At least Prop 8 passed..

HermanBloom

mammasan wrote:

ReleaseMe and Ninja I can only take your lack of legal base for this decision as you not having one. Your support, as with most supporters of this initiative, is simply based on religious belief which has no place concerning this issue. The state of California, or any state for that matter, is not forcing religious institutions to allow same sex marriage to take place in their halls, churches, chapels, etc… Your religion and it's principles will stay intact so fear not the gay couple down the street will not be the down fall of a 2000 year old institution like the Catholic Church. I would think that strong supporters of family values and marriage would be more concerned about the high divorce rate, child and spousal abuse, negligent parents and dead beat parents who truly erode the core principles of family values than on two people who want to dedicate themselves to each other but just happen to be gay. If anything these people should be embraced for wanted to create a union. Some even want to raise a family and adopt some of the many unwanted children sitting in our nations foster homes and orphanages. Instead their commitment to family is disrespected and they are treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.

There have actually been cases exactly of this where couples sue churches for not letting them use their property for marriages.

decides2dream

nathanastin wrote:

Agreed; unfortunately, most of those on here are the close-minded ones. Just because we may have different views, doesn't mean that we are ignorant, crazy, or wrong. Unfortunately, the insane 9th Judicial Court will over turn this even though the people have now spoken twice. Judges legislating from the bench is coming again soon to California.

how so?
i firmly believe it is absolutely ANYone's right to believe and live as their personal moral code dictates. however, our government is not based on any one individual or religious groups moral code...but rather on the freedoms and equal rights for all citizens. when the majorty votes for in support of a law that is CLEARLY discriminatory against a certain group of citizens, it is the counrts rights and eshould be expected to be overturned...that's the whole POINT...a system of democracy with checks and balances. believe and live as you see fit...and allow and respect others' rights to do the same.

beachdweller

I think all homosexuals should move to Salt Lake City for a year and change the face of the Mormon Church

AmentsChick

beachdweller wrote:

I think all homosexuals should move to Salt Lake City for a year and change the face of the Mormon Church

LMAO! I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy! LOL! The LDS is so beyond help. Then again, the US government got them to drop polygamy in order for Utah to be granted statehood...so maybe it would work??

i shit and i stink

nathanastin wrote:

Agreed; unfortunately, most of those on here are the close-minded ones. Just because we may have different views, doesn't mean that we are ignorant, crazy, or wrong. Unfortunately, the insane 9th Judicial Court will over turn this even though the people have now spoken twice. Judges legislating from the bench is coming again soon to California.

But how can the majority of people vote on something that affects a small minority? Democracy does not allow for the needs of minority groups. It's not closed-mindedness, it is simply a flaw in the system that allows such oversights in civil liberties. However, I suspect that a national referendum would pass a law for gay marriage (not religious, but at least civil union to protect the rights of partners to inheritance) would be passed by more than a healthy majority.

meistereder

nathanastin wrote:

Agreed; unfortunately, most of those on here are the close-minded ones. Just because we may have different views, doesn't mean that we are ignorant, crazy, or wrong. Unfortunately, the insane 9th Judicial Court will over turn this even though the people have now spoken twice. Judges legislating from the bench is coming again soon to California.

Those crazy judges legislating from the bench did the same thing when they struck down separate but equal the first time around in Brown v. Board. Damn them, right? Blacks should still be in separate schools.

Because, you know, the majority was in favor of that too.

HermanBloom

AmentsChick wrote:

LMAO! I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy! LOL! The LDS is so beyond help. Then again, the US government got them to drop polygamy in order for Utah to be granted statehood...so maybe it would work??

Wow this is complete ignorance and hate; kind of smells like hypocrisy?

HermanBloom

timmyshee wrote:

But how can the majority of people vote on something that affects a small minority? Democracy does not allow for the needs of minority groups. It's not closed-mindedness, it is simply a flaw in the system that allows such oversights in civil liberties. However, I suspect that a national referendum would pass a law for gay marriage (not religious, but at least civil union to protect the rights of partners to inheritance) would be passed by more than a healthy majority.

Too much now the minority dictates and forces their values on the majority; how is that democratic?

meistereder

timmyshee wrote:

But how can the majority of people vote on something that affects a small minority? Democracy does not allow for the needs of minority groups. It's not closed-mindedness, it is simply a flaw in the system that allows such oversights in civil liberties. However, I suspect that a national referendum would pass a law for gay marriage (not religious, but at least civil union to protect the rights of partners to inheritance) would be passed by more than a healthy majority.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It is not a flaw in the system that this happened. It's just part of the system. But the courts are part of teh system also, and they will undoubtedly have to step in and make this right. That's what the courts are there to do when the majority passes an unconstitutional law.

Rhinocerous Surprise

nathanastin wrote:

Too much now the minority dictates and forces their values on the majority; how is that democratic?

Yes: them damn gays getting married, shoving their gayness in your face, and forcing you to love other dudes like a big gay.

:rolleyes:

meistereder

nathanastin wrote:

Too much now the minority dictates and forces their values on the majority; how is that democratic?

Just to clarify in case you are confused, no one is telling you to enter into a homosexual relationship.

HermanBloom

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Yes: them damn gays getting married, shoving their gayness in your face, and forcing you to love other dudes like a big gay.

:rolleyes:

That's not it at all; some people just see them as desecrating what they consider a sacred institution. Churches don't want to be sued or lose tax exempt status because they do not want to recognize gay marriages. There are more people in this country that are for gay marriage than against it. Even in California (a very pro-gay state) Prop 8 passed. The majority has spoken and they need to be respected.

cincybearcat

nathanastin wrote:

That's not it at all; some people just see them as desecrating what they consider a sacred institution. Churches don't want to be sued or lose tax exempt status because they do not want to recognize gay marriages. There are more people in this country that are for gay marriage than against it. Even in California (a very pro-gay state) Prop 8 passed. The majority has spoken and they need to be respected.

If you don;t want a gay to "desecrate" your "sacred institution"...then just make sure you and your wife or husband don;t have a 3 way marriage with a gay man or woman...problem solved. Your sacred instituion is intact.

Anyhow, how sacred is an institution when 50% end in divorce? Really.

Rhinocerous Surprise

nathanastin wrote:

That's not it at all; some people just see them as desecrating what they consider a sacred institution. Churches don't want to be sued or lose tax exempt status because they do not want to recognize gay marriages. There are more people in this country that are for gay marriage than against it. Even in California (a very pro-gay state) Prop 8 passed. The majority has spoken and they need to be respected.

No, that's the point: they don't need to be respected, because they're oppressing people - I think I remember reading in this very thread that it's unconstitutional. Legalising gay marriage isn't taking anyone's rights away - straight people can continue marrying straight people and grumbling about "them gays", if that's what gets them off. Banning gay marriage is taking people's rights away... THAT'S forcing your values on other people.

cincybearcat

nathanastin wrote:

The majority has spoken and they need to be respected.

If the majority voted to not allow Catholics to marry...should that be respected?

i shit and i stink

meistereder wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your point. It is not a flaw in the system that this happened. It's just part of the system. But the courts are part of teh system also, and they will undoubtedly have to step in and make this right. That's what the courts are there to do when the majority passes an unconstitutional law.

Agreed, the judicial process is part of the system and I wasn't clear. I just feel that democracy is a nice way to vote, but not always the sensible way to deal with real issues. Gays need rights and as humans they deserve the right to married, so if democracy fails in that then we need to find a way to make it happen.

I certainly don't agree that minority groups have too much power nowadays, as someone (maybe nathanastin) said. If I remember rightly the blacks were a minority a few decades ago and now we can all agree that they are and were entitled to equal rights.

Anyway, I won't poke my nose in, it's not my business really, cos I live in Poland where only the foolhardiest gays dare walk the streets hand in hand, let alone try to get married!

decides2dream

nathanastin wrote:

That's not it at all; some people just see them as desecrating what they consider a sacred institution. Churches don't want to be sued or lose tax exempt status because they do not want to recognize gay marriages. There are more people in this country that are for gay marriage than against it. Even in California (a very pro-gay state) Prop 8 passed. The majority has spoken and they need to be respected.

damn people, pay attention!


right now, the church does not have to 'recognize' ANY marriage outside the church, even a heterosexual one! and conversely, the goverment does not recognize a religous-only marriage.


sacred institution? yea, throse drive-thru wedding chapels in vegas sure are sacred! so's going down to the courthouse. :rolleyes:


SEPERATE your religious thought from your legal thought....they are NOT one and the same!



mesitereder...were you the one who mentioned something about gays who marry in MA and other states must recognize it as legal? i know 'someone' mentioned but with all the discussions, all the various threads and participants..i can't remember who said what.......:o i'd love to hear more about it.

JaneNY

I don't know if anyone read this, but some guys, one of whom I know on another board (AFI) (Mark, who is involved in Buzznet as PanasonicYouth), went to the protest yesterday in California, and got arrested for something they didn't do (assault - they'd gone to help someone who got punched), got arrested, got bailed out by some other people on the same board, who used money that they'd been saving to buy a house together.

Here is some links to the story,
http://despairfaction.com/showthread.php?t=123680
http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/

and here is a summarized version of what happened, from the AFI board:

Mark and Rich went to a No on 8 rally outside a Mormon church in West Los Angeles. It was a completely peaceful rally until some asshole in a truck with a yes on 8 sign came through the crowd. The crowd ripped off the yes on 8 banner and the driver got out and punched someone in the rally. Mark and Rich went over to help the guy who got punched and were assaulted by the cops, arrested, thrown in jail under the charge of "battery of a cop", and were released by Karen and Ramon on $20,000 bail for each Mark and Rich. We are now trying to raise money to help pay Karen and Ramon back since they used the money they were saving to buy a house.

It is FYI, in case anyone is interested.

decides2dream

JaneNY wrote:

I don't know if anyone read this, but some guys, one of whom I know on another board (AFI) (Mark, who is involved in Buzznet as PanasonicYouth), went to the protest yesterday in California, and got arrested for something they didn't do (assault - they'd gone to help someone who got punched), got arrested, got bailed out by some other people on the same board, who used money that they'd been saving to buy a house together.

Here is some links to the story,
http://despairfaction.com/showthread.php?t=123680
http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/

and here is a summarized version of what happened, from the AFI board:


It is FYI, in case anyone is interested.

:( :( :(


beyond sad.
and for what? to deny one group the rights afforded others based soley on sexual orientation. in 2008. how shameful we are still so backwards.


i think seperation of church and state needs to be hammered into everyone's heads. literally and figuratively. well ok...maybe not literally.

polaris

JaneNY wrote:

I don't know if anyone read this, but some guys, one of whom I know on another board (AFI) (Mark, who is involved in Buzznet as PanasonicYouth), went to the protest yesterday in California, and got arrested for something they didn't do (assault - they'd gone to help someone who got punched), got arrested, got bailed out by some other people on the same board, who used money that they'd been saving to buy a house together.

Here is some links to the story,
http://despairfaction.com/showthread.php?t=123680
http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/

and here is a summarized version of what happened, from the AFI board:


It is FYI, in case anyone is interested.

should always have video cameras when going to a protest ... similar to the cyclist who got bodychecked at a critical mass ride ... without it ... he's screwed ...