I don't think you've upset anyone, love. Ideas are not attacks. :hugs:

No, you're quite right Valeli, and I don't think that Yasha, Satyr or Katz is disputing you. The reason why they want marriage and civil unions separated is BECAUSE that way individual churches could decide who gets married, which is manifestly not the case now. Proposition 8 and similar laws elsewhere make it unlawful for churches to marry anyone other than who that law sees fit to be allowed to marry, specifically male/female couples.

Look at it this way. There are in fact Christian churches that recognize gay marriage as valid. No one ever talks about them in the press for some reason, but they definitely exist. By passing these ballot measures, the people have declared that they are NOT churches. It is now unlawful for these people to practice their religion as they see fit. Personally I find this horrifying, and I'm sure you do too.

On the other hand, if marriage and civil unions were separated, it would disentangle the government from the sacrament of marriage and allow all people to again worship and behave in a way that reflects their religious faith without government interference.

If you're an atheist you have to decide what marriage means for you. Assuming that civil unions and marriages become distinct institutions, you could enter into a civil union under license from the government without any other hurdles. Marriage would be a purely personal affair into which the government would not enter. You could ask a church to provide the service if that's what you desire in a marriage, or you could just invite a bunch of friends to a park, dress up, hire a caterer, and read your vows to your intended spouse. It would be entirely up to you. Of course, any church that you ask may refuse you, that would be their business.

In Canada we have a good compromise : the legally binding part of marriage is open to gay couples, but churches are not required to offer ceremonies for them. This is important because of the many legal rights and protections that marriage gives, and because it makes it much harder for companies to discriminate when offering partner benefits.

I find it weird that people have trouble separating the legal and religious components of marriage; this is mainly because of my background. I was married in a secular ceremony, as were my parents and most of my married friends. Ironically the only church wedding I've been to recently was for a same-sex couple (Unitarian I think). I forget that for most people, WEDDING = CHURCH, even for people who don't normally attend church. Some people don't even realise you can be legally married without a church service, when in fact the church is incidental to the whole process.

I can ALMOST understand the people who voted yes on prop 8; they see marriage as an important tradition that you can't go changing willy-nilly. They see the tick box, and say "no, thanks". What I can't understand is the people running the prop 8 campaign. They worked really hard, and managed to raise what, $30 million, not to HELP people, but to STOP people doing something that will not affect them in any tangible way. Good job, guys. I'm sure California doesn't have any OTHER pressing social problems that need solving.

I have new respect for Arnold Schwarzenegger. He compared the whole mess with banning the gay marriage as similar decision as one made in 1948 that banned marriage between whites and blacks. He's also sure - as am I - that it will return to the courts soon enough.

Ha ha, Governor Blagojevich.  You guys heard about this, right?  Just in case...

Rod Blagojevich was the governor of Illinois, and he had a job to do.  There was a senator from Rod's state named Barack who had just been elected president!  Everyone was very excited.  Barack was excited because he was going to be the next leader of the free world.  Barack's daughters Sasha and Malia were excited because their daddy was excited.  And Rod was excited because he got to choose who would be the next senator after Barack!

Rod thought hard about his choices.  There was a man named Jesse who wanted to be senator, but Jesse scared some people.  There was a woman named Lisa who was good with the law, but Lisa did not know very much about politics.  There was a woman named Tammy who was a respected war veteran, but Tammy had not been born in America.  Many other people also wanted to be senator.  Rod thought and thought about who to pick.

But the thing Rod thought most about was money.  When Barack called Rod to suggest who should be the next senator, Rod told Barack that he was not appointing anyone senator unless they gave him lots of money or did him a lot of very expensive favors.  Rod even said that if no one gave him money, he would make himself the next senator.  Rod told other people the same thing.  He told people this while talking on a phone that the FBI had secretly tapped.

On December 9, the FBI handcuffed Rod and took him to jail for being a very bad governor.  Everyone was shocked, except the people in Illinois, because they already knew Rod was a very bad governor.  But Rod was still the governor, and he said he still got to decide who would be senator.  "It doesn't matter how bad a governor I am," he might have snarled as the FBI took him to jail.  "I have the biggest cock in the state of Illinois and you will never take my power away from me!"  And it was true: there was no way to take away Rod's power except to impeach him, which takes a long time.  Rod could choose a new senator before anyone could stop him.

What happened next?  Watch the news!

satyreyes wrote:

Watch the news!

That's not fair, news won't talk about this over here!

... just kidding. That's why e-newspapers are for. Thanks for the tale, satyr! Now, let's google for the ending...

OnionPrince wrote:

I'd rather read about Blagojevich on the blagosphere.

Though, if anything like a blagosphere exists within the blogosphere, do provide a link, please!

Here's a stat I thought was interesting.  I calculated it myself, so it comes with caveats about not being an expert and such.

The poverty line for an individual in America is $11,201.  37.3 million Americans live in poverty.

The cost of sending each of them a check for $11,201 would be $418 billion.

So far in this financial crisis the government has spent $2 trillion and has invested, lent, or insured another $6.8 trillion, most of which we'll probably never see again.  Assuming we don't, then -- holding everything else constant, which of course it wouldn't be -- we could have "ended poverty" for twenty-one years with that sum of money.

Don't get me wrong.  Writing every American in poverty an $11,000 check every year for 21 years is a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons that go way beyond the philosophical.  But the fact that this sum of money would be enough to end poverty in America for a generation should make us at least sit back and wonder if there is no better way to spend this money than giving most of it to companies like Fannie Mae, Citibank, and Chrysler.

I'm too lazy to look for it right now, but I think someone totaled the amount it would have cost to completely bail out everyone who couldn't cover their mortgages back when the housing crisis was starting, and of course it came in far, far under $700 billion.  Also perhaps not a statement of what would be a good general policy, but definitely a reflection of skewed values.

Relatedly, I found this to be an excellent summary of what all went wrong, not over the past decade but over the past half a century.  (Then again, I'm not an expert, so there could be errors in that analysis that I'm not catching.)

Lady Nilamarthiel wrote:

Has Obama made any substantial positive changes in the US? Has he delivered on his promise for change?

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

This site is a great starting point. I think its best for people to read the facts [as un-biased as possible; please don't watch Fox news and pretend to be informed] and do their best to make their own opinions. Personally, I think Obama's trying his best but he won't live up to the "Obama Hype" that keeps surging up. He's not doing a bad job so far, but it's way too soon to tell how his methods are affecting the country. I think bail-outs are a dumbass idea, though...

Lady Nilamarthiel wrote:

Has Obama made any substantial positive changes in the US? Has he delivered on his promise for change?

That depends what you mean by "positive," doesn't it? 

I like the Obameter, the site KXQ linked to.  It does a fairly thorough job assessing which campaign promises Obama has kept, which ones he's broken, and which ones he's pretty much done nothing about (which is most of them -- but we're only half a year into his four-year term).  I also find it to be quite objective; its authors don't seem to have a partisan agenda.

But if you don't want to go browsing, here are (to my mind) some of the most significant things Obama has done, for good or for ill:

- Restricted interrogation techniques to the ones listed in the Army Field Manual, effectively ending government torture; ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention center
- Ordered a withdrawal from Iraq (though we are certainly not completely withdrawn yet) and refocused our military on Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Passed a credit card bill of rights, outlawing certain credit practices considered deceptive
- Pushed for expedited distribution of bailout funds and continued to promote further stimulus spending
- Expanded children's health insurance and pushed hard for universal health care through a "public option" by which any American could purchase health care from the government (which Congress is still hashing out)
- Nominated Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, based in part on her quality of "empathy" (also pending before Congress)

And here are some of the most significant things Obama hasn't done:

- Hasn't ended "earmarks," the attachment of specific spending projects to unrelated bills to induce legislators to vote in favor
- Hasn't clearly established the right of our foreign prisoners to be jailed only for specific and fact-based reasons (habeas corpus); hasn't abolished warrantless wiretaps of American citizens
- Hasn't banned lobbyists from working in the White House (in fact, he's hired some)
- Hasn't found sources of revenue or made budgetary cuts to offset all the spending we're doing
- Hasn't made any gesture toward education reform
- Hasn't spoken on behalf of gay rights, such as marriage rights and the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell

So has Obama delivered change?  Sure.  Has he broken promises?  Yes, he's done that too.  (Though bear in mind he has three and a half years to go.)  Both sides have plenty of facts to muster in support of their arguments -- though McCain voters who complain that Obama hasn't brought change presumably don't want Obama's brand of change anyway and thus may be arguing in bad faith.

I agree with KillerQueen on the whole idea of bailouts. I think it gives banks and car companies the easy way out. The way I see, these banks and companies are more than partially to blame for their situations. Banks are always doing credit checks; as a matter of fact, that effects the loans that are given out. If they KNOW the people won't be able to pay the interest on the loans, set the people on fixed interest, and work it so that it's an interest they can afford. It may take longer for the banks and mortgage companies to get their money, but at least they won't have these bad loans on the books. Right now, the foreclosures are all over the banks, and the banks are no longer getting money. What should be done is that all these mortgages, bad loans, etc should be refinanced and reworked so that these people that have been foreclosed on can pay one fixed rate, WITHIN THEIR BUDGET. That way, the banks still get their money, and people still keep their houses.