NEWS: Over 4000 Gay Marriages Annulled by California Supreme Court

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Grady you let yourself down with that last post.

Nonsense, I stated my case in the terms that best describe the situation from an academic perspective and withdrew from the discussion on the grounds that my terminology was being misconstrued or ignored. If you understood me, you would not question my posts, at all. You might not agree with my stance, but you would understand "where I am coming from." I have no obligation to continue to debate issues the substance of which has moved from the rational to the visceral. In fact, I have no obligation to post any more to a subject than I deem fit. That is my choice and you should respect it.

Thank you.

[edit on 04/8/16 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Originally posted by CazMedia
As i know Jakko is a gay rights supporter, how the heck could he insult the gay community by saying (implying) that gay life is somehow not as normal or lucky as straigt people? Again i disagree. looking at the demographics, gays tend to have above average education and incomes when compared to the avg citizen...sounds like a better slice of life there. Certantly if i was gay i would have to oppose the idea that gay life is less normal or lucky that straights.

Ignorance unlimited...
Did you truly misunderstand my point or do you want to misunderstand it?

As being gay is a state you're born in, and a lot of people in this world still stand negative towards gay people ( www.godhatesfags.com ) I am sure most of the people who first find out they are gay would rather take a magic "become straight" pill, than stay gay.

However there is no such pill, so that's why all they can do is just make the best out of their lives and accept that they are what they are.

Those lucky enough to be born straight, telling others who were not that lucky, that they can not use the symbol/ritual of marriage, even though it does not hurt or even affect them in any way, is just madness.

So you found statistics somewhere that gay people earn more money? Let me guess, was that a hate-mongering site?
The suggestion that gay people are in any way priviledged over straight people is retarded to begin with. Do you realize how many kids still commit suicide after finding out they are gay?

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Jakko]

Oh Jakko, you should know me better than to use a gay bash site to bash gays with. (You should also know from our other discussions that i DONT BASH, i mearly pose non religious/societal questions, besides im here to talk with the other people, you and i have had this talk many times...but we can still debate this if youd like, im not trying to get rid of you.)

Here is the site i got the idea that gays seem to be more affluent than str8'swww.gaytoz.com...
I dont think from reading this that this is an anti-gay site, in fact the opposite.

I wont take up time/space reposting its contents but here is an example

In a 2000 survey at London Mardi Gras: Average income was �22,130 compared to �19,400 for the general population.

As far as misunderstanding your statement, I understand that some people when finding out their "different" from the norm, may have negative feelings about their lot in life or indeed themselves enough so to take their own life.

It just seemed that you again perpetuated the same negative idea about being gay when you said in your next responce,

Those lucky enough to be born straight, telling others who were not that lucky, that they can not use the symbol/ritual of marriage, even though it does not hurt or even affect them in any way, is just madness.

Notice the term "Lucky enough to be born straight..." a casual reader could imply that you ARE saying this is the case, that straight people are luckier than gays somehow.

as far as the socond phrase in that same statement, "even though it does not hurt or even affect them in any way"
I think that citing one effect will be enough to say this idea is a false premise.
I propose that i, as a straight man, will be affected when tax revenues drop, because more combinations of people (now m4f, add m4m and f4f combos) will be able to claim a marriage tax deduction. What about insurance cost rising to cover the new influx of the combos into the claims for death bennifits kick in once gay marriages are allowed...now more people will be eligible for payouts...that cost will be passed to the consumer. There are 2 reasons no one ever talks about.

In fact, i almost NEVER see more than a list of wants, and NO discussions on how implementations of thes ideas into the legal/tax structure be accomplished. What would the effects on taxes be, on insurance, which laws need to be altered because of this new union? where is the legal loopholes that could be abused.....NONE of these ideas are ever discussed, only....give us...give us...give us you biggoted bastards....

Forgive my reluctance to implement such a plan with deep reaching effects until we've actually looked at how this can/would work and other consequences of adopting gay marriage.

Why is it wrong to ask these societal questions that obviously can effect anyone, weather they percieve it or not.

Why would it be wrong for a democratic society to expect these answers before enacting legislation of this kind?

Why is it wrong for the democratic process of the voters of California to say no to this issue?

Why is it right for the minority to violate the laws there, nullifying all those votes both for and against, and just try to in essence "steal" your way from the rest of the majority?

[edit on 16-8-2004 by CazMedia]

Cazmedia, dictionary definitions of democracy are all well and good but healthy democratic principles in real political terms should be about constantly questioning those principles and striving to improve them, not pedantic appeals to the status quo. I'm more of a mind to use the open door method myself than to knock down the house as has been recommended earlier in this thread but that's not to say I don't believe the house itself isn't built on shifting sand. Logically the arguments against gay marriage as opposed to civil union are the political equivilent of 'aunt maud wouldn't like it'. Yes I think there are many that will happily use the 'undemocratic' argument in regards to events in California who would be equally outraged if the issue was about civil ceremonies, some, not all. So my earlier comments still stand.

Your comparison between illegal immigrants and myself, a life long British citizen, who has contributed all his life to the society he lives in and who wishes to share in the rights of his fellow straight peers, is merely sidestepping the issue by setting up a straw man to knock down rather than addressing the actual question of whether I deserve it or not. Also on the one hand you dismiss my financial contributions as irrelevent to how the democratic process should work then co-opt them in your last post as to how gay marriage/civil union will effect the consumer. There seems to be some double standard here which again begs the question, am I an equal and valued citizen or am I not.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by ubermunche]

This site kind of summs up my opinion about religion/being gay/gay marriage.
www.godmademegay.com...

Ubermunche states,

Cazmedia, dictionary definitions of democracy are all well and good but healthy democratic principles in real political terms should be about constantly questioning those principles and striving to improve them, not pedantic appeals to the status quo.

So you are now advocating changing either, the definitions of democracy, OR the form of government that we are using to govern our society.
either way this would be trying to alter a very basic and fundamental piece that the entire culture is based on.
Striving to improve "conditions" of living within a paticular democracy are very different than trying to "improve" democracy itself.

Are you saying that a given democracy does not have the right to set boundaries, thru democratic means, that the majority in that democracy deem are needed for their culture?
If your answer is yes, then exactly what form of governance would you propose to replace the democracy?

The definition of democracy goes hand in hand with its practice....If you say one thing and do another....what have you done? NOT what you said, but something different. You cant say this is a democracy, yet then do something non-democratic and still say your a democracy. Either you fit the definition, or you dont. Trying to change the definition to fit what youve done seems dubious to say the least.

In the California case, the democracy...the process by which the voters there determined that this idea was not for them.....was completely hijacked when the minority attempted to circumvent this democratic process and the laws, by effectivly "stealing" the rights of those within the democracy, that used the cultures legitimate means to make this decision.

Why is it ok for this minority group to have assumed the right to steal the rest of the populations votes, nullify them, and institute their plan instead?
This sounds like rule by the few,for the many, not rule by the people for the people....this begs the question of...if this behaivior was allowed, then which minority group is next to assume the same power....how about the KKK, or communists, or who exactly? Democracy, while not perfect, seems far better than rule by an elite few.

My example of citizen vs non citizen rights is not a straw argument....
look at it like this....to give rights of citizens to non citizens, simply because they earn a living and pay taxes is crazy. Do those same non citizens that get bennifits have to ...oh say...sign up for selective service? Potentially having to be drafted and risking their lives for those same bennifits that citizens enjoy? NO they dont, then why should they have the same rights unless they are willing to make the same sacrifice/commitment that the citizens do for the same? Become a citizen, you'll be more than a guest.

Rights and responsibillities are 2 sides of the same coin. contributing more/less to the taxes doesnt make you more/less a person..citizen or not. Also, unless your a civil servant of some kind (millitary, government worker...dare i say politican) you are not contributing to society..you contribute so that you can realize a personal profit of some type. This is not to say that persons intentions and indeed actions do not help society, but that is to say that there is a vested personal (selfish) reason that they do what they do, unless they then give all their gains not nessisary to survive back to the society, or live under a working communistic state. If contrubuting to society was all that is nessisary, then why dont we just sell citizenships? or just sell the gay marriage thing?

The fact that anyone, gay or str8, contributes something, everything, or nothing to their culture, has nothing to do with the actual democratic process for determining a societies rules/laws. poor and rich all get to vote.
What criteria are we using to say someone contributes to their culture?
Where is the cut off line for what is/is not considered "contributing"?
If a "level of societal contribution" can be agreed upon, do you then advocate removal of rights until that person meets the standard?

By talking about economic examples...i was trying to point out the fallicy of the argument presented which says "noone str8 will be affected in any way"
I showed 2 effects that translate into affecting EVERY citizen, weather they percieve this effect or not, gay or not. The idea that enacting gay marriage into law doenst affect anyone not gay is a LIE of the biggest magnitude.

I have asked over and over again...lets discuss the implications of enacting this change BEFORE we go blindly into this. There are/will be affects to the culture overall that i feel have been pushed aside in the zeal to feel good about including everyone in everything. There are plenty of "protections/bennifits" here that some groups enjoy that are denied other groups. Is this equality?
read this for specific examples of "legal discrimination"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Democracy isnt about equality, it is a mechanism (tool) that a large group of people can use to create an orderly culture. (governance) Weather that group of people use this tool to create "equallity" is up to them, thru democratic means, to determine.

Uber begs the question,

am I an equal and valued citizen or am I not.

Value is a subjective term....what criteria can we all agree on that will guide us as to any citizens value?
As far as equality? see my above link and then question can equality truely ever be achieved? Remember...even the pricvate sector (non-federal) examples of "legal discrimination" are derived from the bill of rights, and the legal interpretations of the first ammendment. Otherwise, they would have already been eliminated as being "unequal" under the law.

To close, i am really really interested in ANYONE that will take the following questions, and answer them one by one.

Why is it wrong to ask these societal questions that obviously can effect anyone, weather they percieve it or not.

Why would it be wrong for a democratic society to expect these answers before enacting legislation of this kind?

Why is it wrong for the democratic process of the voters of California to say no to this issue? (or any democratic culture)

Why is it right for the minority to violate the laws there, nullifying all those votes both for and against, and just try to in essence "steal" your way from the rest of the majority? (under a democracy)

Does a democratic culture have the right, thru democratic means, to set boundaries (laws/values) for itself?

Noone ever answers these questions. gee i wonder why?
i feel that trying to support circumvention of democracy in action to, support any minority adgenda, raises issues about which form of governance you are trying to suggest using instead of the democracy that is in place here.

Cazmedia,

I'm not attempting to redefine democracy what I would say is that democratic procesess should be open to question and decisions reached held up to scrutiny, especially when such decisions may be influenced by bias and false assumption. There is no one size fits all model any more than all democratic societies function in exactly the same way. What there are are basic tenets and these, in a healthy society, should be constantly examined and acted upon when found wanting. Was equality for blacks or women ushered in with flag waving and smiling, no, do those same arguments about not being dictated to look like anything more than arguments from ignorance all these years later, yes. One of the downsides of living in a free, democratic world is change can often be disruptive but if it leads to more equality for it's members, and more importantly an expectation of equality from it's citizens then thats all to the good. Your model seems to endorse predjudice rather than question it.

I still think you anology about illegals is a straw man argument, your comparison between these and a genuine, participating and contributing citizen of a country who is willing to share in all the responsibilities asked of them by their govt is untenable and to question the wants of the former still doesn't diminish the entitlements of the latter. I still also fail to see why the financial contribution I make is null and void to the debate but the financial contribution on society should this legislation be enacted is pertinent, after all I will have my share of that responsibilty too should it come to pass. Maybe we should all be financially bracketed specifically to the requirments of our lifestyles. That would mean me not paying towards child care, schooling etc and my taxes going towards more facilities for the gay/lesbian community in my area and married heterosexual parents contributing more to their offsprings needs than they do now. I doubt this would prove to be very popular so I'll say share and share alike in the spirit of true democracy.

Show me the money!!

I want to know where the money is that these people paid for their licences. I can't find anything saying they were given out for free. Doesn't the clerk's office have to refund it? That's a lot of free money for the city if they actually did charge for it.

Caz, you of all people should know we aren't a true democracy, especially by the dictionary definition. If we were, we wouldn't be debating this issue since George W. wouldn't be president to propose amending the Constitution to begin with.

And Caz, you seem like too smart a person to be willing to sacrifice common sensical ideals just so that you can save a buck or two when it comes to taxes, or premiums, or whatever. It's unbelievable that you would deny someone equal rights just because it would hurt your wallet. Well hell, let's charge black folks more in taxes so that we can make up for the loss in income when we let gay people marry. And to help cut the rise of insurance costs, let's just cancel all 'old people's' insurance once they turn, say, 60? Who cares if it's wrong?

I agree with Esther. If the government refers to it as a marriage between a man and a woman, it should refer to it as a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and another woman. It should be afforded the same protections and benefits. If they want to make it so that all 'marriage' type of government-sanctioned relationships are called civil unions (including heterosexual ones), and that they are only called marriages if they go thru the religious ritual in a church, that will work. I'm sure some gay people would take the fight to churches as well, but most couldn't care less about whether a private church will marry them or not.

Originally posted by CazMedia
To close, i am really really interested in ANYONE that will take the following questions, and answer them one by one.

Why is it wrong to ask these societal questions that obviously can effect anyone, weather they percieve it or not.

It's not necessarily wrong to express your opinions, or bring up questions, or whatever. It becomes wrong when you move from simply posing these questions, to having them be legitimate reasons why it should be alright to discriminate against a certain group of people. If you want to bring up these questions, it's no problem, but if down the road that the government says we should discriminate against gay people because it would put a financial burden on straight folks if we gave the homosexuals equal rights, then THAT'S a problem.

Why would it be wrong for a democratic society to expect these answers before enacting legislation of this kind?

We are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. If we were a true democracy, we would have abided by the majority of Americans, and Al Gore would be our president. But that didn't happen. In our government, the majority votes on representatives to REPRESENT us, which means they are to submit to the will of the majority, WITHOUT overstepping on the rights of the minority. This is why we have elected officials, to uphold this delicate balance between the two. If we were a true democracy, we would be at the complete will of the people, which is not as nice and ideal as it may sound (which is why the founding fathers didn't go for a true democracy).

But back to the point; it's not unreasonable for people to get answers to their question. But this is why we have elected officials; they are not supposed to be swayed as easily as the public would be by these answers. Joe Schmoe may want to vote against gay marriage simply because it will mean less money for him; lots may feel that way. But the elected official is supposed to know that you cannot withold equal rights to a group of people simply because of such a petty reason, which is why should vote accordingly.

Why is it wrong for the democratic process of the voters of California to say no to this issue? (or any democratic culture)

Technically nothing is wrong, even though in my opinion, civil rights should not be something the public should be voting on to begin with. Like it or not, the 'public' is usually interested in what is best for themselves, not what is best for the country. If we let the public vote on this, should we let the public vote on black rights / women's rights? Would you like to see some counties in the south revert back to not allowing blacks to vote, or segregating schools, etc? Because that is what would happen in some places, if we let civil rights be voted on by the public. And that's why I don't think this issue should be resolved by a simple majority public vote.

Also, there is nothing wrong with courts doing what they have. They are asked to interpret the laws. If they read that they are to provide equal rights to all of their citizens, how is it wrong when they rule that gays should be allowed to married as heterosexuals do? I never understood Bush's stance on that. The court is not governing from the bench, they are making sure some of our most fundamental rights as American citizens, rights that have been around since our country's inception, are not infringed upon by some newly enacted, discriminatory piece of legislation. So why is it 'wrong' when they hand down their decisions?

Why is it right for the minority to violate the laws there, nullifying all those votes both for and against, and just try to in essence "steal" your way from the rest of the majority? (under a democracy)

Are you talking about the San Francisco marriages? The mayor said he would allow them to marry, they got married, after it was ruled that he did not have the right to do that, the marriages stopped. So how are they breaking any rules? If you want to blame the mayor, do so, but don't make it sound like the gay people were breaking laws.

Does a democratic culture have the right, thru democratic means, to set boundaries (laws/values) for itself?

As long as it doesn't overstep the rights of the minorities, sure. As long as it doesn't violate our country's most sacred governmental document, the very basis our country was founded upon, sure. You're going down a slippery slope if you are advocating the majority should have free reign over the minority. Because really, there is no defined 'majority' in this country anymore. The stereotypical white, Christian heterosexual male is quickly becoming the minority in our country today, so you might want to be careful advocating simple majority rule. If all the women, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, Asians, and gay people decided they wanted to strip rights away from the white male -- those 'minorities' definitely would win a majority vote -- does that make it right?

Since I answered your questions, you answer mine. It's quite simple.

Our consitution guarantees equal rights to ALL of our country's citizens. Denying gay people the legal rights and protections afforded to heterosexual marriage is not providing equal rights. Anything the public, or elected officials, rule in favor of discriminating against gay people is directly going against our country's most basic, time-endured principle. We made this mistake with black people. We made this mistake with women. We shamefully look back on those sad times in our country's history, so why would we want to put ourselves thru that again with such close-minded, short-term, selfish thinking?

But my real question is: knowing what I just said, how can you advocate governmental discrimination against gay people when the Constitution provides equal rights for ALL of our country's citizens?

I could answer your questions, but like it or not, you cannot answer mine. You cannot give me a legitimate reason why we should go against our country's most sacred legal document -- the document on which our entire country was FOUNDED on -- just to discriminate against someone.

Answer that for me.

Uber says,

I'm not attempting to

let me finish your sentance....."I'm not attempting to" Answer your societal questions youve posed many times.
Please attempt them...I know they are tough questions, which depending on how you answer either hurt your side of the argument or raise some very interesting questions about what/how you think this type of government works.

Uber, this is by me, from another thread...(nj gov a gay mole?).it concerns democracy/gay issues. (i dont know why this wouldnt cut and paste as a quote, i tried)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exerpt from intrepid's statement,
quote:
your view for America is a narrow one that would provide only for 1 group of people. What about " liberty and justice for ALL?"

Hmm, indeed i have been sticking to a seemingly narrow point about DEMOCRACY, and the practice of this form of governance.

I feel that "liberty and justice for all" is a great and nobel IDEAL for a society to strive for.
BUT
Democracy is the mechanism with which this society has to try and achieve the IDEAL.

Therefore the view as you say, that provides for only 1 group of people, which i am advocating, is the group of a majority in the democracy. (for whatever issue you put before the voters in that culture)

Now i do understand that the majority in a democracy will not always choose (vote democratically) for the "right" or "just" idea.
BUT
Isnt that the right of a democratic society to figure out for themselves?
Isnt it the cultures right to have the chance to make this "mistake" of choosing "wrong" or "right"?

On the issue of gay marriage, this principal of a democratic societies right to self determination thru democratic means, is the basis of why I oppose gay marriage. That and the fact that NOONE EVER talks about the ramifications, and adjustments, potential loopholes, and any kind of actual PLAN for implementing this gay marriage idea into the culture. Just a list of demands attached to "hate monger, biggot" or other devicive and disrespectful terms.

To me it appears that a vocal, organized minority of the society, is trying to circumvent democratic means to get what they want. (gay adgenda items)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uber, im willing to throw out my "straw man" argument...Indeed it was not one of my better worder ideas, nor am i sure i can express what im thinking with this idea...ill try...
The Bill of Rights does not give citizens its protections because they contribute to society, by paying taxes, going to be a productive worker...or any other ways of making a contribution. (again what defines this contibution?) So for you to say that, we deserve something because we contribute seems like an equally straw man argument. paying taxes and making $$$ is part of capitalism here for all. why would it then grant special privilage to a minority group of any kind?

Uber asks,

I still also fail to see why the financial contribution I make is null and void to the debate but the financial contribution on society should this legislation be enacted is pertinent,

Im trying to say that the idea that enacting gay marriage into the laws/culture has NO EFFECTS on ANYONE that isnt gay is a flase statement...i gave 2 examples that happened to be economical to show there ARE effects that would impact non-gays. I have listed other effects to the society in other threads, but dont have the time to research them now..(which is why this is gonna be a long post...i got to respond to many questions asked of me)

TORQUE on show me the $$$
Torque asks where the $$$ for the gay marriages went...
I heard a news report, (also which i havnt the time to cite now) where they said the state was offering refunds of the fees, BUT that many gay activists say taking the money back would vindicate the courts decision, and so they (gays) are purposfully leaving the $$$ in the coffers as a form of protest. (refusing to accept not only the will of the voters, but of the law as well.
As far as this being "free $$$" for the state, how much in court costs, security for the media circus/public etc in discussing this issue did the state spend? hardly "free".

W Hamilton,
Indeed this is a democratic republic...but the basis of power in a republic STILL lies in the citizens...we elect representatives, and we can remove them...we can demand legislation from those elected that reflect the will of the people, and we can reject legislation that they propse that we dont like. (all thru the proper processesset up to do these things, i wont boor anyone with the how these things are done now) Most importantly, we can have a national vote for certain issues if it seems like there is the political will to do so. but the by the book definitions of democracy, and republic side by side, there is only a slight difference. Not one to remove the rights/responsibillities of the people to be active in the process.

As far as the "save a buck vs ideal" thing...see above where i say this was used as an example of effects of this on non gays.
As I have shown examples of effects to non gays...the "no effect" thing is shown to be a false premise.
Also as we can see there are effects, (more than the ones i used) then my question about WHERE IS THE PLAN NOT, JUST THE WISH LIST seem to have more validity....yet NOONE wants to talk about that.
Hamilton, read back a few posts and join UBER in asnwering the societal questions I ask?

You didn't answer my question, so when you do that I'll look into answering the other questions you posed

Why should we go against the most basic principle of the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a certain group of people? How can you possibly advocate that?

We should not allow ourselves nor our country be dictated by some of the silly reasons people give for opposing gay marriage. Plain and simple, everyone wants equal rights; after all, that is what our Constitution -- our preeminent legal document -- provides. We should not, and can not let equal rights / civil rights be left up to the people, plain and simple. We've botched that up too many times in the past, you would have thought we would have learned by now. The public will be easily influenced, and they won't be looking out for everyone's best interest, and they will combine church and state, etc. This is the reason why this issue should not be left up to public vote, and it's the same reason it's shameful that we have some government officials (the PRESIDENT of all people!) advocating going against our Constitution just to discriminate needlessly against some people. It's pathetic.