hey, GLBT and supporters: propose an amendment to outlaw ALL marriage.

[Lerkfish]

that's my suggestion -- and its a serious one. If any group, whether in the majority or not, can propose amendments to abridge the civil rights of any other group, then I say, ok, let's fight fire with fire.

There are several variants that you and us straight allies could help put on the ballot, either in total or piece by piece:

1. outlaw the mormon church from performing marriages.
2. outlaw heterosexual marriages
3. outlaw ALL marriage.
4. outlaw visitation by ANY spouse of a dying loved one.
5. prevent ANY spouse from receiving health benefits of a spouse
6. outlaw custody of children for ANYONE unless they can prove to be fit in a court of law.
7. refuse adoption by anyone who in not married, not just GLBT
8. outlaw ... well, you get the picture.


I"m not saying any of these would pass, but the goal is to GET THEM ON THE BALLOT.


you may think I'm kidding. I am absolutely NOT. Because there would be such a fight to prevent these from getting on the ballot, that they would HAVE to justify that no one group can take away the rights of another group, and ONCE THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, then you can retroactively rescind prop 8

[ejpoeta]

1. it's you can't take away OUR rights... i know what you are saying, but

to these folks gays don't need any rights, i guess. i like the idea... well, equal rights... so if gays can't marry, then no one should be able to.

[chemp]

2. Umm... If my marriage gets overturned...

And then the rights return, am I going to have to get married again?
How many spouses will agree to re-marry?

Other than that, I'm for it.

[Horse with no Name]

3. Would save on divorce attorneys

for those folks that stick around for that reason...Just saying...

[rateyes]

4. Did the ruling in California yesterday refuse any of the rights you

named to gays in civil unions? My reading of the decision clearly states that gays have all of the rights you would take away from everybody. However, I'm with you on the "marriage" thing. No marriages for anyone as far as the state is concerned--only civil unions.

Civil unions for all.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Matthew 23:30

Of believers in Christ:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
(Matt 23:30 KJV)

--d!

[pnutbutr]

6. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in a while

I'm pissed about you not giving me rights so I'm going to take yours away. That always works and never pisses people off pushing them further away from your cause and making you look like a nutbag.

[Lerkfish]

7. its better than "I have my rights so I'm going to take yours away"?

which is nuttier?

[pnutbutr]

9. both n/t

[anigbrowl]

16. Apples or oranges - which fruit is nuttier?

Stupid and obviously doomed idea, which is therefore a complete waste of time, which is better spent by visiting http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153

[kevinbgoode]

8. I think the proper action at this time would be to prohibit ANY marriage

after a divorce. The California ruling, which left 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples intact, also REMOVED their right to remarry should any of those couples ever divorce. In order for the equal protection clause and the original Marriage Cases decision to be carried out properly, it seems to me that any HETEROSEXUAL marriage which is dissolved should be forced to play on the same field as the gays - meaning, they can only, following a divorce, establish a "domestic partnership."

I'd like to see how quickly the straights would scream if they suddenly realized that they could never "remarry" once they get divorced.

By the way, that won't require a ballot initiative, either - unless the wingnuts decide they have to go for special remarriage rights, because a "domestic partnership" isn't recognized by the federal government.

[NorthCarolina]

10. I think a CA Proposition to revoke the Tax Exempt Status, retroactively, for CA Churches

would hit home with those who were most responsible for Prop 8 in the first place, and it might even have a good chance at passing since only a simple majority of 50% +1 is required under current law.

[pnutbutr]

11. that would hit all religious institutions

not just the christian's you intend to hurt with this.

[Lerkfish]

13. ok, so what do YOU propose?

or are you just in this thread to trash the ideas of others?

How would YOU solve this issue or address it?

[Tesha]

14. The correct solution...

...is to bring another referendum at the next opportunity and fight
like hell the next time, with no illusions that the other side will play
fair.

You'll probably win.

But if you don't, do it again.

And again.

And again.

And eventually, as society shifts, your position will become the winning
position.

Tesha

[csziggy]

15. Why not campaign to remove the automatic acceptance of marriages

Performed by ordained clergy as legitimate. Right now in most states, marriages must have a license issued by the state signed by an appropriate person, then notaries, justices of the peace, judges and ordained clergy are permitted to sign the license for it to be accepted as a completed document of legal marriage. Most states automatically accept ordained clergy and religious leaders of recognized churches, without any further qualification.

I proposed that automatic recognition violates separation of church and state. So in order to sign the license required by the state, the clergy must meet one of the other requirements. That is not terribly onerous - it is generally easy to become a notary public, but it removes that automatic linkage of church authority to legal authority under law.

The practical side of this is that any couple can select a legal authority to sign the license and meet the legal requirement for secular/mundane marriage. And church authorities can become qualified to perform legal marriages as well as their own rites to "sanctify" their version of marriage. But the person performing the rite is not automatically expected to be the person taking care of the legal end of the deal.

I think of it in the same was a death is certified by secular authorities and the death rites are performed by whatever religious figure the family chooses.

[Skidmore]

12. Think of all t he lawyers that would put out of business.

[rickford66]

17. prove you're the opposite sex

Push for a law requiring proof of sex before marriage. Make
sure it's a chromosome test. A certain percentage of people
will fail even though they look OK AND it will be expensive.
Those opposing gay marriage couldn't possibly argue with
having proof.