Minneapolis/St. Paul Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Great article re: the Prop 8 ruling
Zuma Zoom
weird, it works for me. hmmm...
It is no longer just a slogan, it is the law. You can't vote away a right to marry. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker today ruled that California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional.
Here's the ruling:
Prop 8 Ruling FINAL
And here are the major points of the ruling:
RELIGION'S ROLE
"The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."
"Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law."
ON WHETHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HARMS PROCREATION
"Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse."
OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
"An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
"CHOOSING " SEXUAL IDENTITY
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."
AN ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE
"Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."
"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
A THREAT TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE?
"The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual's choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its "ancient lineage." Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life."
CHILDREN
"The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."
"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX
"Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs' equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex."
THE MONEY QUOTE
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
The case will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. But first it has to stop at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal -- and the most overturned -- courts in the country.
Once it gets to the Supreme Court, the swing vote will be Justice Anthony Kennedy.I hope in my lifetime we'll be able to say, "Can you believe we used to ban gay marriage?" in the same way we say today, "Can you believe we used to have separate water fountains for different races?"
We're getting there!! :-)
2.3.11: Started TTC
2.8.12:Initial b/w - Normal
3.7.12:HSG - Normal
3.8.12:S/A - Normal
Cycle #12/Month #15 - 50mg.Clomid CD5-CD9 - BFN
4.24.12: RE appointment - DX Unexplained IF
7.12 - 9.12: TTA
10.12 - 1.13: TTC Naturally
February 2013 - IUI #1 w/100 mg Clomid - 5 mil.post-wash: BFFN
March 2013 - IUI #2 w/100 mg Clomid & Trigger - ?? MY BLOG
Exactly. The example I used in a conversation last night was that at one point in time, the women's right to vote or the right of racial minorities to vote was as controversial, but now it seems ludicrous that women and minorities were ever not allowed to vote. Someday we'll see gay marriage that way too.
I heard a caller on WCCO Radio last night sum it up well by saying, "If you don't believe in gay marriage and you don't think it's right, don't do it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's mandatory for everyone."
Mr. Sammy Dog
If Tim and Tom in California want to get married.....how does that possibly affect John & Jane Doe in Arkansas? If your Bible tells you it is wrong (and I think it really doesn't but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to open) then say a prayer for Tim and Tom and let them live in peace. Protest something that actually matters like the destruction of the rainforest or healthcare etc. Also, there are plenty of bad heterosexual marriages they should be protesting instead!!
This topic obviously gets me fired up. :-)
One more thing I believe STRONGLY:
CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE 100% SEPARATE. PERIOD.
Ok, the end. :-)
this makes me laugh because i know a tim and tom that have been a couple for a super long time... and they met in california. for a minute i was like "does Kiz know them too?" : )
anywho, don't you realize that allowing "the gays" to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage? *barf* whatever.
HOORAY FOR EQUALITY! : )
No, I don't know them. :-)
HOORAY IS RIGHT! :-)
The way I've heard the opposition (to gay marriage, so pro-Prop8) frame this is that accepting gay marriage would mean that their children would be taught that gay marriage is normal, and that any religion that says otherwise is bigotted. They're trying to frame this as if they're the ones being persecuted by not being allowed to let their children grow up in a society that endorces their religious views. It's an odd and ironic argument, for a variety of reasons.
*scratches head*. They DO realize there are people that aren't Christian don't they? I agree - odd and ironic for sure.
This seems like a blanket statement, which would seemingly include me.
"They" I know was ambiguous, but there are Christians who respect people's right of choice. I'm one of them. God gave us the freedom of choice, that is a basic principle of Christianity.
I am strongly for eqaulity, this being part of it.
By faith, personally I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't choose to argue here about the Bible. But I do not think that my beliefs should limit the rights of others. I think that people should respect the rights of others to believe what they will. Leaving ignorance and hate out of the matter.
Zuma Zoom
I think she meant "they" as in "those who would frame the argument that way", not as in "all Christians". I'm the one who originally used a vague "they", and I should have been more clear that I don't think all Christians have that viewpoint, nor do I think all those opposed to gay marriage use that particular argument. Just that I've heard that used as an argument for why legalizing gay marriage would have negative impacts on those who are opposed to gay marriage. Sorry if I came across as over-generalizing.
But seriously - if two people get married (same sex or not) it in no way affects anyone else - I don't see how this is still an issue. Like PP said, it would be great if one day we can look back and think how ridiculous it was that we didn't allow same-sex marriage.
I didn't mean to come off short. Your they, if it did imply that, was clarified specifically in the Kiz's quote. Which I do understand is the majority of voters against gay marriage. I just don't think it should be blanket statement. Not to mention that a few of the other major religions don't think of homosexuality as acceptable by faith.
I know Kiz's passions and intentions, so I'm not offended, just need to clarify that I do not include myself in the group that limits other people's rights based on my personal beliefs.
I think that Christians have the advantage in being the majority in the country. Some use it to infringe on others rights to freedoms we have in our constitution. Which, while it might go against the faith biblically, it is not up to us to be Christian for someone else, it has to be each person's choice.
Zuma Zoom
I was actually just coming back on to add the further clarification that I ALSO didn't mean to imply that only people of the Christian religion are opposed to gay marriage.