Artistic Director of California Music Theatre Apologizes for “Yes On Prop-8” Contributions — Page 2

Oh, stuff it. That's not a stance. Answer how it infringes.

If I marry my boyfriend, straight people still get to stay married.

Answer how it infringes on straight people.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question.

spork, here's the problem with your otherwise sensible approach: civil unions don't give gay couples equal (read: full, the same as) civil rights; only civil *marriages* do.

the crux of the problem is that the US is one of the few societies where the civil and religious ceremonies historically are tied to each other. "by the power vested in me ..." ain't just mumbo-jumbo ...

your religious/civil distinction is exactly the right one, but the way to make it happen is not to create a second class civil status for gay couples; it's to do what civil law countries (most of europe, south america, and some of asia) do: separate civil and religious ceremonies.

---

"Really, this is a clear cut issue. You're either against Proposition 8, or you're a bigot. Sorry it's an ugly word, but if it fits, wear it."

will continue to play Devil's Adovcate.


From Chad Blodgett:

I have heard a few uneducated people say that they believe that those that are for Prop 8 are fueled by bigotry. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The issue is about marriage, children and our principles of government. While I don’t necessarily like any of our choices for president right now, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin all agree that SSM should not be legalized. Interesting to think that this maybe one of the only issues that they unanimously agree upon.

Indeed. And it's time to stop arguing with the sock puppet.

The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the perpetuation of society as well as the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs. Not civil rights

Liza - My! My! Perhaps, when a man and a woman decide to get married, they should be required to sign a legal document stating they are going to have children. Then if they don't live up to the document, the state could force them to divorce. Would it be okay with you if a married couple decides not to have children? What about couples who marry late in life when it is no longer possible for them to have children? Will the state allow them to marry?

By the way, how many times has Liza been married? I don't recall reading if she has any children? What's the state going to say?

just here to give another side to the argument, sweetie.

i have no quarrels with you.

"misinformed people"

with something so straight forward (no pun intended..), is it POSSIBLE to be "misinformed" about the Prop 8 ??

whatever2: That's what I was suggesting, or so I thought. I would like to separate religious and civil ceremonies.

A Director: Umm, are you kidding? Of course I know that.

sparrman: No, it would merely separate the religious ceremony from the civil one. That's all I'm suggesting, and a lot of people feel the same way. I'm not sure what would happen to preexisting marriages--grandfathered in, perhaps?

---

Craig

Do you never realize when I'm kidding? Ever? Never never land?

---

"Grandfathered in"...Well, that's very generous of you. It warms my heart, really. There's still room for me in your grand world vision. That's swell.

Do you really have that much confidence in your personal morality and sense of what's "right" that you think we all should abide by it? Because that's frightening.

I don't know if you're a man or woman, gay or straight, married or single, but if you have the right to be whatever combination of those options you happen to be, then why shouldn't everyone else?

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 12:15 AM

"The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the perpetuation of society as well as the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs. Not civil rights"

Liza...I am terribly sorry but under your definition, (and this is an argument that has been fought to the hilt, but I must digress), "The Perpetuation of Society?" So according to this, a couple that is barren should not be allowed marriage. An older couple should not be allowed marriage. you are saying quite clearly that any partnership not resulting in offspring should not result in a marriage.

And since when is the perpetuation of society a social need? There are hundreds of thousands of children without homes, without parents. The earth is over-inhabited according to EVERY PIECE OF SCIENCE WE KNOW.

And despite what everyone said during the campaigning, our leaders can be wrong..strangely enough, it's happened before. Soon, someone will open their eyes and realize that marriage is a civil right. We have allowed religion to dictate our laws for far too long. This is not what our forefathers wanted and it is not the platform on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were formed.

Change is coming.

---

You know, insult to Liza, Patti AND Jesus, I'm sure the racists of the 1960s who were fighting interracial marriage with their Bibles, declaring that the races should be kept separate as God had intended, felt that their rights were being trampled on when in 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled with Loving vs Virginia that interracial should be allowed in all 50 states.

But the fact is--the in no way whatsoever did allowing a black woman and a white man to be married infringe on ANYONE else's rights. In ANY way. I'm sure it peeved them. Upset them. To know that a black person and a white person were MARRIED.

But I don't care what those bigots thought then. And I don't care what these bigots think now.

---