Listen I really didn't mean to offend anyone. I just think we should listen to everyone's opinions and it didn't sound like she was. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing I just don't think telling him off was the best way to get the point accross.
I have listened and read up on both sides of this issue along with ALL the issues that I voted on (I already voted because I did a mail-in). I was telling him off because I think it is horrible that people are wanting to take away rights from people.
As I said before he called MY HOME. I did not ask for him to call.
To the people who think this is an issue of majority rules: You are wrong. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law. The Court ruled that the majority created a law that was discriminatory. It's happened before. Blacks didn't used to have the right to vote, remember? How about "separate but equal"? That also took the Supreme Court to strike down.
This is about equality, not about "majority rules." By the way, even if this constitutional amendment passes, the supreme court will have the last word, and rightfully so.
What I want to know is.. if this has already been voted on and passed, and then the California Supreme Court overruled it. Will the California Supreme Court be overruled if it gets passed again? In which they will probably bring it back to the Supreme Court.. Seems like an endless cycle.
This is why the concept of propositions is silly. To avoid this, the Vote Yes on 8 side should amend the State Constitution.
Can you imagine running a federal government with prop voting?
What I want to know is.. if this has already been voted on and passed, and then the California Supreme Court overruled it. Will the California Supreme Court be overruled if it gets passed again? In which they will probably bring it back to the Supreme Court.. Seems like an endless cycle.
It's a pretty interesting primer on the way it all works. In a nutshell, the CA supreme court has thrown out a couple of premature challenges to Prop 8, basically because those cases were not "ripe." If 8 passes, you can bet it will be challenged in the court system. You can't "overrule" the supreme court. That said, the court can change its mind based on a newly enacted law, and it can readdress laws with new legal issues or facts, if they arise. Ultimately, it seems certain that if Prop. 8 passes, the CA supreme court will see it again. If it then rules that 8 is unconstitutional, it will probably be the last step in CA, and we can be certain that the US Supreme Court will weigh in at some point because it is a federal issue due to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution (if you get married in CA, Alabama has to recognize it).
This is from wikipedia, which has a pretty good article on the history of Prop. 8:
On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the November vote on Proposition 8.[35]
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court dismissed a motion for pre-election review of Proposition 8 which would determine whether it was a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision. Were the court to have found Proposition 8 to be a constitutional revision, it would have been removed from the ballot.[36][37] The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved.
On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down a legal challenge aimed at reversing the renaming and rephrasing of the official Proposition 8 language. And the court found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage will require teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. Frawley said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. He said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.[30] Also that same day, a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an emergency appeal by the Yes on 8 campaign. August 15, was the deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet.[38]
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]
would you want to be the kid who has two mommy's or two dads? i wouldnt want to be him
I grew up in a place where the first thing anyone asks you when they meet you is "who is your father?" and my answer always was "I don't have one". It wasn't other kids who thought anything of it but maybe their parents did??? I am not sure and don't really care. So if had I my choice between having two moms/dads that loved me and took care of me vs "tradional parents" who treated me like crap... I am going to go with the loving environment. Family is what you make it. That is what you believe makes a marriage so that is what you practice but not everyone believes that and should still have rights. As far as marriage goes I have good friends that have never been married but I am sure they are the most committed people I know, to each other, to their sons. I also know people who were married and couldn't keep their pants on.
I grew up in a place where the first thing anyone asks you when they meet you is "who is your father?" and my answer always was "I don't have one". It wasn't other kids who thought anything of it but maybe their parents did??? I am not sure and don't really care. So if had I my choice between having two moms/dads that loved me and took care of me vs "tradional parents" who treated me like crap... I am going to go with the loving environment. Family is what you make it. That is what you believe makes a marriage so that is what you practice but not everyone believes that and should still have rights. As far as marriage goes I have good friends that have never been married but I am sure they are the most committed people I know, to each other, to their sons. I also know people who were married and couldn't keep their pants on.
Agree with all of this. The point is marriage and parents are all over the board. You have marriages that are kept faithful, and others that are not. You have parents who are good to their children, and others who are not. Some straight people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are not faithful to each other. Others are. Some gay parents are bad parents, others are great parents.
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]
Agree with all of this. The point is marriage and parents are all over the board. You have marriages that are kept faithful, and others that are not. You have parents who are good to their children, and others who are not. Some straight people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are not faithful to each other. Others are. Some gay parents are bad parents, others are great parents.
Exactly.
I mean really though we should have equal rights for the whole world and that just isn't going to happen. In some countries women are still considered property :( It is all sad. If you find someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with I think that is one of the most beautiful things in the world.
I used to work with two guys back home who were a couple and one day one of the guys and were talking and he said something that was interesting and while I can't remember word for word the gist was "Britney Spears who really has no concept of marriage can marry whoever she wants but Jason and I can't get married even though we are in a committed relationship. Does that make any sense?" No I don't think it does.
God, gay marriage and one furious man
Al Martinez
October 27, 2008
I know a man in Riverside named Harvey who goes ballistic whenever I broach the subject of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriages in California. His eyes narrow, his voice rises and he gets absolutely squeaky with rage over the possibility of Gus and Homer getting married.
Gus and Homer are not their real names. They live down the block from Harvey and try to be as friendly as possible even though they know he loathes them. They have been together for years and only recently have begun talking about tying the knot.
Harvey, being an evangelical Christian, cannot stand the idea of two men walking down the street holding hands, much less indulging in more intimate expressions of love in the privacy of their bedroom. He considers himself a real man and would gladly beat the crap out of both Gus and Homer if they weren't bigger and stronger than he is.
I personally don't care about what anyone does in his bedroom or who marries whom.
Gays seem to be the only ones who actually want to be married anyhow.
Heterosexuals have taken to just playing house until the glow wears off, maybe through the weekend.
I was thinking about this the other day and created a ritual for those who would like to legitimize a temporary arrangement, not through holy matrimony, but through a ceremony of holy relationship, which is the key word in today's random coupling.
It would in some ways soothe the consciences of the more sensitive rutting couples and save money on gowns and rings.
My relationship ritual would begin, "Do you, Susan, take Roger as your temporary sexual partner to have and to hold as long as the weekend shall last? And do you, Roger, promise to lust, perform and pay for dinner and drinks until the Monday you do part? Therefore in the name of Bacchus and Aphrodite, I now pronounce you hunk and hot mama. You may pour the cosmopolitans."
I mentioned my idea to Harvey, who didn't think it was a bit funny because, you see, he doesn't think much of anything is funny. I recall that he almost laughed once at a humorous comment by Sarah Palin on television but then realized it was Tina Fey; he had accidentally turned on "Saturday Night Live," the program bent on the destruction of morality, or what's left of it. He hasn't laughed since.
Harvey, by the way, considers Palin a great American even though she does happen to be a woman and he doesn't feel women should vote or lead. I keep in touch with him because it gives me inroads into the blurry thinking of the religious right.
Harvey believes, among other things, that God intended marriage to be between only man and woman, that abortion for any reason is a mortal sin, that women should be confined to cooking and bearing children and not clutter the culture by working, that only the Bible and not evolution should be taught in schools and that only white males should be eligible to run for president.
I am fascinated by the rigidity of his thought process, and in those rare moments when we argue about God and evolution it feels less like a Darrow-Bryan debate than it does like someone monologuing on the existence of an entity no one has ever seen. Only if Harvey would actually trot God out of a back room and introduce him in person to an audience of atheists would I say you're right, man, you win; there is a God.
I'm more pantheist than theist, which includes believing there is something almost godlike in the glory of rain and sunset, in love and an aqua ocean, and in little children and puppies. If there turns out to be more than one god, well that's OK too. I'll go back to being a Catholic and we can all march together to kingdom come.
Those of us appalled by Proposition 8 are not trying to interpret morality. There are human rights at stake beyond anyone's capacity to give or take away, and I believe that compassion is an emotion that acknowledges few barriers.
If guys like Harvey had their way, cultural evolution would come to a screeching halt and we would be in danger once more of outlawing interracial marriage and bowing to the archaic ecclesiastical rules that determine what is and what is not sinful.
I'm going to get Harvey's thinking on that too and then see how he feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.
Those of us appalled by Proposition 8 are not trying to interpret morality. There are human rights at stake beyond anyone's capacity to give or take away, and I believe that compassion is an emotion that acknowledges few barriers.
I'm going to get Harvey's thinking on that too and then see how he feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.
I mentioned that gay marriage is legal in Germany. I have a second cousin in Germany who is married to a man. Both guys are totally nice guys, and, not that it matters, they are not "femme" or drag queens or anything.
Anyway, so they came to another cousin of mine's wedding in Seattle a year ago, and they both ended up dancing a few times with older ladies at the wedding. We all had a great time, but it occurred to me that they weren't holding hands ever, and they didn't dance together at all. I asked my second cousin about it and he said that they wouldn't because in the US, it would not be accepted. And he had a point.
It was sad. This was a totally normal couple in every way, except it was two guys. I think of my second cousin and his husband whenever this gay marriage ban issue comes up. There is no reason to deny people like him the right to be married if that is what he wants.
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]
To the people who think this is an issue of majority rules: You are wrong. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law. The Court ruled that the majority created a law that was discriminatory. It's happened before. Blacks didn't used to have the right to vote, remember? How about "separate but equal"? That also took the Supreme Court to strike down.
This is about equality, not about "majority rules." By the way, even if this constitutional amendment passes, the supreme court will have the last word, and rightfully so.
No on 8.
well said.
i love when people say what marriage is 'supposed to be.'
who the fuck made it up to them to decide?
and please, don't tell me b/c the bible says so....b/c some of us don't follow the bible and hellooooooooooo...seperation of church and state.
marriage is a LEGAL term, as well as religious. me, i am all about the legality of marriages and protections that come with it. my spirituality or whatnot really is my own business and sure...i did get married in a church ...mostly for the tradition of it, my parents.....and sure, i do feel a 'more than just legal' bond with my husband, but religion really was/is unnecessary for me to feel that.
bottomline, it seems way too much personal shit, personal decisions, ruling others personal lives...is geting way too entangled with government, and damn...waaayyyy too much religious influence in rulings. enough! it is NOT meant to be there!
it's like those who cry about the pledge of allegiance and some daring to suggest removal of the words under god....oh my! :eek: again, hellooooo...it wasn't there to begin with, but added in the 1950s. that wonderful time period in our country's history when lots of religion got mixed in with government. so no, our founding fathers did have the good sense not to mix it all up, we just chose to fuck it up later.
keep your religious views out of my personal politics and the lives of others.
i love when people say what marriage is 'supposed to be.'
who the fuck made it up to them to decide?
and please, don't tell me b/c the bible says so....b/c some of us don't follow the bible and hellooooooooooo...seperation of church and state.
marriage is a LEGAL term, as well as religious. me, i am all about the legality of marriages and protections that come with it. my spirituality or whatnot really is my own business and sure...i did get married in a church ...mostly for the tradition of it, my parents.....and sure, i do feel a 'more than just legal' bond with my husband, but religion really was/is unnecessary for me to feel that.
bottomline, it seems way too much personal shit, personal decisions, ruling others personal lives...is geting way too entangled with government, and damn...waaayyyy too much religious influence in rulings. enough! it is NOT meant to be there!
it's like those who cry about the pledge of allegiance and some daring to suggest removal of the words under god....oh my! :eek: again, hellooooo...it wasn't there to begin with, but added in the 1950s. that wonderful time period in our country's history when lots of religion got mixed in with government. so no, our founding fathers did have the good sense not to mix it all up, we just chose to fuck it up later.
keep your religious views out of my personal politics and the lives of others.
Because it is a hot issue on the election right now. The Mormon Church is the backer; they are pouring a SCARY amount of money into this.
I have heard the Mormon church has funded it 70%. I agree with a comedian that found it ironic that the Mormon Church--who was heavily into polygamy when it was formed-- is so worried about the sanctity of marriage!! :rolleyes:
and I was at church Sunday (Catholic--I only go now since I am the only one able to take my mom and I don't want to just dump her off!!) and the priest mentioned this proposition and how we should vote!! I wanted to yell "are you gonna tell me who to vote for president??" but I didn't. I would be too shy anyway.
What happened to separation of church and state??!!!
So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
i love when people say what marriage is 'supposed to be.'
who the fuck made it up to them to decide?
and please, don't tell me b/c the bible says so....b/c some of us don't follow the bible and hellooooooooooo...seperation of church and state.
marriage is a LEGAL term, as well as religious. me, i am all about the legality of marriages and protections that come with it. my spirituality or whatnot really is my own business and sure...i did get married in a church ...mostly for the tradition of it, my parents.....and sure, i do feel a 'more than just legal' bond with my husband, but religion really was/is unnecessary for me to feel that.
bottomline, it seems way too much personal shit, personal decisions, ruling others personal lives...is geting way too entangled with government, and damn...waaayyyy too much religious influence in rulings. enough! it is NOT meant to be there!
it's like those who cry about the pledge of allegiance and some daring to suggest removal of the words under god....oh my! :eek: again, hellooooo...it wasn't there to begin with, but added in the 1950s. that wonderful time period in our country's history when lots of religion got mixed in with government. so no, our founding fathers did have the good sense not to mix it all up, we just chose to fuck it up later.
keep your religious views out of my personal politics and the lives of others.
and yea....you go jen!
Right, and also, if you look at the history of marriage, it is mostly rooted in PROPERTY rights (not in religion). Words like "to have and to hold" relate directly to the transfer of PROPERTY from a future wife's estate to that of the husband.
The concept of marriage as a romantic institution came much, much later. Within the last couple hundred years.
So this thing about marriage being between a man and a woman who love each other -- yeah, OK, maybe that is the ideal now, but historically it has also been about many other things.
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]
Right, and also, if you look at the history of marriage, it is mostly rooted in PROPERTY rights (not in religion). Words like "to have and to hold" relate directly to the transfer of PROPERTY from a future wife's estate to that of the husband.
The concept of marriage as a romantic institution came much, much later. Within the last couple hundred years.
So this thing about marriage being between a man and a woman who love each other -- yeah, OK, maybe that is the ideal now, but historically it has also been about many other things.
EGGGGS-actly!
marriage initially was ALL about property, dowry, etc...no love, and sure....about procreation to continue the family and blah, blah, blah.
but i just get sick to death hearing what marriage is SUPPOSED to be about, b/c history has shown us PLENTY of marriages that, by the looks of things, were EXACTLY what 'marriage is supposed to be about'...but in reality, anything but.
as a long-married woman with no children, and childless by choice.......is our marriage 'wrong'....? spare me! marriage is about uniting 2 lives. by choice. let people decide for themselves. novel idea, i know.....
I would take these people more seriously about how they feel that the "Sanctity of marriage" if they went after the drive thru wedding chapels in vegas. Really. Let's be honest for a moment...is marriage REALLY held with the regard and honor as it once was? With a 50% divorce rate? With the ability to not even get out of a car to get married? With getting married over and over and over? The only thing I see is people trying to impose more of what they consider "right" on other people.
Here's a solution to the problem: call it something else!
Many people have a problem with homosexuals being 'married'.
Let them be together if they wish and call their union something else.
i think it goes deeper in that people have a problem with homosexuals....period.
i just don't get how it would matter to anybody....it's not like taxes would go up or your own personal rights would be infringed. if it means something to a couple to call it 'marriage'...then let them call it that. it's a basic human right.
i think it goes deeper in that people have a problem with homosexuals....period.
i just don't get how it would matter to anybody....it's not like taxes would go up or your own personal rights would be infringed. if it means something to a couple to call it 'marriage'...then let them call it that. it's a basic human right.
It may not shut everyone up but I do know people who would just like see it called something other than marriage.
Stone Gossard...riffmeister extraordinaire!
I am a man, I am advanced.....I am the first man to borrow Stone's leather pants!
It may not shut everyone up but I do know people who would just like see it called something other than marriage.
to call it something other than marriage is to keep in the thinking that they aren't the same as everybody else. people should be treated equally, so equal wording i figure
to call it something other than marriage is to keep in the thinking that they aren't the same as everybody else. people should be treated equally, so equal wording i figure
ok, to me........definition of gay means = happy
so happy and free and light and airy and unconventional and evolved.........
so why the hell spoil it with the ancient myth of marriage?
(just throwing it out there...............)
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I noticed the phone said "private caller" so I thought it was my dad or brother (I never answer if it says "unknown). It was this guy saying "Hi, I'm Mark, and I'm with the Yes on proposition 8 campaign."
For those outside Cali, Yes on 8 takes away the right for same sex marriage. I'm sorry but no matter how you feel about gay people, this is an issue of equal rights.
Anyway, as soon as Mark introduced himself, I really told him off! This is an issue I really feel passionately about. Then I hung up. My only regret is that I don't have the kind of phone that you can slam down--clicking the "off" button just isn't the same as slamming down the phone.
Now I doubt Mark cared, but I'm a pretty mild mannered person and I rarely yell, but it just felt SO GOOD to give him a piece of my mind.
Just thought I'd share.
I cant picture you yelling at anyone!!!! Ure sweet little chocolate covered jenny!!!! :eek:
it felt GREAT to vote last night.
~~~~~~ALWAYS HAVE A GOOD TIME~~~~~~
Sir Mike McCready is....THE MASTER!!! WAHHH!!!
EVENFLOW PSYCHOS H.N.I.C~FEEL THE FLOW!!!
"Pearl Jam fans are obsessed, they'd see the boys in HELL if tickets were sold."-CROJAM95
Comments
I have listened and read up on both sides of this issue along with ALL the issues that I voted on (I already voted because I did a mail-in). I was telling him off because I think it is horrible that people are wanting to take away rights from people.
As I said before he called MY HOME. I did not ask for him to call.
Exactly.
This is why the concept of propositions is silly. To avoid this, the Vote Yes on 8 side should amend the State Constitution.
Can you imagine running a federal government with prop voting?
It's a pretty interesting primer on the way it all works. In a nutshell, the CA supreme court has thrown out a couple of premature challenges to Prop 8, basically because those cases were not "ripe." If 8 passes, you can bet it will be challenged in the court system. You can't "overrule" the supreme court. That said, the court can change its mind based on a newly enacted law, and it can readdress laws with new legal issues or facts, if they arise. Ultimately, it seems certain that if Prop. 8 passes, the CA supreme court will see it again. If it then rules that 8 is unconstitutional, it will probably be the last step in CA, and we can be certain that the US Supreme Court will weigh in at some point because it is a federal issue due to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution (if you get married in CA, Alabama has to recognize it).
This is from wikipedia, which has a pretty good article on the history of Prop. 8:
On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the November vote on Proposition 8.[35]
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court dismissed a motion for pre-election review of Proposition 8 which would determine whether it was a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision. Were the court to have found Proposition 8 to be a constitutional revision, it would have been removed from the ballot.[36][37] The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved.
On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down a legal challenge aimed at reversing the renaming and rephrasing of the official Proposition 8 language. And the court found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage will require teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. Frawley said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. He said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.[30] Also that same day, a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an emergency appeal by the Yes on 8 campaign. August 15, was the deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet.[38]
What was I thinking? :eek:
I grew up in a place where the first thing anyone asks you when they meet you is "who is your father?" and my answer always was "I don't have one". It wasn't other kids who thought anything of it but maybe their parents did??? I am not sure and don't really care. So if had I my choice between having two moms/dads that loved me and took care of me vs "tradional parents" who treated me like crap... I am going to go with the loving environment. Family is what you make it. That is what you believe makes a marriage so that is what you practice but not everyone believes that and should still have rights. As far as marriage goes I have good friends that have never been married but I am sure they are the most committed people I know, to each other, to their sons. I also know people who were married and couldn't keep their pants on.
Agree with all of this. The point is marriage and parents are all over the board. You have marriages that are kept faithful, and others that are not. You have parents who are good to their children, and others who are not. Some straight people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are real assholes. Others are nice people. Some gay people are not faithful to each other. Others are. Some gay parents are bad parents, others are great parents.
Exactly.
I mean really though we should have equal rights for the whole world and that just isn't going to happen. In some countries women are still considered property :( It is all sad. If you find someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with I think that is one of the most beautiful things in the world.
I used to work with two guys back home who were a couple and one day one of the guys and were talking and he said something that was interesting and while I can't remember word for word the gist was "Britney Spears who really has no concept of marriage can marry whoever she wants but Jason and I can't get married even though we are in a committed relationship. Does that make any sense?" No I don't think it does.
Al Martinez
October 27, 2008
I know a man in Riverside named Harvey who goes ballistic whenever I broach the subject of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriages in California. His eyes narrow, his voice rises and he gets absolutely squeaky with rage over the possibility of Gus and Homer getting married.
Gus and Homer are not their real names. They live down the block from Harvey and try to be as friendly as possible even though they know he loathes them. They have been together for years and only recently have begun talking about tying the knot.
Harvey, being an evangelical Christian, cannot stand the idea of two men walking down the street holding hands, much less indulging in more intimate expressions of love in the privacy of their bedroom. He considers himself a real man and would gladly beat the crap out of both Gus and Homer if they weren't bigger and stronger than he is.
I personally don't care about what anyone does in his bedroom or who marries whom.
Gays seem to be the only ones who actually want to be married anyhow.
Heterosexuals have taken to just playing house until the glow wears off, maybe through the weekend.
I was thinking about this the other day and created a ritual for those who would like to legitimize a temporary arrangement, not through holy matrimony, but through a ceremony of holy relationship, which is the key word in today's random coupling.
It would in some ways soothe the consciences of the more sensitive rutting couples and save money on gowns and rings.
My relationship ritual would begin, "Do you, Susan, take Roger as your temporary sexual partner to have and to hold as long as the weekend shall last? And do you, Roger, promise to lust, perform and pay for dinner and drinks until the Monday you do part? Therefore in the name of Bacchus and Aphrodite, I now pronounce you hunk and hot mama. You may pour the cosmopolitans."
I mentioned my idea to Harvey, who didn't think it was a bit funny because, you see, he doesn't think much of anything is funny. I recall that he almost laughed once at a humorous comment by Sarah Palin on television but then realized it was Tina Fey; he had accidentally turned on "Saturday Night Live," the program bent on the destruction of morality, or what's left of it. He hasn't laughed since.
Harvey, by the way, considers Palin a great American even though she does happen to be a woman and he doesn't feel women should vote or lead. I keep in touch with him because it gives me inroads into the blurry thinking of the religious right.
Harvey believes, among other things, that God intended marriage to be between only man and woman, that abortion for any reason is a mortal sin, that women should be confined to cooking and bearing children and not clutter the culture by working, that only the Bible and not evolution should be taught in schools and that only white males should be eligible to run for president.
I am fascinated by the rigidity of his thought process, and in those rare moments when we argue about God and evolution it feels less like a Darrow-Bryan debate than it does like someone monologuing on the existence of an entity no one has ever seen. Only if Harvey would actually trot God out of a back room and introduce him in person to an audience of atheists would I say you're right, man, you win; there is a God.
I'm more pantheist than theist, which includes believing there is something almost godlike in the glory of rain and sunset, in love and an aqua ocean, and in little children and puppies. If there turns out to be more than one god, well that's OK too. I'll go back to being a Catholic and we can all march together to kingdom come.
Those of us appalled by Proposition 8 are not trying to interpret morality. There are human rights at stake beyond anyone's capacity to give or take away, and I believe that compassion is an emotion that acknowledges few barriers.
If guys like Harvey had their way, cultural evolution would come to a screeching halt and we would be in danger once more of outlawing interracial marriage and bowing to the archaic ecclesiastical rules that determine what is and what is not sinful.
I'm going to get Harvey's thinking on that too and then see how he feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-martinez27-2008oct27,0,3996566.column
some people are just ridiculous and very shallow in an ignorant kind of way.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Awesome post, Cutback.
Anyway, so they came to another cousin of mine's wedding in Seattle a year ago, and they both ended up dancing a few times with older ladies at the wedding. We all had a great time, but it occurred to me that they weren't holding hands ever, and they didn't dance together at all. I asked my second cousin about it and he said that they wouldn't because in the US, it would not be accepted. And he had a point.
It was sad. This was a totally normal couple in every way, except it was two guys. I think of my second cousin and his husband whenever this gay marriage ban issue comes up. There is no reason to deny people like him the right to be married if that is what he wants.
well said.
i love when people say what marriage is 'supposed to be.'
who the fuck made it up to them to decide?
and please, don't tell me b/c the bible says so....b/c some of us don't follow the bible and hellooooooooooo...seperation of church and state.
marriage is a LEGAL term, as well as religious. me, i am all about the legality of marriages and protections that come with it. my spirituality or whatnot really is my own business and sure...i did get married in a church
bottomline, it seems way too much personal shit, personal decisions, ruling others personal lives...is geting way too entangled with government, and damn...waaayyyy too much religious influence in rulings. enough! it is NOT meant to be there!
it's like those who cry about the pledge of allegiance and some daring to suggest removal of the words under god....oh my! :eek: again, hellooooo...it wasn't there to begin with, but added in the 1950s. that wonderful time period in our country's history when lots of religion got mixed in with government. so no, our founding fathers did have the good sense not to mix it all up, we just chose to fuck it up later.
keep your religious views out of my personal politics and the lives of others.
and yea....you go jen!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
and I was at church Sunday (Catholic--I only go now since I am the only one able to take my mom and I don't want to just dump her off!!) and the priest mentioned this proposition and how we should vote!! I wanted to yell "are you gonna tell me who to vote for president??" but I didn't. I would be too shy anyway.
What happened to separation of church and state??!!!
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
Right, and also, if you look at the history of marriage, it is mostly rooted in PROPERTY rights (not in religion). Words like "to have and to hold" relate directly to the transfer of PROPERTY from a future wife's estate to that of the husband.
The concept of marriage as a romantic institution came much, much later. Within the last couple hundred years.
So this thing about marriage being between a man and a woman who love each other -- yeah, OK, maybe that is the ideal now, but historically it has also been about many other things.
this should be added to the statue of liberty
EGGGGS-actly!
marriage initially was ALL about property, dowry, etc...no love, and sure....about procreation to continue the family and blah, blah, blah.
but i just get sick to death hearing what marriage is SUPPOSED to be about, b/c history has shown us PLENTY of marriages that, by the looks of things, were EXACTLY what 'marriage is supposed to be about'...but in reality, anything but.
as a long-married woman with no children, and childless by choice.......is our marriage 'wrong'....? spare me! marriage is about uniting 2 lives. by choice. let people decide for themselves. novel idea, i know.....
seriously!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
werd.
"One is a majority if he is right." -Abraham Lincoln
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Many people have a problem with homosexuals being 'married'.
Let them be together if they wish and call their union something else.
I am a man, I am advanced.....I am the first man to borrow Stone's leather pants!
i just don't get how it would matter to anybody....it's not like taxes would go up or your own personal rights would be infringed. if it means something to a couple to call it 'marriage'...then let them call it that. it's a basic human right.
I like that quote!
It may not shut everyone up but I do know people who would just like see it called something other than marriage.
I am a man, I am advanced.....I am the first man to borrow Stone's leather pants!
Well, why don't straight people call it something other than marriage? They're the ones that made it a joke in the first place.
ok, to me........definition of gay means = happy
so happy and free and light and airy and unconventional and evolved.........
so why the hell spoil it with the ancient myth of marriage?
(just throwing it out there...............)
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
it felt GREAT to vote last night.
Sir Mike McCready is....THE MASTER!!! WAHHH!!!
EVENFLOW PSYCHOS H.N.I.C~FEEL THE FLOW!!!
"Pearl Jam fans are obsessed, they'd see the boys in HELL if tickets were sold."-CROJAM95
It takes balls to put out a UKE album!