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.
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]
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.
SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
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.
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.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
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!
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.
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.
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.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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??
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??
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.
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.
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]
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.
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
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]
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
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
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).
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!!!
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.
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
Comments
Just to clarify in case you are confused, no one is telling you to enter into a homosexual relationship.
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
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.
If the majority voted to not allow Catholics to marry...should that be respected?
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!
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
:( :( :(
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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 ...
Is this it??
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10920781?source=rss_viewed
I heard about it on the radio this morning.
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.
probably a good christian :rolleyes:
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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!!!!
EXACTLY.
thank you for that chica.
i needed to read some more sensible posts.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
HEY! you stole my line (in your quote) and gave him credit for it.
"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
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I believe he has video and will be putting it up - if he does I'll post a link.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
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.
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.
http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3336291/my-experience-reverse-prop-8/
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
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.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Not my beliefs
Just found it interesting. The part that bugs me is the "EVIL" part
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.