California's Proposition 8 debate has taken a twist last week with a new ballot measure, approved for circulation this week, seeking to eliminate the term "marriage" from state statutes and replace it with "domestic partnerships."
The new measure would repeal the voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed last November, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
The measure was thought up by two college students - both of whom are reportedly straight - who said in a summary of the measure that "'marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognised by only nongovernmental institutions."
The measure must collect 700,000 signatures by Aug 6 to qualify for the November 2010 ballot.
"I'm not religious and I'm not gay, but I am concerned about equal rights," Ali Shams was quoted as saying in the San Francisco Chronicle. The 22-year-old political science major at University of California San Diego is pushing the measure with his friend Kaelan Housewright, a student at CalArts in Valencia (Los Angeles County).
"A lot of people who voted for Prop. 8 did so because their religious beliefs tell them marriage is between a man and a woman," said Shams. "They aren't necessarily against same-sex couples, but they can't go against their religious beliefs. With this option, we're allowing them to bypass that dilemma."
Earlier two law professors proposed in the San Francisco Chronicle (A Equality in substance and in name, Mar 2) that the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.
Pepperdine University professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer urged readers to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. Saxer opposed Prop 8 for civil rights reasons while Kmiec supported it for reasons of religious liberty.
Their idea got additional air time during the Mar 5 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a ruling in three months in the case brought by gay couples and others who argue the constitutional amendment passed by voters last fall is invalid.
According to a report on Time.com, both sets of lawyers - when asked by Justice Ming Chin - agreed that the idea would resolve the question of whether some couples could marry, and others not, violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
But as Time's Michael A. Lindenberger pointed out, Justice Chin may find that "the folks who cling hardest to the word 'marriage' are the gay couples themselves [after] having... fought so hard and so long to have [the word] apply to themselves" as the courts try to come to a compromise between upholding Prop 8 and according gay people the right to be treated equally.
Read more:
A way out of Prop. 8 (Los Angeles Times editorial): "The most adamant opponents almost certainly would be the supporters of Proposition 8, the same people who argue that same-sex couples already have all the benefits of marriage through the state's civil union laws and are just quibbling about a label. Chances are that they won't see things the same way when it comes to changing the name of their own legal relationships."
A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriages for Everyone? By Michael A. Lindenberger (Time.com): "And as Justice Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 - and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution - and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to the word "marriage" are the gay couples themselves. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued granting gays the right to marry? It was the idea that the word "marriage" itself is so strong that denying it to gay couples violates the most sacred rights enshrined in the state constitution, the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, gay couples - whether they are among the 18,000 who married in the state before Prop 8 stopped the ceremonies or not - are loath to lose a word for which so many fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves."
Equality in substance and in name by Douglas W. Kmiec, Shelley Ross Saxer (San Francisco Chronicle): "The argument for Prop. 8 must be resisted for two reasons: First, because it gives the proposition a far broader discriminatory effect than its language warrants, and second, the proposition is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens. Marriage is of religious origin; it should remain there. Indeed, neither the original court decision nor Prop. 8 showed adequate recognition of the religious nature of marriage, so Thursday's case can be a do-over. Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church. Prop. 8 keeps the state - not the church - from using the terminology of marriage to officially acknowledge a same-sex relationship."
读者回应
请先登入再使用此功能。
sorry.
Still quite impressed with the creative thinking though
Instead I am proposing a movement towards that goal, and the role that gay Singaporeans can play in that process.
With the whiff of general elections in the air, right or wrong, I wonder where gay Singaporeans stand with regards to the political party/ies they support.
The PAP is far more interested in protecting the feelings of its Christian fundamentalist cabinet ministers, MPs and its Christian fundamentalist support base; it's antagonistic towards gay rights, one or two friendlier voices notwisthstanding.
The SPP and WP are spectacular in their uselessness; three seats in Parliament and not a squeak from any of them, two of whom are lawyers.
The SDP - yes, that party painted by the MSM as extremist - is the first, and thus far the only party that is supportive of full equality for gays.
It's not unusual in advanced liberal democracies that gays rally around one party en masse, though never in complete totality. Shouldn't gay Singaporeans be logically rallying around the SDP?
There have been murmurs among some Singaporeans in the opposition parties' support base that gays are a self serving lot; they are essentially PAP supporters who will return to the PAP fold after their rights have been secured.
Are we going to prove those detractors right?
I know that the there is always this question: Will the SDP run in my constituency/GRC in the first place?
It's a valid question.
I propose another broad strategy instead: punish every political party who doesn't support gay rights by spoiling your vote.
Thus, if the WP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to spoil your vote since neither party supports your rights.
However, if the SDP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to reward the party, SDP, by voting for them.
There is however a very real fear among Singaporeans that your vote is not secret. If that is the case with you, then spoiling your vote - if you want to punish the PAP even if you cannot reward the SDP - will still be a workable strategy: it will draw votes away from the PAP and bring the tally closer to the SDP's, say, so that the SDP still has a fighting chance.
I would be interested in feedback. (The catty need not apply.)
is that really important that we must get married someday?
no need lah...
massiage is stupid idea to "legalize" sexual activities for ancient people...
yeah...ANCIENT PEOPLE!!!
and totally suitable for heterosexual couple only
dont use their values into our homosexual relationship
but for me, though im not agree with this stupid gay marriage idea but i cant forbid it though
My oh my, how the once-mighty Hollywood had fallen!!! :p Pitiful. But since I ain't American I wouldn't be presumptious & humbly take yr information at face value.
Still, if I'm not mistaken ,wasn't Schwarzenegger the guy responsible for vetoing the Bill bk in 2005??? Tsk,tsk....but hey, at least he ain't too bad for a Rupublican. Had some words of comfort for us like sharing how he learrnt to 'not give up' as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were initially too heavy for him:
"I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They (gay-marriage supporters) should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."
Sigh, what ironic- or sad- scenario.
A Conservative Republican who nevertheless can overlook differences & offer us some encouragement, while some of our very own glbt people are sadistically trying to tear our efforts to shreds???
same-sex couples already have all the benefits of marriage through the state's civil union and lots of churches now recognize marriages as holy unions . . . so lots of progress has been made all around
but I hear lots of divorce lawyers are making a killing now too, so becareful what you wish for cause it will happen sooner than you think . . .
Why are there not more of rational straight people like Ali? Will the earth really blow up when gay marriage is approved? There are many more things to worry about, such as eradicating hunger/ poverty & income diaparity... religious authorities are, as usual- wasting their energy on the wrong 'target' (gay people).
how about doing some homework first ;-)
http://geneva.angloinfo.com/countries/switzerland/pacs.asp
Sad thing though..even if a country recognizes a same sex married couple from say, Canada, other backward countries, like say Singapore & Malaysia, with their anti-gay laws would quickly deny entry, or persecute upon public disclosure of such unions. The couple would then be lucky to be just deported instead of being thrown into jail asap, as per as and when it suits the authorities; let alone be honored or accepted by any terms of legal transfers. Dream on.
But, having the defeat of Prop 8 would be a great start for all civil liberties and a constitutional justice performed and unperverted by religious extremists.
Good Luck!