Oaks on Religious Freedom

[CV75]

On 12/16/2018 at 10:20 AM, rockpond said:

No, I don’t lack awareness.  I gave an example of an issue in which we did not show “understanding or appreciation” (your words that I was responding to).  And, we fought to take away constitutional rights of a minority (the rights of gay couples to marry). 

Now, if you want to counter that with a different example - please do. 

OK, so you are aware and simply have decided to promote one view, in which case I see no point in countering.

On 12/16/2018 at 11:38 AM, california boy said:

What balance between rights liberties and constitutional protections did the church justify their efforts to take away the civil rights of gays.  Does the Church think it should have the power to impose its beliefs to override the Constitution?

Look, the church may exclude blacks,  It may exclude gays.  It may exclude transgenders.  It may exclude a lot of different groups in this country from its membership.  It may teach any doctrine it wants about these groups it wants.  BUT ALL U..S . CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  The Church chose to try and take away those Governmental rights.  All the sudden, we are not talking about any rights religion has. We are talking about the Church trying to get the government to ignore the civil rights of others in order to embrace their own personal doctrine.  How can you not see that was morally wrong. .Respecting other citizens guaranteed rights under the Constitution is just as important as expecting others to respect the rights of religion given them in the Constitution.  

There is a reason so many protesters gathered in front of the temple the day after Prop 8 pssed and shouted. Shame on you¡ Shame on you¡ Shame on you!

I see that whole process in California as part of the checks and balances system in defining marriage on one hand and maintaining equal protection everywhere else, and the complaints you describe against the proponents of Prop 8 as part of the political rhetoric used by some during that process. With Prop 8 settled, continued complaints against the proponents must serve another purpose, hence the need for discussion about protecting religious freedom.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK, so you are aware and simply have decided to promote one view, in which case I see no point in countering.

I'm discussing my view and have asked if you have an example to counter what I see.  If you don't, that's fine.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm discussing my view and have asked if you have an example to counter what I see.  If you don't, that's fine.

As long as you are aware, I am content.

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As long as you are aware, I am content.

Yes.  I’m aware that you don’t seem to have any basis in reality for countering my statement. Good to know. 

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I’m aware that you don’t seem to have any basis in reality for countering my statement. Good to know. 

But you said you are aware that we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise. That indicates you have examples and only wish to not share them.

california boy has been trying to make the case that we depreciated others simply by asserting our position in the proceedings before and during Prop 8 during appeals and other opportunities , thus appreciating everyone's free speech and religious freedom in a civil way. I see that whole process that took place in California as part of the checks and balances system, defining marriage for state constitutional purposes on one hand and maintaining equal protection elsewhere in state law, allowing everyone to be appreciated through a political mechanism.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you said you are aware that we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise.

I actually did not say that.  I said "I don't lack awareness."  I didn't say that I was "aware that we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise".  I'm aware that the example of that are likely few and far between but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

california boy has been trying to make the case that we depreciated others simply by asserting our position in the proceedings before and during Prop 8 during appeals and other opportunities , thus appreciating everyone's free speech and religious freedom in a civil way. I see that whole process that took place in California as part of the checks and balances system, defining marriage for state constitutional purposes on one hand and maintaining equal protection elsewhere in state law, allowing everyone to be appreciated through a political mechanism.

We fought to take away the constitutional rights of gay couples to marry.  While I firmly support freedom of speech for church members and leaders, I don't think we can consider our actions/campaigns against marriage equality to be "appreciating others".  We weren't modeling appreciation or understanding of gay couples when we helped take away their right to marry (albeit temporarily).

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I actually did not say that.  I said "I don't lack awareness."  I didn't say that I was "aware that we have modeled appreciating others in how we discuss things in the public square and even in seeking common ground and compromise".  I'm aware that the example of that are likely few and far between but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

We fought to take away the constitutional rights of gay couples to marry.  While I firmly support freedom of speech for church members and leaders, I don't think we can consider our actions/campaigns against marriage equality to be "appreciating others".  We weren't modeling appreciation or understanding of gay couples when we helped take away their right to marry (albeit temporarily). 

The back-and-forth in California was not a matter of granting and taking away rights but of appealing and deliberating various decisions through constitutional due process in three branches of government, which is designed to appreciate everyone as citizens. Things were not final, and the discussion had not run its course until its legitimate conclusion in 2013. Being on opposing sides of a political decision and taking a few years to work through is not the same as not appreciating the people on the other side of the issue. We can treat people well and appreciate their stance without agreeing with them, and that is what citizens do, preferably without outrageous contention and rhetoric.

Freedom of speech and religion (to act -- including but far from limited to speech -- in accordance with your conscience) go hand in hand in the public square as well as private enterprise and one's personal life.

[california boy]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK, so you are aware and simply have decided to promote one view, in which case I see no point in countering.

 

I see that whole process in California as part of the checks and balances system in defining marriage on one hand and maintaining equal protection everywhere else, and the complaints you describe against the proponents of Prop 8 as part of the political rhetoric used by some during that process. With Prop 8 settled, continued complaints against the proponents must serve another purpose, hence the need for discussion about protecting religious freedom.

 

Well if you feel it is ok to work towards taking someone's civil rights away from them as being just a part of the political process, I think you and I have a different view of what it means to be an American and respecting the rights of others. If someone was actually trying to take away the rights of religion to preach certain doctrines, I would not consider that simply a part of the whole legal process of checks and balances.  I would consider it an attack on religion and their rights guaranteed in the Constitution and not an American value.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The back-and-forth in California was not a matter of granting and taking away rights...

This is a common claim by other church members I have spoken with but at the time that Prop 8 was put on the ballot, gay couples in California did have a recognized constitutional right to legally marry.  Prop 8 (and its supporters) sought to take away that right by amending the constitution.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

... but of appealing and deliberating various decisions through constitutional due process in three branches of government, which is designed to appreciate everyone as citizens.

The system may be designed to appreciate everyone as citizens but if you think that taking away a couples' legal right to marry is appreciating them, than you and I are using different definitions of the word.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Things were not final, and the discussion had not run its course until its legitimate conclusion in 2013.

In our system of government, nothing is really "final".  But, as noted above, in 2008, the CA state constitution gave gay couples the right to legally marry.  Prop 8 successfully, though temporarily, amended the constitution to remove that right.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Being on opposing sides of a political decision and taking a few years to work through is not the same as not appreciating the people on the other side of the issue. We can treat people well and appreciate their stance without agreeing with them, and that is what citizens do, preferably without outrageous contention and rhetoric.

Freedom of speech and religion (to act -- including but far from limited to speech -- in accordance with your conscience) go hand in hand in the public square as well as private enterprise and one's personal life.

From Merriam-Webster the definition of appreciate:

a: to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of
b : to value or admire highly
c : to judge with heightened perception or understanding : be fully aware of
d : to recognize with gratitude

As I read that definition, I don't see how removing someone's right to marry appreciates them.

But, that is not to say that any side should have limited its speech and freedom of religion.  I just don't see how supporters of Prop 8 can claim that they valued, admired, recognized with gratitude the gay couples seeking marriage in California.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well if you feel it is ok to work towards taking someone's civil rights away

Of course you can appreciate people and their right to settle these issues in their own way. “Appreciate” is not “agree” and “people” are not “things” (ideas, definitions, morality, actions, etc.). What ideology equates them? This is why religious freedom is so important: people are not things and need their freedom.

Where Prop 8 was issued prior to the final ruling on In re Marriage Cases, the rights were still functionally provisional. The legislative route offered a legitimate check on the judicial route. So the legislation “taking away their right to marry” is a misrepresentation. How about the mayor and courts “taking away others’ right to define marriage”? It all had to be settled fairly, and this is how people are appreciated.

Now Prop 8 has been discussed many times on MDDB, so I refer you both to those threads if you need a fix of more!

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

This is a common claim

Of course you can appreciate people and their right to settle these issues in their own way. “Appreciate” is not “agree” and “people” are not “things” (ideas, definitions, morality, actions, etc.). What ideology equates them? This is why religious freedom is so important: people are not things and need their freedom.

Where Prop 8 was issued prior to the final ruling on In re Marriage Cases, the rights were still functionally provisional. The legislative route offered a legitimate check on the judicial route. So the legislation “taking away their right to marry” is a misrepresentation. How about the mayor and courts “taking away others’ right to define marriage”? It all had to be settled fairly, and this is how people are appreciated.

Now Prop 8 has been discussed many times on MDDB, so I refer you both to those threads if you need a fix of more!

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course you can appreciate people and their right to settle these issues in their own way. “Appreciate” is not “agree” and “people” are not “things” (ideas, definitions, morality, actions, etc.). What ideology equates them? This is why religious freedom is so important: people are not things and need their freedom.

Where Prop 8 was issued prior to the final ruling on In re Marriage Cases, the rights were still functionally provisional. The legislative route offered a legitimate check on the judicial route. So the legislation “taking away their right to marry” is a misrepresentation. How about the mayor and courts “taking away others’ right to define marriage”? It all had to be settled fairly, and this is how people are appreciated.

Now Prop 8 has been discussed many times on MDDB, so I refer you both to those threads if you need a fix of more!

 

Believe me, I don't need more of a "fix" on the Mormon rationalizations for fighting against marriage equality.

In the state of California, gay couples most certainly did have the constitutional right to marry in 2008.  It was a constitutional right that was later (2015) validated and upheld by the SCOTUS.  But I understand why you don't want to have Prop 8 supporters look guilty of taking away the constitutional rights of minorities since you seem convinced that our Church is so "appreciative" of them.

Regardless, even if all Prop 8 supporters (including church members who were following the instructions of their leaders) did was campaign against marriage equality that still does not mean that they appreciated gay couples.  I really think you ought to examine the definition you are working from.  And maybe have a conversation with some gay couples about it.  Did @california boy feel appreciated by those who campaigned in favor of Prop 8?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Believe me, I don't need more of a "fix" on the Mormon rationalizations for fighting against marriage equality.

In the state of California, gay couples most certainly did have the constitutional right to marry in 2008.  It was a constitutional right that was later (2015) validated and upheld by the SCOTUS.  But I understand why you don't want to have Prop 8 supporters look guilty of taking away the constitutional rights of minorities since you seem convinced that our Church is so "appreciative" of them.

Regardless, even if all Prop 8 supporters (including church members who were following the instructions of their leaders) did was campaign against marriage equality that still does not mean that they appreciated gay couples.  I really think you ought to examine the definition you are working from.  And maybe have a conversation with some gay couples about it.  Did @california boy feel appreciated by those who campaigned in favor of Prop 8?

Your descriptions reflect semantics and context, which are important because they can be leveraged as much for rhetoric and imputation (as you have done here) as for fact-finding and appreciation of others.

Clearly some like @c interpreted all sorts of negative feelings being directed toward them while participating in this political process. But characterizing Prop 8 proponents’ appreciation of its opponents by those who felt unappreciated because of disagreement on a political issue is an extremely irrational, and I would say bigoted, methodology and is unfortunately manipulated to motivate people to assert their position out of a sense of outrage and not civic virtue (the fruits of that become evident quickly). On the other hand, the system used to translate moral and religious conscience into law filters that irrationality from the actual political process and outcome if not the participants. Protecting this system is better than fostering contention.

Freedom of speech and religious expression addresses both irrational and rational arguments through a thoroughly rational system. But don’t say one argument meets the standards of the other.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your descriptions reflect semantics and context, which are important because they can be leveraged as much for rhetoric and imputation (as you have done here) as for fact-finding and appreciation of others.

Clearly some like @c interpreted all sorts of negative feelings being directed toward them while participating in this political process. But characterizing Prop 8 proponents’ appreciation of its opponents by those who felt unappreciated because of disagreement on a political issue is an extremely irrational, and I would say bigoted, methodology and is unfortunately manipulated to motivate people to assert their position out of a sense of outrage and not civic virtue (the fruits of that become evident quickly). On the other hand, the system used to translate moral and religious conscience into law filters that irrationality from the actual political process and outcome if not the participants. Protecting this system is better than fostering contention.

Freedom of speech and religious expression addresses both irrational and rational arguments through a thoroughly rational system. But don’t say one argument meets the standards of the other.

Then kindly explain how the actions of Prop 8 supporters (a great portion of whom were church members) showed appreciation of gay couples.  Note:  I am not asking you to show how their actions supported our system of government or free speech or freedom of religion.  I am asking you to explain how the campaign against marriage equality showed appreciation of gay couples.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then kindly explain how the actions of Prop 8 supporters (a great portion of whom were church members) showed appreciation of gay couples.  Note:  I am not asking you to show how their actions supported our system of government or free speech or freedom of religion.  I am asking you to explain how the campaign against marriage equality showed appreciation of gay couples.

As I was pointing out, when people disagree politically and morally, showing appreciation is done and perceived (as it was before Prop 8 and on other issues, and after Prop 8 and yet other issues) on a personal, individual basis through kindness and civility. Civic virtue and protecting the freedom of speech and religion by one campaigning group only preserves the same for the other campaigning group. Our system of government can only operate as originally inspired when everyone participates on equal footing. The products of that system of government evolve over time, but hopefully preserve free speech and freedom of religion for everyone.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I was pointing out, when people disagree politically and morally, showing appreciation is done and perceived (as it was before Prop 8 and on other issues, and after Prop 8 and yet other issues) on a personal, individual basis through kindness and civility. Civic virtue and protecting the freedom of speech and religion by one campaigning group only preserves the same for the other campaigning group. Our system of government can only operate as originally inspired when everyone participates on equal footing. The products of that system of government evolve over time, but hopefully preserve free speech and freedom of religion for everyone.

I asked you to explain how Prop 8 supporters showed appreciation of gay couples.  It would appear that you don't have any examples and I'm growing weary of asking.

Showing kindness and civility is not the same as appreciation.  Further, I don't think that removing someone's legal right to marry is showing kindness or civility either.  So I also think you are wrong on that account.

You bring in the protection of freedom of religion.  My religious beliefs are that God accepts the marriages of gay couples.  So, by trying to pass a constitutional amendment that favored and gave special preference to a different religious belief, my religious beliefs were not protected.  (And, by the way, SCOTUS seems to agree with me.)

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I asked you to explain how Prop 8 supporters showed appreciation of gay couples.  It would appear that you don't have any examples and I'm growing weary of asking.

Showing kindness and civility is not the same as appreciation.  Further, I don't think that removing someone's legal right to marry is showing kindness or civility either.  So I also think you are wrong on that account.

You bring in the protection of freedom of religion.  My religious beliefs are that God accepts the marriages of gay couples.  So, by trying to pass a constitutional amendment that favored and gave special preference to a different religious belief, my religious beliefs were not protected.  (And, by the way, SCOTUS seems to agree with me.)

 

I don't know them individually, but did explain how. How do you show appreciation (in any of its forms, including kindness and civility) for those with whom you disagree? And even appreciate their point of of view but still hold to and acted upon your own? Prop 8 supporters were as much a person at that time as you are now. Let's not deny them their humanity.

It wasn't a removal, but another check and balance to separate decisions and processes that must, in the end, align among the three branches of government.

Oh my... only you can protect your actual beliefs. The constitutional protection is for the exercise of those religious beliefs within the law. Until ssm was permitted by law, there was nothing to protect, either the civil or civilly-legitimate religious practice of ssm.

Again, I believe a remedial civics class is in order.

Edited December 18, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I don't know them individually, but did explain how. How do you show appreciation (in any of its forms, including kindness and civility) for those with whom you disagree? And even appreciate their point of of view but still hold to and acted upon your own? Prop 8 supporters were as much a person at that time as you are now. Let's not deny them their humanity.

It wasn't a removal, but another check and balance to separate decisions and processes that must, in the end, align among the three branches of government.

Oh my... only you can protect your actual beliefs. The constitutional protection is for the exercise of those religious beliefs within the law. Until ssm was permitted by law, there was nothing to protect, either the civil or civilly-legitimate religious practice of ssm.

As I said earlier, you aren't using the accepted definition of appreciation (which I provided earlier).  And I would like you to tell me how the actions of Prop 8 supporters showed kindness to gay couples.  That's a CFR.

In this post you refer to appreciating their point of view.  That is different and I won't contend that Prop 8 supporters didn't appreciate the point of view of gay couples.  But that is different than appreciating the gay couples who wanted to be legally married and were having that right removed (and it WAS a removal because it was a recognized constitutional right).

I'm not sure why you think that I am denying Prop 8 supporters of their humanity.  The rights of Prop 8 supporters to enter into legally recognized opposite sex marriages was never threatened.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

As I said earlier, you aren't using the accepted definition of appreciation (which I provided earlier).  And I would like you to tell me how the actions of Prop 8 supporters showed kindness to gay couples.  That's a CFR.

In this post you refer to appreciating their point of view.  That is different and I won't contend that Prop 8 supporters didn't appreciate the point of view of gay couples.  But that is different than appreciating the gay couples who wanted to be legally married and were having that right removed (and it WAS a removal because it was a recognized constitutional right).

I'm not sure why you think that I am denying Prop 8 supporters of their humanity.  The rights of Prop 8 supporters to enter into legally recognized opposite sex marriages was never threatened.

But I am using the dictionary definition. You may understand it differently, or may have motive or bias to reject it, hence our discussion.

Because we also disagree on whether a constitutional right was denied, the basis of appreciation (or lack thereof) has to be assessed on some other basis. Also, since no one has a constitutional right to be appreciated, connecting constitutional rights with appreciation doesn’t make sense anyway.

So I don’t have a scholastic study reference about Prop 8 supporters appreciating gay couples, hence my question: How do you appreciate the supporters? I’m not suggesting you are denying Prop 8 supporters their humanity, just suggesting that we not.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But I am using the dictionary definition. You may understand it differently, or may have motive or bias to reject it, hence our discussion.

Because we also disagree on whether a constitutional right was denied, the basis of appreciation (or lack thereof) has to be assessed on some other basis. Also, since no one has a constitutional right to be appreciated, connecting constitutional rights with appreciation doesn’t make sense anyway.

So I don’t have a scholastic study reference about Prop 8 supporters appreciating gay couples, hence my question: How do you appreciate the supporters? I’m not suggesting you are denying Prop 8 supporters their humanity, just suggesting that we not.

The appreciation can be assessed based on the accepted definition.  You have shown that Prop 8 supporters appreciate due process and our legislative system but you haven’t explained how they showed any appreciation for the gay couples themselves. For me, seeking to deny  marriage rights (whether they existed at the time or not) doesn’t show appreciation for the couples themselves. 

How do I appreciate the supporters of Prop 8?  That isn’t a claim I’ve made. But, I appreciate their rights to be heard in the process and to vote their conscience.  I appreciate that they were following sincerely held beliefs about marriage.  And, I appreciate their right to have their marriages legally recognized.  But I don’t appreciate what they did to gay couples with Prop 8.  

In looking at that above paragraph, perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you claim that Prop 8 supporters appreciated gay couples?  Or maybe you just want to back away from that claim. 

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The appreciation can be assessed based on the accepted definition.  You have shown that Prop 8 supporters appreciate due process and our legislative system but you haven’t explained how they showed any appreciation for the gay couples themselves. For me, seeking to deny  marriage rights (whether they existed at the time or not) doesn’t show appreciation for the couples themselves. 

How do I appreciate the supporters of Prop 8?  That isn’t a claim I’ve made. But, I appreciate their rights to be heard in the process and to vote their conscience.  I appreciate that they were following sincerely held beliefs about marriage.  And, I appreciate their right to have their marriages legally recognized.  But I don’t appreciate what they did to gay couples with Prop 8.  

In looking at that above paragraph, perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you claim that Prop 8 supporters appreciated gay couples?  Or maybe you just want to back away from that claim.  

I’m not understanding your method for assessing appreciation (is it documented somewhere?), so I cannot fulfill your CFR. But in the same way that you appreciate the Prop 8 supporters, it seems reasonable that supporters would appreciate anyone opposing Prop 8 (you, others, gay couples, straight couples, etc.), and I think you would agree. For me, taking a political position has nothing to do with appreciating anyone personally, or not appreciating them.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not understanding your method for assessing appreciation (is it documented somewhere?), so I cannot fulfill your CFR. But in the same way that you appreciate the Prop 8 supporters, it seems reasonable that supporters would appreciate anyone opposing Prop 8 (you, others, gay couples, straight couples, etc.), and I think you would agree. For me, taking a political position has nothing to do with appreciating anyone personally, or not appreciating them.

Again, I didn't say that I appreciate Prop 8 supporters.  Please read what I wrote.  I think the distinction might be the gap (chasm?) in our discussion.

If taking a political position does not have anything to do with appreciating anyone personally, than are you retracting your claim that Prop 8 supporters appreciate gay couples?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Again, I didn't say that I appreciate Prop 8 supporters.  Please read what I wrote.  I think the distinction might be the gap (chasm?) in our discussion.

If taking a political position does not have anything to do with appreciating anyone personally, than are you retracting your claim that Prop 8 supporters appreciate gay couples?

Prop 8 supporters appreciate the individuals opposing it in at least two ways: by viewing their political opponents as children of God and as participants in political due process. The generation of these appreciative feelings and actions is more fundamental than and irrespective of political position; political disagreement is not a lack of appreciation of the person, and that is why I said taking a political position does not have anything to do with not appreciating anyone personally. From what you said, I think you appreciate Prop 8 supporters in the same way.

You did say you don't appreciate what you say Prop 8 supporters did to gay couples, but I don't agree they did that.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Prop 8 supporters appreciate the individuals opposing it in at least two ways: by viewing their political opponents as children of God and as participants in political due process. The generation of these appreciative feelings and actions is more fundamental than and irrespective of political position; political disagreement is not a lack of appreciation of the person, and that is why I said taking a political position does not have anything to do with not appreciating anyone personally. From what you said, I think you appreciate Prop 8 supporters in the same way.

Okay.  Can you understand that fighting against someone's right to legally marry might be considered (by that person) as more than just a political position?  Can you understand that a gay couple might not feel appreciated by someone who is seeking to deny them a legal right to marry?  In stating that they are appreciated as children of God and participants in political due process, does it make sense to you that they might not feel appreciated at all since someone who is not impacted by their decision to marry wants to prevent it?

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You did say you don't appreciate what you say Prop 8 supporters did to gay couples, but I don't agree they did that.

What did the passage of Prop 8 accomplish?

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  Can you understand that fighting against someone's right to legally marry might be considered (by that person) as more than just a political position?  Can you understand that a gay couple might not feel appreciated by someone who is seeking to deny them a legal right to marry?  In stating that they are appreciated as children of God and participants in political due process, does it make sense to you that they might not feel appreciated at all since someone who is not impacted by their decision to marry wants to prevent it?

What did the passage of Prop 8 accomplish?

Of course I understand the numerous ways other people can see things and feel about them, including the specific insurance you portray.

As I noted above, I don’t see Prop 8 accomplishing what you attribute as the reason for people feeling unappreciated -- their feelings, understanding, perceptions, misunderstandings, misconceptions, rhetoric, ideology (or whatever else the case may be) notwithstanding. But that is how some engage in and handle their politics.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course I understand the numerous ways other people can see things and feel about them, including the specific insurance you portray.

For me, having people around me actually feel appreciated is important if my goal is to appreciate them.

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I noted above, I don’t see Prop 8 accomplishing what you attribute as the reason for people feeling unappreciated -- their feelings, understanding, perceptions, misunderstandings, misconceptions, rhetoric, ideology (or whatever else the case may be) notwithstanding. But that is how some engage in and handle their politics.

You didn't answer my question:  What did Prop 8 accomplish?  It was passed.  What did its passage do if not to deny legal marriage rights to gay couples?