At least Prop 8 passed..

1…1213151718…22

Comments

  • AmentsChick
    AmentsChick Posts: 6,969
    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.

    Is this it??

    http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10920781?source=rss_viewed

    I heard about it on the radio this morning.
    This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper

  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    decides2dream wrote:
    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.


    Yes, I mentioned it. It's called the Full Faith & Credit clause of the United States Constitution. That is what tells one state to enforce the laws of another in cases such as a couple getting married in Nevada but living in Arizona (the clause is actually more broad than just marriages, but it is the reason people can get married in Nevada and have tehir marriage be just as valid as if they got married in their home state). And to be honest, that is how the law SHOULD be enforcing these CA marriages that are currently valid, with couples living in other states.

    Unfortunately, I didn't realize that there was this "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed back in 1996 (before gay marriages even existed). I posted this about it: http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=5983601#post5983601

    The easiest thing would be to now go and repeal the DOMA since it violates the Full Faith & Credit clause (above), which would return us to a situation where other states have to recognize valid marriages between same sex couples, just as they do between heterosexual couples. See that's just it -- the DOMA and all other laws saying enforce heterosexual marriages but not same sex marriages in my view CLEARLY violate the 14th amendment. Equal protection, plain and simple.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    JaneNY wrote:
    the driver got out and punched someone in the rally..


    probably a good christian :rolleyes:
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    meistereder wrote:
    Yes, I mentioned it. It's called the Full Faith & Credit clause of the United States Constitution. That is what tells one state to enforce the laws of another in cases such as a couple getting married in Nevada but living in Arizona (the clause is actually more broad than just marriages, but it is the reason people can get married in Nevada and have tehir marriage be just as valid as if they got married in their home state). And to be honest, that is how the law SHOULD be enforcing these CA marriages that are currently valid, with couples living in other states.

    Unfortunately, I didn't realize that there was this "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed back in 1996 (before gay marriages even existed). I posted this about it: http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=5983601#post5983601

    The easiest thing would be to now go and repeal the DOMA since it violates the Full Faith & Credit clause (above), which would return us to a situation where other states have to recognize valid marriages between same sex couples, just as they do between heterosexual couples. See that's just it -- the DOMA and all other laws saying enforce heterosexual marriages but not same sex marriages in my view CLEARLY violate the 14th amendment. Equal protection, plain and simple.



    THANK YOU for that...extremely informative! :)


    how anyone can objectively view this issue as anything besides a civil rights issue is beyond me. obviously they do.....but none the less, on that point....they are wrong. :D
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • chiquimonkey
    chiquimonkey Posts: 9,337
    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.
    how are two people that love each other desecrating marriage?

    you know what desecrates the church? the church itself, with the molestation and paying out civil suits to keep it all quiet.

    same church that through history invaded countries, tortured natives and infected them with diseases, decimated their cultures, raped and pillaged.

    yeah, sacred my ASS.

    what should be held sacred, and has been treated like a piece of shit, is the constitution. perhaps people have gotten so used to having rights whittled away at and slowly taken that they aren't as up in arms as they should. we *all* should be upset by this, straight or gay, religious or atheist.

    and just cuz the majority speaks doesn't mean the majority is right. they weren't right when the jim crow laws passed.

    i agree dream, i don't understand why it is so hard for people to separate church and state in this situation. it should be separate in every situation. nobody is infringing on religious people to be gay, why should they be allowed to infringe on others??
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    chiquimonkey wrote:
    how are two people that love each other desecrating marriage?

    you know what desecrates the church? the church itself, with the molestation and paying out civil suits to keep it all quiet.

    same church that through history invaded countries, tortured natives and infected them with diseases, decimated their cultures, raped and pillaged.

    yeah, sacred my ASS.

    what should be held sacred, and has been treated like a piece of shit, is the constitution. perhaps people have gotten so used to having rights whittled away at and slowly taken that they aren't as up in arms as they should. we *all* should be upset by this, straight or gay, religious or atheist.

    and just cuz the majority speaks doesn't mean the majority is right. they weren't right when the jim crow laws passed.

    i agree dream, i don't understand why it is so hard for people to separate church and state in this situation. it should be separate in every situation. nobody is infringing on religious people to be gay, why should they be allowed to infringe on others??


    PREACH SISTER PREACH!!!! :D
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    chiquimonkey wrote:
    how are two people that love each other desecrating marriage?

    you know what desecrates the church? the church itself, with the molestation and paying out civil suits to keep it all quiet.

    same church that through history invaded countries, tortured natives and infected them with diseases, decimated their cultures, raped and pillaged.

    yeah, sacred my ASS.

    what should be held sacred, and has been treated like a piece of shit, is the constitution. perhaps people have gotten so used to having rights whittled away at and slowly taken that they aren't as up in arms as they should. we *all* should be upset by this, straight or gay, religious or atheist.

    and just cuz the majority speaks doesn't mean the majority is right. they weren't right when the jim crow laws passed.

    i agree dream, i don't understand why it is so hard for people to separate church and state in this situation. it should be separate in every situation. nobody is infringing on religious people to be gay, why should they be allowed to infringe on others??



    EXACTLY.
    thank you for that chica.
    i needed to read some more sensible posts. :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Couldn't agree with you more.
    Focus On Your Own Fucking Family, right?

    HEY! you stole my line (in your quote) and gave him credit for it. ;)
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    decides2dream wrote:
    THANK YOU for that...extremely informative! :)


    how anyone can objectively view this issue as anything besides a civil rights issue is beyond me. obviously they do.....but none the less, on that point....they are wrong. :D


    No problem, and I agree. I am coming at this thing from a legal perspective because I went to law school, although I am not a constitutional attorney. To me, it's pretty obvious that the way it stands right now is problematic from a constitutional perspective. The problem of course is that the makeup of the court changes. The good thing on that front is that Obama got elected, and he is likely to appoint justices who would be on the correct side on this issue. There are also other ways to attack thsi thing. You may have read that they are already challenging this as an unconstitutional constitutional revision, which would need a 2/3 super majority. Also, since the 18,000 marriages will continue to be enforced, it leaves a big inequality that could and should be challenged by the simple reason that it's not due process or equal protection. DOMA being repealed would be a good place to go in the next year or so if proposition 8 isn't struck down.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    meistereder wrote:
    No problem, and I agree. I am coming at this thing from a legal perspective because I went to law school, although I am not a constitutional attorney. To me, it's pretty obvious that the way it stands right now is problematic from a constitutional perspective. The problem of course is that the makeup of the court changes. The good thing on that front is that Obama got elected, and he is likely to appoint justices who would be on the correct side on this issue. There are also other ways to attack thsi thing. You may have read that they are already challenging this as an unconstitutional constitutional revision, which would need a 2/3 super majority. Also, since the 18,000 marriages will continue to be enforced, it leaves a big inequality that could and should be challenged by the simple reason that it's not due process or equal protection. DOMA being repealed would be a good place to go in the next year or so if proposition 8 isn't struck down.


    well imo, it SHOULD be addressed from a legal perspective, and a legal perspective only....b/c all homosexuals are asking for is EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS. all the rest? quite honestly....inconsequential.

    i hope the tide turns in the proper direction.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • JaneNY
    JaneNY Posts: 4,438
    polaris wrote:
    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 ...

    I believe he has video and will be putting it up - if he does I'll post a link.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    decides2dream wrote:
    well imo, it SHOULD be addressed from a legal perspective, and a legal perspective only....b/c all homosexuals are asking for is EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS. all the rest? quite honestly....inconsequential.

    i hope the tide turns in the proper direction.


    Yeah, it's a legal issue and all this stuff about sanctity of marriage, etc. is meaningless rhetoric. Marriage is the biggest contract that many people enter into in their lives.
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    nathanastin wrote:
    There have actually been cases exactly of this where couples sue churches for not letting them use their property for marriages.

    Well that is ridiculous because a church is a private institution and can do as they please, but the government is not so it must treat all people equally. If they are handing out marriage licenses to heterosexual couples than then need to hand them out to homosexual couples. I have already stated my case on why the government should not be involved in marriage but since they are then they need to stop discrimination against same sex couples and I personally don't give a damn how many people voted to ban it, it is still discrimination.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • JaneNY
    JaneNY Posts: 4,438
    Mark/PanasonicYouth's blog about being arrested at the protest yesterday; there is some video from CNN. He is the guy in the red shirt, and his friend Rich was in a black or blue shirt and you can see officers cause him to fall by a wall as they go after him and Mark.
    http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3336291/my-experience-reverse-prop-8/
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    From a Catholic Website:

    6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

    It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

    To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons. Sexual intimacy is a blessing given by God for marriage only. Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil. The Church opposes as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).


    What do you think about this?
    NERDS!
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    South of Seattle wrote:
    From a Catholic Website:

    6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

    It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

    To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons. Sexual intimacy is a blessing given by God for marriage only. Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil. The Church opposes as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).


    What do you think about this?



    :mad:
    ugh!



    bullshit!
    once again:


    seperation of church and state!


    believe what you personally want to believe, but do not try and force your will/beliefs on thei lives of others!!!




    uuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!


    that's how i feel. :D
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    decides2dream wrote:
    :mad:
    ugh!



    bullshit!
    once again:


    seperation of church and state!


    believe what you personally want to believe, but do not try and force your will/beliefs on thei lives of others!!!




    uuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!


    that's how i feel. :D

    Not my beliefs :)

    Just found it interesting. The part that bugs me is the "EVIL" part :confused:
    NERDS!
  • Rhinocerous Surprise
    Rhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    South of Seattle wrote:
    From a Catholic Website:

    6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

    It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

    To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons. Sexual intimacy is a blessing given by God for marriage only. Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil. The Church opposes as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).


    What do you think about this?
    I think the Catholic Church would do well to join us in the 21st century sometime soon. But hey, that's just me.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    South of Seattle wrote:
    From a Catholic Website:

    6. Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?

    It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

    To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons. Sexual intimacy is a blessing given by God for marriage only. Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil. The Church opposes as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347).


    What do you think about this?


    kinda pisses me off that i was raised catholic...but then nothing the catholic church does surprises me anymore
  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    cutback wrote:
    kinda pisses me off that i was raised catholic...but then nothing the catholic church does surprises me anymore

    The thing is that most Catholics I've encountered don't act like this. But it is what they believe.
    NERDS!

Categories