be allowed to happen. We’ve done this before. Separate but equal is never equal; the one, the only point of trying to demand that homosexuals be relegated to “civil unions” is so they can be given a bad imitation of marriage. A ghetto marriage, one with fewer rights, benefits and respect.
We are speaking of people who don’t even want to allow homosexuals the WORD marriage, something they allow serial killers. But not those evil, evil gays. Why should I or anyone for one moment think they would be interested in anything even slightly resembling fairness ?
Garbage. If we were talking about refusing to let non-whites get married, and instead they have to settle for a supposedly-equal separate institution would that be a reasonable compromise with people who have racial sensitivities ? And would you expect the separate institution to really be even remotely equal ?
This is bigotry, and deserves no compromise or respect or anything better than utter contempt, whatsoever.
By creating a separate category you not only reinforce the idea that it’s ‘not quite a marriage’ or ‘less than’ marriage, you also create the possibility of unequal changes to that status.
If gay people are allowed full-fledged marriage, the same as the rest of us, then what happens to their marriages happens to our marriages as well. If you carve out a separate legal category for them, then there’s the possibility of tinkering with their legal rights while leaving yours and mine alone. I don’t think that’s equal or fair.
Yep, it’s always about Family Values. (These pro-8 people were too chickenshit to admit they’re anti-Gay, that’s why they claimed to be pro-Family instead.) Frankly, I think some work needs to be done to break the Family Values Cabal and make people realize that most families (esp. the so-called Nuclear Family) are fundamentally flawed by design. Sadly, the “Family Values” myth is so deeply ingrained in American society, the chances of breaking that myth are approx. 0.02%. 
I would let them know my displeasure, without breaking any anti-stalker laws. (There weren’t any Pro-8 signs in my immediate neighborhood – the people 'round here know better – but in the conservative suburbs, esp. Ventura & Orange Counties, there were several.)
BTW, KGSDad thinks that Prop. 8 passed because “illegally registered” Hispanics voted for it – they’re all members of the Catholic church, and most of them are culturally biased against gays (KGSDad actually said, “Hispanics aren’t gay,” to which I replied, “You’d be surprised!” – but it’s true, I haven’t met any openly gay Hispanics…) L.A. County, for example, voted pro-8 despite being the Second Gayest County in CA after San Francisco – here’s a cite.
Unless I’m mistaken, PepsiCo is owned by Mormon interests, right? (Taco Hell just happens to be one franchise who’s signed with Pepsi instead of Coke…)
Sorry if my outraged tone upset anyone yesterday…however, I’m still Focusing My Will very strongly on northern Utah, so if a 6.5 earthquake strikes that area next week, you’ll know who did it. 
PepsiCo is publicly traded. I can’t imagine that their corporate governance is any different than other public companies.
Taco Bell used to be part of PepsiCo, along with KFC and Pizza Hut. It was spun off into a wholly separate entity (TriCon Restaurants) in the late nineties.
Aw man, please don’t tell me that the Pepsi/Mormon connection is yet another urban legend… :smack:
Half the gay people I know (a couple dozen) are Hispanic. Maybe Florida gays are more comfortable or something.
Yup. Unless Warren Buffet is a Mormon now.
Mormons may not own Coca-cola or Pepsi-Co, but corporations can and do support certain causes. Gays boycotted Coors beer for years because of their corporate support of anti-gay causes. I don’t know what the status is these days. I don’t drink beer much and never choose Coors when I do. This site seems to feel Coors is still up to no good.
I’d like to know if PepsiCo or Coca-cola also sponsor or donate to causes anathema to me. It’s entirely possible.
One of my best friends made me boycott Domino’s Pizza for years, because they were anti-abortion/pro-life.
That is a very good point.
Which is why I suggest that the word “marriage” be struck from all civil legislation and replaced by “civil union”. After all, marriage was a religious institution before any government saw fit to regulate it, thereby infringing on the separation of church and state.
We’ll never know what would have happened if Obama made a statement saying gay marriage should be legal, but the candidates all moving toward a middle position in the elections is on of the things that makes people say that there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Well, sure, but do they?
As a non-religious married citizen, I support this. I really couldn’t care less what you call it as long as every adult can do it with whom they prefer.