Gay Marriage

[Greenday]

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

We could have a vote on how many sides are on a triangle. And if 95% of the popular vote says there are 4 sides on a triangle, that still wouldn't make it right.

Neither does a, what was it, 52% majority make stripping people of their human rights. Sometimes the majority is just plain wrong. And the Justice System is supposed to be there to correct this. The only problem is, this time the CA Supreme Court messed it up and denied people equal rights.

[daleduke17]

Exactly. Good analogy.

Which is why I disagree with anyone who says that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Was Proposition 8 voted in by the proper channels (ie: did the state of California let the public vote on it)? The answer is yes.

More votes were to uphold it. So, what's the big deal? Isn't this how the nation is supposed to be run? The people spoke. Does it affect me? Nope. So, I don't really care. I'm just tired of hearing about it on every newscast.

[Boozy]

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

Exactly. Good analogy.

Which is why I disagree with anyone who says that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

[DesignFox]

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

Well, Boozy didn't agree with that logic, just mentioned that it was the logic applied to prop 8.

I can't believe it was upheld by the supreme court. But then again, I'm not interested in the goings on of other people's sexual preferences. AND I happen to think that love is love. As long as consenting adults are involved, I see no reason to deny any person's right to dedicate their life/love to whoever they choose as worthy of it.

*sigh*

[MadMike]

Well, to use an argument that was thrown about in another thread: They aren't saying two gay men/women can't get married. They're saying that they can't marry each other.

A gay man can still marry a woman. Just not another gay man. Ergo, they're not being denied the same rights being afforded others.

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd like to point out that a few decades ago, the same argument could be made about a black man and a white woman. A black man could marry, just not to a white woman.

[AFPheonix]

They at least upheld the marriages that went in before the ban, and it was a profoundly narrow decision. Pretty much all they decided was that the amendment was put into place legally. They didn't really say anything about the obvious conflict between the fairness clause and prop 8.

That being said, the fact that the california supreme court was that emasculated that they didn't strike it down tells me that the state constitution is absolutely worthless. If it can't be used to do its job, namely protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, what's the point of having it at all? It's going to take a 3/4 majority plus the legislature to reverse prop 8 now unless SCOTUS strikes it down. SCOTUS has not been taking any gay marriage cases at all, and the rulings it has been making the last few years have been very narrow as well. We haven't seen good, sweeping rulings like Brown vs. Board of Education or other landmark cases decided for a very long time, and probably won't again until several conservative justices kick the bucket and are replaced with more liberal ones.

[Boozy]

Wow, pathetic. How is this any different than saying people can't get married because of race?

Well, to use an argument that was thrown about in another thread: They aren't saying two gay men/women can't get married. They're saying that they can't marry each other.

A gay man can still marry a woman. Just not another gay man. Ergo, they're not being denied the same rights being afforded others.

And no, I don't agree with that argument at all. I'm very disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision.

[Greenday]

Wow, pathetic. How is this any different than saying people can't get married because of race?

I can't find it, but which justices voted what on this case?

[AdminAssistant]

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. How fucking sad.

[Flyndaran]

Then you probably can't trust a lot of our elected officials. With some personality types comes the propensity to cheat on spouses. That's the way it is and always has been.
Many of the stronger personalities that have been President of our country have been involved in extra-marital affairs, from Jefferson to Roosevelt to LBJ and beyond. I don't feel that their ability to perform their public duties was really that hampered.

I don't trust liars. That shouldn't be that bizarre of a concept. Lying to those you supposedly love means you would lie to everyone else on earth about anything.

[AFPheonix]

Then you probably can't trust a lot of our elected officials. With some personality types comes the propensity to cheat on spouses. That's the way it is and always has been.
Many of the stronger personalities that have been President of our country have been involved in extra-marital affairs, from Jefferson to Roosevelt to LBJ and beyond. I don't feel that their ability to perform their public duties was really that hampered.

[Flyndaran]

I can overlook someone else's adultery if it has absolutely nothing to do with me, and as long as it didn't involve someone who couldn't provide consent. That's between those two spouses and their family.

To a point, but I wouldn't trust anyone that has such a history of lying selfishness.

[smileyeagle1021]

a somewhat related tangent... I hate the people who say that gays and lesbians shouldn't be granted rights because gays and lesbians have no morals... which of course explains why there is a story on the news about yet another STRAIGHT sexual predator. Please, lack of morals is not something that either orientation has a monopoly on.
If having good morals is a requirement for marriage then I think it's time we annulled quite a few straight marriages.

[AFPheonix]

I can overlook someone else's adultery if it has absolutely nothing to do with me, and as long as it didn't involve someone who couldn't provide consent. That's between those two spouses and their family.

[Amethyst Hunter]

This is something I don't understand about this right-wing, conservative types. They don't want the government to provide health care. They don't want the government to protect the environment. But darn it, they want the government to tell us who we can and can't get married to.

Because it's about who gets to control others. It never was and never will be about "protecting the sanctity" of anything. Bible-bangers** are a huge fan of dictating others' lives according to their warped little interpretations. Just look up and see how many Republicans have been caught with kiddie porn or cheating on their 4th wife or so on.

And before the lame "but Democrats do it too" card is pulled, let me just say that yes, while there are Dems who have been caught with their pants literally down (Spitzer, Clinton, Kennedy), the difference between them and the GOPers is that the Dems don't generally want to control who does what in which bedroom. So I'm willing to give them a little more leeway than I do the GOP (Not that I condone adultery, mind you; if you get caught cheating on your spouse I'm not very sympathetic to start. But I can overlook that sin so long as you don't try to tell me what I can and can't do).






** = Does not apply to actual Christians who do their own thing and don't bother anybody else.