This may have surprised many in California but not me.
Just a few points;

First; I supported Proposition Eight marriage is between one man and one woman so get over it. Civil unions were established to allow alternative lifestyles to engage in "marriage like" commitments. The problem is as usual the progressive and queers left the civil union law structure half finished as they always do when they get new laws passed. Harmonizing the existing civil union law with the benefits and responsibilities of marriage should be at the top of their to-do list.

Second; The queer community has stated many times that same sex (formerly known as Gay Marriage) was a direct attack at organized religion. Another reason to support Proposition Eight, any group that willfully attacks another group deserves to loose.

Third; Proposition is in alignment with the defense of marriage act, one of the few things Bill Clinton did i agreed with.

Finally; anybody who knew anything about the Black Hispanic and Asian communities knows they are socially conservative. This should have not have been a surprise to anybody even though the Asian community are more tolerant of diversity then the other two groups are. I did notice our local media neglected to report on the exit polling date for those of middle eastern origin. We have a large middle eastern population here in SanDiego I find it rather interesting that demographic was not reported.

Oh and for anybody reading this....
Don't call me a hater because i support traditional values.

I support marriage between two consenting adults, but recognize that sincere people can have different views on the matter.

A while back, TS-Si.org published an editorial that called for a clear separation between "marriage", as a spiritual and/or religious institution, from civil unions. You can see The Overlap Between Civil Unions And Religious Marriage for details on the argument. Until or unless the day comes when the measures called for in the editorial come to pass we are in a very different situation.

Values-based legislation is a problematic thing. Who makes the rules? And how are they enforced? apart from those questions, how can any legislative athority draw up restrictive legislation rhat respects the constitutional guarantees of our democratic society?

Marriage is important to me; I wish I could get married to the woman I love. There are many issues at stake, including fnance, health care, and family inheritance. As it happens, I live in Virginia, easily the most restrictive state in the American union. We have two laws and a constitutional amendment that make marriage between two women an illegal act. We respect the law while thoroughly disgreeing with both the intent and effect of its passage. Here in Virginia, any union that even creates the possible perception of marriage is illegal. Moreover, there is no provision for civil union. That too is illegal. The legal situation here effectively turns caregivers into criminals for entering into a contract to implement care for a sick or incapacitated parent.

Even so, we carry on and work toward a better day. I dont viify the opposition to my views: reasonable people can disagree.

I see this issue as a matter of justice and practicality. Law should be evenly applied: the benefits of marriage are denied to a substantial portion of our porpulation, creating an excluded class. From a practical standpoint, our society would benefit from stability withn our Gay and Lesbian population.

People of my acquaintance are always surprised to find out how many post-ops are opposed to what is usually characterized as "Gay Marriage" (imho, a misnomer). I am not surprised, as post-ops are all over the cultural and demographic map.

I respect your views, but heartily disagree. Change will come and our descendents will look back in astonishment at the fuss.

Of course, African Americans, gays and transsexuals are all overlapping sets. Hostility of any one of these groups towards the others hurts some of "their own."

I recall reading that the hostility of the African American community toward homosexuality for years created a culture of denial that interfered with appropriate AIDS prevention and treatment in that community.

We would call non religious marriage Civil Unions.
I have no problem with that just with hijacking the term marriage.
Just like with the term Transsexual someone is trying to hijack the term marriage.

I am proud to be a Proposition Eight Supporter.

You said that "we would call non religious marriage Civil Unions"

The government of the United States shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. You might have read that in the U. S. Constitution. If marriage is a "religious ceremony" as you imply, no U. S. civil government should recognize the validity of the ceremony, there should be no legal recognition of a "religious" ceremony at all. Everyone should be required to have the legal bonds of civil union applied by a judge for that union to be legal (whether or not you have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil one is up to you.

I did read that however You are not going to see any same sex union called marriage, because DOMA won't be repealed any time soon.
At least not in our lifetimes.


And yes I am quite aware of the First Amendment and what it means.

why are you opposed to same-sex marriage? Your previous answer (and a lot of people say the same thing) was marriage is between and man and a woman.

What is under that? Why, in your view, should marriage be reserved for a man and woman only?

Let me answer your question with another question;

Why are you and so many transsexuals upset with the transgender and fetish community using the word transsexual to identify themselves.

Isn't it true you were one of the people who cried out against the hijacking of that word?

I think it's hypocritical to object to the hijacking of the word transsexual and then turn around and deconstruct and redefine what marriage has been over the last 6000 years or so.

I am sorry but if you cannot see the obvious parallel I can't help you.

I will not support any group that is going to deconstruct marriage.
That includes this site.
By the way until you fix your security problem I will no longer post here since it seems everyone who posts here has their IP address displayed.

Any further discussion on this subject will have to be continued by private email until this oversight is corrected.

I am sorry for the IP exposure. I believe you know that we have a strict policy against disclosure of personally identfying information. That inludes IP addresses. Our recent upgrade has been massive. Though incomplete, security has been our first concern.

The IP exposure, however brief, should not have happened when we updated the comment software last night. We have taken the lessons lerned and made some improvements in our maintenance/upgrade procedures that should protect against this sort of thng happening again.

Again, please accept our apologies. We will strive to do better.

Sharon

Sue, I asked about the reasons for your opposition to marriage by same-sex individuals to better understand your opposition.

Let me answer your question with another question; Why are you and so many transsexuals upset with the transgender and fetish community using the word transsexual to identify themselves.Isn't it true you were one of the people who cried out against the hijacking of that word?

Not exactly. The redefinition of the word transsexual came about via an imprecise use of language and its application beyond the intentions behind the original use of the term. The dispute, if there ever was one, is so over. The social constructionists out-shouted everyone. I am past caring about it any more.

Actually, I am not trans- anything (never have been, never will be). Getting tied up in vocabulary takes us away from more central considerations and the people for whom the original term had been intended.

I think it's hypocritical to object to the hijacking of the word transsexual and then turn around and deconstruct and redefine what marriage has been over the last 6000 years or so.


I am sorry but if you cannot see the obvious parallel I can't help you.

Again, I asked the question to better understand your reasons - not mine.

I will not support any group that is going to deconstruct marriage. That includes this site.

Well, that certainly is not our intention. In point of fact, our focus is on our core mission.

People with a history of our birth condition come in all shapes and sized, emotional dispositons, religious persuasions, and political opinions. As a matter of policy, we do not take sides on those issues, but stongly recommend that we have the same choices in life as everyone else.

The specifics of the choice can vary. Some post-ops support same-sex marriage while others are very much opposed. Lisa and I live in a very restrictive US state. Others live in places that are more accepting.

In any case, we are talking about a small minority of people. People with a history of our birth condition comprise a very small group, while gays and Lesbians within that group are smaller still.

TS-Si is not about changing marriage laws per se. We do comment editorially when such laws, or anything else, pose dilemmas for resolving our core mission and offer suggestions on resolution.

Our columnists have independent voices and say a lot things. We may or may not agree, depending on the situation. The column by Lisa Thompson is a case in point. When she writes over her own byline, she is on her own.

I hope this clarifies matters at least a little. And really, we care very much about what you have to say.

My reason for objecting to the hijacking of the term marriage to include any and all that can be thought up by the imagination goes back to the reason many (admittedly not all) transitioned in the first place. I can't speak for anyone but I; the reason for going through all the pain and trouble of transitioning was to live a normal life in a body that was in alignment with my mind. I didn't do this to demand that society change to accommodate my sexual orientation, which by the way is nobody's business.

Marriage as an institution in society has always provided for some a sense of stability, a sense that our society has a chance of enduring through our lifetime and that of our posterity, that is enough reason for me.

I have found most people who are pro homosexual marriage also have an axe to grind with the church. Many of the supporters of homosexual marriage have come out and said they see it as a way of attacking the church, a way of loosening some imagined grip the church has on society.
(so much conspiracy theory on their part, time to get out the tin foil hats)

I have to ask you What is your beef with civil unions?
Why do you find civil unions unacceptable for homosexual couples?
Why wouldn't you be for harmonizing the various laws and regulations to harmonize civil unions with marriage.

You seem to assume what my opinions are on these questions.

I have to ask you What is your beef with civil unions?

I do not have a problem with civil unions per se. After all, what we - in the US at least - call civil unions have always been available to opposite-sex couples. When a man and woman get "married" by a religious authority, they simltaneously enter into a civil and religious union, because clerics are empowered with civil authority. In fact, any opposite sex couple can skip the religious part and go before a Justice of the Peace or other official and get "married". Many do.

A religious cleric may not have any objection to same-sex marriage, but in those case, the cleric must deny the civil union part to same-sex couples because of the law. That means the government is deciding which religions (and their clerics) are acceptable as agents of the state.

Why do you find civil unions unacceptable for homosexual couples?

I find them acceptable as either an interim or long-term measure, all things being equal. Unfortunately, most civil unions for same-sex couples, as practised around the country, are not equal to those of same-sex couples. The specific provisions vary, which is why Vermont and others have civil unions with most (their language) of the rights accorded to same-sex couples. So, we wind up with two different kinds of civil unions within the same state, segregating the rights according to perceived sexual orientation. Moreover, since the provisions vary from state to state, the legal standing of a same-sex couple can vary depending on where they happen to be.

Consider what happens when such a couple is in a jusrisdiction and one of them requires medical care, but the cognizant partner can not make decisions on care. Another major issue: the Federal Government does not recognize civil unions, with particularly onerous implications for taxes, etc.

People who have corrected their anatomical sex, but remain married are in legal limbo. Others, once corrected, may be heterosexual and enter into a marriage that could be questioned.

It just goes on.

Why wouldn't you be for harmonizing the various laws and regulations to harmonize civil unions with marriage.

I am all for it. Separate religious marriage from civil unions. Make civil unions consistent for all people, anywhere in America.

But here's the rub, as demonstrated by my home state of Virginia. We have two laws and a state constitutional amendment that declare both marriage and civil unions illegal.

Moreover, the state refuses to recognize marriages and civil unions from out of state. The latter may not withstand scrutiny in the Federal courts, of course. Even so, what remains is - imho - unjust and irrational.

But, the prospects for change are not good in the near term. I am sure it will come, but perhaps not in my lifetime (I am 67).

When we are speaking of state-sponsored discrimination, all too often the question comes down, in the words of Alexander Bickel, to whose ox is gored.

I wonder if a corrected HBS women who strenuously opposes same sex marriage would feel the same way if she sought to marry a man in a state like Texas, which will not recognize her correction and will insist that she marry a woman and not a man.

The answer, for me, is to avoid involving the government in such discrimination at all, and let all consenting adults couple on precisely equal terms -- in the eyes of the state if not the eyes of God.

We are in agreement on more points than we disagree on.
That is good

Looks like Virgina has a ways to go yet. There maybe a federal solution somewhere down the road if they can make it comparable with the US Constitution. The one positive thing to come out of the Prop Eight issue is the need to resolve this issue in a way that will be acceptable to all.

I see a federal civil union law coming in the near future.
This will not devalue marriage and preserve it's religious significance while at the same time provide for the needs of GLBT community.

One thing that cannot be ignored;
If the Kalifornia Supreme Court throws out Proposition Eight You will see legalized group marriage in Kalifornia within 18 months.

The Justices know this, maybe it is time for some real change and considering how we are on the edge of some real economic hard times
(You ain't seen nothin yet honey this time next year we will be talking about hod good we have it now)
Group marriage makes sense if the family unit is to survive the coming depression.

I know I lived there, granted I was not borne there however I can marry in any state of the union if I should find a man I wish to marry.

I also wouldn't call this state sponsored discrimination.
That argument was beaten to death by the Tranny Kool-Aid guzzlers a long time ago.

Some discrimination is a fact of life, I could whine and cry because there isn't a state in the union that will issue me a drivers license because my vision is just under the "acceptable limit".

I could come up with another half dozen things to whine about that are not fair, Life isn't fair, those who are successful at life just take that fact in stride.

In the words of the Texas Court of Appeals...

"The Legal Issue
Can there be a valid marriage between a man and a person born as a man, but surgically altered to have the physical characteristics of a woman?"

...

"We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton (the post-op female in the case) is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. "

Case No. 04-99-00010-CV

Christie Lee LITTLETON, Individually and as Next Heir of Jonathon Mark Littleton, Appellant
v.
Dr. Mark PRANGE, Appellee
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 98-CI-15220

Honorable Frank Montalvo, Judge Presiding

My understanding is that the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which leaves the ruling intact.

In any event, my point is that discriminatory state action should not be supported or opposed based on who falls on which side of the line.

This could have been fixed well before it would have became an issue.
Littleton could have possiably obtained a non amended birth certificate If she had good legal help.
An amended birth certificate is just as good as hanging a sign around your neck saying "I use to be a man"

All I can say I wasn't borne in Texas they honor my birth certificate and know me as nothing other then female.