:::Warning RANT::: I think I've finnally nailed down what pisses me off the most about Prop 8

[The Animator]

Yes, it's discriminatory. Yes, it's a clear ploy to pander to the nutters. Those traits alone are enough to get me against it.

What gets me the most though, is that it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

It beaks down like this. Marriage by definition is a instrument of religion, of spiritually binding two people together through a ceremonial rite.

Civil Unions, on the other hand, is an instrument of the State, which legally binds two people together.

Marriages are held in a place of worship and are presided over by a religious leader of some sort, who's authority comes from some higher power.
Civil Unions are held in a Courthouse, and are presided over by a judge, who's authority comes from the State.

These are actually two separate acts, two different ways of binding oneself to another. However one is easily confused for another, and it's not difficult to see why. Sometimes Civil Unions are referred to as Marriages. There's a mixture of the religious terminology in the legal system. "Marriage Licenses?"(sorry, only example I can think of at the moment).

And then there's Divorce, you know, that thing that married people do when they no longer want to be married?

No, wait, isn't marriage a spiritual union?... Divorces are presided over by a judge who's power comes from the state, therefore, the only union he has the authority to dissolve is the Civil Union.

In order to dissolve you spiritual union, you need to take your grievances to you spiritual leaders and get what's called an Annulment.

So the lingo has gotten a little tangled up, and needs some straightening out. The State has no more authority to create or dissolve a spiritual union, than the church has to create or dissolve a civil one.
The First Amendment as it pertains to religion is in essence a "non-interference" clause. Basically it states that the government has no right to tell your church what it can and can't do. Inversely, since this is a democracy and not a theocracy, the church has no right to tell the government what it can or can't do either.

So why is Proposition 8 calling for a definition of the word "Marriage"? Isn't Marriage a spiritual union, and therefore under the jurisdiction of your own individual religions to decide what marriage means? Isn't this, in effect, the government telling religion what it can and can't do?

I understand that certain religions view homosexuality as "bad", and therefore are not willing to preform spiritual unions between to people of the same sex.
Should the government intervene and compel these churches to preform same sex spiritual unions?

Hell no.

By the same token, what if another religion, a religion that embraces homosexuality as equally natural as heterosexuality, decides that it wishes to offer same sex marriages? Should the government be able to intervene and say "No, I object! This spiritual union can't take place because marriage is clearly defined in the US Constitution as only between a man and a woman."

Again, hell no! It's not the government's right to decide the definition of a spiritual union.

What makes Prop 8 doubly enraging to me is that it's very existence is the result of political pressure from a very specific brand of religion, that's right fundies...

Prop 8 is our governments way of catering to these zealots who's aim, it seems, would be to turn this Democracy, into Their theocracy. By allowing this small, yet rabidly vocal religious group guide the legal definition of a spiritual union, they are in fact endorsing that religion's views, which is two very different violations of the First Amendment with one piece of legislation... well done.

On top of all that is the realization that this is basically giving the fundies the authority to tell other religions what they can or can't do.

End of Rant

The Animator

[msongs]

1. you are CORRECT - its really all about shoving religion down everyone's throats for compliance with

those social norms dictated by several churches, prominently the LDS church of systematically destroying non white non christian cultures in the name of its authoritarian cult.

Msongs

[fascisthunter]

14. ding ding ding

[Phredicles]

2. Yep. Why else would the Mormon Church, for example, pour so much $$$

into this? If they don't want to consecrate same-sex marriages within their church, that's their business. But they're trying to make all of us live by their rules.

On the bright side, if it does pass (and I'm still hopeful it won't), you bring up good grounds for challenging it, that it violates the US constitution, which after all supersedes the state ones.

[merwin]

3. The premise of your argument is false, but I like the rant nonetheless.

"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction."

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

This comes from Wikipedia... but the definition is the same other places.

If marriage were religious or spiritual alone, then no atheists would be allowed to get married. Civil marriage is what Prop 8 deals with.

The religious definition of marriage can be vastly different than the civil definition of it, and what Prop 8 is trying to do is insert language from a religious definition into the civil definition.

[The Animator]

6. I'll admit I'm not up to speed on the intricacies of legal/spiritual marriages.

I'm a dedicated bachelor with no intention of finding out what married life is like, so neither the legal nor religious aspects of marriage have ever been of personal interest to me.

I'm also an Atheist/(possibly Agnostic) so the religious mumbo jumbo doesn't really do it for me either.

What's the difference between a Civil Marriage and a Civil Union, is there a difference?

At any rate inserting religious language into the civil definition is still a craptastic idea.. first off, if every religion (and every interpretation thereof for that matter), is different, then it stands to reason their definitions of marriage are also different. So who decides which of the potentially thousands of possible definitions to use? Does any one religion have more of a right to decide how marriage is defined than another.

[merwin]

18. You are 100% right about that.

Our laws are based on a set of morals and ideals that the country was founded on. These basic laws were written into our constitution purposely avoiding any religious wording... for this reason.

What the religious right is doing is trying to change the past to say this is what our founding fathers wanted. Ridiculous.

As for the difference between a civil marriage and a civil union, there really isn't any. I see civil unions as the attempt at separate-but-equal laws. In some states there are slightly different rights that are granted, but generally they are the same concept.

[obiwan]

8. Yep, you are right.

[Warpy]

4. The body of civil law governing marriage

also allows a mechanism to appoint an unrelated adult to first degree relative status. This is very important when it comes to things like deciding medical care or claiming a body for burial if the medical care doesn't work. It allows a life partner to overrule family members when it comes to visitation in a hospital. These are very important human things left to first degree relatives. Civil marriage law allows a life partner to become that first degree relative.

If marriage were only a religious ceremony to tie people together with flowers and ribbons without a body of civil law behind it, that would not be a big deal. However, the body of civil law is what people need, not the religious mumbo jumbo.

Children and property can be tied up nicely with contracts. Those contracts won't get a life partner into a hospital room if the family is hostile. That is why marriage has to be open to all life partnerships, whether they can find a preacher to mumble over them or not.

[tsuki]

5. I have advocated for years that what is needed is not "marriage

rights," but secular protection of the contract. I have been called some bad names because of it.

I know two same-sex couples that are married, with a certificate on the wall. But they do not have the protection of the state for that marriage union.

The problem is the "marriage" license. It is not a "marriage" license; it is a civil license, an acknowledgment that you are about to live together as partners. After you get a license, you can either have a marriage ceremony or a civil ceremony to seal the deal. We get that part right.

I knew someone who married an older man when she was very young. She did not know (at 15) that you had to have a license to marry and receive the protection of the law. After 20 years, when he got ready to throw her out, he threw her out. Since our state does not recognize common law marriages, she was just a girlfriend.

[Cleita]

7. Up and down my road, the only McCain/Palin signs also were

accompanied by yes to Prop 8 signs. It's too obvious that the churches are promoting both. I think it's time to let those religious institutions know that they really shouldn't have those tax free benefits anymore if they can't stay out of politics.

[readmoreoften]

9. Yes, I like the spirit of the rant, but this "marriage is religious" stuff is a strawman.

My parents were married in a non-religious ceremony by the mayor. Never have they ever considered themselves to be "civilly unionized." The term didn't even exist. They were as legally married as anyone who said their vows in a Catholic Church or at a Baptist picnic. Never once in my life has anyone questioned the marital status of my parents.

Marriage is a CIVIL structure and always has been. Religious ceremonial adjuncts to the legal pact are irrelevant.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Yes, and that is the core issue -- civil marriage and spiritual unions are not the same.

Civil marriages in the U.S. aren't the same as religious unions. Neither are divorces. There are many people who are divorced in the civil courts without dissolution within their faiths, for example.

[951-Riverside]

10. kick n/t

:kick:

[Kitty Herder]

11. Nicely stated. May I share your rant with a couple of California voters?

I'd like to share it with a couple of family members who I'm trying to persuade to vote against Prop. 8.

[dianalane]

13. Prop 8

What annoys me is Prop 8 supporters are promoting it under the guise of supporting "Religious Freedom."

Furthermore, I do not appreciate that Utah Mormons are inserting themselves into California politics.

[immoderate]

15. The government should be out of the marriage business. Civil unions OK.

If people want to call their civil union a marriage that's OK with me. But marriage is a religious/cultural thing.

--IMM

[gravity]

16. Stop with the BS, marriage is a legal union

It is true that marriage is a spiritual union for some, but it is considered marriage for everyone including the state.

[Control-Z]

17. Completely off topic

but I saw your name and read your bio, and just wondered if there was a forum, that you knew about, for animators here. I do computer animation myself, and have looked around but have only found the one for those who like to watch the animations.

[merwin]

19. Make sure you PM the OP about it

in case it gets missed as a reply.

[The Animator]

20. I've heard of the animation/art forums, but I've never been to them.

Apparently these are amenities that are only afforded to donors. I am, unfortunately, perpetually broke, it seems. I occasionally do some freelancing when an opportunity falls in my lap, however those jobs have been getting farther and farther apart. I'm looking to make a big job hunting push soon. I just need to add a few new sequences to my demo reel.

[Zhade]

21. Unfortunately, no. Your premise is flawed. Marriage is NOT solely a religious institution.

After all, there are married atheists.