Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: esheato on November 10, 2008, 01:06:32 PM



Title: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: esheato on November 10, 2008, 01:06:32 PM
Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.

Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.

He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."

"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm absolutely flabbergasted! The people have spoken...

WTF is the point in voting if it doesn't matter anyway? I hate this GD state.

Ed


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Viking on November 10, 2008, 01:09:15 PM
Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.

Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.

He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."

"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm absolutely flabbergasted! The people have spoken...

WTF is the point in voting if it doesn't matter anyway? I hate this GD state.


Ed
The People didn't vote Correct. It happens, and the best thing a politician can do about it is to simply raise the issue over and over again until they achieve the desired results.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 01:09:27 PM
Of course. The people of the state only voted on it.

Only what activist judges rule means anything. The will of We the People? Oh, that's subject to be tossed out.

Who would want to live in that place anymore?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 10, 2008, 01:11:08 PM
Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Calif_gov_We_will_maybe_undo_Prop_8/UPI-22871226279859/

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.

Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.

He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."

"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm absolutely flabbergasted! The people have spoken...

WTF is the point in voting if it doesn't matter anyway? I hate this GD state.

Ed

Ok, I'm no lawyer, so perhaps someone can explain this to me:

When you amend the constitution, how can a court find that your amendment is contrary to the constitution? You JUST AMENDED it!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 01:14:05 PM
Ok, I'm no lawyer, so perhaps someone can explain this to me:

When you amend the constitution, how can a court find that your amendment is contrary to the constitution? You JUST AMENDED it!

Simple answer? They never intended to go through with it.

It was just the appearance of a vote to make the people think their voice counted, but they went and voted incorrectly for what the liberals want. Oops!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 10, 2008, 01:15:48 PM
Simple answer? They never intended to go through with it.

It was just the appearance of a vote to make the people think their voice counted, but they went and voted incorrectly for what the liberals want. Oops!

I realize this. My question is, how is it legally justified?

Is it simply: We have the power, so we're going to do it?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: AJ Dual on November 10, 2008, 01:32:13 PM
I realize this. My question is, how is it legally justified?

Is it simply: We have the power, so we're going to do it?

IIRC, last time they said something was constitutionaly wrong with the way the referendum was worded, or how the process was followed.

I think they're going to look for any such technicality they can.

As a little "L" right-libertarian who lost his Wookie suit and never bothered to replace it, I feel that:

- I don't like the state having anything to do with "marriage". IMO, churches should "marry" people according to their beliefs. And spouses relationships otherwise should be defined by contract law.

- I don't like seeing a particular group being singled out like this.

- I do, however, like seeing a liberal bastion being made to writhe like a snake with it's back broken.

I suspect the proponents of Prop. 8 shrewedly knew that the Obama turnout would have lots of blue-collar, black, and hispanic voters who'd be socially conservative, but want all sorts of other "change" under the sun that Obama was promising. We had the exact same kind of turnout in the '06 WI elections but in reverse. The anti-gay marriage Amendment here in WI turned out the blue-collar/minority/socially conservative Democrat base who then gave one house of the legislature back to the Dems, and re-elected our wonderful Gov. Doyle.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 10, 2008, 01:43:39 PM
A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 01:54:41 PM
A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.

And the rights of small business owners to not be forced to accept that they now have to insure someone's gay "spouse"?

Oh, right. THEY don't matter. Only the group that wants special equal rights that are more special than others matters.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 10, 2008, 01:55:55 PM
A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.

It wasn't a referendum, it was an amendment.

It wasn't without due process, it WAS THE PROCESS.

It's not about rights, it's about government recognition.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 10, 2008, 01:58:13 PM
Personally, I don't think the government should recognize any marriage. But if it does recognize straight marriage, I'd rather it recognized gay marriage too. But then, I don't particularly care either way. I wouldn't change my choice of politicians based on that.

So I'm ambivalent on this event.

Quote
Oh, right. THEY don't matter. Only the group that wants special equal rights that are more special than others matters.

So, how about a business hanging up a sign NO CHRISTIANS WELCOME? [Mind, I don't mind either way].


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Tallpine on November 10, 2008, 02:16:04 PM
Similar thing happened in Colorado back about 15 years ago.   :rolleyes:


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on November 10, 2008, 02:23:08 PM
And the rights of small business owners to not be forced to accept that they now have to insure someone's gay "spouse"?

Oh, right. THEY don't matter. Only the group that wants special equal rights that are more special than others matters.

Then don't offer spousal/family insurance.  At all.

I also ride the bandwagon that the state shouldn't have ANY say in the concept of marriage, and that taxes should be blind to one's married status.  Marriage should be a private covenant between two people and hold no legal bearing outside of the agreements of those people and any offspring they might create.

But, if it's gonna be a "benefit" for straights, then it ought to be a benefit for those icky gay people too. ;/


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 10, 2008, 02:24:15 PM
 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected when we recalled Gov. Gray Davis.
There was a CA Supreme Court Justice removed from office a number of years ago.  The Justices in there now will be up for re-election eventually.  We will see what happens then.  
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is term limited in so he will be going also.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ben on November 10, 2008, 02:24:31 PM
Prop 187 all over again. Every time the conservatives in the state vote on a prop and it doesn't go our way, we say, "well, that's the breaks, the people voted." Every time liberals vote on a prop and it doesn't go their way they yell, "SUE!". And then they sometimes hold their breath and have temper tantrums until they get their way.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 10, 2008, 02:29:41 PM
so voting twice isn't enough for arnold?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 02:34:02 PM
so voting twice isn't enough for arnold?

Of course not. The silly voters voted wrong, you see.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 10, 2008, 02:47:53 PM
A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.

As pointed out, it was an amendment.  Unless you can find a better method than using the democratic process to create or amend constitutions, we have no other way to decide what rights people actually have. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Marvin Dao on November 10, 2008, 03:46:44 PM
Ok, I'm no lawyer, so perhaps someone can explain this to me:

When you amend the constitution, how can a court find that your amendment is contrary to the constitution? You JUST AMENDED it!

Easy, least for California.

The most promising line of attack against Proposition 8 is whether it's an "amendment" to the California constitution or a "revision" of the California constitution. Revisions require approval of 2/3rds of the state House and Senate before a simple majority vote by the people. Amendments just require simple majority vote by the people. The distinction between the two is whether or not they "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution".

Gay rights supporters argue that Proposition 8 is a revision and does meet that standard since the change to the definition of marriage is substantial compared to how it's currently interpreted by the courts and since it undoes 18k or so gay marriages. If they succeed in arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision to the constitution instead of an amendment, then the fact that it wasn't voted on by the California House/Senate means that Proposition 8 fails on procedural grounds.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: longeyes on November 10, 2008, 03:48:43 PM
We the Former People.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: grampster on November 10, 2008, 07:33:51 PM
Arnold wants a job in the Obama cabinet.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 10, 2008, 08:33:12 PM
Of course not. The silly voters voted wrong, you see.

Yes, they did.  Voting hatred and ignorance is wrong, just as if Georgia tried to ban black people from marrying white people.

If you don't like having to offer benefits to gays, don't offer any benefits.  Or grow up and get over yourselves.  Gay marriage isn't going to hurt you, or your pocketbook.  People got over getting rid of Miscegenation laws, you'll get over getting rid of anti-gay marriage laws; and your children will laugh at you for not doing it sooner.

I have very little tolerance for the other viewpoint on this issue

Arnold wants a job in the Obama cabinet.

Obama is also wrong on the issue.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2008, 08:44:06 PM
Yes, they did.  Voting hatred and ignorance is wrong, just as if Georgia tried to ban black people from marrying white people.

If you don't like having to offer benefits to gays, don't offer any benefits.  Or grow up and get over yourselves.  Gay marriage isn't going to hurt you, or your pocketbook.  People got over getting rid of Miscegenation laws, you'll get over getting rid of anti-gay marriage laws; and your children will laugh at you for not doing it sooner.

I have very little tolerance for the other viewpoint on this issue

And apparently you have very little tolerance for constitutional government.  This isn't about gay marriage.  The issue is that the voters amended their constitution, and yet the government refuses to recognize it.

If you have any semblance of respect for our form of government, then you should be outraged by what the governor is is trying to do.  The  government doesn't get to pick and choose what parts of the constitution they have to abide by. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 10, 2008, 08:52:40 PM
Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.

Sorry.  I do not approve of any one set of people taking rights away from another for any reason without due process.

It's a horrible precident, and it's not what this country should be about.

I'm all for the rule of law, don't get me wrong, but sometimes you just have to stand up and say, "NO.  This is WRONG."

This is one of those times.  It's that time ANYTIME something like this happens, not just in California.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2008, 09:06:54 PM
Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.

Sorry.  I do not approve of any one set of people taking rights away from another for any reason without due process.

It's a horrible precident, and it's not what this country should be about.

I'm all for the rule of law, don't get me wrong, but sometimes you just have to stand up and say, "NO.  This is WRONG."

This is one of those times.  It's that time ANYTIME something like this happens, not just in California.

You speak of precedents.  What precedent are we setting when we establish that the government can ignore the constitution willy nilly?  What's to stop them from violating every other right enumerated in the constitution?  The answer, of course, is nothing.  You're encouraging the government to head down a path where the constitution doesn't matter, where the government gets to pick and choose what rights we have according to their whim. 

We might as well have no constitutions, or no rights.  Either a constitution is inviolable or it isn't.  If it isn't, then no right is safe.

Violating rights to protect rights isn't just dumb, it's dangerous.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 09:07:16 PM
Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.

Sorry.  I do not approve of any one set of people taking rights away from another for any reason without due process.

It's a horrible precident, and it's not what this country should be about.

I'm all for the rule of law, don't get me wrong, but sometimes you just have to stand up and say, "NO.  This is WRONG."

This is one of those times.  It's that time ANYTIME something like this happens, not just in California.


So you're not okay with the majority of voters in a state deciding how they want their state's culture to be?

If you don't like it, you can go to another state that is more like-minded! Like Massachusetts, liberal central, gay marriage and all.

Some of us would like the America back that existed before public deviancy was okay. So, in those areas, people vote for that.

Your kind wants to force the new hedonistic deviant culture on EVERY place coast to coast, instead of accepting that a bunch of people can, through voting, determine what is okay and not okay IN THEIR STATE...and that you are free to move to another state if you don't like it!

What you want isn't the will of We The People, it's Plato's freaking philosopher-kings determining what the people want for them because they're too stupid to understand. (No! You voted wrong! *slap* Vote again!) And THAT is not what the country is about.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: De Selby on November 10, 2008, 09:13:40 PM
I've seen discussion here of disenfranchising people who don't own property because it's wrong to let people vote themselves what belongs to others.  After all, the right to property is above democracy.

But now I'm reading a thread where democracy is almighty because it banned gay marriage. 

It seems that enthusiasm for the rights of voters depends entirely on the subject of the vote.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2008, 09:15:43 PM
How often have you seen people here arguing that the constitution be ignored?  Because that's exactly what we're discussing.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: De Selby on November 10, 2008, 09:19:44 PM
How often have you seen people here arguing that the constitution be ignored?  Because that's exactly what we're discussing.

That's not quite the question.  How often do we see convenient interpretations of the constitution's requirements when it suits the political position of the interpreter?  That one we see all the time:  the amendments' criminal protections are much less clear when it comes to "enemy combatants", the 14th amendment isn't so obvious when we're talking about illegal immigrants' children, and then there's...the right to vote.

We see that kind of discussion all the time.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 10, 2008, 09:20:45 PM
If a majority of residents in a state got enough signatures on a ballot to float a referendum to, oh, say, deny civil rights to Jews, would that be OK by you?

Or lets say a majority of liberals in NJ decided to expel anyone that was seen with a McCain sticker on their car, would THAT be okay?

It's. Not. Okay.
If a majority of people want to take rights away from people they don't like willy-nilly like that, it's not okay.

I can appreciate your end of the argument, honestly.  You're afraid that "others" would just decide to nullify any law they decide that was "Wrong."  I can appreciate how that's A Bad Thing.

But you know what?  It's still wrong.  Evil by a majority vote is still evil.  Denying rights to people you don't like without due process is always wrong.  ALWAYS.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2008, 09:21:31 PM
That's not quite the question.  How often do we see convenient interpretations of the constitution's requirements when it suits the political position of the interpreter?  That one we see all the time:  the amendments' criminal protections are much less clear when it comes to "enemy combatants", the 14th amendment isn't so obvious when we're talking about illegal immigrants' children, and then there's...the right to vote.

We see that kind of discussion all the time.

What the hell are you talking about?

This is THE PEOPLE voting to change their state's constitution. That is IN the Constitution.

They voted! Done! There is no challenge that is not unconstitutional!

THEY VOTED.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 10, 2008, 09:28:44 PM
They didn't just vote.  They amended their constitution.  This isn't some average vote by the legislature.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 10, 2008, 09:28:58 PM
Ah well, I'm dropping it. There's no convincing you, OR me on this issue.

I still dig you folk even though I think you're wrong.  You're wrong for the right reasons at least, and I can 100% respect that.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: De Selby on November 10, 2008, 09:34:29 PM
What the hell are you talking about?

This is THE PEOPLE voting to change their state's constitution. That is IN the Constitution.

They voted! Done! There is no challenge that is not unconstitutional!

THEY VOTED.

Yeah, and check out what the other side's argument is: That the Constitutional requirements weren't actually met, because this is a "revision" and not an "amendment." 

Take a deep breath and realize that this kind of technicality-finding goes on no matter what the cause, including in support of causes that are widely championed by social conservatives.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kyle on November 11, 2008, 12:57:10 AM
Some of my girlfriend's gay friends were in town for her birthday this weekend.

I am all for gay marriage, gay whatever. None of it bothers me in the least. However, in one sentence they were talking about how terrible it is that CA banned gay marriage. In the next sentence they were complaining that we need more gun control. I blew up on them and started speechifyin'. Paraphrased:

The Liberals or Progressives or what have you, over the last 75 years in this country have slowly but surely picked away at individual liberty. This country was founded on the idea that the Constitution should be the law, and democracy should be limited, and used to sort out the details. The progressives over the years have made democracy paramount, surpassing any conception of liberty. It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to free speech, if the majority of the people want Fairness Doctrine, majority rules. It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. If the majority wants more gun control, thats all that matters! On and on and on and on.

Now, we have conservatives saying "It doesnt matter that each individual has the right to love in any way they see fit, and to enter into legitimate contracts, the majority has spoken!"

And oh how they cry about it.

They made their bed, and now they're gonna hafta lie in it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: dogmush on November 11, 2008, 02:18:24 AM
Serious question;

Is marriage a right?

I think Nitrogen's right, in that the majority can't vote away rights.  If the majority of folks in CA voted to ammend their states Constitution to outlaw firearms, we'd all be the first to cry foul.  If the majority wanted to vote that you can't BE gay, id' be right there screaming no.

No one's sayingyou can't be gay,the citizens of CA are saying that their government won't recognize that union.  This doesn't actually seem a right to me.  I don't think there's any right to tax breaks, cheap(er) health insurance, and pensions.  (what else do you get out of a marriage, legally?)

All these things are stuff you get for being being in a gov defined relationship.  Since the relationship is gov defined, why can't the people tell the gov which definitio they want?

What, of the things proponents of gay marriage say they'll get from it, is actually a right?

I freely admit that I don't know, but the issues I've heard on the subject (listed above) don't seem to me to be rights.

So is gov. acknowledged marraige a right?  Or is it just another program that you enter volentarially withsom preconditions?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 11, 2008, 05:09:25 AM
And the rights of small business owners to not be forced to accept that they now have to insure someone's gay "spouse"?

Oh, right. THEY don't matter. Only the group that wants special equal rights that are more special than others matters.

Small business owners lost that right with EEO legislation.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: HankB on November 11, 2008, 05:51:51 AM
Government approved hatred is not OK; EVER.
Failure to support and endorse aberrant behavior is not "hatred."  ;/


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Fitz on November 11, 2008, 06:31:02 AM
I take it, then, that if the "mainstream" decides that gun ownership is appalling, you'll happily surrender yours.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Nitrogen on November 11, 2008, 06:47:11 AM
I take it, then, that if the "mainstream" decides that gun ownership is appalling, you'll happily surrender yours.



Well, no, Gun ownership is specifically mentioned in the constitution, while buggery is only blanketly covered under other provisions.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: ilbob on November 11, 2008, 06:55:24 AM
A referendum to take rights away from citizens without due process shouldn't pass.  Period.  End of discussion.

I don't care how icky they might be.
no one's rights were taken away. everyone retains the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: FTA84 on November 11, 2008, 07:05:05 AM
no one's rights were taken away. everyone retains the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Ah and there it is.  The mayor Daley argument.  Mayor Daley argues the same thing about handguns.  The people voted to ban handguns.  They did not vote away second amendment because people retain the right to have long guns.

Interesting how that argument works here but not there.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 07:29:47 AM
Alright, if people have a right to marry as they see fit, then marriage means nothing.

There is a reason marriage has been between a man and a woman; this has been the definition for millenia.

If it simply means: people who get together and want to have the government recognize their relationship, what is marriage?

Bring back polygamy.

Interspecies marriage.

Underage (with the parents consent) marriage.



Why stop with just two people?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 11, 2008, 07:35:07 AM
Quote
Yeah, and check out what the other side's argument is: That the Constitutional requirements weren't actually met, because this is a "revision" and not an "amendment." [

Bingo.  You need more than 50% approval for a revision, only 50% approval for an amendment.  Given that the CA SC already found a right to gay marriage in the existing state constitution I think this thing is going down in flames.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: zahc on November 11, 2008, 07:45:36 AM
Quote
No one's sayingyou can't be gay,the citizens of CA are saying that their government won't recognize that union.  This doesn't actually seem a right to me.

Me either. Government recognition of marriage seems like something with importance comparable to, say, motorcycle endorsments. I fail to see how this issue is even worth a constitution being ammended over. If it's that big of a deal, just get rid of 'normal' marriage to settle the argument. It's absurdity.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: ronnyreagan on November 11, 2008, 07:52:26 AM
Alright, if people have a right to marry as they see fit, then marriage means nothing.

There is a reason marriage has been between a man and a woman; this has been the definition for millenia.

If it simply means: people who get together and want to have the government recognize their relationship, what is marriage?

Bring back polygamy.

Interspecies marriage.

Underage (with the parents consent) marriage.



Why stop with just two people?

So you're afraid that if two people of the same gender who love each other are able to enter a commitment recognized by the government, we will eventually be overwhelmed by barnyard multi-partner marriages? I didn't realize the slippery slope was quite that steep - maybe we'd better outlaw regular marriage or it might lead to gay marriage!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 08:05:08 AM
Quote
Bring back polygamy.

Heinleinian line marriages!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: seeker_two on November 11, 2008, 08:13:23 AM
I wonder if the voters of California can sue the state gov't for a civil rights violation via "disenfranchising" their vote in this matter.....

...should make for some interesting CourtTV....


...also, when are the CA voters going to start getting as loud and militant as the lefty loonies out there?  Maybe THAT would get Herr Ah-nuld's attention?....


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 08:15:10 AM
Failure to support and endorse aberrant behavior is not "hatred."  ;/

I don't think you get it.

Intolerance towards uncommon sorts of sexual behavior is, in fact, intolerance. The spade is a spade.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: dogmush on November 11, 2008, 08:21:34 AM
OK So they're allowed to be intolerant.  The government is intolerent towards drunk drivers, pot smokers, heck tobbaco users are even the subject of Government intolerance in CA.

They can be Gay, They won't be thrown in jail for being gay, They are free to sleep with whomever they want (and can convince to consent).

That covers Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Which, exactly, RIGHT is being infringed here?

Seems like the votors of CA just put homosexuals in the same boat as smokers.  The votors have said they don't want to encourage that behavior in their society.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: erictank on November 11, 2008, 08:31:03 AM
Alright, if people have a right to marry as they see fit, then marriage means nothing.

There is a reason marriage has been between a man and a woman; this has been the definition for millenia.

And two hundred years ago, a "firearm" meant something you needed either a match or a piece of the right kind of rock to touch off, and which, by and large, you were lucky to hit your target with at a hundred yards or more.  Should that definition prevail today, or can definitions change?

If it simply means: people who get together and want to have the government recognize their relationship, what is marriage?

It's what those involved in the relationship make of it.  If the government is going to officially recognize one, they'd better recognize all that don't involve a lack of freely-given consent.

Bring back polygamy.

Why not, if all involved are okay with it?

Interspecies marriage.


Can the other species give free informed consent?  Personally, I tend to doubt it - so such a "marriage" would be as invalid as any other contract one attempted to enter into with an animal.

Underage (with the parents consent) marriage.

Parents' consent isn't what's important in that case, and the informed consent of the child cannot be freely given.  Invalid for the same reason as the specious "Interspecies marriage" argument.

Why stop with just two people?

Why indeed, if that's your thing?  


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 08:41:47 AM
Quote
Why not, if all involved are okay with it?

Indeed, why not? Various alternatives to the one-man/one-woman alternative exist. Polygamy, polyandry, Heinleinian line marriages - go, go, go!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 08:45:30 AM
Indeed, why not? Various alternatives to the one-man/one-woman alternative exist. Polygamy, polyandry, Heinleinian line marriages - go, go, go!

Because some of us are trying to have a civilization here.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 08:46:41 AM
Because some of us are trying to have a civilization here.

I will immediately inform the guys who founded Judeo-Christian civilization about your desire.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ben on November 11, 2008, 08:48:40 AM
Quote
I wonder if the voters of California can sue the state gov't for a civil rights violation via "disenfranchising" their vote in this matter.....

Nope. Already failed with Prop187, which passed with a strong majority and was designed to deny taxpayer services to illegal immigrants. Anti-187 people had the Prop overturned in the courts.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: HankB on November 11, 2008, 08:49:46 AM
I don't think you get it.

Intolerance towards uncommon sorts of sexual behavior is, in fact, intolerance. The spade is a spade.
What a euphemism . . . substituting "uncommon" for "perverse." In the same vein as calling a drug dealer an "unofficial pharmacist" or an illegal alien an "undocumented worker."

Tolerating something is different than legitimizing it or embracing it. I personally don't care what consenting adults do with or to one another, so long as they stay out of my face when they're doing it and don't demand I cheer them on. That's tolerance.

That includes homosexuals.

But I don't want to create a bonanza for divorce lawyers, employment benefit lawyers, and I don't want to open the door even further to things like greater involvement  of homosexuals with little children (including adoption), which is certainly going to follow if same-sex "married" couples become accepted in law.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 08:50:00 AM
BTW, Heinlein turned from a halfway decent writer to a disgusting pedophile pervert when he got old. Mentioning anything he wrote in his latter "books" stuffed with rampant incest and worse is, to me, the equivalent of a Godwin in any conversation about relationships.

You'll notice that Heinlein fans are way down on the Geek Chart from the other science fiction writer fans. With good reason.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 09:41:26 AM
And two hundred years ago, a "firearm" meant something you needed either a match or a piece of the right kind of rock to touch off, and which, by and large, you were lucky to hit your target with at a hundred yards or more.  Should that definition prevail today, or can definitions change?


There is a GREAT difference between improving technologies and changing traditions.

We have been rejecting the traditions of the past without due regard for what they represent. Within these traditions is contained the knowledge of the preceeding MILLIONS of individuals.

Just as we ridicule the socialists for believing that they can succeed where others have failed, because they believe that THEY know the right way, those who push to change the constructs of society are just as conceited.

They believe that despite the thousands of years of precedence for successful society, we can change the structures because WE KNOW BETTER.

This is folly and arrogance of the greatest degree.

Hayek pointed out the problem of rejecting traditions with the modern concept of "no-fault divorce."

Ostensibly, it was argued that children would be better off if people could simply dissolve the marriage contract with far less difficulty than a business contract. People who didn't get along then wouldn't have to put up with each other, children wouldn't have to see their parents fighting all the time and everything would get better.

Instead, children now grow up in multiple parent households bouncing between father and mother.

These children CAN grow up to be well-adjusted, but they do not have the best environment for it.

But, instead of arguing how it is better for the children, people now say "they will adjust."

This is the problem: marriage is NOT about the two people deciding to be together until they get tired of it. The reason we recognize marriage and wish to encourage it is because it creates the best environment for well-adjusted children. Argue if you like, but I think the relationship between criminality and a lack of a father at home is well-documented.

This is why we should not encourage gay marriage and under no circumstances should we allow them to adopt children. To willing place a child where they will grow up without either a father or a mother is selfishness and cruelty to the child.

This is why we fight against redefinitions of marriage. This is why tradition is important.

In fact, this is only the obvious reason for the tradition- the problem with rejecting traditions is we don't know what knowledge they represented until we have lost it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 09:43:10 AM
Quote
What a euphemism . . . substituting "uncommon" for "perverse." In the same vein as calling a drug dealer an "unofficial pharmacist" or an illegal alien an "undocumented worker."

Fine. Perverse merely means, per Freud, "anything other than reproductive, vaginal sex". Oral sex is perverse, per Freud. There's nothing whatever morally wrong with it.

Quote
BTW, Heinlein turned from a halfway decent writer to a disgusting pedophile pervert when he got old. Mentioning anything he wrote in his latter "books" stuffed with rampant incest and worse is, to me, the equivalent of a Godwin in any conversation about relationships.

Pedophilia? In my Heinlein? What books do you you speak of?

I've read most of Heinlein and did a college assignment on "The Moon is A Harsh Mistress." "Moon" involves detailed discussion of line marriages. So does "Friday".

There's no pedophilia involved whatever, and as a matter of fact, none of Heinlein's books deal with incest as a main topic, to my knowledge. As for incest, it is discussed in some books, but nowhere is it the prime topic. Have you actually read 'Moon'?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 09:50:13 AM
Quote
Some of us would like the America back that existed before public deviancy was okay. So, in those areas, people vote for that.

You mean bring back things like slavery and women not being able to vote? Man those truly where the good old days of good old traditional American values...  ;/

Quote
If a majority of residents in a state got enough signatures on a ballot to float a referendum to, oh, say, deny civil rights to Jews, would that be OK by you?

Or lets say a majority of liberals in NJ decided to expel anyone that was seen with a McCain sticker on their car, would THAT be okay?

It's. Not. Okay.
If a majority of people want to take rights away from people they don't like willy-nilly like that, it's not okay.

I can appreciate your end of the argument, honestly.  You're afraid that "others" would just decide to nullify any law they decide that was "Wrong."  I can appreciate how that's A Bad Thing.

But you know what?  It's still wrong.  Evil by a majority vote is still evil.  Denying rights to people you don't like without due process is always wrong.  ALWAYS.

+1

Quote
Argue if you like, but I think the relationship between criminality and a lack of a father at home is well-documented.

Like the documentation of blacks, Jews, anyone not white, and criminality?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: HankB on November 11, 2008, 09:56:53 AM
. . . as a matter of fact, none of Heinlein's books deal with incest as a main topic, to my knowledge. As for incest, it is discussed in some books, but nowhere is it the prime topic.
I take it you've never read Heinlein's final novel, To Sail Beyond the Sunset.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 09:59:47 AM
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4408r41w7m36u43/

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119983785/abstract
The decade of the 1980s witnessed more than a doubling in the number of incarcerated individuals. Little is known about the psychological reactions of children whose parents are incarcerated, although a variety of behavioral disorders apparently related to separation, stigma, and deception of the child has been reported. The possibility of aggressive or antisocial behavior emerging in sons of incarcerated fathers has been mentioned as of particular concern in some reports. This article discusses salient themes in the literature on the reactions of children to parental incarceration, with an emphasis on boys' reactions to incarceration of their fathers. It critiques this literature and compares the findings with literature on the effects of separation in father absence related to other causes (for example, divorce, death, military service). Behavioral or emotional disorder associated with paternal incarceration probably is related mainly to associated factors such as the meaning of the incarceration to the child, the remaining caretaker's psychological characteristics and psychopathology, the parenting relationship between the caretaker and the child, and the coping capacities and resources of the family, rather than to the separation itself. Recommendations for further research in this increasingly important field are provided.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 10:01:03 AM
I take it you've never read Heinlein's final novel, To Sail Beyond the Sunset.

No, unfortunately not.

I've read Friday, Tunnel in the Sky, Time Enough For Love, Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold, Red Planet, The Puppet Masters, Friday and a pile of short stories.

What horror does that book contain that invalidates the lifetime of insights on society, sex, family, and relationships contained in Heinlein's other books?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 10:06:57 AM
Quote
Like the documentation of blacks, Jews, anyone not white, and criminality?

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.

Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.

Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.

Please, reject such things out of hand because you don't like them.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 10:08:27 AM
No, unfortunately not.

I've read Friday, Tunnel in the Sky, Time Enough For Love, Starship Troopers, Farnham's Freehold, Red Planet, The Puppet Masters, Friday and a pile of short stories.

What horror does that book contain that invalidates the lifetime of insights on society, sex, family, and relationships contained in Heinlein's other books?


Let's see. I threw Freehold in the trash when the teenage daughter started telling her middle aged father she wanted to sleep with him.

It takes a LOT to make me destroy a book.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 10:09:16 AM
Quote
Let's see. I threw Freehold in the trash when the teenage daughter started telling her middle aged father she wanted to sleep with him.

I take it you burned your Bible too?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 10:10:46 AM
I take it you burned your Bible too?

Context. That was NOT presented as a good thing.

Heinlein's writings became the projections of a dirty old man. Happened to Leo Frankowski, too, who started going into detail about how many fourteen-year-old girls his protagonist bedded. Except Baen had the stones to cancel his contracts on any further work. Last I heard, he left America and moved to Russia and hasn't been heard from since.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 10:12:27 AM
Context. That was NOT presented as a good thing.



So you burn books only when the author disagrees with you?

Do you burn your Shakespeare and Nabokov? [14-year-old sexx0r, brother-sister incest in 'Ada', Lord knows what else]


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 10:19:18 AM
you've almost definitly heard this before, "i hope you have lots of kids and they turn out just like you"


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 10:21:37 AM
you've almost definitly heard this before, "i hope you have lots of kids and they turn out just like you"

So do I.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 10:31:59 AM
by the grace of a merciful god i have kids like my sister. and she has my kids  lifes perverse that way


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 10:35:18 AM
by the grace of a merciful god i have kids like my sister. and she has my kids  lifes perverse that way

Must... not... make obvious jokes... must... fight.... urge...


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 11, 2008, 10:38:35 AM
If a majority of residents in a state got enough signatures on a ballot to float a referendum to, oh, say, deny civil rights to Jews, would that be OK by you?


That's really not the point.  How do we come to an agreement on who has a right to what?  How do we write that into law?  Who is to say that Jews deserve or don't deserve rights?  Currently, we use constitutions that are ratified by the democratic process.  And those can be amended by that same process, or in California's case, they can be "revised." 

What else is there? 

Yes, you can go outside the system and use civil disobedience.  But even then, you eventually have to deal with the constitution. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: zahc on November 11, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
Quote
maybe we'd better outlaw regular marriage or it might lead to gay marriage!

A good idea! Personally, I'm all for it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 11, 2008, 11:20:56 AM
We would not be having this discussion if God had created Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 11:35:30 AM
Quote
Fatherless children are at a dramatically...

While I am not going to take the effort to go sifting through stormfront to show "proof" that blacks are criminals. I can show "proof" that guns are bad. http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/firearmoverview/

Although apparently blacks have it even worse, http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/africanamerican/ I guess that "proves" that blacks are inferior to whites.

I can do the same thing to "prove" that "violent" video games makes people violent.

The only problem with these and your statistics are that they don't actually look at the bigger picture.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 11, 2008, 12:01:49 PM
Quote
I can show "proof" that guns are bad.
Guns are not bad.  A gun does not and never will fire itself at anyone.

The firearm is a tool.  As any tool it will rest peacefully where ever it is until somebody decides to use it.

 It really does not matter to a hammer if you are driving a nail in, knocking 2 boards apart or hitting somebody in the head. 

The firearm does not care if you are shooting a target, a deer or another person.  When someone puts the firearm away after using it, just like the hammer, it will just lie there until somebody picks it up again.

The firearm is not bad.  It is just that bad people use them for bad purposes.


Title: Pinhead Pervs Causing More Trouble
Post by: roo_ster on November 11, 2008, 02:09:10 PM
Ahh-nold is a pinhead.  Pretty obvious all the 'roids have taken their toll on his cognitive abilities.

Yes, the usual leftist scum will crawl out of the gutter and leave a slime trail leading to the courts to do their best to impose the Vision of the Anointed (http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226441185&sr=1-1)* on the rest of us.

Given the reactions of the pervs (including the event described below), I think I am now officially against not only the sick joke that is "gay" marriage, but I will do my best to also oppose any and all "civil union" measures. 

Let them go to a lawyer and get powers of attorney, wills, etc. and spend taxpayer dollars on something more useful.





* Anointed with what, I am not willing to broach in mixed company.





Quote from: http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904
Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship

By Nick, Section News
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
This is what we're up against.

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.

They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

This didn't take place in some dystopian, post modern work of fiction and it didn't take place in San Francisco or Berkley.  This was the scene at a Bible believing church in Lansing, Michigan. 

Read on...

I returned home myself yesterday, from church and an afternoon watching football with the family, to find an email in my inbox from a friend in the Capitol City.  Isn't surprising to see her name in the inbox as she and I often compare notes on our Sunday services. 

Truth be told, I've done my best over the last year to start a friendly little rivalry with her.  My church is better than hers, I insist, and I have been known to tell her why. Hers is superior to mine, she reminds me, and lists the reasons.  (I admit I'm maybe a tad hyper-competitive, but my church really is the best in the world.)  Yesterday's email began with an understated proclamation; "So church today was exciting..."

On  Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an "action."  While many of the members claim to be anarchists (they drove on roads, ate non-garden grown foods, printed materials on products created by government protected free markets, wore clothing, talk incessantly about "organization," etc etc etc) their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.

"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."

Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most.  They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.

This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday.  Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went. 

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.  "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage.  Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air.  Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props?  I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs:

"(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction.  The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left. 

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did).  And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.  According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.  We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

Props were readily on display too, though some of the condoms may have been put to even more nefarious use.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the liberals, a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding, together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know.

The church's response?  After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

Yesterday morning defined the difference between a church of believers and Michigan liberals.  It also illustrated in shocking, painful detail precisely what we're up against.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 02:13:40 PM
So it's okay when people do this (or similar) outside abortion clinics, but not outside churches? Why should people not protest (peacefully) the activities of churches?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Marnoot on November 11, 2008, 02:17:45 PM
So it's okay when people do this (or similar) outside abortion clinics, but not outside churches? Why should people not protest (peacefully) the activities of churches?

Read the article, it was not outside of the church, and it was not peaceful.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 02:24:26 PM
So it's okay when people do this (or similar) outside abortion clinics, but not outside churches? Why should people not protest (peacefully) the activities of churches?

Did you even read the article?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 11, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Did you even read the article?

I would vote, "No" on that proposition.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 02:34:15 PM
reading it would be a  buzzkill  all those peaky facts
on the flip side these kinda actions push lots of fence sitters one way


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 02:41:07 PM
Did you even read the article?

I read the article. The article claims that the protesters were planning to provoke the church-goers into violence, and that they planned to vandalize the church, and that they brought 'condoms and confetti' to do it.

Normally, you don't vandalize stuff with confetti. You vandalize stuff with rocks and paint.

It also claims that two people were found in the restroom, implying that they were having sex there, but admitting honestly that the writer doesn't know either way.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 02:46:50 PM
so i guess then your "thinking" is that what they did is acceptable?  you will fit in fine with the free staters   won't even need a wookie suit


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 11, 2008, 02:50:49 PM
I read the article. The article claims that the protesters were planning to provoke the church-goers into violence, and that they planned to vandalize the church, and that they brought 'condoms and confetti' to do it.

Normally, you don't vandalize stuff with confetti. You vandalize stuff with rocks and paint.

It also claims that two people were found in the restroom, implying that they were having sex there, but admitting honestly that the writer doesn't know either way.

You honestly have NO problem with these people breaking up the services, defiling the church on purpose in their displays, and violating the rights of all the people worshiping there?

Is that what you're saying?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
shhh give the boy time hes busy trying trying to figure how to defend the gay marriage in the sweden thread, or maybe the bestiality


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 03:04:04 PM
shhh give the boy time hes busy trying trying to figure how to defend the gay marriage in the sweden thread, or maybe the bestiality

Is that the news article where they are forcing pastors to marry gay people?

Obviously I oppose that. Unlike in the dream world of some people, I can support the right of people to live together and have families without supporting forcing priests to hold ceremonies for them.

It is bizarre to me that a person would want to be married by a man whose faith they don't share, anyway.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 11, 2008, 03:27:40 PM
You honestly have NO problem with these people breaking up the services, defiling the church on purpose in their displays, and violating the rights of all the people worshiping there?

Is that what you're saying?



According to this article:
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html
by the journalist they brought with them, they also pulled fire alarms.




Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 03:30:20 PM


According to this article:
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html
by the journalist they brought with them, they also pulled fire alarms.




Oh. Leftie anarchist 'revolutionaries'.

Why do they HAVE to mess up EVERYTHING they stand up for?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 03:56:02 PM
because they really don't stand for anything?  cause generally they are parasitic?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 03:57:50 PM
because they really don't stand for anything?  cause generally they are parasitic?

I was going for "because they don't respect private property and use violence to achieve their goals".


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: seeker_two on November 11, 2008, 03:59:51 PM
If that's the way the liberals want to "protest", then we as good conservatives with opposing views should "protest" right back....


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 04:00:49 PM
they have goals? is sucking off the tit of the society they disdain a goal?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: zahc on November 11, 2008, 04:10:51 PM
Quote
The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did).

I'm glad they didn't pull this at my church.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 11, 2008, 04:13:42 PM
any church in this part of the state there would be "film at 11"


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 04:20:13 PM
I find myself at a loss in this situation.  The people have spoken.  And even though the way they voted was Ethically and morally wrong the government doesn't have the authority to just change the constitution anytime it wants. 

And was that an actual journalist who wrote that article?  If so he really needs to go back to journalism 101. 

It seems that most arguments against Gay Marriage come from a Religious reasoning.  And some people just don't get that a religious argument holds no weight in a court of law nor in the making of laws.  In fact to many people like me any religious argument has no standing in civilized society.  I want facts and proof not mysticism and an old book. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 05:02:18 PM
I find myself at a loss in this situation.  The people have spoken.  And even though the way they voted was Ethically and morally wrong the government doesn't have the authority to just change the constitution anytime it wants. 

And was that an actual journalist who wrote that article?  If so he really needs to go back to journalism 101. 

It seems that most arguments against Gay Marriage come from a Religious reasoning.  And some people just don't get that a religious argument holds no weight in a court of law nor in the making of laws.  In fact to many people like me any religious argument has no standing in civilized society.  I want facts and proof not mysticism and an old book. 

Perhaps you should go back and read my post, number 57.

Also, Freakazoid, if you don't want to take a study from the Department of Health and Human Services during CLINTON'S presidency, you are willfully blind.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 05:12:30 PM
I read your post and found it flawed.  Some traditions have a reason, others are just a tradition because they are.  If we followed tradition at all times we would never advance, never change.  We would become stagnant and fall in on ourselves as a society. 

And I hate to break it to you, Tradition is not a good enough reason to deny a person or entire class of person the same rights and freedoms we give to others.  People had that mindset with woman's rights, and civil rights for blacks.   Of course I am sure there are a number of people who feel that both woman's suffrage and civil rights are a bad thing.  They are also reviled and ridiculed by most of the population.

I have yet to see a single person give a response to how they see if would be different if a Constitutional amendment was passed that forbid mixed race couples again or perhaps stated that a couple had to produce children.  Even if something like this somehow passed it would not be right.  So what is the difference here?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 11, 2008, 05:14:27 PM
Quote
It seems that most arguments against Gay Marriage come from a Religious reasoning.

That is only due to the perversion of marriage by the state that has turned it into a legal contract that they have control over.

Marriage is a religious institution co-opted by the state and due to the legal incorporation of churches it (government forcing the people to accept gay marriage) has huge consequences where it concerns DOCTRINE and DOGMA.

Do you want the state dictating DOCTRINE and DOGMA?

So much for religious freedom, stick it down the same memory hole with the rest of your first, second et al protected rights.

I hate to break it to you but you don't know what you are talking about.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 05:18:58 PM
I read your post and found it flawed.  Some traditions have a reason, others are just a tradition because they are.  If we followed tradition at all times we would never advance, never change.  We would become stagnant and fall in on ourselves as a society. 

And I hate to break it to you, Tradition is not a good enough reason to deny a person or entire class of person the same rights and freedoms we give to others.  People had that mindset with woman's rights, and civil rights for blacks.   Of course I am sure there are a number of people who feel that both woman's suffrage and civil rights are a bad thing.  They are also reviled and ridiculed by most of the population.

I have yet to see a single person give a response to how they see if would be different if a Constitutional amendment was passed that forbid mixed race couples again or perhaps stated that a couple had to produce children.  Even if something like this somehow passed it would not be right.  So what is the difference here?

I'm sorry, where is marriage a right?

If we denied gay people the right to vote or denied them the right to own property or denied them the right to refuse to quarter soldiers, you might have a point.

WHERE is a government recognized marriage a right?

Why do you want to force people to accept and celebrate what they find deviant?

Also, I'm sure it's ok to reject tradition out of hand. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than the millions who came before us.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 05:20:19 PM
Quote
Also, I'm sure it's ok to reject tradition out of hand. I'm sure you're far more intelligent than the millions who came before us.

Intelligence is not additive.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 11, 2008, 05:25:09 PM
Intelligence is not additive.

Dang, I guess we have to start physics from scratch and ignore that Newton guy...


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 11, 2008, 05:31:12 PM
Dang, I guess we have to start physics from scratch and ignore that Newton guy...

Millions of people across the world supported human slavery for millenia. I bet they were very smart... no.

Besides, Newton was one guy.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 05:34:25 PM
Perhaps I should clarify something first.  I think a church should be able to marry or not marry whomever they want to.  Just like any other non governmental entity it should have the right to make such decisions.  However the issue at hand is the governmental recognition of marriage.  You don't need a ceremony to be married you need a document from your county signed by someone who is authorized to do so and a couple witnesses.  

Perhaps marriage is not a right as recognized by the constitution however once the government starts arbitrarily telling people whom they can and can not marry it is no far stretch for them to start dictating other things.  Oh I don't know, like firearms ownership.  

And I am sorry that you find two people caring for each other Deviant.  But what impact does that have on your ability to live your life.  Remember that your rights end where mine begin.  And once you start crossing that line and trying to dictate another persons life you have ventured outside of what I personally would consider proper and civilized behavior.  

Millions of so called "intelligent" men approved of slavery.  Millions of so called "intelligent" men thought it was ok to keep women as a second class citizen.  None of those millions were right.  So yes in some cases I do think I am more intelligent or at the very least a more honorable person than those people.  Once again, give me facts.  Not just because, or it has always been that ways..  


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 11, 2008, 07:44:33 PM
Quote
Perhaps I should clarify something first.  I think a church should be able to marry or not marry whomever they want to.  Just like any other non governmental entity it should have the right to make such decisions.

Churches are not really non government entities.

Churches are tax exempt corporations which by definition I believe are called entities of the state.

If the state acknowledges same sex marriage how long before churches are required by threat of force to obey the state by recognizing same sex unions or lose their tax exempt status?

The power to tax truly is the power to control.

 



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 11, 2008, 07:45:35 PM
It seems that most arguments against Gay Marriage come from a Religious reasoning.

"Most?"  Doubtful. 

Generally only one of the tangential arguments is religiously based.  I usually don't even bother making it. 

OTOH, most attacks on those who wish to preserve marriage come from an anti-religious vector.  For some reason, they think that if they claim loudly and frequently that all opposition is religious-based bigotry, their lie will be made true.

The arguments I have made are usually based on:
1. Biology
2. Economics
3. Equal treatment
4. The illegitimacy of comparing homosexual practice with race/ethnicity
5. Civilizational Survival
6. Resistance to vocal minorities attempting to impose thier value system on the majority
7. Respect for the COTUS and the various state constitutions and processes vs disdain for them in pursuit of some political goal


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 08:28:09 PM
Quote
Also, Freakazoid, if you don't want to take a study from the Department of Health and Human Services during CLINTON'S presidency, you are willfully blind.

What does it being during Clintons presidency have to do with anything. By calling myself a leftists I DON'T Democrat. To us you are all right wing.

Quote
because they really don't stand for anything?  cause generally they are parasitic?

 :mad:  :mad:


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 11, 2008, 08:33:27 PM
I have yet to see a single person give a response to how they see if would be different if a Constitutional amendment was passed that forbid mixed race couples again or perhaps stated that a couple had to produce children.  Even if something like this somehow passed it would not be right.  So what is the difference here?


That tired argument is nothing more than a race card.  You can't claim a right, simply by comparing your pet cause to Black civil rights.  Racial issues shed no light at all on this issue.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 08:35:26 PM
It is the exact same thing.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 11, 2008, 09:16:32 PM
If we denied gay people the right to vote or denied them the right to own property or denied them the right to refuse to quarter soldiers, you might have a point.

WHERE is a government recognized marriage a right?

Interesting that you compare the two.  It's a perfect example that illustrates just how wrong you are, legally speaking.

We don't have a right to vote, what we have are a series of protections to prohibit discrimination against various groups when it comes to exercising the power of voting.  If you let group A do it, group B and C get to too.

California's Supreme Court has already held that somewhere in their State Constitution (something like a equal-rights non-discrimination amendment or clause, I forget the details) applies to gays and it applies to marriage, ergo, if you allow group A to marry group B and C get to too.  Since Prop 8 is effectively revising the document instead of just tagging onto it they're going to shoot it down.  Prop 8 supporters are going to need more than a simple majority if they want to get the State Constitution properly amended to prohibit gays from marrying.

Let's say it doesn't go down in flames though.  What's next?

Probably the right to marry within the family, something I fully support if we're going to have gay marriage.  Put away the pitchforks.  It's not like that.

The reasoning behind most laws against marrying your cousin or sister is the slightly elevated risk of various genetic diseases.  Some states actually allow you to marry a 1st cousin if you're unable to have kids, like the male has gotten a vasectomy, or you're both over 65 years old.  They're state laws, so they're different, but that's the general theme.

So, if two dudes can get married why can't I marry my brother? 

Stop looking at me like that.  This is a thought exercise!

There doesn't have to be any sex going on, but I can see why this would be beneficial to old guys that are unmarried.  Tie the knot with your brother and your insurance covers him, it's easier to share assets, and in my state (MI) we'd be able to trade handguns back and forth without any stupid paperwork or registration hassles.

Next, with it firmly established in our society that you cannot discriminate based on sex, why couldn't a dude marry his sister?  Cousin?  I could see a legal argument for it.  It'd probably be shot down, but somebody would try exploring it.

I'm not trying to make a slippery-slope argument here or anything.  I'm fine with gay marriage, just exploring the unintended legal consequences.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 11, 2008, 09:27:12 PM
It is the exact same thing.

What?  Interracial marriage and homosexual marriage?  You're honestly telling me that those two things are the same issue?  A difference in skin color is "exactly" the same issue as the lack of an opposite-sex partner? 

You can't be that blind. 

You do understand that marriage is an opposite-sex sort of thing, right? 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 09:35:08 PM


1. Biology

Most mammals exhibit some form of homosexuality.
 
2. Economics

I would like to see this supposed negative economic impact that allowing two people to marry would have.  If this is the case we need to start limiting all marriages because they will just get out of hand otherwise. 


3. Equal treatment

I think everyone should be treated equal regardless of who they decide to love and/or sleep with.

4. The illegitimacy of comparing homosexual practice with race/ethnicity

The only difference is that one is obvious at first glance and the other can be hidden. 

5. Civilizational Survival

No one is saying that everyone has to be gay.  There are plenty of strait people out there who will continue the population.

6. Resistance to vocal minorities attempting to impose thier value system on the majority

Yeah, how dare they want the same status as everyone else.  Just like those uppity women and black people. 


7. Respect for the COTUS and the various state constitutions and processes vs disdain for them in pursuit of some political goal

A constitution that represses a people is worthy of nothing but disdain and contempt.  Thankfully our National constitution has been mostly fixed in regards to relegating any class of person to second class status.  Now we just need to fix the state ones.  This includes making sure they guarantee people the right to defend themselves as well as be with whomever they want. 
 


GigaBuist

You touch on another issue where I probably differ from most people.  While I personally think that would be a bit...  Well ick.  I also think that 2 consenting and knowledgeable adults should be able to have whatever relationship they want. 

And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.  We should always look to expand rights and freedoms never restrict or take them away. 

Eleven Mike

I am saying that they are exactly the same thing.  To some people a persons sex makes them no different than a persons skin color.  Marriage to some people is a bond between 2 people.  They don't put ANY restriction on whom those 2 people are.  (Excluding of course children)


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 09:44:24 PM
Quote
And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.  We should always look to expand rights and freedoms never restrict or take them away.

Not only that but some believe it should ONLY be reserved for the purpose of procreation. Perhaps it should be a law that that is the only reason for sex. Of course if you are planning on putting that you have to enforce it...

Also what are watersports?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 09:48:43 PM
Not only that but some believe it should ONLY be reserved for the purpose of procreation. Perhaps it should be a law that that is the only reason for sex. Of course if you are planning on putting that you have to enforce it...

Also what are watersports?

Don't ask a question unless you want an honest answer....  LOL

It is a nice way of saying people who like to either urinate on others or be urinated on themselves.  Some of the more extreme people also ingest it. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 11, 2008, 09:55:44 PM
Ohhh.... ewwww. lol Didn't know that that was what it was called.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 11, 2008, 10:15:04 PM
Quote
And where do we draw the line.  There are many Heterosexual acts that many people here would consider immoral I am sure.  This ranges from pre/extra marital sex to fetishes like watersports, scat, bondage, Ponyplay, S&M, these are all outside the norm.  SO do we outlaw these acts because some people find them abhorrent.

That's actually where the gay-rights issue started in the courts. Lawson was a case in Texas challenging their anti-sodomy laws. With the anti-sodomy laws shot down it was now legal to actually be gay and sexually active.

So, I guess we can thank the gay activist community for legal oral sex.  They're not ALL bad, eh?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 11, 2008, 10:15:29 PM
Quote
Eleven Mike

I am saying that they are exactly the same thing.  To some people a persons sex makes them no different than a persons skin color.  Marriage to some people is a bond between 2 people.  They don't put ANY restriction on whom those 2 people are.  (Excluding of course children)


Those feelings are interesting to consider.  But since facts are more relevant to our legal system, let's go through a few of those. 

1.  Race does not equal sex.  Race is a social construct, based on our view of certain inherited characteristics.  Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.  Sexual orientation is something else entirely, and we could spend pages of forum space debating whether it is learned, inherited, a genetic predisposition, a choice, and so on and so forth.  That being the case, it would be decidedly foolish to think that we could plug each issue into the same mold. 

2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.

And finally, a question.  If you're saying that my side are no better than racists, will you quit complaining when we compare homosexuals to pedophiles?  Seems fair to me. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 11, 2008, 10:42:55 PM
I see what you are getting at there however a couple other things to consider.  First It is illegal by law to discriminate against someone based on Race or sex.  That means both are considered "protected classes" by the .gov. 
Secondly there is some very minor biological differences between the races does exist.  Some races are more inclined to certain diseases, etc. 

Marriage, like many other things has changed over time.  One can argue good or bad on this but things do change.  Once again Marriage is an institution between two people.  Many of us, regardless of our personal orientation, don't see any difference between the sexes for marriage.  IN fact many laws do not make a determination on a marriage being male/female only. 

I don't know how to answer your last question.  I see any bigotry as wrong regardless of the target.  I am at a loss as to how you could compare Homosexuals to Pedophiles. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 11, 2008, 11:16:40 PM
1.  Race does not equal sex.

Well, they're both controlled by genetics.  Seems equal to me.

Quote
Race is a social construct, based on our view of certain inherited characteristics.

Not really. I mean, we're talking about a legal issue here.  Not actual racism.  In terms of the law generally speaking if you have ANY African blood in you you're considered African-American.  I'm not aware of any period in this nation's history, or California's history, which put an "inherited characteristics" test on the racial makeup of a person.

Legally you're an African-American or not.  It doesn't matter what you look like.  Kim duToit and Michael Jackson don't LOOK African-American, but they are.

Quote
Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.

Yes and no.  Sex is determined based on the presence of a Y chromosome, not whether or not you've actually go a penis or a vagina.  Things get wonky when you stumble up on the rare XXY folks.

Quote
2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.
Not according to the California Supreme Court.

Quote
And finally, a question.  If you're saying that my side are no better than racists, will you quit complaining when we compare homosexuals to pedophiles?  
Hey, why stop there?  Let's go whole hog and just blame the Jews for Communism and every problem with our country!

Did you just seriously defend the position that homosexuals are pedophiles as a rule of thumb?  You might as well have said that inter-racial marriage is going to result in the black men raping our white women.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 12, 2008, 12:04:30 AM
Quote
2.  Marriage is a heterosexual institution, requiring at least one member of each sex.  This is not an opinion, a religious belief, a custom or a tradition.  It is a fact.

You repeating 'it is a fact' does not make it so. Marriage is a social institution. Its definition is a social institution morphs through the years.

Quote
Sex (i.e. male or female) is a biological matter, entailing real differences in physiology and psychology.

Gender though is a social creature, having to do with self-definition and mindset ľ which is why people sometimes require reassignment surgery ľ but that's a topic for a whole other thread.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 12, 2008, 04:18:01 AM
Quote
I am at a loss as to how you could compare Homosexuals to Pedophiles.

I'm not comparing them.  But if you look at any thread on this subject, you'll see someone point out similarities between the two issues.  NOT necessarily saying that homosexuals ARE pedophiles, but just comparing the two issues, in the abstract.  This is always met by shocked outrage, by someone who has no problem making the miscegenation argument.  See below.


Did you just seriously defend the position that homosexuals are pedophiles as a rule of thumb?  You might as well have said that inter-racial marriage is going to result in the black men raping our white women.

 =D   Way to miss the point!  How about you folks don't call us racists, and we don't say that they're like pedophiles?  Deal? 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 12, 2008, 04:56:12 AM
Way to miss the point!  How about you folks don't call us racists, and we don't say that they're like pedophiles?  Deal? 

11M:

They won't agree, because nearly the entirely of their argument consists of the risible habit of conflating race and sexual practice.

Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 12, 2008, 05:21:47 AM
11M:

They won't agree, because nearly the entirely of their argument consists of the risible habit of conflating race and sexual practice.

Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.

Forget race.

Race, as we all know, is not a choice, and we do not know whether sexual orientation (rather than behavior) is a choice.

How about religion? Religion is a choice. Nobody argues Christianity is genetic.

How would you appreciate a NO DOGS AND CHRISTIANS ALLOWED sign?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 12, 2008, 07:17:40 AM
Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.


and wisely the heros of the revolution chose a white church to stage their event.   try a black baptist or ame church and it would be youtube fabulous


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: agricola on November 12, 2008, 07:39:51 AM
Quote
There doesn't have to be any sex going on, but I can see why this would be beneficial to old guys that are unmarried.  Tie the knot with your brother and your insurance covers him, it's easier to share assets, and in my state (MI) we'd be able to trade handguns back and forth without any stupid paperwork or registration hassles.

That very issue was raised when we in the UK went through this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3996819.stm

though that was defeated, as was a case brought by two sisters who took their fight all the way to the ECHR:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6990101.stm


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 07:52:31 AM
Government should be of the people and for the people.  Not of the elite oligarchy.  People are what determine the course of a nation, and a state.  That is why we have voting.  That is why we have representatives.  If the Supreme Court were supposed to be the sole decider of legal and social issues, lets just do away with voting and let our council of Lords issue their decrees.  People are the engine of law, for good or for ill.  You ask if slavery was right when the majority agreed with it?  I would argue that legally, it was right.  Until the people decided it wasn't.  A war was fought.  Slave owners were punished.  Laws were changed through the process.  The people changed.  The people voted.  The law changed.  If you don't agree with the democratic process, and would rather see and oligarchy's vison on the world forced onto a people through the fist of the state, move somewhere where that is the case.  Here in America, and in it's States, the people vote, and the people decide law.  The Supreme Court, whether state or federal, is tasked within interpreting law within the framework of the people's Constitution.  Not just decide whatever law they feel is right.  The people changed the Constitution.  That is now the framework the Supreme Court must operate inside.  They are not permitted to change their own mandate from outside of it.  That sort of power is despotism.


I believe marriage should not be a government issue at all.  If people wanna go fill out some form that dictates someone else has secondary power over their lives, like possessions, health-care, etc, let them indicate who that person is.  As a Christian, I believe all marriages that are not Christian marriages are spiritually false and invalid, that includes Native American, Muslim, homosexual, etc.  I also believe that has nothing to do with government tax and power of attorney law.  While I don't agree with the degree Leftists have pushed the "separation of church and state" issue, I do believe this is one area where it applies.  Lets get government out of marriage, and let people decide for themselves who gets their crap when they die, or who holds power over them if they're in a coma, and all that.  And let's get rid of the tax benefits for "couples" altogether.  That should solve the whole "we want the same rights" issue.  Just get rid of special government rights for everyone.  I would prefer that to recognizing what I see as a deviant and invalid "marriage".


As far as the "why do you care ig gays get married?"  I wouldn't care if it didn't have anything to do with me.  But it does.  Especially if I have kids.  If I want to raise my children respecting my religion, I don't want public schools or any other thing actively telling my children that my religion is wrong because it conflicts with their Leftist preaching.  And yes, it does and will happen.  They already try to pull that crap in states like CA, having sex ed classes for 1st graders talking about homosexuality.  Conferring the title of marriage to that act will only embolden them to attack religion and our rights to raise our kids how we want even further.  It would be far better to do away with state sanctioned marriage than to allow that agenda to progress further.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 12, 2008, 10:25:11 AM
How would you appreciate a NO DOGS AND CHRISTIANS ALLOWED sign?

How would you like to stick somewhere near the issue at hand?  For starters:

You repeating 'it is a fact' does not make it so.

That is precisely the point.  As Kewlz has ably demonstrated, the whole argument for fake marriage rests in just such empty rhetoric.  A same-sex relationship can be a marriage, because they say so.  And to disagree with that is bigotry/hatred because they said so.  All hail the all-powerful THEY. 

  To some people a persons sex makes them no different than a persons skin color.  Marriage to some people is a bond between 2 people.  They don't put ANY restriction on whom those 2 people are.  (Excluding of course children)



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 12, 2008, 10:45:18 AM
For some humans words still have meaning.

If you want the government to recognize unions other than man and wife then come up with a new word or term to describe it accurately. Changing the definition of a word (marriage) by government fiat against the wishes of the majority is not the correct way of going about affecting change. Top down pronouncements engender resentment that will last generations. As has been pointed out also, once gay marriage is normalized in law the activists will have free reign to effect societal change using the new law as a club to beat social conservatives into submission.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: El Tejon on November 12, 2008, 10:47:37 AM
It's so much fun to see the Left drop its mask and see what they really think of their beloved "The People".

Cattle to be driven with whips and corrected when wrong. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 12, 2008, 10:56:46 AM
marriage: 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage"

Come up with a new word if you want to. That one has meant what it means for at least that long.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 12, 2008, 11:26:12 AM
from the etymology dictionary
marry (v.)

1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of

uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to

*meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.


Definition from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828:

MARRIAGE

MAR'RIAGE, n. L.mas, maris. The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 12, 2008, 12:14:14 PM
Quote
How would you like to stick somewhere near the issue at hand?  For starters:

It was stated that dislike of gays could not be compared to racist bigotry, because (supposedly) homosexuality is a choice.

In this case - I point out - why can it not compared to religious bigotry? Is not religion a choice?

Quote
Come up with a new word if you want to. That one has meant what it means for at least that long.

1. Word. Meanings. Change. Words and dictionaries are a social construct.

2. I take it you don't mind civil unions.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 12, 2008, 12:28:45 PM
It was stated that dislike of gays could not be compared to racist bigotry, because (supposedly) homosexuality is a choice.

In this case - I point out - why can it not compared to religious bigotry? Is not religion a choice?

1. Word. Meanings. Change. Words and dictionaries are a social construct.

2. I take it you don't mind civil unions.

Changing words by government fiat?

A few thoughts by Thomas Sowell on the subject:
Quote
Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

Quote
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 12, 2008, 12:42:58 PM
Quote
Changing words by government fiat?

Government?

I am not the government. I reserve the right, undeniable and natural, to call the union of any two (or three, or five) adults bound together by love and the religious rituals of their choice, a marriage. We, as individuals in society, can choose to treat people equally. We can all be agents of cultural change. Just as you choose to act and remain an agent of conservative family values, and promote the acceptability of only one kind of marriage, namely that of a man in a woman, so do I and people like me have the right to promote our views.

If you have the right, as a human being, to condemn the 'gay lifestyle', then I also have the right as a human being, to condemn the 'anti-gay llifestyle'. It cuts both ways, and let the best man/woman/genderqueer win.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 12, 2008, 12:52:46 PM
If the government recognizes "gay marriage" against the peoples will then it is by government fiat.

You have the freedom to change any word you want privately, you may speak Klingon, pig latin whatever. Just don't try and enshrine your silliness by force through the use of government power.

I don't recall condemning anyone, except for those who are trying to use government force to implement their so called progressive agenda.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Kwelz on November 12, 2008, 01:05:36 PM
I find it interesting that people keep saying Homosexuality is a choice.  Given that most if not all mammals exhibit homosexual behavior perhaps we should consider that sex is just that, sex.  It is a way to reproduce and a way to get pleasure.  Only humans have attached anything else to it beyond this. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 01:07:16 PM
Quote
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

That's a very good point.  When they simply said it's no one's business and it won't affect anyone else, that was fine.  I don't have to agree with their behavior, but so long as they do their thing, and I do mine, and neither of us does any forcing of the issue, we're all good.  The moment they decided to force me into approving of their behavior is when the made an enemy.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Racehorse on November 12, 2008, 01:13:38 PM
I find it interesting that people keep saying Homosexuality is a choice.  Given that most if not all mammals exhibit homosexual behavior perhaps we should consider that sex is just that, sex.  It is a way to reproduce and a way to get pleasure.  Only humans have attached anything else to it beyond this. 

Those pesky humans. Always trying to attach meaning to everything.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 01:22:18 PM
I find it interesting that people keep saying Homosexuality is a choice.  Given that most if not all mammals exhibit homosexual behavior perhaps we should consider that sex is just that, sex.  It is a way to reproduce and a way to get pleasure.  Only humans have attached anything else to it beyond this. 

So you're saying that homosexuals are just pleasure-seeking animals?

Wow.

I think that maybe, just maybe, they are attaching some deeper emotional meaning to their human actions than that, just like heterosexuals do.

Perhaps sexual interaction between mere animals, of whatever kind, bears little to no relation to human life and shouldn't be compared as if it did?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 01:48:06 PM
I find it interesting that people keep saying Homosexuality is a choice.  Given that most if not all mammals exhibit homosexual behavior[Citation Needed] perhaps we should consider that sex is just that, sex.  It is a way to reproduce and a way to get pleasure.  Only humans have attached anything else to it beyond this. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 01:51:39 PM
Occasionally, many mammalian species will exhibit some kinds of behavior between same-sex individuals that mimics the same activity between different sex individuals.

Anthromorphizing that into "all mammals have homosexuals" is horrible biology.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 02:01:23 PM
I'd like Kewlz to show me that the animals mentioned are not having a case of mistaken identity regarding the partner, and also are not suffering from genetic anomalies.  Since homosexuality is 100% against the instinct of procreation, which is something animals conclusively do have, he'd better have some pretty hefty evidence that homosexuality is normal, frequent, and reoccurring throughout the animal kingdom, and not the result of defects.

And we're talking homosexuality.  An animal that is wired as normal to have sex with the opposite gender to procreate, and is found attempting the act with another of it's species regardless of gender doesn't count.  To put it bluntly, dogs make an attempt with human legs.  That doesn't mean they have a natural attraction to human beings.  They're just confused.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 02:19:50 PM
Or using sexual behavior for dominance reasons.

Or as a grooming technique.

Or for any number of reasons they can't explain to us so we get to project whatever we want onto it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 12, 2008, 02:25:44 PM
in some cases its a form of showing dominance   my female husky humping the younger pup


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MechAg94 on November 12, 2008, 02:47:23 PM
There is are also cases of some mammals exhibiting deeper relationships between mates more than simply procreation.  What does that tell us?  Not a whole lot. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MechAg94 on November 12, 2008, 02:49:06 PM
2. I take it you don't mind civil unions.
If they were satisfied with that, I think a whole lot of the opposition wouldn't be there. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Crazy-G on November 12, 2008, 03:46:55 PM
For those who believe homosexuality is a choice, what happens research proves it is not a choice?
I also ask those who believe it is not a choice, what if research proves it is a choice? 

Until that is answered,if it ever is, I think it should be left up to the People to decide, for right or wrong. Each generation of voters will have the right to change the laws as they see fit and the government should uphold the laws as mandated by the People.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 04:20:30 PM
For those who believe homosexuality is a choice, what happens research proves it is not a choice?
I also ask those who believe it is not a choice, what if research proves it is a choice? 

Until that is answered,if it ever is, I think it should be left up to the People to decide, for right or wrong. Each generation of voters will have the right to change the laws as they see fit and the government should uphold the laws as mandated by the People.


Good post.

In any event, the "rights" argument on marriage doesn't rest on whether sexual attraction or behavior is a choice or not.  You are free to act on sexual attraction right now.  The few places with laws on the books restricting certain sexual activities are challengeable right now as such activities are male/female neutral.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 12, 2008, 04:51:17 PM
It was stated that dislike of gays could not be compared to racist bigotry, because (supposedly) homosexuality is a choice.
 

Well, I didn't say that, and that wasn't the point.  Your argument is, the races are equal, ergo the sexes are interchangeable.  And one doesn't follow from the other.  So, miscegenation sheds no light on the current controversy.  It may be an interesting comparison, but it's not much of an argument.  It's main purpose is ad hominem.  Or is question begging?  Both, I think. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Iain on November 12, 2008, 06:02:01 PM
Have we discussed tyranny by majority? I'm not sure that any of us would like a world in which decisions were made by 50.1% of the voting populace.

Not that tyranny is really relevant in this case, but I thought generally we were not in favour of direct democracy in this manner. Maybe we'd be using that argument had Prop 8 been rejected.

That said, the politicians should abide by the results of votes they instigate.

Every time, it seems to come back to the issue over the word 'marriage'.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 06:09:08 PM
Have we discussed tyranny by majority? I'm not sure that any of us would like a world in which decisions were made by 50.1% of the voting populace.

Not that tyranny is really relevant in this case, but I thought generally we were not in favour of direct democracy in this manner. Maybe we'd be using that argument had Prop 8 been rejected.

That said, the politicians should abide by the results of votes they instigate.

Every time, it seems to come back to the issue over the word 'marriage'.

Yep, you could probably get a "civil union" law passed in every state of the union in a few years but marriage is magic and many in the GLB-whatever-else-they've-tacked-on-lately community won't settle for anything less than redefining the term.

The key factor that prevents this being tyranny of the majority is that California's Constitution explicitly allows for referenda.  If it is constitutional and the will of the people it isn't tyranny under our system.

It is up to the people of Cali to amend or repeal that right of referenda through their process if they don't like it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Iain on November 12, 2008, 06:31:00 PM
As I say, tyranny isn't relevant in this case.

Referenda are interesting though, because eventually someone always ends up arguing that the majority is wrong now, has been before and will be again and that we designed systems like republics, parliamentary democracies etc to avoid this mob rule.

It's not always sour grapes either, they often have a valid point. Which is where the whole miscegnation thing begins again and round in circles we go. What's right isn't always popular and vice versa.

Anyway, we have civil unions now and the issue has died down significantly. Ag has already pointed out an area where the law has been clearly defined or at least a clear precedent set (who is a partner and who is not). Any civil union laws in force in the separate states, or any on the way?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
Well, they can get rid of referenda if they want to.

Two states just legalized gay marriage, Cali just repealed it.

Again, the GLBT(?) community is now on a moral crusade to be "normal" and want not just absolutely equal status and rights under the law, but the exact same name for the arrangement.

They could have had exactly what they claim to want legally, equal treatment, but have gone beyond justice into emotion.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 12, 2008, 07:22:53 PM
Quote
They could have had exactly what they claim to want legally, equal treatment, but have gone beyond justice into emotion.

They just don't want legislation to preserve their rights, they want legislation and court orders to dictate new societal norms/mores.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 12, 2008, 07:40:38 PM
You could use that same thing against blacks or women.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 12, 2008, 07:43:45 PM
They could have had exactly what they claim to want legally, equal treatment, but have gone beyond justice into emotion.

*scratches head*

It wasn't the GLBT community that put Prop 8 on the ballot.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 12, 2008, 08:03:37 PM
Oddly enough, the huge proportion of black and hispanic folks who voted FOR Prop 8 who are, you know, actually black & hispanic, do not agree the two are in any way similar.


and wisely the heros of the revolution chose a white church to stage their event.   try a black baptist or ame church and it would be youtube fabulous

I'd pay good money to see that.  (Where is the evil smiley?)

Most black churches I visited back in the day were heavy-duty charismatic.  I'm sure they'd be just as put-out as the AME & Baptists, if they could discern the protesters in their midst from the general pandemonium of the charismatic service

Four hours of that followed by some of the best food your taste buds have ever experienced.  I didn't speak in tongues during the service, but I put mine to good use after the service.  "Soul food," indeed.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 12, 2008, 08:55:34 PM
*scratches head*

It wasn't the GLBT community that put Prop 8 on the ballot.

Yes, but it is STILL THE EVIL GHEY PEOPLE'S FAULT.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 12, 2008, 09:04:32 PM
>and I don't want to open the door even further to things like greater involvement  of homosexuals with little children (including adoption)<

Nice :gays are all pedophiles!" argument. Doesn't hold.

Speaking as someone who deals with abused kids all the time, I do NOT see the problem here. So long as the adopting ôparentsö have been vetted (basic background check), there shouldnĺt be any more of a problem with gays in that role than with straights.

>Marriage is a religious institution co-opted by the state<

Thatĺs easy to deal with: get the government out of the marriage business!

>The arguments I have made are usually based on:
1. Biology
2. Economics
3. Equal treatment
4. The illegitimacy of comparing homosexual practice with race/ethnicity
5. Civilizational Survival
6. Resistance to vocal minorities attempting to impose thier value system on the majority
7. Respect for the COTUS and the various state constitutions and processes vs disdain for them in pursuit of some political goal<

1: Not going to get into this one: itĺs already been addressed
2: Been addressed: if a business doesnĺt want to provide Bruce & Steve benefits, they donĺt offer bennies period
3: Is actually an argument FOR some form of civil union enterable by any group of two or more adults
4: I can kinda give you
5: I somehow doubt that gays ômarryingö is going to result in the end of the human race
6: could be pointed at gun owners, too
7: Iĺll leave alone

>I believe marriage should not be a government issue at all.  If people wanna go fill out some form that dictates someone else has secondary power over their lives, like possessions, health-care, etc, let them indicate who that person is.  As a Christian, I believe all marriages that are not Christian marriages are spiritually false and invalid, that includes Native American, Muslim, homosexual, etc.  I also believe that has nothing to do with government tax and power of attorney law.  While I don't agree with the degree Leftists have pushed the "separation of church and state" issue, I do believe this is one area where it applies.  Lets get government out of marriage, and let people decide for themselves who gets their crap when they die, or who holds power over them if they're in a coma, and all that.  And let's get rid of the tax benefits for "couples" altogether.  That should solve the whole "we want the same rights" issue.  Just get rid of special government rights for everyone.  I would prefer that to recognizing what I see as a deviant and invalid "marriage".<

We have a winnah!!!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 12, 2008, 09:09:45 PM
Quote
Anyway, we have civil unions now and the issue has died down significantly.
CA has civil unions now, and before Prop. 8, but like that does not matter.  The activist are acting like young children who do get their way and are having a temper tantrum.  This does not include the majority of the gay population

The majority of the gay community go around quietly living their lives like all other people do.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 12, 2008, 09:20:58 PM
Quote
CA has civil unions now, and before Prop. 8, but like that does not matter.

So what exactly did this Prop 8 do?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 09:43:51 PM
Quote
>and I don't want to open the door even further to things like greater involvement  of homosexuals with little children (including adoption)<

The optimum family environment is a father and a mother.  Of course there are single parent families for a multitude of reasons, and that is regrettable.  But we should not be encourage faulty family structures from the start.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 12, 2008, 09:49:02 PM
Quote
The optimum family environment is a father and a mother.  Of course there are single parent families for a multitude of reasons, and that is regrettable.  But we should not be encourage faulty family structures from the start.

Yeah because all of those kids adopted into homosexual families all turn into serial killers and other bad stuff.  ;/ They would be better adopted into a family that isn't going to love them just as long as they are a straight family.
No you see the optimum family environment is a loving home.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 12, 2008, 10:02:16 PM
Quote
So what exactly did this Prop 8 do?


From Wikipedia;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Quote
Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The title of the Proposition was changed from the original title by Jerry Brown to read "The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: GigaBuist on November 12, 2008, 10:15:53 PM
Quote
No you see the optimum family environment is a loving home.

I'm curious.  Can you adopt or foster children as a single person in California?  Can you do it anywhere?  If so then I don't see why people are getting their panties in a wad over gay folks adopting kids if they could just do it while single and living with a partner.

However, I doubt that's the case.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 10:52:42 PM
Yeah because all of those kids adopted into homosexual families all turn into serial killers and other bad stuff.  ;/ They would be better adopted into a family that isn't going to love them just as long as they are a straight family.
No you see the optimum family environment is a loving home.

Nice attempt at a straw man, but that isn't even close to what I said.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 12, 2008, 11:17:23 PM
So tell me why, exactly, gays in a loving committed relationship adopting kids would be necessarily bad? I seem to be having a sudden case of "dumb blonde" on this...


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 11:37:25 PM
You could use that same thing against blacks or women.


No, you can't.

All they wanted was equal treatment, not to, I don't know, redefine the term "white" to include every color in the rainbow or say that the biological sex "man" would no longer refer solely to persons with both an X and a Y chromosome.

The GLBT community, as a whole, are being hijacked away from perfectly equal civil unions into a demand to redefine the word "marriage".

That is not a parallel.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 12, 2008, 11:40:22 PM
*scratches head*

It wasn't the GLBT community that put Prop 8 on the ballot.

It is them that increasingly won't accept a perfectly equivalent "civil union" not called marriage but insisting on calling such a civil union a marriage that is creating much of the push-back from the larger community.

Again, I would bet they could have equal rights in a heartbeat if they would give up on the semantic demand.

The civil rights movement to get equal voting rights for blacks or women wasn't predicated on name changes, simply on true equality of practice.

Again, not a parallel.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 12, 2008, 11:47:31 PM
double post of fail


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 12, 2008, 11:50:07 PM
Quote
Nice attempt at a straw man,

Why thank you, :P

Quote
but that isn't even close to what I said.

Well care to explain to me how it isn't?

Quote
It is them that increasingly won't accept a perfectly equivalent "civil union" not called marriage but insisting on calling such a civl union a marriage that is creating much of the push-back from the community.

Well if it is done in a church then it is a marriage...? If it is done solely through the government then it is a civil union. The government should have no say in church dealings... badly worded but I think you can get what I mean.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 12, 2008, 11:53:26 PM
Were you trying to quote me?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 13, 2008, 12:06:07 AM
Yeah but I failed. Fixed it now lol :D


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 13, 2008, 12:07:01 AM
Why thank you, :P

Well if it is done in a church then it is a marriage...? If it is done solely through the government then it is a civil union. The government should have no say in church dealings... badly worded but I think you can get what I mean.

I am rapidly approaching the same position.

However,

If you are offered an identical product, except for the wrapper, and you reject it because the wrapper isn't the same, you lose the right to whine about not having the product at all.

A marriage is whatever the voting majority want to call it, if they decide that indeed there should be an equivalent thing called a civil union, as long as the treatment is absolutely equal and not separate, then take the civil union and go on with your lives.

Insisting on the same name, when that name already has a definition, and when that is the only difference in the result, is petulence.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 13, 2008, 12:14:30 AM
Quote
I am rapidly approaching the same position.

Excellent. And soon we shall win you over to the dark side.

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y233/mmiliard/mr_burns.gif)

 :lol: And with that I am off to bed.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 13, 2008, 05:47:50 AM
I'm with those posting here that think we should get government out of the marriage business all together.

As far as civil unions and adoptions I have never spoke out against them because it is none of my business.

When a group(s) co-opts government and makes religious institutions acknowledge gay "marriage" by force of law not to mention all the doors it opens for further attacks on cultural institutions then it becomes my business.

The gay marriage issue is a Trojan horse for the advancement of cultural Marxism.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 13, 2008, 06:25:33 AM
Most blacks in CA seem to have voted for Prop 8. Traditionally, homosexuality is viewed as a sin in the black community.

So why don't the "gay militant" activists attack a black baptist church in LA or something like they did the other church?

Because they know they'd be accused of hate crimes if they attacked anything but white people? Or because they know full well that the parishioners quite literally wouldn't stand for that ___, and they'd be bodily thrown out the door?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 13, 2008, 08:59:50 AM
Yeah because all of those kids adopted into homosexual families all turn into serial killers and other bad stuff.  ;/ They would be better adopted into a family that isn't going to love them just as long as they are a straight family.
No you see the optimum family environment is a loving home.

I would liken it to adopting out children to openly alcoholic folks. 

Both groups model bad behaviors that reduce their life spans, usually damage their relationships (familial & otherwise), have high rates of work absenteeism, have higher medical bills, and engage in other activities statistically shown to be risky.

Might be better than the foster-care system, but probably much worse than a group-home or orphanage situation.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 13, 2008, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: jfuser
I would liken it to adopting out children to openly alcoholic folks. 

Both groups model bad behaviors that reduce their life spans, usually damage their relationships (familial & otherwise), have high rates of work absenteeism, have higher medical bills, and engage in other activities statistically shown to be risky.

Might be better than the foster-care system, but probably much worse than a group-home or orphanage situation.

Is that true for stable GBLT couples as opposed to the general GBLT population? (not addressing if it's true for them, don't care)

When you go to adopt, they look for all those kinds of markers even as a heterosexual couple.  If they aren't there, the adoption goes through.

Is that statement conflating some GBLT's behavior with something implicit in their being?





Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 13, 2008, 12:04:14 PM
Why thank you, :P

Well care to explain to me how it isn't?

Well if it is done in a church then it is a marriage...? If it is done solely through the government then it is a civil union. The government should have no say in church dealings... badly worded but I think you can get what I mean.

Other than the fact that you quoted someone other than myself.  YOU are the one who made the comparison to serial killers.  Not me.

I stand by the fact that the best environment for raising children is one male and one female parent.  There are lessons, examples, different methods of interacting with children, that are part of that type of family that you do not get in single parent, or homosexual parent families.  Of course there are plenty of single parent families, and they mostly turn out ok.   But they got that way by happenstance, and they all at very least started with one man and one woman.  Adoption is a State authorized action.  It is the State creating a family.  And as such I do not believe that they should take part in the creating of less than optimum family structures.  It's one thing if 2 people have a child and break up.  The State did not create that situation.  But the State does have a big say in adoption.  And I think that means they should not actively promote the creating of families that are less then optimal from the start.

It's one thing for a child to be raised in a less than optimal family because that's the hand life delt them.  It's something entirely different for the Government to actively promote families without a father and a mother.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 13, 2008, 12:21:18 PM
Is that true for stable GBLT couples as opposed to the general GBLT population? (not addressing if it's true for them, don't care)

When you go to adopt, they look for all those kinds of markers even as a heterosexual couple.  If they aren't there, the adoption goes through.

Is that statement conflating some GBLT's behavior with something implicit in their being?

When I address homosexuality, I address behavior(s), as genetic causes can not be proved, given the number of possible genes involved.  The absolute best one could prove WRT homosexuality and genetics is correlation.  To repeat, this is a function of the large number of potential genetic contributors that make it impossible to show genetic causation to homosexual behavior.

Some may claim genetic causation, but that is a signal of that person's profound ignorance of the difficulties in assigning genetic causation to any sort of complex human behavior.

To bring it back to adoption, I would also prohibit heterosexual couples from adopting if they demonstrated such behavior.

As taurusowner wrote, adoptive families are an entirely voluntary, artificial construct of the state. 

Quote
Is that true for stable GBLT couples as opposed to the general GBLT population?

Do a little research on those "stable" couples.  The high-risk behavior is not attenuated by years-long couple status any more than heterosexual swinger couples' behavior is attenuated.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2008, 12:24:15 PM
Quote
Do a little research on those "stable" couples.  The high-risk behavior is not attenuated by years-long couple status any more than heterosexual swinger couples' behavior is attenuated.

And swinger couples are not the same as some random irresponsible crack-sluts.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 13, 2008, 12:41:56 PM
And swinger couples are not the same as some random irresponsible crack-sluts.

This might help:

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
analogy
Main Entry:
    analĚoĚgy Listen to the pronunciation of analogy
Pronunciation:
    \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function:
    noun
Inflected Form(s):
    plural analĚoĚgies
Date:
    15th century

1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4: correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin Ś compare homology

#2a, especially


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 13, 2008, 01:43:45 PM

Analogous, the two are not.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 13, 2008, 01:52:34 PM
Analogous, the two are not.

Wrong, you are. Similar characteristics, these have.

Blind you are to ignore them.

[/yoda off]


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: De Selby on November 13, 2008, 03:33:20 PM
Most blacks in CA seem to have voted for Prop 8. Traditionally, homosexuality is viewed as a sin in the black community.

So why don't the "gay militant" activists attack a black baptist church in LA or something like they did the other church?

Because they know they'd be accused of hate crimes if they attacked anything but white people? Or because they know full well that the parishioners quite literally wouldn't stand for that ___, and they'd be bodily thrown out the door?

Maybe it's because black churches don't decide the vote, since they are a minority of the electorate?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 13, 2008, 05:20:55 PM
Maybe it's because black churches don't decide the vote, since they are a minority of the electorate?

That isn't the point.

Okay, to play your game. Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, ARE the majority of the electorate there likely to be against homosexuality changing the institution of marriage.

Why don't they attack their churches?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: De Selby on November 13, 2008, 05:27:26 PM
That isn't the point.

Okay, to play your game. Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, ARE the majority of the electorate there likely to be against homosexuality changing the institution of marriage.

Why don't they attack their churches?

For one, because they aren't the majority in California.  It's also tricky because "white" and "hispanic" are overlapping categories there, so you'd have a hard time targeting which churches actually contain the voters you're after.

But I don't see how targeting protests at the groups more likely to have pull in the elections is a "game."  If you do target relatively powerless minorities, folks would wonder what your motivations were....because you're obviously not going to change election outcomes by targeting black baptists churches in California, so you must have some other idea in mind.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: gunsmith on November 13, 2008, 06:44:19 PM
I moved back to CA for economic reasons, (wish I hadn't) am stuck here for now.

But I know how the gays feel, my 2nd amendment rights are violated all the time.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 13, 2008, 07:42:47 PM
Maybe it's because black churches don't decide the vote, since they are a minority of the electorate?

They did this time, since the majority of the white voters voted against Prop 8.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 03:53:17 AM
Wrong, you are. Similar characteristics, these have.



The fact that swinger couples have N+1 sex partners does not mean that they're the same as random crack whores.

It's approximately the difference between the people who shoot guns into the air at parties (while heavily drunk) and, say, 3-gun competitors.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Hutch on November 14, 2008, 05:58:47 AM
I'm not sure I can offer any new insights, but I'd like to chime in, anyway.

I, like most of the "no to gay marriage" faction, do not care what consenting adults do in privacy.  At all.  I fully accept "their" absolute, inalienable, Constitutionally protected (see Am 9, and Am 10) right to engage in such behavior.  I don't approve of it, but my approval is not germaine to the question of rights.  No advertising, media blitz, popular culture icon, or pithy quote will convince me that homosexual behavior is okay, by whatever definition one assigns to "okay".  Okay?

If an employer only extends benefits to straight couples, so be it.  Employers have rights as well.  If Company A denies insurance bennies to same-sex couples, so be it.  If same-sex couples (hereafter: SSC) think that Company A is behaving "wrongly", then let the SSC's draw the public's attention to Company A policies.  Let the marketplace decide whether a "homo-antagonistic" company survives in the marketplace.  I also think employers should be free to discriminate (in the classic sense of the word) against anyone they choose, as far as employment is concerned.  With sufficient exposure of this practice, and with a sufficiently free market in employment, either the company changes, dies, or prospers.

All that being said, other than employee benefit issues, what measurable, tangible benefit do SSC's receive from calling their relationship a "marriage"? 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 14, 2008, 06:02:53 AM
The fact that swinger couples have N+1 sex partners does not mean that they're the same as random crack whores.

It's approximately the difference between the people who shoot guns into the air at parties (while heavily drunk) and, say, 3-gun competitors.

In this case you are referencing the wrong analogy. The similarities exist between swingers and homosexual couples, NOT random crack whores.


Title: "When Queers Attack #3:" Target Grandmothers and Stomp on Crosses
Post by: roo_ster on November 14, 2008, 06:12:46 AM
Oh, yeah, here's a good way to make friends & influence people.  First, deliberately desecrate the religious symbol of a peaceful protester, then howl like queer wolves around the old lady, knocking her about with your campaign signs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHL9NZ1lQQ&eurl=http://thegroundgameblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/california-cross-stomping.html




Title: "When Queers Attack #4" White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA
Post by: roo_ster on November 14, 2008, 06:18:26 AM
Woo-hoo, way to step up the campaign!  Those dirty Joos Mormons need to be put in their place.

By the end of all this, perhaps SCOTUS will overturn Lawrence v Texas.



Quote from: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081114/D94EEP9O2.html
White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA


LOS ANGELES (AP) - Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California.

Authorities are looking into several theories on who sent the letters and why, Pack said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to Washington lawmakers and media outlets killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Periodic hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up since then but usually prove harmless.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 14, 2008, 06:22:04 AM
And still, they only attack almost-entirely-white churches, because it's the only acceptable target to the violent left. They know they'd be hoist with their own petard if they attacked the churches of any of the other racial groups that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8. If they attacked a black congregation, if they attacked a Spanish mass... 

They're also cowards.

White? Christian? Acceptable target, no repercussions.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on November 14, 2008, 07:02:12 AM
Quote
Maybe it's because black churches don't decide the vote, since they are a minority of the electorate?
Aren't the Mormons a minority of the vote, most everywhere outside of Utah?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Racehorse on November 14, 2008, 07:32:02 AM
Aren't the Mormons a minority of the vote, most everywhere outside of Utah?

Yes, Mormons are a tiny minority of the vote in California. Blacks, hispanics, and a variety of churches that helped to pass Prop. 8 make up a much larger percentage. Mormons, however, are by far the safest target.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 14, 2008, 07:51:03 AM
Quote
Yes, Mormons are a tiny minority of the vote in California. Blacks, hispanics, and a variety of churches that helped to pass Prop. 8 make up a much larger percentage. Mormons, however, are by far the safest target.
Cowards have a way of picking targets that they think won't fight back.  Sometimes they are wrong though.

The perfect way to stop a lot of these demonstrations is for the news services to give them just a mention in the news, not a big news splash.

Everyone that went into that church should have been charged with something.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 14, 2008, 07:58:50 AM
Cowards have a way of picking targets that they think won't fight back.  Sometimes they are wrong though.

The perfect way to stop a lot of these demonstrations is for the news services to give them just a mention in the news, not a big news splash.

Everyone that went into that church should have been charged with something.

Like I said. Attacking white Christians is not a hate crime.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2008, 08:57:28 AM
seems like the older queen needs an assault charge at least.  great way to make society see how you should be embraced by the mainstream.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 14, 2008, 09:23:37 AM
Quote
Oh, yeah, here's a good way to make friends & influence people.  First, deliberately desecrate the religious symbol of a peaceful protester, then howl like queer wolves around the old lady, knocking her about with your campaign signs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHL9NZ1lQQ&eurl=http://thegroundgameblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/california-cross-stomping.html

Funny, I didn't see any of the things you mentioned. I heard a bunch of slogan chanting and saw that one guy yelling at the lady. "howling like queer wolves", give me a freaking break  ;/ And where where they knocking her about with their campaign signs, or desecrating religious symbols? Also hate speech is not peacefully protesting.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 14, 2008, 09:35:31 AM
Funny, I didn't see any of the things you mentioned. I heard a bunch of slogan chanting and saw that one guy yelling at the lady. "howling like queer wolves", give me a freaking break  ;/ And where where they knocking her about with their campaign signs, or desecrating religious symbols? Also hate speech is not peacefully protesting.

AWESOME! All we have to do is get the views of everyone who disagrees with us classified as "hate speech."

Freakazoid, you're a GENIUS! That's the perfect way to shut up those poor souls still in need of enlightenment!

We can shut their views out of the schools too! It's a PERFECT PLAN.



















Or, perhaps, even if you don't like what people are saying, they are still peaceful protestors until they, you know, ACT OUT VIOLENTLY?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2008, 09:36:01 AM
funny  i'm 1/2 blind and saw em knock the cross outa her hands and stomp it. same loudmouthed queen


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 14, 2008, 10:06:36 AM
Quote
AWESOME! All we have to do is get the views of everyone who disagrees with us classified as "hate speech."

Freakazoid, you're a GENIUS! That's the perfect way to shut up those poor souls still in need of enlightenment!

We can shut their views out of the schools too! It's a PERFECT PLAN.

Or, perhaps, even if you don't like what people are saying, they are still peaceful protestors until they, you know, ACT OUT VIOLENTLY?

So if this was a neo-nazi event would you be saying the same thing to people protesting the neo-nazis in the same manner, yelling at them and stuff like we saw that one guy doing? Or do the neo-nazis have to be violent first? I say no, because it is hate speech, doesn't matter if they are being "peaceful" because hate speech is violence. People who would have there rights taken away because of how they are born have a right to react violently.

Quote
funny  i'm 1/2 blind and saw em knock the cross outa her hands and stomp it. same loudmouthed queen

Just re-watched it. Didn't catch that that was even her, probably because of the not so great quality and that someone was holding a sign in front of it. It looks to me like someone came running up and tried to tear the sign out of the guys hand who was holding it in front of the cross. It looks to me like right after the guy tries to pull down the protesters sign that someone pushes on the cross from behind, and it wasn't the "queen" who was yelling earlier, although he did take that as an opportunity to stomp on it. It is right at 2:34 that the guy comes up and tries to pull the sign out of his hand and right then someone else from behind pushes on the cross. Also, yeah you never see this sort of behavior in anyone but those evil gays,  ;/

To quote one of the  comment on the youtube vid, "Walk into a crowd that you strongly oppose. Hold up a symbol to insight hate and you're surprised that this symbol is snatched out of your hand and trampled on..." And "


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 10:10:23 AM
Quote
Oh, yeah, here's a good way to make friends & influence people.  First, deliberately desecrate the religious symbol of a peaceful protester, then howl like queer wolves around the old lady, knocking her about with your campaign signs.

Well-poisoning.

That some gays behaved violently towards some Christian protesters somewhere is no more a valid argument against gay marriage than the the activities of Fred Phelps - a valid argument of Christianity.

Quote
We can shut their views out of the schools too! It's a PERFECT PLAN.

Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society. Racism. Communism. Fascism. And yes, gay-hating.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 14, 2008, 10:16:41 AM
Quote
Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society... Communism

:*(


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2008, 10:17:51 AM
 the folks in that crowd do their "cause" no good.  if you wanted poster children for what folks dislike about the gblt crowd those folks will do


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 10:19:15 AM
:*(

Think of statist communism, here.

We just had a fellow where I live run for a mayor of a city on a platform of *banning the construction of high-rise buildings* to *cut appartment costs*. CPI member.

The world would be a a better place if people like that were laughed at.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 14, 2008, 10:48:49 AM
Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society. Racism. Communism. Fascism. And yes, gay-hating.

You're right. Let's hunt down these people, drag them out and stone them!

Freaking haters, I wish they were all dead.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 10:52:08 AM
You're right. Let's hunt down these people, drag them out and stone them!

Freaking haters, I wish they were all dead.

Hunt down? What?

Here:

I do not respect Klansmen. I will not teach my child, if I ever have one, that racial hatred is a good idea. This does not mean, no matter how hard you try to spin it, that I support imprisoning these people for their views.

I have the right to choose the books I read, to determine the content of my children's education, and to respect (or not) whom I choose.

People have the right to express their views. I however have the right to approve, or disapprove, of their views. They do not have a right to my respect merely by the virtue of having an opinion.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 14, 2008, 10:52:38 AM
I didn't see any "gay hating" going on.

Quote
I think certain views should not be respected in decent society
That is fine when your guys are in power, what happens when folks who think religion is dangerous, think that homeschooling subverts the society and that gun ownership advocates are dangerous get in power.

Free speech has two components, speech and FREE.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 14, 2008, 10:54:25 AM
Well-poisoning.

That some gays behaved violently towards some Christian protesters somewhere is no more a valid argument against gay marriage than the the activities of Fred Phelps - a valid argument of Christianity.

Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society. Racism. Communism. Fascism. And yes, gay-hating.

The problem is that to this sort, you're not even allowed to say that you do not approve of homosexuals or their lifestyle. No, you must ENDORSE and EMBRACE their lifestyle, or you're a "hater".

So be it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 10:54:33 AM
I didn't see any "gay hating" going on.



I did not say any was going on in this thread. But I do say that there are entities who engage in such hating and that such entities are not worthy of respect.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 14, 2008, 10:55:49 AM
I did not say any was going on in this thread. But I do say that there are entities who engage in such hating and that such entities are not worthy of respect.

I agree about not respecting them.

I was editing while you posted


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 14, 2008, 11:05:24 AM
Hunt down? What?

Here:

I do not respect Klansmen. I will not teach my child, if I ever have one, that racial hatred is a good idea. This does not mean, no matter how hard you try to spin it, that I support imprisoning these people for their views.

I have the right to choose the books I read, to determine the content of my children's education, and to respect (or not) whom I choose.

People have the right to express their views. I however have the right to approve, or disapprove, of their views. They do not have a right to my respect merely by the virtue of having an opinion.

Perhaps you will note that in my orignal piece of sarcasm, I included a serious statement about how disingenious it is to claim someone is not a peaceful protester because you disagree with their position, calling it "hate".

I very much agree people have the right to their own views. I don't think I get to shut them down simply because I dislike them.

Freakazoid suggested that by claiming anyone who is protesting in "hate" is not a peaceful protestor and deserves to be assaulted.

Your post then came to his defense; I, therefore, assumed you agreed with this position.

I completely agree people have the right to determine what their children are taught and what they themselves believe. This is the entire arguement we are having. Just as gun owners are aware that gun registration is not the final goal of their opponents, those who oppose "gay rights" realize it's not about being allowed to do as they wish. It's about forcing everyone to accept and approve of what they do.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 14, 2008, 11:11:30 AM
That some gays behaved violently towards some Christian protesters somewhere is no more a valid argument against gay marriage than the the activities of Fred Phelps - a valid argument of Christianity.


that might be true if the gay community rejected those who act poorly, like most christians reject phelps. they don't


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 11:15:32 AM
Let me say here, for disclosure sake, that I am bisexual ľ in the clinical sense of being sexually attracted to both males and females. I do not, unfortunately, enjoy hanging out with other 'LGBT' people because I find their personal habits and fashion personally disturbing.

That said, I believe there are two lines of attack to protecting people's  right to a given behavior ľ on one hand, you must make it legal, and on the other, you must use the power of persuasion to make it socially acceptable at least to some extent, or your legality will be an empty shell.

The problem with these people is not that they are gay, as many people seemed to suggest in this thread, but that they are leftists.

Leftists, I remind you, believe that freedom isn't just about 'negative rights' (being protected from government action), but about the government coming in and assuring your 'positive rights' (assuring you receive the same social position as people who do not share your gayness or whatever).

It is part of legitimate activism to protest anti-gay restaurants or churches. However, once you start asking the government to destroy these people, or using violence to assure 'positive rights', then you are actually acting AGAINST freedom.

However, where I disagree with you is in your judgment that this immoral behavior is a function of their homosexuality).

I believe firmly that the number one corrupting and immoral factor in Western civilization is not sex of any kind, but rather statism.

It has corrupted to the point of being insalvageable multiple independence and liberation movements throughout the globe. The LGBT rights movement, feminism, anti-racist and national liberation movements, all have been affected by the cancer of the State.

The fact that a lot of LGBT people cling to the State as their protector from intolerance, however, should not serve as an argument against my prime suggestion:

Namely, that government should recognize the union contracts between gays.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 14, 2008, 11:35:11 AM
By normalizing gay unions under the same set of jurisprudence that has been constructed for traditional marriage you open up a can of worms.

First off, Churches most likely will be forced to recognized and possibly perform gay marriage.

Churches are corporations and subject to all the rules government imposes on us, whether it goes against their beliefs or not.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 14, 2008, 11:36:48 AM
Quote
Namely, that government should recognize the union contracts between gays.
In CA that is called civil unions, which give all the rights of marriage, but for some reason the leftist in the gay community just are not going to accept.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 14, 2008, 12:12:29 PM
Quote
  Just as gun owners are aware that gun registration is not the final goal of their opponents, those who oppose "gay rights" realize it's not about being allowed to do as they wish. It's about forcing everyone to accept and approve of what they do.

  Just as gun owners are aware that gun registration is not the final goal of their opponents, those who oppose "interracial marriage rights" realize it's not about being allowed to do as they wish. It's about forcing everyone to accept and approve of what they do.

Quote
First off, Churches most likely will be forced to recognized and possibly perform gay marriage.

Well if we would get the government out of the marriage business then it wouldn't be a problem. I think that that is what people of the GLBT group need to focus on.

Quote
In CA that is called civil unions, which give all the rights of marriage, but for some reason the leftist in the gay community just are not going to accept.

So did Prop 8 then make it illegal for churches to marry homosexuals?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 14, 2008, 12:21:36 PM
>All that being said, other than employee benefit issues, what measurable, tangible benefit do SSC's receive from calling their relationship a "marriage"? <

Little thing, like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital (or, I suppose, prison), inheritance, power of attorney. All those things that automatically happen when straights marry, but require major work with an attorney for a gay couple.

 I think that's a large part of why I favor some sort of civil union procedure, used to join together any group of two or more consenting adults. If you wish to get "married" in a church, you need to follow that church's rules on being married. The way things stand now in most of the US, gay couples have to jump through extra hoops to get the same protections: this is in no way "equal"...


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 14, 2008, 12:25:59 PM
Quote
Just as gun owners are aware that gun registration is not the final goal of their opponents, those who oppose "interracial marriage rights" realize it's not about being allowed to do as they wish. It's about forcing everyone to accept and approve of what they do.

Around and around she goes, where it stops, nobody knows!

Hasn't the whole "Gays are just like blacks!" been argued in this thread already?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 14, 2008, 12:38:14 PM
Hasn't the whole "Gays are just like blacks!" been argued in this thread already?

That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 14, 2008, 12:40:16 PM
That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

Fine. "Gays are just like Christians".

Also, gays used to be routinely imprisoned in many countries.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 14, 2008, 04:03:20 PM
Quote
Also, gays used to be routinely imprisoned in many countries.
I do believe the gays are still executed in Islam countries.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 14, 2008, 08:16:35 PM
I say no, because it is hate speech, doesn't matter if they are being "peaceful" because hate speech is violence. People who would have there rights taken away because of how they are born have a right to react violently.

Your "Reality-O-Meter" is giving you faulty data.

1. Speech is not violence, violence is violence.  Perhaps you could perform an experiment one day to finally nail that one down to your satisfaction:
Person A upbraiding you in the vilest terms.
Person B beating the snot out of you with a baseball bat.

Person A is speaking and causes no physical harm to you.  Person B may very well kill you or put you in the hospital by using this esoteric concept called, "violence."

2. Prove the folks who did the assaulting, cross-stomping, and howling were "born that way."  You will not find the science to prove causation.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 14, 2008, 08:37:20 PM
Well-poisoning.

That some gays behaved violently towards some Christian protesters somewhere is no more a valid argument against gay marriage than the the activities of Fred Phelps - a valid argument of Christianity.

Here's a hint, Makattak. I think certain views should not be respected in decent society. Racism. Communism. Fascism. And yes, gay-hating.

So what do you do when the biggest religion in the nation, and one of the biggest in the world, teaches that homosexuality is a sin?  Since the Left has already convinced the country that simple disagreement in regards to homosexuality is automatically hatred, even if it isn't really hatred; how do you "not tolerate" that?  Do you have laws against that religion?  Laws against reading those particular passages in that religion's book?  Laws against teaching those beliefs in church?

How do you not tolerate disagreement with homosexuality when it is specifically part of the dominant religion's beliefs, in a nation with freedom of religion?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 14, 2008, 08:45:29 PM
That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

To be fair, none of the blacks in this country have been slaves either.*




*Unless they immigrated here from some 3rd world country where they really were slaves.  But not slaves in the US in any case.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 14, 2008, 09:59:17 PM
Quote
That is an absolute BS argument. It seriously annoys blacks, too.

Gays have never been slaves unless they asked for it on Craigslist.

Did I compare it to slavery? I don't remember doing that, what I remember doing is comparing not allowing gays to marry is the same as not allowing blacks and whites to marry. But even if I was to compare it to the whole of the black oppression, and not just one part, it still works to my favor. Ok, back when blacks where openly being oppressed someone might compare it to the oppression of the Jews. But then someone who felt that blacks didn't get the same rights for some ignorant reason might say something to the effect of, "They can't compare themselves to the Jews, they have never been sent to concentration camps and gassed."  ;/ Because you see, some groups of people have always had it worse than another at some time. But that doesn't make it ok to oppress them and take away there rights.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 04:54:00 AM
So, how about Jewish/Gentile marriages?

These are not allowed in Israel. Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question, and follow the rules of the given religion ľ which, de-facto, means the Muslims do their own thing, and the Jews must bring a rabbi to their ceremony (and pay him lots of money). Naturally, the purpose of this is to give money and power to the Rabbinate.

The result is that as a Jew, I cannot legally marry 2swap. I can marry her abroad (and the marriage will be recognized, and in fact even a GAY marriage done abroad will be recognized), and if I apply for a marriage license with Rabbinate and hold a copy of the rejection, I can marry her at the German embassy.  But a marriage in-country? No sir.

Me ľ and practically everybody else in the secular population of this country ľ are quite annoyed about  this. I can understand why people are annoyed by not being able to marry their male partners, too.

And yet, of course, some people argue that since I can somehow jury-rig a marriage together by going to foreign embassies, then this makes it okay.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 15, 2008, 06:33:07 AM
Quote
Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question,
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Man and woman CAN be married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge or, by a ship's captain if you are at sea. Nothing religious needed.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 06:34:16 AM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Man and woman CAN be married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge or, by a ship's captain if you are at sea. Nothing religious needed.


In *your* country. Not in mine.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 15, 2008, 06:36:48 AM
Quote
In *your* country. Not in mine.
Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 06:45:17 AM
Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.

I'm trying to understand if you're genuinely misunderstanding me, or joking.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 15, 2008, 09:32:34 AM
Quote
These are not allowed in Israel. Under our laws, marriage must involve the religious ceremony in question,...

Quote
In *your* country. Not in mine.
Well, we are talking about California law in this blog.

Quote
I'm trying to understand if you're genuinely misunderstanding me, or joking.
Perhaps I missed something in what you mean, but in CA you do not need a religious ceremony to be recognized by the state as joined in matrimony.
The religious ceremony is what most people choose, but not necessary to be reognized by the state.

We are talking about CA law, notTX, not Israel, just CA.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 09:34:49 AM
Quote
Perhaps I missed something in what you mean

Yes, you did.

Here's my point:

People in this thread say that gay people are being petty/childish in demanding recognition for their unions.

I pointed out that as someone who knows exactly what it means to be blocked by law from being married, I know what these people feel like. It's not petty or childish.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 15, 2008, 10:14:19 AM
Quote
People in this thread say that gay people are being petty/childish in demanding recognition for their unions.
They do have Civil Unions, which are for practical purposes are reconized by the state, just as the civil unions by the none gay community are recognized by the state.

There is a great fear that if the state forces the us to recognize "marriage" in   the gay community, then no church can refuse to marry them, regardless of the church teachings.   

Also it may open the door for more and more types of "marriages", such as polygamy, beastiality marriage, child marriage, close relationship marriage, you name it, they will try for it.





Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 10:28:37 AM
You forgot the famous non-animate object marriage.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 15, 2008, 12:27:31 PM
You forgot the famous non-animate object marriage.

You jest, but somebody, somewhere is getting his legal brief honed to sue for it, if gay marriage is allowed to go forward.

Just as the others listed have sued for the right to marry everything and anything that moves or has a pulse.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 12:31:19 PM
You jest, but somebody, somewhere is getting his legal brief honed to sue for it, if gay marriage is allowed to go forward.

Just as the others listed have sued for the right to marry everything and anything that moves or has a pulse.

I have already said it in this thread: I favor the legalization of consensual polygamy. If you want to marry him/her, and she/he consents, go ahead, I really don't care.

If they're not able to sign a contract - children, the insane, inanimate objects - they obviously cannot be parties to a marriage agreement.

P.S. LINE MARRIAGES NAO.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 02:27:08 PM
Micro (and everyone else),

Set aside emotion, you have to in this case.  Love is irrelevent to the law.

Micro,

How can recognizing polygamy "equal treatment under the law" compared to 2 person couples of any mix be lawful?

State recognition of marriage has nothing to do with "sanctifying" anything, the state is secular and cannot sanctify.  State recognition can only bestow legal rights upon the members of a willing contract. 

If such rights are, say, access to health or retirement benefits, should a polygamous marriage involving 4 people get twice as much cash or cash-equivalent benefit as a more traditional 2 person couple?

How would you defend the discrimination if not?

Why then would people not marry 4 or 6 or 10 others for their fiduciary benefit?  Remember, the state doesn't care (or have any way to prove or disprove) if you are "in love", just that you are willing to become contractually liable to each other.

The only rational state response would then be to remove all said benefits from every married set and in fact destroy "marriage" as a legal term.

"Marriage" would be simply a societal construct with no legal meaning or binding.



This is 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 02:35:10 PM
Quote
If such rights are, say, access to health or retirement benefits, should a polygamous marriage involving 4 people get twice as much cash or cash-equivalent benefit as a more traditional 2 person couple?

I don't really understand.

If you saved for your retirement, or that of your spouse, shouldn't it be your own business how many spouses to support?

If you're living on welfare, then it doesn't really matter if you're supporting three welfare couples or a welfare-family of six, does it not?

What kind of fiduciary benefit would any of the members of this family derive from this?

Quote
The only rational state response would then be to remove all said benefits from every married set and in fact destroy "marriage" as a legal term.

The big stuff would be inheritance, manipulation of joint bank accounts, and citizenship.

But yeah, getting the government out of marriage is the best solution.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 02:44:53 PM
I don't really understand.

If you saved for your retirement, or that of your spouse, shouldn't it be your own business how many spouses to support?

If you're living on welfare, then it doesn't really matter if you're supporting three welfare couples or a welfare-family of six, does it not?

What kind of fiduciary benefit would any of the members of this family derive from this?

The big stuff would be inheritance, manipulation of joint bank accounts, and citizenship.

But yeah, getting the government out of marriage is the best solution.

Marriage laws impact pensions as well.  Should my taxes have to support 3 partners after retirement for any one state employee?  Should I have to provide subsidized dental or eye care for 4 adults during their lives?

I know your government has pension and health plans as well, the employees contribution is seldom even close to half of the true cost.

Once you start redefining marriage from where it is now, you lose any logical legal ability to restrict it to just two.  That is the unintended consequence all these folks caught up in "fairness and emotion" rather than reason are missing.

The only reason marriage at the government level is limited to two persons is because of the traditional Western definition of marriage of one man and one woman.  Discard the historical definition and you lose any legal reasoning to keep it at just two persons at all, as the definition becomes completely arbitrary, without the currently used weight of Western European and common law history to back it.

(Western Common law cultures are the only relevent ones to definitions of our Western Common law-based legal system, the fact that some village in Lower Backwardistan has a history of legal polyamory is meaningless.)


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 02:58:34 PM
Quote
I know your government has pension and health plans as well, the employees contribution is seldom even close to half of the true cost.

My government simply doesn't work that way.

And no, you don't even want to know how it works.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Ron on November 15, 2008, 03:11:11 PM
The destruction of the classical western world society and culture is what this is all about.

It is seen as some form of cultural evolution by the Marxists.

They actually believe they can destroy the engine of prosperity (capitalism) and and still continue on successfully. 


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 03:14:48 PM
My government simply doesn't work that way.

And no, you don't even want to know how it works.

Well, California does, as do most municipalities, states and the Federal government.

Once the door opens on this thing, if the law is to be consistent, rational and non-arbitrary, we are going to end up with the government completely out of the marriage business and some sort of universal bastardized civil compact being created to deal with any children.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 03:16:22 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism?

I know it has to do with it for some of the modern leftists, but nobody here is a social-democrat leftist.

Really hard-core leftists are actually even against pornography , because they claim the modern attitudes to sex are inherently capitalist. Soviet laws on sex were far more strict than anything America had in the last century.

If anything, more sexual permissiveness is MORE capitalist.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 15, 2008, 03:30:10 PM
Quote
we are going to end up with the government completely out of the marriage business

This is bad?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 03:34:11 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism?

I know it has to do with it for some of the modern leftists, but nobody here is a social-democrat leftist.

Really hard-core leftists are actually even against pornography , because they claim the modern attitudes to sex are inherently capitalist. Soviet laws on sex were far more strict than anything America had in the last century.

If anything, more sexual permissiveness is MORE capitalist.

A question for you since you are making the mistake of conflating two absolutely distinct topics.

What does lawful sexual permissiveness, which we already have in the states, have to do with state recognition of marriage and the legal and economic ramifications thereof?

Remember, state law about marriage doesn't mention love or a particular sex act anywhere in the text.

That's the key to remember.  The gay marriage issue isn't about love or sex or anything else, gays are free to do whatever the hell they want in that regard.  They can even have non-state recognized "marriages" where they privately pledge love and devotion to each other.

Furthermore, in California right at this moment, they can even get the exact same rights as a married hetero couple.

All they can't do in Cali, due now to Prop. 8, is to get the state to use the actual word "marriage" in reference to their civil union.

That's it.

It's all well and good for folks to talk about "love is love" and other trite phraseology, but that doesn't address the actual legal (not moral) and economic issues at hand.

We need to take emotion out of the discussion, it is actually counter-productive to finding a solution.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 03:34:59 PM
This is bad?

Well, either we allow some political side legislate their sexual choices (based on notions of 'third-wave feminism', 'socialism', or 'family values'), or we get the government out of the marriage business.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 03:39:45 PM
This is bad?

I'm rapidly leaning in the direction it wouldn't be bad at all.

Set up civil contracts to cover inheritance, children, rights of survivorship etc. like a beefier will, removing any moral or traditional verbage from the text, do not force any private entity to grant any privileges thereby and only allow gov't. benefits for the actual employee and we'd be shed of the problem.

If people want to jump a broom, or walk down an aisle, or howl naked at the full moon in a grove at midnight they can call that ceremony and private relationship whatever they want.

To the state, if they choose to formalize it, they have a Type M contract with each other, enforceable under its terms in civil court, plain and simple.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 03:40:38 PM
Quote
A question for you since you are making the mistake of conflating two absolutely distinct topics.

I am replying specifically to Ron's comment that 'the gays' are out to destroy Western civilization'.

Quote
What does lawful sexual permissiveness, which we already have in the states, have to do with state recognition of marriage and the legal and economic ramifications thereof?

According to your post, a civil union provides gays couples with the same privileges as a marriage. In that case, how are the legal and economic ramifications of such a union different from those of a marriage?

Note that I have not used the term 'love' anywhere in this thread as a justification for recognition of marriage by the government.  I have only used it once, as a justification for recognition of marriage by private individuals.

You are attacking a strawman.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 15, 2008, 03:46:48 PM
I am replying specifically to Ron's comment that 'the gays' are out to destroy Western civilization'.

According to your post, a civil union provides gays couples with the same privileges as a marriage. In that case, how are the legal and economic ramifications of such a union different from those of a marriage?

Note that I have not used the term 'love' anywhere in this thread as a justification for recognition of marriage by the government.  I have only used it once, as a justification for recognition of marriage by private individuals.

You are attacking a strawman.

I'm not attacking at all.  =)

You mentioned sexual permissiveness, that is irrelevent, just reiterating that.

The topic at hand is recognition by the government, nobody has to recognize private ceremonies.  There's no use mentioning those at all.

So all we need to talk about is govt. recogntion.

The issue with civil unions is that there is no consistent legal basis to limit them to two people or to deny them to related persons.

If you can't legally justify limiting them to two persons, you open such contracts to multiple partners.

Given the current state of the law in the USA, that could impact the nation, state and its citizens financially.

That's how it impacts capitalism.

Again, not attacking you.

You just really need to confine your argument to the topic at hand, talking about theory without the actual context of Prop. 8, in California, in the USA, just confuses the issue.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 04:08:39 PM
Quote
You just really need to confine your argument to the topic at hand, talking about theory without the actual context of Prop. 8, in California, in the USA, just confuses the issue.

I mentioned sexual permissiveness because people on this threat spoke about it posing a threat to civilization somehow.

Quote
Given the current state of the law in the USA, that could impact the nation, state and its citizens financially.

And the financial issues related are a completely separate issue.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 15, 2008, 04:20:07 PM
And the financial issues related are a completely separate issue.


no
they are part and parcel   in fact the finance is the biggest sticking point


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: DustinD on November 15, 2008, 05:09:25 PM
If polyamorous people are not trying to get their civil unions recognised, why would they start trying to get their marriages recognised?



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 15, 2008, 05:16:27 PM
Hmmm... seems like the major sticking point with the finances is something that needs to be fixed anyway.

 If company A offers a bennie package that includes covering gay (or multiple) partners, while company B will only recognize "one man one woman" for bennies, than it would seem to me that we have market forces at play.

 Maybe how about get the government out of the equation completely? Oh, wait... that's been suggested!


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 15, 2008, 05:19:32 PM
Hmmm... seems like the major sticking point with the finances is something that needs to be fixed anyway.

 If company A offers a bennie package that includes covering gay (or multiple) partners, while company B will only recognize "one man one woman" for bennies, than it would seem to me that we have market forces at play.

 Maybe how about get the government out of the equation completely? Oh, wait... that's been suggested!

Company B would be charged with hate crimes, if leftists had their way.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 15, 2008, 05:21:18 PM
A statement which adds nothing to the discussion. Instead, it muddies the waters.

 We're discussing the issue of "gay marriage" and civil unions. "Hate crimes" and "hate speech" should probably be put in another thread, as the current topic is muddy enough already.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 15, 2008, 05:23:12 PM
A statement which adds nothing to the discussion. Instead, it muddies the waters.

 We're discussing the issue of "gay marriage" and civil unions. "Hate crimes" and "hate speech" should probably be put in another thread, as the current topic is muddy enough already.

I think it's part and parcel. You are literally not allowed to object to the concept in public, or you're called "hateful".


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 15, 2008, 05:23:24 PM
 If company A offers a bennie package that includes covering gay (or multiple) partners, while company B will only recognize "one man one woman" for bennies, than it would seem to me that we have market forces at play.

but in reality we have the government mandating all companies go broke equally fast


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 15, 2008, 05:24:22 PM
Which, as I said, means maybe we should work on changing that lil' item... ;)


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 15, 2008, 05:30:19 PM
i disagree about being branded a hater. i have a whole circle of gay clients and i met the first couple by arguing about gay marriage with em on the net.  they say i'm their token compassionate conservative


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 15, 2008, 07:16:01 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a fact that throughout Americas history,  marriage was between one man and one woman, with the exception of the Morman religion?   And the Mormon plural marriages were not recognized by the government.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 15, 2008, 10:42:56 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a fact that throughout Americas history,  marriage was between one man and one woman, with the exception of the Morman religion?   And the Mormon plural marriages were not recognized by the government.

Yes (although there were many incidents of polygamy outside the Mormons, with various communities and Christian sects, as well as Native American tribes, favoring variations on the theme).

However, what does that mean?

Just because something was done that way for years doesn't mean we should keep doing it that way.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 16, 2008, 07:01:12 AM
Just because something was done that way for years doesn't mean we should keep doing it that way.

Like the Constitutution? Gee, what groups have I just recently heard that from?

Eventually, most people grow up and realize that there are very good reasons why their wise elders and ancestors kept doing something a certain way, that they don't automatically know better than generations of ancestors just because they're young.

And some people never grow out of that. They voted for "change".


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 16, 2008, 07:05:24 AM
Quote
Like the Constitutution? Gee, what groups have I just recently heard that from?

The Constitution is law. It's still in force. We can, however, consider amending it, which is a completely legitimate discussion. We can criticize it, which is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate is what the leftists do, namely ignore it.

Quote
Eventually, most people grow up and realize that there are very good reasons why their wise elders and ancestors kept doing something a certain way, that they don't automatically know better than generations of ancestors just because they're young.

And said ancestors don't automatically know better than me because they were here before me.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 16, 2008, 07:22:00 AM
The Constitution is law. It's still in force. We can, however, consider amending it, which is a completely legitimate discussion. We can criticize it, which is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate is what the leftists do, namely ignore it.


in this case it was amended and the heroes are angry

"And said ancestors don't automatically know better than me because they were here before me."  not automatically  but if you put it before a jury you might not like the results.  but i bet your a "majority of one" guy


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 16, 2008, 07:25:52 AM
Quote
in this case it was amended and the heroes are angry

Apparently it is not okay to criticize the majority. Also, the actions of these guys in California definitely reflect upon my own character, despite the fact I was not there.

Quote
but if you put it before a jury you might not like the results. 

What do juries have to do with it?

Manedwolf argued that stuff that's been legislated ages ago should not be changed because the old dudes were really really smart somehow. That I disagree with it doesn't mean I will not obey the law.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 16, 2008, 07:31:12 AM
i was referring to putting this question "And said ancestors don't automatically know better than me because they were here before me"  before a jury


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: taurusowner on November 16, 2008, 09:35:17 AM
A statement which adds nothing to the discussion. Instead, it muddies the waters.

 We're discussing the issue of "gay marriage" and civil unions. "Hate crimes" and "hate speech" should probably be put in another thread, as the current topic is muddy enough already.

You seem to be operating under the impression that the leftists have benign and noble motivations.  You seem to think that the only thing they care about is being treated "equal" by the state.  That is simply not the case.  Even if they succeeded in getting gay marriage, name and all, they would not be satisfied.  So long are they are people who do not personally agree with their behavior, the left will attack those people.  So long as there are religions that teach that homosexuality is deviant, the left will attack said religions.  You seem to think this is a battle over "equal" state protections.  It's not.  It's a battle in which that side wants to ruin and stamp out anyone who disagrees with them in their minds, even if they are treated the same.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 16, 2008, 09:45:29 AM
What is it about 'the left'?

Not everybody who agrees with these people on this one issue is a leftist


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 16, 2008, 10:38:05 AM
>You seem to be operating under the impression that the leftists have benign and noble motivations.  You seem to think that the only thing they care about is being treated "equal" by the state.  That is simply not the case.<

Not at all: I know just how twisted some leftists are. However, trying to discuss every failing they have, in a thread that was about "gay marriage", just muddies the waters...

 Personally, I love the idea of passing an omnibus bill at the federal level, called the "Full Faith and Credit Act of 2009". It would do exactly 2 things:

1) Force all states to recognize concealed carry permits from any other state

2) Force all states to recognize marriage liscenses (or civil union paperwork) from any other state

Both (to my mind) are full faith & credit clause issues. And yes, it IS still a question of "equality": for two people of the same sex to enjoy the same protections as a "straight" couple, they have to jump through numerous hoops and spend loads of money (as opposed to Spoon & I, who simply paid the JP $75 or so). That's an inequality: one group has a special status because of a perceived benefit to society (and one that is becoming less and less real).


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 16, 2008, 11:00:19 AM
Strings,

The only justification for limiting marriage to "two people" under the law rests on the dominant Western tradition of marriage being "two persons, one man, one woman, not related".

If that traditional basis is determined to be insufficient to justify the "man and woman" part, it will be equally deficient to determine the "only two people" and "not related" parts.

What arbitrary, yet rational and legally defensible, reason will we be able to come up with to legally justify denying a legal marraige to more than two persons or to blood relations under equal protection theory?

We can't really use "genetic risks to children" as, by allowing couples physically incapable (not just unwilling or unable for exceptional reasons) to produce children with each other to marry, we are stating there is no "sexual activity resulting in progeny" assumed anymore by the term "marriage".

So now the tie to the little remaining biological basis for preventing sibling marriage is gone.

For that matter, if two unrelated men can marry, why not two brothers? Why should they be denied the same legal privileges?

Why not MFF (for example) "couples"?

What will be the legal defense of that position?

That's an unintended consequence of removing tradition as a basis for law on this issue, there's nothing left to base any restrictions on that aren't absolutely arbitrary and challengeable by law.

Marriage will survive as a private thing between people who love each other, but I can't see the state eventually remaining involved in any way other than providing civil courts to adjudicate private contractual arrangements.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 18, 2008, 08:40:06 AM
Quote
What arbitrary, yet rational and legally defensible, reason will we be able to come up with to legally justify denying a legal marraige to more than two persons or to blood relations under equal protection theory?

Consent?

Remember, we believe (with some justification) that some types of incestuous relationship are inherently unconsensual. Further, damage to a third party (a child) is also a concern.

However, as you correctly suggested, I see no reason to deny recognition to a polygamous marriage contract, a marriage of two sisters, or a sister and a brother that are sterile, or a Heinleinian line marriage.

Quote
Marriage will survive as a private thing between people who love each other, but I can't see the state eventually remaining involved in any way other than providing civil courts to adjudicate private contractual arrangements.

Yes, this is a very good thing.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2008, 08:46:56 AM
However, as you correctly suggested, I see no reason to deny recognition to a polygamous marriage contract, a marriage of two sisters, or a sister and a brother that are sterile, or a Heinleinian line marriage.

(http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2182.gif) Seriously, dude...EW! :P


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 18, 2008, 08:47:53 AM
Consent?

Remember, we believe (with some justification) that some types of incestuous relationship are inherently unconsensual. Further, damage to a third party (a child) is also a concern.

However, as you correctly suggested, I see no reason to deny recognition to a polygamous marriage contract, a marriage of two sisters, or a sister and a brother that are sterile, or a Heinleinian line marriage.

Yes, this is a very good thing.


Damage to the third party can occur from more than simply birth defects- their may be upbringing defects as well.

As you see the logic in preventing a birth that could result in a deformed child, can you not see the logic from those of us who would protect a child from an upbringing that could result in damage?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 18, 2008, 09:48:10 AM


As you see the logic in preventing a birth that could result in a deformed child, can you not see the logic from those of us who would protect a child from an upbringing that could result in damage?

I am all for banning child abuse if that's what you mean. There are great moral problems with banning more than that.

There are people who believe homeschooling is a form of child abuse. Homeschooling was illegal in several states until recently. Still illegal in some places in Europe.

There are people - I've met some - who believe growing up in a religious family is inherently abusive.

There are people who believe that growing up in a single-parent household is inherently abusive. Really, they exist.

Do you think we should take the children away from a mother if the father divorces her for some reason?

Seriously, how much interference should the government have in this?

Also, there are other questions.

I've read quotes from a German trial where the fact a daughter shared her parent's political beliefs was held up to be proof she was 'brainwashed' by her family.

If a lesbian woman gets artificial insemination, and her daughter ends up being a lesbian too, is that a form of abuse?

There's a difference between saying: "You're abusing the child - here, he has welts and a fractured arm, or is inadequately fed, and so forth" and saying "We want our children to all be like this, so we'll go in and legislatively define anything that's not like that as 'abuse'."

Where do we draw the line?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Matthew Carberry on November 18, 2008, 10:00:00 AM
Quote
Where do we draw the line?

Great point to always remember when talking about restricting anything.

If we don't have documentation that something will cause harm, in this country, to follow our founding principles, we don't legislate it.

After all, legal private gun ownership can, and actually does occasionally, cause harm that could definitely be avoided if it were banned.

Yet we don't see those few, real dangers of harm as sufficient legal (not "moral", not distaste driven) justification to restrict it.

There are some very real and salient larger principles at play, which is why marriage wasn't and shouldn't be a Constitutional issue at the Federal level.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: makattak on November 18, 2008, 10:17:49 AM
I am all for banning child abuse if that's what you mean. There are great moral problems with banning more than that.

There are people who believe homeschooling is a form of child abuse. Homeschooling was illegal in several states until recently. Still illegal in some places in Europe.

There are people - I've met some - who believe growing up in a religious family is inherently abusive.

There are people who believe that growing up in a single-parent household is inherently abusive. Really, they exist.

Do you think we should take the children away from a mother if the father divorces her for some reason?

Seriously, how much interference should the government have in this?

Also, there are other questions.

I've read quotes from a German trial where the fact a daughter shared her parent's political beliefs was held up to be proof she was 'brainwashed' by her family.

If a lesbian woman gets artificial insemination, and her daughter ends up being a lesbian too, is that a form of abuse?

There's a difference between saying: "You're abusing the child - here, he has welts and a fractured arm, or is inadequately fed, and so forth" and saying "We want our children to all be like this, so we'll go in and legislatively define anything that's not like that as 'abuse'."

Where do we draw the line?

And there is a difference between taking someone's child from a place where you think abuse might happen and PUTTING a child in a place where abuse might happen.

I am here talking about adoptions: we can PLACE a child in a circumstance where he may grow up in damaging circumstances once the gay rights groups have insisted that they cannot be discriminated against with regards to adoption either.

We are damaging a third party without his consent because we want to experiment with what will work for parenting. We are PLACING a child in a situation where he has a higher risk of growing up... well, badly.

We should take children from their rightful parents only under the most extreme circumstances. We should NEVER put children in a circumstance where they "are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality."

Surely you can see the difference between removing a child and placing a child in such a situation?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Iain on November 18, 2008, 11:56:22 AM
Some of this could be resolved by doing away with inheritance tax, which would seem like it should be a popular suggestion on this board.

The two sisters in this country only wanted to be able to leave their property inheritance tax free to the other on the event of one of them dying so to prevent the taxman insisting that tax be paid there and then and forcing the sale of a property they lived in together, and if I recall correctly, grew up in.

That's all they wanted, and if I'm still living with my brother in however many years and we own something between us, that's all I'd want to be able to do. It's the tax benefits that would cause this rather silly sister-sister marriage possibility, and that seems resolvable without denying legal status to homosexual couples (without necessarily calling it marriage).


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Strings on November 18, 2008, 12:27:31 PM
OK... I'm with Micro: "the line" is consent. Which eliminates the argument of people marrying animals or children.

 As for this:

>And there is a difference between taking someone's child from a place where you think abuse might happen and PUTTING a child in a place where abuse might happen.<

 Cool. So I shouldn't let any straights watch my (hypothetical) children, since almost every case of abuse I'm aware of has been perpetrated by a heterosexual person?

>I am here talking about adoptions: we can PLACE a child in a circumstance where he may grow up in damaging circumstances once the gay rights groups have insisted that they cannot be discriminated against with regards to adoption either.

We are damaging a third party without his consent because we want to experiment with what will work for parenting. We are PLACING a child in a situation where he has a higher risk of growing up... well, badly.<

Say what you mean here: where they might grow up with a viewpoint different than yours.

>We should take children from their rightful parents only under the most extreme circumstances. We should NEVER put children in a circumstance where they "are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality."<

Which, I do believe, is something that should be addressed in the process of adoption. However, that is NOT something you can base on someone's sexual preference...


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 18, 2008, 01:36:07 PM
OK... I'm with Micro: "the line" is consent. Which eliminates the argument of people marrying animals or children.

 As for this:

>And there is a difference between taking someone's child from a place where you think abuse might happen and PUTTING a child in a place where abuse might happen.<

 Cool. So I shouldn't let any straights watch my (hypothetical) children, since almost every case of abuse I'm aware of has been perpetrated by a heterosexual person?

Nice category error.

>I am here talking about adoptions: we can PLACE a child in a circumstance where he may grow up in damaging circumstances once the gay rights groups have insisted that they cannot be discriminated against with regards to adoption either.

We are damaging a third party without his consent because we want to experiment with what will work for parenting. We are PLACING a child in a situation where he has a higher risk of growing up... well, badly.<

Say what you mean here: where they might grow up with a viewpoint different than yours.

Uh, the data show that kids brought up in such environments have worse outcomes than the population of kids as a whole and the population of kids adopted by a real family.

Viewpoint has nothing to do with it.

>We should take children from their rightful parents only under the most extreme circumstances. We should NEVER put children in a circumstance where they "are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality."<

Which, I do believe, is something that should be addressed in the process of adoption. However, that is NOT something you can base on someone's sexual preference...

I would include not only homosexual couples, but unmarried hetero couples or singles of any orientation.  Children adopted by all mentioned have a much greater chance for a bad outcome than when adopted by and raised in a real family.



The point mak is making (and that you are studiously avoiding) is that, in the case of adoption, the state has an obligation to the child to find the best home possible for the child.  It has NO obligation to any particular prospective adoptive family.  And it surely has no obligation to fulfill the desires of a homosexual couple desirous of raising children.  When it comes to the welfare of wards of the state...They.  Don't.  Matter.  There is no right to adoption.  There is no right to raise children not your own.

The homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption issues are examples of government action to fulfill the desires of a small minority.

It is the left-libertarianism of using gov't to fulfill one's desires, overturn tradition, and thwart the will of the citizenry.  It is the antithesis of suspicion of the arbitrary use of gov't power, the marketplace of ideas, and equal treatment.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 18, 2008, 07:04:32 PM
Quote
here is no right to adoption.  There is no right to raise children not your own.

That is correct. Nobody argues this.

However, that said, individual human beings are not statistics. Have you read 'Theory and History'?

The proper role of an adoption authority is to evaluate every couple that applies to adopt children on an individual basis. I hope you shall agree that it is irrelevant that the majority of heterosexual married couples are okay to adopt children, if the particular family in question has a wino father that has no job, and a bipolar mother. Sure, the majority of couples are okay, but THIS COUPLE isn't.

In an equal manner, though it is possible (I say possible because I've not seen the numbers or looked into them in any detail) that [say] 90% of gay families take drugs [I am not saying 90% of gays take drugs, I'm just using a hypothethical], it does not mean all gays should automatically be precluded from adopting babies.

Regardless of this, gay marriage is not automatically connected to the adoption of children, as you well know, just as straight marriage is not automatically connected to it.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: esheato on November 19, 2008, 09:14:37 PM
And it continues...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454945,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454945,00.html)

California Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Ban Challenges

SAN FRANCISCO Ś  California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.

Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether
Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs,
who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices Ś six of whom voted to review the challenges Ś with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: KD5NRH on November 29, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
I would include not only homosexual couples, but unmarried hetero couples or singles of any orientation.  Children adopted by all mentioned have a much greater chance for a bad outcome than when adopted by and raised in a real family.

Why not go all the way and say only white, upper-middle-class families in which each parent comes from a specific background?  After all, anything less would be shortchanging the kid, wouldn't it?

Quote
It is the left-libertarianism of using gov't to fulfill one's desires, overturn tradition, and thwart the will of the citizenry.

The will of the citizenry has been pretty clearly stated.  What remains to be seen is whether it is in keeping with the process for amending and/or revising the state's constitution, and whether it is even an appropriate subject for a constitution to deal with.



Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: grey54956 on November 29, 2008, 07:17:50 AM
Personally, I believe that gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether, based on separation of church and state, with marriage being a mostly religious tradition.  Property, residence, and divorce can all be addressed with legally binding contracts.  Of course, to make it work, we need to get rid of Inheritence Tax.

That being said, if the people have spoken, then they have spoken.  Let the gay marriage advocates work at repealing the amendment with another amendment.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on November 29, 2008, 08:44:27 PM
Why not go all the way and say only white, upper-middle-class families in which each parent comes from a specific background?  After all, anything less would be shortchanging the kid, wouldn't it?

Nice Race Card, Al (Sharpton).  Next time you post, try not to leave a slime trail.

As to financial means, I have no problem with requiring a certain level.  After all, if the gov't requires some proof of financial means when it makes a FHA loan and gives over a chunk of change, to do any less when the gov't gives over a person seems a severe case of misplaced priorities.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 30, 2008, 07:49:28 AM
Quote
As to financial means, I have no problem with requiring a certain level.  After all, if the gov't requires some proof of financial means when it makes a FHA loan and gives over a chunk of change, to do any less when the gov't gives over a person seems a severe case of misplaced priorities.

Generally, statistics are not an appropriate tool to use with an adoption process.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Racehorse on November 30, 2008, 09:01:06 AM
Generally, statistics are not an appropriate tool to use with an adoption process.

No, but they are an appropriate tool to use in setting guidelines or regulations for any process. Are you suggesting that the adoption process should have no guidelines or regulations and that each case should be handled solely on an individual basis?


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on November 30, 2008, 09:37:00 AM
Quote
California Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Ban Challenges

SAN FRANCISCO —  California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

I do hope they care for their position as judge.  They made enough citzens mad when they overturned the first "one man one woman" law to pass it again.  If they overturn it again, they will probably be facing efforts to throw them out of office.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 30, 2008, 06:56:41 PM
No, but they are an appropriate tool to use in setting guidelines or regulations for any process. Are you suggesting that the adoption process should have no guidelines or regulations and that each case should be handled solely on an individual basis?

I am suggesting that we should not bar entire swaths of the population from adopting based on their social background or sexual orientation. While the decision ought to be informed (for example) by the fact that gays are statistically more likely to engage in risky behavior than non-gays, they should still be allowed to adopt if the particular couple involved does not engage in such behavior. In a similar manner, though non-gays are less likely to engage in such behaviors, we would never consider letting a given couple adopt a child if the particular couple involved had, say, a history of child abuse.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: freakazoid on November 30, 2008, 11:36:25 PM
Longest thread ever?

I would like to say that I am glad to see that this has managed to remain civil,  =) I figured that this would of been locked LONG ago, and hopefully it stays open for a long time so as to be able to keep on with this interesting and informative conversation.


Title: Activists Seek Revocation of Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Supported Prop 8
Post by: roo_ster on December 01, 2008, 03:51:32 PM

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/groups-seek-revocation.html

Activists Seek Revocation of Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Supported Prop 8

San Francisco Chronicle: Tax-Exempt Benefit Disputed in Prop. 8 Campaign, by Matthai Kuruvila:

Quote
    In the wake of Proposition 8's passage, opponents are railing that churches that supported the ballot measure violated their tax-exempt status.

    It's a common accusation at the now-weekly protests, gaining enough traction that Geoff Kors, a member of the No on 8 executive committee, said lawyers are investigating the issue. "The Mormon church overstepped its boundaries by being a tax-exempt organization," said Sharone Negev, 54, of San Francisco, who has gone to protests in San Francisco and the Mormon temple in Oakland. "They clearly are not supposed to be involved in political activities."

    But interviews with experts and activists on the issue say Prop. 8 opponents should look elsewhere for reasons to criticize the measure's supporters. "They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue. "While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives."


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Firethorn on December 02, 2008, 11:18:36 AM
I do hope they care for their position as judge.  They made enough citzens mad when they overturned the first "one man one woman" law to pass it again.  If they overturn it again, they will probably be facing efforts to throw them out of office.

And I think that that action would be proper under the circumstances.  It'd show that the supreme court holds the constitution of their state in contempt.

Quote
They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

The will of the people, it does not count!

Seriously, just like the US Constitution, the California constitution has rules for amending it:
Quote
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1.  The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal.  Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 2.  The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3.  The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4.  A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.  If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

I'll admit that section 3 is a bit sparse, still, Article 2 gives the rules for initiatives:

Quote
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 8.  (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.
   (b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.
   (c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election. The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
   (d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
   (e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political subdivision.
   (f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would
become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.

Nothing in there specifies that a judge, or even the supreme court, has a choice in the matter.

Personally, I'm generally in favor of letting gays get married.  However, the people have spoken - rather loudly I think seeing as how this is the SECOND time they did this, going so far to elevate it from a law(that the court struck down) to a constitutional amendment.  Finally, to the gay marriage advocates - you screwed up and pushed too hard.  A law would have been much easier to repeal given time.  Heck, this should have been approached through legislative means in the first place - not judicial activism.


Title: Re: Activists Seek Revocation of Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Supported Prop 8
Post by: MicroBalrog on December 02, 2008, 11:20:47 AM
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/groups-seek-revocation.html

Activists Seek Revocation of Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Supported Prop 8

San Francisco Chronicle: Tax-Exempt Benefit Disputed in Prop. 8 Campaign, by Matthai Kuruvila:


See, this is why tax-exempt status was folly.


Title: Re: Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8
Post by: Desertdog on December 02, 2008, 01:15:34 PM
Quote
SEC. 3.  The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4.  A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.

I was arguments that an amendment could pass by a majority, but a revision had to have a 2/3 vote.  I guess they were looking at some other states Constitution or maybe some foreign law.


ankara escort ata┼čehir escort pendik escort ┼či┼čli escort kurtk├Ây escort ankara escort ankara escort avc─▒lar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avc─▒lar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort t├╝rk porno ─░stanbul Escort ankara escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bah├že┼čehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Demetevler Escort ├ťmraniye Escort Escort ankara Keci├Âren Escort Escort Ankara Kad─▒k├Ây Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtk├Ây Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Escort ─░zmir Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort ├çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno T├╝rk├že Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort istanbul escort Bah├že┼čehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostanc─▒ Escort Anadolu Yakas─▒ Escort Umraniye Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort izmir escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno fmovies casino siteleri yabanc─▒ dizi ankara escort PORNO buca escort Antalya escort kocaeli escort Mersin escort Pendik Escort Tuzla Escort Kartal Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort