Miss California?

[Boozy]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Should black people have worn bags over their heads in the 50's? You know, because then they wouldn't have been discrimiated against.

How about Christians? Can I discriminate against them because they're so open about their religion? If I didn't see them going into that church every Sunday, I'd have never known about their religion. So really, if I decide to discriminate against them, it's their fault for going to church.

What you are asking is for a significant segment of the population to hide who they are.

And marriage is most certainly a civil right. The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

[Rubystars]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Case in point, last night I went out to do some shopping and I saw a man walking around in an effeminate manner swinging a purse. If he weren't doing that, then nobody would have guessed that he was gay and he'd get treated just like everyone else. Even with that behavior though, nobody seemed to be bothering him or harassing him, and I will remind you that this is Texas. He was left to go on his merry way, completely safe.

[Boozy]

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

We've addressed this many times in various threads. The US is a republic. The government consists of three branches of government, only two of which are elected. The judicial branch interprets the laws passed by the legislative and executive branches and determines if they are constitutional.

Long story short, the US does not allow for mob rule. If the majority of voters support the removal of basic civil rights for a certain group of citizens.... too bad. Civil rights are not something that get "voted" on in America.

[Rubystars]

Rap that did make me laugh. I think earlier in the thread I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with hate crimes against gay people though. As for "Separate but unequal", I do think of it as being unequal, so I guess you got me there. Heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal. That's how I feel about it. It doesn't mean that I think that homosexuals are horrible people or anything like that though.

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia. I still maintain that homosexuality ought to be something that individuals keep as a private matter rather than getting the government involved in condoning it.

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

[Rapscallion]

I don't want to sound cold and cruel on this issue because I'm really not. I just want to find some way to resolve it without legalizing gay marriage.

Separate but unequal?

I do think it's good of course that gays got the vote, because they had to be able to vote to change ignorant laws that allowed heteros to beat them, etc.

Edited your comment for my amusement.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

I'll have to think about how to answer your question smiley and I'll probably post something tomorrow.

[Rubystars]

I think women's suffrage became more important as the industrial revolution was going on. Before then I don't think most women would have even had the thought cross their minds. They had their domains and men had their domains. I do think it's good of course that women got the vote, because they had to be able to vote to change ignorant laws that allowed men to beat them, etc. As women began to take on more roles in the public arena, then it became more important for them to be able to have an effective political voice.

[smileyeagle1021]

A living will and a estate will can be written by anyone, an attorney isn't required.

you're right, an attorney isn't required... but without an attorney the contracts will be a lot easier to contest, because it's more likely someone who doesn't have the legal training that attorneys do will make a mistake. God knows I don't want to be the next Terry Shiavo where there is a lengthy court battle between my family and my partner (if I had one). And the thought that my mother could successfully contest my living will is a terrifying thought, because I know that I wouldn't want to live like that, I'd be willing to bet that whoever I settled down with would understand that, but my mother, despite knowing that would NEVER consent to have the plug pulled on her baby... she would keep me alive for the sake of me being alive, even if I was no longer able to live.

And coming back to the gay marriage debate that has been going on for a while here. A simple question for those who would deny gay marriage. If, for example I was to fall in love with and marry Anton Yelchin (what, a gay guy can dream, can't he ), what exactly would be the DIRECT effect on you? The direct effect on me is that I would be able to visit him in the hospital, no questions asked, no complicated legal forms to fill out, we'd be able to get joint health insurance, if one of us were killed in an accident the other could sue for wrongful death, when we grow old we'd get the social security benefits, we get a long list of other government granted rights and privileges, and most importantly, we can wake up in the morning knowing that we are married, two people in one union, nothing more beautiful than that. What did you have to give up for me to gain that? A slight fluctuation in health insurance premiums which will be going up anyway as American's unhealthy lifestyles start catching up with us, slightly higher taxes that are going to be going up a hell of a lot more anyway because our government can't say NO to spending, and a couple of words in the dictionary... that hardly counts as a sacrifice as far as I'm concerned.

[guywithashovel]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

Back before the 1920s, "tradition" defined voting as something that only men did. And there were many people---from both sexes---who saw no reason to change that. I'm sure that many of those people didn't think that women were being denied anything, because (to use one of your arguments) how could women be denied something that they weren't even allowed to do in the first place? Also, if the government ever did legitimize women's suffrage, what would be next? Would women someday want to run for office? Or even worse, would they someday want to give people's pets the right to vote? Heck, while they were at it, they could have given people's cars the right to vote, too.

However, society eventually went off the "left wing looney bin" and changed that definition to include women. It never sent our country down a dangerous slippery slope. The sky never came crumbling down. And the people who were against women's suffrage were still free to harbor their opinions on the matter.

Note: I'm actually very glad that women were given the right to vote, and I'm actually sorry they were ever denied that right to begin with. I'm just using this as an example.

[Rubystars]

That might be the right way to go about it then Tanasi if people are going to be in those relationships anyway. I really don't want people to feel anguished because they can't see someone they really love and care about.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what all the options are but that does sound good for them.

[Tanasi]

The hospital visitation arguement can be solved with a living will. With a living will you can decide who can and who can't visit including family and non-family. You can give power of attorney to anyone family or not.
Two, three, four or any number of people can jointly own property. I jointly own property with three unrelated folks. I also jointly own a commerical farm with my brothers.
With a will one person can leave their estate to anyone they desire. Yes the will can be contested if the proceeds are left to a non-family member but it can also be contested if left to family members.
A living will and a estate will can be written by anyone, an attorney isn't required. That being said I would suggest using an attorney for estate wills.

[Rubystars]

You're probably correct about visitation being an issue and about the seizure of the joint property.

That part does make me feel sad and I do have compassion for people going through such a situation. On the other hand I'm not sure how to remedy that without legitimizing homosexuality. I don't want people to suffer but I don't want our government to legally condone those kinds of relationships either, so it's something that I feel torn about when it comes to those issues.

There could be a workaround perhaps, if HIPAA were altered slightly. Maybe there already could be a legal workaround, such as for example a gay couple could give the other person power of attorney for their health care decisions. I'm not sure how to fix that particular problem but I don't want to go so far as to call that relationship a marriage.

I don't want to sound cold and cruel on this issue because I'm really not. I just want to find some way to resolve it without legalizing gay marriage.

[Tanasi]

No the truth is she was fired because she refused to do her job.

source http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/10/donald...ple-like-crap/

The truth is Trump gave her a chance to move on with her duties of Miss California and she choose not to. She got herself fired and has no one else to blame.

Well according to TMZ she missed over 30 events. According to her attorney in an interview I saw the "events" were optional, and should she have attended she wouldn't be doing so wearing the sash and crown. So which source do I consider more credible, hmmmm. I don't know, I certainly take everything I see on TMZ with a giant grain of salt. Prejean's attorney's live interview would shoot down any case they might have if not truthful. I don't doubt that TMZ was quoting the Donald but I wonder if he's only running on the information the Lewis fellow is giving him??? From the last quote I'd say he hasn't actually talked to Prejean since their last joint news conference. It will be an easy decision for a judge to determine if Prejean violated her contract.
I still say Prejean was fired for giving a polictically incorrect answer, Lewis was looking for any reason legitimate or not.

[Nyoibo]

I guess I'd feel pretty confused as to why the society got the ban backwards. But then I guess I could go on with my life and get a religious marriage to the "man of my dreams",

So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s.

And I would have liked to see you try marrying the man of your dreams in the 50's had he happened to be black.

They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.

No they really don't, they'd be quite within their legal rights to tell you to get out and then to turn around and legally sieze that joint owned property if your partner defaulted on the bill, and you would have no say in the matter.

[Flyndaran]

"...
If you're going to compare homosexuality to anything, you might try something that it's actually comparable to.

I say compare it to something sexual like heterosexuality. It fits. Two people having sex is like two different people having sex.