Prop 8 | Page 4 | Golden Skate

Prop 8

the entire post.

Medusa, thank you so much for your informative post. It's like reading a very well-written article and I've learned a lot, just as much as I did from many other posts of yours. I really appreciate your time and efforts.:clap:

I think that it's nice that these countries are making a lot of advancements in the areas of civil rights and public awareness.

I think that Japan is really behind at the political arena.

At the socio-cultural level, homosexuality in Japan has not been considered to be sinful, or criminal (except for 7 or 8 years in late the 19c as I mentioned in my previous post), and accepted as a part of (sub-)culture(s) in the pre-modern history.
Indeed, important social institutions in pre-modern history -- ruling classes (e.g., aristocratic class; upper-class Samurais) and religious institution (e.g., monasteries) --- were known for practicing it.

Some also argue that homosexual mentality is very strongly embedded in the modern Japanese socio-cultural climate as well. For example, a lot of scholars have pointed out that one of the most popular modern literary works, "Kokoro" (1914) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoro by Natsume Soseki, can be read as a homosexual literature (BTW, the author is one of the most beloved writers in the country that his pic is on the 1,000 yen note). It is basically a story about a triangular relationship between two men and one woman. One man who loses in this rivalry commits a suicide. The other man suffers throughout his life without telling the truth to his wife and commits a suicide after passing this secret onto a young man who dearly adores him. Some argue that that woman is completely excluded from these relationships. As I think of it, these prototypes (i.e., enhancing the bond between two men through one woman; the age-structured relationship between two men) are recurrent themes that I could see in many Japanese literary works. But I think that these were so culturally embedded that it would be hard to notice if you were raised within that culture. I heard that the age-structured male-male relationship was from China; but I just do not know the Chinese culture.

Despite these homosexuality-friendly backgrounds, however, the contemporary Japanese society is not politically progressive in assuring rights for sexual minorities. I do not think that there are many political groups that are strongly against them. But sexual minorities do not have much political power in Japan. I wonder if the unfortunate institutional discrimination somehow eventually contributed to the more organized LGBT movements in Western countries. I do not think that the kinds of statistics that you provided are available in Japan because the same-sex marriage is not really recognized as an important political agenda yet. But I think that they would eventually "import" those political movements from the West in future.

I also think that there would be more open LGBTs in the US than in Japan despite the greater homophobia climate in the US. My personal impression on this matter is that Japan is a society that tends to marginalize minorities of any kinds. I think that there’s some cultural atmosphere that makes you to be hesitant to claim that you are different from others.

the entire post

Thank you very much Ant for your detailed response. I really appreciate it. Your post made me think a lot. I'd like to write more later. But I'd just like to thank you first.

Ant - thank you for your last post. :)

Tonichelle, I apologize again if my not-well-thought-out first post might have given you any impression that I was equating Christianity with anti-homosexuality, which is not my intention. I know that there are diverse beliefs and opinions among different Christian groups/individuals on this matter. I also agree with Ant that people who are genuinely religious would try to practice loving kindness and tolerance/forgiveness than reproaching religious sin in others.
 
Bennett - no worries, you explained your point clearly in a response... unfortunately with the Prop 8 thing in Cali going on those of us who are religious have been pinpointed as the enemy and now some of those on the other side (and probably only a small portion) are becoming more *agressive* in their plight...

I live in Alaska and haven't taken a side (it's not my state, so it's not my place) but I've gotten emails from people who know my religious beliefs that aren't so nice. So it's refreshing to see SOMEONE understands that we're not all out there gay bashing.
 
I don't think people in this age are gay bashing, but there are some who are definitely against gay marriage not based on anything but one's religion which in itself is not clear.
 
The usual biggotry?! I'm being flippant but isn't that always the way? You have to remember that England has more or less been a religious country - that is why we have blasphemy laws in the UK applying only to church of england denominations - state and church are not separate. If i recall correctly - the Queen is not only the head of state but also head of the Church of England. I suppose that historically people have pointed to religion as a justification for making homsexuality illegal. Interstingly the statutes outlawing homsexuality applied only to men as queen victoria could not even conceive of lesbianism, so it has only ever been men who were subject to prosecution!



I honestly don't know, i was only very young in the 80s which is when i understand there was a huge increase in homophobic attacks largely based on the outbreak of HIV and AIDS which many back in the day dubed a Gay disease. The concervative government here through Margaret Tatcher did nothing to dispell this myth and furthermore enacted the famous "section 28" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 which outlawed the publishing of materials "promoting" homosexuality and more importantly that any state schools (which is the overwhelming majority in the UK) could not "promote" homosexuality as a valid alternative family life. My impression is that in the 80s homophobic attacks were more frequent and a large number of the population thought it was an acceptable risk and part and parcel of being gay.

While i think public feeling has changed tremendouly there are still the minority of hate mongers who will still commit these crimes. Legislation has been enacted in this country to stop people frmo not providing goods or services to people based on sexual orientation, however, there are still cases where the legal system has found the wrong way. There was a high profile case recently of a lady employed by a local council who carried out civil marriages. When civil partnerships became legal she refused to carry them out based on her religious beliefs. Courts have held that she should be allowed to do so. Now to me that drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. I think her religious beliefs should have no part in secular local authority which is funded by my tax money. Her beliefs affected her ablity to carry out her job, she should therefore change jobs to one that fits with her religious beliefs. If her beliefs are help up then where do you draw the line. Another council work might object to inter-racial marriages - should their objection to it be upheld such that they don't have to carry out that integral part of their job description. Anyway I think the case is being appealed so sit tight!



I'm not 100% sure but i think most are charitable non profit making organisations. I think some do get some minimal funding from local government, but the majority comes through chritable donations and special fund raisers that are put on. I'm very proud to say that a close personal friend helped set up a charity that is going from strength to strength, it is to support LGBT teens aged between 16 -19 who are thrown out of home by their parents as a result of their being LGBT. That is 100% funded by charity.

Ant



Thank you again Ant!

It was actually the first time for me to learn about the "section 28" in the UK. So I read it with great interests. How could they legitimize the fact that heterosexual lifestyles are far more powerfully "promoted" than homosexual lifestyles? It seems quite recent that the repeal became effective.

I think that learning about alternative ways of living at a young age is simply wonderful. That would help not only reduce the stigma in the next generation, but also inform LGBT kids of possible life choices in future.

In Japan as well the HIV/AIDS epidemics seem to have greatly contributed to fears, hatred, and harassments at sexual minorities. I think it really regrettable that such serious social stigma is attached to HIV/AIDS, which make the lives of ppl with HIV/AIDS so much harder than their health conditions already do. I believe that HIV/AIDS education and safer sex education would be extremely important for reducing stigma, fears, and anxieties in the public. This may in turn help reduce stigma, harassments, and violence against sexual minorities as well. I guess people are more accepting of ppl living with HIV/AIDS than they were in the past. More healthcare professionals are also willing to provide better services and supports to them. But I think that it would still be very difficult.

Thank you for explaining about the non-profit organizations for sexual minorities in the UK. It is wonderful to hear that your friend set up a shelter for LGBT kids who were thrown away from home. It would be really devastating to split away from their families. I would imagine that your friend’s shelter could be a tremendous support for these kids.

I wonder if their families could have been more accepting if they had known that there might exist different ways of living. Throwing your kids away sounds like the last resort and I imagine that these families might have really panicked.

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a documentary on a social organization that support parents who previously abused their kids. Even though the conventional policies have been to separate the kids and the abusive parents, this organization takes a different strategy. They try to help the parents change themselves. They help them change the ways of thinking about child abuse and also provide support for them to go through other stress in their lives. Some mentors used to be abusive parents themselves before so that they could understand the life situations in other abusive parents. So it is like a self-help group in a sense. I guess that the conventional policies are absolutely necessary for some parents who would never change their minds and remain abusive forever. But it is encouraging to learn that there are some who do change.

I wonder if there are support groups for parents of LGBT kids. I think that many of them are also alone and may feel anxious for not knowing how to get along with the kids who are sexual minorities and what to expect about the future of their kids (esp. the possible prospect of their family lives). Or even if they do not have a support group, I feel that perhaps having friends who are sexual minorities and who have alternative ways of living might help them better understand and accept their own kids.
 
Last edited:
Prior to looking at the actual proposition, I planned on voting no. After I saw what it actually did, I voted yes.

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
As you can see, the proposition did not say that homosexuals can't love each other. ;) The complete official voter information for proposition 8 can be seen at: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm


A copy of the California State Constitution can be found at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html
* you can see the constitutional change in Article I, section 7.5
* you can see how it became a constitutional amendment in Article II, section 8 and Article XVIII, section 4. Proposition 8 received 52.1% and 6,521,685 yes votes.
 
Last edited:
As you can see, the proposition did not say that homosexuals can't love each other. ;)
No, it doesn't. It just says that if homosexuals do love each other, they can't make a commitment to one another in the form of marriage, and they can't receive the legal protections and financial advantages marriage may offer. Basically it's telling gay people their relationships are second rate and unworthy of official recognition. But I'm sure all heterosexual marriages are now much safer and divorce rates will drop from San Diego to Eureka!

I'm just curious, based on your post, as to why you were going to vote no at first.
 
Thank you for your links, ChrisH! I appreciate it.

But I'm sure all heterosexual marriages are now much safer and divorce rates will drop from San Diego to Eureka!.

:rofl:

But seriously, why is it called "Marriage Protection"? I find this wording rather bizarre. It sounds as if some external force were attacking/invading marriage and they felt the need to "protect" and "save" marriage from the outside threats or something. Do they rather mean the "preservation" of the concept, tradition, and legacy of marriage?

Regarding the divorce, I think it pretty interesting that it was not such a long time ago when divorce was a taboo in the US history.
 
There is actually an interesting correlation between gay acceptance and marriage stability in a given state. Divorce rates in the US are rather low in states with good education rates and low poverty rates; those same states also tend to be less religious and rather accepting of gays. OTOH, states that have very high percentage of "very religious" folk usually also have low education rates and high poverty - well, those states have very high divorce rates (a fascinating article here - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot).

Quote from that article:
Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality—indeed, they may feel that it’s unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family.
I'd add that that same "new middle-class morality" couldn't care less if gays can marry or not.

So, Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, is also the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation! Now, that's the "family values" I can live with! :rock:
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. It just says that if homosexuals do love each other, they can't make a commitment to one another in the form of marriage, and they can't receive the legal protections and financial advantages marriage may offer. Basically it's telling gay people their relationships are second rate and unworthy of official recognition. But I'm sure all heterosexual marriages are now much safer and divorce rates will drop from San Diego to Eureka!

I'm just curious, based on your post, as to why you were going to vote no at first.
I was going to vote no because I thought as you did in the 1st paragraph. However, as it turns out, California leads most of the USA in giving rights to same sex couples. According to this world map California is in line with most of westernized world. Curiously, it appears that California is more pro-homosexuality than Japan and Italy.

I don't see a legal reason why the constitutional amendment can be overturned by the California Supreme Court. I haven't yet read the full text of the court's previous decision, but I suspect that I would agree that the anti-same sex marriage laws did violate our state constitution with regards to equal protection. It no longer does. Our new state amendment may violate the equal protection clause of USA Constitution though, in which case it'll be harder for the USA Constitution to be amended, as it would require that 3/4 of the states accept it. That California, which is one of the leaders among the states when it comes to rights for same sex couples, would accept such an amendment indicates that that's possible.


Quotes from the court's previous decision (dissenting opinions):
California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.
It is important to be clear. Under California law, domestic partners have “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” available to traditional spouses.
 
I was going to vote no because I thought as you did in the 1st paragraph. However, as it turns out, California leads most of the USA in giving rights to same sex couples.

I don't see a legal reason why the constitutional amendment can be overturned by the California Supreme Court.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your position! I don't agree; I think consenting adults should be able to marry regardless of sexual orientation - but I see where you are coming from.
 
I think where it's coming down to is the word "marriage" I think if they just changed it to be civil union and then those couples were given the same rights as hetero couples it'd be okay with the voting population, I guess...

but you'd still have to deal with the federal aspect of it, and they're pretty firm.
 
.I don't see a legal reason why the constitutional amendment can be overturned by the California Supreme Court. I haven't yet read the full text of the court's previous decision, but I suspect that I would agree that the anti-same sex marriage laws did violate our state constitution with regards to equal protection. It no longer does. Our new state amendment may violate the equal protection clause of USA Constitution though, in which case it'll be harder for the USA Constitution to be amended, as it would require that 3/4 of the states accept it. That California, which is one of the leaders among the states when it comes to rights for same sex couples, would accept such an amendment indicates that that's possible.
It's nice that you believe in equal rights but do you believe in Democracy? where all people are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Do you feel a subspecie is trying to get hold of your marriage?
 
but isn't the word pursuit and actually abtaining happiness two different things?

sorry devil's advocate here, this morning.
 
but isn't the word pursuit and actually abtaining happiness two different things?
I think the point of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is that governments should not put legal impediments in the path of this pursuit.
 
But seriously, why is it called "Marriage Protection"? I find this wording rather bizarre. It sounds as if some external force were attacking/invading marriage and they felt the need to "protect" and "save" marriage from the outside threats or something. Do they rather mean the "preservation" of the concept, tradition, and legacy of marriage?

From the concurring opinion of PARRILLI, J., in re MARRIAGE CASES, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 5, 2006.
... The nuance at this moment in history is that the institution (marriage) and emerging institution (same-sex partnerships) are distinct and, we hope, equal. We hope they are equal because of the great consequences attached to each. Childrearing and passing on culture and traditions are potential consequences of each. To the degree that any committed relationship provides love and security, encourages fidelity, and creates a supportive environment for children it is entitled to respect. Whether it must be called the same, or supported by the state as equal to the traditional model, only time and patient attention to the models at issue will tell. And whether it applies in every marriage or not, marriage has historically stood for the principle that men and women who may, without planning or intending to do so, give life to a child should raise that child in a bonded, cooperative, and enduring relationship. Obviously, that ideal is far from universally achieved. But to define marriage, as the Family Code does, in a way which recognizes that function of the institution is hardly irrational. Nor is it irrational to admit that wherever children are being raised, their adult providers are performing a public service the community would otherwise have to undertake ...

The ability to give life to their biological children is a real distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. Hence there is a rational basis for the less inclusive definition of marriage.
 
The ability to give life to their biological children is a real distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. Hence there is a rational basis for the less inclusive definition of marriage.
All the infertile couples out there - you heard it: your marriage has no biological sense and is therefore less worthy. The men who are married to infertile women and the women married to infertile men: get a divorce, pronto please! If you stay married your marriage will be downgraded to a "civil union" by proposition 88 in the year 2012 because your love has no biological sense. How dare you not to make any biological sense, by the way? You're nearly as bad as the gays out there...
 
Last edited:
I think the point of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is that governments should not put legal impediments in the path of this pursuit.
Exactly. If a supreme being created all people equal does the Orwellian spoof consider "but some people are more equal than others?" That's what I read by some posters in this thread that they do believe 'some people are more equal than others. am I correct?
 
From the concurring opinion of PARRILLI, J., in re MARRIAGE CASES, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 5, 2006.


The ability to give life to their biological children is a real distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. Hence there is a rational basis for the less inclusive definition of marriage.

Thank you ChrisH. Very interesting. The Code of Family seems to have defined "marriage". I wonder where that definition was coming from. Is this coming from any religious beliefs or is it a description of the conventional ptractices?

I acknowledge that one of the major functions/purposes of traditional marriage has been to bear and raise children. Yet, the functions and purposes of marriage have been getting more multi-faceted even among heterosexual couples, which makes this definition sounding rather narrow.

As Medusa pointed out, this definition nullifies the ideals and purposes of marriage of childless couples. It also does not cover the situations where a childless couple adopts a child, or where a couple raises the child born in the previous relationship of one of the spouses.

These non-conventional marriages are not traditional marriage as defined by the Code of Family. Shouldn't they be called a "civil union" if the same logics are applied to hetero-sexual couples? The logics are used to define the heterosexual union "whether it applies in every marriage or not."

Then the same logics are not applied to the homosexual union whether it applies in every union or not despite the fact that some homosexual couples raise adopted or partly-biological children.

That is interesting.

There would be many ppl who would not wish to be "married" if the definition and purposes/ideals of marriage must be constrained only to the traditional marriage as defined by the Code of Family. But they get married because the definition and purposes/ideals of the marriage are much broader than that in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top