Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:29pm PT
|
Haha, I knew when I said that I am not married, it would be low hanging fruit for a personal attack. That's a pretty cheap remark, and you probably feel it's okay to insult me b/c we so strongly disagree on a particular political issue.
Get used to it....I did.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
|
And you're right- there is no "tick box" for sexual orientation or a statute that says gays cannot marry. So why try to deny it? What is your basic problem with it? Why can't it be called a marriage?
Because I think that is stupid. Marriage means M+W. It's a simple and traditional definition. The traditional MW marriages recognized in the United States do not single out any group, as WC is saying..in fact it is blind to group delineations. ANY man can marry ANY woman. If a person considers himself gay, and therefore unable to partner with someone of the oppposite sex, that is his issue. I don't think the state has to bend the definition to accommodate men who want to marry men. I just don't.
By the way, I didn't vote for Prop 8...I wasn't even in California at the time. It actually is in the lower echelon of issues that I care about. But the title of this thread got me interested, and the reductionist attitude I see here ("Prop Hate") really deserves a response, imo.
I will plead ignorance on one issue: please tell me what the legal status of same-sex marriage was in California before the Prop 8 victory. I sense it might have been legally allowed for some window of time ( news clips of Mayor Newsome conducting same-sex weddings at SF City Hall). If it was indeed legal in California, how long had that been the case? Thanks.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
|
Thanks WC...
I think you answered my above question while I was typing.
Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.
This is how I think it should be. Just my opinion. I have absolutely no contempt for homosexual people..I just don't think same sex partnerships constitute marriage. I suppose Prop 8 supporters also felt that way and wanted it affirmed in California.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:53pm PT
|
ANY man can marry ANY woman.
Well, after 1965 anyway.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
|
And I don't see how this violates the Constitution.
Honestly I don't even see the argument that it strips a Constitutional right...I am not trying to be argumentative on this one. Would you please clarify exactly how Prop 8 and the above Federal language are in conflict? Thanks.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:05pm PT
|
I think that is stupid...I don't think the state has to bend the definition to accommodate men who want to marry men. I just don't.
Again- personal opinion isn't a valid argument.
Your "tradition" only existed because there was a need to keep things "in the closet". Just like interracial relationships. You get caught, you get lynched or beaten to a pulp or stoned. Welcome to the Taliban way of thinking... As an earlier post pointed out, women's rights, civil rights, reproductive rights, right to marry across races all had similar periods of tribulation. But finally the rights were seen to be inalienable and restored to their correct and just interpretation. The state isn't "bending" the definition; it is clarifying a citizen's rights. If an individual wants to live by some more conservative creed, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
I sense it might have been legally allowed for some window of time
Yes, the window of freedom was open only briefly because the ultra-conservative legal machine knows which judges to present the issue to in order to obtain a favorable ruling. Same thing happens in class-action suits. Thankfully cooler heads prevail in the appellate courts when the matter is given more thorough consideration.
edit: Honestly I don't even see the argument that it strips a Constitutional right
Please read the earlier post (about 3 pages ago) that states verbatim the CASC ruling.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:16pm PT
|
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.
Wildone,
The majority of Prop 8 funding did not come from the Mormon church. This has become a popular myth pushed by some prop 8 activists. But you’re correct in assuming there was great financial backing from the religious sector.
The Mormon church contributed $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” for church employees, about $2,000 in air fares and volunteer time equivalent to $190,000. These amounts are LESS than several other churches and a fraction of Roman Catholic contributions.
Some activists claimed contribution from individual Mormon families accounted for over 70 % of pro Prop 8 funding but they were well short of substantiating these claims. In truth, 71% of the funding from Utah were in favor of Prop 8 and 29% opposed. But individual contributions from Utah amounted to just 7% of the total contributions for Proposition 8….significant but not monumental.
The majority of pro Proposition 8 contributions came from within the state of California where Mormons are 2% of the total state population (compared to 72% mormon of the total population in Utah).
The assertion that the Mormon church or individual Mormons contributed the majority of funding is decidedly naïve but such indictments get mentioned and repeated in the media…. and ultimately accepted as credible, both by the innocent and the biased with a need to point fingers.
The Yes on Proposition 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims …most churches, in fact, were in favor.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
Same reason deadheads do, but Barry Manolo fans don't.
Why is that? They are activists? Trying to push their gear? The Manolos just dig music and don't give f*#k?
EDIT: Nice post Jennie...
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
I don't see hetrosexuals doing anything of the sort.
Probably because you're not looking. Ever seen a Hustler, F-street (san diego)/playboy bunny/etc sticker?
How about those mudflaps with the chrome naked chicks in provocative poses? Or the devil/angel stickers on the windows? Pretty common around here anyway.
Edit for bullring's comment below:
gay ass-pride Is this different than hetero ass-pride?
what the hell is "ass-pride" anyway? I'm pretty happy with my ass, proud perhaps even...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
|
Probably because you're not looking. Ever seen a Hustler, F-street (san diego)/playboy bunny/etc sticker?
How about those mudflaps with the chrome naked chicks in provocative poses? Or the devil/angel stickers on the windows? Pretty common around here anyway.
Nice job making the point about perversion, Johnson. Porn is good, hetero pron is good, so gay ass-pride is good, and then....
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
|
It is "legal" for two 18 year olds, having met three hours earlier and now are loaded on
cocaine and alcohol, to "get married" at the Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.
But it is NOT legal for two women to marry who prefer each others company and have been living together
for the past 35 years.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:28pm PT
|
WHY?
Because GOD says so:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:32pm PT
|
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
I never lie to my buddies. My wife on the other hand...
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:37pm PT
|
skepticx,
Again- personal opinion isn't a valid argument.
Really? I am trying to play by your rules. You asked me what I have against same-sex partnerships being called marriage. I said I think it is stupid.. that IS my opinion, and that is the summary answer to your question.
Yes, the window of freedom was open only briefly because the ultra-conservative legal machine knows which judges to present the issue to in order to obtain a favorable ruling.
--> I suppose this remark from you falls in the category of objective observation, and not opinion.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:52pm PT
|
I said I think it is stupid.
Fair enough, but I don't think that is a complete answer. What makes it stupid in your head? Either that's just a gut reaction or you have a deeper reason that you aren't willing to share. A gut reaction isn't enough to withdraw a constitutional right from thousands of people.
objective observation good point. I spent 8 years working closely with personal injury and class action lawyers and was privy to the machinations and strategies of over 800 cases. Because of that, I believe I am qualified to offer that as an educated opinion rather than simply hearsay.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^
What, no "all of the above"?
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 12:21am PT
|
Fair enough, but I don't think that is a complete answer.
I meant it as my summary to the paragraphs I wrote beforehand. My problem is that I write too much, not too little.
Regarding the class action trial lawyers, few topics make my blood boil like that of parasites looking for ways to legally extort money from others, cultivating a society of morons who can't take responsibility for themselves. (see the thread on the 8 deaths at the off-road rally). I would love to talk more about that....
[Edit] But what does that have to do with the "ultra conservative legal machine" and the legal case for same sex marriage? Do conservatives have better lawyers and more sway over judges than progressives do? I imagine both sides play equally rough in that game.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:41am PT
|
Nice job making the point about perversion
The statement wasn't about perversion, but I can certainly provide other examples: How about all the cars with "Vote Yes on 8" (pretty sure they aren't gay, but they certainly are perverted), all the cutetsy little family stickers showing mommy/daddy/kids/turtles/gerbils/etc?
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:08am PT
|
I meant it as my summary to the paragraphs I wrote beforehand
Ok. So I went back over your posts and what I gleaned is that you believe that marriage is defined as between the opposite sexes and that you think to have it otherwise is stupid.
Again, what you "think" doesn't constitute a winning argument in the law, but that aside, let's look at "marriage". The true etimology of the word comes from Old English & means "to enter into an intimate relationship". That can apply to people, businesses, concepts, etc. If you want to look at "wed", that comes from the Old German meaning "to unite", & can be used to describe more than just people. So "traditional marriage" by your definition is very narrow and not supported by the underlying concept of the word through its history.
The reason same sex marriage has not been an issue is that homosexuality has been forced into the closet by threat of beatings or worse if exposed. In this country the people who dictate and enforce the laws have until very recently been white male conservatives who either consciously or unconsciously imposed a biblical interpretation of morality, which is unconstitutional.
Now that minorities are gaining prominence and affecting law, some of the past wrongs are being exposed and corrected to reflect what the constitution truly allows.
As far as lawyers go, I agree that there are way too many frivolous suits out there. But there are also some very important ones too. Something does need to change in how anyone can create a nuisance suit and cost an innocent party a fortune to defend against. But I'd also rather be able to go up against a big corporation that had wronged my or my family and win without having to worry that I have no legal recourse. It's a slippery slope with no easy solution. But don't label all lawyers as evil.
Edit: Sorry, forgot to address the evil conservative conspiracy I alluded to. Yes, you're right. Both sides play the game. That's how it's done nowadays. But it was the conservative's turn at bat, so they chose a district where they had the best chance of a favorable ruling. That the appellate courts have consistently reversed the ruling shows that the premise is flawed.
|
|
wildone
climber
Troy, MT
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
|
Wes, keep fighting the good fight.
And to Ms. Mormon apologist, I happened to live in Oakland, where the big-ass disney castle of a tabernacle is, and every street corner in the weeks leading up to the vote were peopled with Mormons shouting and waving signs. How does that get accounted for? Were they billing for their time?
Someone help me understand how a TAX EXEMPT RELIGION can use MONEY to try and influence GOVERNMENT AND LAW in this country? I think we should tax the SOBs.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!