It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rollinster
Okay....done.

Domestic Partnership. That's what we will call it in California.


That would be fine and dandy if DP benefits were the EXACT same as marriage benefits. They are not.


This is not an "in your face" response to anyone. It is only as I understand the laws here to be.

Is this not how it is?


Like I said. On the surface it seems that it is equal. It is far from it. But, it is getting better. I will give that much.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Why should they not have the legal right to the label of marriage as straight people do?? Are they less human? Are they less than straight people?

Or, are they equal in the eyes of the law?

It can't be both ways.

In my opinion, they should be equal in the eyes of the law with every opportunity and right that the heterosexual community has. No more, no less.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Gay marriage does not affect straight couples. It only allows gay couples the same privileges.


amen to that. I'm still waiting for someone to counter that argument. So far the best argument has been "well, what would be next?"

As far as I can tell, gay marriage isn't some first step of a master gay-plan. Then again, I'm not gay so I haven't been invited to any of the meetings either.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jsobecky
 


For months and months, they had the RIGHT to get married. Yesterday, that RIGHT was taken away....just because the majority of society didn't agree with that RIGHT.

That's WRONG.


I disagree. It never should have been a right in the first place. They are human and deserve the same rights as the rest of us, however, it stops at marriage. Marriage WAS always reserved for a man and a woman. And to deny THAT is lunacy.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Thanks Griff, that's why I asked.

So many things are not what they seem/say.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jsobecky
 


For months and months, they had the RIGHT to get married. Yesterday, that RIGHT was taken away....just because the majority of society didn't agree with that RIGHT.

That's WRONG.


No, what was wrong was a panel of judges deciding that they could overrule the will of the people. That was where the supposed "right" to marry came from.

That's called "legislating from the bench". Wrong then, and wrong now.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rollinster
 


Ok so my response and question to you as well as anyone who wants to answer is, why not bring back seperate but equal laws with the black americans?

Hell as long as they have the same(in a sense) facilities as we do what does it matter?

But we shouldnt stop there why not make black white asian and latino all seperate. White only neighborhoods, black only, asian only, latino only. We could do it with everything and anything. After all as long as its equal its right.

You see the supreme court already made a ruling on seperate but equal stating that even though facilities might be equal through and through the simple fact that they are sepreate is unconstitutional. Seperation does not create equality.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
I disagree. It never should have been a right in the first place. They are human and deserve the same rights as the rest of us, however, it stops at marriage. Marriage WAS always reserved for a man and a woman. And to deny THAT is lunacy.


Explain to me how that is lunacy? What, we should never, ever advance as a society because something has been one way for a really long time? Especially when it does not affect those who already have the privilege? Silly talk.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
For months and months, they had the RIGHT to get married. Yesterday, that RIGHT was taken away....just because the majority of society didn't agree with that RIGHT.

That's WRONG.


No, what was wrong was a panel of judges deciding that they could overrule the will of the people. That was where the supposed "right" to marry came from.

That's called "legislating from the bench". Wrong then, and wrong now.

What is wrong is giving the majority the right to vote on a minority’s civil right. Do you think whites should have voted on the decision to integrate black and white schools?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 


So....

They are almost as good as us, but not quite?? They should have equal rights except for those that some in society don't agree with??

That is lunacy.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
Then again, I'm not gay so I haven't been invited to any of the meetings either.


I can sneek ya in.
Then you can explain to others that we are just normal people not out to rape children, goats or inaminate objects.

[edit on 11/5/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Okay. So maybe I am not completely informed on the subject but I was under the impression that Gay couples DO have all the same rights as married couples under a domestic partnership. e.i. insurance, adoption, taxes and the like. So I just don't understand what the big deal is!
I mean is all this fuss really over a peice of paper certifying marriage? Sounds like a pre-adolescent tantrum to me.

And furthermore it's not fair to say that gays can marry who ever they want and others can't. Where do you draw the line? Can I marry my brother or my dad or my dog? If you give that right to one group then you must give it to every one.

But like I said, Im not an expert on the rights provided by a domestic partnership. And I think America has come a long way with the acceptance of lifestyles that were once considered an "abomination". But asking them to give up what they hold sacred is just too much. They're obviously just not ready for that.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
I disagree. It never should have been a right in the first place. They are human and deserve the same rights as the rest of us, however, it stops at marriage. Marriage WAS always reserved for a man and a woman. And to deny THAT is lunacy.


Explain to me how that is lunacy? What, we should never, ever advance as a society because something has been one way for a really long time? Especially when it does not affect those who already have the privilege? Silly talk.


A really long time. As in since the creation of the earth. So yes, marriage should always be between a man and a woman. And changing from that course is really not the direction we need to "advance" in.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 


exactly, plus it was voted on, end of story.

before anyone tries to jump on me, i dont care what you think.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rollinster
Thanks Griff, that's why I asked.

So many things are not what they seem/say.


Think of it this way. You go to rent a car. The cashier asks if you are married or a DP. Knowing that gay people are the ones who have DPs, then now this cashier knows your business. It's just not equal. Although I said I would settle for the rights, it's still seperation I'm afraid.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Why should they not have the legal right to the label of marriage as straight people do?? Are they less human? Are they less than straight people?


Rights are visitation. Rights are property division. Labels are not rights.

If gays are given the same rights of visitation, etc., why do they need the label?

Rights are a claim on society. I will fight for your right to visit the hospital, or leave your property to your lover. I won't object if you call your lover your husband.

But I cannot understand why, if you have all the legal rights I do, why you demand to be called "married", unless you have an agenda that wants to destroy the traditional definition of marriage. And I cannot fathom a reason other than malice that would drive you to destroy that definition.

My "Sheriff" analogy should suffice.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
A really long time. As in since the creation of the earth. So yes, marriage should always be between a man and a woman. And changing from that course is really not the direction we need to "advance" in.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]


I don’t care how long it has been that way; the US has allotted only certain rights to married couples, involving itself in marriage, making it a civil rights issue. Why not advance? The advancement has not hurt other countries and does not affect those who already enjoy the privilege.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

Democracy at its finest.






You know what that's called? Tyranny of the majority. Simple as that.

When, by majority vote, you start denying or stripping away citizens rights because they don't fit with your own personal beliefs or religious dogma, what kind of society are you living in? It's certainly not one based on freedom and equality.

I'm very saddened by this vote, but like many, I don't think it's the end of this fight.

I'm very glad I live in Canada, where gay marriage has been a reality for a few years now and all the predictions of the doomsayers haven't come to pass. The sky didn't fall. Heterosexual marriage survived intact (complete with it's 50% divorce rate. So much for "sanctity").

What is it about the USA that seems to make it lag behind the rest of the western world when it comes to issues like this? It's mind boggling that a proposition like this one passes on the same night that Barak Obama is elected president. Defeating one age-old prejudice while at the same time enshrining another into law.

Welcome to America, kicking and screaming as she's dragged into the 21st century.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Nyteskye]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
My first thought is that this vote reflects the Latino culture that is so prominent in your state. My impression is that Latinos, as a group, are more reticent to accept people who are openly gay than non-Latinos.
Its a shame at any rate. Very backward. I was very happy to hear Obama's inclusive remarks towards "gay and straight" people; that they are both a part of the American reality he supports.
To people in California who are gay and wish to marry, please don't give up the fight. Your time will come too. I hope this is only a temporary setback.


The highest percentage of voters for prop 8 - - 70% black women.

There are sites that break down demographics of who voted for what.

I didn't make it up.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join