Proposition 8: The Day In Court

[Briareos]

then marriage isn't a right either.

I agree with that.

Also this thing that marriage use to be only same race isn't true. That was a change only made a few decades ago for a short while. Marriage in the whole of it's existance has for the vast majority of time been perfectly ok with mixed race. It has not however untill very recently even been considered for same sex couples.

[Briareos]

I don't believe that free speech is a right. And since that's my belief, it can't be challenged, which means that I'm right.

That settles THAT!

*saunters away, smugly*

Uh that's in our constitution 1st amendment.

[That JonoGuy]

What ever happened to the good old days with one man and multiple women? Those were the days. The days of traditional marriage.

[BnL]

Uh that's in our constitution 1st amendment.

No, no, you don't understand. It's my belief that it isn't. So that's the way it is.

[Matt Algren]

yup:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547
They conducted business (in New Mexico, not Arizona) in a way that was discriminatory. It has nothing to do with promoting any lifestyle (whatever that means), it has to do with complying with laws that as a "public accommodation", the business owner can't discriminate against a group, just as they would have been sued if the photographer had said that they don't photograph blacks. The story is usually presented as a "Christian photographer", when in fact the business is not an explicitly Christian one.

And you really linked to OneNewsNow? It's a straight-up propoganda site for the AFA.

[Solaris]

Also, as Han Solo once pointed out, there is a line between courage and suicide.

Obama could make the "courageous decision" and he could be "well remembered by history" but if he did and it got STRANGLED in congress and then four years from now we end up with a Sarah Palin Republican in office well... Yes, Obama would have made a courageous decision and it would have gained the homosexual community NOTHING.

Sometimes cowards and sneaks win wars. They don't win pretty and they don't win clean but they win and in the end.


Maxine is rooting for a Don Quixote. I'm rooting for an Honor Harrington.

The difference between the two is pretty much as Stressfactor outlined above:

Your Don Quixote is all black and white: you're either for him or against him; issues are either "yes" or "no"---and standing up for the "Yes" is the most important thing. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

Your Honor Harrington is honorable---but she's also a realist, too. She looks for what will win the unwinnable situation... and at times, that means a longer term strategy than she'd like. She's a strategist and a tactician. While she wants to win the battles, winning the war is the thing that will bring in the peace and prosperity she's fighting for.

Obama's not a knight in shining armor, out to tilt at every dragon he sees. Rather, he's the tactician and strategist: his fronts are many, and though he currently has the wave of popular support, he's also very cognizant that his policies challenge the very core of the powers that have truly been running this country for decades: big business and finance.

He moved with lightning speed as soon as he got into office, and he had much of his initial work prepped and planned ahead of time. The combination of speed and public support gave him a very good initial thrust into the corruption that's fucked "fair government" to a fare-thee-well for a long long time... but make no mistake: the opposition is working and planning on how to maintain their hold on power, even as he attempts to wrest it from them. And by "opposition," I'm not talking the Republican Party---they're just the current set of stooges for the opposition... as are (still) many Democrats and other lawmakers.

Stop and think a minute: what's the biggest beef people have had in the last few months? That the huge bailout of last year went to a handful of big banks... and said banks *still* haven't done everything they were supposed to do for the money (and some, like Merrill Lynch, gave huge bonuses to upper echelon, as Bank of America was buying them out). The people aren't seeing accountability for the funds the banks were given. We aren't seeing that much good was done at all---yet a whole bunch of economists etc. insisted that it *had* to be done. We're starting to see that what was done by the banks in turn, wasn't done well.

And we've got even more corporations, like the car manufacturers, begging for money.

These, and others, are the same ones who have pulled the strings in Washington for YEARS... DECADES. They've run the system into the ground, and they're playing it for all their worth that without them, the economy will collapse.

Which is true, in a sense---but what's crucial isn't whether or not they get the money (they have to), but what they do with it when they get it. And one of Obama's, and Congress's most important roles in all this is establishing what these corporations and banks can and can't do with said money, and what will happen if they violate the agreement.

He's also drastically changing our stance overseas, which includes what happens with the military. Again, the military is supported by many corporations that create weapons and systems, market supplies to the military, and/or do construction for the military. We all remember the $700 toilet seat scandals... do you really think that kind of thing stopped, just because some reporter broke the story? It's much more like a kid who says "Yeah, I got busted once and did five days in juvie---but I got away with it a hundred times before, and have gotten away with it a hundred times since... no biggie." And Obama's making drastic changes in our war theatre---plus, I'm willing to bet that there's been some pretty stern mandates passed down, via military channels, to up the standards on equipment, construction, etc. for troops, OR ELSE. A lot of the military suppliers probably aren't very happy with him right now---and even those who are, are looking down the road to *when* we actually can wrap things up in Afganistan and bring our troops home, and being unhappy over that prospect.

And that's been part of the problem: the guys who get convicted for scam and fraud, etc., rarely do any significant time---and when they do, it's usually in a "penthouse" facility.

And these are the same folks who've been the big bucks backers, through lobbyists and campaign contributions, for nearly every Congressman and President elected.

And let's not forget that a lot of these Congressmen have returned the backscratches (for lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions) with a ton of pork projects.

Obama's committed to changing all that, and trying to cut the stranglehold these people have on our government. Those folks aren't going to go down without a fight... and they fight dirty, and plan for the long haul.

Which means he has to plan for the long haul, too... and he's depending a lot on public opinion to help him, because so long as the majority approves of him and his policies, Congress is more likely to work with him, versus pissing off their constituents. They got a shock, not just when he won, but how he won: by appealing to the voters directly, and running his campaign on direct voter contribution. They are good at preserving their own skins, and realize that if they go too far against him, they risk losing the next election.

Of course, there are some from places so anti-Obama that they don't face that same kind of risk... but for most, it's a spectre that's haunting their nights right now... and it'll hamper Republican attempts to stymie his proposals, etc.

From a tacticians POV, he just can't afford to piss off a big chunk of the electorate right now. And what we need to realize is that he's not just enacting change for the next four years---he's attempting to create lasting change in how our government runs, making it more responsible to the people in how it spends money, holding programs accountable for accomplishing their purpose, and reducing the impact lobbyists and corporations have on the decisions government makes.

In other words, to put it baldly, we could have two Obamas:

One who boldy speaks out on every subject he sees as a wrong to be righted, right here, right now---including and especially gay rights. This fellow will be hailed and feted by the gay community... and in four years, he'll be out the door and we'll be looking at the reactionary president the Republicans will gleefully hand us---the one who'll repeal and wipe out every advancement Obama manages to make, with gay rights, and then push through a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as "one man, one woman."

The *other* Obama chooses his battles carefully, with an eye to the future. He has his eye on the end of the war, and what it'll take to get there. He's looking to make lasting changes in governance---and while some of that is cutting corruption and pork, even more of it is in convincing the individual American voter that his term(s) is not a "fluke, and now it's back to regular business" once he's out of office. I believe the goal is that, by the time he leaves the office, the public will be accustomed to AND DEMAND more of the same: ethical practice and rejection of the old corrupt system.

Under this scenario, we have a series of ethical presidents (and hopefully, more and more Congressmen as well) who *don't* go back to the old system, and who *do* continue educating the public on both their power and their responsibility... and such a public is a much more conducive environment for getting equal rights granted to all.

Yes, it'll be decided in the courts, likely ultimately in the Supreme Court---but we have to have justices who *will* put Justice over caving to the hatemongers, and Obama's important for that, too. But even after the Justices rule in favor of supporting gays' right to marry, the battle isn't over---because, just as in Racial Rights, we have to then gain the majority in public for enforcing the laws that protect these rights, and in growing acceptance of it. And a public that has been reminded and educated in caring about others, in seeking fairness, in *believing* in fairness, is going to be much more accepting of these principles in application to gays, than the public we have right now (speaking in general terms, going by things said by the majority on gay rights).

[Flâneur]

Why for saying people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. I realize there are some things where you might have to have a certain ethical system for your work (doctors ect) but I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?
You'd have a modicum of a point if everyone was being forced into same sex marriages but they're not. Your Christian beliefs are not being imposed upon as the state is not the Church.
A wedding photographer in Arizona was recently fined for declining to accept a job at a gay commitment ceremony.

yup:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547

I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal? The couple aren't an LGBT collective forcing someone to 'further' their 'lifestyle' [would this be done by giving lesbian classes, maybe?]. I don't see how their sexual orientation is at all altered or furthered by a photo and the court case, if you look into it, is predicated mostly on trade and private practice laws specifically in New Mexico rather than specific same sex discrimination laws being used as a weapon by those dag namnit homosecksuals.

[beetlebum]

I agree with that.

Also this thing that marriage use to be only same race isn't true. That was a change only made a few decades ago for a short while. Marriage in the whole of it's existance has for the vast majority of time been perfectly ok with mixed race. It has not however untill very recently even been considered for same sex couples.

First of all, please get Firefox. It has a spellcheck feature.

Second of all, have you not heard of anti-miscegenation laws? Now, I realise that miscegenation is a big word, and you have trouble with words over two syllables, but it means the mixing of different racial groups; that is, marrying, cohabiting, having sexual relations, etc.

The first anti-miscegenation law passed in North Carolina in 1715.

In California, Perez v. Sharp (1948) ruled that the Californian anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. This was the first time since Reconstruction that a state court had declared an anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. California was the first state since Ohio in 1887 to repeal its anti-miscegenation law.

And then along came Loving v. Virginia.....

So my point is, I'm tired of this belief that is perpetuated by ignorant people, that marriage is this monolithic institution that has not changed, and is somehow exempt from the mores of society; when the truth is, history has shown us - time and time again - that the complete opposite is the case.

[Briareos]

They conducted business (in New Mexico, not Arizona) in a way that was discriminatory. It has nothing to do with promoting any lifestyle (whatever that means), it has to do with complying with laws that as a "public accommodation", the business owner can't discriminate against a group, just as they would have been sued if the photographer had said that they don't photograph blacks. The story is usually presented as a "Christian photographer", when in fact the business is not an explicitly Christian one.

And you really linked to OneNewsNow? It's a straight-up propoganda site for the AFA.

No idea what that is. I just put wedding photographer gay marriage into google and that's what I found. Never heard of them before.

[Kyuubi]

I was going to create another post focusing mainly on the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but then I came to my senses and remembered that trying to enlighten Briareos in any way is like trying to knock down a brick wall with a ping pong ball.

[Briareos]

They conducted business (in New Mexico, not Arizona) in a way that was discriminatory. It has nothing to do with promoting any lifestyle (whatever that means), it has to do with complying with laws that as a "public accommodation", the business owner can't discriminate against a group, just as they would have been sued if the photographer had said that they don't photograph blacks. The story is usually presented as a "Christian photographer", when in fact the business is not an explicitly Christian one.

And you really linked to OneNewsNow? It's a straight-up propoganda site for the AFA.

There are alot of blacks who are offended by your comparision.

[Lester C.]

There are alot of blacks who are offended by your comparision.

This black person isn't. Nice of you to speak for all black people when you aren't one yourself.

[KevinTBrown]

*shrug* I don't believe that gay marriage is a right.

You don't believe it's a right....

YOU don't believe.

I see.



Well then, I don't believe you have a right to exist. I don't believe you're capable ot a coherent thought. I don't believe you have any idea what it's like to be human.

So I wonder who here would believe me over you....

[Flâneur]

There are alot of blacks who are offended by your comparision.
http://www.hearmorerecords.com/gfx/shut_up.png

[Lester C.]

Since Briareos brought up black people, there are some pararels between blacks and gays. Black people, in order gain the right to vote and other civil liberties in the South had to be given that right by the courts working with the Federal Government because they were no way in hell the native population, at that time in history, was going to assure their liberties with the democratic process. The same thing now happening with gays.

[Kyuubi]

Since Briareos brought up black people, there are some pararels between blacks and gays. Black people, in order gain the right to vote and other civil liberties in the South had to be given that right by the courts working with the Federal Government because they were no way in hell the native population, at that time in history, was going to assure their liberties with the democratic process. The same thing now happening with gays.

I've been waiting a long time to see someone finally make this comparison. I've thought the same thing since this whole thing started.

[beetlebum]

There are alot of blacks who are offended by your comparision.

But Matt does have a valid point.

You might want to stop and ask yourself why South Africa - with the memories of Apartheid so fresh in their minds - gave same sex couples the right to marry; they recognise that the current struggle for acceptance by gay people is comparable to the struggle for civil rights during the 20th Century.

It's not completely apt - as there are some major differences - but the struggle remains the same, nonetheless.

And that's what people like you miss; this isn't about one group demanding "special privileges", or imposing an agenda, it's about being recognised as equal, as being just as "good enough" as the other guy, and I say this - not only in terms of legality - but in the eyes of your fellow human beings, as well.

[Solaris]

I won't agree that the legal definition of marriage was changed then changed back. I don't think marriage is a right anyways. Marriage is a concept that concept said "a man and a woman forming a family unit through a commitment". That is what is trying to be changed.

This isn't really about marriage anyways. This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it. Already we've seen in Canada and Arizona the Homosexual lobby try to use the law to silence religious critics of the lifestyle or even people who didn't want to participate in the furthering of that lifestyle as it went against their beliefs.

That's wrong people should never be forced to further the lifestyle choice of others. People should have the right to live their lifestyle. They should also respect other people's rights to not want to promote it. But you won't have to force me to promote El Monterey mexican foods!



Don't you just LOVE it when Bri froths at the mouth so much he forgets and contradicts himself?

Hang on, Bri, let me sum up every post you've ever made on homosexuality:



[B]I'm a pompous, self-righteous prick---but don't call me that, or I'll whine that I'm being persecuted. No wait, that's Samurai... let me try again:

I'm a pompous, self-righteous prick---and I don't care what you think about it. In the name of protecting my own rights, marriage, and lifestyle, I'll happily drop nuclear bombs on your family (metaphorical, of course---maybe) and your rights because you don't walk like me, you don't talk like me, you don't act like me, and you don't fuck like me---so you must be devilspawn sent to corrupt my pristine world. Therefore I'm totally justified in not giving a good goddamn about how you feel or what you think---after all, you're wrong anyway. And any judge who rules in your favor is an "activist" who MUST have been appointed by your agenda to corrupt MY world, MY life, and MY family---even if you live on the other side of the country to me. Any judge who *upholds* my values is, of course, impartial and unbiased in any way.

So long as the majority votes MY way, it's "The Will of The People"---but the minute they vote AGAINST me, they'll become part of the Gay Agenda, and thus The Corrupters.

Oh, and did I mention that I don't care if you are hurt by all this, if your "family" (you can *call* it that, but it's not a REAL family) gets hurt by all this... after all, your very existence corrupts MY life, so there.

You're all sick and perverted, you want the rest of us to kow-tow to you and NOT tell you just how damned, sick, and perverted you are... well I won't have it! I've got a right to invade your home and your family and your bedroom and tell you that they're immoral and illegal and repulsive, dammit, and by God I'm going to!

Of course I don't *hate* you (yes I do) because Jesus told us to love our neighbors (don't you ever DARE become MY neighbor!)... so I just hate the 'behavior," not the person (but you are what you do, so... there's my out).

You have no rights. You are not a person. You are just a walking sin, sent to corrupt Christian America into debauchery and sodomy. I hate you and I fear you. I don't want you anywhere near my children, in fact, I don't want my children to even know you exist. No child of MINE will be gay, EVER. And if my children DO find out about you, there is no way in hell I want ANYONE telling my kid that you're "Normal." You're NOT normal. You're sick and perverted, and if I accept you as normal, that means I'm sick and perverted, too.

Why can't you just go away? Go back into your homes, back into your closets, and back out of public life. I hate you for being here... and I won't rest until you're back where you belong.

Okay, Bri, we get it. And from now on, whenever one of us *might* care (don't count on it) how you might respond in a thread on gays, we can just remember that this post sums it all up, and you can go on about your life and not post at all.

How refreshing THAT would be.

[BnL]

[bold emphasis mine]

Don't you just LOVE it when Bri froths at the mouth so much he forgets and contradicts himself?

Hang on, Bri, let me sum up every post you've ever made on homosexuality:


Okay, Bri, we get it. And from now on, whenever one of us *might* care (don't count on it) how you might respond in a thread on gays, we can just remember that this post sums it all up, and you can go on about your life and not post at all.

How refreshing THAT would be.

HAH! Hilarious stuff, Solaris.

[beetlebum]

and you don't fuck like me

You're right....unlike Bri, most gay people actually have sex with other human beings. :wink:

[Dazzler]

Tsk. Still people break out the "furthering that lifestyle" crap and think it doesn't sound absolutely idiotic.

My "lifestyle" is probably alarmingly similar to every straight person's who says that garbage, the only difference is that I'm not nearly as interested in their sex life as they are in mine. It's time to grow up a little, you know, and stop acting like a bunch of 9th graders with the first blush of hormones and whisperwhisperwhispering at the lunch table about what Billy and Johnny did under the bleachers.

I kiss boys. That's where the difference ends. Well, that and I don't spend all my time trying to limit your rights because you make me feel icky. Which, by the way, you do.

People wonder why I'm a misanthrope....

--Dazz

[Adam C]

I was going to create another post focusing mainly on the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but then I came to my senses and remembered that trying to enlighten Briareos in any way is like trying to knock down a brick wall with a ping pong ball.

Yup, and I tried that for well over a year on MSN talking politics with this guy and all the evidence in the world wouldn't put a dent in his ugly, blinkered worldview. Put him on ignore people. He's poison that just drags the conversation down to giving time to his nonsense.

[Solaris]

I was going to create another post focusing mainly on the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but then I came to my senses and remembered that trying to enlighten Briareos in any way is like trying to knock down a brick wall with a ping pong ball.

You made me laugh so loud my husband, sitting at his computer, said "OWWW."
:biggrin:

[section 8]

My "lifestyle" is probably alarmingly similar to every straight person's who says that garbage,
--Dazz
You can make Ice cream soup too?! :eek:

[Spike-X]

I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?

You have the right to believe the moon is made of green cheese, if it makes you happy. Just don't try to discriminate against other people and restrict their rights based upon your personal beliefs.

This is about a step so the homosexual lobby can use the law to force people to accept their lifestyle or at least don't speak out against it.

So the real reason you're against equal marriage rights is because you think it will restrict your 'right' to be openly bigoted? A 'right' that is apparently more important to you than the rights of other human beings to live their lives as they see fit, free of interference from the likes of you?

Fuck you. You're not a Christian. You're not a Christian's arsehole.

Seriously, if you're against same-sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't fuck other guys. From what I've heard, sin is supposed to be something that's between the individual and his/her God, correct? So how about this - mind your own damn business, and let other people go about theirs.

[Charles RB]

Obama could make the "courageous decision" and he could be "well remembered by history" but if he did and it got STRANGLED in congress and then four years from now we end up with a Sarah Palin Republican in office well...

You could end up with a Sarah Palin Republican in office four years from now even if he doesn't do it. Any policy he does that backfires or is seen to backfire could lead to this.

And he could always do that most favoured of politician tactics, sneaking out a law/proposal he thinks will be unpopular when everyone's distracted with something else.


This isn't really about marriage anyways.

Yes it is, you fool, that's why both sides keep talking about marriage and same-sex couples rushed to get married when they had the chance.

Uh that's in our constitution 1st amendment.

That's her point, dummy - marriage is a right in the California constitution, you're pretending it isn't. Prop8 altered that constitution.


You might want to stop and ask yourself why South Africa - with the memories of Apartheid so fresh in their minds - gave same sex couples the right to marry

And it should be noted that South Africa has huge homophobia problems, far greater than the US, with 86% in fear of "corrective" gang rape and even national celebrities targeted for gang rape & murder... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa)

And they still brought same-sex marriage in before the US. Come ON, America.

[Alix Harrower]

[bold emphasis mine]

Don't you just LOVE it when Bri froths at the mouth so much he forgets and contradicts himself?

Hang on, Bri, let me sum up every post you've ever made on homosexuality:


I give this a 9.54: Good on the (non)substance of Bri's drooling hatemongering, but you don't have enough misspellings, incoherent sentence fragments, or allusions to nonexistent evidence to get a perfect score.

[Stressfactor]

You could end up with a Sarah Palin Republican in office four years from now even if he doesn't do it. Any policy he does that backfires or is seen to backfire could lead to this.

Yes, but any misstepes he might make are only POTENTIAL hammers the Republican party could use, gay marriage is a SURE FIRE NUCLEAR WARHEAD that no Republican could pass up. I'm sorry but if Obama handed them that they would think they got the biggest Christmas present EVER.

And he could always do that most favoured of politician tactics, sneaking out a law/proposal he thinks will be unpopular when everyone's distracted with something else. And I meantioned sneaky, yes?

This is where the fable of the Camel in the Tent comes in. For those of you who don't know it, it's got many variations but it basically goes like this:

Bedouin puts up his tent for the night with the camel sleeping outside. In the middle of the night the camel calls out: "It's so cold out here, I would feel so much better if I could please put just my nose inside the tent." The man agrees and the camel puts its nose in the tent. A little while later the camel calls out again, asking to put it's whole head in the tent. The man agrees. A while later the camel calls again asking to put it's front feet inside the tent... etc. It goes on like this until, eventually, the camel is sleeping inside the tent and the man has been pushed out.

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the camel putting it's nose inside the tent.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm a Christian are you saying I don't have the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin?

That's exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 7:3, yes.

You have no right to do that at all. Not if you want to call yourself a Christian.

Jesus had nothing at all to say about homosexuals, or anybody's sex life, for that matter. But he did have a lot to say about self-righteous dicks who got up in other people's business.

[Solaris]

Yes, but any misstepes he might make are only POTENTIAL hammers the Republican party could use, gay marriage is a SURE FIRE NUCLEAR WARHEAD that no Republican could pass up. I'm sorry but if Obama handed them that they would think they got the biggest Christmas present EVER.

And I meantioned sneaky, yes?

This is where the fable of the Camel in the Tent comes in. For those of you who don't know it, it's got many variations but it basically goes like this:

Bedouin puts up his tent for the night with the camel sleeping outside. In the middle of the night the camel calls out: "It's so cold out here, I would feel so much better if I could please put just my nose inside the tent." The man agrees and the camel puts its nose in the tent. A little while later the camel calls out again, asking to put it's whole head in the tent. The man agrees. A while later the camel calls again asking to put it's front feet inside the tent... etc. It goes on like this until, eventually, the camel is sleeping inside the tent and the man has been pushed out.

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the camel putting it's nose inside the tent.

The Christian Conservatives have been using the same strategy for YEARS... which is why we ended up with Dubya, and it's how they grew to be such a power bloc in politics.

It's a tried and true political strategy:

Start with small changes. Go slowly, and give people time to accept them as "everyday life." Keep making changes in this manner. Over time, the public's perception of everyday life changes... but because it was in small increments, they're much more accepting of it.

It's nice to see this strategy being used to effect *positive* change, for once. :biggrin:

[Solaris]

I give this a 9.54: Good on the (non)substance of Bri's drooling hatemongering, but you don't have enough misspellings, incoherent sentence fragments, or allusions to nonexistent evidence to get a perfect score.

There's only so much "speaking for Bri" that any one person can take, though. :wink: Boiling down his sentiments to their hate and fear-filled core was disgusting enough.

Still, I'll happily take the 9,54. :biggrin:

[sk716]

Since Briareos brought up black people, there are some pararels between blacks and gays. Black people, in order gain the right to vote and other civil liberties in the South had to be given that right by the courts working with the Federal Government because they were no way in hell the native population, at that time in history, was going to assure their liberties with the democratic process. The same thing now happening with gays.

Just a little thing I want to point out. The white men who enslaved the black people they kidnapped and shipped across the ocean were not the "native" population. They had already stripped the rights and lands of the Native population.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Honestly, Solaris. If you can equate mental delusion and fighting monsters that aren't really there to someone fighting in a real and present civil rights struggle, there's really nothing more to say between us, is there?

Good lord.

[Briareos]

There's only so much "speaking for Bri" that any one person can take, though. :wink: Boiling down his sentiments to their hate and fear-filled core was disgusting enough.

Still, I'll happily take the 9,54. :biggrin:

You forgot the reference to either mexican food, ps2 snowboarding games, or magic the gathering.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

For those against same sex marriage , beyond the religious beliefs , is there some sweeping political harm it will cause ? Will it cause a huge disastor that many of us aren't aware of ? Like in terms of insurance 0r hospital problems that could happen ?

I mean beyond that silly "Well , the holy texts have told me its wrong ?" , why is it involved in the laws of the land ? Is there something us who really don't see a problem with it are missing ?

[Tommy]

For those against same sex marriage , beyond the religious beliefs , is there some sweeping political harm it will cause ? Will it cause a huge disastor that many of us aren't aware of ? Like in terms of insurance 0r hospital problems that could happen ?

I mean beyond that silly "Well , the holy texts have told me its wrong ?" , why is it involved in the laws of the land ? Is there something us who really don't see a problem with it are missing ?

Nope. Occasionally the religious right comes up with some sort of bullshit lies like Stanley Kurtz does, but none of it holds up.

[God_of_Awesome]

I would just like to contend my opinion.

The legal status of marriage, both gay and straight, should become null and void, as marriage is merely a primitive hold over from out old culture. We can still observe it, but it is obstruction of our creed to seperate Church and State.

So instead, for both the Gay and the Straight, we should keep to domestic partnerships. I personally feel that this will make a much less messy business.

[Matt Algren]

I would just like to contend my opinion.

The legal status of marriage, both gay and straight, should become null and void, as marriage is merely a primitive hold over from out old culture. We can still observe it, but it is obstruction of our creed to seperate Church and State.

So instead, for both the Gay and the Straight, we should keep to domestic partnerships. I personally feel that this will make a much less messy business.
That won't play in Podunk, USA. It would involve retroactively removing the title from 50+ year old marriages, and ain't no way Dobson would stand for that.

Besides which, and this can't be repeated enough, civil marriage is a completely different institution from religious marriage. The only cross over from one to the other, in terms of rights and responsibilities, is the word.

[Samurai]

I would just like to contend my opinion.

The legal status of marriage, both gay and straight, should become null and void, as marriage is merely a primitive hold over from out old culture. We can still observe it, but it is obstruction of our creed to seperate Church and State.

So instead, for both the Gay and the Straight, we should keep to domestic partnerships. I personally feel that this will make a much less messy business.

We don't have a "creed to separate Church and State", that was a protection put in to protect churches from government manipulation or control.

And marriage is not an atavism. You don't like it, don't get married.

[Spackling Compound]

I would just like to contend my opinion.

The legal status of marriage, both gay and straight, should become null and void, as marriage is merely a primitive hold over from out old culture. We can still observe it, but it is obstruction of our creed to seperate Church and State.

So instead, for both the Gay and the Straight, we should keep to domestic partnerships. I personally feel that this will make a much less messy business.

We can call it a corporation, then. Then get a bailout. Which I think is a modified teabagging.

[Kalen O.]

We don't have a "creed to separate Church and State", that was a protection put in to protect churches from government manipulation or control.

And marriage is not an atavism. You don't like it, don't get married.

And gay marriage is not an atavism. You don't like it, don't marry a dude.

Wow, problem solved.

[Matt Algren]

And gay marriage is not an atavism. You don't like it, don't marry a dude.

Wow, problem solved.
Marry me.

[Adam C]

The legal status of marriage, both gay and straight, should become null and void, as marriage is merely a primitive hold over from out old culture. We can still observe it, but it is obstruction of our creed to seperate Church and State.


Not really. In the oldest known civilisation, ancient Sumer, it was essentially contract between families. As I understand it was treated the much the same way in ancient Greece and Rome. There were religious ceremonies associated with the wedding, but largely to ask the blessings of the gods as opposed to sanctifying the union itself. In post-Roman Europe (at least in the former domains of the Empire not dominated by the Orthodox church), the custom of the Germanic tribes predominated where marriage occurred simply when a couple declared themselves married and began co-habitating. The custom of a wedding officiated by a priest only gradually spread, and by 1215 when the Roman Church made it a sacrament, about half of Europe still followed the old custom (particularly among the peasantry). So not only are civil and religious marriage completely separate institutions, but the historical forms of marriage are too complicated to treat marriage as an essentially religious institution.

[Matt Algren]

Prop 8 ruling Tuesday at 10:00 (PDT), 1:00 (EDT). (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/05/ca-supreme-court-ruling-tuesday-at-1000-pdt-100-edt/)

[CaptainCanada]

I was wondering when they'd get to this.

[Michael P]

Prop 8 ruling Tuesday at 10:00 (PDT), 1:00 (EDT). (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/05/ca-supreme-court-ruling-tuesday-at-1000-pdt-100-edt/)

blah blah special rights blah blah weakening of marriage blah blah eroding the family blah blah blah

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Look forward to an even angrier, crankier, and persnicketty Pink Bat come Tuesday.

[FeminineMystique]

Sometimes I hate this country.

But where could you go? Take it from one who knows, England is no better. And from what I've heard and read, all countries, to a varying degreee, have the same problems with bigotry and ignorance.

The whole worlds fucked darling. I say just be who you are and don't let the pricks bring you down.

[RachelEvil]

It has not however untill very recently even been considered for same sex couples.

WRONG

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004
http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/martial_epigrams_book12.htm (check XLII)
And all this is just from cursory googling.

Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize, you win a lifetime supply of Shut The Fuck Up.

And now a word from our sponsors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV26OMSb_VQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.queerty.com%2Fwho-will-lily-allen-tell-to-fck-you-next-20090519%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Charles RB]

Take it from one who knows, England is no better.

Actually, based on what Americans keep telling me? Britain is better.

And that's somewhat depressing.

("Britain" and not "UK" because, well, Northern Ireland would throw the average off a bit...)

[CaptainCanada]

But where could you go?
Canada's nice.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize, you win a lifetime supply of Shut The Fuck Up.

I had a lifetime supply of Shut The Fuck Up once.


I went through it in a month and a half.

[Gilda Dent]

I had a lifetime supply of Shut The Fuck Up once.


I went through it in a month and a half.

I still have mine.

I take medication to counteract it.

[Matt Algren]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRr!!!!!!!!1

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!

[thespianphryne]

Well, if the LA Times hasn't jumped the gun, the ruling is exactly as expected. The amendment is constitutional and legal, the marriages are still considered valid.

Ballot 2010 it is.

[Red Jack]

6 to 1 in favor of upholding the ban.

I don't now what the hell those judges are thinking.

[thespianphryne]

I'm thinking that they don't want to be seen as interfering with established democratic process.

[Spackling Compound]

I'm thinking that they don't want to be seen as interfering with established democratic process.

True enough. I suppose the Supreme Court joins the ranks of hate-supporters with the Catholics, blacks, and Mormons.

[Corrina]

Usually, it's only the right that makes those sweeping generalities, Spackling.

[Red Jack]

True enough. I suppose the Supreme Court joins the ranks of hate-supporters with the Catholics, blacks, and Mormons.

I suppose you'd better rephrase that last bit.

I can't speak for Mormons but you're making a massive slur with the other two.

[Spackling Compound]

I suppose you'd better rephrase that last bit.

I can't speak for Mormons but you're making a massive slur with the other two.

I don't think any of them are truly hate-groups but I believe I'm in a minority on this issue here.

[Corrina]

I don't think any of them are truly hate-groups but I believe I'm in a minority on this issue here.

Explain.

People here think all three are hate groups?

I've seen no evidence of that, save for railing against the Mormon Church for sending out of state money into another state to fight something that they believe is immoral.

[Red Jack]

I don't think any of them are truly hate-groups but I believe I'm in a minority on this issue here.

"the blacks" are a hate group?

Interesting.

[CaptainCanada]

"the blacks" are a hate group?

Interesting.
"Search your feelings. You know it to be true." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdc7v4vkbJI):wink:

The result was what I was expecting. The crux of the matter ("amendment" vs. "revision") is such an unexplored legal area, and on such a controversial topic, that overruling Prop 8 on those grounds would have been a huge leap.

3 of those guys voted in favour of allowing gay marriage in the first place, so calling them a "hate group" seems a bit harsh.

Anyway, on to 2010; the wind's pretty strongly at the gay rights movement's back, given the results of the last few months, so they should fight and win a repeal then.

[Matt Algren]

Ugh. Could we please stop quoting the bigot?

[Matt Algren]

All I ask from the California gays is that you be safe and record everything.

[Charles RB]

Well, if the LA Times hasn't jumped the gun, the ruling is exactly as expected. The amendment is constitutional and legal, the marriages are still considered valid.

Piss.

With luck, 2010 can swing it back - for a start, there'll be more states with same-sex marriage than last time, which is more evidence it's not a problem and less of a "shocking new" development. ("Shocking new" in quotes because it only was if you look only at the States and ignore that Canada, South Africa, Spain etc had legalised it by that point)

[thespianphryne]

True enough. I suppose the Supreme Court joins the ranks of hate-supporters with the Catholics, blacks, and Mormons.

WTF?!

First off, you seem to have an ano-cranial fusion going here.

Second, what other reasonable legal judgment were they going to come to given the argument the plaintiffs presented?

[Slam_Bradley]

Second, what other reasonable legal judgment were they going to come to given the argument the plaintiffs presented?


Given the legal track that the plaintiffs took and the argument they made their suit was destined to fail. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

[CaptainCanada]

("Shocking new" in quotes because it only was if you look only at the States and ignore that Canada, South Africa, Spain etc had legalised it by that point)Americans pride themselves on ignoring stuff that happens elsewhere.

[Spackling Compound]

Americans pride themselves on ignoring stuff that happens elsewhere.

Sweeping generalization. Republican?

[CaptainCanada]

Sweeping generalization. Republican?
That would be a joke.:wink:

With more than a bit of truth to it; only the far left in the US has any tolerance as a group for the idea that the USA isn't the best at everything.

[Spackling Compound]

That would be a joke.:wink:

With more than a bit of truth to it; only the far left in the US has any tolerance as a group for the idea that the USA isn't the best at everything.

I knew it was a joke. Mine was a bit of a pull on the sweeping generalities that were made when the decision was voted on Election Day. If the thread were alive still, I could show how it was a kabal of blacks, Catholics and their Mormon overlods fighting against teh gayz.

And as far as generalities from liberals? Gail herself (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=8990135&postcount=8) has chimed in.

Hey, I always loved California, too, and it's been my home many times.

But this still BLOWS.

Yes, I get that it was enforcing the will of the people.

And the people SUCK.

[the4thpip]

6 to 1 in favor of upholding the ban.

I don't now what the hell those judges are thinking.

Why are there 6 Republicans and only one Democrat on the Supreme Court in California of all places??

[CaptainCanada]

Why are there 6 Republicans and only one Democrat on the Supreme Court in California of all places??Because Republicans have been held the governorship for 22 of the last 26 years.

[Corrina]

I knew it was a joke. Mine was a bit of a pull on the sweeping generalities that were made when the decision was voted on Election Day. If the thread were alive still, I could show how it was a kabal of blacks, Catholics and their Mormon overlods fighting against teh gayz.



One, I believe even in this thread, when people tried to say that that AFrican Americans were at 'fault,' it was refuted. As I said, there was much railing against those in the Mormon Church who financed the repeal of this right, and as far as Catholics, I don't remember them being pulled in much. If you're referring to the sexual abuse thread, I think the Irish Catholic Church is taking some deserved shot there, ya know?

You're being deliberately obtuse, Spackling, especially for someone who just called blacks a 'hate group.'

You might want to stop being funny or sarcastic. Because you're not good at it.

[Spackling Compound]

One, I believe even in this thread, when people tried to say that that AFrican Americans were at 'fault,' it was refuted. As I said, there was much railing against those in the Mormon Church who financed the repeal of this right, and as far as Catholics, I don't remember them being pulled in much. If you're referring to the sexual abuse thread, I think the Irish Catholic Church is taking some deserved shot there, ya know?

You're being deliberately obtuse, Spackling, especially for someone who just called blacks a 'hate group.'

You might want to stop being funny or sarcastic. Because you're not good at it.

Yeah, and you're pretty non-euclidian there too. All directions and no point.

One: It was said "African-Americans" were at fault. Refuted or not.
Two: It was said that Mormons were formenting hate.
Three: Catholicism was brought in. It had to be. It was YABS.

I'm not referring to the "ya know" sexual abuse thread. Good on that and so far it's even handed. I'm not referring to the Pope is a Nazi one. Or any of the other Catholic ones. I was referring to the now disappeared "Prop 8" thread.

And, sorry to not amuse. But I didn't mean it to be funny anyway.

[Sabrinaset]

Usually, it's only the right that makes those sweeping generalities, Spackling.

But of course this post couldn't be a sweeping generalization itself, right?

[sk716]

I believe that Spack was being smart-assed in his post. Not actually declaring Catholics, blacks, and Mormons as hate groups but pointing out some things that were said in the previous (now merged with the Mega-Politics thread) Prop 8 thread. I do recall a lot of people (not necessarily YABSers) blaming the passing of Prop 8 on the above average number of African-Americans to go to the polls.

Before this thread goes horribly south, I would like to remind everyone to be civil.

[kid_mash]

Dan Savage

We're Winning
This morning's decision was expected but, in the wake of so many recent victories, still saddening. But we have to remember that this is a long game and, despite this setback, we are winning. We're going to hear a lot about Prop 8 today, and the fight to overturn it, but let's not forget about Prop 22.

In 2000 California voters approved a law banning same-sex marriage. It was a ballot initiative, like Prop 8, but just a law, not a constitutional amendment. And it was that law, Prop 22, that the CA Supremes struck down in 2008, in their historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. And voters in 2000 approved Prop 22 in by a nearly 22-point margin. And eight years later the same voters would approved Prop 8 by four points. That's an 18-point shift in favor of marriage equality in just eight years. That's extraordinary progress. A loss is still a loss, and a loss sucks, but the trend is so strongly in our favor that we cannot lose hope. The anti-gay bigots know that they're losing this debate, and it's why they're so hot to amend state constitutions now, while they still can, while they can still count on the votes of the old, the bigoted, and the easily manipulated. But they are losing and they know it.

We're going to go back to the ballot box in California in 2010 or 2012 and voters are going to repeal Prop 8. Fundamental civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote, of course, and the CA Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that ideal. They chose not to, they buckled, and so we, unlike other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box. That seems daunting prospect until you recall 2000's Prop 22 and compare its margin of victory to that of 2008's Prop 8. Again, we witnessed an eighteen point shift in favor of gay marriage in California in just eight years. We can move another four points. We just have to stay in the fight and remind ourselves and each other that we are winning.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/26/were-winning

[Spackling Compound]

I believe that Spack was being smart-assed in his post. Not actually declaring Catholics, blacks, and Mormons as hate groups but pointing out some things that were said in the previous (now merged with the Mega-Politics thread) Prop 8 thread. I do recall a lot of people (not necessarily YABSers) blaming the passing of Prop 8 on the above average number of African-Americans to go to the polls.

Before this thread goes horribly south, I would like to remind everyone to be civil.

Thanks, sk. That was what I was saying.

Southern girls are a-ok.

[Spike-X]

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AX888_PROP8u_G_20090525214537.jpg

[beetlebum]

I know this thread deals specifically with California, but someone posted this on Facebook, and I'm re-posting this here cos it's worth noting:



CT [Connecticut] has no residency requirement, no blood tests, no waiting, no witnesses required. State License is $30, certified copy is $10 per copy.

Wow. You can get married pretty quickly in that state!