Jump to content

Proposition 8 comment by Keith Olbermann


E.J.

Recommended Posts

Well said and well reasoned. Reason, however, won't work against the unremitting, unreasoned hate of those unable and unwilling to use the intellect they were gifted with.

Heck, they even discount their own belief system:

'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Sure seems to contradict the spirit of proposition 8, now doesn't it....

Rick

Link to comment

Wow, he gets it!

The solution I propose is this: everybody gets domestic partnership benefits. It's a solely secular arrangement, and it includes all the financial, legal benefits. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution which churches may choose to grant or not, depending on their dogma. But it alone is not enough to confer the financial and legal benefits granted by the secular arrangement of Domestic partnership.

cheers!

aj

Link to comment
The solution I propose is this: everybody gets domestic partnership benefits. It's a solely secular arrangement, and it includes all the financial, legal benefits. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution which churches may choose to grant or not, depending on their dogma. But it alone is not enough to confer the financial and legal benefits granted by the secular arrangement of Domestic partnership.

That would be fine for the State of California, but marriage is also a term at the federal level. As one example, as to whether you can file joint tax returns. Yes, I know about DOMA, but if that is repealed, then it is important if the state calls it marriage or domestic partnership, because only if it is legally "marriage" will the federal statutes kick in.

Another example is in the area of adoption. One of the states (I can't remember which) passed a proposition that only married couples can adopt. If it's not called marriage in California, then Californian couples could not adopt from that state.

Link to comment
Another example is in the area of adoption. One of the states (I can't remember which) passed a proposition that only married couples can adopt. If it's not called marriage in California, then Californian couples could not adopt from that state.

It's not just one state, Graeme it's now in several states, especially in the South. In fact in Mississippi neither unmarried persons nor gays can legally adopt... As I have stated so many times in other threads, Basic civil rights laws on the federal level similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity needs to be extended to LGBT's. Then the Federal Courts would have the teeth needed to set aside the patchwork of discriminatory anti-gay laws in the various states. That is once we get the votes needed on the Supreme Court after an Obama appointment or two..

Link to comment
Oh, did I forget to mention that this would be instituted at a federal level? Sorry...I really had intended that this should be a nationwide law...and DP status can only be granted by a JofP, not a religious figure.

cheers!

aj

So aj, if I understand you correctly, the idea is to implement a division between church and state, where church, is the religious sector, and state, is the federal public sector.

Handing marriage over the the religions to administer and celebrate according to their beliefs, doesn't seem too difficult to realise.

However for the public sector to grant recognition of couples as being in a relationship to attract social, financial and legal benefits, might, I would have thought, require an amendment to the constitution to ensure it could not become a political football depending on who was in the White House or in control of Congress.

I would think it had some chance (after much deliberation) to be incorporated into the unenforceable, but not uninfluential, Declaration of Individual Human Rights.

This extension of the division between church and state is not without merit as it would further establish the point that personal religious belief has no place in determining civil laws. This does not mean that the religion would not have influence in the political arena, just that a religious belief could not be made into a law. (Thus by example, Murder would not be based on the commandment "Thou shalt Not Kill", but on the self evident truth that, 'it is wrong to kill.')

The basic secular partnership would be mandatory to establish fiscal payments and application of various taxation and other benefits.

The registered agreement would be all that was needed to ensure priority for hospital visits as well as other social responsibilities and interests.

Such a legally registered partnership would be required before a religion could issue a marriage licence, or perform a marriage ceremony. This would mean the registration of the agreement would be separate to any ceremony, so the participants could then choose to have a religious (marriage) ceremony, or an exchange of vows under giudance from a civil celebrant, which might be a Justice of the Peace.

Now, however, there is a further problem where say, two people are in a relationship that cannot be registered, such as being under the age of consent, which we might set for the purposes of discussion at 16 years of age. Obviously certain aspects of the emancipation laws must also be given due consideration in considering the issue as to whom certain priorities are given in relation to young people. Perhaps a 'Minors declaration of Rights and Requests' which a guardian could not override from the age of say, 13?

Again this would, I imagine, require deliberation.

In addition some thought of how de facto relationships fit into this structure would need to be considered. In particular whether the state could enforce a relationship to be regarded as to be in existence even if no agreement has been signed. Why would they do this?

In Australia, one of the situations arising from equalising the rights of people to be in a relationship of their choice, is that we face the Department of welfare requiring individuals to prove they are not in a relationship so that welfare payments may be made at the reduced 'couple' rate. This ends up meaning that two people sharing accommodation but not in a relationship would have the relationship conditions forced upon them if they could not satisfy the welfare officer that were not in a relationship. This is causing quite some concern to GLTB persons who are not out to their relatives or workplace.

I can also envision other parties, (Parents, offspring, siblings, and nominated friends) being made accessories to the partnership agreement for social reasons, including adoption. This might be in the form of an addendum to the partnership or in the form of a separate 'extended family agreement' document.

Clearly, removing the religious beliefs from secular law has been evolving for some time.

However I think such a plan would be resisted most vehemently by some.

Please note the above is not an attack on anyone's beliefs, but is merely a 'thinking out loud' of various ideas in relation to the subject.

Anyone want to write a story using the idea?

Link to comment
So aj, if I understand you correctly, the idea is to implement a division between church and state, where church, is the religious sector, and state, is the federal public sector.

Handing marriage over the the religions to administer and celebrate according to their beliefs, doesn't seem too difficult to realise.

However for the public sector to grant recognition of couples as being in a relationship to attract social, financial and legal benefits, might, I would have thought, require an amendment to the constitution to ensure it could not become a political football depending on who was in the White House or in control of Congress.

I would think it had some chance (after much deliberation) to be incorporated into the unenforceable, but not uninfluential, Declaration of Individual Human Rights.

This extension of the division between church and state is not without merit as it would further establish the point that personal religious belief has no place in determining civil laws. This does not mean that the religion would not have influence in the political arena, just that a religious belief could not be made into a law. (Thus by example, Murder would not be based on the commandment "Thou shalt Not Kill", but on the self evident truth that, 'it is wrong to kill.')

The basic secular partnership would be mandatory to establish fiscal payments and application of various taxation and other benefits. The registered agreement would be all that was needed to ensure priority for hospital visits as well as other social responsibilities and interests.

Such a legally registered partnership would be required before a religion could issue a marriage licence, or perform a marriage ceremony. This would mean the registration of the agreement would be separate to any ceremony, so the participants could then choose to have a religious (marriage) ceremony, or an exchange of vows under giudance from a civil celebrant, which might be a Justice of the Peace.

Actually, I was thnking that the two would be rather independent of each other - a couple could be married in a church if they wished and not get a domestic partnership license, but would accrue none of the legal/financial benefits afforded by that license if that was their wish. As to adoption and foster care rights/privileges, I would imagine that would continue to be the prerogative of the individual states.

Now, however, there is a further problem where say, two people are in a relationship that cannot be registered, such as being under the age of consent, which we might set for the purposes of discussion at 16 years of age. Obviously certain aspects of the emancipation laws must also be given due consideration in considering the issue as to whom certain priorities are given in relation to young people. Perhaps a 'Minors declaration of Rights and Requests' which a guardian could not override from the age of say, 13?

I don't see this needing any amendment...the system already in place works reasonable well, I think.

Again this would, I imagine, require deliberation.

In addition some thought of how de facto relationships fit into this structure would need to be considered. In particular whether the state could enforce a relationship to be regarded as to be in existence even if no agreement has been signed. Why would they do this?

In Australia, one of the situations arising from equalising the rights of people to be in a relationship of their choice, is that we face the Department of welfare requiring individuals to prove they are not in a relationship so that welfare payments may be made at the reduced 'couple' rate. This ends up meaning that two people sharing accommodation but not in a relationship would have the relationship conditions forced upon them if they could not satisfy the welfare officer that were not in a relationship. This is causing quite some concern to GLTB persons who are not out to their relatives or workplace.

The registration of partnership would require a deliberate act on the part of the involved parties, and would not automatically be incurred by a period of living together, as the current law states for common law marriage. No default dp registrations.

I can also envision other parties, (Parents, offspring, siblings, and nominated friends) being made accessories to the partnership agreement for social reasons, including adoption. This might be in the form of an addendum to the partnership or in the form of a separate 'extended family agreement' document. Brilliant!

Clearly, removing the religious beliefs from secular law has been evolving for some time.

However I think such a plan would be resisted most vehemently by some. I agree, not the least of which would be caused by the federal government taking on powers that have traditionally been the prerogative of states previously. That in itself would be the largest stumbling block to this idea as I can see, and would probably render it impossible to realize on a national level.

Please note the above is not an attack on anyone's beliefs, but is merely a 'thinking out loud' of various ideas in relation to the subject.

Anyone want to write a story using the idea?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...