h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

WHAT is going on?

The 'governator' of California, Mr Schwarzenegger has been instrumental in denying gay couples to marry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1167875,00.html

Comments please.

azahar

God, the world's a depressing place at the moment, isn't it?

I personally have no objections to single sex marriages.

Did I read somewhere that Dick Cheyney's daughter is gay? I'm sure that is why the current rather right wing American administration hasn't done the like of this before. Normally, dear old Dick manages to quietly get gay rights stuff passed by congress. Evidently he doesn't have any sway with The Governator.

Well, the Governator, as we all know, is a very stupid unpleasant nasty minded creep and I would sooner vote for my parent's homicidal and narcissistic cat than anyone even remotely like him. Very baffled by Californians for doing so.

Oh, honestly, why should I be allowed to marry and other members of my family be forbidden? It's so silly. Surely it's up to two grown adults to decide who they want to be family with?

Agapanthus!

Please don't insult cats in this unfair manner!

WHY are Americans taking this sh*t lying down??? Where are the protests? Why aren't people attempting to stand up for their rights?

This is the really scary thing.

az

Sadly, I think in the US the moral agenda is being set by people like JtP, with very narrow definitions of what is right and what is wrong.

There are a number of serious fracture lines in American Society, and this is one of them. Apparently Bush is coming down on the side of the God-botherers on this issue, and here's hoping it's his undoing.

As a moderate agnositc leftie, I don't see any problem with the concept, but I can see that the lanuguage used is problematic. Calling it a 'marriage' is inflammatory to the lunatic fringe, so perhaps a bit of rephrasing might be a good idea?

How do we know they aren't protesting? Mind you, having asked that question I am reminded that in some US states people were arrested for protesting against the Iraq war. However, protest they did. Good for them.

On the subject of America, has anyone else read any of Michael Moore's books? I read "Stupid White Men" last year (which is probably where I got the Dick Cheyney lesbian daughter info) and I have just started "Dude, Where's My Country?" Interesting reading, to say the least.

hi Lizzbett,

I'm reading Dude, Where's My Country as we speak. It fills me full of fear fot the future of America, to be honest.

az

Yes, calling it a 'civil partnership' or something would deflate the lunatics, but the whole point is that gay people don't want a civil partnership. They really really want to get married, and call it marriage, and have their commitment and love taken as seriously as a straight couple's. it's actually not fair to give them a woolly fudgy linguisticly closeted version of the ceremony while the rest of us are bounding about getting married and treated very seriously. No one - not even JtP thinks my getting married is anything but wonderful. If my cousin wanted to marry, and she's been with her partner as long as I've been with mine, why should she have to sort of pretend she isn't to prevent nasty little horrid people with nasty little horrid minds having conniptions? Let them. If we pander to them we condone them and let them think they are right. My cousin deserves to MARRY just as much as I do, if not more, and to the woman she loves.

Quite right Agapanthus.

And congrats, btw...

Well, excuse my language but I find this so DISGUSTING. WHAT? There is a massive homosexual community in the United States - and suddenly they have no rights?

It is similar to the recent Bush action to outlaw abortion.

And well-educated and should-know-better Americans are just accepting this outrage against personal choice??? For homosexuals to marry whomever they choose and for women to choose their own options for giving birth?

I am so afraid about this. I don't live in the States. I am a Canadian now living in Spain. But I see this trend as being the tip of a very scary iceberg of what could be in store for Americans if they don't stand up now and demand their rights.

Am I just being paranoid?

az

what would be scary is that if america follows the trend, but the prime ministers continue to support america .

Well, hes just lost a lot of support and I hope he is not elected in again.

America sounds like a scary place these days, a full-on christian rules kinda place, which I do not like the sound of.

hey there, i live in sacramento,california. its about an hour drive away from san francisco. the lifestyles that people live in california are alot different than alot of other places. we tend not to care about how other people live and what they do unless it affects ourselves. i personally can't understand being gay but thats something that they have to deal with in their own lives. i am married with two sons and i might have to deal with this one day myself because people are people. i know some gay people and they are alright to deal with, i can't talk about their gay lifestyle with them at all. its none of my business. i still like them as my friends though. let people be who they are and the world might eventually be a better place.
redbones68

hi redbone

That is a very refreshing and open-minded response. Okay, you maybe cannot understand or agree with alternative lifestyles, but you also don't think they should be penalized.

I truly hope there are more people like you out there.

az

when people are judged my their own personal views and then punished for them, thats whats wrong with our world. you can't believe in your religion because someone else thinks that your evil. thats the spanish inquisition. and look at all the people they killed. look at hitler, these state and federal governments are messed up. what will be next?
let them have the freedoms that we all have. who are they hurting? no-one. AT ALL!

redbone,

I agree with you completely. But have a look around. What is happening now with these new 'ammendments'? Homosexual people are not allowed to marry. Women are not allowed to decide to terminate a pregnancy. It isn't about personal opinion nor religious convictions. People who do not share a similar religion should not be forced to live under their rules.

Has the entire United States of America suddenly become right wing fundamentalist Christian? Since when?

az

Well, we Californians didn't elect the Governator for his personal moral values... we elected him because our treasury was empty, and we weren't going to pay even more taxes when it was pretty clear to us that the previous regime would have spent that and more.

Let me preface this by saying that I have no personal position on the issue of gay marriage, other than to be strongly against a constitutional amendment Bush wants proclaiming marriage to be between a man and a woman. Amendment 10 states that any powers not granted to the government by the constitution are reserved to the people, or to the states. Let the states decide however they like on what constitutes a marriage. As far as homosexualism is concerned, I say whatever consenting adults choose to do to each other in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business but their own.

But you guys are seriously oversimplifying this issue. Yes, some people are against gay marriage simply because they are homophobes. But it's just about public acknowledgement of love for each other. If that were all there was to it, then anybody could get married to anybody else at any time, and we wouldn't have to bother with the paperwork.

Marriage is a civil union in the eyes of the law, and there are certain legal implications. For example, if one spouse takes on a financial obligation, that obligation is binding to both. A spouse is eligible to join the others' medical and dental insurance. A spouse receives 100% of the other's property, and financial obligations, when the other dies without a written will. The spouse of an American citizen has US residency protection and can much more easily attain citizenship themselves.

Now... let's look beyond the implications for the gay community for a moment. How about frivolous marriages? You and your best friend could get married just on a lark... it means nothing if you're both straight, so it's just paperwork now. You get a bigger tax refund, or share credit to finance the motorcycle he always wanted, etc. Only he doesn't pay and you are stuck with the bill, which isn't right, so you file for divorce. And now you're clogging up the legal system.

It wouldn't be long before the military was pressured to join in. But married servicemembers get on-base housing or an allotment to rent a place in town. Unmarried servicemembers are forced to live in barracks, or, in the case of sailors deployed to surface vessels, on the ship. How many sailors would marry a buddy to sleep in a bed and have walls? How much would that cost the government? How many traditional families would be forced to wait for months for housing because all the single guys are marrying each other?

There are a lot of laws protecting or giving favorable treatment to married people. Those laws are in place because of a traditional man-woman couple that produces children. The laws are there to support their efforts in raising children. Putting aside any moral arguments someone may have about gay couples producing and raising children, the fact is that gay couples will opt out of breeding at a far higher rate than traditional couples, and traditional couples will be heavily favored over gay couples in the adoption process. Gay marriage would then go against the spirit of those laws. Frivolous gay marriages would violate that spirit even more.

And there you have it... a non-right-wing, non-Christian, thoughtful argument against gay marriage. Now, on the other hand, there are certainly gay couples who are every bit as loving (or more) than traditional couples who should be able to share property, medical coverage, and even raise children. Those people deserve the full benefits of a legal civil union. I think both sides have some merit to their arguments, but it should be an entirely legal argument, and should take place in the state courts. One of the great things about the US is that if you don't like the ruling in California, you can always move to Arizona.

Personally, I'm glad some states have already allowed gay marriage. I think it should be studied for 5 years or so to see if there are any significant changes in frivolous or fraudulent marriages, divorce rates, etc. If my concerns turn out to be invalid, then let everyone get married to whomever they want.

"Has the entire United States of America suddenly become right wing fundamentalist Christian? Since when?" - Religious fervor goes in cycles. We're at a peak right now, unfortunately, due to the combined pressures of fear of terrorism, economic uncertainty, and a fundy president. When people are scared they turn to religion, and our religious president is playing off of that.

But I wouldn't worry too much about the constitutional amendments. Neither has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. For one thing, the majority of Americans do not favor an abortion ban, so that one will never even make it out of the legislature. A marriage amendment could make it out of Congress, possibly, but then it would have to win ratification by the states. Too many state legislatures have already approved gay marriages. And of those that don't, many would reject it simply on the grounds that it usurps their people's right to decide for themselves. State governments do not surrender their powers to the feds easily.

"There are a lot of laws protecting or giving favorable treatment to married people. Those laws are in place because of a traditional man-woman couple that produces children."

but not all married couples produce children. and not all families are made up of a mom and a dad and two kids. so in effect there are a multitude of laws designed to protect one type of family when dozens of types exist. just because traditional families are favored doesn't mean they're the only kind that should exist and be catered to. perhaps marriage laws aren't the only things that need to change.

frivolous marriages already exist. if your best friend happens to be the opposite sex you can already get married on a lark (and on short notice as well in vegas). people get married for tax breaks, citizenship, insurance and benefits... all of this already happens.

Blatherskite... I find your comments on the economic aspects of gay marriages interesting... Were you aware that over here in France, a law was introduced several years ago, giving certain unmarried couples (both gay and straight, yet unmarried) the same rights as married couples.

The reasoning was simple - why should a couple be forced to marry - some don't want to, some can't, just to get tax benefits etc.

The other side of the coin is that to be eligible for the 'PAX' as its called, you've got to have lived as a couple for something like five years, share bank accounts, things like that... which just about does away with your arguement that it would be used by people just out for the benefits - it really, genuinely is a way of giving equal rights to the same bunch of people who are being openly discriminated against in the US (and those who don't believe in, or can't, marry!)