Cal. Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8
US News • Views: 2,149
Today the California Supreme Court upheld the vote for Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, but validated all marriages that took place before their ruling.
415 comments
3 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:02:22am |
Is this the end or can a State law be appealed to a Federal court?
| 4 |
Joel Tue, May 26, 2009 11:02:28am |
Andrew Sullivan and David Brock will be apoplectic.
| 5 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:02:30am |
Demonstrations are already in the works.
But they'll be all festive so might be mistaken for a party.
/
| 6 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:00am |
Exactly what would you expect from the 8th circus court of FACISTS!
////coming soon to a overblown protest sign
| 7 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:12am |
| 8 |
brookly red Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:13am |
re: #3 Nevergiveup
Is this the end or can a State law be appealed to a Federal court?
not in this case. (so says the man on the raido)
| 9 |
RoughRider Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:27am |
Who knew the California Supreme Court was a homophobic wing of the Republican Party?
| 10 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:03:31am |
I'l try to make it.
Gotta lotta stuff happening in my "real" life today, but the masses are demaning a dose of zombietime!
If I can wrench myself free, and get there in time for the probable riots, I'll do it.
| 11 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:19am |
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
| 13 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:32am |
No matter what, a 6-1 decision is not a sharply divided court.
| 14 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:34am |
I honestly don't know how I feel about the issue. I also am not sure I know how I feel about the Supreme's decision.
How's that for decisive.
| 15 |
soxfan4life Tue, May 26, 2009 11:04:49am |
What ever happened to letting the voters decide. They did and now they want the Court to ignore the voice of the people. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in an efficient manner.
| 16 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:05:09am |
I'm tempted just to head home. I doubt it's going to get all that wild here in the financial district. Still, it's always troubling to me to watch people shoot themselves in the foot.
| 17 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:10am |
This is the right decision, at least in the context of upholding the voters' right to amend the constitution through propositions. Letting the existing marriages, stand, too, was also the right decision.
| 18 |
pegcity Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:40am |
re: #15 soxfan4life
What ever happened to letting the voters decide. They did and now they want the Court to ignore the voice of the people. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in an efficient manner.
That only counts for things liberals support.
| 19 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:06:59am |
re: #11 zombie
I voted Yes on 8, purely on the grounds of judicial activism.
Personally, I have no dog in the fight. I do think that gay people who want the term marriage applied to their arrangements need to do a much better job of making their case than they have.
And their behavior since Prop. 8 passed hasn't helped them.
| 20 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:04am |
re: #16 Dianna
I'm tempted just to head home. I doubt it's going to get all that wild here in the financial district. Still, it's always troubling to me to watch people shoot themselves in the foot.
Perhaps our new SCOTUS nominee will make it to the bench and make sure teh gunz are gone!
///////////
| 21 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:21am |
re: #16 Dianna
I'm tempted just to head home. I doubt it's going to get all that wild here in the financial district. Still, it's always troubling to me to watch people shoot themselves in the foot.
Where's the brain bleach?
| 22 |
Timbre Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:40am |
re: #10 zombie
As long as the masses aren't literally "demaning" (castrations!). :)
| 23 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:07:41am |
| 24 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:03am |
re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Exactly what would you expect from the 8th circus court of FACISTS!
////coming soon to a overblown protest sign
I thought this was a state SC decision, not a circuit court? I'm confused.
| 25 |
blangwort Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:39am |
The only way the state court could overrule Prop 8 is if it were unconstitutional in some way.
That is probably the next tactic on the list of things the Gay rights movement is going to try. They're not wrong in this. They're just not right. This is an unfortunate tangle of laws and morality in too many ways to count.
| 26 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:48am |
i still don't think that the government should be involved with a religious institution such as marriage.......
and that would certainly defuse the issue.
| 27 |
Penny T. Wienerdog Tue, May 26, 2009 11:08:58am |
Does that mean that Judy Garland is no longer the official state singer of California?
| 28 |
VioletTiger Tue, May 26, 2009 11:09:01am |
re: #14 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
I honestly don't know how I feel about the issue. I also am not sure I know how I feel about the Supreme's decision.
How's that for decisive.
I also can't come to terms on where I stand with the issue.
I do agree that the court should uphold the will of the people, however. And I am glad they decided to let the existing marriages stand. That was the right call imo.
| 30 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:09:14am |
re: #3 Nevergiveup
Is this the end or can a State law be appealed to a Federal court?
I know that the anti-8 folks are planning on getting an amendment to the amendment on the ballot in 2010.
| 31 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:09:26am |
re: #16 Dianna
I'm tempted just to head home. I doubt it's going to get all that wild here in the financial district. Still, it's always troubling to me to watch people shoot themselves in the foot.
People seem to be gathering at Civic Center, and in the Castro. I suspect the action will be probably a march that starts at the Castro and goes down Market to City Hall -- just like in the "White Night Riots" in '78 when Harvey Milk was killed.
| 32 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:09:51am |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
I agree completely with this statement start to finish.
| 33 |
Dahveed Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:02am |
I think this decision goes hand-in-hand with Judge Sotomayor's nomination. Would someone like Judge Sotomayor overturn the will of the people and impose her own set of beliefs? I don't know the answer, but I think it is an important question for her to answer.
| 34 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:03am |
re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Exactly what would you expect from the 8th circus court of FACISTS!
////coming soon to a overblown protest sign
California Supreme Court did the ruling, and Cali. is in the Ninth Circuit.
And the CSC initially ruled same-sex marriages legal. Now they have a different situation in front of them. I think most folks around here get that.
The sign you propose will probably be carried by a slightly hyper teenager anyway.
| 35 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:05am |
re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Exactly what would you expect from the 8th circus court of FACISTS!
////coming soon to a overblown protest sign
This was a decision from the California Supreme Court, not the Federal Circuit Court.
And yes, I did see you were being sarcastic.
| 36 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:12am |
re: #25 blangwort
The only way the state court could overrule Prop 8 is if it were unconstitutional in some way.
That is probably the next tactic on the list of things the Gay rights movement is going to try. They're not wrong in this. They're just not right. This is an unfortunate tangle of laws and morality in too many ways to count.
That's what they ruled previously that over turned the anti-gay marriage position. Prop 8 was the remedy for the poor language of the first prop that didn't pass constitutional muster. This one did.
| 37 |
soxfan4life Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:21am |
re: #25 blangwort
The only way the state court could overrule Prop 8 is if it were unconstitutional in some way.
That is probably the next tactic on the list of things the Gay rights movement is going to try. They're not wrong in this. They're just not right. This is an unfortunate tangle of laws and morality in too many ways to count.
I thought they were going after marriage altogether. Trying to have the idea of marriage at all declared Unconstitutional.
| 38 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:29am |
re: #24 Walter L. Newton
I thought this was a state SC decision, not a circuit court? I'm confused.
So am I apparently. This is my only day at work this week so cramming too much in and not paying attention.
| 39 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:31am |
re: #27 Penny T. Wienerdog
Does that mean that Judy Garland is no longer the official state singer of California?
In my opinion, your comment has nothing to do with the subject, and in the least is a slam against gay people. Not funny, but to each his own.
| 40 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:40am |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
Their argument to overturn was pretty weak as well. If they had succeeded in getting prop. 8 called a 'revision' instead of an 'amendment' to the CA Constitution, all hell would have broken loose as anybody that disliked any amendment put in via the initiative process would have a simple route to have it thrown out.
| 41 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:54am |
re: #17 Ward Cleaver
This is the right decision, at least in the context of upholding the voters' right to amend the constitution through propositions. Letting the existing marriages, stand, too, was also the right decision.
I agree -- the court seems to have gotten it nright this time.
Of course, there will be an anti-Proposition 8 in 2010, and then again in 2012, etc. til the end of time -- until the voters just outlaw marriage altogether in disgust at voting on the issue over and over.
| 42 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:14am |
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
| 43 |
CIA Reject Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:40am |
re: #26 redc1c4
i still don't think that the government should be involved with a religious institution such as marriage.......
and that would certainly defuse the issue.
Well said!
| 44 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:45am |
| 45 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:50am |
This was the only valid decision that the Court could come to. There was no grounds on which to overturn the Proposition. Likewise, the gay marriages prior to the enactment of the Proposition had to be upheld as valid because there was no legal rationale for making such a determination.
Now, the gay marriage proponents will go back and try again - with another proposition on the November ballot. They'll keep at it until they get their way - and the anti-gay marriage proponents will do the same (to keep gay marriage off the books).
| 46 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:11:51am |
re: #33 Dahveed
I think this decision goes hand-in-hand with Judge Sotomayor's nomination. Would someone like Judge Sotomayor overturn the will of the people and impose her own set of beliefs? I don't know the answer, but I think it is an important question for her to answer.
Huh? Do you mean that you think Sotomayor wouldn't have upheld 8? COnfused.
| 47 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:06am |
re: #39 Walter L. Newton
In my opinion, your comment has nothing to do with the subject, and in the least is a slam against gay people. Not funny, but to each his own.
Judy garland wasn't gay, was she? Not that it matters, just I didn't think so. A druggie yes, but gay?
| 48 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:10am |
re: #41 zombie
I agree -- the court seems to have gotten it nright this time.
Of course, there will be an anti-Proposition 8 in 2010, and then again in 2012, etc. til the end of time -- until the voters just outlaw marriage altogether in disgust at voting on the issue over and over.
Outlawing government sanctioned/controlled marriage isn't a bad idea.
| 49 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:21am |
re: #26 redc1c4
That is a really stupid approach to the issue.
| 50 |
MandyManners Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:22am |
re: #10 zombie
I'l try to make it.
Gotta lotta stuff happening in my "real" life today, but the masses are demaning a dose of zombietime!
If I can wrench myself free, and get there in time for the probable riots, I'll do it.
Ditch RL!
| 51 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:44am |
re: #24 Walter L. Newton
This case was heard by the CA State Supreme Court. It might be interesting to try and get this heard in a federal court - eventually the US Supreme Court, because of the Equal Protection claims that could be made.
| 52 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:12:49am |
Good Afternoon, folks,
So, the court said that the Law can stand, banning gay "marriages". The "marriages" already performed are allowed because of ex post facto.
I can see that resulting in accusations of "double standard".
| 53 |
rhino2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:03am |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
That disappointment should be aimed at prop 8 passing, not a courts decision to uphold it.
| 54 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:10am |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
Except this subject has nothing to do with hatred to gays, this has to do with an election, the legal outcome, and the fact that some people in the state didn't want to let the majority speak. The court rightly upheld the majority vote.
(no, I'm not against state recognized marriages)
| 55 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:14am |
re: #28 VioletTiger
That is one of my problems with this. I do not like the idea of a court overturning the will of the people. But, sometimes the will of the people can be completely misguided (typed in evil first, but replaced it with misguided).
If the people voted to deport vegetarians who happened to be a tad overweight, I would hope a court would come back in a save that poor wretched soul.
| 56 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:13:31am |
re: #47 Nevergiveup
Judy garland wasn't gay, was she? Not that it matters, just I didn't think so. A druggie yes, but gay?
Judy has a weird iconic place in old-fashioned gay culture.
| 57 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:25am |
re: #52 NelsFree
Good Afternoon, folks,
So, the court said that the Law can stand, banning gay "marriages". The "marriages" already performed are allowed because of ex post facto.
I can see that resulting in accusations of "double standard".
One man on the news this morning, who had married his husband when the law still allowed, said he felt as though marriage had been offered as a limited time special.
| 58 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:37am |
re: #19 Dianna
I voted Yes on 8, purely on the grounds of judicial activism.
Personally, I have no dog in the fight. I do think that gay people who want the term marriage applied to their arrangements need to do a much better job of making their case than they have.
And their behavior since Prop. 8 passed hasn't helped them.
I voted No on 8, but once I saw the post-election thug tactics of my fellow No voters, I regretted my decision. It was scary, the way they intimidated and threatened Prop 8 supporters. Straight out on 1920's Munich, if you ask me.
The "No on Proposition 8" campaign's main problem is the attitude of its members.
| 59 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:40am |
re: #47 Nevergiveup
Judy garland wasn't gay, was she? Not that it matters, just I didn't think so. A druggie yes, but gay?
I'm not sure what you mean. The comment was stereotyping gays, period, and it was sort of a homophobic remark, period.
I didn't like it. My opinion.
| 60 |
soxfan4life Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:56am |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
What is sad about the court upholding the voice of the people? Do you find it sad when other states don't get a voice in the matter? Maybe it is more of a religous belief in marriage between a man and a woman. Seems like man people who oppose same sex marriage are in favor of civil unions. Like Dianna said I have no dog in this fight, but the voters spoke and the court sided with the voters.
| 61 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:14:59am |
re: #31 zombie
People seem to be gathering at Civic Center, and in the Castro. I suspect the action will be probably a march that starts at the Castro and goes down Market to City Hall -- just like in the "White Night Riots" in '78 when Harvey Milk was killed.
The White Night Riots were because Milk wasn't convicted of murder. Which he should have been, in my opinion.
| 62 |
Mr. E. Train Tue, May 26, 2009 11:15:04am |
I dont think gay marriage should be allowed, it should be mandatory! They to should know the joys of divorce court, alimony and such.
Personally I dont care if gay people want to get hitched. But the way that the courts seemed to make up law to overturn what the voters had decided previously really ticked me off.
| 63 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:15:36am |
re: #41 zombie
I agree -- the court seems to have gotten it nright this time.
Of course, there will be an anti-Proposition 8 in 2010, and then again in 2012, etc. til the end of time -- until the voters just outlaw marriage altogether in disgust at voting on the issue over and over.
I've heard that argument thrown around as well. Goes something like this.
"Why does the state have anything to do with sanctioning what is essentially a religious construct?"
Pretty weak argument.
| 64 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:15:54am |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
The whole folderol has more to do with being angry with judicial activism totally discounting the voices of the majority to pander to a vocal minority.
| 65 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:16:02am |
re: #56 SanFranciscoZionist
Judy has a weird iconic place in old-fashioned gay culture.
Oh OK, I missed that one. Maybe my wife is right and I should watch something else but the History/Military channels?
| 66 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:16:16am |
re: #61 Dianna
The White Night Riots were because Milk wasn't convicted of murder. Which he should have been, in my opinion.
Oh, you mean Dan White.
| 67 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:16:16am |
re: #12 cgn38navy
Darn! I was so looking forward to "Gay Divorce Court".
But no one is happy in a divorce!
| 68 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:16:41am |
re: #58 zombie
I voted No on 8, but once I saw the post-election thug tactics of my fellow No voters, I regretted my decision. It was scary, the way they intimidated and threatened Prop 8 supporters. Straight out on 1920's Munich, if you ask me.
The "No on Proposition 8" campaign's main problem is the attitude of its members.
Yes on 8 was not a whole lot better. Some of the 'religious' organizations involved were using thug tactics to get donations out of community members who'd been foolish enough to donate to No on 8 groups.
| 69 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:06am |
re: #39 Walter L. Newton
re: #42 ihateronpaul
I wouldn't say that just because some find homosexual acts distasteful, that it is necessarily childish, or hatred. Legalizing gay marriage would constitute acceptance of that behavior. While I don't have strong feelings on the subject, it seems very clear that there are reasonable people on both sides of the argument. Perhaps civil unions would be a solution?
| 70 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:07am |
re: #37 soxfan4life
I thought they were going after marriage altogether. Trying to have the idea of marriage at all declared Unconstitutional.
That would be a profoundly stupid idea, no matter what they think. The State has a definite stake in marriage, and always will have, whether we like it or not.
| 71 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:13am |
re: #59 Walter L. Newton
I'm not sure what you mean. The comment was stereotyping gays, period, and it was sort of a homophobic remark, period.
I didn't like it. My opinion.
SanFranscicoZionist explained it in #56:Judy has a weird iconic place in old-fashioned gay culture.
| 72 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:21am |
re: #61 Dianna
The White Night Riots were because Milk wasn't convicted of murder. Which he should have been, in my opinion.
Dan White, you mean. And yes, he should.
| 73 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:36am |
re: #66 Ward Cleaver
Oh, you mean Dan White.
I did. Damn.
Too much database entry. I'm losing my mind.
| 74 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:37am |
re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist
he felt as though marriage had been offered as a limited time special.
Most marriages are.
| 75 |
brookly red Tue, May 26, 2009 11:17:46am |
| 76 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:18:32am |
| 77 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:19:16am |
re: #61 Dianna
The White Night Riots were because Milk wasn't convicted of murder. Which he should have been, in my opinion.
Would that be Milk's killer wasn't convicted?
| 78 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 11:19:39am |
re: #67 jcm
It would have made for great drama, girlfriend!
| 79 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:19:42am |
re: #49 ihateronpaul
That is a really stupid approach to the issue.
why?
marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no buisness being in the marriage business: separation of church and state.
the government should simply recognize formal legal contracts between consenting adults, and adjudicate them through the legal system.
churches marry whomever they choose to. everyone wins, except the fringe on both sides, and the divorce lawyers.
| 80 |
joncelli Tue, May 26, 2009 11:19:43am |
re: #76 OldLineTexan
Of course. They're always grinning, right?
| 81 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:19:52am |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
I don't think the court's ruling has anything to do with "childish hatred towards gay people"; it has to do with upholding the principles of democracy. Prop. 8 passed with the same percentage of votes as Obama won the presidency. Should we throw out Obama's election because a less-than-50% subset of voters whine about his victory? No.
Elections exist for a purpose. They're not some prologue to the "real show" where laws are determined from the bench.
| 82 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:01am |
re: #74 Russkilitlover
Most marriages are.
Back in 2004, when same-sex marriages were happening at SF City Hall, my father, who is very pro-same-sex-marriage was encouraging my boyfriend and I to go to City Hall and get married. I think he just wanted to get in on the whole thing.
We pointed out that since we were straight, we could do this any time, and jumping in line ahead of other people who were watching the clock seemed rude. Plus, I didn't have a dress.
I think he was still a bit disappointed.
| 83 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:23am |
re: #69 cgn38navy
re: #42 ihateronpaul
I wouldn't say that just because some find homosexual acts distasteful, that it is necessarily childish, or hatred. Legalizing gay marriage would constitute acceptance of that behavior. While I don't have strong feelings on the subject, it seems very clear that there are reasonable people on both sides of the argument. Perhaps civil unions would be a solution?
I don't care what two people do in their bedroom. To make snide statements about Judy Garland and any other the other stereotypical remarks that are hung around gay people's necks, is hateful.
What if I started to make jokes about goosing and other such acts to a navy person? Of course, I wouldn't, but...
See my point?
| 84 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:24am |
| 85 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:35am |
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
| 87 |
joncelli Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:45am |
re: #79 redc1c4
I strongly agree with this. Get the state out of the marriage business. Found your own church if you want to give it a religious aspect.
| 88 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:59am |
re: #54 Walter L. Newton
Except this subject has nothing to do with hatred to gays, this has to do with an election, the legal outcome, and the fact that some people in the state didn't want to let the majority speak. The court rightly upheld the majority vote.
I fully agree.
| 89 |
brookly red Tue, May 26, 2009 11:21:12am |
| 90 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:21:40am |
re: #19 Dianna
I voted Yes on 8, purely on the grounds of judicial activism.
Personally, I have no dog in the fight. I do think that gay people who want the term marriage applied to their arrangements need to do a much better job of making their case than they have.
And their behavior since Prop. 8 passed hasn't helped them.
Exactly the way turn thinks on all three points. Man would I have been pissed if they struck it down. Do you really think riots are going to break out there?
| 91 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:21:42am |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
Dare I ask why we and Utah are on your naughty list?
| 92 |
itellu3times Tue, May 26, 2009 11:21:49am |
re: #45 lawhawk
This was the only valid decision that the Court could come to. There was no grounds on which to overturn the Proposition. Likewise, the gay marriages prior to the enactment of the Proposition had to be upheld as valid because there was no legal rationale for making such a determination.
I guess, but ain't that awfully messy, that we have all these contracts that are now illegal to issue more of, and that were only issued for a brief time?
Such is life, I guess.
| 93 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:04am |
re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes on 8 was not a whole lot better. Some of the 'religious' organizations involved were using thug tactics to get donations out of community members who'd been foolish enough to donate to No on 8 groups.
I voted "no" because I was disgusted by the vehemence and the opinions of the Yes on 8 people that I heard locally - in an about town. It was disgusting to hear them leap right on through the whole "slippery slope" arguments and state emphatically that No on Prop 8 would mean man-boy marriages, human and animal unions, etc.
| 95 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:07am |
re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist
ROTFLMAO.
Has he ever threatened to "put you back on the market" if said boyfriend didn't hurry up and seal the deal?
Happened to a coworker of mine - it was funny as hell hearing her sister describe it.
| 96 |
jantjepietje Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:26am |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
one of the reasons we have a constitution and a rule of law is to protect the minority from the majority. Democracy alone is worthless it is the dictatorship of the majority and it is not something I'm in favour of.
| 97 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:33am |
re: #61 Dianna
The White Night Riots were because Milk wasn't convicted of murder. Which he should have been, in my opinion.
I know -- I was just guessing as to the route of the march, which I think will duplicate the '78 route.
| 98 |
Dahveed Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:39am |
re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist
Huh? Do you mean that you think Sotomayor wouldn't have upheld 8? COnfused.
I think it is an important question to ask her. I don't know how she feels about this particular issue, but very generally is she the type of person that would overturn a vote of the people in favor of her personal views of social justice.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of gay marriage. But like Zombie said above, I am not in favor of overturning a vote by the population.
| 99 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:42am |
re: #87 joncelli
I strongly agree with this. Get the state out of the marriage business. Found your own church if you want to give it a religious aspect.
well, "eater of food" didn't...... %-)
| 100 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:47am |
While I agree that civil unions should be fine, it does bother me that voters can vote on a minority's right.
Maybe OK in this case, but what if in the 1960's, the citizens of Georgia had voted to ban interracial marriage? I don't think that should stand, just because the voters supported it.
| 101 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:50am |
re: #90 turn
Exactly the way turn thinks on all three points. Man would I have been pissed if they struck it down. Do you really think riots are going to break out there?
Doubt it. There may be some upset kids acting out. Nothing major.
| 102 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 11:22:50am |
re: #83 Walter L. Newton
Fortunately us navy persons have a well developed sense of humor and a thick skin. Most of my gay friends would have laughed at the Judy Garland reference. Especially the navy ones.
| 103 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:10am |
re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist
Dare I ask why we and Utah are on your naughty list?
2 things I can't stand, people who are intolerant of other people's culture and the Dutch!
/
| 104 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:10am |
re: #77 CyanSnowHawk
Would that be Milk's killer wasn't convicted?
Yes, Dan White. Sorry. I'm an idiot.
Dan White was convicted of discharging a firearm within City limits and a couple other minor charges. He spent some time in prison. When he got out, he killed himself.
| 105 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:13am |
re: #51 lawhawk
This case was heard by the CA State Supreme Court. It might be interesting to try and get this heard in a federal court - eventually the US Supreme Court, because of the Equal Protection claims that could be made.
10th Amendment?
| 106 |
Idle Drifter Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:28am |
| 107 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:23:42am |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
| 108 |
Mithrax Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:04am |
re: #89 brookly red
swim, eat, mate, repeat... who wouldn't be happy?
Sorta like my life!
Well, except for the swimming ant mating part. Maybe I should cut down on the eating :P
| 110 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:38am |
re: #3 Nevergiveup
Is this the end or can a State law be appealed to a Federal court?
I'm fairly certain marriage, like other contracts, falls under the Commerce Clause. The Feds wouldn't have anything to do with it unless it ran afoul of that particular state's Constitution and the state's own court system was unable to resolve the matter.
As to whether it is the end: no. It may be the end of the story for this particular measure, but the issue itself will certainly continue to be fought. The next step will likely be a state ballot measure aimed at repeal.
| 111 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:43am |
re: #102 cgn38navy
Fortunately us navy persons have a well developed sense of humor and a thick skin. Most of my gay friends would have laughed at the Judy Garland reference. Especially the navy ones.
Especially glow in the dark Navy types.....
;-P
Salute from an Air Force type to a Navy type.
| 112 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:46am |
re: #104 Dianna
Yes, Dan White. Sorry. I'm an idiot.
Dan White was convicted of discharging a firearm within City limits and a couple other minor charges. He spent some time in prison. When he got out, he killed himself.
Proving that guns are bad.
/future Supreme Court Justice
/
| 113 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:56am |
re: #90 turn
Exactly the way turn thinks on all three points. Man would I have been pissed if they struck it down. Do you really think riots are going to break out there?
No clue. I hope not. Honestly, up until a decade ago, I don't believe I ever heard a gay person - male or female - argue for marriage. Twenty years ago, the general attitude was scornful; I'm not sure enough people are likely to be upset enough to riot.
Though it doesn't do to under estimate the stupidity of crowds.
| 114 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:24:58am |
re: #104 Dianna
Yes, Dan White. Sorry. I'm an idiot.
Dan White was convicted of discharging a firearm within City limits and a couple other minor charges. He spent some time in prison. When he got out, he killed himself.
whereas if he'd gotten the death penalty, he'd likely still be alive as his case wound it's way through the nearly endless process......
| 116 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:00am |
re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist
Back in 2004, when same-sex marriages were happening at SF City Hall, my father, who is very pro-same-sex-marriage was encouraging my boyfriend and I to go to City Hall and get married. I think he just wanted to get in on the whole thing.
We pointed out that since we were straight, we could do this any time, and jumping in line ahead of other people who were watching the clock seemed rude. Plus, I didn't have a dress.
I think he was still a bit disappointed.
Methinks your dad's real motivation was visions of a $30,000 wedding!
| 117 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:11am |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
no ,, but if you go to Mississippi you can get plenty of these!
[Link: www.sonofthesouth.net...]
| 118 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:22am |
re: #79 redc1c4
why?
marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no buisness being in the marriage business: separation of church and state.
the government should simply recognize formal legal contracts between consenting adults, and adjudicate them through the legal system.
churches marry whomever they choose to. everyone wins, except the fringe on both sides, and the divorce lawyers.
Marriage is a social construct and it was religion and the churches that were some of the original institutions that brought about and enforced such constructs. Simply because they did it does not make it inherently religious. It might help to view secular and church sanctioned marriage as two similar but separate things with the same name.
| 119 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:27am |
re: #95 OldLineTexan
ROTFLMAO.
Has he ever threatened to "put you back on the market" if said boyfriend didn't hurry up and seal the deal?
Happened to a coworker of mine - it was funny as hell hearing her sister describe it.
He kept telling me for years about young lesbian acquaintances of his who were single and wonderful. My mom would point out that I was with Boyfriend. He would look slightly put out.
| 120 |
Dayenu Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:30am |
re: #58 zombie
Agreed, Zombie. I voted yes on 8, in spite of my gay friends sending me non-stop rhetoric against it... rhetoric which bordered on the absurd. (A protest sign that says two thirds of polygamous marriage is same sex... yes, I thought. And it's also illegal. Not to mention slams against religious people, and characterization of all opponents as "Bigots")
I'm all for civil unions, but the insistence that the lack of government sanctioned marriage equals a form of slavery sounds outrageous to me.
And I don't think it's healthy to radically alter such an institution as marriage.
And then there's the judicial activism... the Miss California character assassination...
This whole issue is getting out of hand.
| 121 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 11:25:36am |
re: #65 Nevergiveup
Oh OK, I missed that one. Maybe my wife is right and I should watch something else but the History/Military channels?
What else is there? Well, Discovery shows a lot of stuff blowing up.
I just haven't gotten into the shows my wife watches, like America's Top Model and Celebrity Rehab.
Although we both can agree on Deadliest Catch.
| 122 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:26:01am |
re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes on 8 was not a whole lot better. Some of the 'religious' organizations involved were using thug tactics to get donations out of community members who'd been foolish enough to donate to No on 8 groups.
I didn't see that part -- living as I do here, I only saw the virulent protests in front of Prop-8-supporters homes and businesses, the "outing" of people who donated to 8, the threats, the boycotts, etc. A real tantrum. Perhaps in other parts of the state and in other layers of society there were other tactics on the other side, but I personally didn't experience any of it.
| 124 |
Hengineer Tue, May 26, 2009 11:26:17am |
re: #3 Nevergiveup
Is this the end or can a State law be appealed to a Federal court?
This isn't state law, this was an ammendment to the state Constitution.
The last time (prop 22?) was an actual law that was overturned by the Calif. Supreme Court.
| 125 |
SpaceJesus Tue, May 26, 2009 11:26:25am |
meh, can't blame the court that much here.
CA needs to re-examine its process for making amendments to the constitution
| 126 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:26:27am |
re: #79 redc1c4
You're not thinking it through. Really - marriage is very much a social good, which is why there are laws about it in every society.
| 128 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:26:57am |
re: #119 SanFranciscoZionist
Hmm. I still want (more) grandchildren, if for no other reason to piss off my enemies.
| 130 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:12am |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
Go piss up a rope. You've been dinging down a lot of comments without any justification for why, then you come out with this asinine statement.
| 131 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:27am |
re: #101 SanFranciscoZionist
Doubt it. There may be some upset kids acting out. Nothing major.
That's what I thought too. Hey was that a joke about your dad or did he really do that?
| 132 |
SpaceJesus Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:30am |
re: #124 Hengineer
This isn't state law, this was an ammendment to the state Constitution.
The last time (prop 22?) was an actual law that was overturned by the Calif. Supreme Court.
yep. there's always next year.
| 133 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:34am |
re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist
One man on the news this morning, who had married his
husbandmale partner when the law still allowed, said he felt as though marriage had been offered as a limited time special.
This is part of the issue. The Husband is the man in a heterosexual marriage. It is my opinion that gay marriage precludes Husbands or Wives.
| 134 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:27:41am |
re: #102 cgn38navy
Fortunately us navy persons have a well developed sense of humor and a thick skin. Most of my gay friends would have laughed at the Judy Garland reference. Especially the navy ones.
ANd so would I, if it were with in the right forum, we are talking about something serious here, and when I see a remark like that above, thrown into a serious conversation (and you noticed the commenter has not rebutted), that is a hit and run remark, probably meant to be homophobic.
Hell, I make a living in live theatre, I'm 56 years old, I've I diversity coming out of my ears, I have no problems with gays, humor, S8's, what ever...
This wasn't the place. IMHO.
| 135 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:01am |
re: #121 Kosh's Shadow
What else is there? Well, Discovery shows a lot of stuff blowing up.
I just haven't gotten into the shows my wife watches, like America's Top Model and Celebrity Rehab.
Although we both can agree on Deadliest Catch.
Nothing like watching real he-men get the crabs!
/
| 136 |
Hengineer Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:05am |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
Before Alaska and Hawaii joined. In the meantime, gtfo.
Good Bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
| 137 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:16am |
re: #79 redc1c4
why?
marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no buisness being in the marriage business: separation of church and state.
the government should simply recognize formal legal contracts between consenting adults, and adjudicate them through the legal system.
churches marry whomever they choose to. everyone wins, except the fringe on both sides, and the divorce lawyers.
Totally agree. Get the state out of the marriage business entirely, and have them issue civil unions for everyone. Let churches issue marriage certificates if they want to.
Things are already done that way anyhow. I can get a divorce and have it sanctioned by the state simply by filing the paperwork; the Catholic Church, however, would never recognize the divorce. It also might not recognize the marriage itself under many circumstances. That's the church's business. The state's business is simply providing and maintaining a framework for legally binding contracts - also important, but completely separate from the issue of marriage.
| 138 |
Baier Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:37am |
The only reason I can see the state wanting to stop gay marriage is to disallow the tax-free transfer of inheritance between non-legally married couples, which I think is evil.
Either no one should be allowed the benefits of marriage by state, or everyone should.
| 139 |
TheAntichrist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:49am |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
My problem with this is that it only takes a majority vote to deny others of basic rights. What if, for example, interracial marriage could be put to a popular vote in every state?
| 140 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 11:28:54am |
re: #87 joncelli
I strongly agree with this. Get the state out of the marriage business. Found your own church if you want to give it a religious aspect.
You hate Justice's of the Peace!
| 141 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:02am |
| 142 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:03am |
re: #113 Dianna
No clue. I hope not. Honestly, up until a decade ago, I don't believe I ever heard a gay person - male or female - argue for marriage. Twenty years ago, the general attitude was scornful; I'm not sure enough people are likely to be upset enough to riot.
Though it doesn't do to under estimate the stupidity of crowds.
I think people are pretty upset, but most of the people who take this most to heart are respectable middle-aged people who are going to go home and invite friends over and order pizza while they think about the next step.
| 143 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:04am |
re: #132 SpaceJesus
yep. there's always next year.
not if we don't sign the kyoto treaty now and quit driving suvs
/////
| 144 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:30am |
Now, this makes me proud to be Canadian...except, I'm not Canadian.
| 145 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:43am |
re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist
Dare I ask why we and Utah are on your naughty list?
Who do you think put up the money for Prop H8 in the first place?
No California or Utah-based business will get one dime of my money.re: #130 Honorary Yooper
Go piss up a rope. You've been dinging down a lot of comments without any justification for why, then you come out with this asinine statement.
Because you support the upholding of an unjust law. That's justification enough.
| 146 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:46am |
re: #116 Russkilitlover
Methinks your dad's real motivation was visions of a $30,000 wedding!
We eventually came in well under that. ;)
| 147 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:57am |
re: #118 CyanSnowHawk
Marriage is a social construct and it was religion and the churches that were some of the original institutions that brought about and enforced such constructs. Simply because they did it does not make it inherently religious. It might help to view secular and church sanctioned marriage as two similar but separate things with the same name.
no real argument about the history, but given the polarization and divisiveness the issue has in our society, better to take it off the table, by rearranging the process, don;t you think? the civil contracts would give society the stable relationships it thrives on, and making marriage a strictly religious event would defuse the whole argument on both sides.
| 148 |
Hengineer Tue, May 26, 2009 11:29:59am |
re: #132 SpaceJesus
yep. there's always next year.
Wait till the California State Legislature bodies reconvene. I'm sure they'll amend the Constitution to specifically "allow" Gay Marriages.
Then we'll see real protests.
| 149 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:12am |
re: #130 Honorary Yooper
I don't even know what he meant.
I'm going to need a macro for that statement.
| 150 |
JohnnyReb Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:25am |
re: #55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
That is one of my problems with this. I do not like the idea of a court overturning the will of the people. But, sometimes the will of the people can be completely misguided (typed in evil first, but replaced it with misguided).
If the people voted to deport vegetarians who happened to be a tad overweight, I would hope a court would come back in a save that poor wretched soul.
The will of the people fortunately is the law of the land. Even if this goes to SCOTUS I seriously doubt it will be heard. Nothing about the vote was illegal or improper. And the violence and slurs of "homophobe" after the vote won't change the fact the people of CA have spoken. IMO this was never about equal protection for gays, it was more about creating a protected class.
| 151 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:29am |
re: #113 Dianna
Although I don't care about gay marriage much one way or another I do get some satisfaction when I hear about them getting divorced because it seems so hypocritical to make all the fuss about wanting it only to abandon it.
| 152 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:34am |
re: #141 Walter L. Newton
No idea who this EaterOfFood is, but he sure likes to make chickenshit dings without any comments.
| 153 |
joncelli Tue, May 26, 2009 11:30:49am |
re: #144 Rednek
Ohhh, it could only be better if she had clubbed it to death!
| 154 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:15am |
re: #122 zombie
I didn't see that part -- living as I do here, I only saw the virulent protests in front of Prop-8-supporters homes and businesses, the "outing" of people who donated to 8, the threats, the boycotts, etc. A real tantrum. Perhaps in other parts of the state and in other layers of society there were other tactics on the other side, but I personally didn't experience any of it.
I ran into a little of it, and it was pretty ugly.
| 155 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:30am |
re: #141 Walter L. Newton
Whoa... I missed your quaint remark above...
Fuck off.
No. I insulted nobody, and I intend to take the high road.
Now excuse me while I go salute a 48-star flag.
| 156 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:55am |
re: #114 redc1c4
whereas if he'd gotten the death penalty, he'd likely still be alive as his case wound it's way through the nearly endless process......
He murdered two city officials, in their offices. Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. He should have gotten the death penalty.
| 157 |
jackflash Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:27am |
To be precise, the ruling upheld Proposition 8, which defined marriage narrowly as between a man and a woman, and passed this last election. The way it's described here, it sounds like Prop 8 allows gay marriage. Just the opposite. Only one dissent on the court, the most liberal guy there.
| 158 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:32am |
re: #156 Dianna
He murdered two city officials, in their offices. Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. He should have gotten the death penalty.
Quoted for truth.
| 159 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:33am |
re: #152 Honorary Yooper
No idea who this EaterOfFood is, but he sure likes to make chickenshit dings without any comments.
Yep, just an adult (or maybe child, hard to tell) who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to form a rebuttal. Just jumps in here, makes a silly remark, and then trots back into his/her/it's hole, probably wrapped up in some tract from Rev. Phelps.
| 160 |
joncelli Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:34am |
re: #152 Honorary Yooper
I think he's shooting at top signs because the ruling pissed him off (metaphorically, of course).
| 161 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:38am |
re: #122 zombie
I didn't see that part -- living as I do here, I only saw the virulent protests in front of Prop-8-supporters homes and businesses, the "outing" of people who donated to 8, the threats, the boycotts, etc. A real tantrum. Perhaps in other parts of the state and in other layers of society there were other tactics on the other side, but I personally didn't experience any of it.
I didn't personally see nastiness from either side, but I'm in the suburbs. I have friends from both sides of the issue.
I did see some awful things from the "No on 8" side as pertains to people's religions and such even before the election. And since then I've been thoroughly disgusted. They really have not done their cause well by their reaction.
I'm hoping today's decision will not bring riots and that leaders of the gay community will have already prepared their people to peacefully protest. They know they took a hit with the hysteria back in November. And they've taken a hit with the asinine attacks on Miss California -- whatever her real name is.
| 162 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:49am |
re: #131 turn
That's what I thought too. Hey was that a joke about your dad or did he really do that?
No joke. He was beside himself with marriage fervor, and since he himself has been married for thirty-some years...
| 163 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:58am |
re: #155 EaterOfFood
No. I insulted nobody, and I intend to take the high road.
Now excuse me while I go salute a 48-star flag.
Chicken shit.
| 164 |
TheAntichrist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:01am |
re: #137 SixDegrees
Totally agree. Get the state out of the marriage business entirely, and have them issue civil unions for everyone. Let churches issue marriage certificates if they want to.
The problem with this approach is that many state and federal benfits are dependent on marital status.
At any rate, marriage existed long before Christianity existed. Let the Christians who so object to gay marriage invent their own institution instead of hijacking marriage. ;)
| 165 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:08am |
re: #156 Dianna
He murdered two city officials, in their offices. Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. He should have gotten the death penalty.
A scuzzball of the highest order. Glad he's dead.
| 166 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:10am |
re: #156 Dianna
He murdered two city officials, in their offices. Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. He should have gotten the death penalty.
i remember the whole sad episode. IIRC, i was living in the bay area at the time, attending college.
| 167 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:17am |
re: #145 EaterOfFood
Because you support the upholding of an unjust law. That's justification enough.
Since I'm not in California, and cannot vote in California, I cannot uphold or denounce this amendment to the California Constitution. If you feel so strongly about it, organize a counter-amendment and sell it in a sane, just, and friendly way. From what I've heard and read, a lot of folks voted for it because of the rhetoric from the "No" crowd.
If you are unwilling to sell your counter-amendment in a way that it can pass, then you should go piss up a rope.
| 168 |
Hengineer Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:21am |
re: #145 EaterOfFood
Because you support the upholding of an unjust law. That's justification enough.
ITS NOT A LAW.
Its written directly into the Constitution. In fact it allows "Homosexual" Marriage, because it allows a homosexual man to marry a homosexual woman
/tongue in cheek
All Prop 8 does is define marriage as being between a man and a woman in the State Constitution itself.
| 169 |
soxfan4life Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:27am |
re: #156 Dianna
He murdered two city officials, in their offices. Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. He should have gotten the death penalty.
Had he been given the death sentence he would have lived linger than he did.
| 172 |
redc1c4 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:12am |
re: #159 Walter L. Newton
Yep, just an adult (or maybe child, hard to tell) who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to form a rebuttal. Just jumps in here, makes a silly remark, and then trots back into his/her/it's hole, probably wrapped up in some tract from Rev. Phelps.
i get faint traces of Laup Nor in his words.....
| 173 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:13am |
re: #133 NelsFree
This is part of the issue. The Husband is the man in a heterosexual marriage. It is my opinion that gay marriage precludes Husbands or Wives.
It is my opinion that I'll call your sweetie by whatever title you introduce them to me by. Except that if it's "Hunka Burning Love", I will call him Mr. Jones.
| 174 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:28am |
re: #159 Walter L. Newton
Yep, just an adult (or maybe child, hard to tell) who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to form a rebuttal. Just jumps in here, makes a silly remark, and then trots back into his/her/it's hole, probably wrapped up in some tract from Rev. Phelps.
I, a gay marriage supporter, am wrapped up in a tract from Fred Phelps? That's a new one.
| 175 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:16am |
re: #150 JohnnyReb
The will of the people fortunately is the law of the land. Even if this goes to SCOTUS I seriously doubt it will be heard. Nothing about the vote was illegal or improper. And the violence and slurs of "homophobe" after the vote won't change the fact the people of CA have spoken. IMO this was never about equal protection for gays, it was more about creating a protected class.
How does it create a protected class to allow same-sex couples to marry? Does it create one to let mixed couples marry?
| 176 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:18am |
re: #167 Honorary Yooper
Since I'm not in California, and cannot vote in California, I cannot uphold or denounce this amendment to the California Constitution. If you feel so strongly about it, organize a counter-amendment and sell it in a sane, just, and friendly way. From what I've heard and read, a lot of folks voted for it because of the rhetoric from the "No" crowd.
If you are unwilling to sell your counter-amendment in a way that it can pass, then you should go piss up a rope.
I don't live in California, and if I did, I would have left in November. I love the smell of ad hominem in the afternoon.
The proposition system in California needs to be repealed. If you need an example of why our founding fathers made this country a representative republic and not a democracy, this is it.
| 177 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:22am |
re: #144 Rednek
Now, this makes me proud to be Canadian...except, I'm not Canadian.
Edgar Hansen on the Nortwestern (Deadliest Catch crab boat) eats beating cod hearts every season.
//////
| 178 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:37:18am |
re: #145 EaterOfFood
Get a grip.
Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism. That's what happened here.
| 179 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:37:58am |
re: #151 turn
Although I don't care about gay marriage much one way or another I do get some satisfaction when I hear about them getting divorced because it seems so hypocritical to make all the fuss about wanting it only to abandon it.
You know, you can want everyone to have the same rights, and still not be perfect. Some marriages end. Straight, gay, androgynous.
| 180 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:04am |
re: #96 jantjepietje
one of the reasons we have a constitution and a rule of law is to protect the minority from the majority. Democracy alone is worthless it is the dictatorship of the majority and it is not something I'm in favour of.
Amen, Janet JetPie! We have a Republic, not a democracy.
/h on the name, by the way
| 181 |
blangwort Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:07am |
re: #37 soxfan4life
I thought they were going after marriage altogether. Trying to have the idea of marriage at all declared Unconstitutional.
From the perspective of the state, marriage is a vow between a man and a woman. These two individuals are expected to be responsible for one another and usually for any children they decide to raise.
There is nothing religious in the definition of marriage. It is a common tradition among nearly all religions. In fact, this definition may be actively anti-religious because there are a surprising number of sects in various religious communities that advocate polygamy.
The people of California have voted, however. Marriage was defined as being a vow between one man and one woman. That's all the courts need to know. After that, everything else circles around whether this definition is constitutional or not. One might argue freedom of religion for polygamists as a reason why it might not be constitutional, but I don't see how the Gay Rights community has any standing in this.
I think it is the provenance of a society to define what marriage is. The society spoke through the Proposition 8 vote. California has no reason to respect a gay marriage than it would respect a polygamist marriage from some other country.
The gay marriages that took place under state law at the time are a fact. The state needs to respect its own laws. But that's as far as it goes.
| 182 |
lurking faith Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:08am |
re: #96 jantjepietje
one of the reasons we have a constitution and a rule of law is to protect the minority from the majority. Democracy alone is worthless it is the dictatorship of the majority and it is not something I'm in favour of.
"We?" I thought you were European.
But anyway, yes, the Constitution exists and is needed in order to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. (Our system is also supposed to protect the majority from the tyranny of the few.)
If the foes of Prop. 8 wish to get rid of it, then they should either be working on an appeal on the grounds that its language is unconstitutional (not likely to work, as it was written carefully), or be working on a new amendment to negate it as soon as possible.
| 183 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:34am |
re: #174 EaterOfFood
I, a gay marriage supporter, am wrapped up in a tract from Fred Phelps? That's a new one.
My mistake. But your first comment is sick. This is the greatest country in the world, and if you don't like what some states have done, and you want to ignore them and consider them as "null and void" not part of this union, then you sir are not an American.
See.
| 184 |
soxfan4life Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:56am |
re: #174 EaterOfFood
I, a gay marriage supporter, am wrapped up in a tract from Fred Phelps? That's a new one.
I would like to make a coment without making you upset as it is not my intent to upset you. It went to the people and they voted it down. Come up with a way to sell your idea without upsetting so many folks and you will get more support. Living in MA my objection to the whole gay marriage issue here was the legislators efforts to keep it from going to a vote of the citizens. I believe it would have passed, but the faxct that voters were shut out pissed alot of people off. as does this running to th Supreme Court when an election result does not go the way you want it to.
| 185 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:39:04am |
re: #105 NelsFree
Equal protection - that gays are being treated differently than heterosexual couples hoping to be married. 10th Amendment state's rights issues are not at issue here. The state has the right to determine who can or can't get married, but it is a separate question as to whether the state is violating the civil rights of gays by prohibiting them from being married.
| 186 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 11:39:06am |
re: #26 redc1c4
i still don't think that the government should be involved with a religious institution such as marriage.......
and that would certainly defuse the issue.
BINGO! I would support taking the tax deductions for marriage out of the code. If the financial benefits for marriage were "divorced" from the institution and the government got out of the redistribution business based on what is otherwise a religious contract then the whole issue would cease to be so devisive.
However as long as they are giving me a tax break for being married then I'll take the refund check. No entitlement left behind!
| 187 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:22am |
re: #164 TheAntichrist
The problem with this approach is that many state and federal benfits are dependent on marital status.
Not a problem at all. What we're now referring to as "marital status" is really a reflection of the state's license, which would be come a civil union license instead. In fact, NO court currently uses any church's definition, recognition or rejection of marriage as the basis for determining such benefits.
Yes, companies that grant health insurance to spouses would, in many cases, be required to grant it to...spouses that weren't considered spouses prior to such a change in wording. But they are beholden to the state's definition anyway, not any church's. Those gay marriages that were performed during the window when they were legal grant full spousal protections, just as they would to any ordinary marriage. Just as in states that have, in the past, raised the legal age for marriage, or changed it in other ways, continue to recognize marriages performed under the old rules.
It's simply a way of formally separating the roles of church versus state. If you want a marriage, go to your church. That's what many people do, anyway. The church then turns in the required paperwork to the state for you, and the state grants it's own codification of the arrangement with an entirely separate set of implications which are entirely legal, rather than religious, in nature.
| 188 |
Dayenu Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:27am |
re: #168 Hengineer
You may be tongue in cheek, but it happens.
I once met a person who's father was gay, and who's mother was a lesbian. They loved each other, married, had kids, and had their dating partners on the side.
Incidentally, this kid they had was transsexual. "Her" sister was straight, and was the black sheep of the family.
| 189 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:34am |
re: #130 Honorary Yooper
Go piss up a rope. You've been dinging down a lot of comments without any justification for why, then you come out with this asinine statement.
It would appear that Eater of Food is downdinging any and all comments critical of gay lifestyle. I'm expecting Idioma to show up any second, too.
I recall hearing Dan Savage on NPR some time ago. Early on in the segment, a lady called in to say 'Homosexuality is an abomination', words to that effect.
Dan replied by SCREAMING AT HER AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS. His first words were, "SHUT UP!" and it went downhill from there until she hung up. No one else called after that.
Perhaps Eater of Food is showing some intolerance.
| 190 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:35am |
re: #179 SanFranciscoZionist
You know, you can want everyone to have the same rights, and still not be perfect. Some marriages end. Straight, gay, androgynous.
Yes I know this, maybe "satisfaction" wasn't the best term here - "a sense of irony" would have been better. Hey do you know how gay divorce compares to man-woman divorce rates?
| 191 |
CyanSnowHawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:40am |
re: #148 Hengineer
Wait till the California State Legislature bodies reconvene. I'm sure they'll amend the Constitution to specifically "allow" Gay Marriages.
Then we'll see real protests.
There is no "Gay Marriage" special interest group with the kind of money needed to buy that sort of thing from Sacramento. Never happen.
/
| 192 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:44:23am |
re: #183 Walter L. Newton
My mistake. But your first comment is sick. This is the greatest country in the world, and if you don't like what some states have done, and you want to ignore them and consider them as "null and void" not part of this union, then you sir are not an American.
See.
I'll put my Americanism up against yours any day. I consider myself more pro-American than your average Californian. And I'll make you a deal, when gay marriage is legal in California again I'll let bygones be bygones and recognize them again. I and everyone here will probably not live to see it in Utah.
No, I don't like what California has done, and I don't care what "the people" do. If interracial marriage had been put up to a vote it would still be illegal. The rights of a group should not be subject to popular whim.
Of course, the gay activists were too busy genuflecting to Obama to do anything to prevent its passage in the first place, except shout out juvenile racial slurs at the protests.
| 193 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:45:04am |
re: #185 lawhawk
Equal protection
Theres a Lawyer/ talk Host here in Atlanta that argues it's already "equal protection'.
He argues that gays have the same rights I do
I (a male) can marry a woman. A gay male also can
I (a male) CAN"T marry a man. A gay man also cannot!
| 194 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:48:22am |
re: #185 lawhawk
Well, I guess this is why you're the Lawhawk, and I'm NelsFree.
| 195 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:20am |
re: #192 EaterOfFood
If interracial marriage had been put up to a vote it would still be illegal
Hyberbola and BULLSHIT. For that to be true you would need over 50% of all voters to vote against it, in essence you're telling us that over 50% of all Americans are racist!
| 196 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:35am |
re: #189 NelsFree
It would appear that Eater of Food is downdinging any and all comments critical of gay lifestyle. I'm expecting Idioma to show up any second, too.
I recall hearing Dan Savage on NPR some time ago. Early on in the segment, a lady called in to say 'Homosexuality is an abomination', words to that effect.
Dan replied by SCREAMING AT HER AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS. His first words were, "SHUT UP!" and it went downhill from there until she hung up. No one else called after that.
Perhaps Eater of Food is showing some intolerance.
1. There is no "gay lifestyle." There are several gays
2. Mega downdings for comparing me to idioma.
3. The passage of Prop 8 was a travesty, regardless of what "the people" want. That the court upheld it was an insult to an injury whose repercussions are as yet unknown. And why am I being attacked when I, despite being the target of insults, attacked no one personally? Did I oppose evolution or something? I'm trying to keep my cool in the face of a disgrace. Tolerance is a two-way street.
And why are the 18,000 who were married before allowed to keep their marriages? That just creates two separate and unequal classes of gays, those who got in before the ban, and those who are locked out (unless they want to go to the six other states who are now way ahead of California).
You want to see real idiocy, go to some of the leftist gay blogs and see the calls for riots. That Chinese proverb is coming true; we are living in interesting times.
| 197 |
mockery jones Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:55am |
re: #193 sattv4u2
Equal protection
Theres a Lawyer/ talk Host here in Atlanta that argues it's already "equal protection'.
He argues that gays have the same rights I do
I (a male) can marry a woman. A gay male also can
I (a male) CAN"T marry a man. A gay man also cannot!
this logic (?) can easily be countered with the following.
I (a male) can marry a woman. A woman cannot.
I (a male) cannot marry a man. A woman can.
Therefore I have, as a male, have rights denied to women while women have rights denied to me.
| 198 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:52:41am |
re: #184 soxfan4life
I do not believe that social issues should be put up to popular opinion. If they werere: #195 sattv4u2
If interracial marriage had been put up to a vote it would still be illegal
Hyberbola and BULLSHIT. For that to be true you would need over 50% of all voters to vote against it, in essence you're telling us that over 50% of all Americans are racist!
Not today, but in 1967, when Loving v. Virginia was passed by the US Supreme Court, such a vote would have sunk like a stone. The first time interracial couples had a >50% approval rating was 1985.
Explain to me how this whole "separate but equal" thing works again.
| 199 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:25am |
re: #192 EaterOfFood
I'm not going to quote you, because I think you on your way to meeting Stinky's banning stick.
SO, if you get your way, you'll stop being mean? Thank you, Dan Savage.
I'm getting chips and dip out, 'cause I'm eaten too much popcorn lately, and the "dip" seems appropriate.
Go ahead and downding me, Eater of Food. What goes around, comes around.
| 200 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:20am |
re: #184 soxfan4life
I would like to make a coment without making you upset as it is not my intent to upset you.
I never told anyone to "fuck off" or to "go piss up a rope".
| 201 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:51am |
re: #197 mockery jones
this logic (?) can easily be countered with the following.
I (a male) can marry a woman. A woman cannot.
I (a male) cannot marry a man. A woman can.Therefore I have, as a male, have rights denied to women while women have rights denied to me.
apples/ oranges. I'm not a female, and she's not a male.Again, same rights!
| 202 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:55:56am |
I downding anyone who insults me or says anything irredeemably stupid. All of the anti-gay marriage comments qualify.
| 203 |
quickjustice Tue, May 26, 2009 11:56:12am |
I envy California its Initiative and Referendum process. I'm surprised that the California Supreme Court respected it. My personal view is that a majority of the state legislature should decide this issue, not judges. I understand that the California legislature has voted in favor of gay marriage. The voters have overruled their legislature. The judges have affirmed that process.
I'm breaking out the popcorn to watch the riots on TV. All you California lizards: watch your back.
| 204 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:56:40am |
| 205 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:43am |
re: #203 quickjustice
I envy California its Initiative and Referendum process. I'm surprised that the California Supreme Court respected it. My personal view is that a majority of the state legislature should decide this issue, not judges. I understand that the California legislature has voted in favor of gay marriage. The voters have overruled their legislature. The judges have affirmed that process.
I'm breaking out the popcorn to watch the riots on TV. All you California lizards: watch your back.
This is why I'm glad I don't live in California.
| 206 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 11:59:27am |
re: #188 Dayenu
And they all lived happily ever after. The end.
| 207 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 11:59:44am |
| 208 |
jantjepietje Tue, May 26, 2009 12:00:12pm |
re: #182 lurking faith
Yes I am I meant 'We the western democratic world' those are all founded on roughly the same enlightenment principles.
Yes your right it would be very hard to overrule a constitutional amendment and I find it quite insane that a referendum that passes with such a narrow margin can just change the constitution.
| 209 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:00:47pm |
| 210 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:00:51pm |
re: #205 EaterOfFood
This is why I'm glad I don't live in California.
I'm sure there are Californians that share that gladness!
| 211 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:01:23pm |
| 212 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:02:33pm |
re: #211 sattv4u2
Yet I'm the one that got downdinged!
Your aim is bad !
No, my reply. I've got plenty of downdings for you and your homophobic bile.
| 213 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:57pm |
re: #212 EaterOfFood
How do I ding, and where do I check my ratings?
| 214 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:57pm |
re: #212 EaterOfFood
No, my reply. I've got plenty of downdings for you and your homophobic bile.
How is stating the FACT that a male can be arrested for going into a WOMENS REST ROOM "homophobic"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
| 215 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:34pm |
re: #192 EaterOfFood
If interracial marriage had been put up to a vote it would still be illegal. The rights of a group should not be subject to popular whim.
This is a common strawman floated out in the effort to associate the gay rights issue with racism based on the color of one's skin. With perhaps the exceptions of the darkest Jim Crow loving southern states in the 1960's - led by Democrats, the supposed ally and best friend of minorities - the vast majority of states would have permitted this....as many of them had no prohibitions on interracial marriage.
Of course, the gay activists were too busy genuflecting to Obama to do anything to prevent its passage in the first place, except shout out juvenile racial slurs at the protests.
The Dear Leader is on the record of opposing gay marriage. DOMA remains the Federal law after being signed into law by Bill Clinton. Perhaps, rather than seeing the tyranny of a minority with a chip of their shoulder focus towards selected targets, the focus should be directed at eliminating DOMA.
There are three major challenges with most people around the gay marriage debate. One is with the process of how states decided to permit it - with judicial activism / legislating from the bench being very problematic. Achieving this via constitutional amendment / proposition of a vote of the people or via the constitutional process of making it law (legislature / executive branches representing the people passing a law) is the proper way to do this. Furthermore it should also permit religious institutions the ability to decline to perform these marriages without risk of litigation.
Second, as the CA Supreme Court did today, they withheld the establishment of sexual preference as a special class when it comes to standing in legal matters. This elevates them above the majority. Defining a group as a special class is nothing more but racism in reverse supposedly intending to undo past wrongs / racism. No one and no group should have 'special standing'.
Third, I have yet to have someone tell me what is so special and required around this issue to redefine the meaning of a word to something different. It is only a word and one that has had its meaning for centuries throughout multiple societies. There is a very valid claim around lack of legal standing / advantages (and disadvantages) of gay partners - which in CA and many other states have been addressed by Civil Union laws. Why are these insufficient? (I will also refer to the fact that because of DOMA, civil unions are not recognized at a Federal level. Shouldn't the focus of the gay rights groups be directed at the current Executive / Congressional leadership to undo DOMA?)
Of course, civil discourse also goes a long way to getting people to listen and reflect on their positions and perhaps change their points of view. The rhetoric and 'in your face' attitudes isn't helping your cause.
| 216 |
muddywood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:06:17pm |
Homosexuals are not being discriminated against.
I, as a heterosexual, don't have any more rights than a homosexual has.
They can marry any willing partner of the opposite sex, just like I can.
| 217 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:07:43pm |
re: #216 muddywood
Homosexuals are not being discriminated against.
I, as a heterosexual, don't have any more rights than a homosexual has.
They can marry any willing partner of the opposite sex, just like I can.
see #193
| 218 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:08:57pm |
Legal question about the Prop 8 decision...
If it became the law of the land could a Church be denied tax exempt status or the ability to perform legally recognized marriages for refusing to marry gay couples?
(That may not be the intent of the law as written but could it be interpreted that way if passed?)
| 219 |
mockery jones Tue, May 26, 2009 12:11:07pm |
re: #201 sattv4u2
apples/ oranges. I'm not a female, and she's not a male.Again, same rights!
you have a very strange idea of what same rights mean.
if I wanted to marry carmen electra (and she was amenable) then I would have the right to do so, however if sasha grey wanted to marry carmen electra she would not be able to solely on the basis of her gender. It seems to be a pretty clear case of gender discrimination to me.
| 220 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:13:44pm |
re: #218 DaddyG
Legal question about the Prop 8 decision...
If it became the law of the land could a Church be denied tax exempt status or the ability to perform legally recognized marriages for refusing to marry gay couples?
(That may not be the intent of the law as written but could it be interpreted that way if passed?)
doubtful for several reasons
The state(s) would recognize the marriage as a civil contract regardless of if you were married at city hall, a church, or Las Vegas. Even when you get married in a church you need the states impermature ( a marriage license)
Also, if the gov;t tried that (remove the churches tax exemtion because of it) they would run smack into the establishment clause
| 221 |
solomonpanting Tue, May 26, 2009 12:14:26pm |
The State Supreme Court decided last year the the prohibition for same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. What difference does it make if the people voted for the ban? Does the Court really believe their opinions are just so much fluff?
Playing devil's advocate here.
| 223 |
ArchangelMichael Tue, May 26, 2009 12:14:55pm |
re: #58 zombie
I voted No on 8, but once I saw the post-election thug tactics of my fellow No voters, I regretted my decision. It was scary, the way they intimidated and threatened Prop 8 supporters. Straight out on 1920's Munich, if you ask me.
The "No on Proposition 8" campaign's main problem is the attitude of its members.
There was plenty of pre-election "attitude" on this issue too. That Gavin Newsom "whether you like it or not it's coming" speech that was played over and over in Pro-Prop 8 commercials, IMO singlehandedly turned a lot of fence-sitters into Pro-Prop 8 voters.
| 224 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:16:53pm |
re: #196 EaterOfFood
The passage of Prop 8 was a travesty, regardless of what "the people" want. That the court upheld it was an insult to an injury whose repercussions are as yet unknown. And why am I being attacked when I, despite being the target of insults, attacked no one personally? Did I oppose evolution or something? I'm trying to keep my cool in the face of a disgrace. Tolerance is a two-way street.
There was no travesty. It was a legitimate vote. You lost.
The CA Supreme Court, by a 6 to 1 vote, upheld it because there was no legal standing with which to overturn a legal proposition or invalidate a legal vote which represented the voice of the people. To advocate this is nothing less than tyranny of a minority to force its point of view on others. There is a perfectly legal way to overturn this.....offer a counter proposition and hope you get the majority. Of course, if you did, and the anti-gay marriage forces attempted to gain a court decision to reverse it, you would be screaming bloody murder. You know you would.
And why are the 18,000 who were married before allowed to keep their marriages? That just creates two separate and unequal classes of gays, those who got in before the ban, and those who are locked out (unless they want to go to the six other states who are now way ahead of California).
The CA Supreme Court, in legalizing gay marriage, made a mistake. They corrected their mistake. However, as it was legal for a period of time, and related to their mistake, they obviously believed that they should not punish those who were joined during the timeframe.
The fundamental problem that you have is when you start thinking about class and a class system - like your use of the term of two different classes of gay people. The 18K married gay couples in CA have the same rights as the 5 to 10 times greater number who are in civil unions.....and as any other gay person who desires to enter into a civil union with their partner at the state level. There is no class distinction unless you assign one on the basis of the use of a word as opposed to their legal standing in CA. Regardless of all of this, none of those 18K or any of the civil union partners have any real legal standing at the Federal level because of DOMA. That, is where the battle needs to be fought - so civil unions can gain recognition at a Federal level if the majority believes that should be the case.
This is a country that is not founded on any acceptance of a class system - and you lose any argument in which you bring up class. Creating more bad law to undo bad law / practices isn't a solution to the problem.
| 225 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:33pm |
re: #219 mockery jones
you have a very strange idea of what same rights mean.
if I wanted to marry carmen electra (and she was amenable) then I would have the right to do so, however if sasha grey wanted to marry carmen electra she would not be able to solely on the basis of her gender. It seems to be a pretty clear case of gender discrimination to me.
re: #219 mockery jones
you have a very strange idea of what same rights mean.
if I wanted to marry carmen electra (and she was amenable) then I would have the right to do so, however if sasha grey wanted to marry carmen electra she would not be able to solely on the basis of her gender. It seems to be a pretty clear case of gender discrimination to me.
So I as a male should have the right to go into a ladies rest room, just as Sasha Grey can? If not, that too is gender discrimination, no?
| 226 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:36pm |
re: #214 sattv4u2
How is stating the FACT that a male can be arrested for going into a WOMENS REST ROOM "homophobic"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
That's not it. But it is a false analogy to marriage. Your claim that gays have the same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex is equivalent to saying, while interracial marriage was still illegal, that a black person had the right to marry anyone of the same race, got you downdinged. That may be (or have been) technically true but that doesn't mean it was/is acceptable.
So all of you gay marriage opponents go ahead and celebrate your pyrrhic victory while history judges you accordingly.
re: #215 Athos
The Dear Leader is on the record of opposing gay marriage. DOMA remains the Federal law after being signed into law by Bill Clinton. Perhaps, rather than seeing the tyranny of a minority with a chip of their shoulder focus towards selected targets, the focus should be directed at eliminating DOMA.
There are three major challenges with most people around the gay marriage debate. One is with the process of how states decided to permit it - with judicial activism / legislating from the bench being very problematic. Achieving this via constitutional amendment / proposition of a vote of the people or via the constitutional process of making it law (legislature / executive branches representing the people passing a law) is the proper way to do this. Furthermore it should also permit religious institutions the ability to decline to perform these marriages without risk of litigation.
Second, as the CA Supreme Court did today, they withheld the establishment of sexual preference as a special class when it comes to standing in legal matters. This elevates them above the majority. Defining a group as a special class is nothing more but racism in reverse supposedly intending to undo past wrongs / racism. No one and no group should have 'special standing'.
Third, I have yet to have someone tell me what is so special and required around this issue to redefine the meaning of a word to something different. It is only a word and one that has had its meaning for centuries throughout multiple societies. There is a very valid claim around lack of legal standing / advantages (and disadvantages) of gay partners - which in CA and many other states have been addressed by Civil Union laws. Why are these insufficient?
I know that Dear Leader is basically Clinton's third term in regards to gay rights. He took gay bashing gospel "singer" Donnie McClurkin with him on his SC bus tour.
Civil unions have proven to be insufficient in New Jersey because, as a court ruled, it may have been separate but it was not, in its execution, equal.
And in France, they gave heterosexuals and homosexuals civil unions instead of letting gays get married. The result? Fewer heterosexual marriages and more heterosexual civil unions.
And that social collapse in the places that allowed gay marriage? It hasn't happened, and if it does and gay marriage has something to do with it, then and only then will I acknowledge you had any kind of point.
I didn't come here for a fight. But you all decided to insult me and downding me when I had a +65 rating. Just remember: do unto others and all that.
I assumed this site was different from other websites on the right for its refusal to associate with those who advocate anti-Muslim bigotry, its refusal to play along with anti-Obama conspiracies, and its support of evolution. But it seems gay issues are still a blind spot for some people.
I apologize to Californians who felt slighted by my comments. But I stand by my beliefs about the ruling and those who insulted me.
| 227 |
jvic Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:16pm |
re: #93 Russkilitlover
re: #68 SanFranciscoZionistYes on 8 was not a whole lot better. Some of the 'religious' organizations involved were using thug tactics to get donations out of community members who'd been foolish enough to donate to No on 8 groups.
I voted "no" because I was disgusted by the vehemence and the opinions of the Yes on 8 people that I heard locally - in an about town. It was disgusting to hear them leap right on through the whole "slippery slope" arguments and state emphatically that No on Prop 8 would mean man-boy marriages, human and animal unions, etc.
Which set of loons do you want to win? One or the other. No alternatives.
That's what so many issues are being boiled down to. Deliberately. Whatever compromises might be acceptable to the bulk of the population are deliberately excluded.
To hell with people like that.
(Btw, I completely support civil unions. I am unconvinced about government-affirmed gay marriage but could be persuaded. For instance, by the example of life-partnered gay couples declaring they're married; if it happens socially first, the legality will be an afterthought. Revoking govt's ability to define marriage also has merit afaic. The younger generation apparently favors gay marriage and I accept that it seems in the cards sooner or later.)
| 228 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:32pm |
re: #224 Athos
The CA Supreme Court, in legalizing gay marriage, made a mistake. They corrected their mistake. However, as it was legal for a period of time, and related to their mistake, they obviously believed that they should not punish those who were joined during the timeframe.
Which do you consider the mistake? That gay marriage was legal or the method in which it was done so?
| 229 |
mockery jones Tue, May 26, 2009 12:21:11pm |
re: #225 sattv4u2
So I as a male should have the right to go into a ladies rest room, just as Sasha Grey can? If not, that too is gender discrimination, no?
now who is talking apples and oranges. entering into a legal contract vs using a restroom? get real and try harder.
| 230 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 12:21:27pm |
re: #203 quickjustice
I envy California its Initiative and Referendum process.
You shouldn't. It has caused our state tons of trouble.
| 231 |
TheAntichrist Tue, May 26, 2009 12:21:50pm |
re: #197 mockery jones
this logic (?) can easily be countered with the following.
I (a male) can marry a woman. A woman cannot.
I (a male) cannot marry a man. A woman can.Therefore I have, as a male, have rights denied to women while women have rights denied to me.
Your logic can be shown to be discriminatory because a woman can marry a man, yet a man cannot marry a man. Thus, it discriminates by gender.
| 232 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:38pm |
re: #229 mockery jones
now who is talking apples and oranges. entering into a legal contract vs using a restroom? get real and try harder.
We're talking about legalities here, so I am real and don't have to try harder
| 234 |
Land Shark Tue, May 26, 2009 12:23:41pm |
Wow, this is a surprise, given the California Supreme Court's tradition of overturning the will of the people in previous referendums. Mind you, I'm not a fan of banning gay marriage, I voted against the constitutional amendment which passed overwhelmingly in FLA. last November, but I've never been comfortable with courts overturning ballot results either.
Regardless whether it's called marriage or not, I think gay couples should be given some sort of "marriage like" legal status so their matters can be settled properly. Inheritance, rights of survivorship, benefits, visitation rights, etc. I think it's to the benefit of the people involved, as well as society, to give them the legal framework so these matters can be resolved in an orderly, legal and hopefully fair manner.
| 235 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:24:26pm |
re: #229 mockery jones
now who is talking apples and oranges. entering into a legal contract vs using a restroom? get real and try harder.
The argument is the ban on gay marriage is discriminatory due to gender. my anaolgy makes the same point
| 236 |
Throbert McGee Tue, May 26, 2009 12:24:49pm |
Has anyone pointed out that Charles' summary in the top post contains major factual errors as it currently reads? He wrote:
Today the California Supreme Court upheld the vote against Proposition 8, which would have legalized same-sex marriage, but validated all marriages that took place before their ruling.
It should read something like:
Today the California Supreme Court upheld the vote against Proposition 8, which would have legalized ^ banned state recognition of same-sex ^ couplehood under the term "marriage," but validated all ^ same-sex marriages that took place before their ruling ^ Prop 8 was passed by voters.
(Maybe he hadn't had enough coffee when he posted that...)
| 237 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:25:02pm |
AND,, someone please show me where I have stated I am OPPOSED to gay marriage!
| 238 |
Liberal Classic Tue, May 26, 2009 12:25:14pm |
re: #193 sattv4u2
Equal protectionTheres a Lawyer/ talk Host here in Atlanta that argues it's already "equal protection'.
He argues that gays have the same rights I do
I (a male) can marry a woman. A gay male also can
I (a male) CAN"T marry a man. A gay man also cannot!
re: #216 muddywood
Homosexuals are not being discriminated against.
I, as a heterosexual, don't have any more rights than a homosexual has.
They can marry any willing partner of the opposite sex, just like I can.
Please don't pretend these tortured rationalizations represent any sort of logical argument.
With a state-sponsored marriage, participants received a number of valuable legal presumptions, such as those dealing with inheritance and community property, power of attorney, medical power of attorney and legal guardianship in the case of incapacitating illness or injury, and so forth. In the absence of gay marriage/civil unions, many of these are rights that are outright denied to gay people, or at best are attainable only though complex and expensive legal arrangements akin to private adoption.
What the above statements are saying is that gay people want these things, then they should be content with a sham "marriage of convenience" with a person of the opposite sex.
| 239 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:26:04pm |
re: #227 jvic
(Btw, I completely support civil unions. I am unconvinced about government-affirmed gay marriage but could be persuaded. For instance, by the example of life-partnered gay couples declaring they're married; if it happens socially first, the legality will be an afterthought. Revoking govt's ability to define marriage also has merit afaic. The younger generation apparently favors gay marriage and I accept that it seems in the cards sooner or later.)
Well, on a state-by-state level, six states have it. The results, so far, are not scary. Frankly, the idea of gay couples wanting to be in long-term, committed monogamous relationships should be encouraging. It is a rejection of promiscuity, a sign of willing to become more mature.
Keep in mind that many of the opponents of gay marriage oppose anything pro-gay at all. Some of them also have the nutty idea that sexual orientation can be changed through prayer.
| 240 |
ArchangelMichael Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:23pm |
re: #230 Yashmak
You shouldn't. It has caused our state tons of trouble.
If it was much harder to get initiatives on the ballot, and constitutional amendments required a super-majority it wouldn't be so bad. The way it is now though, the CA state constitution reads like Robocop's thousands of directives after he was reprogrammed in the second movie.... if there was a way to wipe the slate clean and start over without allowing San Francisco hippies and Berkeley Code Pinkos to write Marxism into the new state constitution right from the start I'd be all for it.
| 241 |
scott in east bay Tue, May 26, 2009 12:29:53pm |
Hi everybody. I'm here working about three blocks from the CA Supreme Court, so I hope my building is set on fire later.
Just some info: CA already has domestic partnerships. They bestow "all spousal rights" that the state can give. It has nothing to do with federal law. I'm in one of those domestic partnerships. We have community property, inheritance rights, etc. We file a joint state income tax statement.
I am amazed how many people even here in CA think that "marriage" would have changed anything. It wouldn't have. Some of the gay people I work with were insisting that "marriage" would mean the feds would recognize the union, which was nonsense.
I expected this court decision. It doesn't change a thing for me.
| 242 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:32pm |
re: #240 ArchangelMichael
If it was much harder to get initiatives on the ballot, and constitutional amendments required a super-majority it wouldn't be so bad.
No argument there.
The way it is now though, the CA state constitution reads like Robocop's thousands of directives after he was reprogrammed in the second movie.... if there was a way to wipe the slate clean and start over without allowing San Francisco hippies and Berkeley Code Pinkos to write Marxism into the new state constitution right from the start I'd be all for it.
Again, no argument there. We all remember how well that worked out for Robocop :)
| 243 |
scott in east bay Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:54pm |
Oops! I hope my building is NOT set on fire later.
| 244 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:54pm |
re: #238 Liberal Classic
Another legal question...
What is the legal distinction between Civil Unions and Marriage (vis a vis the rights of the couple)?
| 245 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:02pm |
re: #226 EaterOfFood
Civil unions have proven to be insufficient in New Jersey because, as a court ruled, it may have been separate but it was not, in its execution, equal.
You are citing a textbook case of judicial activism. There is also an easy legislative fix....use the California definition. But that may not work as the NJ Supreme Court does have a well earned reputation for activism and hypocrisy. (See their application of the death penalty) As for equal, the only inequality at a state level between civil unions and marriage is the use of the word marriage. There are no real damages or penalities if a couple joined via civil union told their friends they were 'married'. The societal accepted definition of marriage is between one man and one woman.
And that social collapse in the places that allowed gay marriage? It hasn't happened, and if it does and gay marriage has something to do with it, then and only then will I acknowledge you had any kind of point.
Do we really want to enter the 'slippery slope' argument - there are already cases of the gay marriage precedents being used to justify poligomy. You are just redefining the argument and ignoring the basic question - why is a word so important?
And rather than do another response - the mistake made by the CA Supreme Court in 2008 was to invalidate the proposition which defined marriage as between one man and one woman which passed with 62% of the vote. It was not a constitutional amendment as Prop 8 was. By a narrow 4-3 decision, they decided that the will of the people was insufficient and legislated from the bench. It is very interesting that today, 2 of those former 'yes' votes on the bench change their minds.
| 246 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:55pm |
re: #238 Liberal Classic
Please don't pretend these tortured rationalizations represent any sort of logical argument.
With a state-sponsored marriage, participants received a number of valuable legal presumptions, such as those dealing with inheritance and community property, power of attorney, medical power of attorney and legal guardianship in the case of incapacitating illness or injury, and so forth. In the absence of gay marriage/civil unions, many of these are rights that are outright denied to gay people, or at best are attainable only though complex and expensive legal arrangements akin to private adoption.
What the above statements are saying is that gay people want these things, then they should be content with a sham "marriage of convenience" with a person of the opposite sex.
You win the thread.
It is a simple fact that no gay man will ever be in love with a woman, nor will any lesbian be in love with a man. No gay man or lesbian can now marry a person with whom they are in love in CA. If one of those 18,000 couples divorce and wish to remarry someone else of the same sex (or each other), they can't.
re: #237 sattv4u2
AND,, someone please show me where I have stated I am OPPOSED to gay marriage!
Are you? You continue to make one of the same tortured arguments that gay marriage opponents constantly use.
| 247 |
ArchangelMichael Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:30pm |
re: #243 scott in east bay
Oops! I hope my building is NOT set on fire later.
I thought you were hoping to get out of work or something.
| 248 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 12:34:16pm |
I think our children will look back on this period with bewilderment, embarrassment, and a sense of indignation regarding our treatment of citizen groups in this country. Those of us old enough to remember "Separate but equal" already have a hard time explaining this nation's history - yes, especially now, given the current commander-in-chief. It will seem just as (if not more) absurd that the same groups that supposedly value "family" denied marriage to a class they found disgusting for religious reasons or traditional bigotry.
Chew on this: Gay couples are the ONLY reliable couples with regards to family planning; accidental pregnancy leading to hasty shotgun weddings aren't part of their equation. 99.9999% of the time gay couples carefully plan to start a family and go through incredibly strict screening before bringing a child into their home.
Maybe that's what far-right conservatives are really afraid of - being up-staged by them 'queers'.
/rant
| 249 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 12:35:15pm |
re: #241 scott in east bay
Hi everybody. I'm here working about three blocks from the CA Supreme Court, so I hope my building is set on fire later.
Just some info: CA already has domestic partnerships. They bestow "all spousal rights" that the state can give. It has nothing to do with federal law. I'm in one of those domestic partnerships. We have community property, inheritance rights, etc. We file a joint state income tax statement.
As a fellow Californian, I've got a question that I hope you can answer. Do the partners carry power of attorney in the case of medical issues, such as permanent vegetative state, etc. etc.? I find your answer encouraging. I wasn't aware that domestic partnerships accounted for inheritance issues etc., or for tax purposes. Interesting.
| 250 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:35:33pm |
re: #246 EaterOfFood
Are you? You continue to make one of the same tortured arguments that gay marriage opponents constantly use.
actually , no, i'm not. If a married gay couple were to move in next door to me and my family (as opposed to the gay couple I bought my house from) I would ask them 2 things ONLY
1) keep your property neatly mowed and trashy free
2) if you have any late night wild parties ,,, INVITE US
| 251 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:36pm |
re: #245 Athos
I have started automatically dismissing any use of the phrase "judicial activism". Try harder.
If the upholding of Prop H8 is consistent with state law, then there is a problem with state law. And if re: #240 ArchangelMichael has it right regarding the CA state constitution (which I don't doubt), there needs to be major overhauling if not throwing it out altogether.
Frankly, conservatives and liberals both have it wrong regarding the nature of rights.
| 252 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:56pm |
re: #246 EaterOfFood
re: #250 sattv4u2
Are you? You continue to make one of the same tortured arguments that gay marriage opponents constantly use.
actually , no, i'm not. If a married gay couple were to move in next door to me and my family (as opposed to the gay couple I bought my house from) I would ask them 2 things ONLY
1) keep your property neatly mowed and trashy free
2) if you have any late night wild parties ,,, INVITE US
But the unfortunate thing for you is those "tortured arguments" are set in legal precedents! (not to mention the logical analogies I provided)
| 253 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:38:29pm |
re: #248 idioma
I think our children will look back on this period with bewilderment, embarrassment, and a sense of indignation regarding our treatment of citizen groups in this country. Those of us old enough to remember "Separate but equal" already have a hard time explaining this nation's history - yes, especially now, given the current commander-in-chief. It will seem just as (if not more) absurd that the same groups that supposedly value "family" denied marriage to a class they found disgusting for religious reasons or traditional bigotry.
And the CiC is one of those making those arguments (see "God is in the mix", Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren).
| 254 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 12:38:43pm |
re: #248 idioma
Maybe that's what far-right conservatives are really afraid of - being up-staged by them 'queers'./rant
You may be on to something there.
| 255 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:21pm |
re: #252 sattv4u2
re: #250 sattv4u2
But the unfortunate thing for you is those "tortured arguments" are set in legal precedents! (not to mention the logical analogies I provided)
Not all legal precedents are created equal. Plessy v. Ferguson and Kelo v. New London were not exactly the Supreme Court's finest hours.
| 256 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:39pm |
Given Scott in East Bay's post I'll modify my question.
Since domestic partners in CA have the same legal protections as married couples what is the benefit of defining marriage differently than between a man and a woman?
(I'm not sold on propaganda spouted by either side of this debate so please stick to tangible benefits/risks and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.)
| 257 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:52pm |
re: #238 Liberal Classic
With a state-sponsored marriage, participants received a number of valuable legal presumptions, such as those dealing with inheritance and community property, power of attorney, medical power of attorney and legal guardianship in the case of incapacitating illness or injury, and so forth. In the absence of gay marriage/civil unions, many of these are rights that are outright denied to gay people, or at best are attainable only though complex and expensive legal arrangements akin to private adoption.
[bold added]
Actually, this isn't the case. A power of attorney would suffice.
Friends of ours, a lesbian couple partners for 20+ years, anticipated this and took this step many years ago. When one had a heart attack and was in ICU, the other partner had no problems gaining access, making decisions, etc just as a spouse would have. She was asked once for the document and that was it. (They each carried a copy of this with them in the event of emergency.) This was about 9 years ago in NJ - well before the demands for gay marriage.
| 258 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:40:21pm |
re: #250 sattv4u2
2) if you have any late night wild parties ,,, INVITE US
Are you sure about that one, are you absolutely positively sure about that?
| 259 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:50pm |
re: #257 Athos
[bold added]
Actually, this isn't the case. A power of attorney would suffice.
Friends of ours, a lesbian couple partners for 20+ years, anticipated this and took this step many years ago. When one had a heart attack and was in ICU, the other partner had no problems gaining access, making decisions, etc just as a spouse would have. She was asked once for the document and that was it. (They each carried a copy of this with them in the event of emergency.) This was about 9 years ago in NJ - well before the demands for gay marriage.
How much did that cost? Note that heterosexuals can get that with just one contract: a marriage license.
Those lesbians in Florida at that hospital were not so lucky.
| 260 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 12:42:34pm |
re: #256 DaddyG
Given Scott in East Bay's post I'll modify my question.
Since domestic partners in CA have the same legal protections as married couples what is the benefit of defining marriage differently than between a man and a woman?
Well, most of the folks I've seen who were in favor of Prop 8 always maintained they weren't trying to deny legal protections to gays, merely that (insert some vague argument about traditional families here).
I've never understood this either. For folks arguing from this point of view, it seems to boil down to preventing gays from using a word to describe their unions. . . .which seems a colossal waste of time and money, and awfully petty to boot.
| 261 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:42:44pm |
re: #251 EaterOfFood
I have started automatically dismissing any use of the phrase "judicial activism".
Then further discussion is pointless. You want what you want regardless.
| 262 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:24pm |
re: #255 EaterOfFood
Not all legal precedents are created equal. Plessy v. Ferguson and Kelo v. New London were not exactly the Supreme Court's finest hours.
You pull a case from 1869 as an example !?!?!
| 263 |
Throbert McGee Tue, May 26, 2009 12:44:29pm |
In threads like this, I really wish that inline images were supported on LGF, because it would be the perfect occasion for my custom-made "Mary, please!" animated .gif.
Maybe I'll send it to Charles and see what he thinks of it.
(Incidentally, for the Polari-impaired, the expressions "Oh, Mary" and "Mary, please" are old-fashioned gay slang terms that basically convey "Stop being such a drama queen" or "Get over yourself, already," etc. )
I'm lookin' at you, EaterOfFood...
| 264 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:45:40pm |
re: #260 Yashmak Thanks. That is why I'm trying to get some facts on what the legal difference is between Civil Union and Marriage.
If it were up to me Church's would do marriages and states would recognize unions.
The only complication I can see is when Polygamists, Polygynists, and other people who want to form arrangements for financial and legal reasons (without the desire to be unified in a marriage) etc. try to use the same laws to expand the definition of marriage. That could get messy.
| 265 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:17pm |
re: #210 sattv4u2
I'm sure there are Californians that share that gladness!
There will likely be celebratory parties.
| 266 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:54pm |
re: #258 EaterOfFood
Are you sure about that one, are you absolutely positively sure about that?
Absolutly. BEING someplace does not mean I have to PARTICIPATE in everything at that place. I often go beach. I seldom paraglide
| 267 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:48:15pm |
re: #259 EaterOfFood
How much did that cost? Note that heterosexuals can get that with just one contract: a marriage license.
I believe it was just the cost of the notary. Note - homosexuals in California (and other states) get that with just one contract - a civil union. Same thing - different name. So, again, why does the term have to be the same and a word redefined? What damages are experienced if the word is not redefined?
| 268 |
oh_dude Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:52pm |
I'm conservative, straight, married and a native of California. I voted yes on 8, but after having thought it out would probably vote no if I had to do it again.
Doesn't affect me either way. If gay people want to get married, so be it.
I think I was just voting along party lines because to be honest, there's so many ballot initiatives to look at that my head is spinning.
The other thing that I've found is that you a don't always get what you paid for anyway. You may think that voting yes or no on an initiative is going to help you out and it turns and backfires on you. Californians know this better than anyone.
| 269 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:05pm |
re: #260 Yashmak
Well, most of the folks I've seen who were in favor of Prop 8 always maintained they weren't trying to deny legal protections to gays, merely that (insert some vague argument about traditional families here).
I've never understood this either. For folks arguing from this point of view, it seems to boil down to preventing gays from using a word to describe their unions. . . .which seems a colossal waste of time and money, and awfully petty to boot.
The analogy I like to use is to spoiled children who won't share a toy even after they got it dirty and broken. But if it were just a stupid toy, no one over the age of 5 would care.
You want the word? You already have it. No one is going to take it from you.
re: #263 Throbert McGee
I'm lookin' at you, EaterOfFood...
While I see that you you continue to support a party that tolerates homophobes and science-phobes.
I voted for McCain, but I think I'll be re-registering as an independent and not supporting either of these parties until making anti-gay comments has the same devastating effect on a political career as making anti-black or anti-semitic ones. The rest of the borderline bigoted comments by the lizards here has convinced me it's time for a divorce from the GOP and from any movement that believes rights should be subject to popular opinion. I think both parties should use a jackass as their mascots.
re: #262 sattv4u2
You pull a case from 1869 as an example !?!?!
1896, but the fact that it stood until 1954 speaks volumes. And Kelo was a few years ago.
| 270 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:05pm |
re: #267 Athos
I believe it was just the cost of the notary. Note - homosexuals in California (and other states) get that with just one contract - a civil union. Same thing - different name. So, again, why does the term have to be the same and a word redefined? What damages are experienced if the word is not redefined?
If marriage is redefined as a union between consenting adults could a Church could be faced with a discrimination suit for recognizing only marriage between a man and a woman as a condition for membership?
(sattv4u2 addressed this in part in #220) but is there any legal risk to the religious institutions that seek to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
| 271 |
Liberal Classic Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:36pm |
re: #257 Athos
[bold added]
Actually, this isn't the case. A power of attorney would suffice.
Friends of ours, a lesbian couple partners for 20+ years, anticipated this and took this step many years ago. When one had a heart attack and was in ICU, the other partner had no problems gaining access, making decisions, etc just as a spouse would have. She was asked once for the document and that was it. (They each carried a copy of this with them in the event of emergency.) This was about 9 years ago in NJ - well before the demands for gay marriage.
You're not wrong about that, it's just that power of attorney doesn't cover everything. It doesn't address the status of children by previous relationships, inheritance, alimony and child support in the event of separation, or insurance benefits, all the kinds of things that heterosexual married people take for granted. It's kind of a package deal. I see no reason to deny the "package" to same-sex couples. This isn't to say marriage is for everyone. I know plenty of heterosexual couples who never marry, or rely on common law.
| 272 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 12:55:05pm |
re: #267 Athos
I believe it was just the cost of the notary. Note - homosexuals in California (and other states) get that with just one contract - a civil union. Same thing - different name. So, again, why does the term have to be the same and a word redefined? What damages are experienced if the word is not redefined?
Cost of notary varies by the notary.
Cost of a domestic partnership, same-sex couple: $33.00 (It appears it is more than for non-same-sex, with the extra going to a special fund to develop awareness of same-sex violence, or something similar.)
Cost of a marriage license, Los Angeles County: $70.00
| 273 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:55:18pm |
re: #269 EaterOfFood
1896, but the fact that it stood until 1954 speaks volumes. And Kelo was a few years ago.
Again, I would recommend you stick with recent (hell,,, 1954 I was one!)
Kelo was 2005. Better for your timeline, but an eminent domain case does little to further yor cause, bad outcome/ law or not
| 274 |
Liberal Classic Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:09pm |
re: #264 DaddyG
The only complication I can see is when Polygamists, Polygynists, and other people who want to form arrangements for financial and legal reasons (without the desire to be unified in a marriage) etc. try to use the same laws to expand the definition of marriage. That could get messy.
I wonder if it would be possible to have a rational discussion of polygamy without slippery-sloping our way to bestiality and marrying robots?
| 275 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:17pm |
re: #269 EaterOfFood
re: #273 sattv4u2
1896, but the fact that it stood until 1954 speaks volumes. And Kelo was a few years ago.
Again, I would recommend you stick with recent (hell,,, 1954 I was one!)
Kelo was 2005. Better for your timeline, but an eminent domain case does little to further yor cause, bad outcome/ law or not
and I was the one that was excoriated for mixing apples and oranges !
Oy !
| 276 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:44pm |
re: #273 sattv4u2
1896, but the fact that it stood until 1954 speaks volumes. And Kelo was a few years ago.
Again, I would recommend you stick with recent (hell,,, 1954 I was one!)
Kelo was 2005. Better for your timeline, but an eminent domain case does little to further yor cause, bad outcome/ law or not
I used Kelo as an example of bad legislature, not having anything to do with the gay marriage "debate" (which was intellectually like an elephant fighting a chipmunk, the elephant being the pro-gay marriage side).
re: #272 EmmmieG
Cost of notary varies by the notary.
Cost of a domestic partnership, same-sex couple: $33.00 (It appears it is more than for non-same-sex, with the extra going to a special fund to develop awareness of same-sex violence, or something similar.)
Cost of a marriage license, Los Angeles County: $70.00
Seriously? Gay couples have to pay more than heterosexual couples (who shouldn't HAVE civil unions, as having marriage rights eliminates their need)? "Separate but equal" is proof that Orwell was right and so was P.T. Barnum.
| 277 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:53pm |
re: #274 Liberal Classic
I wonder if it would be possible to have a rational discussion of polygamy without slippery-sloping our way to bestiality and marrying robots?
Probably not - sadly. But Polygamy and Polygyny are two social movements with precident and current practice. So they are fair game. The domestic and government benefit question becomes very pronounced when it comes to that kind of arrangement.
| 278 |
solomonpanting Tue, May 26, 2009 12:59:59pm |
re: #85 EaterOfFood
I now only recognize 48 states. California and Utah are not American states.
Know where I can find a 48-star flag?
Why 48 states? At least 19 states have banned same-sex marriage. You're going to need a different flag.
| 279 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:57pm |
re: #274 Liberal Classic
I wonder if it would be possible to have a rational discussion of polygamy without slippery-sloping our way to bestiality and marrying robots?
I know the Old Testament seems to look the other way at Solomon's nearly 700 wives and concubines. Not to mention Jacob's two wives, Rachel and Leah.
But polygamy is a choice. Sexual orientation isn't. Does the APA recognize polygamy?
And bestiality is animal abuse. By definition, animals cannot consent to a contract. Robots would be rather uncomfortable on the wedding night.
| 280 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:48pm |
re: #270 DaddyG
If marriage is redefined as a union between consenting adults could a Church could be faced with a discrimination suit for recognizing only marriage between a man and a woman as a condition for membership?
(sattv4u2 addressed this in part in #220) but is there any legal risk to the religious institutions that seek to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
My understanding is given the creation of a homosexuality as a special class, and without any specific provisions exempting the religious organization from repercussions, there would be legal risk. I think that there should not be an issue to exempt religious organizations from risk if they decline to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. (Also think establishment clause would be applicable - but specific provisions would keep the issue clear.)
| 281 |
ArchangelMichael Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:01pm |
re: #274 Liberal Classic
I wonder if it would be possible to have a rational discussion of polygamy without slippery-sloping our way to bestiality and marrying robots?
I, for one, support human-AI relationships!
Polygamy or Heinleinesque group marriages... not so much.
| 282 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:09pm |
re: #276 EaterOfFood
Seriously? Gay couples have to pay more than heterosexual couples (who shouldn't HAVE civil unions, as having marriage rights eliminates their need)? "Separate but equal" is proof that Orwell was right and so was P.T. Barnum.
** For same-sex partners, Family Code section 298 requires that an additional $23.00 fee be paid at the time of filing the form, for a total of $33.00. The additional $23.00 fee will be used to develop and support a training curriculum specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse support service providers who serve that community in regard to domestic violence, and to provide brochures specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse. Brochures developed by the California Department of Public Health will be available upon request from the Secretary of State, as funding allows.
That's lifted directly from a state of California website. I suggest you go look at it now, until they go into bankruptcy and can't afford their bandwidth fees anymore. (That was a joke, by the way.)
I have no opinion on why the LGBT community needs separate domestic violence stuff, unless it's because there aren't many DV shelters for men.
| 283 |
gander Tue, May 26, 2009 1:10:05pm |
It takes an enormous commitment, effort and flexibility to spend your life with someone who is biologically and psychologically different than you. I think that many heterosexual couples or "breeders" as have been derisively referred to, are a little put-off by the suggestion that a male/male or female/female union is intrinsically the same as what they have worked for in their lives.
Gay people deserve rights, but they shouldn't be built by disrespecting what has come before.
| 284 |
sffilk Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:02pm |
re: #15 soxfan4life
What ever happened to letting the voters decide. They did and now they want the Court to ignore the voice of the people. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in an efficient manner.
And what the people decided is similar to what was decided in Plessy v. Ferguson. Doesn't make it right now, just as it didn't then.
| 285 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:45pm |
re: #282 EmmmieG
** For same-sex partners, Family Code section 298 requires that an additional $23.00 fee be paid at the time of filing the form, for a total of $33.00. The additional $23.00 fee will be used to develop and support a training curriculum specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse support service providers who serve that community in regard to domestic violence, and to provide brochures specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse. Brochures developed by the California Department of Public Health will be available upon request from the Secretary of State, as funding allows.
That's lifted directly from a state of California website. I suggest you go look at it now, until they go into bankruptcy and can't afford their bandwidth fees anymore. (That was a joke, by the way.)
I have no opinion on why the LGBT community needs separate domestic violence stuff, unless it's because there aren't many DV shelters for men.
That joke you told was funny because it'll probably soon be true. California is the laughingstock of the nation, and the fact that Prop H8 was passed and upheld is one of many reasons. Without all the idiots who populate it, it would be one of the most beautiful states.
But my conscience forbids me to support anything that comes out of CA until this travesty is repealed. And it would help if the Proposition system was also repealed.
| 286 |
jvic Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:12pm |
re: #239 EaterOfFood
Well, on a state-by-state level, six states have it. The results, so far, are not scary.
I agree.
(In a stable ideal world, we would wait, e.g., to see how children adopted by those couples turn out. But this world is neither ideal or stable, and many American children would be better off adopted by a gay couple than staying where they were born.)
Frankly, the idea of gay couples wanting to be in long-term, committed monogamous relationships should be encouraging. It is a rejection of promiscuity, a sign of willing to become more mature.
Absolutely.
Keep in mind that many of the opponents of gay marriage oppose anything pro-gay at all. Some of them also have the nutty idea that sexual orientation can be changed through prayer.
I do. Hopefully I made that clear in the part of my comment you did not extract.
****************
IMHO you're not helping your credibility with multiple downdings of people you're disagreeing with. Please take this as a friendly observation from someone who is not ready to accept your conclusions but recognizes that you make valid points.
| 287 |
Querent Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:44pm |
re: #256 DaddyG
Given Scott in East Bay's post I'll modify my question.
Since domestic partners in CA have the same legal protections as married couples what is the benefit of defining marriage differently than between a man and a woman?
(I'm not sold on propaganda spouted by either side of this debate so please stick to tangible benefits/risks and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.)
i'll bite -- when you're unconscious, bleeding from the head, and they hospital is looking for your next of kin, nothing says "i have chosen this person to make decisions regarding my welfare on my behalf" like "this is my spouse."
| 288 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:03pm |
re: #280 Athos
My understanding is given the creation of a homosexuality as a special class, and without any specific provisions exempting the religious organization from repercussions, there would be legal risk. I think that there should not be an issue to exempt religious organizations from risk if they decline to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. (Also think establishment clause would be applicable - but specific provisions would keep the issue clear.)
Have religious exemptions already been included in existing SSM laws in the states that do allow it? It was my impression that the laws referred to civil marriage, and not religious ceremonies.
| 289 |
Liberal Classic Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:42pm |
re: #270 DaddyG
If marriage is redefined as a union between consenting adults could a Church could be faced with a discrimination suit for recognizing only marriage between a man and a woman as a condition for membership?
(sattv4u2 addressed this in part in #220) but is there any legal risk to the religious institutions that seek to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
While I'm no lawyer, I can't imagine any exposure to risk to religious institutions. While marriage licenses are issued by the state, religious institutions are well-established as private entities with absolute control over their membership and practices. I can't envision any statute requiring private churches to perform ceremonies against their could pass through the legislative process, nor any similar lawsuit being upheld.
Just an anecdote, but a member of my family had to convert in order to be married in the church of her spouse. The Catholic Church marries Catholics. Orthodox synagogues marry Orthodox Jews. Southern Baptist congregations marry Southern Baptists. I'm sure the Universal Unitarians will marry secular homosexual couples. But will the Southern Baptist Convention ever allow homosexual marriage? I doubt it.
Would the government ever force the churches and synagogues to perform ceremonies against their will? I strongly doubt it. In my opinion, the worry about this issue is overblown.
| 290 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 1:22:52pm |
re: #279 EaterOfFood
I know the Old Testament seems to look the other way at Solomon's nearly 700 wives and concubines. Not to mention Jacob's two wives, Rachel and Leah.
But polygamy is a choice. Sexual orientation isn't. Does the APA recognize polygamy?
Some clarification...
Jacob had children by 4 women not just two and a concubine was a legal arrangement with the rights of a wife but not the same right of inheritance for the children.
A polygamist may argue that their arrangement is as much a function of their physiological make-up as any same sex attraction. Orientation, choice, action, love and attraction are all distinct facets of human relationships.
The APA used to call homosexuality a disorder before the political winds changed, I wouldn't depend on citing them on the legal distinctions.
I agree that bestiality and robots are a silly parallel.
| 291 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:03pm |
re: #287 Querent
Succinct and to the point. Thanks.
I'm looking for the compromise that allows Civil Unions the same rights while not dictating what religious groups can choose to recognize for reasons of faith. The hyperbole and arguments both sides of the issue have put up don't serve to clarify that.
| 292 |
solomonpanting Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:44pm |
re: #289 Liberal Classic
While I'm no lawyer, I can't imagine any exposure to risk to religious institutions. While marriage licenses are issued by the state, religious institutions are well-established as private entities with absolute control over their membership and practices I can't envision any statute requiring private churches to perform ceremonies against their could pass through the legislative process, nor any similar lawsuit being upheld.
Last year eHarmony settled a lawsuit brought against it by someone who thought it discriminatory that the company did not provided services for same-sex couples.
| 293 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:28:11pm |
re: #286 jvic
IMHO you're not helping your credibility with multiple downdings of people you're disagreeing with. Please take this as a friendly observation from someone who is not ready to accept your conclusions but recognizes that you make valid points.
I disagreed with them because they are wrong. The arguments they used were wrong when used against interracial marriage and don't magically gain logical validity when applied to another group of people.
How do you suggest I react to someone who tells me to "go piss up a rope?"
You appear to have been registered as long as I have, after lurking for years and finally making it into the registration. And in that time not once have I ever attacked anyone, and I have tried to defer to those who know what I would like to learn. And I have tried for years to understand the point of view of those who may have reservations or objections to gay rights. But after Prop H8, that's all out the window. I have no more patience for any anti-gay propaganda of any kind, and I never will.
Several posters have crossed the line in their behavior and rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. How do they know who downdinged them and when?
| 294 |
lurking faith Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:30pm |
re: #274 Liberal Classic
I wonder if it would be possible to have a rational discussion of polygamy without slippery-sloping our way to bestiality and marrying robots?
If people were willing to agree that marriage has to be between humans, yes. Consenting humans. Legally, marriage is a contract, and so only a person capable of entering a legal contract is capable of marriage. No animals; no robots.
(The rationale for rejecting interracial marriage was the sick idea that not all humans are actually real humans. *snarl*)
| 295 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:52pm |
re: #289 Liberal Classic
While I'm no lawyer, I can't imagine any exposure to risk to religious institutions. While marriage licenses are issued by the state, religious institutions are well-established as private entities with absolute control over their membership and practices. I can't envision any statute requiring private churches to perform ceremonies against their could pass through the legislative process, nor any similar lawsuit being upheld.
I imagine if it ever went to the US Supreme Court (and I sincerely hope not) it would be struck down on First Amendment grounds.
| 296 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 1:35:46pm |
re: #293 EaterOfFood
IMHO you're not helping your credibility with multiple downdings of people you're disagreeing with. Please take this as a friendly observation from someone who is not ready to accept your conclusions but recognizes that you make valid points.
I disagreed with them because they are wrong. The arguments they used were wrong when used against interracial marriage and don't magically gain logical validity when applied to another group of people.
How do you suggest I react to someone who tells me to "go piss up a rope?"
You appear to have been registered as long as I have, after lurking for years and finally making it into the registration. And in that time not once have I ever attacked anyone, and I have tried to defer to those who know what I would like to learn. And I have tried for years to understand the point of view of those who may have reservations or objections to gay rights. But after Prop H8, that's all out the window. I have no more patience for any anti-gay propaganda of any kind, and I never will.
Several posters have crossed the line in their behavior and rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. How do they know who downdinged them and when?
You downdinged me.
| 297 |
solomonpanting Tue, May 26, 2009 1:36:36pm |
re: #293 EaterOfFood
How do they know who downdinged them and when?
Click the numeral to the left of the red minus sign at the far right of your nic. This won't tell you "when", just who has given up- or downdings.
| 298 |
lurking faith Tue, May 26, 2009 1:36:56pm |
re: #289 Liberal Classic
Would the government ever force the churches and synagogues to perform ceremonies against their will? I strongly doubt it. In my opinion, the worry about this issue is overblown.
Since our current government has expressed interest in forcing Catholic-run hospitals to perform abortions (or close), I think the worry about this issue is valid.
| 299 |
Liberal Classic Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:05pm |
re: #292 solomonpanting
Last year eHarmony settled a lawsuit brought against it by someone who thought it discriminatory that the company did not provided services for same-sex couples.
That's interesting news. I hadn't heard that, so thanks for posting it. Religious institutions operate in a different regulatory environment than do corporations. I don't think churches could be sued for discriminatory practices. For the state to intervene might violate the establishment clause.
| 300 |
Lokotes Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:28pm |
Even in California there is only one justice willing to strip 7 million voters of their core civil right, expressly guaranteed, to amend their own constitution.
| 301 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:26pm |
re: #294 lurking faith
If people were willing to agree that marriage has to be between humans, yes. Consenting humans. Legally, marriage is a contract, and so only a person capable of entering a legal contract is capable of marriage. No animals; no robots.
(The rationale for rejecting interracial marriage was the sick idea that not all humans are actually real humans. *snarl*)
Right now the requirements for marriage are to be:
—Not blood relatives
—Of the age of consent
—Willing to consent to the marriage
—Of a different gender (except in 5 states)
Have I missed any?
The first four are reasonable requirements. The last one is the kicker. Not everyone is capable of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex. There is no practical reason to say to them, "sorry, you get nothing." It is just not feasible to assume that homosexuality will fade away (Christianity pushed it into the shadows for several centuries) or accept the status quo when that status quo creates an unequal status.
When a group of people is being pushed into the shadows, they are denied an opportunity to express love or sexuality through healthy channels, like monogamous relationships or marriages. Those who have attempted to do so were punished, or tried to hide their relationships.
I fail to see how denying same-sex couples marriage rights will strengthen marriage for heterosexuals. I don't see divorce rates going down or infidelity ceasing. In fact, there's no reason not to assume gay men pressured into heterosexual sham marriages would not cheat on their "wives".
re: #290 DaddyG
The APA used to call homosexuality a disorder before the political winds changed, I wouldn't depend on citing them on the legal distinctions.
The APA is a more reliable authority on psychiatry than the Bible or that great, rock-solid, infallible source: human emotions.
| 302 |
lurking faith Tue, May 26, 2009 1:48:38pm |
re: #291 DaddyG
Succinct and to the point. Thanks.
I'm looking for the compromise that allows Civil Unions the same rights while not dictating what religious groups can choose to recognize for reasons of faith. The hyperbole and arguments both sides of the issue have put up don't serve to clarify that.
I could not agree with you more. I think Civil Unions, with the same rights as marriage, should be fought for in every state where they don't already exist, and any potential federal bar to their transferability state-to-state needs to be removed. (In fact, I think that you could get a majority for civil unions in most states with great ease, provided you were willing not to insist on calling it "marriage".)
But I also think it would probably be necessary also to specify in law that churches/temples/etc. may continue to refuse to marry any couple who does not fit that group's definition of marriage.
Put that way, it all sounds so easy. What am I missing?
| 303 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 1:55:07pm |
re: #302 lurking faith
...it all sounds so easy. What am I missing?
A divisive political agenda. How do you expect to get on a ballot or Oprah's couch without one?
//
| 304 |
oldschool Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:57pm |
ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
I don't hate Gay people I just believe marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. I am getting very tired of the name calling and attacks on anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda. Want to see hatred? Watch what happens in San Fran tonight and it will not be from non gay people...
| 305 |
lurking faith Tue, May 26, 2009 1:59:46pm |
re: #301 EaterOfFood
First, I think you are arguing with something I didn't actually write. I merely wrote that it should be possible to discuss potential "slippery slope" effects without hauling in non-humans.
Second, while you are correct that Christianity pushed homosexuality into the shadows, so did (and do) many other religions. Further, even in societies where homosexual activity was common and not frowned upon, it was still (as far as I am aware) considered to be distinct from the institution of marriage.
Marriage has a long, long tradition of being a male-female relationship because its traditional purpose is to uphold the society by supporting the creation and rearing of children in a stable environment.
While making same-sex marriage legal may be humane, empathetic, and accepting, I cannot deny that it would be a radical move, historically speaking. People get very nervous about radical moves.
| 306 |
Throbert McGee Tue, May 26, 2009 2:05:02pm |
re: #301 EaterOfFood
Not everyone is capable of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex. There is no practical reason to say to them, "sorry, you get nothing."
Um, I thought we were talking about California. And what Prop 8 said to gays was NOT "sorry, you get nothing," but something more like "sorry, the gold thimble is reserved for heterosexuals, but please accept this elegant silver thimble."
| 307 |
rollwave87 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:12:26pm |
re: #42 ihateronpaul
This is a huge disappointment. I find it shameful how our society has progressed so much yet still holds childish hatred towards gay people. It is so sad.
just want to say that whoever said this is courageous, and right on. being gay isn't a choice folks. and discriminating against gays with prop. 8 is absolutely no different than the Nuremberg laws decreeing that a Jew could no longer marry an Aryan. As a gay republican Jew, I read this blog because I find it to be the most insightful site on the Internet, honestly. That so many of its readers, who on most issues I consider to be the most enlightened of society, could be making such disgusting comments truly saddens me.
"Some people just have a religious/moral objection to homosexuality:" jihadists have a moral objection to anyone who isn't an islamo-fascist, and do we not all agree their views are the greatest danger facing the free world? News flash folks...your views, on this issue, are no different. The line between arguing gays should be killed and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other is much thinner than you all think. what's that they say in New Hampshire...live free or die?
| 308 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:16:56pm |
re: #306 Throbert McGee
Um, I thought we were talking about California. And what Prop 8 said to gays was NOT "sorry, you get nothing," but something more like "sorry, the gold thimble is reserved for heterosexuals, but please accept this elegant silver thimble."
An equally condescending response from the state. And I wouldn't analogize it to a thimble, more like a cornucopia.
| 309 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:20:37pm |
I think it is just dandy how I got 5 downdings. Of course I was referring to prop 8 passing and the courts upholding it. And yes, I am critiquing society. So what. Interracial marriage used to be "a controversial hot button issue with reasonable people on both sides" until it was changed in 1960.
Is this about judicial activism? Sure, in the same way the civil rights movement was, when society was so twisted only the courts could lead to acceptance and equality. It is the same today.
| 310 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:22:13pm |
re: #293 EaterOfFood
But after Prop H8, that's all out the window. I have no more patience for any anti-gay propaganda of any kind, and I never will.
The majority disagrees with you. I don't think that's propaganda. I wouldn't want to deny anyone a civil right, but I too, remain unconvinced that gay marriage is a civil right.
| 311 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:23:30pm |
re: #310 cgn38navy
so you don't want to deny civil rights, but you do.
most gay people don't choose to be gay, what with our society being so homophobic.
| 312 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:23:36pm |
re: #307 rollwave87
just want to say that whoever said this is courageous, and right on. being gay isn't a choice folks. and discriminating against gays with prop. 8 is absolutely no different than the Nuremberg laws decreeing that a Jew could no longer marry an Aryan. As a gay republican Jew, I read this blog because I find it to be the most insightful site on the Internet, honestly. That so many of its readers, who on most issues I consider to be the most enlightened of society, could be making such disgusting comments truly saddens me.
"Some people just have a religious/moral objection to homosexuality:" jihadists have a moral objection to anyone who isn't an islamo-fascist, and do we not all agree their views are the greatest danger facing the free world? News flash folks...your views, on this issue, are no different. The line between arguing gays should be killed and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other is much thinner than you all think. what's that they say in New Hampshire...live free or die?
We have a new thread winner! (Bolded for ExtremeSuperAwesomeMegaTruth)
But in all seriously, what is happening here? I make a joke (a bad one, in retrospect) about California and you turn my positive rating into a negative one. I thought this site was more tolerant than even gay Republican websites, yet you turn on people on a dime.
Imagine for a second the tables were turned and the city of West Hollywood decided, via a popular vote, that only gay couples could get married and heterosexual ones would have to settle for civil unions. Even if it were found to be within the laws of the city and state, would that be fair?
| 313 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:29:23pm |
re: #307 rollwave87
I re: #311 ihateronpaul
Yes. Little old me, denying rights to the oppressed minority gays.
To be honest, I believe it to be a life style choice in some cases. Of course, I have some friends who were definately born that way. What if it turns out to be curable 20 years down the road?
| 314 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:29:57pm |
re: #312 EaterOfFood
you are saying this as if hetero marriage would be eliminated. you are being stupid and dishonest trying to misrepresent the issue.
| 315 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:44pm |
re: #313 cgn38navy
wow, you really do sound childish on this issue. Nice to know you are a social scientist and know what you are talking about. oh wait, your "information" probably came from Michael Savage.
| 316 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:31:03pm |
re: #310 cgn38navy
The majority disagrees with you. I don't think that's propaganda. I wouldn't want to deny anyone a civil right, but I too, remain unconvinced that gay marriage is a civil right.
At one time the majority disagreed with any idea that gay people should be allowed to live freely and openly, that they should be allowed to live honestly without fear of police harassment. It's all part of our country's shameful and hypocritical history towards "The Other". Like the way it fought a war to free the black man from slavery yet resisted the idea of his basic humanity and that he should be allowed the same access to public property. It is ironic for a country that grew from colonies founded by those escaping bigotry, and became a nation to cast off the shackles of excessive government regulations and outright tyranny.
What's next in the buffet of logical fallacies? We've already had a few servings of appeal to popularity, a spoonful of appeal to authority, a hot steaming bowl of post hoc fallacy, and a heaping helping of ad hominem. I could go for some appeal to tradition for dessert.
| 317 |
rollwave87 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:04pm |
re: #313 cgn38navy
Yes. Little old me, denying rights to the oppressed minority gays.
To be honest, I believe it to be a life style choice in some cases. Of course, I have some friends who were definately born that way. What if it turns out to be curable 20 years down the road?
Take a time machine back 50 years, and this post would say: "To be honest, I have some black friends and they're really not all that bad. But why should we make them equal, I mean what if they make a really good 'de-blacking' pill in 20 years?
| 318 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:58pm |
re: #314 ihateronpaul
you are saying this as if hetero marriage would be eliminated. you are being stupid and dishonest trying to misrepresent the issue.
I am asking heterosexuals to imagine themselves in the same position that gays are in right now, and whether it would be fair. I know of no one seeking to remove the rights of marriage from heterosexual couples. But if someone did, it would be fought hard and vigorously. And rightly so.
| 319 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:11pm |
re: #315 ihateronpaul
I'm childish because I'm open to the possibility that homosexuality could be cured at some point in the future? I'm sure with your deep understanding of biology, genetics, and human sexual behavior and psychology you could explain to me why that is impossible and we shouldn't even discuss it. Or is it because this is a political issue and you can't have anyone not arguing with in your limited right/wrong, good/evil frame work?
| 320 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:16pm |
re: #317 rollwave87
Take a time machine back 50 years, and this post would say: "To be honest, I have some black friends and they're really not all that bad. But why should we make them equal, I mean what if they make a really good 'de-blacking' pill in 20 years?
| 321 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:50pm |
re: #320 EaterOfFood
Whoops, I was going to make a joke about Michael Jackson, but I slipped up.
| 322 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 2:36:18pm |
I'm not even a Mormon or close to one. But my media view of the whole process was a lot of Mormon bashing going on in Ca. via the MSM. It was distasteful to me. People can say what they want, but what they say when they don't get what they want tells you if they really deserved it or not.
And maybe Zombie's Expose of that kink fair in SF has led me to believe the people there would just rather get married so they can piss on it.
I'm still on the fence as the best way to proceed. I do think if we allow gay marriage full on. Then we also have to allow polygamy which has a strong cultural history around the world. And at that point to me we are throwing out the puritan leanings of our laws. We should also allow prostitution to be legalized as it has the same puritan rulings in effect. We definitely aren't Puritans anymore as a group.
The few times I have explained marriage to little kids I have explained it as a divine thing between a man and a woman.
I saw an awesome lesbian couple in an elevator a while back and I thought they should be able to get married. They were together.
I've been accosted visually and auditorily many time by male gay derangement syndrome. I think it's closet induced. For that mental health reason it might be good for them to be married. But really I just think it will worsen the syndrome.
Maybe I am for women getting married to each other but not men. /s Not as Smart as Cato.
| 323 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:36:38pm |
re: #319 cgn38navy
I'm childish because I'm open to the possibility that homosexuality could be cured at some point in the future? I'm sure with your deep understanding of biology, genetics, and human sexual behavior and psychology you could explain to me why that is impossible and we shouldn't even discuss it. Or is it because this is a political issue and you can't have anyone not arguing with in your limited right/wrong, good/evil frame work?
No you're childish because you seem to act like it's something that science should ever seek to do in the first place, and because of your condescending sneers.
How about the fact that homosexuality is every bit as right and good as heterosexuality, and it is therefore unacceptable to treat them any differently?
| 324 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:37:02pm |
re: #319 cgn38navy
this is not a political issue this is a human rights issue. I don't care about "the politics of victimization" or whatever BS limbaugh talking point you want to spew at me. I care about the gay people I know that our society actively discriminates against by not allowing them the social, mental, and fiscal benefits of marriage, or the ability to openly serve in the military.
And sure, the anti-gay crowd on LGF seems "civil" but log onto FR and check their disgustingly titled "homosexual agenda" category and you will see the true side of the "social conservative"
| 325 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:39pm |
re: #151 turn
...I do get some satisfaction when I hear about them getting divorced because it seems so hypocritical to make all the fuss about wanting it only to abandon it.
Divorce is an all-American institution by now. I don't think gays getting divorced is any more "hypocritical" than straights. Things don't always work out, and that's just the way it is. I know a lot of family law attorneys who live in big houses and own nice things that have made a very good living providing services for - you guessed it - heterosexuals. There isn't a day they wake up they don't thank G*d the divorce business is thriving.
re: #192 EaterOfFood
...If interracial marriage had been put up to a vote it would still be illegal. The rights of a group should not be subject to popular whim.
Yes, this is one of the problems of groups or states deciding what is best. You get into petty differences that deny a large group of people the same rights others have. This is why there are federal mandates. I'd hate to be vacationing in some state, and driver past "Welcome to Klukkerville" or "Welcome to Allah Land, Mandatory Prayer Rug Station Ahead" signs, simply because a state had become a haven for discrimination/bias based on popular vote. You attract enough people of the same mindset - they don't always do the right thing by others.
re: #306 Throbert McGee
... more like "sorry, the gold thimble is reserved for heterosexuals, but please accept this elegant silver thimble."
Separate but equal sucks for a lot of people. "Here's my drinking fountain, and here's yours" comes to mind. I fail to understand why so many heterosexual people think allowing gays to legally marry somehow diminishes the institution, like some super sekrit private stock they own is devalued, their personal faith is jerked out from under them, or their own marriage becomes more tenuous as a result.
| 326 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:41:27pm |
re: #323 EaterOfFood
Forget right and wrong, look at it from a social-evolutionary succeed,fail point of view. I remain unconvinced that homosexuality isn't just a genetic/sexual deviancy (not a slur). There are some very strong arguments that support this scientifically. Of course there are strong arguments that support that global warming isn't man made, also. It's just not polite to say so.
I'm not going to argue with in your framework of morality/equality. I don't believe it fits. Childish or not.
| 327 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:44pm |
re: #324 ihateronpaul
It's more than a human rights issue, it's a biology and social science issue.
| 328 |
johnnygriswold Tue, May 26, 2009 2:44:01pm |
I just love the people that are fine with putting things—such as gay marriage—to a vote, but then bitch about how everyone is a homophobe if the vote doesn't go their way?
Chalk one up as a win for democracy.
I'm a homophone in 3...2...1...
| 329 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:45:37pm |
re: #322 hazzyday
I'm not even a Mormon or close to one. But my media view of the whole process was a lot of Mormon bashing going on in Ca. via the MSM. It was distasteful to me. People can say what they want, but what they say when they don't get what they want tells you if they really deserved it or not.
And maybe Zombie's Expose of that kink fair in SF has led me to believe the people there would just rather get married so they can piss on it.
I'm still on the fence as the best way to proceed. I do think if we allow gay marriage full on. Then we also have to allow polygamy which has a strong cultural history around the world. And at that point to me we are throwing out the puritan leanings of our laws. We should also allow prostitution to be legalized as it has the same puritan rulings in effect. We definitely aren't Puritans anymore as a group.
The few times I have explained marriage to little kids I have explained it as a divine thing between a man and a woman.
We could allow polygamy (which predates monogamy) while still banning gay marriage. The Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (the ones who broke up with the mainstream of the LDS Church over polygamy) are no doubt as anti-gay as the LDS Church. But there are real problems caused by polygamy, like the level of abuse in these "marriages" and the creation of a shortage of available spouses that will favor the rich men over the poor men (I doubt there would be many women marrying several men).
And as for the "divine thing," where does that leave atheist marriages or any marriage not performed by a man of the cloth?
As for the Folsom Street Fair, no one knows how many gays there are in the world. It's hard to get an accurate number when the percentages are under- or over-stated for political gain. But to argue that this is representative of all of gay life is beyond insulting. And I remember reading zombie saying that he took these pictures knowing they would be used as anti-gay propaganda, but that it was not his intention.
| 330 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 2:45:51pm |
re: #307 rollwave87
You might need to define what "being gay" means to you then. From my perspective sometimes it is a choice for some based on some deeper issues non sex related. For other's it is probably genetic and the sexual expression seems natural to them. I have a dim view of gay people who want the marriage license just so they can play house. But we also already allow gay adoptions many places. It would seem that if the adoptions are ok, then gay marriage should be also.
Genes evolve based on choices. Being genetic means very deeply ingrained thought patterns. Thus there will always be someone who is making that choice to be gay or straight. He might be a very extreme minority but he is there.
So I think I see a whole spectrum of people in life with gay tendencies making choices.
I was working in the hotel industry when the AIDS epidemic broke and it literally turned the majority of the management to walking skeletons over night and funerals shortly there after. It was scary. Years later I believe that the risky sex behavior still goes on. Will gay marriage help this out?
| 331 |
jvic Tue, May 26, 2009 2:45:55pm |
re: #293 EaterOfFood
I disagreed with them because they are wrong.
Heh. I don't have time to disagree with everybody who I'm sure is wrong. Against everybody whose wrongness threatens the fabric of the universe. In fact I waste too much time that way already.
The arguments they used were wrong when used against interracial marriage and don't magically gain logical validity when applied to another group of people.
Granted on both counts.
How do you suggest I react to someone who tells me to "go piss up a rope?"
Tell them to piss up a burning rope?
...And I have tried for years to understand the point of view of those who may have reservations or objections to gay rights. But after Prop H8, that's all out the window. I have no more patience for any anti-gay propaganda of any kind, and I never will.
I try to uphold right and oppose wrong, but my righteous indignation does burn hotter when I am personally affected.
Maybe the best way to persuade undecided people is to relate your issue to the general good. Citing Plessy and Kelo is only a start. Logic by itself is insufficient. Even the most extreme judicial activism counts on society's emotional openness to the controversial decision. In the legislative process, emotion is even more important. Much more so at the ballot box.
Later. Gotta log off.
| 332 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 2:46:33pm |
When it comes down to it, no matter how much you argue, sexuality is a compulsion/behavior. It is not a race issue. There may be some scientific support that it is a gender issue, but nothing concrete. By labeling it a human rights issue before the facts are in, you are jumping the gun.
| 333 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:47:25pm |
some people can't stand to see gays marry. some people can't stand to see black people marry. there is no difference. re: #327 cgn38navy
Are you talking about anti-gay propaganda or eugenics? Cause they are basically the same thing. You fool.
| 334 |
rollwave87 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:48:22pm |
re: #328 johnnygriswold
I just love the people that are fine with putting things—such as gay marriage—to a vote, but then bitch about how everyone is a homophobe if the vote doesn't go their way?
Chalk one up as a win for democracy.
I'm a homophone in 3...2...1...
No, we aren't fine with it. I think it's insane that someone else gets to vote on whether or not I should be able to freakin' get married. It should be obvious that gay people are people and deserve equal rights, and it shouldn't need to go up for a vote. but because of certain bigots, it did go up for a vote. and, according to you, I should just accept this?
| 335 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:48:36pm |
re: #328 johnnygriswold
Well since you mentioned democracy, I believe it to be nothing more than "tyranny of the majority." I oppose it in every nation on Earth, especially the USA.
| 336 |
rollwave87 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:50:26pm |
re: #330 hazzyday
Years later I believe that the risky sex behavior still goes on. Will gay marriage help this out?
Yes! You can't force gay people into the shadows, and then persecute them for living in the dark.
| 337 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 2:53:09pm |
I love how the same social conservatives against "risky sexual behavior" are also against distributing condoms in high schools. The hypocrisy is astounding.
| 338 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:53:30pm |
re: #334 rollwave87
No, we aren't fine with it. I think it's insane that someone else gets to vote on whether or not I should be able to freakin' get married. It should be obvious that gay people are people and deserve equal rights, and it shouldn't need to go up for a vote. but because of certain bigots, it did go up for a vote. and, according to you, I should just accept this?
Well I'm not going to accept it. If I were in California I would be one of the people protesting. Those participating in acts of civil disobedience have my full support (not those who act violently, as that is counterproductive). I may even raise money for the legal defense of those who are arrested.
Rollwave87, you just might be my new best friend. A fellow gay Republican Jew who is sick of tolerating those who are intolerant of him and believe that my marriage rights are to be denied but the same rights for heterosexuals are somehow inalienable. You, ihateronpaul, and a few others are the only ones who are telling anything anywhere near the truth.
You homophobes are so lucky Charles is in charge of this blog and not me.
| 339 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 2:54:58pm |
re: #332 cgn38navy
When it comes down to it, no matter how much you argue, sexuality is a compulsion/behavior. It is not a race issue. There may be some scientific support that it is a gender issue, but nothing concrete. By labeling it a human rights issue before the facts are in, you are jumping the gun.
If it's a compulsion or behavior, does that mean I choose to be straight? History shows both heterosexual and homosexual "choices" are nothing new. By your rationale, then those that choose the behavior of being heterosexual are preferred over those that have chosen homosexual, because the straights get the ultimate perks.
| 340 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 2:55:09pm |
re: #329 EaterOfFood
Marriage to me has a divine past. That is my reality. However reading the Bible I see followers of Christ questioning what happens in heaven if a women had married brothers after one of them passed away.
There are below the radar polygamous (polyamory) relationships across America. People who for whatever reason have chosen that lifestyle. It's not always religious. Modern day polygamy has evolved from it's cultural and religious past. We live in a nuclear society without much extended family and traditions. We focus the value of choice and responsibility on the individual.
The "in your face" propaganda of many many gay advocates just turns me off. Pride events I am ok with except with the "in your face" douches that participate at a childern's event.
I know the folsom street fair is not representative. I have a gay diversity in my life. But the images do imprint and form core objections. I was thinking if those images ever get mainstreaming the road to gay marriage will get that much harder.
| 341 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:56:24pm |
re: #337 ihateronpaul
I love how the same social conservatives against "risky sexual behavior" are also against distributing condoms in high schools. The hypocrisy is astounding.
This and their denial of the FACT of evolution is why I have no tolerance for social "conservatives" (more like Christian socialists who are only truly conservative on defense issues). It is also why I felt LGF seemed like a breath of fresh air from the stench of Michelle Malkin's two sites, the inaptly named GayPatriot's appeasement of our enemies (dialogue with bigots? Should Martin Luther King have engaged in "dialogue" with the KKK?), those who would do to Muslims what radical Islamists would do to us, and the rest of the rogues' gallery.
| 342 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 2:59:13pm |
re: #337 ihateronpaul
I love how the same social conservatives against "risky sexual behavior" are also against distributing condoms in high schools. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I don't think you understand the issues at all there. It's not hypocrisy. They don't want their kids to have sex in high school at all. They feel condoms make it ok. Condom is the gateway plastic to risky behavior.
| 343 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 2:59:56pm |
re: #340 hazzyday
The "in your face" propaganda of many many gay advocates just turns me off. Pride events I am ok with except with the "in your face" douches that participate at a childern's event.
I know the folsom street fair is not representative. I have a gay diversity in my life. But the images do imprint and form core objections. I was thinking if those images ever get mainstreaming the road to gay marriage will get that much harder.
That's why The 700 Club sends its cameras there and not to same sex weddings/commitment ceremonies or anniversary parties. Fear raises more money than just trying to live as Jesus did.
I got over my childhood disgust of green vegetables and my irrational fear of the MGM lion. Why can't some people just let go of their irrational fears?
| 344 |
Yashmak Tue, May 26, 2009 3:01:27pm |
re: #319 cgn38navy
I'm childish because I'm open to the possibility that homosexuality could be cured at some point in the future?
Setting aside for a moment, the moral implications about treating homosexuality as a disease that needs 'curing'. . .an idea I find repugnant. . .
I recall reading about a scientific study in which researchers were able to induce homosexual behavior in mice by 'switching' a certain gene on, and then eliminated it by switching that gene back off. At the time I read about it, my opinion was that many if not most homosexuals chose the lifestyle. After reading about the study, it was obvious that genetics plays a role in this as well. Grist for the mill.
| 345 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 3:03:34pm |
re: #343 EaterOfFood
I got over my childhood disgust of green vegetables and my irrational fear of the MGM lion. Why can't some people just let go of their irrational fears?
Ding, ding, ding. I think we have a winner here.
| 346 |
rollwave87 Tue, May 26, 2009 3:03:36pm |
re: #338 EaterOfFood
I definitely agree with you, although I wouldn't ban or block people who say things I find abhorrent because you can't win a dialogue unless you have it. Personally, I registered to be a Republican on the day I turned 18. I don't regret that decision, and am never going to leave the party, but I'm also not going to accept being discriminated against. period. not from osama and his ilk, but also not from hateful people in my own country. if you're not gay, I can understand not understanding if it's a choice or not, and thus I can see opposing gay rights, but the problem, again, is that it isn't a choice. I personally am glad Im gay (and jewish), because its enabled me to see the injustice in the world in a way that many in the majority straight (and gentile) populations just seem unable to.
| 347 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 3:07:21pm |
re: #343 EaterOfFood
The MSM is not helping you. Whenever they show a gay couple here on TV it is always as older lifetime lesbian companions. Everyone watching knows they are afraid to show two men together on TV. Or an older guy and a younger guy.
Well Will and Grace is probably the best propaganda. I have literally dozens of friends who are crazy over that show. They tell me there is a sequel coming out.
| 348 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 3:09:20pm |
I haven't seen a single argument dispelling my notion that calling homosexuality a "disease" is any different from eugenics bullshit from the late 19th/early 20th century.
| 349 |
hazzyday Tue, May 26, 2009 3:09:22pm |
re: #346 rollwave87
Everyone in the world see injustice in their lifetime. Some worse than yours some not so much worse. If you understand the injustice in other peoples lives they will in yours.
| 350 |
cgn38navy Tue, May 26, 2009 3:11:19pm |
re: #341 EaterOfFood
I've found that despite their exhortations to the contrary, most (fill in your left leaning adjective) do not have the "tolerance" as you just admitted (but are demanding from everyone around you). MLK was definately tolerant, and yes, he prayed and talked and reached out to misguided people. One of the things I always liked about this blog, was the diversity of opinion. I've always tried to find common ground with people, but to label everyone that disagrees with you as a bigot, it is the end of the conversation.
| 351 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 3:15:32pm |
re: #350 cgn38navy
How is opposing a basic civil right finding "common ground"? Wouldn't realistic and ACTUAL common ground be say, you getting in a straight marriage because that is your right, and allowing others to get in gay marriages. The world won't crash down. Maybe someday your intolerance will, I hope at least.
| 352 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 3:16:20pm |
re: #342 hazzyday
I don't know anyone that wants their kids to have sex in high school, condoms or not. But underage, unmarried people having sex is nothing new - it's been going on as long as sex has been around. It happens in the best of families. Some even make the cover of People magazine, (literally) selling abstinence after the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20.
I don't think condoms encourages people have sex earlier, or encourages them have sex at all. But if the ones having sex used them, there'd be fewer reluctant single babymommas and babydaddys, and probably fewer diseases floating around.
I'd rather find out my son or daughter had sex and used protection, than find out via them breaking the news they were pregnant/had impregnated someone before freakin' graduation because they had not.
| 353 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 3:17:43pm |
re: #352 theheat
it is a proven fact that teens taught "abstinence only" are less likely to use a condom their first time. but as the smiths said, "the world won't listen"
| 354 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 3:20:51pm |
re: #345 theheat
Ding, ding, ding. I think we have a winner here.
That's the first nice thing anyone here has said to me.
re: #346 rollwave87
I definitely agree with you, although I wouldn't ban or block people who say things I find abhorrent because you can't win a dialogue unless you have it. Personally, I registered to be a Republican on the day I turned 18. I don't regret that decision, and am never going to leave the party, but I'm also not going to accept being discriminated against. period. not from osama and his ilk, but also not from hateful people in my own country. if you're not gay, I can understand not understanding if it's a choice or not, and thus I can see opposing gay rights, but the problem, again, is that it isn't a choice. I personally am glad Im gay (and jewish), because its enabled me to see the injustice in the world in a way that many in the majority straight (and gentile) populations just seem unable to.
I agree with you on this. All my life as a Jew in Hebrew school the recurrent theme of Jewish history has been the struggle against oppression. The acts that were done for us are unforgivable.
But the fact is that we survived. We were devastated, but enough of us prevailed to let the truth be told.
Gays will prevail, because right is on our side, even if not all of us act in a right-minded fashion. Gay culture will change for the better. It has already made great strides in 40 years. In 1969 the only reference to gay marriage anywhere was the line in Some Like it Hot:
Joe: But, you're *not* a girl! You're a *guy*, and, why would a guy wanna marry a guy?
Jerry: Security!
Whatever happens to the GOP, I refuse to ever support the Democrats again because:
—After the war began it became obvious their professed love of country was not as strong as their hatred of George W. Bush.
—They keep pushing failed economic policies and expect a different result each time.
—They refuse to acknowledge that radical Islam is a threat to the liberalism they claim to cherish.
—They promise the world to gays but do nothing and take our cash. The longer the gay rights struggle takes, the more profitable it is for them and activist groups like HRC and NGLTF, who do nothing but host expensive rubber chicken dinners where hetero celebs say a few PC platitudes but offer no real tangible change or effort.
I would support the Libertarian Party except for their gutless and naive isolationism which I call "surrender by cheapness".
re: #347 hazzyday
Well Will and Grace is probably the best propaganda. I have literally dozens of friends who are crazy over that show.
You'll be happy to know I can't stand that show. I gave up on live-action American TV comedy in the 1990s.
| 355 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 3:22:45pm |
re: #353 ihateronpaul
it is a proven fact that teens taught "abstinence only" are less likely to use a condom their first time. but as the smiths said, "the world won't listen"
And linky to back this up? I would assume it's true, but I didn't know anyone had done a formal study.
| 356 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 3:39:21pm |
| 357 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 3:43:28pm |
re: #15 soxfan4life
What ever happened to letting the voters decide. They did and now they want the Court to ignore the voice of the people. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in an efficient manner.
The majority should never have the right to limit or take away the rights of the minority.
| 358 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 3:43:51pm |
re: #29 Spare O'Lake
Democracy in action.
/
The majority should never have the right to limit or take away the rights of the minority.
| 359 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 3:47:18pm |
re: #357 honestjay
Ha, just imagine what would have happened in the late 50s if there was a "national vote" on racial integration. This is because it is a civil right, not a "hot button issue" like abortion. The same goes for gay marriage.
| 360 |
Orangutan Tue, May 26, 2009 4:06:59pm |
re: #164 TheAntichrist
The problem with this approach is that many state and federal benfits are dependent on marital status......
Excellent - and they were set up that way to foster and support the economic and other serious compromises needed to procreate and raise children in a 2-parent household including examples of either sex for the best nurturing. I think the reduced tendency to hit that target does not mean we aim lower as a society.
I would prefer we continue to define marriage as we do but remove what true barriers exist for those in homosexual relationships - for example, some of the limitations on hospital visitation ("family only", some will not allow gay partners, for example, and I think that is stupid) ... but other financial benefits? C'mon. Everybody should work. Everybody should pay. THAT'S equality, IMHO.
I am also pleased to see the rule of law return to California. The original decision was another case of legislation from the bench, also IMHO.
| 361 |
Orangutan Tue, May 26, 2009 4:09:03pm |
re: #359 ihateronpaul
Ha, just imagine what would have happened in the late 50s if there was a "national vote" on racial integration. This is because it is a civil right, not a "hot button issue" like abortion. The same goes for gay marriage.
If this situation met all the scientific and other standards of the interracial marriage question, then you may have had a point. It doesn't. I know interracial couples who do not appreciate your lin of reasoning or dragging them into this mess with virtually no scientific parallel as yet.
| 362 |
AFVetWife Tue, May 26, 2009 4:52:59pm |
re: #11 zombie
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That said, I believe in "civil unions" and other iterations that allow folks and their "significant others" to visit one another in the hospital, bequeath property, etc. A bigger point here is that the voice of the people, as spoken in the Prop. 8 vote, should be upheld. I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian. I believe in "live and let live;" the government should not interfere in people's private lives. And (OT) that includes the temperature we set our thermostats at, how much water we use, where we drive our cars, etc.
| 363 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 4:54:05pm |
re: #361 Orangutan
If this situation met all the scientific and other standards of the interracial marriage question, then you may have had a point. It doesn't. I know interracial couples who do not appreciate your lin of reasoning or dragging them into this mess with virtually no scientific parallel as yet.
Tell them that I don't care about what they appreciate any more than I care about what their religion might say on the matter.
| 364 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 4:55:08pm |
re: #362 AFVetWife
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That said, I believe in "civil unions" and other iterations that allow folks and their "significant others" to visit one another in the hospital, bequeath property, etc. A bigger point here is that the voice of the people, as spoken in the Prop. 8 vote, should be upheld. I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian. I believe in "live and let live;" the government should not interfere in people's private lives. And (OT) that includes the temperature we set our thermostats at, how much water we use, where we drive our cars, etc.
So the government should not interfere in people's lives - unless it is done by referenda?
| 365 |
pjaicomo Tue, May 26, 2009 4:55:21pm |
The court made the correct decision here, but I would like to point out that any constitution that can be amended by a bare majority, it no constitution at all.
| 366 |
pjaicomo Tue, May 26, 2009 4:59:02pm |
ps I like honestjay!re: #358 honestjay
The majority should never have the right to limit or take away the rights of the minority.
This isn't completely true, but I think I agree with your underlying point here.
| 367 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 5:03:00pm |
"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson
| 368 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 5:43:14pm |
re: #356 ihateronpaul
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]
ding ding ding
I practiced abstinence in high school, but not by choice.
| 369 |
ihateronpaul Tue, May 26, 2009 5:45:47pm |
re: #361 Orangutan
how is it any different? those against interracial marriage claimed that minorities were "flawed" beings in the EXACT manner those against gay marriage claim about homosexuals.
excuse my shaky grammar, you get the point. or do you?
| 370 |
EaterOfFood Tue, May 26, 2009 5:48:17pm |
Speaking of the rights of religious institutions to define what ceremonies they will and will not perform, what does this mean for churches and synagogues that wish to perform same sex marriages? What about their rights? Or are religious rights only for anti-gay places of worship?
| 372 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 7:30:56pm |
re: #362 AFVetWife
Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Well, not actually.
Currently, four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- approved of same-sex marriages.
The word there is marriages, not civil unions.
| 373 |
Orangutan Tue, May 26, 2009 7:37:33pm |
re: #363 honestjay
Tell them that I don't care about what they appreciate any more than I care about what their religion might say on the matter.
Except this isn't about what any religion says, and neither were the arguments in the same vein which were sound;y rejected by the California court......which is by no means hide-bound to religion, either. So you seem to hold no water here.
| 374 |
Orangutan Tue, May 26, 2009 7:43:01pm |
re: #369 ihateronpaul
how is it any different? those against interracial marriage claimed that minorities were "flawed" beings in the EXACT manner those against gay marriage claim about homosexuals.
excuse my shaky grammar, you get the point. or do you?
The California court went through the equal protection arguments. I don't need to be redundant here, but the social construct of marriage in California (and just about everywhere else in the world) is of a man and a woman, and apparently those interracial marriages met such criteria. Genetically, there is no genuine reason to consider any race a "flawed" human. However, this is a red herring you raise.....this court decision did not (by a 6-1 margin) confer such status on homosexuals in their review of the matter......and it was reviewed in the equal protection position put forth by the opposition to 8.
| 375 |
jordash1212 Tue, May 26, 2009 7:53:13pm |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
I also voted against Prop 8. My college campus is seething with posters like: "CALIFORNIA THE MOST LIBERAL STATE? YEAH RIGHT..."
It's funny because I'm curious to see how that proposition would go over in my home-state of Minnesota.
| 376 |
Lynn B. Tue, May 26, 2009 9:08:26pm |
re: #218 DaddyG
Legal question about the Prop 8 decision...
If it became the law of the land could a Church be denied tax exempt status or the ability to perform legally recognized marriages for refusing to marry gay couples?
(That may not be the intent of the law as written but could it be interpreted that way if passed?)
No.
| 377 |
Macker Tue, May 26, 2009 9:10:19pm |
re: #362 AFVetWife
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That said, I believe in "civil unions" and other iterations that allow folks and their "significant others" to visit one another in the hospital, bequeath property, etc. A bigger point here is that the voice of the people, as spoken in the Prop. 8 vote, should be upheld. I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian. I believe in "live and let live;" the government should not interfere in people's private lives. And (OT) that includes the temperature we set our thermostats at, how much water we use, where we drive our cars, etc.
If I could give you 1,000 updings I would!
| 378 |
Altermite Tue, May 26, 2009 9:27:13pm |
re: #362 AFVetWife
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That said, I believe in "civil unions" and other iterations that allow folks and their "significant others" to visit one another in the hospital, bequeath property, etc. A bigger point here is that the voice of the people, as spoken in the Prop. 8 vote, should be upheld. I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian. I believe in "live and let live;" the government should not interfere in people's private lives. And (OT) that includes the temperature we set our thermostats at, how much water we use, where we drive our cars, etc.
Not allowing gay people to marry sounds like the government interfering in people's lives. How do you make that consistent with everything else?
| 379 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 9:30:20pm |
re: #267 Athos
I believe it was just the cost of the notary. Note - homosexuals in California (and other states) get that with just one contract - a civil union. Same thing - different name. So, again, why does the term have to be the same and a word redefined? What damages are experienced if the word is not redefined?
Anyone that served in uniform will tell you the benefits of marriage are far-reaching; from tax benefits, salary, allowances, and privileges. I have a domestic partner, and my company benefits cover her as well, but that's a luxury. Employee benefits can specifically apply to a LEGAL SPOUSE only if they choose, my employer wisely covers both Domestic Partners and Legal Spouses. Here is where it gets sticky: a General Power of Attorney crosses some gaps between domestic partner and legal spouse, but it does not oblige providers to honor such an arrangement. My accidental death and dismemberment policy doesn't allow entitlement to a Domestic Partner, so for that I have entitled my "estate", and myself as listed beneficiary, and have declared my estate to be jointly shared by myself and my Domestic Partner. I have about $700 in legal fee thus far, and there will be more in the near future to cover other contingencies from her employer as well. Credit Cards, travelers insurance, transfer of property, even the household income, are all sticky matters which a certificate of marriage would cover. For example: if my company provided medical coverage for me, and a Legal Spouse, then neither a General Power of Attorney nor a filing for Domestic Partnership would allow coverage of medical expenses.
Further more, your mention of "civil unions" is misplaced, since Civil Union is categorically between a man and a woman in present state. Domestic Partnership does not cover taxes or obligate third parties the way marriage does. Banning gay marriage allows employers and providers of services the legal grounds to discriminate based on sexual orientation and has NOTHING to do with protecting "traditional family values".
You may criticize me for going through all of the trouble when I could simply marry, but out of respect and principles which we both find valuable I cannot honor an institution which discriminates in such fashion, and will therefore not participate in such practice until it has been reformed.
| 380 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 9:57:06pm |
re: #189 NelsFree
That dding is for comparing me to eateroffood
| 381 |
Orangutan Tue, May 26, 2009 9:59:52pm |
re: #378 Altermite
Not allowing gay people to marry sounds like the government interfering in people's lives. How do you make that consistent with everything else?
Participation in government and the social construct it maintains is everyone's responsibility, so small-government types should be present in this discussion.
Rewriting centuries-old tradition and construct without legal basis (as the Cali Court found in a 6-1 decision) would be interfering in the social construct, and thus interfering in "people's lives".
Well, you asked.
| 382 |
Eclectic Infidel Tue, May 26, 2009 10:02:12pm |
re: #11 zombie
As I said in the previous thread:
I'm OK with gay marriage, and personally voted against Prop. 8 [i.e. I voted to allow gay marriage]; but I also respect the principles of democracy, and if Prop. 8 passed, which it did, then I think the vote should be upheld. Otherwise, elections are meaningless.
Zombie - I am SO late to this thread, it aint even funny.
Anyway, Prop 8 was wrong from the git go. It permitted mob rule to dictate rights of others. Now the high court has legitimized the prejudice. It's morally and ethically wrong. I can't in good conscience call this democracy when equal rights can be voted away by a prejudiced populace.
| 383 |
Eclectic Infidel Tue, May 26, 2009 10:14:48pm |
re: #10 zombie
I'l try to make it.
Gotta lotta stuff happening in my "real" life today, but the masses are demaning a dose of zombietime!
If I can wrench myself free, and get there in time for the probable riots, I'll do it.
Please. Leave the gays alone. They have every right to be enraged by this latest absurd ruling.
If you're looking for nutbars, there's always the June 6th anti-Israel rally in downtown San Francisco. It should be fun.
| 384 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 10:36:03pm |
re: #310 cgn38navy
The majority disagrees with you. I don't think that's propaganda. I wouldn't want to deny anyone a civil right, but I too, remain unconvinced that gay marriage is a civil right.
So the USN... They treat the married guys the same as the single ones? E-4 and below comes to mind. Curfew, shipboard quarters, leaving the ship early due to "family issues", first off the boat from deployment, and lots more come to mind for me.
I served on two vessels in my career, I can think of a number of gay men that served honorably, but had to keep their personal lives secret to avoid penalty.
Married men could nail hookers and make passes at shipboard females with reckless abandon, rarely to their consequence, all while receiving greater compensations and privilege.
"... I am committed to excellence and the FAIR TREATMENT OF ALL."
What say you?
| 385 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 10:47:17pm |
re: #319 cgn38navy
I'm childish because I'm open to the possibility that homosexuality could be cured at some point in the future? I'm sure with your deep understanding of biology, genetics, and human sexual behavior and psychology you could explain to me why that is impossible and we shouldn't even discuss it. Or is it because this is a political issue and you can't have anyone not arguing with in your limited right/wrong, good/evil frame work?
What other "cures" do you have in mind?
Today you go after the gays, what about tomorrow?
Maybe you want "cure" Jewish features too?
What about a "cure" for those afflicted with being Mexican?
Maybe short people need a "cure"?
How about we just get it over with and "cure" anyone that is not White, over six feet tall, with blonde hair, blue eyes, and love Jesus with all their perfect little hearts?
Anyone not willing to be "cured" could simply be "evacuated" I suppose?
This country thrives by having different perspectives on every issue. We innovate and achieve elegant solutions to complex problems specifically because we have people from different backgrounds working on problems they approach differently, yet work together to solve.
When you get rid of that, you lose something special.
LGBT men and women have contributed to this society and deserve the same respect and rights as their straight counterparts.
Period.
| 386 |
honestjay Tue, May 26, 2009 10:53:38pm |
re: #373 Orangutan
Except this isn't about what any religion says, and neither were the arguments in the same vein which were sound;y rejected by the California court......which is by no means hide-bound to religion, either. So you seem to hold no water here.
Nonsense. Religion was the #1 reason why voters in CA struck down gay marriage in November.
| 387 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 11:10:11pm |
re: #342 hazzyday
I don't think you understand the issues at all there. It's not hypocrisy. They don't want their kids to have sex in high school at all. They feel condoms make it ok. Condom is the gateway plastic to risky behavior.
Wow, you are just breathtaking.
Let me ask you: were teenagers NOT having sex before the condom was invented?
Condoms mitigate the risk of sexually transmitted infectious disease and accidental pregnancy FOR ALL AGE GROUPS. Teenagers having sex is nothing new, condoms are not responsible.
What alternative do you have? Abstinence? How well does that work in Africa, or in the Palin household?
Get real.
| 388 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 11:20:53pm |
re: #362 AFVetWife
Marriage is only between a man and a woman. That said, I believe in "civil unions" and other iterations that allow folks and their "significant others" to visit one another in the hospital, bequeath property, etc. A bigger point here is that the voice of the people, as spoken in the Prop. 8 vote, should be upheld. I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian. I believe in "live and let live;" the government should not interfere in people's private lives. And (OT) that includes the temperature we set our thermostats at, how much water we use, where we drive our cars, etc.
So did the AF provide you with spouse benefits?
I would if they would have done that if your relationship was with a woman?
| 389 |
idioma Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:06pm |
re: #388 idioma
PIMF I'm tired, and ESL. And you should get the point regardless.
Would they have done that if your relationship was with another woman?
| 390 |
Fred72 Wed, May 27, 2009 12:26:59am |
re: #15 soxfan4life
What ever happened to letting the voters decide. They did and now they want the Court to ignore the voice of the people. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in an efficient manner.
This happens from time to time, often when a state law is found to be unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia made all state anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional and people in Virginia and other southern states were not happy about it and the (nullified) laws stayed on the books for many more years in some states. Had the issue of interracial marriage been left to the voters, it might still be illegal in some states today.
The various Civil Rights acts (notably the '64 version) were also examples of the will of the people being stomped on by the federal government. This made a lot of people in the South unhappy.
I believe the folks trying to get Prop 8 overturned were trying to show human rights equivalence with the plight of folks in the 1960s who wanted to marry somebody who happened to be a different color. Looks like it didn't work.
| 391 |
hazzyday Wed, May 27, 2009 1:43:30am |
re: #387 idioma
You're flying by the issues also. Try to understand the other side. Get real.. Good advice. take it....
| 392 |
rollwave87 Wed, May 27, 2009 5:33:00am |
re: #383 eclectic infidel
Please. Leave the gays alone. They have every right to be enraged by this latest absurd ruling.
If you're looking for nutbars, there's always the June 6th anti-Israel rally in downtown San Francisco. It should be fun.
well said. very well said.
| 393 |
Pupdawg Wed, May 27, 2009 6:33:22am |
When put to a vote to the people, the will of the people should always stand. It is incumbent upon the politicians to put forth the proposed legislation or referendums. Let the votes fall where they will. In life as in politics, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Back to the drawing board may be the best course of action for those concerned...then again, protests, peaceful or not, may well sway future votes either way.
If California citizens will not vote Gay Marriage into State law, what state(s) will? Obama seems to desire to take away State Rights and thus the issue may be 'settled nationwide' by our supreme ruler as he fires the voters in all 57 states...after all, they almost all drank the stimulus kool-ade and are now beholding to the One in every conceivable way.
| 394 |
honestjay Wed, May 27, 2009 7:08:55am |
The minority should only have the rights and privileges that the majority allow?
That is NOT America.
| 395 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 7:16:06am |
re: #393 Pupdawg
When put to a vote to the people, the will of the people should always stand.
So if the majority of people voted to ban a religion, in direct contradiction of our constitution, the will of the people should stand? I'm sure with a little effort you can come up with other hypothetical examples where the tyranny of the majority should not stand.
| 396 |
idioma Wed, May 27, 2009 7:34:45am |
re: #391 hazzyday
You're flying by the issues also. Try to understand the other side. Get real.. Good advice. take it....
I understand the other side: You don't want teenagers to have sex.
I don't want ice cream to cause weight gain.
'Get real' means accepting reality.
Abstinence programs are not effective.
Condoms however, are effective.
I'm not flying by this issue. I'm sinking in my teeth.
| 397 |
idioma Wed, May 27, 2009 7:40:08am |
re: #393 Pupdawg
You could have just said you don't like gay people or trust black presidents.
| 398 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 9:02:20am |
re: #390 Fred72
....
I believe the folks trying to get Prop 8 overturned were trying to show human rights equivalence with the plight of folks in the 1960s who wanted to marry somebody who happened to be a different color. Looks like it didn't work.
Very well stated - I make the same point up above less well by mentioning the equal protection review in this decision. California does not have an arch-conservative Supreme Court. It just doesn't. Maybe there really are logical flaws with the argument, no matter how emotional and virulent the habitual down-dingers here wish to be about it.
| 399 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 9:05:51am |
re: #398 Orangutan
. . .no matter how emotional and virulent the habitual down-dingers here wish to be about it.
Pot, kettle, black. I can find substantial evidence that you yourself are one of these people on this very topic.
| 400 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 9:28:31am |
re: #399 Yashmak
Pot, kettle, black. I can find substantial evidence that you yourself are one of these people on this very topic.
Not exactly. I don't down-ding disagreement - I down-ding blind whining, and people who answer with sweeping insults and a lack of evidence or construct. Care to point out your "evidence" to the contrary, since you offered it?
| 401 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 9:36:12am |
re: #395 Yashmak
So if the majority of people voted to ban a religion, in direct contradiction of our constitution, the will of the people should stand? I'm sure with a little effort you can come up with other hypothetical examples where the tyranny of the majority should not stand.
Except this isn't tyranny of the majority. That very point was reviewed exhaustively by the California Court and punked with a 6-1 vote. Again, the California Supreme Court is not some bunch of right-wing kooks.
Why do you paint the discussion differently (as well as the people repeating the point), in the face of the obvious (the decision is written and available) ?
| 402 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 9:48:47am |
re: #400 Orangutan
Well, for one, you down dinged me for simply pointing out that you engage in the same behavior you're criticizing. But prior to that, you also down dinged idioma's post which was immediately preceding the one in which you engage in "whining" about emotional down-dingers.
Shall I continue up-thread and point out all the other times you have down-dinged folks as well? Perhaps in #392, where you down-dinged a comment that simply agreed with another poster? Perhaps #386, where you down ding a person for stating their opinion in disagreement with another comment? #384? #383? #382? #375? #369? #368? #367? #364? #363? #359? #353? #351? #348? #345? Do I need to continue? You are the very sort of serial down-dinger you're whining about. Face it, 18 posts down-dinged by you in the last 60 posts qualifies you, like it or not.
Hell, you down dinged me in #344 for simply posting about a genetic study I read about related to homosexuality, a post that qualified as neither whining, or a construct of any sort.
| 403 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 9:52:55am |
re: #401 Orangutan
Except this isn't tyranny of the majority. That very point was reviewed exhaustively by the California Court and punked with a 6-1 vote. Again, the California Supreme Court is not some bunch of right-wing kooks.
You miss the point entirely. Prop 8 ammended the constitution based on a simply majority, not a supermajority as is usually required for a constitutional ammendment. This is a major problem with the initiative process in California, that allows tyranny of the majority. My comment had nothing to do with the courts upholding that vote. Given that the initiative process is law in CA, no matter how stupid it is, they have little choice but to uphold it. Because of that fact, I wouldn't have expected any other decision from them, nor have I at any point expressed an opinion that they are 'right wing kooks'. That you think I have is a 'construct' of your own making, completely without evidence to support it.
| 404 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 11:49:08am |
re: #402 Yashmak
Well, for one, you down dinged me for simply pointing out that you engage in the same behavior you're criticizing. But prior to that, you also down dinged idioma's post which was immediately preceding the one in which you engage in "whining" about emotional down-dingers.
...
Hell, you down dinged me in #344 for simply posting about a genetic study I read about related to homosexuality, a post that qualified as neither whining, or a construct of any sort.
Idioma has been down-dinged by others, as well, for attacks without substance. I down-dinged that one for the same reason. There are posts here from Idioma which I did not down-ding. Thus, I am not down-dinging every post out of emotional involvement, nor am I missing your logic (to be addressed in a minute), even though you charge otherwise.
Additionally, your pointing out a "genetic study" you read was anecdotal, and you quoted your opinionated conclusions as fact. You are definitive and yet without objective proof.
| 405 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 11:54:37am |
re: #403 Yashmak
You miss the point entirely. Prop 8 ammended the constitution based on a simply majority, not a supermajority as is usually required for a constitutional ammendment. This is a major problem with the initiative process in California, that allows tyranny of the majority. ......
No, you miss the point. The Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court of California as to whether it permits "tyranny" or injustice of any real kind (not perceived, not whining, not non-evidentiary complaining or baseless emotional attacking). Considering this test, the fact that is was voted into being is irrelevant in that if there were real harm (this representing "tyranny") done to a group under equal protection or other clauses the review would have/should have caught such ill treatment. It did not. The opinion is there for your review and appeal. Misappropriating the process on a message board, which you seem to insist upon doing to redundant length, is a waste of time compared to the magnificent work you could be doing to construct an appeal to any flawed logic in that 6-1 decision ... unless of course, you really have nothing.
| 406 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 12:11:49pm |
re: #405 Orangutan
No, you miss the point. The Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court of California as to whether it permits "tyranny" or injustice of any real kind (not perceived, not whining, not non-evidentiary complaining or baseless emotional attacking). .
No you miss the point. The existence of an initiative process in which a simple majority can ammend the state constitution permits tyranny of the majority, no matter WHAT you say. If you cannot see that, it's pointless talking to you any further. I'll have to wait until the 52% of the populace deems something you value 'unconstitutional', and see if you re-evaluate your views then.
. . And then there's #404 where you down ding a post where I clarify a comment you misunderstood. By your so-called 'criteria', you would apparently ding almost all of your own comments, were they made by others.
But hey, do what you want. Just don't expect that you'll not get called out on your hypocrisy.
| 407 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 12:20:12pm |
re: #404 Orangutan
You are definitive and yet without objective proof.
Shall I go back and down ding each of your posts that didn't offer any proof beyond your words? Because that's every post you've made in this entire commentary thread. Wouldn't be very nice, would it? You consistently make statements of fact, post after post, with no 'evidence' to back them up. Don't try to hold people to standards you don't meet yourself.
| 408 |
Orangutan Wed, May 27, 2009 12:22:00pm |
re: #406 Yashmak
No you miss the point. The existence of an initiative process in which a simple majority can ammend the state constitution permits tyranny of the majority, no matter WHAT you say. .....
Again, that statement of yours is a misrepresentation of the process, no matter WHAT you say. It didn't save segregation in schools, for instance......and times are very different (thankfully!) from even 1954. So, you seem to have nothing. Obviously, you have strong emotional involvement in this issue, but there have been many things in my life I have had to accept as legislative or other authoritative risks. To suggest I would crater and whine and insult others' logic and baselessly declare the process something it is not is a low personal attack, one which you are bent on repeating, and have repeated. Therefore, you can not be regarded as doing this accidentally.
It's sad there's a published 6-1 decision out there by frankly, a not-to-conservative court, and all we get is a lot of invective based on little or none of the logic, process, and substance presented in that very document, from a court whose legislation from the bench so many holding your position praised last year.
| 409 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 1:01:28pm |
re: #408 Orangutan
Again, that statement of yours is a misrepresentation of the process, no matter WHAT you say.
Did CA voters, or did they not ammend the constitution of the state based on a 52% majority, w/r/t Prop 8? If they did (and you and I both know they did), I'm not misrepresenting the process.
Obviously, you have strong emotional involvement in this issue,
Opinion, stated as fact? Come on Orangutan. For the record, as I'm personally straight, I don't have that strong a personal involvement in this issue, but I simply cannot help but see it in any way other than as a simple majority of Californians ammending the state constitution to prevent a minority group (gays) from enjoying the same priveleges straight folks enjoy. I know many here differ on that, but it just seems to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to me, something I've always considered wrong.
To suggest I would crater and whine and insult others' logic and baselessly declare the process something it is not is a low personal attack, one which you are bent on repeating, and have repeated. Therefore, you can not be regarded as doing this accidentally.
I don't think I did that, rather I simply asserted that by the criteria you yourself posted for your down-dings, you would have down-dinged most of your own posts had they been made by someone else. What you're interpreting as an accusation of "baselessly declaring a process somethign it is not", is from my point of view merely defending the point I've made from what seems to me this same sort of 'low personal attack'.
It's sad there's a published 6-1 decision out there by frankly, a not-to-conservative court, and all we get is a lot of invective based on little or none of the logic, process, and substance presented in that very document, from a court whose legislation from the bench so many holding your position praised last year.
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You've taken it a step further back in the process, to the initial judicial position before the Prop 8 vote. For some reason, I missed that point you were trying to make. I do agree with you, that basing the legalization of same-sex marriage on a judicial decision was not the right route to take. I'm opposed to legislation from the bench. However, that doesn't change my opposition to a process which allows ammendment of our constitution by simple voter majority, because I do indeed feel that leads to. . .well I'm not going to repeat the term again. . .it feels overused :)
| 410 |
Yashmak Wed, May 27, 2009 1:05:06pm |
I guess to sum up, while I do agree with you about legalizing same-sex marriage from the bench, and it being the wrong thing to do, I also feel that overturning by ammending the constitution in this manner, by an initiative process like CA has, is a case of two wrongs. . .I do see and understand your point of view though.
| 412 |
Semper Fi Wed, May 27, 2009 7:29:05pm |
I have much respect for all. To me, gay's overall, have just a little more in the way of talent and creativity than so-called straights. But that's just my opinion. Denied marriage, I think a terrific term will be forthcoming, coined by the gay community, to replace 'civil union.' I can't imagine what that "term" will be but over time I'm sure it will be instantly recognized as a "marriage." I know it's a disappointment and I truly feel empathy for those who worked very hard to make this happen.
Where do I stand? I agree with Zombie.
| 413 |
tsionguy Wed, May 27, 2009 8:41:44pm |
I think the debate is confused because two different institutions are being defended. The institution of "holy matrimony" is a religious construct. Civil union is a secular state-defined construct. The state has a right to redefine civil unions. The state should not intervene in the religious definition of marriage, any more than it should redefine how to administer communion or how to perform a Bar Mitzvah.
| 414 |
el polacko Wed, May 27, 2009 9:00:46pm |
the court did not decide the validity or morality or even the legality of prop 8 and even say so in their opinions. the case argued before them (a mistake in my opinion) was simply whether prop 8 constituted an amendment to or a revision of the constitution which made it more of a voter's rights question rather than one of gay/equal rights. had they decided it was a revision it would have gone to the legislature, which has twice voted in favor of equal marriage rights. instead, they said it was just a garden-variety amendment.
of course, replace 'gay' with any other class of citizens and there would have been no question that it was a revision and there would have been revulsion at the idea of a (slim) majority being able to strip an entire class of citizens of civil rights already granted to them, but it's, sadly, still generally acceptable to consider gay people as less than, even on the highest courts.
the mess they've left us with now is that we have THREE classes of married citizens : married opposite sex couples, gay couples who are married, can divorce, but can't re-marry, and gay couples who cannot marry at all.
besides going back to the ballot box, one course that might want to be pursued now is to question the unequal division between married gays and the forbidden-to-marry gays. how does this possibly square with equal protection ?
| 415 |
honestjay Thu, May 28, 2009 6:18:06am |
The California Supreme Court told California that nothing in their Constitution prohibits gays from marrying.
The majority of California, in referendum, took that right away from the minority.
Ted Olson will convince the Supreme Court that the rights of the minority cannot be taken away by the majority.
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
1 weeks ago
Views: 1,197 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 261 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
2 weeks ago
Views: 370 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11 
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
3 weeks ago
Views: 504 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 9
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
3 weeks ago
Views: 530 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 517 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5- A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...KGxvi
3 weeks ago
Views: 424 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4 
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 748 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 60 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 163 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
