Originally Posted By X-san ***All they know is that they find gay hairy man-sex to be gross. They can't fathom, absolutely cannot fathom why a guy would be attracted or want to be intimate with another man.*** This is the part that always puzzles me about the people who are just totally repulsed by the very concept. I can understand the part about it being gross *for me*, something you wouldn't ever care to engage in etc...that makes perfect sense. But so many of the angry gay bashers say stuff just like this, and what I wonder is, if it's so unthinkable, how is it that they expect all WOMEN to be attracted to and want to be intimate with gross hairy dudes?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer First off, lets talk about the Proposed Initiative, the Constitutional Amendment that would change the State Constitution. The original constitution for the State has a clause that allows the citizens to change the constitution by the Initiative process, so if the Initiative is passed, it would become part of the constitution. And it looks like it will be part of the November ballot. The signatures were submitted on April 24th, and the first round of signature verification needs to be finished by June 18th. Out of the original 1,120,590 signatures submitted, so far, the counties who have verified the random sample have found a 83% valid rate. That would give the initiative about 930,000 valid signatures, and they only have to have about 764,000 (110% of the needed amount of 694,354 valid signatures) to be placed on the November ballot. So it looks like it will be placed on the ballot, but we will know in a few weeks the final numbers. <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init_sample_1298.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...1298.pdf</a> The Initiative states... >> Section 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article 1, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to Read: Sec. 7.5 Only Marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<< And for those who want to see the entire Article 1 section of the California Constitution, here is a link. <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1" target="_blank">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.con...rticle_1</a> As you can see, many items have been changed, one of the more famous ones recently was the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional due to cruel or unusual punishment. So it is clear that the California Supreme Court can make a ruling, and the people of the state can later amend the constitution to reverse the Court's ruling.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well as far as "straights" dropping their guard around other "like minded " individuals. As a gay male who was in straight marriage for 18 years, I can tell you that in fact the gay bashing is quite prevalent. As any closeted gay male will tell you. And I also feel that under this conservative administration that the gay bashing has gotten worse. 5 years ago when I moved back to my hometown in southern WV there were 2 gay bars in town. Since then one was closed because of a zoning issue, even though the bar 6 buildings down the main street was grand fathered. and the other mysteriously burned down. Oddly enough the roof caught fire on a very busy Friday night. The cause was undetermined, but not considered suspicious. So my guess is the "Love the sinner, but hate the sin" christians, set the place on fire while full of the "sinners" they love so much. Fornunately no one was hurt, except the business owner who lost his business. He tried to reopen elsewhere but meet opposition at every turn. He gave up and moved out of Redneck Springs.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The second point is that ruling was very close, a 4-3 ruling. You can read the entire ruling here... <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF" target="_blank">http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op...7999.PDF</a> I recommend you BOTH the Majority and Minority rulings. The Minority Ruling starts on page 128 First some comments by Justice Marvin Baxter... >>So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express on implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion the the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law - is no longer valid.<< >>The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.<< >>I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the people's will, and invalidate a statue otherwise immune from legislative interference. Thought the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.<< There is a lot more in the ruling, and I suggest you click on the link....
Originally Posted By Elderp "and what I wonder is, if it's so unthinkable, how is it that they expect all WOMEN to be attracted to and want to be intimate with gross hairy dudes? " I have no clue why women are attracted to men either but I am sure glad they are!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So it is clear that the California Supreme Court can make a ruling, and the people of the state can later amend the constitution to reverse the Court's ruling." What's clear is that Darkbeer doesn't approve of gay marriage. Why is that, Darkbeer? What's also clear is that he does not understand some basic concepts. Yes, California citizens can change the state Constitution. This case can't be appealed because the ruling was based on the state's Constitution. Hence the initiative. One, if the initiative passes, and shame on the voters if it does, then it automatically becomes void if the U.S. Supreme Court finds marriage is a fundamental right that can't be denied to gays. States cannot restrict rights granted under the Federal Constitution, and a ban would be exactly that, a restriction. Keep in mind this decision was made by judges who were appointed by Republicans. Six of the seven, to be exact. When these case do make it to a Supreme Court, bans are getting overturned. It is inevitable that it will eventually become the law of the land.
Originally Posted By Elderp "States cannot restrict rights granted under the Federal Constitution, and a ban would be exactly that, a restriction. " The USSC has already ruled that marriage is not a federal right, its a state right and therefore has to be decided among each state.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The USSC has already ruled that marriage is not a federal right, its a state right and therefore has to be decided among each state." When? Loving v. Virgina says otherwise. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer SPP, Please STOP "reading my mind" and claiming things I have never said... I have had the same stance on the Marriage issue for years, and have placed those thoughts here at LP over the last few years. Let me be lazy, and quote myself from last Friday over at MiceChat... <a href="http://micechat.com/forums/showthread.php/california_marriage_ban_struck_down-96649p3.html" target="_blank">http://micechat.com/forums/sho...9p3.html</a> >>Marriage is more than just a ceremony, it is used by the Government to deal with taxation and other issues. IMHO, the government should get out of anything to do with Marriage, and leave it to Religious or other types of groups to run and issue marriage certificates. The government should revamp the tax laws, and give breaks to those raising families, but everyone else should file a separate tax return. If they have one person not working and taking care of the household, and not earning income, then a tax break should be given. But no "special" break for just being married. If you want to deal with things like hospitals and wills, then file the paperwork needed to allow the other person to take care of those legal matters. This will allow churches to make a decision, they can decide to allow same sex marriages, or decide not to, depending on their beliefs. And here is something else I have a problem with... <a href="http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/2008/05/15/oc-wyndham-offers-discount-in-celebration-of-overturn-of-gay-marriage-ban/" target="_blank">http://ocresort.freedombloggin...age-ban/</a> Excuse me, what about Equal Rights, we have rules such as dry cleaners having to charge the same rates to both genders, why shouldn't the discount be given to the first 50 couples who book a wedding, regardless of the gender of the 2 people getting married.<< My problems with this decision pretty much match up with Justice Baxter's opinion. Activist Judges....
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP, Please STOP "reading my mind" and claiming things I have never said..." That's just it, you never say anything. You hide behind links. That you would come on here and say something like this is the height of hilarity. And we're supposed to folloew you around the web to find out what you say? Oh brother.... Get over yourself. "And here is something else I have a problem with..." I can't help it. ROTFLMAO! What about equal rights???????????? Helllllllooooooo!!!!!! Think about it. Haven't gays been asking the same thing for quite some time now? You're whining about a hotel giving them a discounted rate when they've been bemoaning a lack of equal protection under the Constitution. Poor, poor Darkbeer. Unbelievable. Tell you what. When the biases and prejudices of this country against gays abate to the point where people like Andrew Shepherd aren't tied to a fence and brutalized, when they're not called fags by homophobic macho types, when they can marry the person they love just like you can in any state in the Union, then we'll talk about "activist judges" and hotel discounts. You're unreal. I asked you what you have against gay marriage. Instead, you post more links and cry about hotel rates. I would suggest you are your own worst enemy here. That must be a very tasty size EEEE foot you've got in your mouth. Maybe you can pry it out of there long enough to answer the question in your own words.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And what about the right not to get married? Right now, a "domestic partnership" is only available to same sex couples and to "Senior Citizens" (62 and older) opposite sex couples. <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/dp_faqs.htm#question2" target="_blank">http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregist...uestion2</a> Many Senior Citizens don't want to get married, as it affects their pensions, Social Security and some other types of payments, plus many of these couples want to keep their wills seperate, as they are most windows and widowers who had a family in the past, and want their property to go to their own children. But for younger opposite sex couples, they do not have this option, and since California is a community property state, there are a lot of issues including taxation and trust fund issues that have "forced" couples to not get married, but "live in sin". I think they should open up the "domestic partnerships" to any couple of legal age, this will allow insurance benefits and other legal rights, such as hospital visitations to all non-married couples that wish to register and meet the qualifications.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Brown v. Board of Education, meet Darkbeer. Darkbeer, meet some basic history.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Nothing in our Constitution, express on implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion the the age-old understanding of marriage...> The trouble with this reasoning is that the age-old understanding of marriage is based on a faulty premise. Namely, that all people are heterosexual, and that homosexual activity is just straight people being weird and/or immoral. This WAS the age-old understanding for centuries about why some people would have sex with others of their gender. It was weird, it was sin, it was unnatural. But we know better know. We now know (most of us, anyway), that some people really are wired differently and are intrinsically homosexual (a term that wasn't even coined until the 19th century, long after our marriage laws were formed). In other words, there are persons who are intrinsically homosexual. The 14th Amendment recognizes that persons must be given equal protection under the law. And eventually, the highest courts are going to recognize (some state high courts already have, of course) that gay persons must have equal rights to straight persons when it comes to marriage - the right to marry the one person of their choice. Simple as that. Not everyone understands this, of course. It's clear the judge who issued that minority opinion does not. But 4 of the 7 did. More people are understanding this every day. Marriage laws, of course, used to prohibit interracial marriage also based on a faulty premise. When enough people understood that the premise was faulty, the courts ruled accordingly (even though a MAJORITY of Americans in 1967 didn't approve of interracial marriage). The same will happen here. It's a shame to think CA voters might vote for this shameful amendment and stop it for the time being, but it will happen. We're probably only 20 years away from a majority of Americans favoring full equality - in CA, maybe 10 years. If they vote the ban in now, they can vote it out later, no? An interesting question is what happens between June (when I've read the new law is supposed to take effect) and November. What would happen to the couples who legally marry in the interim?
Originally Posted By dshyates Most people who use the Classical Christian definition of "has always been defned as a union of a man and a woman" also forgeting to include that the church permitted sexual contact with prostitutes, concubinage and slaves (not necessarily your own slaves). And that until the early 20th century most marriages performed by the church in Europe were arranged marriages. And love had nothing to do with them. They laid eyes on their "church cretified" mate on their wedding day. So what the religious thinks about peoples nuptuials has little baring to me. So they can jump up and down all tey want about what silly superstitions we are ignoring, throw salt over their shoulder, face whatever direction they want to pray and allow their starving children to be trampled by reincarnated bovine in the living room. Do we really need to pay attention to their opinion?
Originally Posted By Elderp I kinda like Darkbeer's idea. Tax breaks if you have children, then the church's can decide who can get married. I am all for less government in personal affairs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 One has always been able to get married in this country by going to the courthouse. Is marriage just for the religious?
Originally Posted By Elderp Right now marriage is considered a legal contract and therefore has tax benefits associated to it. If those tax benefits were taken away then why should the government be involved?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I kinda like Darkbeer's idea. Tax breaks if you have children, >> I don't think there should be tax breaks period. <<then the church's can decide who can get married.>> There are way too many churches out there are thing they are entitled to decide just who and at what age someone should get married. This is one reason why over 400 children are now in custody in Texas. If anyone likes it or not Government ( which means the people ) need to decide just what marriage should look like. I agree with the California Supreme Court, domestic partnership is not the same thing as marriage.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom This might be another good time to state that I think no religion should be tax exempt.
