Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Same-sex marriage fans, foes await California Supreme court ruling today at 1000

  1. #16
    Elite Member Penny Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    21,646

    Default

    I guess people would rather be fiscally bankrupt rather than "morally bankrupt" for allowing same-sex marriage to be legalized.

    I agree, it's absolutely, inherently stupid.

  2. #17
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    How do you uphold Prop 8, and uphold the marriages that took place at the same time? That doesn't make any sense. How do you have a ban of gay marriage, but validate some of the gay marriages?
    When the marriages being upheld were performed, same sex unions were legal. Since law isn't retroactive, except in very rare circumstances, actions taken while legal can't be criminalized now.

    I am sure this makes gay rights advocates even more upset to know thousands of couples will have the rights they don't, simply because they acted at the right time.

    Fiscally speaking, gay marriage is the right step for a financially dying state, but for those who oppose gay marriage, money will not sway their mindsets.

    The court did what they could. They could have negated the eighteen thousand marriages performed. Small victory, but hopeful nonetheless.



  3. #18
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    I still fail to understand how minority rights are decided by a majority public vote. It's asinine.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #19
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,036

    Default

    it sucks when courts don't rule in favour of minority rights because god knows in most paces you can't count on a majority to vote in their favour.

    i've always said that in the US (except for the more progressive states) and other countries, the only way gay marriages will be made legal is through a supreme court ruling. just like with desegregation. it had to be imposed on them from above.
    minority rights need to be protected from tyranny of the masses - that's also an inherent part of democracy.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  5. #20
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    apparently democracy isn't something california is familiar with.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  6. #21
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    14,167

    Default

    Just an FYI, the marriage licenses were published in the paper last week. For the 12 marriage licenses issued in my county in Iowa, 5 of the 12 were gay. What's that, 40%?

  7. #22
    Elite Member KrisNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sleepy night night land
    Posts
    24,267

    Default

    I apologize for my crappy state.

  8. #23
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaMama View Post
    ^^ the Constitution has a rule that new laws cannot be applied retroactively. (meant to reply to King, Grim beat me to it)

    But WOW, what a shit decision. The whole reason we have 3 branches of government is so we can avoid the simple majority decides the rights of minorities. I don't see how the US Supreme Court avoids this equal protection case.
    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    When the marriages being upheld were performed, same sex unions were legal. Since law isn't retroactive, except in very rare circumstances, actions taken while legal can't be criminalized now.

    I am sure this makes gay rights advocates even more upset to know thousands of couples will have the rights they don't, simply because they acted at the right time.

    Fiscally speaking, gay marriage is the right step for a financially dying state, but for those who oppose gay marriage, money will not sway their mindsets.

    The court did what they could. They could have negated the eighteen thousand marriages performed. Small victory, but hopeful nonetheless.
    I was thinking more along the lines that it's just a contradiction. It just looks dumb to ban something, while recognizing the people who are doing what you banned. Only in America would that make sense.

  9. #24
    Elite Member Beeyotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    I am pretty pissed off about this. Especially because this shit totally closed down the streets to get to my house because people were protesting in the streets. Took me an hour to get to my house, normally takes 20 minutes.

    Freakin CA Supreme Court made me get stuck in traffic!

  10. #25
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines that it's just a contradiction. It just looks dumb to ban something, while recognizing the people who are doing what you banned. Only in America would that make sense.
    It does appear contradictory, I agree. Sadly, the SPOC created a ruling which covers their asses and effectively takes them out the loop. The voters will have to deal with this issue repeatedly for who knows how long.



  11. #26
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    The ability to decide minority rights based on a public majority vote should be stripped out of the state constitution!

    .. of course, doing that would probably require a vote... lol
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #27
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    If the group is not seen as a minority group, those who are voting and deciding will not consider them to need special rights.

    Many people do not see gays as any type of minority group, per se. Is it right? No. Gays are not viewed like any other group considered a minority in this country. Until that happens, these types of rulings will be handed down.



  13. #28
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Well, a jihad on that.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #29
    Elite Member Moongirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cal-i-for-nigh-ay!
    Posts
    9,211

    Default

    Rob Thomas: The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder

    I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

    A while back on my Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.

    Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don't believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.

    These people weren't friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had "spoken" with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.

    The small controversy or "Twitter-versy" (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can't my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:

    I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don't think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you're attracted. That's why it's called an attraction and not a choice.

    I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

    I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

    I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, "this god is not your god and he doesn't love you." There isn't one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn't be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I'm amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn't it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone's basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

    But this isn't a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

    I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?

    A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.

    The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.
    Totally agree...

  15. #30
    Elite Member Beeyotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Um Rob Thomas was infamously caught in bed with a man (Tom Cruise, so the rumor went) by his wife, wasn't he? He still considers himself straight?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 09:46 PM
  2. Some California county clerks resist gay marriage ruling where they can
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 7th, 2008, 06:51 AM
  3. George Takei to wed following gay marriage ruling
    By mrs.v in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: June 4th, 2008, 07:50 PM
  4. Gay marriage opponents vow to fight California ruling
    By aabbcc in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 16th, 2008, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •