Comments on: Mr. Clayton, It’s a Bit Late to Talk About "Civility," Don’t You Think?

By: An End-of-Year Meme: 2008 Edition « Alone and Unobserved

An End-of-Year Meme: 2008 Edition « Alone and Unobserved — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:07:22 +0000

[...] Mr. Clayton, It’s a Bit Late to Talk About “Civility,” Don’t You Think? Proposition 8 just passed in California, amending the state constitution to take the right to marry [...]

By: Daisy Dial

Daisy Dial — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:38 +0000

Something to look forward to:
I cannot imagine that the CA Supreme Court will change their stance on the unconstitutionality of this, and I wholeheartedly believe that they will strike this down just as they have before. I’m hearing good, positive things from people “in the know”. We should know in March 2009.

By: brian o'sullivan

brian o'sullivan — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:38:50 +0000

You are absolutely right, Sean. I certainly didn’t mean to exclude this aspect about children being raised by gays and lesbians. But in my zeal to make my main point, I was unclear. The ironic point that I was making is that it is the oppositions very own children, the ones they are seeking to protect, that are often harmed.

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:47:22 +0000

Welcome to the blog, brian. I’m not sure who this comment is addressed to, since the topic of harm to children hasn’t come up in this thread yet. In any case, I agree that outlawing gay marriage doesn’t protect children, and I agree that any action against gays and lesbians has a devastating psychological impact on gay youth. However, not only gay youth are harmed in this case: thousands of children and teenagers, gay and straight, are being raised by same-sex couples across the nation. Relegating their parents’ unions to second-class status sends a terrible, degrading message to send them, above and beyond the economic and social dangers these families are exposed to without the protection of marriage. These are the young people who are most directly harmed by withholding marriage from same-sex couples.

By: brian o'sullivan

brian o'sullivan — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:45:06 +0000

This argument against gay marriage,that it protects our chikdren, is ludicrous and non-sensical. The only children harmed are those gay children who are shown by society that there is something wrong with being gay. Some people who are members of other minorities complain that gays are not truly oppressed because it is a choice and against the bible. Here is an example of true oppression: Young gay people not only worry about societal consequences– but rejection FROM THEIR OWN FAMILIES. This is not easy to deal with. In fact, over 30% of teenage suicides are attributed to gay shame. I say shame on you for not supporting gay marriage.

Don’t mess with our ‘pursuit of happiness’

By: Derek Staffanson

Derek Staffanson — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:13:31 +0000

Just to clarify, I absolutely that the “they have the same rights” justification by the anti-homosexual marriage crowd is garbage. I don’t think it is possible to provide equal rights as long as the relationships are legally classified as a different beast.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:23:15 +0000

Derek, I’m not sure why so few gay couples have availed themselves of the mutual commitment registry. Perhaps it’s because it grants very few intrinsic benefits—visitation rights at SLC hospitals and family discounts at SLC-run facilities. Its main purpose is to demonstrate economic dependence to employers, but since so few SLC employers provide domestic partnership benefits I can see how that isn’t much of a draw. It also wouldn’t surprise me if national employers with SLC locations don’t require registration with the city before providing such benefits.

In any case, low registry numbers are hardly evidence that gay couples have “enough protection.” I’m sure if Ruzicka’s marriage were suddenly given the same excellent social, economic and governmental protection as a gay couple’s union, she would be heavily agitating to change that felicitous situation.

By: angryyoungwoman

angryyoungwoman — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:23:37 +0000

This has me so pissed off. And up here in Idaho I swear, the mormon kids are just gleeful about it. It doesn’t even occur to them that they are taking rights away, they are just blindly following and they are just so happy that they won! I say kids, but really, I mean young college students, early twenties–oh, hell, younger than me but old enough to know better.

By: MoHoHawaii

MoHoHawaii — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:29:12 +0000

I’m angry about this, too. I thought the Church’s campaign was thoroughly dishonorable.
Our day will come.

By: Derek Staffanson

Derek Staffanson — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:05:45 +0000

I am incredibly disappointed in the success of Prop 8, ashamed at how gleefully and unreflectively so many in the Church supported the initiative, and angry not only with the position the Church has taken, but the nonchalance with which the Church has cast aside prior revelation regarding freedom of conscience.

A question on a related note. KCPW played clips of Ruizika crowing about Prop 8, insisting that gay relationships are protected without marriage. She gave as her evidence the fact that only thirty or so couples have signed up for SLC’s domestic partnership registry–if homosexual rights needed more protection, they would have been more active signing up. While I have no respect for her insistence that homosexual relationships are adequately protected, I was wondering if readers here had any insight as to whether her statement about the registry rolls was true, and if so, why so few homosexual couples have taken advantage of it?