Prop 8 Myths Busted

[wenglund]

While waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on Prop 8, I thought is may be helpful to bust several myths--not that it will do any good.

Myth #1: Prop 8 denies homosexuals their love. It doesn't. Prop 8 makes no mention of love, and has nothing to do with love. It neither requires love nor denies marriages based on the existence or absence of love. In California, homosexual couples who love each other have always been free to enter into committed relationships. Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. In fact, for more than a decade now, those committed relationships have been legally recognized and licensed by the state as domestic partnerships. Again, Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. Love, then, isn't relevant. So, images and statements about love = love, while heart-warming and precious, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue. They don't comport with the facts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Myth #2: Prop 8 denies homosexual equal rights. It doesn't. In California, homosexuals have always had as equal a right as heterosexuals to marry some of the opposite sex. And, heterosexuals have had no more a right to marry someone of the same sex as homosexuals. They are equal in that regard. Prop 8 doesn't change this. Furthermore, California's constitution and laws required that the same state rights afforded marriages also be afforded to domestic partnerships. Homosexuals who legally become domestic partners in California, have equal state rights as heterosexuals who become married. Prop 8 doesn't change this. So, images with equal signs, while heartwarming and feel good, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue and don't comport with the facts. Equal rights isn't relevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Myth #3: Prop 8 creates a "separate but equal" condition that is problematic. I doesn't. Prop 8 doesn't legally force homosexuals to attend different schools than heterosexuals, nor does it legally force segregation in terms of where people of different sexual orientations can live, what drinking fountains they can drink from, what parts of the theater or bus they can sit in, etc. All Prop 8 does is rationally maintain separate legal designations. It is no different than between men and women. Even though men and women are equal under the law, they are separated in the law by gender-specific terms (male/female, man/woman, husband/wife, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of "male" to include females. Or, does it makes sense to kept the terms separate but equal in legal designations? The same is true in principle for the races. The law considers them equal, but they are legally separated by race-specific designations like African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Caucasian, etc. In the law (and in society), there are separate legal designations for different sexual orientations (homosexual and heterosexual, gay and straight, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of heterosexual in order to include homosexuals, or vice-versa? Or, does it make common sense to legally designate them separately? If it makes sense to legally separate and distinguish between sexual orientation, it makes sense to legally distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Prop 8 doesn't change this. The notion of "separate but equal" is a non-issue for Prop 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Myth #4: Prop 8 supporters are bigoted and homophobes. My friend shared this:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Please feel free to post your own respective opinions. I may not be able to respond for a few days because I am headed out of town for a funeral. But I promise to read and consider them when I have the time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Straight to the heart of the matter, Wade. Good observations.

[longview]

I have heard it said that the true final objective of the radical social engineers is NOT simply equality of marriages but to eventually eliminate any formal, legalistic, committed relationships. In the future, all children born as a result of two friends' togetherness (casual or otherwise) will be primarily the responsibility of the state with its ten thousand pages of regulations. In this new social order, anything goes. Another objective of the radicals is to drastically reduce the population of the earth.

This sounds like a myth but consider that many universities and colleges are overflowing with extremists like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers, etc. They have no appreciation of protections afforded by the US Constitution (and Nature's God). They seriously believe in their "infinite" wisdom. They are actually persecuting and ridiculing conservative students right in the classroom. Many of their theories are being implemented before our eyes in the Obama administration. The people are like the frog in the pot that is slowly coming to a boil. It is only going to get worse.

[Stone holm]

Myth #3: Prop 8 creates a "separate but equal" condition that is problematic. I doesn't. Prop 8 doesn't legally force homosexuals to attend different schools than heterosexuals, nor does it legally force segregation in terms of where people of different sexual orientations can live, what drinking fountains they can drink from, what parts of the theater or bus they can sit in, etc. All Prop 8 does is rationally maintain separate legal designations. It is no different than between men and women. Even though men and women are equal under the law, they are separated in the law by gender-specific terms (male/female, man/woman, husband/wife, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of "male" to include females. Or, does it makes sense to kept the terms separate but equal in legal designations? The same is true in principle for the races. The law considers them equal, but they are legally separated by race-specific designations like African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Caucasian, etc. In the law (and in society), there are separate legal designations for different sexual orientations (homosexual and heterosexual, gay and straight, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of heterosexual in order to include homosexuals, or vice-versa? Or, does it make common sense to legally designate them separately? If it makes sense to legally separate and distinguish between sexual orientation, it makes sense to legally distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Prop 8 doesn't change this. The notion of "separate but equal" is a non-issue for Prop 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Possibly but the Massachusetts Supreme Court was asked this exact question by then Gov. Mitt Romney, and the Court responded that calling the same thing by a different name was basically an attempt at separate but equal. Interesting argument, that so far has gotten absolutely zero traction anywhere in the Courts that I have been able to determine.

[Moroni105]

A freind posted on Facebook that they do not care what happens as long as it does not interfere with his life and beliefs. Yet he is also LDS. My response is that is does interefere. That type of Lifestyle is not accepted by God. Not only that but it clearly states it in The Family; A Proclamtion to the World. Now I am not going to say that should not be happy. If they feel this is their happiness than all the more power to them. Yet to say that they deserve to marraige legalized for homosexuals is absurd. Now if the states want to grant them civil unions and liberties as Heteorsexual couples have (Man and A Woman) than that is fine. But to change the definitation of marraige to include a bond between any two people, regardless of gender is wrong. The Family; Proclamation to the World, is not just for LDS it is for the world to follow. Not just LDS, not just Americans, EVERYONE, and as the scriptures so many times say, blessed is the nation whose God is Lord. Well once you start changing the definition of such Bonds and Rights of families to include those of same sex genders, than you no longer can pronounce yourself a nation to the Lord.

[cinepro]

Please feel free to post your own respective opinions. I may not be able to respond for a few days because I am headed out of town for a funeral. But I promise to read and consider them when I have the time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Prop 8's funeral?

[cinepro]

Well once you start changing the definition of such Bonds and Rights of families to include those of same sex genders, than you no longer can pronounce yourself a nation to the Lord.

Really? I thought the USA stopped pronouncing ourselves a nation to the Lord when we abandoned the Sabbath day.

[Stone holm]

I have heard it said that the true final objective of the radical social engineers is NOT simply equality of marriages but to eventually eliminate any formal, legalistic, committed relationships. In the future, all children born as a result of two friends' togetherness (casual or otherwise) will be primarily the responsibility of the state with its ten thousand pages of regulations. In this new social order, anything goes. Another objective of the radicals is to drastically reduce the population of the earth.

This sounds like a myth but consider that many universities and colleges are overflowing with extremists like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers, etc. They have no appreciation of protections afforded by the US Constitution (and Nature's God). They seriously believe in their "infinite" wisdom. They are actually persecuting and ridiculing conservative students right in the classroom. Many of their theories are being implemented before our eyes in the Obama administration. The people are like the frog in the pot that is slowly coming to a boil. It is only going to get worse.

Not sure where you heard this, but this argument if true has nothing to do with Prop 8. The Prop 8 battle is over whether or not gay couples can have the status which society reserves for the highest commitment to two people. I do not condone gay marriage, but it is arguments like this that have caused gay marriage to pick up support. Also, many would strongly disagree with what you have said about the Obama administration. Obama came very, very late to the gay marriage bandwagon and until near the eve of his second term had avoided throwing support for the concept. This is similar to some of the rightwing shots which were taken at Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont who had while Governor actually urged the legislature in response to promptings from the Vermont Supreme Court, had urged the legislature to provide him with a Civil Unions bill rather than a Gay Marriage bill. There is an argument to be made that gay marriage actually encourages stable relationships in the gay community and discourages promiscuity which is a public health issue. It is important for us to understand that when we use our religion as a sword in the legislative arena, that we are actually diminishing our own Constitutional protections to worship as we please. There has been an argument which may have some validity that our Church has done more to promote gay marriage than any other institution on the earth because we, along with the Catholics, help light the political fuse that caused support and sympathy for the gay community to explode. That was certainly true here in Vermont.

[thesometimesaint]

A freind posted on Facebook that they do not care what happens as long as it does not interfere with his life and beliefs. Yet he is also LDS. My response is that is does interefere. That type of Lifestyle is not accepted by God. Not only that but it clearly states it in The Family; A Proclamtion to the World. Now I am not going to say that should not be happy. If they feel this is their happiness than all the more power to them. Yet to say that they deserve to marraige legalized for homosexuals is absurd. Now if the states want to grant them civil unions and liberties as Heteorsexual couples have (Man and A Woman) than that is fine. But to change the definitation of marraige to include a bond between any two people, regardless of gender is wrong. The Family; Proclamation to the World, is not just for LDS it is for the world to follow. Not just LDS, not just Americans, EVERYONE, and as the scriptures so many times say, blessed is the nation whose God is Lord. Well once you start changing the definition of such Bonds and Rights of families to include those of same sex genders, than you no longer can pronounce yourself a nation to the Lord.

US citizens are free to believe anything they want about God(s), or the lack there of. The US bases it laws not on God(s) will, but by the will of the people.

[Alvino]

While waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on Prop 8, I thought is may be helpful to bust several myths--not that it will do any good.

Myth #1: Prop 8 denies homosexuals their love. It doesn't. Prop 8 makes no mention of love, and has nothing to do with love. It neither requires love nor denies marriages based on the existence or absence of love. In California, homosexual couples who love each other have always been free to enter into committed relationships. Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. In fact, for more than a decade now, those committed relationships have been legally recognized and licensed by the state as domestic partnerships. Again, Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. Love, then, isn't relevant. So, images and statements about love = love, while heart-warming and precious, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue. They don't comport with the facts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Though saying Prop8 "denies homosexuals their love" is inane, it is still the case that public policies can affect relationships and their well-beings.

[Alvino]

Myth #2: Prop 8 denies homosexual equal rights. It doesn't. In California, homosexuals have always had as equal a right as heterosexuals to marry some of the opposite sex. And, heterosexuals have had no more a right to marry someone of the same sex as homosexuals. They are equal in that regard. Prop 8 doesn't change this. Furthermore, California's constitution and laws required that the same state rights afforded marriages also be afforded to domestic partnerships. Homosexuals who legally become domestic partners in California, have equal state rights as heterosexuals who become married. Prop 8 doesn't change this. So, images with equal signs, while heartwarming and feel good, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue and don't comport with the facts. Equal rights isn't relevant.

While one could say Prop 8 doesn't deny equal rights to homosexual individuals and that's it, one can say it does so to homosexual couples.

[teddyaware]

I have heard it said that the true final objective of the radical social engineers is NOT simply equality of marriages but to eventually eliminate any formal, legalistic, committed relationships. In the future, all children born as a result of two friends' togetherness (casual or otherwise) will be primarily the responsibility of the state with its ten thousand pages of regulations. In this new social order, anything goes. Another objective of the radicals is to drastically reduce the population of the earth.

This sounds like a myth but consider that many universities and colleges are overflowing with extremists like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers, etc. They have no appreciation of protections afforded by the US Constitution (and Nature's God). They seriously believe in their "infinite" wisdom. They are actually persecuting and ridiculing conservative students right in the classroom. Many of their theories are being implemented before our eyes in the Obama administration. The people are like the frog in the pot that is slowly coming to a boil. It is only going to get worse.

Just today I heard a commentator assert the "gay marriage" issue is merely the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. It was said that once ssm is made legal throughout the country, with the precident set and the definition of traditional marriage overthrown, the floodgates of change will be wide open with people like the "polyamorists" waiting in the wings to press for "marriages" of every kind.

Although I didn't view it myself, I understand the TV program "Wife Swap" just featured a "tea party" family and a polyamorous trio: a husband, his wife, and "their" mutual "girlfriend." If "love" is the only ingredient needed when it comes to determining what is necessary in order to allow for a legal marriage, it would seem to me the sky's the limit when it comes to what will be considered acceptable. It will be strange indeed when the Latter-day Saints live in societies where polygamus marriages are legal but will not be participants.

[Alvino]

Myth #3: Prop 8 creates a "separate but equal" condition that is problematic. I doesn't.

Tell us how it doesn't, then.

Prop 8 doesn't legally force homosexuals to attend different schools than heterosexuals, nor does it legally force segregation in terms of where people of different sexual orientations can live, what drinking fountains they can drink from, what parts of the theater or bus they can sit in, etc.

Well, no one is saying "separate but equal" means "separate but equal [in the same way]". I'm sure you can come up with examples of 'separate but equal' that don't include buses, drinking fountains, schools, and housing.

All Prop 8 does is rationally maintain separate legal designations. It is no different than between men and women. Even though men and women are equal under the law, they are separated in the law by gender-specific terms (male/female, man/woman, husband/wife, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this?

It would depend in what such a distinction does. If calling you "man" means you can have access a pay that is 25% more by the State for the same job someone called "woman" does, then we have a problem.

Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of "male" to include females.

No, but you could. That it is impractical for many issues is another thing. Yet it isn't necessary when describing persons. Marriage between adults of the same sex seems neither impractical nor as radical a change.

Or, does it makes sense to kept the terms separate but equal in legal designations? The same is true in principle for the races. The law considers them equal, but they are legally separated by race-specific designations like African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Caucasian, etc.

But you don't have some of those races designated as 'persons' and exclude others. If we did then that would be problematic.

It should be clear by now that some distinctions are proper, other improper; some necessary, others not so much. What you want to show is that the distinction between 'same-sex couple' and 'heterosexual couple' warrants different institutions with regards to unions of the kind that marriage and civil unions are.

In the law (and in society), there are separate legal designations for different sexual orientations (homosexual and heterosexual, gay and straight, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of heterosexual in order to include homosexuals, or vice-versa? Or, does it make common sense to legally designate them separately? If it makes sense to legally separate and distinguish between sexual orientation, it makes sense to legally distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Prop 8 doesn't change this. The notion of "separate but equal" is a non-issue for Prop 8.

Me thinks you have addressed a very poor version of the issue that is actually raised. Compare best with best, remember?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Alvino

[california boy]

While waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on Prop 8, I thought is may be helpful to bust several myths--not that it will do any good.

Myth #1: Prop 8 denies homosexuals their love. It doesn't. Prop 8 makes no mention of love, and has nothing to do with love. It neither requires love nor denies marriages based on the existence or absence of love. In California, homosexual couples who love each other have always been free to enter into committed relationships. Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. In fact, for more than a decade now, those committed relationships have been legally recognized and licensed by the state as domestic partnerships. Again, Prop 8 doesn't prevent or change this. Love, then, isn't relevant. So, images and statements about love = love, while heart-warming and precious, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue. They don't comport with the facts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So let's just get rid of marriage for everyone since marriage has nothing to do with love. If gays don't need mariage, than straight couples don't need it either. Love for straight people as a reason to marry is also just perpetuating a myth. Love isn't relevant.

[Stone holm]

So let's just get rid of marriage for everyone since marriage has nothing to do with love. If gays don't need mariage, than straight couples don't need it either. Love for straight people as a reason to marry is also just perpetuating a myth. Love isn't relevant.

"What love got to do with it, do with it....just a second hand emotion..."

[california boy]

Myth #2: Prop 8 denies homosexual equal rights. It doesn't. In California, homosexuals have always had as equal a right as heterosexuals to marry some of the opposite sex. And, heterosexuals have had no more a right to marry someone of the same sex as homosexuals. They are equal in that regard. Prop 8 doesn't change this. Furthermore, California's constitution and laws required that the same state rights afforded marriages also be afforded to domestic partnerships. Homosexuals who legally become domestic partners in California, have equal state rights as heterosexuals who become married. Prop 8 doesn't change this. So, images with equal signs, while heartwarming and feel good, simply perpetuate the myth and confuse the issue and don't comport with the facts. Equal rights isn't relevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is such a brilliant defense. I am so surprised that the lawyers defending prop 8 didn't point this out to the Supreme Court. Why is Prop 8 even in the courts? How could this proposition get over ruled in both the state and federal courts? i keep scratching my head and can not figure it out. Gays are not denied marriage? What the heck is this court case all about? It is a complete baffle to me. Well I am sure the Supreme Court will agree with this seamless logic and uphold prop 8 on the basis that there has never been any discrimination against gay couples in this country. It is such simple logic, why would they even wait until June to throw this law suite out. If there is no discrimination going on toward gay couples, isn't this a slam dunk? Good point Wade. You go guy. How many Mormons reading your post are shacking their heads yes to this brilliant post.

[california boy]

Myth #3: Prop 8 creates a "separate but equal" condition that is problematic. I doesn't. Prop 8 doesn't legally force homosexuals to attend different schools than heterosexuals, nor does it legally force segregation in terms of where people of different sexual orientations can live, what drinking fountains they can drink from, what parts of the theater or bus they can sit in, etc. All Prop 8 does is rationally maintain separate legal designations. It is no different than between men and women. Even though men and women are equal under the law, they are separated in the law by gender-specific terms (male/female, man/woman, husband/wife, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of "male" to include females. Or, does it makes sense to kept the terms separate but equal in legal designations? The same is true in principle for the races. The law considers them equal, but they are legally separated by race-specific designations like African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Caucasian, etc. In the law (and in society), there are separate legal designations for different sexual orientations (homosexual and heterosexual, gay and straight, etc.). Does anyone have a problem with this? Does anyone think it makes sense to change the definition of heterosexual in order to include homosexuals, or vice-versa? Or, does it make common sense to legally designate them separately? If it makes sense to legally separate and distinguish between sexual orientation, it makes sense to legally distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Prop 8 doesn't change this. The notion of "separate but equal" is a non-issue for Prop 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I think you got a hat trick here. I can't understand why straight people can't have marriage and gays have civil unions. It is exactly the same thing. I mean what was Justice Ginsburg talking about when she said, there were “two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage.” Both she and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court’s swing vote, talked about the more than eleven hundred federal statutes affected by DOMA, and the real injury that it caused. But hey, like you said, this has nothing to do with separate but equal. I am sure the Supreme Court will agree with your brilliant legal argument.

[rodheadlee]

So let's just get rid of marriage for everyone since marriage has nothing to do with love. If gays don't need mariage, than straight couples don't need it either. Love for straight people as a reason to marry is also just perpetuating a myth. Love isn't relevant.

Marriage should be a religious ceremony for whatever religion you belong to. I'm fine with having a civil union with my wife until I get sealed. So why is it a big deal to you? Do you hope to force the LDS Church or any church for that matter to marry SSM couples?

[longview]

Not sure where you heard this, but this argument if true has nothing to do with Prop 8.

Nothing? Sounds like you are trying to misdirect or change the subject. The point is that there is continual and persistent advocacy and incremental implementation of subversion of society from the 17th century. The radicals' agenda has been growing ever stronger.

The Prop 8 battle is over whether or not gay couples can have the status which society reserves for the highest commitment to two people.

Is there really such a thing as "highest commitment" in the homosexual lifestyle? Or for any sexual orientation other than the one ordained by God? It appears more common for homosexual couples to maintain their "relationship" only for convenience sake. They will more likely engage in vigorous group sex or high frequency serial encounters whenever opportunity arises while still retaining their communal arrangements with their "primary" partner.

I do not condone gay marriage, but it is arguments like this that have caused gay marriage to pick up support.

By who? Have you not noticed how the social engineers have taken control of public schools? They have consistently pressed for greater acceptance of homosexual lifestyle for the last several decades? They are now pushing for earlier exposure and more blatent indoctrination of elementary school children. BTW, I refuse to use the word "gay" to describe this condition (this term was coined many decades ago to desensitize and promote greater acceptance).

Also, many would strongly disagree with what you have said about the Obama administration. Obama came very, very late to the gay marriage bandwagon and until near the eve of his second term had avoided throwing support for the concept.

"Many" is debatable. Obama's handlers had a whole raft of priorities. They were careful to maintain their claims of moderation in the beginning of his first term. First they pushed ObamaCare which no one in the Congress had any part in drafting. Nobody knew what was in it! Nancy Pelosi actually said to "vote for it so we will find out what's in them!" My impression is that the 40 thousand pages of ObamaCare were cobbled together and coordinated by hundreds of federal agencies and radical departments in universities.

This is similar to some of the rightwing shots which were taken at Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont who had while Governor actually urged the legislature in response to promptings from the Vermont Supreme Court, had urged the legislature to provide him with a Civil Unions bill rather than a Gay Marriage bill. There is an argument to be made that gay marriage actually encourages stable relationships in the gay community and discourages promiscuity which is a public health issue.

I will never forget a shocking revelation made by Michael Savage (conservative radio talk show host) about his experience as a health care professional in San Francisco back when Aids was starting to plaque the world. The radical engineers refused to allow health departments from doing their normal work of protecting public health as had been done for syphillis, gonorhea, etc. They forced a hands off pollicy for homosexual bath houses. This is their "political correctness" that was implemented with the force of government.

It is important for us to understand that when we use our religion as a sword in the legislative arena, that we are actually diminishing our own Constitutional protections to worship as we please.

I reject your point here. Captain Moroni engaged in public advocacy for society to retain Liberty, which can only be had by exercising righteous accountability and responsibility.

There has been an argument which may have some validity that our Church has done more to promote gay marriage than any other institution on the earth because we, along with the Catholics, help light the political fuse that caused support and sympathy for the gay community to explode. That was certainly true here in Vermont.

Ridiculous.

[california boy]

Marriage should be a religious ceremony for whatever religion you belong to. I'm fine with having a civil union with my wife until I get sealed. So why is it a big deal to you? Do you hope to force the LDS Church or any church for that matter to marry SSM couples?

You are right. There is no such thing as a secular marriage in the United States is there? I mean the justice of the peace is jist a priest in disguise...No I do not want the Mormon church to be forced to marry me. That would be unconstitutional and I would do all I can to defend that right.

[Ahab]

Yes the myths are busted, but some people don't know they are busted or they refuse to believe they are busted. It couldn't be more clear than it already is, but some people don't see clearly even when the light is shining right in front of their face. Even the Supreme Court is operating in darkness, as if this is a relatively new issue. As if they and the rest of society in general hasn't already had enough time to see the light on this issue.

I don't think there's ever been a more clear distinction between how some people operate in the light while some other people operate in the darkness of this world than is illustrated right now on this issue. It's like they don't know the difference between good and evil. It's like they need someone to tell them why something that isn't good isn't good. It's like they don't know who they should be learning from. At some point the arguments are going to come to an end and this world will choose darkness on this issue rather than the light. And all the while they'll be saying we are making progress and going in the right direction.

Hell in a handbasket for sure. What we need is a Savior to save the whole world and to learn what he still tries to teach us.