The Hot Blog

"All that gay America is asking is that they be held to that same standard that he is..."

To be be blacklisted out of a job based on their views and not being judged by job performance...

...are they also asking for president-elect Obama to be fired too?

You distort the whole argument with the "right to work" phrase. A "right to work" means nothing in an aura of extreme prejudice. Visible minorities also have a "right to work", does that mean you also believe we should never try to combat racism?

"If people in the film festival business choose not to hire him under the circumstance, it will be because of a specific action he took, not because of what religion he is or how he has sex."

His action is a direct result of his taking his religion seriously. It was a legal action.

Any attempt to not hire him based on this - is - a religious blacklist.

Who's next?

i agree... blacklisting him because of his actions isn't really a good idea, no matter what. he donated $ to fund Prop 8, yes, and I find it horrible, but nobody should be singled out for what they believe in.

Unless he was a Nazi soldier who actually tortured and killed Jews or something... well, you get what I meant.

So Nicol, in principle, you are not taking the same side as the "Churches should be compelled to hire openly-out gays" argument, regardless of whether they want to or not.

that should read 'NOW taking the same side', not 'not taking...'

Screw it, I'm breaking my own rule of not engaging in Nicol's arguments until he demonstrates a tiny modicum of respect for anyone who isn't on his team(s).

It's a game for Nicol.

Throwing out "blacklisting" is not only stupid, it's incredibly disrespectful to people who were actually blacklisted... through the efforts of THE GOVERNMENT, one should remind Nicol and his ilk.

As usual, he is claiming information that he doesn't have... Raddon's motives, in this case.

Like Fox News, he tries on any line of draamtic bullshit and sees how it feels. If it doesn't work, he moves on to some other bullshit rhetoric.

It's the same crap that coverage of McCain was negative was because of bias... and not because he f-ed up endlessly during the campaign. Oh, that liberal media! The lie works because the media is liberal... even though the coverage (with the exception of MSNBC, as the opposite is true of Fox News) was not.

It's Kid A punching Kid B and then running to the teacher crying when he gets punched back. That the lie of the current right wing spin masters. "We can do whatever we want because if the other side doesn't respond, we win, and if they do, we will spin it as "the same."

The reason Obama won, really, was because he didn't answer the cheap shots in kind. He stayed above it. And he destrroyed that crap... at least for now.

But keep talking, Nicol. You are convincing me more and more... of how dark-hearted the Prop 8 effort really was.

@David: good call on the first sentence in your comment. It is an insult for the Hollywood Ten, and now I feel foolish for even uttering "blacklisted" in this blog.

DP, I don't think it's 'dark-hearted' as much as it is 'delusional'. I believe that Nicol honestly believes himself and the groups to which he identifies with as being under siege and victimized by the 'enemy' - gays, secular humanists, etc.

That's forgiveable because it's merely ignorant. What's less forgiveable is the willful stubborn pride in the ignorance.

sigh. Welcome to America, where we, the rest of us non-Christian, non-white, non-conservative Americans, are being held hostage by the Religious Right...

Dave,

Not at all. It is not a "game" for me because I am actually in the industry and hear the double speak every day. "Tolerance" and "respect" and "diversity" are words thrown out without ever having any intention of actually using them.

Dave, you (and many others) have strongly implied and tried to justify that a man who has done - nothing - illegal should have his life and career destroyed, his family (if he has one) left for the wolves all because he used his consitutional right to vote on an issue in a way you did not like.

He has done - nothing - illegal.

I repeat, he has the same view on this issue as your president-elect. And remember Dave, the government did - not - institute the blacklist in the entertainment industry...the entertainment industry instituted the blacklist itself. And even if it did not that would be a moot point.

But it is too easy for you to resort to catch phrases that simplify the issue. Things like "its a game" and "dark-heart" allow you to paint anyone who disagrees with you in the most diabolical light while letting you sleep better at night that "the bad guys" are getting theirs.

Just like in the blacklist.

This issue will not go away on either side. The reason extreme voices are trying to make an example of Rich is because deep down he represents something more that terrifies them...

...the fact that maybe the film industry has more conservatives, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, conservative Jews etc. in it than they think. Maybe they are in more positions of power than you think and are only waiting for the right time to shift course. Isn't that how the counter culture revolution got started in cinema anyway?

This is no "game" to me. But you know that. I have come here for far too long for you to think I only see this as mere word jostling.

The arts are for everyone! Film is a medium for everyone to express themselves in. Not just liberals. Not just gays. Not just secularists. I would say the - exact - same thing if it were a conservative industry and gays, atheists etc. were being kept down. You say I disrespect those who were blacklisted...no Dave, those calling for Raddon's head disrespect them by trying to keep the practice alive. And I will not go onto the next rhetoric. I haven't for all these years, why would I start now?

The word blacklist, if ever was appropriate - is -now. You try to say it is only about his actions. Bull. You seem to want an industry where people who disagree with you are...back in the closet.

Me, I no more want a film industry without gays than I want one without Mormons, Evangelicals or Jews, Catholics or any other demographic. I want one where all are welcome based on talent, not ideology. I suspect that is where we differ.

You seem to want the ideological opposite of a modern day "Stepin Fetchit" industry. One or two successful tokens who allows you to say you are tolerant while you make sure others like him are kept out from the front door. Rich gets to people because his MO was differnet. Indie film. Festivals. Well respected. Hard to call him a lunk-headed right winger.

But this issue will not go away. There are more Rich's in the industry. Who are they going to call to blacklist next...Robert Downey Jr. if he gives one more interview alluding to how he may vote? Maybe you can just start panning all of his films and see if you can get a movement going.

Perhaps you prefer an industry where there can never be another James Stewart, John Ford or John Wayne...that is sad.

I would - never - want to have an industry that would not allow a George Clooney, Sean Penn, Gus Van Zant or ...Rich Raddon.

That's bad for film and bad for art.

If you truly love film as an art form...you should know that.

As always, I thank you for the debate and allowing me to disagree so vehemently with you. With this issue, I have never disagreed with you more.

Best.

Nice of you to welcome "gays" into your film industry (How about "gay people?"), Nicol, just so long as those "gays" don't want rights.

I don't find any difference between this and, say, gay residents boycotting businesses that are owned by backers of prop 8.

It's a good thing when people who vote to take away others' civil rights have to face direct, personal consequences for their choice. All too often that's not the case.

Poland et al.,

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.

Please!

I choose not to eat at Subway because I find their food disgusting. What's so different about people decided to not work with this man? I'm not blacklisting Subway, I just choose to go elsewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who go to Subway, just like I'm sure there'll be plenty of people willing to still work with this man.

Besides, maybe he should've thought of what supporting prop 8 would do to his business, which deals in associating with gay people, before he did it. It's like working in a gay bar and then voting for prop 8. Surely he knew people would take umbridge if it came out, especially since many religious groups take umbridge at people if it comes out that they're gay. If the church and it's constituents want to continue to show bigotry towards civilians then it is well within the civilians' rights to not support them.

And, this may seem like a stretch and please forgive me if you think it's offensive to her memory, but Rosa Parks wouldn't have helped black rights one iota by simply doing as the white god-fearing man desired and giving up her seat on the bus. One of the things LGBT people need to do is show that they're not going to take bigotry lying down and if that means some of these poor defenseless (hiding behind their church, naturally) god-fearing people get hurt along the way? Well, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Tell that to my gay friend who killed himself because his religious parents kicked him out of home.

I think that doing more for Mr. Raddon (by not taking his job away) than he was willing to do for homosexuals (by taking their marriages away) is EXACTLY what he deserves. A taste of the high road he didn't care to take.

And getting him fired loses so much more ground than the cause would ever gain from it anyway. Duh.

Nicol's post is full of lies and distortions and he clearly has no interest in considering anyone's opinion outside of his own little box.

"He has done - nothing - illegal."

Your actions do not have to be illegal to merit an employer reconsidering your position in their company. For one example, an employee would have the legal right to be anti-semitic, to voice that opinion privately, and even give money to groups which promote that opinion without breaking a single law. But if you're that person's employer, and this information came to light, and a large segment of your clientele is Jewish, the legality of everything your worker has done is MOOT.

The dividing line here is:

If you think a person publicly expressing homophobia or some similar anti-gay sentiment is a form of bigotry or discrimination or prejudice;

vs.

If you think a person's position on Prop 8 was just a political opinion along the lines of wanting higher taxes for public transportation or opposing budget cuts for prisons.

See it from one perspective and a person is going to construct all of their arguments without seeing it from the different angle.

"One of the things LGBT people need to do is show that they're not going to take bigotry lying down and if that means some of these poor defenseless (hiding behind their church, naturally) god-fearing people get hurt along the way? Well, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Tell that to my gay friend who killed himself because his religious parents kicked him out of home."

The cause of your friend's tragic mistake doesn't validate hurting somebody else along the way. Boo-fuckin'-hoo? Raddon just loses a job, but your friend lost his life? This is insensitive to say, but your friend killed himself, and he shouldn't have done it; and you don't have the right to pin that on the assholes who considered themselves religious by throwing him out of their heart and home. COUNTLESS people have gotten that treatment, but most of them, thank God, didn't reach your friend's level of hopelessness; and some of them even reconciled with the very parents that wrote off their own blood over one of the most inane issues of our time.

If you're looking to minimize the importance of Raddon's potential unemployment by putting it into a unfair perspective, use somebody like Matthew Shepard, who was LITERALLY murdered by homophobia.

I think the more important dividing line is between using time and energy in a minor pursuit such as this one versus using that time and energy to find every way possible to win the next REAL battle. Raddon's unemployment would only serve to energize HIS side by making his job a martyr for their cause, would it not? So why put a fire in their belly?

I used to think this Nicol poster was a girl the way they posted all the time. Now it claims to be a guy. No matter.

Strip away the morality and look at it from a simple business perspective. Company (El Coyote, Film Festival, fill in the blank) gets lots of business from the gay market. Prominent individual gives money to proposition that takes away the rights that that market had one day before. That market is not willing to spend money at the company as long as individual is there. Individual is DOUBLY stupid because they gave the money and for the most part were too dumb to realize it is a public record donation. Owner of company doesn't want to pay stupid person who is costing company business. Individual is out. BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS.

Fin. Over. The end.

Seems clear to me. No blacklisting. Blacklisted people couldn't work thanks to the GOVERNMENT (what moron above said otherwise is wrong). HUAC was the GIVERNMENT. Manager of El Coyote can work- somewhere else.

Hallick, what I was saying was that why is this man's job more important than all the gay people who have been the target of bigotry and hate? If this man had donated to a white supremacy group trying to tear down Barack Obama then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but because he donated to a cause that was striving to take away the government-given rights from gay people it's alright? Why is it that homophobes are given such leniency instead of being treated like the hate-filled bigots that they really are?

We are dealing with issues of equality and breaking down stereotypes -- yet many posters on this thread associate those those voted for Prop 8 as homophobic, hate-filled, dark-hearted, anti-gay, discriminatory bigots.

That's right. Presume your opponent's motives and feelings, put words in their mouths, and villify them. The presumption that everyone who voted against Prop 8 because they hate or fear gays is a wonderful little lie people tell themselves to try to understand a philosophy with which they do not agree.

This extraordinary double-standard is exactly why losing one's job because of his political views is a chilling idea. I bet if someone was revealed to have voted AGAINST Prop 8 and the possibility of being fired was discussed, the company would suddenly be considered...what was it again?

Oh yes. Homophobic, hate-filled, dark-hearted, anti-gay, discriminatory bigots.

Funny how those demanding fairness and equality are the ones doing the name-calling.

Same stuff, different Typekey ID.

'I used to think this Nicol poster was a girl the way they posted all the time. Now it claims to be a guy.'

what are you trying to say there, don? sounds a bit sexist.

(please don't anyone misconstrue this as somehow standing up for nicole, whose proverbial lips are moving but all i hear is blah, blah, blah, blah)

http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/

Interesting take on the votes, in my opinion.

I've never known or heard of a girl named Nicol. In fact, I think the only other Nicol I ever heard of was British actor Nicol Williamson (y'know, The Seven Per-Cent Solution, Excalibur, etc.).

Pretty sure the girl's version of the name always has an 'e' on the end.

On topic, I voted No on 8, but I think maybe I agree with those who suggest government should get out of the marriage business altogether and stick to civil unions. Let marriage be a church thing. That wouldn't satisfy the hardcore homophobes, but it might work for those whose primary concern is the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage (I'm guessing most Mormons are in the latter category, but I don't know). Not sure how the gay community would feel about it.

oops. i spelt nicol with an 'e' on the end out of habit, not spite

My 22 year-old brother-in-law got married recently. The bride is 20. They decided to tie the knot after two or so years together because she is now pregnant. So less than a week after deciding to get married they got hitched at a courthouse in front of five people and a plastic palm tree. Neither one of them gives a shit about "the sanctity of marriage." Neither one of them really cares about marriage at all. It doesn't mean anything to them. It's not a sacred institution. Yet because they are heterosexual, something they did not choose, they can get a quickie marriage just because they think they should, or because of some family pressue. I find that extremely sad. Shouldn't that be a bigger concern than the sexuality of those getting married, the fact that it means so little to so many these days?

"the way they posted on here" = from the strident tone and girly approach to things I was pretty sure it was a girl. Nothing else. Just because the guy uses a handle that says Nichol doesn't mean it is a real name. Most of the posters on this blog don't have the chops to use real names, obviously.

Stay on point. Near as I can tell the point is that if you voted homophobically then it should have real world consequences.

Can there be rewards for voting 'no'? Or for those who would've voted "no" had we lived in California at the time of the vote?

I just keep coming back to the Dixie Chicks thing, and while that was certainly not analogous (an off-hand negative comment about the President vs. a contribution to a campaign to deny a right to a group of people), there were a good many people who believed that the consequences they faced for the comments and opinions were unfair and that Nataline Maines and any other performer should be able to exercise their rights without such consequences.

And certainly if FOX started only hiring executives and creatives who shared Rupert Murdoch's political views, there'd be a whole lot of people over on Pico collecting their belongings and beind escorted out the door.

Please go with me on this.

There was a much less contentious, but equally close proposition vote also on the latest CA ballot: Prop. 4, dealing with parental notification of abortions. Interestingly, it failed by almost the same percentage that Prop 8 passed.

Now, assume a business owner is strongly on the anti-abortion side. So strongly she believes it’s equal to infanticide. So now a pro-choice Prop has passed, and she’s outraged. Would you consider it appropriate for her to check donation lists and start making purges of any employees who donated to the Prop’s passage? Or go further: The Democratic party has unambiguous pro-choice language in its platform. Is it okay for the business owner to fire everyone in the company who donated to the DNC?

You want to talk about taking away civil rights? From this owner’s point of view, her employees are supporting the taking away of the most fundamental right of all: life itself. Whether you agree with her stance or not, are her emotions and outrage less genuine than the “No on 8” side?

Now, suppose the owner was willing to let it slide, to say that others are entitled to political speech (which is exactly what a donation to a Prop is). But now the protesters come out. The anti-abortion movement has decided to make this Prop their rallying point. Enough is enough – no more abortion! And they’re threatening to withhold their money from any business with any employee who supported the Prop. Would you now say those employees “deserved” to be fired for their donations?

I’ll take it further still: Suppose the business is in the Bible Belt. Are the firings now okay, just because the business serves a predominantly evangelical Christian clientele? Are the employees “stupid” for supporting reproductive choice in a charged, potentially hostile environment? Is that the model we’re after – we’re actually praising “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Would you say that business owner had “done the right thing?” Would you applaud the business owner for standing up for what she believes in?

Either you believe in free political speech (even the kind you hate) or you don’t. Not to mention it’s 100% indisputably illegal in California to fire someone over a political donation, even in the middle of a boycott. Hell, the ACLU might even defend the terminated employee – how weird would that be?

'"the way they posted on here" = from the strident tone and girly approach to things I was pretty sure it was a girl. Nothing else.'

the strident tone and girly approach, don? i know this is off the topic, but half the posts on this blog are 'strident', and what about nicol's approach is 'girly'? as a chick myself, i find your attitude a wee bit stink. fyi

Stella, if you don't mind me asking, what was the motivating force behind your brother-in-law's choice to get married, if he and his now-wife weren't particularly enthused about it?

Brandon: excellent points.

Did the "because she's pregnant" not offer enough explanation?

That about sums it up. They've been "engaged" for a while now, and suddenly she was pregnant. Within a week they were married. It was done so casually, a formality. There was no passion or excitement behind it.

RDP, it didn't, because as has been mentioned, these days plenty of people are choosing to stay unmarried even if they have a kid. Even staid, personally conservative types like David Letterman. I guess what I'm wondering is, was it a 'well, I guess getting married is what people in our circumstance do' kind of decision, or a 'we better do this for legal purposes' kind of decision (I'm guessing some mix of the two).

If this man had donated to a white supremacy group trying to tear down Barack Obama then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but because he donated to a cause that was striving to take away the government-given rights from gay people it's alright?

What government given rights? State or Federal? I don't know if you know this but California does not discriminate between civil-unions and marriages under the law. All state rights granted to gays are granted to civil unions, in the State of California which Prop 8 was all about.

From my understanding, it's the Federal government who discriminates between civil unions and marriages and does not offer the same legal rights. As of today, Yes on Prop. 8 took away no state rights, only Federal rights.

Why not attack a Federal Government which is led by a man who defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. Why pick on small fry like Raddon? It's nothing such of bullying.

Let's say Proposition 8 failed, would the Federal Government recognize the rights because they have certificates that say marriage on it? It's takes more than a certificate to get the recognition. It will take redefining the meaning of marriage in the legal books. Till then, the anger seems misplaced.

"Hallick, what I was saying was that why is this man's job more important than all the gay people who have been the target of bigotry and hate?"

It isn't. If it were, then maybe his firing would mean something more than a minor feel-good moment for the masses. Raddon's job isn't the Iron Curtain; bringing it down doesn't restore shit. Not one couple will be brought any closer to restoration of their equality by it. Probably the opposite.

"If this man had donated to a white supremacy group trying to tear down Barack Obama then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but because he donated to a cause that was striving to take away the government-given rights from gay people it's alright?"

I don't think it's alright. I think it's selfish, dogmatic, and seriously pointless of the man. Of all the places that money could have gone...it's fairly hilarious too.

"Why is it that homophobes are given such leniency instead of being treated like the hate-filled bigots that they really are?"

The better to lead them to reason than cover.

"Till then, the anger seems misplaced."

The anger isn't misplaced. Raddon's gift to the Prop 8 campaign is a legitimate cause for anger. It's the energy that's being misplaced. You're right, he's a small fry in all of this. People who have time to work on getting him fired are wasting it. If Raddon gets fired now, he'll get another job for it! Who doesn't realize this here? Fucking A, concentrate on the courts already...

For those defending the ones who voted yes on prop 8, do you even know what bigotry is ? Nobody forced them to vote and donate for a measure that would have denied rights for gay couples. And I find the comparison of McCarthyism to the gay community boycotting highly offensive.
It's one thing to persecute someone for his beliefs (which in this case, happens to be bigoted), but boycotting someone for acting on them is a completely different matter. I guess when the gay community fights back, for a change, we're the bad guys, but then again, this only shows the true colours of those who claim to be gay-friendly.

jeff I do believe you are right about it being a mix of the two. They have been living together for a while now and repeatedly discussed getting married but never did it and kept putting it off. They really didn't care all that much about it. It doesn't mean anything to them. So when they revealed to everyone that she's pregnant, it was sort of like, "Well I suppose we might as well head over to the courthouse and make it official." Like they were going to Target to buy a toaster. Doing their part to uphold the sacred institution of marriage that gay couples would surely tarnish.

A good piece:

The Loving Decision

Same-sex marriage was beaten back at the ballot box. Now here's a history lesson on why victory is inevitable in the long run.

Anna Quindlen
NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

One of my favorite Supreme Court cases is Loving v. Virginia, and not just because it has a name that would delight any novelist. It's because it reminds me, when I'm downhearted, of the truth of the sentiment at the end of "Angels in America," Tony Kushner's brilliant play: "The world only spins forward."

Here are the facts of the case, and if they leave you breathless with disbelief and rage it only proves Kushner's point, and mine: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in Washington, D.C. They went home to Virginia, there to be rousted out of their bed one night by police and charged with a felony. The felony was that Mildred was black and Richard was white and they were therefore guilty of miscegenation, which is a $10 word for bigotry. Virginia, like a number of other states, considered cross-racial matrimony a crime at the time.

It turned out that it wasn't just the state that hated the idea of black people marrying white people. God was onboard, too, according to the trial judge, who wrote, "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." But the Supreme Court, which eventually heard the case, passed over the Almighty for the Constitution, which luckily has an equal-protection clause. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," the unanimous opinion striking down the couple's conviction said, "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

That was in 1967.

Fast-forward to Election Day 2008, and a flurry of state ballot propositions to outlaw gay marriage, all of which were successful. This is the latest wedge issue of the good-old-days crowd, supplanting abortion and immigration. They really put their backs into it this time around, galvanized by court decisions in three states ruling that it is discriminatory not to extend the right to marry to gay men and lesbians.

The most high-profile of those rulings, and the most high-profile ballot proposal, came in California. A state court gave its imprimatur to same-sex marriage in June; the electorate reversed that decision on Nov. 4 with the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the people have spoken. It's truer to say that money talks. The Mormons donated millions to the anti effort; the Knights of Columbus did, too. Like the judge who ruled in the Loving case, they said they were doing God's bidding. When I was a small child I always used to picture God on a cloud, with a beard. Now I picture God saying, "Why does all the worst stuff get done in my name?"

Just informationally, this is how things are going to go from here on in: two steps forward, one step back. Courts will continue to rule in some jurisdictions that there is no good reason to forbid same-sex couples from marrying. Legislatures in two states, New York and New Jersey, could pass a measure guaranteeing the right to matrimony to all, and both states have governors who have said they would sign such legislation.

Opponents will scream that the issue should be put to the people, as it was in Arizona, Florida and California. (Arkansas had a different sort of measure, forbidding unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. This will undoubtedly have the effect of leaving more kids without stable homes. For shame.) Of course if the issue in Loving had been put to the people, there is no doubt that many would have been delighted to make racial intermarriage a crime. That's why God invented courts.

The world only spins forward.

"I think the day will come when the lesbian and gay community will have its own Loving v. Virginia," says David Buckel, the Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal.

Yes, and then the past will seem as preposterous and mean-spirited as the events leading up to the Loving decision do today. After all, this is about one of the most powerful forces for good on earth, the determination of two human beings to tether their lives forever. The pitch of the opposition this year spoke to how far we have already come—the states in which civil unions and domestic partnerships are recognized, the families in which gay partners are welcome and beloved.

The antis argued that churches could be forced to perform same-sex unions, when any divorced Roman Catholic can tell you that the clergy refuse to officiate whenever they see fit. They argued that the purpose of same-sex marriage was the indoctrination of children, a popular talking point that has no basis in reality. As Ellen DeGeneres, who was married several months ago to the lovely Portia de Rossi (great dress, girl), said about being shaped by the orientation of those around you, "I was raised by two heterosexuals. I was surrounded by heterosexuals. Just everywhere I looked: heterosexuals. They did not influence me." As for the notion that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry will destroy conventional marriage, I have found heterosexuals perfectly willing to do that themselves.

The last word here goes to an authority on battling connubial bigotry. On the anniversary of the Loving decision last year, the bride wore tolerance. Mildred Loving, mother and grandmother, who once had cops burst into her bedroom because she was sleeping with her own husband, was quoted in a rare public statement saying she believed all Americans, "no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." She concluded, "That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Well-written, certainly moving, quite possibly prophetic, but I do have to make one fact-check here:

"The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the people have spoken. It's truer to say that money talks."

Not only have I always found this argument insulting (the argument, in essence, is: "People (except me) are so stupid, they'll do whatever advertising tells them"), in this case it's also plainly untrue. If money talks, the side with the most money would have won.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory

Final tallies:

No on 8 - $38.4 million ($11.9 from out of state)

Yes on 8 - $36.1 million ($10.7 from out of state)

Sloppy research doesn't help anybody's cause.

Marriage : Which type are you defending?

The Prop 8 debate has erupted as violence on the streets. So sad when they only want to declare and have love recognised. Either side cannot back down, but they are defending very different things.

Under state law, a consenting couple can declare their love and commitment to one another and have their lives bound together in a legal union.

As California recognises homosexuality as normal and affords them the same rights as heterosexuals under the law, the answer on Prop 8 seems obvious.

Indeed most of the advertising I saw to defeat prop 8 indicated it is discrimination and cannot be allowed to pass.

However, many of us saw a very different Marriage to defend.

Christian Marriage is a holy religious sacrament. A triune covenant between a man a woman and God is formed. Marriage has been the same for thousands of years and is not something any state or country law can overturn, no matter how well intentioned.

Yes, for at least 200 years, governments have given extra recognition to married couples, and these rights and recognitions should be given to other loving, committed couples, married or not.

To accept homosexual marriage within the Christian doctrine is to deny the law of God.
I expect the religious marriages of Muslims, Hindus and others have a similar doctrine.

The solution in my opinion? We need to separate the Christian Union from the Civil Union. Non Christian couples who choose a civil ceremony, do not disrespect the Church by starting their marriage by lying about belief in God. Thank you for that.

All the recognition of non-Christian marriage provided by State law in Civil Union, under equal rights and anti-discrimination should also be available to homosexual couples.

How do you keep the two types of Marriage distinct without making one type substandard? Sorry, I’m not that clever.

Where does this leave all the gay Christians who want to get married?

Good point Jeff,
It’s a huge problem. My Christian doctrine says it is not my place to judge anyone. Sure there is heaps I don’t understand about gays, but I know God is their Father and they are loved by him as much as any of this children. Practical recognition of your human rights and dignity is required. To renounce you is to renounce Jesus Christ as my brother and God as my Father. But how do we stay obedient to our teaching on marriage? Perhaps marriage should never have been allowed to move to the civil ceremony. But that is not going to help the current situation.
I just think it will get no-where when we are not arguing about the same thing. Civil Union can become legal for heterosexuals, gays or even brothers and sisters, but it will not be accepted as real marriage by Church doctrine. The law cannot change Church doctrine. So we need a new institution to recognise loving civil unions, heterosexual and gay that has all the legal and social rights and status of marriage. If only I could believe it was possible.

Which Church doctrine?

For people who say it's just about the word marriage...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: