User Tag List

First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 368

Thread: Prop 8

  1. #231

  2. #232
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    They do. The marriage law discriminates against behavior, not people.
    The marriage law discriminates against gay people wishing to have, in their partnerships, the legal benefits of marriage by denying them the rights that come with marriage, which are numerous. Their unions are second-class at best. Seems like textbook discrimination to me.

    I mean, if it isn't, then I guess that the Jim Crow laws merely discriminated against behaviors, such as sitting in the front of the bus and eating at certain restaurants. After all, African Americans in the Jim Crow era were still allowed to ride the bus (they just couldn't sit with the white folks), and they were still allowed to eat (just not in the same places that white folks were).

    Honestly, I question whether there should be legal benefits of marriage at all (I've heard arguments for the benefits, and I get it--I'm just not sure that I agree), but as long as straight couples are given recognition through such benefits, gay couples should be given the same recognition. Anything else is clearly discrimination.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  3. #233
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    The marriage law discriminates against gay people wishing to have, in their partnerships, the legal benefits of marriage by denying them the rights that come with marriage, which are numerous. Their unions are second-class at best. Seems like textbook discrimination to me.
    Even when gay marriage was legal in CA, it was still separated from heterosexual marriage by 1000 some odd laws. Homosexual partnerships being recognized legally, is only the first step. It will take a lot of time before the unions, in and of themselves, will even be equal.

    There's speculation about whether or not Prop 8 can officially pass. It's written in California's Constitution that we can't be denied fundamental rights that every other human being receives. Depending on how the vote is classified, amendment or revision, it could be thrown out altogether. The very same court that made the historical decision for homosexuals to have the right to legal partnership, will decide if it's official or not. I can't imagine they would take our rights away, after giving them to us in the first place. All because of a popular vote that barely won.

  4. #234
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    There's speculation about whether or not Prop 8 can officially pass. It's written in California's Constitution that we can't be denied fundamental rights that every other human being receives. Depending on how the vote is classified, amendment or revision, it could be thrown out altogether. The very same court that made the historical decision for homosexuals to have the right to legal partnership, will decide if it's official or not. I can't imagine they would take our rights away, after giving them to us in the first place. All because of a popular vote that barely won.
    That's the current I've heard running through other forums. In a way, I'm wondering if the Prop 8 people -- with their eyes so focused on the moldy carrot -- didn't shoot themselves in the feet.

    Because if it gets thrown out and a decisive statement ends up having to be made on the issue, then the reverberations of that will echo throughout the other states when they approach and reapproach legal issues like this.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #235
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    This was the sentiment of people exactly 6 months ago, before all these "teaching children" ads came about. This is the 5-10% i've been talking about for about 10000 posts now.
    Wow, that's impressive with only 500 posts on this board!
    (You must have used a WinZip file or something.)

    I think nationally they're still debating what the polls actually say on the issue. I think it's usually been 52/42 or something against Gay Marriage, although there was a recent poll that showed a 47/47 split.

    In any case, the current has been changing for years; if the trend continues, it's only a matter of time. Once the boomers fade out of the electorate, I'm betting we'll see a lot of change.

    I guess the "gay agenda" is doing its job. bwa ha ha ha ha!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #236
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Wow, that's impressive with only 500 posts on this board!
    (You must have used a WinZip file or something.)

    I think nationally they're still debating what the polls actually say on the issue. I think it's usually been 52/42 or something against Gay Marriage, although there was a recent poll that showed a 47/47 split.
    seriously! it felt like that tho. lolz

    dunno what national debates on CNN will do at least for people in LA. a lot of groups protest and march in Los Angeles, especially in the past few years... some have reached the hundreds of thousands, one even reportedly 1 million people. all the neighborhoods aware of whats going on, and im sure a lot of people who protested for their own causes in the past, can sympathize to some degree after watching.

  7. #237
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That's the current I've heard running through other forums. In a way, I'm wondering if the Prop 8 people -- with their eyes so focused on the moldy carrot -- didn't shoot themselves in the feet.

    Because if it gets thrown out and a decisive statement ends up having to be made on the issue, then the reverberations of that will echo throughout the other states when they approach and reapproach legal issues like this.
    If the California courts overturn an actual constitutional amendment, it will most likely cause extensive damage to gay-marriage advocates in other states. Waiting a few years, then introducing a successful proposal to overturn the previous constitutional amendment (which is a high-probability scenario) would be far more effective in terms of nation-wide goals.

    I understand that this issue has particular importance for some people and they are therefore overwhelmingly concerned about the immediate results, but having a court system which reserves that much discretionary power to themselves has an aggregately negative impact on the sum total of all political issues in existence, in the present and the future. In liberal democracies, the means are usually more important than the ends, in the long-term.

  8. #238
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    If the California courts overturn an actual constitutional amendment, it will most likely cause extensive damage to gay-marriage advocates in other states. Waiting a few years, then introducing a successful proposal to overturn the previous constitutional amendment (which is a high-probability scenario) would be far more effective in terms of nation-wide goals.
    I don't know. I'm around enough people involved in the issue to overhear things, but not enough to know the in's and out's of it specifically enough to be sure of the best long-term approach. I know at this stage, the long-term impact is of more importance to many since they've already been riding out the short-term disadvantages; what's another number of years? Many were happy just to realize how many supporters they DID have in the state.

    Seeing the shift in Colorado votes (with Focus on the Family still being in mid-state) just in terms of the presidential election is highly interesting as well; Dobson probably isn't sleeping very well right now.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #239
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    If the California courts overturn an actual constitutional amendment, it will most likely cause extensive damage to gay-marriage advocates in other states. Waiting a few years, then introducing a successful proposal to overturn the previous constitutional amendment (which is a high-probability scenario) would be far more effective in terms of nation-wide goals.

    I understand that this issue has particular importance for some people and they are therefore overwhelmingly concerned about the immediate results, but having a court system which reserves that much discretionary power to themselves has an aggregately negative impact on the sum total of all political issues in existence, in the present and the future. In liberal democracies, the means are usually more important than the ends, in the long-term.
    I see your point.

    On the other hand, it's unconstitutional and discriminatory to take away rights that have already been given. How about they just take women's right to vote away, and religious people's right to worship. Don't worry. They can have their rights back in a few years. No one would stand for that and they shouldn't now. It's not so much a time issue, but the fact that rights that were already ours are being taken away because of 2% or so of a popular vote. It's illogical to make changes to the constitution for any less than 60%+ of the vote.

  10. #240
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    I understand the argument that gay marriage may be a redefinition of what marriage has been throughout the ages, and I understand hesitancy about that, but I do not understand the vehemence on the anti-gay marriage side (or anti-civil union side, which is ridiculous). If you really, truly believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and that gay people are sick, OK. I don't agree at all, but you believe that. What is the FEAR about? We don't stop bad people from getting married now. I can't wrap my head around this. Maybe I am too much of an effete, bicoastal intellectual. It's especially ironic, given the "we don't want the government telling us what to do" rhetoric some of these faux-conservatives employ. Right, no government interference, unless you're gay, Muslim, Mexican, a member of a dissident group. . . So disappointing, in what was supposed to be the original "Mind your own business" country.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Why you should vote YES on PROP 19
    By Edgar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-14-2010, 09:12 AM
  2. Media Spin (Prop 8 example)
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 03:53 PM
  3. Props to whomever solves my puzzles first
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 07:29 PM
  4. Protest Prop 8 - This Weekend
    By anii in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO