California high court upholds gay marriage ban

reply to post by FMLuder


They do have liberty.

They can screw who they want . . . No one is stopiing them.

They can get benefits as well. Not the same as a married couple.

But I can't get the same befits as a senior citizen. I can't get the same benefits of an unwed mother.


The fact of the matter is, the Constitution states that what rights are not enumerated in it are left up to the state. The state gave it to the people, they voted on it.

If the minority does not like it, they can get their politicians elected, or move to a state that upholds their views.

The constitution that you do not care about is the basis for this whole argument.

reply to post by MillionEyedMask



Then why not USE the system instead of carping against it? Have a referendum on CIVIL UNIONS, then you wouldn't have to worry about those evil christians or their silly little bible.

In response to above assertions; my argument comes from the viewpoint of someone with a deep understanding not only of Classical democracy, but of the philosophical and historical background of European civilisation (yes, that includes the USA).
In essence, I represent someone with a far more holistic view of the nature of our system than one who has simply taken a read of the constitution. The notion that this minority issue should be put to an ignorant, unaffected demos (one with, in essence, nothing to lose) is scandalous from a historical and political perspective. Issues that are only relevant and comprehensible to ~1% of the population are NOT, by democratic precedent, to be put to a plebiscite.

It sets a dangerous precedent. In the recent heyday of democracy, it would NEVER have come to pass.

We live in a DEMOCRACY (in the USA's case, a Democratic Republic)... not a MOBOCRACY. There is a difference.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

reply to post by ImzadiDax


My taxes go to gay people as well, I am sure. You missed the point.

It was said that the people should not have had a say so.

Wrong. If the gay people recieved any government money, then the people need to have a say so in where that money is going.

Hello? No Taxation without Representation?

reply to post by FMLuder


If one does not want his moeny going to support something that he does not agree with, he indeed should have a say so. That was one of the main points of our founding fathers.

Originally posted by MillionEyedMask

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm sorry, but I find the above statement to be quite naive.

Because that is exactly how a democracy is supposed to work. A majority vote rules over a minority vote. There is nothing in the law that says (on issues like this) that it has to be more than a simple majority. And no one gets to say that their pet cause has to win (or lose) by more than a simple majority or it's wrong. Government 101 class, senior year in high school ...

What you're saying is tantamount to saying "Majority rules. Case closed. Deal with it." Unfortunately this is the case. I say unfortunately not because I am against democracy. I'm not. However, it becomes a problem when there is a decision, like this one, that only affects the lives of a minority demographic (somewhere below 10% in this case), but which is voted on by everyone, including those who are stupefyingly ignorant and reliant on archaic justifications for their attitudes.

Oh please. Majority decisions affecting minorities are made by people and their elected representatives every day. Again, many of you don't like this solely because it is an issue near and dear to you - not because of the process. That alone makes what you want fall into the category of demanding special rights or protections that no other groups have just because this issue is important to you. So then does everyone with special feelings about an issue get to have special rights and protections even if they are in the minority?



The constitutional answer is no ...

reply to post by xxpigxx


That's a feeble point, especially considering the spurious nature of such claims.

Since when has the US govt or any State authority pursued a de facto policy of 'asking first' when it comes to changing legislation that would affect tax expenditure...???

Where was your legally binding referendum on the unbelievably costly Iraq War lol??

This is the rhetoric of selfish homophobes and hypocritical 'libertarians' clutching at straws, and you know it...

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose


The decision is basically saying that the term 'marriage' cannot be used in homosexual unions.
I think it leaves the door open for civil unions, and for those civil unions to be able to have the same exact benefits as marriage.
It is a good day for voters, but is also a bad day for a democracy in my opinion, with the majority, and a small majority at 52% taking away rights of a minority.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Regardless ... Majority rules in a Democracy. What would it be if the Minority ruled the Majority? You're society would disintegrate as they have in the past given time.

Good day for Democracy. Bad day for Gays.

reply to post by FMLuder


Actually, here in Texas, many many things are voted on, including some tax expenditures.

At least two times a year we are voting on something.

That is also why we have representatives. We elect who we feel holds our values. They are supposed to vote how their area wants them to vote.

I do not know why CA went with a direct vote, but it does give more aof a direct view of the people's desires.

I am no homophobe. Got plenty of alternative friends. As I said on the first page of this thread, I could careless about it.

What I am upset about is the people who cry foul when everything was done properly this time.


[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by centurion1211


Despite several posters framing it as such, it seems no one has been able to explain how extending a right to ALL couples which is already granted to MOST couples constitutes special rights. Or, for that matter, how denying a right to a small demographic is in any way protecting the already granted right of a vastly larger demographic. I would be interested to hear an internally consistent logical and legal justification for such a denial.

reply to post by MillionEyedMask


What rights don't gays have?

they have the right to work, to live, to date whom they please, to move around as they please, etc.

[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by xxpigxx


Obviously the issue here goes beyond simple legal rights. True, a person who is gay has the same individual rights as one who is not. But when it comes to the rights of a couple, there are some liberties granted to married people that are denied to those who are just "dating" or "screwing". If I'm just dating someone and they fall ill, I have no right to visit them in the hospital. We're not legally considered family, even if we're as emotionally close as a married couple. There's no legal protection for a dating couple. This is an obvious inequality. The same goes for adopting children. In these cases, domestic partnership is not sufficient.

A ghetto doesn't need to be a physical neighborhood. There are legal ghettos that permeate a society. As human relationships become more and more complex over the next century, these legal ghettos are only going to grow if our legislative body does not grow and evolve in kind.

reply to post by MillionEyedMask


So . . . . what rights do you not have in a Civil Union vs a Marriage?

reply to post by xxpigxx


You obviously miss the point.

Were are't arguing that gays have no rights, were arguing that gays have no right to be with each other legally.

You know speaking of the Canadian system, we have another great piece of legal standing. After 7 years of being with somebody, and filing taxes together, you are automatically considered "Common Law" and are given all of the rights and legal goodies given to traditional "married" couples.

A system like this would benefit the US, or states like California.

I completely understand the fact that some people are crying foul when it went through the system correctly and all correct avenues were followed. It was after about "gay Marriage" not gay 'Civil Unions".

I am assuming that issue will come up after today's defeat of the Ban. But still, you can't give any sort of valid argument that would deny a person like you and me, the safe rights given to the rest of the population, regardless of public opinion.

~Keeper

reply to post by xxpigxx


A domestic partnership is not a civil union. Civil unions are available to same sex couples in only a few states in the US. Civil unions do grant most of the rights of marriage, but they are not recognized universally outside of the states where they are granted.

California does have a provision for domestic partnership which grants many of the same rights as marriage, but it is not marriage.

This goes beyond the legal rights of the institution. Even if most of the same rights are granted, there is a qualitative difference. If two men or women become domestic partners, they are still not married. It is the ability to FEEL equal, to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and be accepted by society at large. As long as there are persistent bastions of intolerance, no legal provision will be adequate to assuage feelings of inequality.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

You obviously miss the point.

Were are't arguing that gays have no rights, were arguing that gays have no right to be with each other legally.

Yeah . . . check out a few posts above you

I am assuming that issue will come up after today's defeat of the Ban. But still, you can't give any sort of valid argument that would deny a person like you and me, the safe rights given to the rest of the population, regardless of public opinion.

~Keeper

What aren't you grasping?

If a portion of my taxes paid, no matter how small that portion may be, goes to a gay couple, I have a right to have a say so in the matter, wither through direct vote or through my representative.

That was one of the main issues of our founding fathers.

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Why do you think its special rights? If my partner of 13 years passes away and I am not on the morgage but I have been paying 1/2 you think I should have no rights to stay in my home?

it's special because in normal circumstances non-blood relations have no rights over the estate of each other based on proximity. if i pay rent to my friend and live in his house, just because my rent amounts to half the mortgage does not give me any entitlement to half his house.

there is special entitlement offered to married couples because the majority wish to extend married people special entitlement, but this doesn't mean that any group who want this entitlement should get it.

if your partner wants you to have half the house i suggest you either get a will made up or get your name on the mortgage, you'ld swear that these protective contracts couldn't be easily and cheaply entered into ffs.

reply to post by pieman



We do have such things in place and they are by NO MEANS cheap.

But not everyone can afford that route. We have done this over years.

OBTW xxpigxx yea I reread your earlier post and I misread, so no offense intended there.


[edit on 26-5-2009 by ImzadiDax]

First of all (and for the billionth time) it's NOT a choice - NOBODY would choose to be gay - If I'd had a choice, it would have been striaght - if for nothing else than to sipmlify things - to be "just like everyone else".

I COULD have CHOSEN to PRETEND to be straight, but that's lying - not only to myself but everyone around me. Sure, it might make YOU more comfortable, but it's a living hell to be trapped in that kind of a lie.

I could have chosen to fake it and get married and have kids, but that again, is LYING! - There are MANY people that do this, and it's such an emotional pressure cooker that it's understandable how homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Truth is, being gay is not the disorder, the insanity that comes with trying to live as something you're not is the disorder. If we do snap and go crazy, it's not the "gay" that did it to us, it's the hiding and trying to fit in with homophobic, bible-thumping bigots that pushes one over the edge.

When I was still in the closet, not a single day went by that I didin't think about putting a shotgun in my mouth and ending it all - Does that sound like something someone with a "choice" would do? I'm still severely depressed and often cry because of the way people think about us - I've done nothing wrong to anyone, but I know so many people think I'm a "pervert", "pedophile" or "mentally ill" simply because the one I love has the same giblets between his legs as me. Truth is, we're about as "vanilla" as any boring old married straight couple - and we know some straight people do WAY more disgusting things than we do, but what ANYONE does in the privacy of their own home is their business.

I'd just like to live my life with the partner of my choosing (just one, human preferably) knowing that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW we could be treated the exact same as a "straight" married couple - I couldn't care less what it's called. I wouldn't get married in a church anyway since, when you get down to the bottom line, churches (and all organized religions) are just money-making scams. Trust me, God has enough money.

My "Significant Other" (I'd say 'husband', but it might make some of your heads explode) had a stroke last year, and thankfully his family treated me like they would have treated his "wife" - they let me be with him and when it came to decision making, I was the one that spoke for him. - Other gay people might not be as lucky as I was to get hitched to someone with a tolerant family - others have to sit and wait outside (or be escorted off the property) while their SPOUSE may never come out of the hospital again, all at the whim of the sick person's family.

Every time I had to get on the phone with Social Security, or any of his insurance companies, It was like pulling teeth to get them to treat me like a spouse without having to fill out extra paperwork, or getting him on the phone to give them the "ok" to talk to me (he'd had a stoke, he couldn't talk on the phone - duh!) - and no matter what kind of legal paperwork we draw up (power of attorney, living will, DNR, Last will and testament) it really doesn't protect us, because as soon as he or I die, the other family can contest it all, since it was never "legal" in their eyes.

WE are a FAMILY UNIT - and when something happens to me, or if something else happens to him, you don't know how much it means to be protected under the same umbrella of laws that "straight" people are automatically given when they are married.

Call it a "Rainbow Bright Unicorn Bonding" for all I care, just make sure it gives me the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS that any "straight" marriage has.

Would anyone else in the same situation ask for less?

Take yourself out of your narrow little mind and try to see things from someone else's point of view, put yourself in the same situation and ask yourself "Is this how I would want everyone else to treat me?"

The arguements against Gay Marriage hold about as much water as the arguements against interracial marriage did 50 years ago, or arguements against letting women vote 100 years ago, or arguements against the abolishment of slavery 150 years ago. And if ALL of THOSE had been left up to popular vote at the time, we would still be stuck in the 1850's. And all of those arguements used the Bible as their "proof" back then too.

No one is asking a straight person to do "gay" things by asking for these rights, nobody's marriage is going to fall apart just because the "gays" get to do it too, and we're certianly not going to bust into your bedroom and tell you that what you're doing is gross (which to us, it actually is gross, but we know how to tolerate people that aren't like us)

Originally posted by FMLuder
In response to above assertions; my argument comes from the viewpoint of someone with a deep understanding not only of Classical democracy, but of the philosophical and historical background of European civilisation (yes, that includes the USA).
In essence, I represent someone with a far more holistic view of the nature of our system than one who has simply taken a read of the constitution. The notion that this minority issue should be put to an ignorant, unaffected demos (one with, in essence, nothing to lose) is scandalous from a historical and political perspective. Issues that are only relevant and comprehensible to ~1% of the population are NOT, by democratic precedent, to be put to a plebiscite.

It sets a dangerous precedent. In the recent heyday of democracy, it would NEVER have come to pass.

We live in a DEMOCRACY (in the USA's case, a Democratic Republic)... not a MOBOCRACY. There is a difference.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by FMLuder]

I don't believe the word "holistic" is used in the consitution. BNor are there any instructions about YOU or anyone else being allowed to use a "holistic" viewpoint to interpret the constitution. That makes your argument moot. Sorry the will of the people did not work out your way in this case. BTW, that does not make them stupid or you worthy of an elitist point of view.