At least Prop 8 passed..

jimed14

This thread got crazy, so, sorry if this was posted ... found it interesting ...

Schwarzenegger spoke up... for the protesters ...

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

iamica

jimed14 wrote:

This thread got crazy, so, sorry if this was posted ... found it interesting ...

Schwarzenegger spoke up... for the protesters ...

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

Interesting article.
I found it the most interesting that they're protesting outside of churches...good. Now churches are getting a taste of their own medicine for protesting outside abortion clinics.

meistereder

iamica wrote:

Interesting article.
I found it the most interesting that they're protesting outside of churches...good. Now churches are getting a taste of their own medicine for protesting outside abortion clinics.

One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.

ReleaseMe...

meistereder wrote:

One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.

oh boy

mammasan

meistereder wrote:

One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.

I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.

iamica

mammasan wrote:

I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with him on that one. Not all Christians are guilty of hate-filled unjust acts; just a vocal minority of them.

meistereder

mammasan wrote:

I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.

Well of course if you boil everything down, it's man. Churches and religion are man-made. I thought that was implied, but I think some would argue that churches were ultimately invented by God or whatever. My point was that it is not surprising to see that the church was one of the central figures behind this example of injustice, since it is not the first time nor will it be the last. Religion and the church have done some good things in the world, I think, but recently most of what I see is pain and destruction coming from organized religions throughout the world.

digster

So, I don't know if it was brought up earlier in this thread, but it turns out I was dead wrong about the legality of same-sex marriages in states other than the ones in which they were performed. Some of us here thought same-sex marriages in Massachusetts for example would have to be honored everywhere due to the full-faith and credit clause. Not so, thanks to President Clinton, Bob Barr and a Republican Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 does two things, apparently;

-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

For all intents and purposes, it seems to act as a federal banning of gay marriage, and it directly violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Same-sex marriages, not forbidden in the Constitution, are now not to be recognized? I honestly don't understand how there is a legal argument for this. In the United States, you need a reason to make something illegal as opposed to make something legal. States that make such laws as the federal Defense of Marriage Act do so in violation of federal law, and since federal law always trumps state law in areas where they are contradictory, any law that prohibits same-sex marriages is by definition unconstitutional. There is no good legal justification; not 'upholding the Constitution', not 'states' rights'. The only answer here is that they are legislating discrimination.

meistereder

digster wrote:

So, I don't know if it was brought up earlier in this thread, but it turns out I was dead wrong about the legality of same-sex marriages in states other than the ones in which they were performed. Some of us here thought same-sex marriages in Massachusetts for example would have to be honored everywhere due to the full-faith and credit clause. Not so, thanks to President Clinton, Bob Barr and a Republican Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 does two things, apparently;

-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

For all intents and purposes, it seems to act as a federal banning of gay marriage, and it directly violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Same-sex marriages, not forbidden in the Constitution, are now not to be recognized? I honestly don't understand how there is a legal argument for this. In the United States, you need a reason to make something illegal as opposed to make something legal. States that make such laws as the federal Defense of Marriage Act do so in violation of federal law, and since federal law always trumps state law in areas where they are contradictory, any law that prohibits same-sex marriages is by definition unconstitutional. There is no good legal justification; not 'upholding the Constitution', not 'states' rights'. The only answer here is that they are legislating discrimination.

Yeah, I mentioned DOMA a couple of times. DOMA actually violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Many think that the democratic legislature and president will repeal DOMA. That would be a dagger to proposition 8. But yeah, right now DOMA stands in the way of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the 14th Amendment.

digster

meistereder wrote:

Yeah, I mentioned DOMA a couple of times. DOMA actually violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Many think that the democratic legislature and president will repeal DOMA. That would be a dagger to proposition 8. But yeah, right now DOMA stands in the way of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the 14th Amendment.

Maybe I just haven't been paying as much attention; how do conservative supporters defend this bill and things like Proposition 8? I doubt many people are as blatant as to come out and say "it's because we hate gay people." Maybe I was giving them too much credit by assuming they had to have some kind of legal argument.

meistereder

digster wrote:

Maybe I just haven't been paying as much attention; how do conservative supporters defend this bill and things like Proposition 8? I doubt many people are as blatant as to come out and say "it's because we hate gay people." Maybe I was giving them too much credit by assuming they had to have some kind of legal argument.

I am sure if you look up the legislative record and documents in support of DOMA as it was being passed, you'd see a lot of support from religious and conservative institutions citing the history of marriage as between a man and a woman, etc. See the beauty of passing DOMA in 1996 was it was way before any states actually allowed gay marriage. In effect, they got together before on a federal level, knowing one day states would allow it, and this was a way to put a block on the states rights issue.

But now that there is a democratic led congress, senate and presidency, DOMA could (and really should) fall. Should be interesting.

JOEJOEJOE

I am against prop 8, and I favor gay marriage, however, if I were in a marriage that wasn't recognized by society, I think I'd be more concerend about the legal rights to which we are entitled (med ins for partner, community property, power of attorney at time of serious illness).

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.

kinda sad that on first reading, i read that as 'and palin in this world'...! hahaha. bit synonymous tho.



joe.....i agree, to an extent. have said as much in numerous posts on this thread. however, if you're going to fight the fight, might as well go for what you REALLY want, which is true equality, which equals MARRIAGE rights. i do fully believe it's the right thing to do, not settle for half-measures, b/c while for now sure....get the legal benefits...but always be seen as 'less.'

saveuplife

Woudln't Obama have been considered FOR Prop 8? He was outspokenly against Gay "Marriage".

polaris

i just saw olberman's comment on this ...

when you really look at this issue - it is absolutely about love and tolerance or the lack there of in this world ...

decides2dream

saveuplife wrote:

Woudln't Obama have been considered FOR Prop 8? He was outspokenly against Gay "Marriage".

who cares?


i know his personal belief is that 'nmarriage is between a man and a woman.' however, he does support civil unions, and believes it should be decided at the state level. beyond that, with his prestigious law background, i am sure he could manage to have his personal beliefs, and yet still be for equal rights, and seperate the 2 if need be. just b/c he may believe in marriage in one way, does not necessarily imply he would vote for prop 8 on that, but look at the larger picture.


bottomline tho..i stick with my first comment. who cares what his personal beliefs are on the issue. doesn't make a shit of difference.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

i just saw olberman's comment on this ...

when you really look at this issue - it is absolutely about love and tolerance or the lack there of in this world ...

The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.

If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.

saveuplife

decides2dream wrote:

who cares?


i know his personal belief is that 'nmarriage is between a man and a woman.' however, he does support civil unions, and believes it should be decided at the state level. beyond that, with his prestigious law background, i am sure he could manage to have his personal beliefs, and yet still be for equal rights, and seperate the 2 if need be. just b/c he may believe in marriage in one way, does not necessarily imply he would vote for prop 8 on that, but look at the larger picture.


bottomline tho..i stick with my first comment. who cares what his personal beliefs are on the issue. doesn't make a shit of difference.

He's the President of the U.S. You voted for him. If this is an important issue for you, you most likely would care about his opinion on the subject. If it's not an important issue for you, then it's not.

This whole Obama defense by the Obama supporters is already getting old. Just say you don't agree with his outspoken opinion and move on. It's really that easy.

decides2dream

saveuplife wrote:

The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.

If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.

awwww. well isn't that nice of you...allowing the gays to call their relationships civil unions. you and obama can do that, i will support gays rights to legal marriage.



btw - i don't think they personally give a shit if you 'say it's marriage'......THEY just want the right to it, period, regardless of if you would personally call it that or not. personal beliefs and legal rights, nice when they are synonymous, but they don't have to be, and often aren't...mutually exclusive. thankfully.

saveuplife wrote:

He's the President of the U.S. You voted for him. If this is an important issue for you, you most likely would care about his opinion on the subject. If it's not an important issue for you, then it's not.

This whole Obama defense by the Obama supporters is already getting old. Just say you don't agree with his outspoken opinion and move on. It's really that easy.

:rolleyes:
spare me.


i HAVE!
numerous times!
outright said that this, and the death penalty, are 2 issues i disagree with obama. however, on issues of greater importance to me....we are closer in beliefs than any of the other candidates, thus my vote. i don't have a problem admitting i don't agree with him, or anyone, 100%. moving on......

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.

If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.

condone? ... i didn't know homosexuality had to have yours or anyone else's consent!?

what you are exhibiting is intolerance - don't kid yourself ... when two people want to live a life with the SAME rights you are entitled to and you want to prevent that - that is intolerance ... i don't need a guy with a white collar or any book to tell me that ...