NationStates Jolt Archive

News link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/BAT817R2QD.DTL) and court decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF).

Well, the CA Supreme Court has upheld Prop 8. Not sure what to say, really - I was kindof expecting this, but it's still quite sucky to actually have it happen. On the other hand, I now know what I'm doing with my time in 2010.

Your thoughts and opinions?

That's really, really sad. At least the marriages performed still stand.

I'm as repulsed as I was when I heard it passed.To deny equal rights wholesale is bad enough, to strip them from people feels like an active step backwards. Just shows that people interested in true equality for all humanity have a long way to go yet. It actually makes me want to use these forums less when I see the advertisements for mormonism appear, since their fostering of ignorant bigotry has a large role to play in this debacle.

Bleh. :(

Not happy about the decision, but they did do some good by maintaining previous marriages. The decision won't load for me, so I'm not sure what, exactly, it was decided on. I'll be curious to see.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.

So if the majority of people decide you should be pelted with rotten tomatoes every day, that's peachy? Sure.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.

See, in this country, we have these things called "rights." They're outlined in this thing called "the Constitution." The idea is that the majority doesn't get to take those away from people, no matter how much they want to.

I agree with the decision. Not because I am against gay marriage, but because the idea of a court ruling a section of the constitution unconstitutional scares me.
They did rule correctly that existing marriages remain unchanged as that would be a post facto law which is forbidden by the US Constitution.

Read a few pages of the courts decision they really did research this.

See, in this country, we have these things called "rights." They're outlined in this thing called "the Constitution." The idea is that the majority doesn't get to take those away from people, no matter how much they want to.

But this wasn't about the rights it was about a label. The ruling makes it clear that all rights will be granted in a domestic partnership, as in granted in a marriage. The only thing denied is the name marriage.

I agree with the decision. Not because I am against gay marriage, but because the idea of a court ruling a section of the constitution unconstitutional scares me.

To be fair, that's not what the ruling would have been. If they had struck down Prop 8, it would have been on a procedural rule - that the amendment was never a proper part of the constitution because the proper procedure wasn't used.

It'll be interesting, when I get the chance to read it, to see what convinced them that this was indeed and amendment, and not a revision.

But this wasn't about the rights it was about a label. The ruling makes it clear that all rights will be granted in a domestic partnership, as in granted in a marriage. The only thing denied is the name marriage.

Sort of like how black kids got the same education as white kids, just in different schools?

See, in this country, we have these things called "rights." They're outlined in this thing called "the Constitution." The idea is that the majority doesn't get to take those away from people, no matter how much they want to.

Well, it seems like they just did.

The people of California said no to gay marriage. Let them vote on it again whenever it can be voted on next.

That is truly a shame, but a small setback. If they can engineer discrimination like this, the same way can be used to engineer equality. And someone might take it to the Supreme Court of the United States as well.

And in before both New Mitanni and Carrie Prejean gloat about this.

Well, it seems like they just did.

The people of California said no to gay marriage. Let them vote on it again whenever it can be voted on next.

Tyranny by the majority is not something that's allowed in this country. That's why the supreme court abolished "seperate but equal" among other things.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.Really? Because I'd call it tyranny of the majority, something which our democracy was specifically designed to prevent.

But this wasn't about the rights it was about a label. The ruling makes it clear that all rights will be granted in a domestic partnership, as in granted in a marriage. The only thing denied is the name marriage.
Seperate but equal is inherently unequal.

I think this is an important part of the article.

"This day is important to us," Espinosa said. "I want equality."

again

Espinosa said. "I want equality."

again

"I want equality."

One more time.

equality.

That is what it comes down to, equality. We can either be a nation that does not learn from the past, we can be a nation that continues to find a new group to discriminate against when they try to sit down at the same table, or we can be a nation that does have equality, that does let everyone sit down at the table. Because we have learned from the past, and we have seen the errors of our ways.

You know, Jim Crow was the "will of the people", should the courts upheld them, or did it make the right choice to overturn them?

That is truly a shame, but a small setback. If they can engineer discrimination like this, the same way can be used to engineer equality. And someone might take it to the Supreme Court of the United States as well.

And in before both New Mitanni and Carrie Prejean gloat about this.

I'd actually want to see that.

Tyranny by the majority is not something that's allowed in this country. That's why the supreme court abolished "seperate but equal" among other things.

The vote was held throughout California and the people rejected gay marriage. The state state supreme court just upheld the people's choice.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.

Hmm...

Just vote on the issue again the next chance it can be voted on.
See if the people of California accept gay marriage this time.

It might be a good idea for other states to adopt the methods used in Maine. Rather than debating abstrations and hypotheticals, supportive legislators brought in gay couples to talk and meet other law makers and the governor. It was enough to swing several law makers in the state, as well as the governor.

The vote was held throughout California and the people rejected gay marriage. The state state supreme court just upheld the people's choice.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.
Did the majority just vote to strip rights away from the minority? How is that not tyranny? Rights are not something to be voted upon...hence why they are rights.

Did the majority just vote to strip rights away from the minority? How is that not tyranny? Rights are not something to be voted upon...hence why they are rights.
Did it?

Was it a right previous to prop 8?

Tyranny by the majority is not something that's allowed in this country.

In Norway? I should hope not, but it is Norway and I they have an interesting way of surprising me. In the USA? Quite demonstrably, and through this ruling, it is.

I must again laugh at this situation. Not only was a vote on the rights of people held (how very Athenian - look out for the pottery shards on your way to the fora, plebs! And bring crayons!), but its result, the upholding of it and then additionally the finding that the marriages entered within that short window of legislation through judicial opinion are valid but no longer enterable... hilarious in its absurdity. But, one must recall that the USA is a very, very young nation with a judicial and legislative system that has yet to mature, paradoxically based on an outmoded constitution in dire need of revision, and not constant reinterpretation at the whim of someone's opinion. Not that a lot of the other former colonies are doing much better with their systems, but there are a few they could ask for pointers.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.

Which is the explicit reason why the US was specifically created as a Republic, instead.

Our ancestors considered pure democracy corrupt, and our Constitution was deisgned so that our Republic didn't do things like this.

The article says: "The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

And this is why I fundamentally disagree with the court's decision. The people do NOT have such a right - the Constitution is amended through a very specific procedure (well, one of two, theoretically) - and vox populi is not it.

The court appears to have followed James Wilson's (non-Constitutional) ideas about 'public amendment', and decided that that non-Constitutional process somehow trumps the Constitutional route.

Did it?

Was it a right previous to prop 8?

Yes. Gay people in california had a right to get married prior to proposition 8, which revoked it.

Did it?

Was it a right previous to prop 8?

Is marriage a right? Yes. Yes it is. So much so that it was specifically mentioned in Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Was gay marriage aright in California prior to the passage of prop 8? Yes. Yes it was. Hence why gays could get married there.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.


No, it's called 'tyranny' when rights are infringed.

The US is not a democracy. By design.

I think this is an important part of the article.

<snip>

That is what it comes down to, equality. We can either be a nation that does not learn from the past, we can be a nation that continues to find a new group to discriminate against when they try to sit down at the same table, or we can be a nation that does have equality, that does let everyone sit down at the table. Because we have learned from the past, and we have seen the errors of our ways.

You know, Jim Crow was the "will of the people", should the courts upheld them, or did it make the right choice to overturn them?

Beautifully put.

Which is the explicit reason why the US was specifically created as a Republic, instead.

Our ancestors considered pure democracy corrupt, and our Constitution was deisgned so that our Republic didn't do things like this.

The article says: "The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

And this is why I fundamentally disagree with the court's decision. The people do NOT have such a right - the Constitution is amended through a very specific procedure (well, one of two, theoretically) - and vox populi is not it.

The court appears to have followed James Wilson's (non-Constitutional) ideas about 'public amendment', and decided that that non-Constitutional process somehow trumps the Constitutional route.

This ruling was specifically about the California Constitution, which works rather differently to the US one in this area. I highly recommend reading the PDF I linked, which is what the court actually said. I may not agree with their final ruling, but they seem to have thought about it.

On the plus side, this does make our work easier when it comes to reversing it - surely another amendment should be enough to fix this?

The vote was held throughout California and the people rejected gay marriage. The state state supreme court just upheld the people's choice.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.

Hmm...

Just vote on the issue again the next chance it can be voted on.
See if the people of California accept gay marriage this time.
So when the majority of Americans were against giving civil rights to black people, we should have left it to the voters to decide?

In Norway? I should hope not, but it is Norway and I they have an interesting way of surprising me. In the USA? Quite demonstrably, and through this ruling, it is.

I must again laugh at this situation. Not only was a vote on the rights of people held (how very Athenian - look out for the pottery shards on your way to the fora, plebs!), but its result, the upholding of it and then additionally the finding that the marriages entered within that short window of legislation through judicial opinion are valid but no longer enterable... hilarious in its absurdity. But, one must recall that the USA is a very, very young nation with a judicial and legislative system that has yet to mature, paradoxically based on an outmoded constitution in dire need of revision, and not constant reinterpretation at the whim of someone's opinion. Not that a lot of the other former colonies are doing much better with their systems, but there are a few they could ask for pointers.
Hehe, yeah I typed that reflexively. I should hope Norwegians don't have their heads as far up their asses as the Californians do.

I hope this makes it up to the US Supreme court, I do have faith they'd overturn it (yes, I'm probably being naive).

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth. Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society. At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

Did it?

Was it a right previous to prop 8?

Yes, in fact, it was.

Hehe, yeah I typed that reflexively. I should hope Norwegians don't have their heads as far up their asses as the Californians do.

Well, as I wrote, they are Norwegians. On one hand, there is the awesomeness of Hurtigruten. On the other, Mette-Marit and Märtha Louise.

I hope this makes it up to the US Supreme court, I do have faith they'd overturn it (yes, I'm probably being naive).

I don't think "naïve" is quite the right word for it. "Credulous", though the difference in meaning is slight it still remains, would be more apt in that you believe that the same system that brought about this legal mess (I mean, not only does your being a person before the law depend on your geological location with the country, but now also on your contemporary chronological fortune) would be able to resolve much of anything - look at the 2nd amendment thingy and whoever v. whomever; they're still harped about and whathaveyou. It's like... a poor version of football refereeing, only that the findings of football judges are more permanent.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth. Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society. At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

You do realize this was decided by the very judiciary you just criticized, yes? And those 18,000 don't need to find a new home...California will still respect their marriages.

Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society.

1. That's a nonsensical oxymoron.
2. Relentlessness is just another word for inevitability (oh Luther, what did you start rolling? Tsk, tsk...) So, cower, like you do so well, on the trash heap of history.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth. Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society. At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

Trust me - by this time in 5 years, gay marriage will be legal in the majority of states. And in many cases, that will have been brought in through the legislative, or through popular vote. And this is a good thing.

This Christian will be out there campaigning for it.

Trust me - by this time in 5 years, gay marriage will be legal in the majority of states. And in many cases, that will have been brought in through the legislative, or through popular vote. And this is a good thing.

This Christian will be out there campaigning for it.

If nothing else, it looks like the "6 in '12" goal will be achieved (6 states in New England having full gay marriage by 2012). Currently, only Rhode Island and New Hampshire don't allow it. New Hampshire has legislation in the works, and plans are in place for Rhode Island once the current governor is out of office.

( Note, I am in support of gay marriage ).

Damn, whats wrong with following what the majority wanted? I call it democracy.

You call it democracy, eh?

The majority has decided that you are to give me all your worldly possessions. They have also decided that I am allowed to rape your mother and decapitate you. After that, I am allowed to burn down your home, kick your puppy, and exhume your ancestors' remains so I can put on a skeleton marionette show for your relatives.

We are not a democracy for very good reason.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth. Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society. At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

The hilarity, of course, in your post is that the judicary you cry so much about are the ones who upheld the amendment, and that the 18,000 need not find homes, as California will still respect all marriages performed prior to the passing of the amendment. Care to be completely wrong about anything else today?

Really? Because I'd call it tyranny of the majority, something which our democracy was specifically designed to prevent.


Seperate but equal is inherently unequal.

Except they have the same rights.
If freedom of speech is called freedom of farting in my case, it still is the same right. Just maybe I need more breath mints. changing a word on one sheet of paper does not provide any more or any less rights. They also go to the same place to get a civil union as they would a marriage the local justice of the peace(or a progressive church).
While I think we should allow gays to marry, if the people of California want to pass an amendment to change the word to civil union, It is not the courts place to stop that.

The vote was held throughout California and the people rejected gay marriage. The state state supreme court just upheld the people's choice.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.

It sounds like tyranny of the majority. The majority decides that the minority doesn't get equal rights just because they have the voting power to do so.

I can only assume that, if it were put to vote and passed, that you would wholeheartedly support the establishment of Islam as the state religion of the United States, as well as the rounding up and executing of all non-believers. If it passed majority, right? Cause that's democracy, right?

Well, it seems like they just did.

The people of California said no to gay marriage. Let them vote on it again whenever it can be voted on next.


Props for missing the point on an epic scale. Rights are not, nor have they ever been, subject to the whims of the majority.

Trollgaards typical obtuseness aside, did anyone really expect a different ruling? This is pretty much exactly what I expected.

I wonder how the citizens of California feel about now being more backwards then Iowa?:p

Except they have the same rights.
If freedom of speech is called freedom of farting in my case, it still is the same right. Just maybe I need more breath mints. changing a word on one sheet of paper does not provide any more or any less rights. They also go to the same place to get a civil union as they would a marriage the local justice of the peace(or a progressive church).
While I think we should allow gays to marry, if the people of California want to pass an amendment to change the word to civil union, It is not the courts place to stop that.

a) they are not the same. Marriages performed in state X are respected in all other states. Civil unions are not. Marriage can be disolved by divorce. Civil unions can only be disolved in the courts of the state in which it was performed. With a marriage, my spouse becomes a citizen of the US. Not so with civil unions. Federal tax benefits are not given to those holding civil unions.
b) even if they provide the same rights and responsibilities, it creates a seperate category for "those people". There are societal and personal benefits to the word, as shown in a recent survey (http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/articles/2009/05/24/for_gay_couples_married_matters/). Yes, seperate is not equal. No, there is absolutly no reason to create a seperate category or word. We already have a word for this legal institution. That word is "marriage".

And actually, it is the courts place. The courts are bound to rule about the constitutionality of an issue. If there is a clause in which all people are equal before the law (which there is), then the court is bound to protect all rights for all citizens equally. Regardless of how icky it makes the majority feel.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth.
Remind me, how many of the other states that allow gay marriage allowed it as a result of the judiciary?

JUUUUUUDICIAL ACTIVISM!
Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society.
*Begins to quote the founding fathers on how the US is not a Christian nation*

*Decides that trying to educate NM is a waste of time*

At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

Or your death camps.

Trollgaards typical obtuseness aside, did anyone really expect a different ruling?

Not me. I was fairly sure that this was exactly what would happen. I thought from the very beginning that it was a long shot argument based on tenuous logic.

But I'm disappointed anyway. There was always the chance.

a) Federal tax benefits are not given to those holding civil unions.

FYI, Federal tax benefits aren't given to gay marriages either. IRS rules prohibit those engaged in a homosexual marriage from filing a joint tax return - they must file single or head of household (according to the rules for those filing statuses, as if they weren't married at all).

I'm as repulsed as I was when I heard it passed.To deny equal rights wholesale is bad enough, to strip them from people feels like an active step backwards. Just shows that people interested in true equality for all humanity have a long way to go yet. It actually makes me want to use these forums less when I see the advertisements for mormonism appear, since their fostering of ignorant bigotry has a large role to play in this debacle.

If the ads are anything like what I've seen on other forums, the ads key to the subject matter in the thread. If we had a thread talking about jelly/jam VS. honey as a sandwich ingredient, we're going to be more likely to see ads for jellies/jams or honey. In a thread about religion, we're more likely to see religious ads.

FYI, Federal tax benefits aren't given to gay marriages either. IRS rules prohibit those engaged in a homosexual marriage from filing a joint tax return - they must file single or head of household (according to the rules for those filing statuses, as if they weren't married at all).

This is true, due to DOMA. However, state recognized gay marriages entitle a couple to state tax benefits that civil unions do not.

So if the majority of people decide you should be pelted with rotten tomatoes every day, that's peachy? Sure.

That would not be peachy, that would be assault.

Remind me, how many of the other states that allow gay marriage allowed it as a result of the judiciary?
Not to mention that CT and MA, both creating gay marriage as a result of the judiciary, have both upheld the decision...MA doing so directly by voting down a constitutional amendment, and CT by voting against creating a new state constitution with the expressed purpose of banning gay marriage. Even in states that created gay marriage via the courts, the populace supports it.

FYI, Federal tax benefits aren't given to gay marriages either. IRS rules prohibit those engaged in a homosexual marriage from filing a joint tax return - they must file single or head of household (according to the rules for those filing statuses, as if they weren't married at all).
Huh. Strange.

This is true, due to DOMA. However, state recognized gay marriages entitle a couple to state tax benefits that civil unions do not.

Its funny that cries of 'seperate but equal!' by the right arent even accurate.

This is true, due to DOMA. However, state recognized gay marriages entitle a couple to state tax benefits that civil unions do not.

Oh granted, but this would also depend on the state regulations surrounding their tax code, wouldn't it? A state that passed civil unions could also pass joint filing for civil unions.

Not that I'm advocating "separate but equal" or anything. What I would do it destroy marriage altogether and make all state-sponsored unions "civil unions." I'd leave marriage up to the churches.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth.

While there's no wonder at your gloating (Gauthier totally called that BTW; kudos to you for being predictably loathsome), one wonders why you feel the need to use terms relating to violent imagery.

If the ruling had gone the other way, would you say something like this:

"More bad news from California; the out-of-control judiciary raped me in my ass."

Or would you still stick with the face punching for that case?

Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Everything you hate.

It's a shame that it was upheld...

Damn.

In Norway? I should hope not, but it is Norway and I they have an interesting way of surprising me.
Like winning the Eurovision due to "a 23-year-old going on 14 from Norway who was singing about his first love -- leading some viewers to suspect the piece was actually an ode to his kindergarten teacher"? :p

That said, it's an election year, so there are a few nasty people coming out of the woodwork, using their populistic/fear mongering tactics - which includes proposals to overturn the recently passed marriage act. :(

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth.
You mean the agenda-driven leftie liberal activist judges that upheld prop 8?

Except they have the same rights.
Except they don't. See Sarkhaan's post above.

That would not be peachy, that would be assault.

Democratic assault. And you're right, that would be tomatoey.

Oh granted, but this would also depend on the state regulations surrounding their tax code, wouldn't it? A state that passed civil unions could also pass joint filing for civil unions.

Not that I'm advocating "separate but equal" or anything. What I would do it destroy marriage altogether and make all state-sponsored unions "civil unions." I'd leave marriage up to the churches.

Marriage is nothing to do with churches, nor should it ever be.

All churches do is ceremonies, 'marriage' is entirely contractual.

Huh. Strange.

Easy mistake to make. People always assume that until I tell them differently. I've seen 4 or 5 threads about prop 8, and people make that claim in every single one. I've also shot it down every single time.

Props for missing the point on an epic scale. Rights are not, nor have they ever been, subject to the whims of the majority.


I'm not sure why this surprises you.

Often when politics mixed with religion gets discussed around here the two sides line up as either

-Rights come from God (The religious people)

or

-Rights come from common agreement among the people. (The non-religious or religious but secular oriented people)

So when something like this happens everybody acts all bewildred at how 'rights' can be taken away like this. Well, if you believe that rights come from popular agreement then they can be just as easily denied by said popular agreement.

Democratic assault. And you're right, that would be tomatoey.

You're funny. :p

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Antimiscegenation.jpg


In the late 1950s, a gallup poll indicated that 96% of white americans were against interracial marriage. Isn't it nice that the will of the majority doesn't negate the rights of the few?

...until now? :(

Like winning the Eurovision due to "a 23-year-old going on 14 from Norway who was singing about his first love -- leading some viewers to suspect the piece was actually an ode to his kindergarten teacher"? :p

Perfect example - typical that Norway should win last time with a song that contains almost no singing, and now through such a huge margin (poor Iceland, robbed again) with such a crappy barely-song.

That said, it's an election year, so there are a few nasty people coming out of the woodwork, using their populistic/fear mongering tactics - which includes proposals to overturn the recently passed marriage act. :(

The thing to remember about Norway and Scandinavia is that those people haven't a chance, and that our systems don't work that way. :)

This is clearly a victory which upholds the right of Californians to change their constitution any time they see fit. No one outside the state has the right to force a people to seek special permission to change their state's constitution unless they are the US Supreme Court.

I'm not sure why this surprises you.

Often when politics mixed with religion gets discussed around here the two sides line up as either

-Rights come from God (The religious people)

or

-Rights come from common agreement among the people. (The non-religious or religious but secular oriented people)

So when something like this happens everybody acts all bewildred at how 'rights' can be taken away like this. Well, if you believe that rights come from popular agreement then they can be just as easily denied by said popular agreement.

Because in this country we have the law. And the law states, more or less, that some rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. And precident states that marriage is subject to the protection afforded under te 14th ammendment.

Saying that either rights come from god or rights come from the majority is a false dichotomy.

Marriage is nothing to do with churches, nor should it ever be.

All churches do is ceremonies, 'marriage' is entirely contractual.

/sigh

Missing the point by a mile, as usual.

"Marriage" has huge religious connotations in almost every religion, hence why the religious right is going nuts about this whole thing. Well, if you want equal, take the wind out of their sails. Make "marriage" something that the church does, and then register their "marriage" as a civil union with the government. The government would then only be interested in whether you are in a civil union or not, and you can call it whatever you want.

This is clearly a victory which upholds the right of Californians to change their constitution any time they see fit. No one outside the state has the right to force a people to seek special permission to change their state's constitution unless they are the US Supreme Court.

Or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. *snickers*

This is clearly a victory which upholds the right of Californians to change their constitution any time they see fit. No one outside the state has the right to force a people to seek special permission to change their state's constitution unless they are the US Supreme Court.

It is also a victory for all those in Utah who spent millions to influence the state of California's constitution. :p

Or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. *snickers*

Indeed.

Because in this country we have the law. And the law states, more or less, that some rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. And precident states that marriage is subject to the protection afforded under te 14th ammendment.

Saying that either rights come from god or rights come from the majority is a false dichotomy.

Ah but those rights must come from SOMEWHERE. I have a right to free speech but not a right to be awarded a free ham sandwich every Tuesday. Why? Who defines it? Where does it come from? All I'm saying is that if you don't believe in God as a source for those rights then they MUST come from popular agreement, and if that's the case, then they can be subject to change.

Thus, when it happens I don't understand why people are surprised.

It is also a victory for all those in Utah who spent millions to influence the state of California's constitution. :p

That's right, spending all that money to buy guns to point at people's heads in California to make them vote their way. For shame.

Good news from California, at least in part. Looks like at least one state had the sense to punch an out-of-control judiciary in the mouth. Of course, the opposition will continue in their relentless effort to destroy the Judaeo-Christian ethical basis of Western society. At least the California state constitution now stands in their way. To the 18,000: I’m sure you can find a home in Massachusetts.

So, where did the Founding Fathers say that the USA was a Christian Nation?

That would not be peachy, that would be assault.

Well GM, it's the will of the majority, don't tell me you'd go against the will of the majority because it now personally effects you! That wouldn't be very democratic of you now, would it!

This is clearly a victory which upholds the right of Californians to change their constitution any time they see fit. No one outside the state has the right to force a people to seek special permission to change their state's constitution unless they are the US Supreme Court.

So um, what about the Mormons, and the fact that they're from Utah? You know, that whole thing.

That's right, spending all that money to buy God to point at people's heads in California to make them vote their way. For shame.

Fixed. ;)

Burn, California, burn.

Ok. I take that back, it was childish.

Burn Prop 8 supporters, burn.

Ah well. The world still has Canada.

I'm as repulsed as I was when I heard it passed.To deny equal rights wholesale is bad enough, to strip them from people feels like an active step backwards. Just shows that people interested in true equality for all humanity have a long way to go yet. It actually makes me want to use these forums less when I see the advertisements for mormonism appear, since their fostering of ignorant bigotry has a large role to play in this debacle.

The problem is the case was never about equal rights. When the argument by the gay side became that "the people of California have no right to change their constitution without foriegn consent" the issue in the case changed from being an equal rights issue to the rights of the people.

CSC ruled that Californians do not need permission from anyone, except SCOTUS, to change their constitution anytime they want to.


With the high number of hispanic Americans in California, and the recent court decision, coupled with the fact that the constitution defines marriage as one man and one woman, it is going to be an uphill fight to get any pro gray marriage laws passed.

The people that gays would be depending on to get such a measure passed, the young, simply are not voting anymore. The young only voted one time and for one reason. That reason was Obama. Further, the fact is that in November, even the young voters supported Prop 8.
Even if you change their minds, they still aren't going to vote.

Fixed. ;)

Don't force mt to hit you in the face with a pie, LG. I don't want to, but I'll do it if I must...

Burn, California, burn.

Ok. I take that back, it was childish.

Burn Prop 8 supporters, burn.

Ah well. The world still has Canada.

Until the will of the people decide to annex Canada, because as our right wing friends are telling us, we can't go against the will of the people, it would be un-democratic!

See, in this country, we have these things called "rights." They're outlined in this thing called "the Constitution." The idea is that the majority doesn't get to take those away from people, no matter how much they want to.

Neither the California nor the US constitution say that marriage is a right.

Don't force mt to hit you in the face with a pie, LG. I don't want to, but I'll do it if I must...

Promise? :D

I think this is an important part of the article.



again



again



One more time.



That is what it comes down to, equality. We can either be a nation that does not learn from the past, we can be a nation that continues to find a new group to discriminate against when they try to sit down at the same table, or we can be a nation that does have equality, that does let everyone sit down at the table. Because we have learned from the past, and we have seen the errors of our ways.

You know, Jim Crow was the "will of the people", should the courts upheld them, or did it make the right choice to overturn them?

Are you saying that you seek the overthrow of the government?

Promise? :D

Abso-fraggin'-lutely

Since this is starting to drift into "blame the Mormons" mode...

Let's get something straight here, shall we?

Groups from all over the country on both sides flocked to CA to get involved. Mormons from Utah went? B.F.D. So did gay rights groups and activists from everywhere else. I guess you don't mind that when they're on your side, hmm?

And speaking of those groups: It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it. Yet the referendum passed. I guess it wasn't all that money after all, was it?

Not that it matters. People are using this as an excuse to gripe about Mormons. Well here's another newsflash for ya: Mormons were only the biggest of a LARGE group of different groups supporting Prop 8.

I guess it's just easier to throw a tantrum and pick and choose the facts that make it easy to blame somebody.

Here's the reality: The majority of the people of California don't want gay marriage. Groups from both sides of the issue from all over the country stuck their noses in it. You can dish out all the excuses and lopsided analyses you want to try and avoid accepting that reality, but that doesn't mean you have a point, it just makes you bitter and irrelevant.

Neither the California nor the US constitution say that marriage is a right.

The US constitution does, however, specifically say that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Further, the supreme court case Loving v. Virginia did, in fact, state that marriage is a right: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Yes, marriage is a right.

Since this is starting to drift into "blame the Mormons" mode...

Let's get something straight here, shall we?

Groups from all over the country on both sides flocked to CA to get involved. Mormons from Utah went? B.F.D. So did gay rights groups and activists from everywhere else. I guess you don't mind that when they're on your side, hmm?

And speaking of those groups: It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it. Yet the referendum passed. I guess it wasn't all that money after all, was it?

Not that it matters. People are using this as an excuse to gripe about Mormons. Well here's another newsflash for ya: Mormons were only the biggest of a LARGE group of different groups supporting Prop 8.

I guess it's just easier to throw a tantrum and pick and choose the facts that make it easy to blame somebody.

Here's the reality: The majority of the people of California don't want gay marriage. Groups from both sides of the issue from all over the country stuck their noses in it. You can dish out all the excuses and lopsided analyses you want to try and avoid accepting that reality, but that doesn't mean you have a point, it just makes you bitter and irrelevant.

Okay, then let's get to the point:

The idea that the California Constitution can be altered to deprive an existing right to a small group of people from California with nothing more than a single vote in which 7 million people of 36 million residents voted 'yes' makes rights completely meaningless. In addition, the COurt's decision to uphold this as an 'amendment' instead of requiring the more difficult to pass 'revision' is troubling because now their constitution contradicts itself. According to a previous court's decision, a pre-existing portion of the Constitution guaranteed equal rights for gay people and now there is a new section depriving them. It was a bad decision.

Edit: this wasn't a clarification, this was the negation of an existing constitutionally protected right.

Neither the California nor the US constitution say that marriage is a right.

Wanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) bet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)?

Okay, then let's get to the point:

The idea that the California Constitution can be altered to deprive an existing right to a small group of people from California with nothing more than a single vote in which 7 million people of 36 million residents voted 'yes' makes rights completely meaningless. In addition, the COurt's decision to uphold this as an 'amendment' instead of requiring the more difficult to pass 'revision' is troubling because now their constitution contradicts itself. According to a previous court's decision, a pre-existing portion of the Constitution guaranteed equal rights for gay people and now there is a new section depriving them. It was a bad decision.

Edit: this wasn't a clarification, this was the negation of an existing constitutionally protected right.

*gives Strawberry pie to LG*

And speaking of those groups: It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it. Yet the referendum passed. I guess it wasn't all that money after all, was it?

Nope it wasn't. The pro-Proposition 8 crowd took a page from Goebbels and decided to make appeals to fear.

"Protect California children" was the slogan for many, many of the ads Prop 8 supporters bought and displayed. A baseless appeal to irrational fear - that somehow, if you vote no on Proposition 8, you'll be endangering the children11!1!11!

So yeah, it was more successful. And that much more fucking loathsome, just as anyone who bought, or bought into, that God-damned garbage.

Here's the reality: The majority of the people of California don't want gay marriage.

No, the majority of people who voted on the issue didn't. Or at least, they didn't want to endanger California children. That doesn't amount to "majority of the people of California." You are wrong.

"Marriage" has huge religious connotations in almost every religion, hence why the religious right is going nuts about this whole thing.


The fact that the majority of religious people may choose to chose revisionist history over reality doesn't interest me. 'Marriage' predates all of our modern religions.

I don't care if a church places huge religious connotation on marriage - the religious part of it is the ceremony. If a church ONLY does the ceremony, and the couple do not complete all the requisites, they aren't married - no matter what their church says.


Well, if you want equal, take the wind out of their sails.


No. I want equal, and I'm not willing to let the dwindling religious extremes dictate a lesser 'equality' that they are comfortable with. This is America, they can accept it, or they can get the fuck over it.


Make "marriage" something that the church does, and then register their "marriage" as a civil union with the government.


It's going to have to be the hard way, I'm afraid. Even if you decided that all marraiges were actually civil unions (which, of course, they are), all you're doing is allowing the extremists to dictate the vocabulary.

They would still oppose equality for homosexuals. You can't give an inch on this.


The government would then only be interested in whether you are in a civil union or not, and you can call it whatever you want.

That's all the government 'cares about' now. That and the definitions of what counts as a 'civil union'. Which wouldn't instantly become equal opportunities if you changed the terminology.

'Gay marriage' is winning. It's gaining, year on year - and it's at least partly because of the way the battle is being fought. Changing the battle now, would be losing ground.

Neither the California nor the US constitution say that marriage is a right.

Apparently the California Constitution does, because the courts ruled it so. 18,000 couples can attest to that.

ANd the US Constitution does too; in the First Amendment and Ninth Amendments.

I'm not sure why this surprises you.

Often when politics mixed with religion gets discussed around here the two sides line up as either

-Rights come from God (The religious people)

or

-Rights come from common agreement among the people. (The non-religious or religious but secular oriented people)

So when something like this happens everybody acts all bewildred at how 'rights' can be taken away like this. Well, if you believe that rights come from popular agreement then they can be just as easily denied by said popular agreement.

Those two things are functionally equivalent. If people believe that rights come from God, the next question is whose version of God. And the majority religion wins out. So, regardless of where you believe the rights themselves come from, they are decided and enforced by common agreement among the people.

Okay, then let's get to the point:

The idea that the California Constitution can be altered to deprive an existing right to a small group of people from California with nothing more than a single vote in which 7 million people of 36 million residents voted 'yes' makes rights completely meaningless. In addition, the COurt's decision to uphold this as an 'amendment' instead of requiring the more difficult to pass 'revision' is troubling because now their constitution contradicts itself. According to a previous court's decision, a pre-existing portion of the Constitution guaranteed equal rights for gay people and now there is a new section depriving them. It was a bad decision.

Edit: this wasn't a clarification, this was the negation of an existing constitutionally protected right.

You hit the nail on the head, in terms of the point I was making earlier. If rights come from the masses, then they really aren't rights at all, are they?

Nope it wasn't. The pro-Proposition 8 crowd took a page from Goebbels and decided to make appeals to fear.

"Protect California children" was the slogan for many, many of the ads Prop 8 supporters bought and displayed. A baseless appeal to irrational fear - that somehow, if you vote no on Proposition 8, you'll be endangering the children11!1!11!

So yeah, it was more successful. And that much more fucking loathsome, just as anyone who bought, or bought into, that God-damned garbage.

No, the majority of people who voted on the issue didn't. Or at least, they didn't want to endanger California children. That doesn't amount to "majority of the people of California." You are wrong.

You have to understand that an ad like that is only effective in motivating people who already thought along those lines. People who supported gay marriage weren't going to be swayed by it and if anything would have been motivated to vote because of the very perspective you're coming from. Those who are morally opposed to it were, at best, motivated to get out and vote where they wouldn't have before. Mind you, you'd have to build a case that somehow the ads alone tipped the balance, and good luck with that.

Those two things are functionally equivalent. If people believe that rights come from God, the next question is whose version of God. And the majority religion wins out. So, regardless of where you believe the rights themselves come from, they are decided and enforced by common agreement among the people.

Which is fine, but it still gets back to the idea that if you're putting the definition of rights into the hands of man, then you have to be prepared for the fact that it cuts both ways.

The fact that the majority of religious people may choose to chose revisionist history over reality doesn't interest me. 'Marriage' predates all of our modern religions.

I'll need a source for that.

It's going to have to be the hard way, I'm afraid. Even if you decided that all marraiges were actually civil unions (which, of course, they are), all you're doing is allowing the extremists to dictate the vocabulary.

They would still oppose equality for homosexuals. You can't give an inch on this.

That's all the government 'cares about' now. That and the definitions of what counts as a 'civil union'. Which wouldn't instantly become equal opportunities if you changed the terminology.

'Gay marriage' is winning. It's gaining, year on year - and it's at least partly because of the way the battle is being fought. Changing the battle now, would be losing ground.

Well good luck. By the way, I predict a major backlash within a few years. I mean, a really big one. But, good luck!

News link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/BAT817R2QD.DTL) and court decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF).

Well, the CA Supreme Court has upheld Prop 8. Not sure what to say, really - I was kindof expecting this, but it's still quite sucky to actually have it happen. On the other hand, I now know what I'm doing with my time in 2010.

Your thoughts and opinions?

:mad:

GOD DAMN IT!

A devastating blow in the cause for freedom. :(

There's going to be a bajillion appeals and re-hearings both in-state and federally, so this is far from over...

Well good luck. By the way, I predict a major backlash within a few years. I mean, a really big one. But, good luck!

Not unless the US Supreme Court rules that all legislation and state constitution amendment are unconstitutional, or Obama passes a legislation legalizing gay marriage. I think the former is more likely to happen though.

Not unless the US Supreme Court rules that all legislation and state constitution amendment are unconstitutional, or Obama passes a legislation legalizing gay marriage. I think the former is more likely to happen though.

Well, believe it or not, Obama can't pass legislation by himself. ;)

Well, believe it or not, Obama can't pass legislation by himself. ;)

But he promised change. :(

*Obama shows up to give me 50 cent.*

Thanks Obama!

Yea I know, which is why I doubt it'll happen through the Executive and Legislative branch of government. The Democrats in the Senate will be bullied by the Republican to vote it down.

But he promised change. :(

*Obama shows up to give me 50 cent.*

Thanks Obama!

Yea I know, which is why I doubt it'll happen through the Executive and Legislative branch of government. The Democrats in the Senate will be bullied by the Republican to vote it down.

If the Senate Democrats allow themselves to be bullied by the republicans when they have 60 seats in the senate they do not deserve their seats.
By the secret article of the Constitution I assume all the democrat's seats.

Yea I know, which is why I doubt it'll happen through the Executive and Legislative branch of government. The Democrats in the Senate will be bullied by the Republican to vote it down.

...

How in the hell are the Republicans going to bully Democrats into ANYTHING? The Democrat party has the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Good gawd, man. I know you guys love to rush to make excuses for Democrat politicians but sheesh...

If the Senate Democrats allow themselves to be bullied by the republicans when they have 60 seats in the senate they do not deserve their seats.
By the secret article of the Constitution I assume all the democrat's seats.

You're assuming all the Democrats favor gay marriage or are secure enough in their seats to do what's right instead of what's politically convenient.

...

How in the hell are the Republicans going to bully Democrats into ANYTHING? The Democrat party has the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Good gawd, man. I know you guys love to rush to make excuses for Democrat politicians but sheesh...

They didn't pass the funds needed to close Gitmo, when they had the majority vote in the Senate.

...

How in the hell are the Republicans going to bully Democrats into ANYTHING? The Democrat party has the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Good gawd, man. I know you guys love to rush to make excuses for Democrat politicians but sheesh...

I wish I lived in a fantasy world like you do.

Looks like Iowa still has the upper hand on California.

...

How in the hell are the Republicans going to bully Democrats into ANYTHING? The Democrat party has the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Good gawd, man. I know you guys love to rush to make excuses for Democrat politicians but sheesh...

Well, the Republicans can build quite a bit of public outrage in states where Senate Democrats might feel threatened in their next election.

So, where did the Founding Fathers say that the USA was a Christian Nation?



Well GM, it's the will of the majority, don't tell me you'd go against the will of the majority because it now personally effects you! That wouldn't be very democratic of you now, would it!

I'd go against it because it's potentially dangerous, and illegal.

BTW, if you're thinking I'm happy about the Prop 8 decision, I'm not. Homosexual people deserve to be as miserable in marriage as heterosexual people.

You're assuming all the Democrats favor gay marriage or are secure enough in their seats to do what's right instead of what's politically convenient.

So, what Wilgrove meant to say was:

Yea I know, which is why I doubt it'll happen through the Executive and Legislative branch of government. The Democrats in the Senate will be bullied by the conservative public to vote it down.

...

How in the hell are the Republicans going to bully Democrats into ANYTHING? The Democrat party has the White House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Good gawd, man. I know you guys love to rush to make excuses for Democrat politicians but sheesh...

Because, of course, that -D or -R after a representatives name means they always vote with the party line 100%, right? The Democratic or Republican hive minds, as it were. You can tell that all Democrats agree because of how uneventful the Democratic presidential primaries were, and you can tell that all Republicans agree because of how well Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell are getting along at present.

Looks like Iowa still has the upper hand on California.

Not really. California legalized gay marriage years before Iowa ever did.

Not really. California legalized gay marriage years before Iowa ever did.

1 year. ANd it lasted all of 9 months.

Because, of course, that -D or -R after a representatives name means they always vote with the party line 100%, right? The Democratic or Republican hive minds, as it were. You can tell that all Democrats agree because of how uneventful the Democratic presidential primaries were, and you can tell that all Republicans agree because of how well Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell are getting along at present.

Well then it wouldn't be as simple as Republicans bullying Democrats, would it?

Well then it wouldn't be as simple as Republicans bullying Democrats, would it?

You're right. They only have to bully 2. ;)

Perfect example - typical that Norway should win last time with a song that contains almost no singing, and now through such a huge margin (poor Iceland, robbed again) with such a crappy barely-song.
I feel it's only prudent to remind you that "Söta bror" did their part by awarding him 12 points ;)


The thing to remember about Norway and Scandinavia is that those people haven't a chance, and that our systems don't work that way. :)
I really hope you're right... And I believe you are, I'm just a bit nervous because of those people. But yeah, rights given will have a much harder time being taken away when there's instruments such as the ECHR in place (in addition to the fact that the Scandinavian courts in general seem to take their responsibilities as protectors of minorities seriously!)

I really hope you're right... And I believe you are, I'm just a bit nervous because of those people. But yeah, rights given will have a much harder time being taken away when there's instruments such as the ECHR in place (in addition to the fact that the Scandinavian courts in general seem to take their responsibilities as protectors of minorities seriously!)

Wait, is that the responsibility of the court?

I thought it was the responsibility of the court to interpret the laws exactly as written, including the law to be considered and the constitution or governing law of the land.

The problem is the case was never about equal rights. When the argument by the gay side became that "the people of California have no right to change their constitution without foriegn consent" the issue in the case changed from being an equal rights issue to the rights of the people.

Of course, since that argument was never made, I'm really wondering what your point is...

1 year. ANd it lasted all of 9 months.

Hey, we got to the finish line first. That counts.

Hey, we got to the finish line first. That counts.

Then you peed in the trophy cup. :tongue:

Then you peed in the trophy cup. :tongue:

No, we went home, thousands of people cheered and got married, and then a bunch of kids went back to the racetrack, found the trophy cup, and peed in it.

So now we have to do it all over. That's OK. With the support of the rest of the country's best wishes I'm sure anything is possible. :)

Hey, we got to the finish line first. That counts.

By that logic, MA is four years cooler. And still going strong.

No, we went home, thousands of people cheered and got married, and then a bunch of kids went back to the racetrack, found the trophy cup, and peed in it.

So now we have to do it all over. That's OK. With the support of the rest of the country's best wishes I'm sure anything is possible. :)

It's only a matter of time until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and the Constitution finally gets upheld. But I think it's an embarrassment that so many people willing to deprive others of equality have the audacity to claim they are the ones being persecuted.

By that logic, MA is four years cooler. And still going strong.

Don't forget Canada. :)

Wait, is that the responsibility of the court?

I thought it was the responsibility of the court to interpret the laws exactly as written, including the law to be considered and the constitution or governing law of the land.

Then you have a lot to learn. :wink:

...especially if you also look outside the US...

...though not even in the US the court is necessarily supposed to interpret the laws exactly as written... Doesn't leave much to, you know, interpret...

It went to a vote, and the voters said 'no gay marriage.' Then it went to the courts and the courts said 'no gay marriage.' I don't know, if I were a proponent of gay marriage in CA, I might take this opportunity to fall back, regroup, and review my tactics, as well as those of the opposition, because their approach obviously did not garner the desired outcome.

Which is fine, but it still gets back to the idea that if you're putting the definition of rights into the hands of man, then you have to be prepared for the fact that it cuts both ways.

In the end, there's no way to take them out of the hands of man - not completely. This is why some of us favor governmental systems in which certain rights are effectively removed from the hands of the government. Obviously, enough people can just overturn that system, but it's less likely to happen than if it's allowed simply on the whims of 50% + 1.

It went to a vote, and the voters said 'no gay marriage.' Then it went to the courts and the courts said 'no gay marriage.' I don't know, if I were a proponent of gay marriage in CA, I might take this opportunity to fall back, regroup, and review my tactics, as well as those of the opposition, because their approach obviously did not garner the desired outcome.

See, that's not quite the same as my understanding of what happened. As I understand it it went to the courts first, and the courts found that gay marriage was legal, and always had been. Then there was Prop 8, which was passed, then there's this ruling which(I believe) is not about gay marriage at all, its about the validity of Prop 8. The argument was that Prop 8 made too much of a change to the constitution, therefore it could not be legally passed the way it was. The court disagreed, Prop 8 stands, gay marriage continues not to be legal in California. Unless you got inb4 prop 8.

Isn't it even the same judges that found that gay marriage was legal now finding that the law against it is valid? Shit, if I was them I'd want a nice strong drink when I get home tonight.

I'll need a source for that.


Well, we can argue about the traditions of pre-civilised peoples... but, off the top of my head, we know that marriages existed before the construction of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

One minute...: Here we are: "Gilgamesh does not leave a girl to her mother... The daughter of the warrior, the bride of the young man, the gods kept hearing their complaints, so the gods of the heavens implored the Lord of Uruk [Anu]..."

http://www.earth-history.com/Babylon/epic-gilgamesh.htm


Well good luck. By the way, I predict a major backlash within a few years. I mean, a really big one. But, good luck!

I expect a backlash, too - and I expect it to fail.

Gay marriage is this generations mixed-race marriage - a denial of a right that should have always been considered explicit, but that was withheld through prejudice.

See, that's not quite the same as my understanding of what happened. As I understand it it went to the courts first, and the courts found that gay marriage was legal, and always had been. Then there was Prop 8, which was passed, then there's this ruling which(I believe) is not about gay marriage at all, its about the validity of Prop 8. The argument was that Prop 8 made too much of a change to the constitution, therefore it could not be legally passed the way it was. The court disagreed, Prop 8 stands, gay marriage continues not to be legal in California. Unless you got inb4 prop 8.


Regardless of the order of events, given that the pro-gay marriage/anti-Prop 8 crowd's tactics did not produce their desired result, I think my original observation still has merit.

Isn't it even the same judges that found that gay marriage was legal now finding that the law against it is valid? Shit, if I was them I'd want a nice strong drink when I get home tonight.

Im not sure i get your point. They ruled gay marriage was legal, the people made a law that then made it illegal and the Justices supported the basis of the new law. Its a Judges job to interpret law not create it and this is exactly what they did. Im not sure why you think they need a stiff drink.

Regardless of the order of events, given that the pro-gay marriage/anti-Prop 8 crowd's tactics did not produce their desired result, I think my original observation still has merit.

The pro 'gay marriage' movement underestimated the interference of out-of-state agencies, especially religious ones.

They also overestimated the support they'd get from other minority interests.

The 'majority' gained on Prop 8 was so slim, it could easily be overturned - especially given the general swing towards the 'gay marriage' argument.

All I'm saying is that if you don't believe in God as a source for those rights then they MUST come from popular agreement,

Wow, that's a pretty ludicrous false dichotomy. Actually, justifications for rights in sophisticated circles (and the political theories associated with them) have been basically secular for centuries. You have the various natural rights Enlightenment theories, deontological ones based on the intrinsic dignity and/or equal moral worth of humanity, sorta-kinda consequentialist ones based on rule-utilitarianism....

"God", of course, helps the situation not a whit: divine command theory has no philosophical credibility quite independent of atheism, because there is no inherent reason at all that divine commands should command us. Even religiously-oriented moral theories like Christian natural law have stronger secular foundations than that.

and if that's the case, then they can be subject to change.

Depends on the theory, and even then it depends on which right and what context.

The majority of the people of California don't want gay marriage.

Poll numbers both before and after Prop. 8 were actually pretty inconclusive. They won that day. They may not have won a month later. If they were to have a vote a week from now, it's not clear how Californians would vote.

A devastating blow in the cause for freedom. :(

No. It's not.

Yes, it would have been nice if the Court had ruled differently. But it was not very likely that they would. We really lost this fight back in November.

There's going to be a bajillion appeals and re-hearings both in-state and federally, so this is far from over...

I don't see why there would be. If Prop. 8 is valid, then the legal question of same-sex marriage in California is firmly settled: "no" (for now).

Well, we can argue about the traditions of pre-civilised peoples... but, off the top of my head, we know that marriages existed before the construction of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

One minute...: Here we are: "Gilgamesh does not leave a girl to her mother... The daughter of the warrior, the bride of the young man, the gods kept hearing their complaints, so the gods of the heavens implored the Lord of Uruk [Anu]..."

http://www.earth-history.com/Babylon/epic-gilgamesh.htm

Ah, interesting. *notates*

I expect a backlash, too - and I expect it to fail.

I hope it does. Expect? I wouldn't say expect.

The pro 'gay marriage' movement underestimated the interference of out-of-state agencies, especially religious ones. They also overestimated the support they'd get from other minority interests.

The fact that they over-estimated their allies and under-estimated their opponents would seem to bear out my original observation re: reconsidering their tactics.

especially given the general swing towards the 'gay marriage' argument.

I'm not sure what 'general swing towards the gay marriage argument' you're referencing. It's my understanding that the majority of the times such measures have gone to the polls, they've been defeated, which would hardly seem to argue for 'general swing towards.'

Poll numbers both before and after Prop. 8 were actually pretty inconclusive. They won that day. They may not have won a month later. If they were to have a vote a week from now, it's not clear how Californians would vote.




HEY!!! Do not spoil my time getting to call California more redneck then Texas!!!

I hope it does. Expect? I wouldn't say expect.

I expect it to fail because we have a trend in this country, and there are several really good precedents.

I don't expect it to be 'plain sailing regardless of gender' in the next decade - the other battles may have been quick victories, but those wars are still ongoing. But - I do expect the next few years to be a fairly rapid swing, followed by an ultimately doomed retaliation - and the final dawn of something that should never have even been an issue.

Because that's what history tells me will happen. :)

The fact that they over-estimated their allies and under-estimated their opponents would seem to bear out my original observation re: reconsidering their tactics.


The tactics were good. It wasn't the organisation that was at fault, per se - it was complacency. It took too many people too long to respond to the intense smear campaigns that motivated the base against 'gay marriage'.

The next time the vote is called, I fully expect a better showing.

Of course - I also expect huge pressure to be applied on the other side.


I'm not sure what 'general swing towards the gay marriage argument' you're referencing. It's my understanding that the majority of the times such measures have gone to the polls, they've been defeated, which would hardly seem to argue for 'general swing towards.'

Polling suggests that people are becoming more accepting of 'gay marriage' at a rapid rate. We could argue about the 'why' (personally, I think the religious right have somewhat demonized themselves with their tactical choices), but the trend seems fairly well observed.

And that's ignoring the movement of several states in the recent past.

It's my understanding that the majority of the times such measures have gone to the polls, they've been defeated, which would hardly seem to argue for 'general swing towards.'

This is a horrible standard.

First, it tells us nothing about a "swing" in any direction, it merely tells us about the present state of public opinion. When analyzing for "swing", to say that a majority of measures are being defeated right now tells us nothing if a majority of such measures would also have been defeated in the past--as is obviously the case. (Indeed, the very fact that they are brought before the voting public is in large part a consequence of precisely the swing in opinion that you deny exists.)

Second, every ballot proposition that has gone to the polls has been negative: nobody is trying to legalize same-sex marriage by initiative, but rather to prohibit it. Furthermore, in every case but Prop. 8, such initiatives have been intended not to abrogate an existing law or court decision allowing same-sex marriage, but either to amend a state constitution to prevent the courts or the legislature from legalizing it, or to explicitly clarify by statute that existing marriage laws should be interpreted as they already are interpreted, as prohibiting same-sex marriage. Such initiatives generally take place not in liberal states where same-sex marriage is a brimming possibility, but in conservative states where such measures serve as a useful vehicle for Christian Right get-out-the-vote efforts. In the liberal states, they rarely get through the legislature to go on the ballot. Your sample, then, is biased: of course it's true that constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have always passed, but that is only because they usually only come to the ballot when the electorate is already receptive.

In the specific case of California, Prop. 22, explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriage by statute, passed with 61% of the vote, and Prop. 8, with the exact same language as a constitutional amendment, passed with 52% of the vote. That's a nine-percent shift over eight years. Hard to read anything but a "swing" in that.

I'm not sure what 'general swing towards the gay marriage argument' you're referencing. '

Really? You're not? Are you sure? I mean...it's a pretty obvious one..But if I have to point out the obvious...ok.

How many states allowed gay marriage (or at least all legal benefits of such) 10 years ago?

How many states allowed gay marriage (or at least all legal benefits of such) 5 years ago?

How many states allowed gay marriage (or at least all legal benefits of such) 2 years ago?

How many states allow gay marriage (or at least all legal benefits of such) today?

Are those numbers going up, or down?

See, in this country, we have these things called "rights." They're outlined in this thing called "the Constitution." The idea is that the majority doesn't get to take those away from people, no matter how much they want to.

Is marriage a right? I wouldn't say it is a privelige but. Or is marriage only a right in the USA? Or to put it another way do rights only become rights when they are called rights by the Supreme court? I am talking about Loving v. Virginia is it only a right because the judges and/or lawmakers said so? Arethere such things as rights that regardless of what the law says is still a right?

How does one defy what a right is?

Burn, California, burn.

Ok. I take that back, it was childish.

Burn Prop 8 supporters, burn.

Ah well. The world still has Canada.

And Alberta. :)

Perfect example - typical that Norway should win last time with a song that contains almost no singing, and now through such a huge margin (poor Iceland, robbed again) with such a crappy barely-song.

Fuck me Fass, are we going to agree on something here? Yes we are I suppose a blue moon comes around every now and then.

Norway only won because he was perceived by the younger girls in the audience to be attractive and they probably all thought he was singing about them. Not to mention the song included melody that might be heard from music coming out of Eastern Europe, thus helping him to secure their votes. It was disgusting that it wasn't about the music this year, sure he was kinda cute but certainly not that attractive.

It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it.
Can't a Mormon open his mouth without lying? It is a matter of public record that your side raised twice as much money as ours; the ratio was even more extreme before a last-minute surge on our side. Furthermore, much of the LDS contribution was under-the-table and is only being ferretted out now.

Is marriage a right? I wouldn't say it is a privelige but. Or is marriage only a right in the USA? Or to put it another way do rights only become rights when they are called rights by the Supreme court? I am talking about Loving v. Virginia is it only a right because the judges and/or lawmakers said so? Arethere such things as rights that regardless of what the law says is still a right?

How does one defy what a right is?

Not all rights are enumerated, thanks to the 9th amendment. They become concrete rights when they are defined by the SCOTUS or by amendment to the constitution, but they existed before they were defined.

And yes, I do believe that there are certain rights that every human has. They may be infringed upon by a government, but in my view, that is tyrannical. Free speech is always a right, even when a government makes laws to prevent it.

And speaking of those groups: It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it. Yet the referendum passed. I guess it wasn't all that money after all, was it?

Can't a Mormon open his mouth without lying? It is a matter of public record that your side raised twice as much money as ours; the ratio was even more extreme before a last-minute surge on our side. Furthermore, much of the LDS contribution was under-the-table and is only being ferretted out now.

There are only two ways to solve this:

SOurces or.... Thunderdome.

Guess which one I recommend? :D

I'm just not up for Thunderdome today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormongate----the-churchs_b_163016.html)

It is a matter of public record that your side raised twice as much money as ours;

No, it didn't. NB's right about the totals; No on 8 led, though not, if I recall correctly, by a huge quantity.

Edit: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory

The vote was held throughout California and the people rejected gay marriage. The state state supreme court just upheld the people's choice.

That sounds like democracy. Now it seems like the pro gay marriage side is getting pissy and calling it tyranny when they lose an election.

Hmm...

Just vote on the issue again the next chance it can be voted on.
See if the people of California accept gay marriage this time.

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

What it all boils down to is homosexuals demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way.

What this also shows is that the proponents of the Briggs Initiative in California were prescient.

I'd actually want to see that.

Yeah, and people in hell want cold water too.

BTW: Carrie Prejean is my kind of woman! :D

Yeah, and people in hell want cold water too.

BTW: Carrie Prejean is my kind of woman! :D

And she speaks so highly of you, too.

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.


If I divorce my wife, will you marry me?

You do realize this was decided by the very judiciary you just criticized, yes? And those 18,000 don't need to find a new home...California will still respect their marriages.

No props to the out-of-control California Supreme Court for actually confining itself to its Constitutional function instead of manufacturing yet another sophistic excuse for imposing the four-judge majority's personal agenda.

And as for the 18,000 misnamed "marriages", it is unsurprising that the same rogue court that imposed them on this state should decide to continue to impose the very things they created. Fortunately, divorce and the actuarial tables will eventually reduce that number to its pre-manufacture number, namely zero.

Fortunately, divorce and the actuarial tables will eventually reduce that number to its pre-manufacture number, namely zero.

California will have legal same-sex marriage again within the next six years.

No question.

Edit: I'll make it seven, 2016. Four elections. Prop. Whatever will legalize it and that will be the end of that.

If I divorce my wife, will you marry me?

A potential spouse would have to be female and exclusively straight, not to mention meet a large number of other requirements, for me to even consider marriage. So, the answer to your question is:

NO!

And she speaks so highly of you, too.

I know. I'm in one of her support groups on Facebook. :tongue:

I know. I'm in one of her support groups on Facebook. :tongue:

Support group for what? Her oh-so difficult life as a bigotted beauty pageant contestant?

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

What it all boils down to is homosexuals demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way.

Well, at least you came up with a shiny new argument no one's ever presented before!

Really, it's just like freedom of religion. Everyone in the U.S. is free to practice or not practice Catholicism. The fact that some people choose not to exercise that right is irrelevant to its existence.

What this also shows is that the proponents of the Briggs Initiative in California were prescient.

Bigots in the past predicted there would be bigots in the future? Someone give them a medal.

Unless you're making the argument that homosexuals have no right to marriage OR employment.

Everyone in the U.S. is free to practice or not practice Catholicism.

Or everyone in the US is free to not be fired for being white.

:rolleyes:

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

"You have the same freedom of religion as the rest of us! You are free only to believe in The Spaghetti Monster! What, you want to believe in Jesus? Now, that's just demanding special rights!"

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zf1t9f.jpg

Or everyone in the US is free to not be fired for being white.

:rolleyes:

Hush, you. I get to make a non-racial comparison if I want to.

I wonder why, with examples like this, people still think that democracy is so fucking great.

I wonder why, with examples like this, people still think that democracy is so fucking great.

Critical thinking, an appreciation for the rapid growth and change of a very young nation in a very short span of time, an ability to remember something further back than five minutes ago, and, just possibly, some small kernel of understanding as to how constitutional democracies actually work?

I mean, those are all just guesses.

Democracy in the United States is sort of like freedom, people think we've got it but we seldom do. You only get to participate in government at most once a year. You have the freedom to express yourself however you want so long as it doesn't involve cussing or nudity. You're free to own and operate firearms so long as you have a permit (in some places to carry, in others just to possess), confine your use to licensed ranges, and keep everything locked up at all times. You're free from occupation except whenever the state or local government feels like declaring an emergency, then they can barge in and kick you out. You are free from search and seizure of property and have have a right to privacy except when the government wants to tap your phones, have a peek at your hard drive, or break down your front door and shoot up your house because they think drugs may have been there at some point in the past year (and then they'll give themselves medals for it). You have the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers but the prosecution is just out for a conviction so they might withold evidence and have cops lie on the stand to win. You're supposed to be free from slavery but there have been promises from the Prez to institute mandatory unpaid community service for kids and college students.

Freedom doesn't exist, not here. We don't have rights, we have privileges. And they are taken away before.

Democracy in the United States is sort of like freedom, people think we've got it but we seldom do. You only get to participate in government at most once a year. You have the freedom to express yourself however you want so long as it doesn't involve cussing or nudity. You're free to own and operate firearms so long as you have a permit (in some places to carry, in others just to possess), confine your use to licensed ranges, and keep everything locked up at all times. You're free from occupation except whenever the state or local government feels like declaring an emergency, then they can barge in and kick you out. You are free from search and seizure of property and have have a right to privacy except when the government wants to tap your phones, have a peek at your hard drive, or break down your front door and shoot up your house because they think drugs may have been there at some point in the past year (and then they'll give themselves medals for it). You have the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers but the prosecution is just out for a conviction so they might withold evidence and have cops lie on the stand to win. You're supposed to be free from slavery but there have been promises from the Prez to institute mandatory unpaid community service for kids and college students.

Freedom doesn't exist, not here. We don't have rights, we have privileges. And they are taken away before.

No freedom is absolute.

To say that there is no freedom, to say that freedom is dead and buried, because it is encroached apon by governments ... well, all I can say is that you give up too easily.

Since Fred Phelps is against gay marriage, I'm for it! And it really is none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors, nor should it be anybody elses.

I wonder why, with examples like this, people still think that democracy is so fucking great.

Well, it's not fucking great. It could be better, and perhaps there is a better system.

One of the huge differences between US democracy and Australian democracy is the obligation to vote. Here, young people are strongly encouraged to register to vote when they become eligible at the age of 18. A huge majority do so, like "why not? It's not much power, but I'll take anything I can get 'cos the world isn't exactly handing out power like it was advertising brochures."

Once you're registered to vote, you are not only entitled to vote but legally required to vote. You are fined for NOT voting in a Federal or State election.

Does this make our democracy work better? No I would say. It bypasses that whole sick "getting out the vote" thing which often decides elections in the US, because most of the voters are out already. Not so much the fifty buck fine, but the sense of duty, gets them out.

On the other hand, it provides a huge mass of "undecideds" for politicians to work on in the weeks or months before elections. Pork-barrelling (the strategic spending in marginal seats) and outright bribes to the populace in the form of tax-cuts or the even more effective (since it goes to non-taxpayers too) cash handouts are a growing feature of election campaigns.

Where democracy fails is exactly where it starts: with the people. Most of them don't give a fuck. Given a choice, they don't bother to vote.

I think I actually prefer a system of non-compulsory voting. At least it is plain then, just what a tiny minority of "the people" a "democratic" government really represents.

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

Fassitude's reply to this should be sufficient.

But I consider, that since you trolled* this thread once before, that some extra punishment is called for.

The "right" you speak of is the right to marry. Correct? Heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, under current California law. So do homosexuals, as you say.

But wait. Heterosexuals DO NOT have the right to marry a person of the same sex. That they may not want to do that is irrelevant, they do not have that right. No-one in California has that legal right.

So this isn't a case of homosexuals claiming a "special right" which would not be granted to non-homosexuals. The right would be granted to them too, even if they don't choose to exercise it.

Now you have the difficult task of explaining why a (claimed, by a minority) right should be denied to all Californians. The only way that can be justified is to show how granting that right would infringe apon other recognized rights, or with further justification, apon other claimed rights.

Gay marriage does not infringe apon the rights of anyone. Refute that, or stop babbling about "rights."

*"Trolled" in the sense of "posted a virulent opinion, got thrashed, and silently dropped the subject ... then came back and did it again.

What it all boils down to is homosexuals demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way.

Actually, no. It boils down to homosexuals and those who support the principle of their claim (like myself) fighting fair and fighting for the principles ... and losing this time around.

Principle always wins in the end.

Not all rights are enumerated, thanks to the 9th amendment. They become concrete rights when they are defined by the SCOTUS or by amendment to the constitution, but they existed before they were defined.

So rights are only rights because some judges say so or the legislature says so?

And if they exist before this why are they rights? How does a right exist beforehand?

And yes, I do believe that there are certain rights that every human has. They may be infringed upon by a government, but in my view, that is tyrannical. Free speech is always a right, even when a government makes laws to prevent it.

Why is it determined to be a right?

Well, at least you came up with a shiny new argument no one's ever presented before!

I am aware that it is hard to sometimes determine what people mean when they say something over the internet but I hope you were being sarcastic here.

Im not sure i get your point. They ruled gay marriage was legal, the people made a law that then made it illegal and the Justices supported the basis of the new law. Its a Judges job to interpret law not create it and this is exactly what they did. Im not sure why you think they need a stiff drink.
Well, they gave gay people in California a taste of equality and then had to take it back.
The thing the enemies of marriage
http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd350/DJ_Novakain/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg
refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.
Why exactly should marriage be limited to straight people? What harm does it do to allow homosexuals to marry each other?

What it all boils down to is homosexuals demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way.
Yes, god forbid people actually fight for fair and equal treatment. How distasteful.

Yes, god forbid people actually fight for fair and equal treatment. How distasteful.

Too fucking right. Its like when that negress bitch Rosa Parks wrecked a journey for dozens of innocent crackers who just wanted a quiet bus drive home. Oppressed people should just shut the fuck up and when the majority shit all over them they better bow meekly before their overlords and wipe their asses for them.

Too fucking right. Its like when that negress bitch Rosa Parks wrecked a journey for dozens of innocent crackers who just wanted a quiet bus drive home. Oppressed people should just shut the fuck up and when the majority shit all over them they better bow meekly before their overlords and wipe their asses for them.

Damn right. Its bad enough we had to give women and blacks equality, but now the gays want it too? What's next, being nice to muslims?!

Damn right. Its bad enough we had to give women and blacks equality, but now the gays want it too? What's next, being nice to muslims?!

The very idea gives me an overpowering urge to buy a bunch of guns and tin foil hats and set up a militia.

Why exactly should marriage be limited to straight people? What harm does it do to allow homosexuals to marry each other?

http://files.myopera.com/RWgirl/albums/350451/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg

Why exactly should marriage be limited to straight people? What harm does it do to allow homosexuals to marry each other?

That is exactly my point about what constitutes a "right."

I suggest to New Mitanni, that a serious non-trolling reply would be better addressed to me than to Ifreann or Fassitude. I'm much more likely to accept a well-stated precept for the sake of argument ... and far less likely to descend into mockery. If you seriously mean what you say, debate with me.

But, New Mitanni, if your purpose in posting is to evoke opposing opinions as virulent and nonsensical as your own, have at Ifreann here. He gets down to your level like a limbo-dancing snake in quicksand.

That is exactly my point about what constitutes a "right."

I suggest to New Mitanni, that a serious non-trolling reply would be better addressed to me than to Ifreann or Fassitude. I'm much more likely to accept a well-stated precept for the sake of argument ... and far less likely to descend into mockery. If you seriously mean what you say, debate with me.

But, New Mitanni, if your purpose in posting is to evoke opposing opinions as virulent and nonsensical as your own, have at Ifreann here. He gets down to your level like a limbo-dancing snake in quicksand.

http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/internet-serious-business.jpg

Make sure you don't talk to the wrong people OR THEY'LL HAVE FUN!

I

Like winning the Eurovision due to "a 23-year-old going on 14 from Norway who was singing about his first love -- leading some viewers to suspect the piece was actually an ode to his kindergarten teacher"? :p


I thank god for Finland's defeat: If Sillanpää would have won, fashion would have gone back to the 80s here. Fear the mullet.

*image*

Make sure you don't talk to the wrong people OR THEY'LL HAVE FUN!

Right. I mentioned your name so it's all about you. And how much fun you're having.

Pardon me. I won't mention you again.

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America threw out your argument in 1967.

Seriously.

You're using an argument that was rejected OVER FORTY YEARS AGO.

Do you feel even the tiniest bit embarrassed by that?

How sad for the USian Californians
:(

Can't believe they tried to make it retro-active as well, quite twisted of them to try that...

I'm just not up for Thunderdome today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormongate----the-churchs_b_163016.html)

Aww. :(

That's really, really sad. At least the marriages performed still stand.

Yeah, too bad, but I don't think that the Court could find any way to reject the referendum.
To achieve a legalisation of same-sex marriages, it would be better to question the constitutionality of the laws that define marriage for heterosexual couples only, on the grounds of sexual discrimination.

Why exactly should marriage be limited to straight people? What harm does it do to allow homosexuals to marry each other?


Btw, I don't know what the US constitution says about marriage: the Italian Constitution, though, doesn't define marriage and only states that "the family is a natural society founded on marriage".
This leaves to a specifical law to define who can marry whom; and, since by the Constitution citizen cannot be discrimined because of their sex, the Italian Constitutional Court COULD (if asked to intervene, that is) change the law defining marriage so that it can allow same-sex marriage too. I think that it's the same path taken by Norway and Sweden, iirc.

Btw, I don't know what the US constitution says about marriage: the Italian Constitution, though, doesn't define marriage and only states that "the family is a natural society founded on marriage".
This leaves to a specifical law to define who can marry whom; and, since by the Constitution citizen cannot be discrimined because of their sex, the Italian Constitutional Court COULD (if asked to intervene, that is) change the law defining marriage so that it can allow same-sex marriage too. I think that it's the same path taken by Norway and Sweden, iirc.

The Irish constitution recognises the family as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law” and guarantees its protection by the State. As long as you're a married opposite sex couple. A Canadian couple tried to have their same sex marriage recognised by the state, no go.

A Canadian couple tried to have their same sex marriage recognised by the state, no go.

In the UK they recently ruled that they wouldn't recognise same-sex marriage carried out abroad as marriage but instead as civil partnerships, the same as all UK-based civil partnerships. Now given how civil partnerships are the photocopy of the marriage legislation with a different name, I can see how this ruling was made to keep the terminology simpler. But really it just drives home the fact it would much more practical for everyone if they quietly pushed through legislation tidying things up and called both types of partnership marriage.

This is America, they can accept it, or they can get the fuck over it.
Well yeah. They can accept it, or they can take the antidote for gayness.

Heterosexuals DO NOT have the right to marry a person of the same sex. That they may not want to do that is irrelevant, they do not have that right. [...]
Now you have the difficult task of explaining why a (claimed, by a minority) right should be denied to all Californians. The only way that can be justified is to show how granting that right would infringe apon other recognized rights, or with further justification, apon other claimed rights.

Gay marriage does not infringe apon the rights of anyone. Refute that, or stop babbling about "rights."
Hmm.

I want to buy the hot new VHS-D automatic rifle. That is a right (a constitutional one, no less) that I claim, and so does a pretty large minority. The only way denying that right can be justified is to show how granting that right would infringe upon other recognized rights. Me having a rifle does not infringe upon the rights of anyone. Refute that, or vote Republican the next election.


I want to walk on the streets wearing nothing (except maybe that rifle). OK, I don't really, but suppose I do. That is a right claimed by a minority. The only way denying it can be justified is to show how it would infringe upon other recognized rights. Me walking naked does not infringe upon the rights of anyone. Refute that or find a flaw in your reasoning.

But, New Mitanni, if your purpose in posting is to evoke opposing opinions as virulent and nonsensical as your own

It is. I have yet to see it succeed though. It's pretty hard to get more nonsensical than "the Dark Lord" Obama.

Hmm.

I want to buy the hot new VHS-D automatic rifle. That is a right (a constitutional one, no less) that I claim, and so does a pretty large minority. The only way denying that right can be justified is to show how granting that right would infringe upon other recognized rights. Me having a rifle does not infringe upon the rights of anyone. Refute that, or vote Republican the next election.


I want to walk on the streets wearing nothing (except maybe that rifle). OK, I don't really, but suppose I do. That is a right claimed by a minority. The only way denying it can be justified is to show how it would infringe upon other recognized rights. Me walking naked does not infringe upon the rights of anyone. Refute that or find a flaw in your reasoning.

More correct analogy:

You demand the right to walk around naked even though you're very hairy. Currently, only people who aren't terribly hairy are allowed to walk around naked. Even though people who are extremely hairy are a small minority and they could always shave, you demand the right to walk around naked just like the not-so-hairy people do.

More correct analogy:
You demand the right to walk around naked even though you're very hairy. [...]
No, no, no. You see, replacing this with hairiness is a bit of a strawman; it shifts the focus from the actual issue to the absurdity of hairiness as a qualifier - absurdity introduced by the analogy. In your example, no one would be arguing for the ban. Now, if hair was considered as offensive as cocks by a majority of the populace, and even having hair was not just a deadly sin, but also a felony offense in a few states (albeit non-enforceable), your analogy could be workable.

The issue at hand is that large proportions of people find assault rifles and homosexuality offensive. To them, someone being gay is akin to someone non-pretty walking naked in the street. So, similar to laws against public nudity and indecent exposure, they use legislation to remove the offensive factor.

No, no, no. You see, replacing this with hairiness is a bit of a strawman; it shifts the focus from the actual issue to the absurdity of hairiness as a qualifier - absurdity introduced by the analogy. In your example, no one would be arguing for the ban. Now, if hair was considered as offensive as cocks by a majority of the populace, and even having hair was not just a deadly sin, but also a felony offense in a few states (albeit non-enforceable), your analogy could be workable.

The issue at hand is that large proportions of people find assault rifles and homosexuality offensive. To them, someone being gay is akin to someone non-pretty walking naked in the street. So, similar to laws against public nudity and indecent exposure, they use legislation to remove the offensive factor.

And being offended by homosexuality or assault weapons(in and of themselves) is every bit as absurd as being offended by excessive hairiness. My analogy stands.

And being offended by homosexuality or assault weapons(in and of themselves) is every bit as absurd as being offended by excessive hairiness. My analogy stands.
But the majority of the people is strongly offended by it. They're not similarly offended by hairiness, or they would make the right laws.

So it's also every bit as absurd or non-absurd as being offended by indecent exposure.

And being offended by homosexuality or assault weapons(in and of themselves) is every bit as absurd as being offended by excessive hairiness. My analogy stands.

Agreed. And as an excessively hairy man myself I can attest that I am often compelled to be in the closet, so to speak, about the true extent of my hairiness. I am compelled to shave or at least trim my facial hair, yes, and to wax my body hair or cover it up permanently lest I face mockery from all walks of life. Just the mention of shoulder hair - which I have in voluminous quantities - is a social bomb in this predominately non-hairy culture. The media constantly reinforces the message that excessive hair is not right, and is in fact a problem which needs a remedy. Unacceptable, and unaccepted.

Although I realize that homosexuality is treated harsher and seems to strike a more virulent response, the bigotry is still there, and is every bit as retarded.

But the majority of the people is strongly offended by it. They're not similarly offended by hairiness, or they would make the right laws.

So it's also every bit as absurd or non-absurd as being offended by indecent exposure.

The difference between your original analogy and mine is that in your analogy, the minority is demanding a right that nobody has. In my analogy, the minority is demanding a right the majority has and is being denied them because some people find it icky.

Which analogy is closer to reality? Note: Absurdity is just my personal touch. :)

In my analogy, the minority is demanding a right the majority has and is being denied them because some people find it icky.
They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.

The marriage, by definition, is a joining of two different creatures, a male homo sapiens and a female homo sapiens. Like, say, you can buy a motorcycle, but you cannot buy another rider, and a motorcycle can not buy another motorcycle.
Homosexuality is not a legal barrier to using this right.

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.

The marriage, by definition, is a joining of two different creatures, a male homo sapiens and a female homo sapiens. Like, say, you can buy a motorcycle, but you cannot buy another rider, and a motorcycle can not buy another motorcycle.
Homosexuality is not a legal barrier to using this right.

And since the might humans of the no-so-distant-past defined marriage in that way, we lowly humans of the present must absolutely and forever use it in that way.

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.

The marriage, by definition, is a joining of two different creatures, a male homo sapiens and a female homo sapiens. Like, say, you can buy a motorcycle, but you cannot buy another rider, and a motorcycle can not buy another motorcycle.
Homosexuality is not a legal barrier to using this right.

So you think that only men can marry women? You don't think that women have the same right to marry women that men do? Sounds like sexism to me. :tongue:

So you think that only men can marry women? You don't think that women have the same right to marry women that men do? Sounds like sexism to me. :tongue:

I support lesbian marriage - if they're both hot, and I get to spy on them for the duration of their honeymoon.

I support lesbian marriage - if they're both hot, and I get to spy on them for the duration of their honeymoon.

You'll have to provide the webcam. *nod*

And since the might humans of the no-so-distant-past defined marriage in that way, we lowly humans of the present must absolutely and forever use it in that way.
I propose the terms "garriage" and "larriage".



And when we proceed to legalize other alliances, it will be "parriage", "darriage", "rarriage" and "carriage".

You'll have to provide the webcam. *nod*

I have a bunch of color spycams with sound. We'll put them in the *censored for sanity, decency, and the common good* that they plan on using.

I have a bunch of color spycams with sound. We'll put them in the *censored for sanity, decency, and the common good* that they plan on using.

Kinky. :)

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.

The marriage, by definition, is a joining of two different creatures, a male homo sapiens and a female homo sapiens.

While it's always entertaining to see people state their personal opinions as if it were fact,...

...wait, no, "entertaining" was the wrong word. BORING. There we go, that's the word I was looking for.

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.

I have the right to a gender neutral marriage. So, any other falsities you'd like to claim? Like how no one has the right to freedom of expression just because people in hell holes like North Korea don't have it?

I have the right to a gender neutral marriage. So, any other falsities you'd like to claim? Like how no one has the right to freedom of expression just because people in hell holes like North Korea don't have it?
But he SAID that marriage is between a male and a female! He SAID it! With WORDS! It's right there in black and white on the internet for all to see! It must be true!

I know, Fass. You and I should sit here and eat cookies until Vault 10 is able to provide one single essential function of "spouse" that requires the male gender, or one which requires the female gender. We'll get extremely fat together. It'll be charming.

But he SAID that marriage is between a male and a female! He SAID it! With WORDS! It's right there in black and white on the internet for all to see! It must be true!

I know, Fass. You and I should sit here and eat cookies until Vault 10 is able to provide one single essential function of "spouse" that requires the male gender, or one which requires the female gender. We'll get extremely fat together. It'll be charming.

http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/shop/images/tees7/6876_1L.jpg

http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/shop/images/tees7/6876_1L.jpg

If you're implying that I'm some sort of cookie-proffering demon intent on luring innocent souls to the dark side...












*slinks out the back, muttering "the fuckers are on to me!"*

But he SAID that marriage is between a male and a female! He SAID it! With WORDS! It's right there in black and white on the internet for all to see! It must be true!

And here I thought marriage here was defined by Swedish law and specifically äktenskapsbalken. My social sciences teacher must really have been taking more drugs than just the vague scent of marijuana led one to believe.

I know, Fass. You and I should sit here and eat cookies until Vault 10 is able to provide one single essential function of "spouse" that requires the male gender, or one which requires the female gender. We'll get extremely fat together. It'll be charming.

Cookies? Make that ballerina kex (http://www.goteborgskex.se/produktinfo/sota-kex/vara-allra-sotaste-kex/images/imageinnercontentproxy.2007-11-02.2445511420/pa_thumb/imagex708x270.jpeg), and we'll have a queer date that might lead to one of these apparently non-existent marriages we still manage to have over here.

I have the right to a gender neutral marriage. So, any other falsities you'd like to claim? Like how no one has the right to freedom of expression just because people in hell holes like North Korea don't have it?

What do you mean North Korea doesn't have the right to freedom of expression. Everyone in North Korea has the same right to express awe and admiration for the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-il. Just because some people choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean they don't have it. Oh, and those people who want the right to speak ill of Glorious Leader? Well, they're just "demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way."

What do you mean North Korea doesn't have the right to freedom of expression. Everyone in North Korea has the same right to express awe and admiration for the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-il. Just because some people choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean they don't have it. Oh, and those people who want the right to speak ill of Glorious Leader? Well, they're just "demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way."

Why, those slanty-eyed cunts! The nerve.

The thing the enemies of marriage refuse to acknowledge is that homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same right. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the right.

What it all boils down to is homosexuals demanding what they want, when they want it, and to hell with anything and anyone standing in their way.

What this also shows is that the proponents of the Briggs Initiative in California were prescient.

All the other nonsense of this view aside, I find it particularly hilarious that people who are desperately seeking the right to marry are designated "the enemies of marriage." Aren't the one seeking to deny marriage to other citizens its real enemies?

All the other nonsense of this view aside, I find it particularly hilarious that people who are desperately seeking the right to marry are designated "the enemies of marriage." Aren't the one seeking to deny marriage to other citizens its real enemies?

Stop making sense damnit! This is NSG! That kind of talk belongs on one of those "normal" message boards.

A potential spouse would have to be female and exclusively straight, not to mention meet a large number of other requirements, for me to even consider marriage. So, the answer to your question is:

NO!

A simple 'no' would have sufficed. What a lot of passion you seem to feel for gay people. In a negative way, of course. I'd imagine you're really really straight.

I know. I'm in one of her support groups on Facebook. :tongue:

That's not really something to be proud of.

"I'm a fan of someone who has, as their main claim to fame, the fact that she couldn't even honestly compete in a pageant, and immediately broke the pageant rules as soon after as she could, also. She's also famous for whining about how minorities are out to oppress her. I'm so proud".

A potential spouse would have to be female and exclusively straight, not to mention meet a large number of other requirements, for me to even consider marriage.

New Mitanni will never understand the joy and pleasure of a 3-way. Galloism is sad for New Mitanni. :(

...homosexuals already have the same "right to marry" as heterosexuals do...

False.

I have the right to marry the woman of my choosing.

My wife, should we divorce, would not have the right to marry the woman of her choosing.

Your 'logic' is fail.

The law is discriminatory because it says only people with penises can marry women, and only people with vaginas can marry men.

Well yeah. They can accept it, or they can take the antidote for gayness.

Beating them to death and leaving them by the side of a Wyoming road is only a 'cure' in the loosest of senses.

All the other nonsense of this view aside, I find it particularly hilarious that people who are desperately seeking the right to marry are designated "the enemies of marriage." Aren't the one seeking to deny marriage to other citizens its real enemies?

That's pretty amusing, alright.

I would explain it by projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.


In as much as anyone has a right to ANY marriage, intragender and intergender are not constitutionally separated.


The marriage, by definition, is a joining of two different creatures,


Depends on your definition. Trace back Abrahamic religion, and you'll find the whole thing is rooted in polygamy - indeed, polygamy is still present in some of the modern denominations. Trace back early Christianity, and you'll find that some cultures allowed certain types of same-sex unions (Rome allowed the legal union of mature males).

Marriage, by definition, only means uniting things - you can 'marry' two pipes - everything else is revisionism.

The tactics were good. It wasn't the organisation that was at fault, per se - it was complacency. It took too many people too long to respond to the intense smear campaigns that motivated the base against 'gay marriage'.

The third sentence there seems to argue against the first, which is good, as it saves me the trouble of doing so.

Polling suggests that people are becoming more accepting of 'gay marriage' at a rapid rate.

Whose polls? Also, how do you define 'rapid rate?'

First, it tells us nothing about a "swing" in any direction, it merely tells us about the present state of public opinion.

I would think the present state of public opinion would be part of a 'general swing' towards or away from anything.

Second, every ballot proposition that has gone to the polls has been negative: nobody is trying to legalize same-sex marriage by initiative, but rather to prohibit it. Furthermore, in every case but Prop. 8, such initiatives have been intended not to abrogate an existing law or court decision allowing same-sex marriage, but either to amend a state constitution to prevent the courts or the legislature from legalizing it, or to explicitly clarify by statute that existing marriage laws should be interpreted as they already are interpreted, as prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The fact that all these ballot initiatives have been negative or designed to clarify marriage as a heterosexual institution would seem to argue against 'a general swing towards.'

Your sample, then, is biased: of course it's true that constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have always passed, but that is only because they usually only come to the ballot when the electorate is already receptive.

Not necessarily. MN, one of the bluest of the blue states, passed a similar statute, and CA, OR, and WA(which either have defense of marriage statutes or constitutional amendments) are hardly conservative hot-beds.

In the specific case of California, Prop. 22, explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriage by statute, passed with 61% of the vote, and Prop. 8, with the exact same language as a constitutional amendment, passed with 52% of the vote. That's a nine-percent shift over eight years. Hard to read anything but a "swing" in that.

People do tend to see what they want to see in statistics(After all, 34% of all statistics are made up on the spot, you know). I wonder, mightn't increased voter turnout for the election cycle that had Prop 8 on the ballot, or maybe population increase, account for some of that nine-percent shift?

The third sentence there seems to argue against the first, which is good, as it saves me the trouble of doing so.


The third sentence doesn't argue against the first.

If an army approaches a second, fortified, army - the best tactical methodology (in terms of efficiency per cost of life) is to simply blockade supply.

As a consequence, the approaching army surrounds the fortification.

If they take too long responding to a sudden sally, the tactics were still good - they were just too slow in execution.


Whose polls? Also, how do you define 'rapid rate?'


Knock yourself out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

Norway only won because he was perceived by the younger girls in the audience to be attractive and they probably all thought he was singing about them. Not to mention the song included melody that might be heard from music coming out of Eastern Europe, thus helping him to secure their votes. It was disgusting that it wasn't about the music this year, sure he was kinda cute but certainly not that attractive.
Honestly, Norway only won because the rest of the contestants sucked hard this year.

Except for Iceland.

I thank god for Finland's defeat: If Sillanpää would have won, fashion would have gone back to the 80s here. Fear the mullet.
Dear Lord, I'm truly afraid! :eek2:

They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.
Wrong.

You can find that right in Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa - and more close to home, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. (Comming soon to Vermont and Maine too.)

But the bullshit aside, if heterosexuals are able to marry the persons they love, why shouldn't homosexuals have that same right?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America threw out your argument in 1967.

Seriously.

You're using an argument that was rejected OVER FORTY YEARS AGO.

Do you feel even the tiniest bit embarrassed by that?
Now, now, remember: He's a lawyer, surely he would know.






:tongue:
Btw, I don't know what the US constitution says about marriage: the Italian Constitution, though, doesn't define marriage and only states that "the family is a natural society founded on marriage".
This leaves to a specifical law to define who can marry whom; and, since by the Constitution citizen cannot be discrimined because of their sex, the Italian Constitutional Court COULD (if asked to intervene, that is) change the law defining marriage so that it can allow same-sex marriage too. I think that it's the same path taken by Norway and Sweden, iirc.
Neither in Sweden nor in Norway did judges define marriage. Rather, it was the legislature in both countries that wrote - and passed - gender-neutral marriage laws.

How sad for the USian Californians
:(

Can't believe they tried to make it retro-active as well, quite twisted of them to try that...
Only makes sense. Now they have a sizeable amount of people who have enjoyed the rights the rest of the community is denied. Makes it seem all the more... dirty. They make it very visible that prop. 8 took away existing rights, and that looks bad.

If an army approaches a second, fortified, army - the best tactical methodology (in terms of efficiency per cost of life) is to simply blockade supply. As a consequence, the approaching army surrounds the fortification. If they take too long responding to a sudden sally, the tactics were still good - they were just too slow in execution.

A good tactic is one that wins you the contest, be it a debate, an election, or a battle. If you lose the contest, for whatever reason, the tactics you used are, by definition, not good, or, at the very least, could be reviewed and improved upon.

Knock yourself out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

That's an interesting web-site, it's obvious biases aside. According to the Gallup polls there, it seems there is a ten per cent rise from '96 to '06. I don't know if I'd call one per cent a year a 'rapid rise' but then, I do tend to be impatient.

New Mitanni will never understand the joy and pleasure of a 3-way. Galloism is sad for New Mitanni. :(

Don't feel bad. Because he can still have a guilty pleasure in an airport bathroom stall. :)

Wrong.

You can find that right in Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa - and more close to home, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. (Comming soon to Vermont and Maine too.)

But the bullshit aside, if heterosexuals are able to marry the persons they love, why shouldn't homosexuals have that same right?

Lets not forget that gender and sex are anything but concrete. How are we defining sex? How are we defining gender? If we call "XX" female, and "XY" male, what do we do about the rare XX male and XY female? Or XXY males? What about transexuals? Do we define "male" and "female" strictly by what is between the legs? If so, then what about transexuals?

A good tactic is one that wins you the contest, be it a debate, an election, or a battle. If you lose the contest, for whatever reason, the tactics you used are, by definition, not good, or, at the very least, could be reviewed and improved upon.

If course, the loss of a single battle, or the concession of a single point in debate, or the loss of one election is rarely the end of the war. A failed tactic that was solid in design but lacking in execution are still solid tactics.

Don't feel bad. Because he can still have a guilty pleasure in an airport bathroom stall. :)

Or hot, steamy internet sessions with a Congressman.

Lets not forget that gender and sex are anything but concrete. How are we defining sex? How are we defining gender? If we call "XX" female, and "XY" male, what do we do about the rare XX male and XY female? Or XXY males? What about transexuals? Do we define "male" and "female" strictly by what is between the legs? If so, then what about transexuals?

You define us by how we define ourselves. Do not third gender us unless the person you're talking to specifically says they do not identify as either male or female.

A good tactic is one that wins you the contest, be it a debate, an election, or a battle.

If you lose the contest, for whatever reason, the tactics you used are, by definition, not good,


Bullshit.


...or, at the very least, could be reviewed and improved upon.


Absolutely. And, in the next events, you can be sure they will be.


That's an interesting web-site, it's obvious biases aside.


They don't claim or process the data. Their 'bias' is irrelevant.


According to the Gallup polls there, it seems there is a ten per cent rise from '96 to '06. I don't know if I'd call one per cent a year a 'rapid rise' but then, I do tend to be impatient.

Sure, you can quibble. You can say 50% wouldn't be a big deal, if you want.

You define us by how we define ourselves. Do not third gender us unless the person you're talking to specifically says they do not identify as either male or female.

I'm speaking more in response to those who claim that marriage is between only a man and a woman. If it is as simple as how I identify myself, then what stops me from saying "sure, I'll be a chick for the purpose of this marriage"?

Also, what you refer to seems to be more gender. XXY and other genetic issues are issues of sex (gender being the sociological, sex being the genetic). And your response still leaves open the same issue...if one has a penis but thinks of themselves as female, what are they in the eyes of a law that restricts marriage? What of someone with both a penis and vagina? How does the law handle these people who "have the same right to marry someone opposite sex", when their own sex is anything but definitive?

I'm speaking more in response to those who claim that marriage is between only a man and a woman. If it is as simple as how I identify myself, then what stops me from saying "sure, I'll be a chick for the purpose of this marriage"?

Also, what you refer to seems to be more gender. XXY and other genetic issues are issues of sex (gender being the sociological, sex being the genetic). And your response still leaves open the same issue...if one has a penis but thinks of themselves as female, what are they in the eyes of a law that restricts marriage? What of someone with both a penis and vagina? How does the law handle these people who "have the same right to marry someone opposite sex", when their own sex is anything but definitive?

First of all, I apologise for being quick with you - it's a blunt reflexive reaction from being constantly immersed in this kind of talk. You appear to be talking solely in existing practicalities, I was speaking of 'how it should be'. You may agree with me on that or you may not, but after having read more slowly and less emotionally I see it's not what you were trying to discuss.

As to your first point, I suppose nothing would stop you claiming that you identify that way for the purpose of marriage. But then that would hardly be a concern to me.

As to your second, There are currently many inefficient and poor systems the government -does- use to ascertain sex that vary from place to place. For example in britain, we use the *spits* Gender Recognition Certificate for trans people that gives them full legal recognition in their identified sex, no surgery required. Other places (and so does britain by and large) go simply by what you've got on your birth certificate. That means in the case of intersex the genitalia are largely irrelevant, it's just whether the box is marked M or F.

"New Mitanni" helps me to understand why the original Mitannians went extinct.

First of all, I apologise for being quick with you - it's a blunt reflexive reaction from being constantly immersed in this kind of talk. You appear to be talking solely in existing practicalities, I was speaking of 'how it should be'. You may agree with me on that or you may not, but after having read more slowly and less emotionally I see it's not what you were trying to discuss.

As to your first point, I suppose nothing would stop you claiming that you identify that way for the purpose of marriage. But then that would hardly be a concern to me.

As to your second, There are currently many inefficient and poor systems the government -does- use to ascertain sex that vary from place to place. For example in britain, we use the *spits* Gender Recognition Certificate for trans people that gives them full legal recognition in their identified sex, no surgery required. Other places (and so does britain by and large) go simply by what you've got on your birth certificate. That means in the case of intersex the genitalia are largely irrelevant, it's just whether the box is marked M or F.
No problem :) I kinda saw that it might be a problem because of the fact that I indirectly responded to someone via a different posters post. If that makes sense. I fully agree with how it should be, and yes, I was refering to how it currently is...if marriage is between a man and a woman, then what is a man and what is a woman?

Any attempts to classify will always be inefficient and poor...simply because they must balance simplicity and being fully encompassing. No system can do both, though, admittedly, we could do much better.

"New Mitanni" helps me to understand why the original Mitannians went extinct.

...Because they were conquered by the Assyrians? Sorry, not following you here. :p

jk

...Because they were conquered by the Assyrians? Sorry, not following you here. :p

jkI now understand WHY they were so inferior to the Assyrians... :p

You'll have to provide the webcam. *nod*

Don't forget the web address to said webcam. :D

But he SAID that marriage is between a male and a female! He SAID it! With WORDS! It's right there in black and white on the internet for all to see! It must be true!
It's not me who said that, it's the creators of appropriate constitutions and laws.


You can find that right in Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa
And also probably in Second Life.
These rights elsewhere are irrelevant. Since when can the rest of the world set standards for America? US doesn't even use the metric system.

We're talking about US here. And California in particular.


You and I should sit here and eat cookies until Vault 10 is able to provide one single essential function of "spouse" that requires the male gender, or one which requires the female gender.
There aren't any. There don't have to be any. This has nothing to do with functions. This has everything to do with the definition of marriage.

A failed tactic that was solid in design but lacking in execution are still solid tactics.

Which is where the 'reviewing and improving upon' I mentioned comes in.

Bullshit.

Well, that's me told then. Your intricate debate skills and cunning linguistics have completely refuted my arguments and left me without a rhetorical leg to stand on. I'm going to have to rethink my entire weltanschauung now.

Dear Lord, I'm truly afraid! :eek2:


Why does our music suck so much?

We're talking about US here. And California in particular.

In particular, or exclusively? Because if we're talking "US", you can't argue those rights don't exist.

If California repeals the amendment, will you still hold that Kern County should be allowed to limit marriage rights?

"New Mitanni" helps me to understand why the original Mitannians went extinct.

...Because they were conquered by the Assyrians? Sorry, not following you here. :p

jk

I now understand WHY they were so inferior to the Assyrians... :p

And the fact that the Mitannians were conquered by the Assyrians would explain New Mitanni's loathing of homosexuals.

This has everything to do with the definition of marriage.

And, for the record, it DOESN'T have to do with the definition of marriage, because before Prop 8 it was found that same-sex partners had the same rights as heterosexual partners with regards to marriage. If "marriage" only meant "one man and one woman", there wouldn't have been any need for an amendment limiting it.

And also probably in Second Life.
These rights elsewhere are irrelevant. Since when can the rest of the world set standards for America? US doesn't even use the metric system.

We're talking about US here. And California in particular.

Don't forget the states in the union that don't believe in limiting the rights of just one class of citizens. Gay marriage isn't just something those "weird foreigners" do.

I now understand WHY they were so inferior to the Assyrians... :p

Because they made specious and bigotry-laden arguments on the internet? I dunno, I still don't get it, they weren't any more bigoted than anyone else at the time....

Is this amendment right ?
No.

However that was not the question. the question was is the amendment limiting the definition of marriage unconstitutional. The courts have ruled it is. there are some things the Constitution is not meant to address, and I would say ruling against a constitutional amendment is one of them.

Because they made specious and bigotry-laden arguments on the internet? I dunno, I still don't get it, they weren't any more bigoted than anyone else at the time....Oh, you should have heard some of the things they used to say about the Hittites...

As to your second, There are currently many inefficient and poor systems the government -does- use to ascertain sex that vary from place to place. For example in britain, we use the *spits* Gender Recognition Certificate for trans people that gives them full legal recognition in their identified sex, no surgery required.

Not a fan of it I take it then? I don't actually know that much about it, so I'm curious as to what the issues are around it?


And the fact that the Mitannians were conquered by the Assyrians would explain New Mitanni's loathing of homosexuals.

:eek: It's all become so clear now!

There aren't any. There don't have to be any. This has nothing to do with functions. This has everything to do with the definition of marriage.
Whose definition?

Let me guess: you're going to claim that the extremely recent and unusual form of marriage in which a man and woman choose to marry for their own reasons is actually the "true" and "traditional" form of marriage. You're going to ask us all to ignore the fact that until about 40 years ago, the definition of marriage REQUIRED that the participants be of the same ethnic group. We're also supposed to ignore that until 80 years ago, the definition of marriage required that the woman be the legal ward of the man. Marriage has been redefined in far more revolutionary ways in the last century, but you're going to somehow try to argue that THOSE redefining moments were okay, but redefining it to mean that men can marry men or women can marry women is too much.

And you're going to expect us all to keep a straight face while you do it.

You homophobes ask far, far too much of me.

Whose definition?

Let me guess: you're going to claim that the extremely recent and unusual form of marriage in which a man and woman choose to marry for their own reasons is actually the "true" and "traditional" form of marriage. You're going to ask us all to ignore the fact that until about 40 years ago, the definition of marriage REQUIRED that the participants be of the same ethnic group. We're also supposed to ignore that until 80 years ago, the definition of marriage required that the woman be the legal ward of the man. Marriage has been redefined in far more revolutionary ways in the last century, but you're going to somehow try to argue that THOSE redefining moments were okay, but redefining it to mean that men can marry men or women can marry women is too much.

And you're going to expect us all to keep a straight face while you do it.

You homophobes ask far, far too much of me.

I think this is basically the standard position of the silly conservatives, as I think of them. The kind of people who think everything should go back to how it was in the 50s and should stay that way forever. All the progress society made up to that point is fine. Anything past that will destroy the moral fabric of society or some such.

I think this is basically the standard position of the silly conservatives, as I think of them. The kind of people who think everything should go back to how it was in the 50s and should stay that way forever. All the progress society made up to that point is fine. Anything past that will destroy the moral fabric of society or some such.
At least Vault has admitted that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not men/women can fulfill all the necessary roles of a spouse, it's just about the DEFINITION of the word. So now he's stuck having to argue for why one group should get to define marriage and another group shouldn't. Which is the losing strategy pursued by the anti-miscegenation side a generation ago. Which is good news for gays, because it means that homophobes are not only as stupid as racists, they're also committed to not learning anything from the failures of racists.

Not a fan of it I take it then? I don't actually know that much about it, so I'm curious as to what the issues are around it?


It's not what it is per se, it's everything that it stands for. Acceptance of the governments right to determine your gender as decided by a PANEL and arbitrary criteria. You apply for one, a group of people determine whether you're -enough- of a man/woman to get one, and you get one. This act itself delegitimises people who refuse to bow to the government declaring they can do this to us by denying them full recognition of their gender. Of course there are issues to do with equalities bills and so forth which still allow or will eventually allow us full recognition of our gender under the law but it's the spirit of the thing and the fact that many of us are buying into it. I can understand why, I really can, and I pass no judgement, I don't feel they're 'collaborators'. After spending long enough being passed over for work, jumping through the hoops of various doctors to 'prove' that you're the gender you claim to be, anything that offers respite from the bureaucracy if not society at large must seem like an incredible relief. But ultimately I oppose it vigorously. The government has no place in telling me what gender I am and I am under no obligation to prove it to either them OR their little 'gender recognition panel'.

I apologise for the temporary threadjack, just trying to answer a question. >>

At least Vault has admitted that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not men/women can fulfill all the necessary roles of a spouse, it's just about the DEFINITION of the word. So now he's stuck having to argue for why one group should get to define marriage and another group shouldn't. Which is the losing strategy pursued by the anti-miscegenation side a generation ago. Which is good news for gays, because it means that homophobes are not only as stupid as racists, they're also committed to not learning anything from the failures of racists.

But it is a good way of getting stupid people to support them - luckily the courts are usually made up of smart people and can see through their bullshit, which is why a lot of these laws get overturned. At least in the US, in this country it generally relies on parliament beating the Lords over the head till they let it through.



I apologise for the temporary threadjack, just trying to answer a question. >>

Thanks for the answer, I can see how that is somewhat insulting as a concept.

Back to our previously programmed discussion now

I've said this before but it's been a while so I think it bears repeating.

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe. I know it's sort of an easy cheap shot to try and take and all that, but if you want to be intellectually honest, then you must understand this: Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

Would a genuine homophobe support Proposition 8? Yeah I would assume they would, but to expand that to include ALL those who support/vote for the measure is a logical fallacy and I like to think most people around here are smart enough to understand that. The problem is it can be oh, so emotionally satisfying to try and hobble a person's credibility by relegating them to the homophobe pigeonhole and leave it at that.

To be honest, I don't find it particularly constructive to use that sort of labeling even when dealing with a genuine homophobe. It's certainly not going to open their mind to your point of view and once someone's been put on the defensive in any debate that way then no further useful discussion can come of it.

"Well if a person is being homophobic then they deserve to be ridiculed!"

Says you. Frankly if someone disagreed with me on an issue like that I'd much rather try to warm them to my point of view by having a reasonable discussion. That way, even if they don't change their minds at least I can get them thinking about it and who knows where that might lead later on?

"Easy for you to say, everybody knows you're a religious zealot and therefore, a homophobe."

Yeah sure I am. I'll tell you what, if you ask the gay people with whom I associate in my real life if I'm a homophobe they'll probably laugh in your face. Given that they know me a lot better than any of you ever will, I assure you if you want to think of me that way I won't be losing any sleep over it. I have had two people come out to me before their parents even knew. (One is my brother, the other is a friend who is still in the closet as far as his family is concerned.) I've got nothing to prove to you.

"Then why are you bothering to post this if you sleep so well?"

Because I'm trying to help, believe it or not. I think this whole issue would be much better dealt with if people on both sides quit trying to rip each other and actually talk about it like the rational adults everybody claims to be.

"Well Prop 8 supporters aren't rational. They just hate."

I haven't yet seen anybody around here actually listen to a Prop 8 supporter raise their points without responding derisively and with posts that show they weren't really listening, they were quote mining.

Now, I'm not saying all of those representing that side have necessarily done a very good job of expressing their point of view, and I won't say there haven't been any genuine homophobes trying to, either. I do think, however, it behooves you to try and actually gain a genuine and honest understanding of where they're coming from. (By "they" I mean those who aren't homophobic.) It's what you expect of them, and you owe them the same courtesy in return.

"Bullcrap, Neo B. People who favor Prop 8 are no different from segregationists. Would you want to hear a segregationist out?"

Well first of all I don't accept the idea that Prop 8 = segregation in the way you're thinking of it, but that's beside the point. Frankly if I were debating a segregationist on some race related issue I would hear them out, of for no other reason than to set the stage to get them to hear me out in return. If they do, then a constructive dialog has taken place. If they don't, well their loss, not mine, if they refuse to hear me in return. That gives me the moral high ground anyway. What's not to like? At least I can say I approached the subject reasonably, rather than patting myself on the back for being a jackass to somebody whose point of view I don't like.

"Well we've heard all the Prop 8 arguments before, Neo B. Why should we listen to them again?"

Well, for the same reason you demand that they listen to yours again. You think the "Prop 8 yes" haven't heard your arguments before? You really think you're that clever or that original? Especially on this forum those arguments have been seen ad nauseam. Maybe what's needed is a fresh perspective.

People of good conscience generally have valid reasons for believing in what they do, and if not, then a little honest and courteous dialogue might just give them something new to think about. Now, if you really want to take the position that all people who are pro-Prop 8 are people of BAD conscience then you're being just as intellectually lazy as calling them all homophobes. You won't gain any ground that way, and on this issue you ain't exactly in the lead.

"Well Prop 8 was only a temporary setback. Sooner or later change will come everywhere."

That may be, but the harder you attack your opponents on this matter the harder they will fight you, and you only make the whole thing a much harder ordeal than it has to be.

"You almost sound like you agree that it's inevitable. Are you conceding that?"

Sort of. Obviously we live in a culture now where gay couples are commonplace. While I do not support this morally, I acknowledge that it's there. You'd be surprised at how many people who support Prop 8 would be perfectly fine with some kind of legally equivalent civil union.

"Bullshit."

No, you really would be surprised. I actually LISTEN to what the religious right says and I am telling you as part of the religious right. Civil Unions aren't nearly as much a problem as you think for us. If you'd been willing to compromise on that you'd have won in California.

"We shouldn't have to compromise! We want our rights!!!"

Yeah? How well did that work for ya in the most populous state in the union? The fact is you have to be mature about this. You forget that your beliefs on this matter are just that - your beliefs. Other people have their own beliefs that may not be compatible with yours. Trying to belittle them and force them aside like a bull in a china shop is no way to achieve social change. Difficult as it is to imagine, their beliefs actually count as much as yours do, so you have to deal with that. Several states have put this matter up for referendum and most of those have come out int heir favor, not yours.

"Yeah well that's tyranny by the majority!"

Bull. What you're trying to accomplish is tyranny by the minority. How about trying something new: open dialog. Talk, don't shout. Discuss, don't demand, and quit trying to take cheap shots with labels. It's not helping. It might be emotionally satisfying, but you're actually damaging your own cause by galvanizing your opponents.

You could have civil unions in all 50 states and I think that's something both sides can live with. Let the extremists on either side complain.

At least Vault has admitted that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not men/women can fulfill all the necessary roles of a spouse, it's just about the DEFINITION of the word. So now he's stuck having to argue for why one group should get to define marriage and another group shouldn't.
NO ONE should get to define marriage for anybody except themselves and their spouse(s).
NO ONE should have the right to enforce their definition of marriage on the rest of us.


My position is that the government should get out of the marriage entirely. Instead, what is now known as marriage should be performed by the means of a contract.

The government should rather create a proper legal framework to allow such contracts to carry all the functions necessary to be able to work like the existing marriages. Grandfather the old ones, but do not register any new marriages, homo, heterosexual, or any others. Just let the contracts work.

That will instantly and permanently solve all current and future issues with marriage. It will give the equal rights to the other groups that are denied marriage now and will be still denied it with garriage laws. It will instantly solve the debates over the marital law, since every 'marriage' will be able to choose and set their own rules. It will eliminate the lengthy and costly divorce trials. It will eliminate the tradition factor from the marriages and just let the people get what they desire.


I oppose the egoistic groups who want to keep the antiquated and obsolete institution where it doesn't belong, and expand its definition just that little bit to slip themselves in. I oppose their glue-on patch solutions, because they just hide the problem by appeasing the loudest-protesting party, instead of solving it. Equality means giving the rights to anyone who desires them, not just whoever is the loudest.