Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So in other words, you're saying that either married or DP gets the same price break (I had already asked that of AVIS - I'm way ahead of you).

Yes.

But you don't want them to know that you're gay?

Why not?

If there were a fraction of people who want to do you harm in life for having a 6th toe, would you want everyone to know?

I have no qualms about my sexuality, but I am smart enough to know when it is safe to express it and when it's not. Having to tell everyone who can instantly get an attitude towards you that you are gay doesn't sound fun to me.

BTW, I thought people didn't want to know my business?

I wouldn't be ashamed to say I am married....

I think you may be getting the point.

reply to post by jsobecky


Let me state it clearly: My problem with your argument, is that labeling people, and forcing them to identify with their labels (in an official context, not just a social context) is not equal. It's not constitutional either.

How about this idea: we allow gays all the same rights, however they must wear a rainbow patch/badge on all of their clothing to further identify them in public. Or perhaps multicolored armbands.

I'm surprised nobody has thought of that before.

Life is too short for me to read the whole thread.
Suffice to say that I don't care whom your bedmate is, I don't care with whom you share your values.
I care that I'm not of a diferent persuasion and I don't want my Grands growing up thinking that life-style is good.
I know and am friends with alot of gays, they all have problems more than I raised my kids to deal with.

In the year 2000, 62 percent of voters favored a ban on same sex marriage.
In the year 2008, 52 percent of voters favored a ban on same sex marriage.

notice the trend?

There IS a silver lining to last night's vote.


[edit on 5-11-2008 by spacedoubt]

reply to post by spacedoubt


I agree spacedoubt. Also it seems younger generations are voting against these measures more and more. Eventually the hardcore conservative base will no longer be in tune with the rest of America. It happened with abortion and it is steadily happening with gay marriage. If we are to follow our own history then we have hope that this minority's fight for rights will prevail, like the others. I think we need to be more vocal and begin protesting like these groups did in the 60’s and 70’s. They knew how to get things done. Unfortunately people become complacent and too comfortable to care, and then a slap in the face like this happens. I’m thankful that it may encourage some to protest.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

That's an interesting interpretation JaxonRoberts and if you you feel strongly enough I suggest your votes reflect your beliefs. The bible is quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination, there is no reason to put that up to debate....you are really reaching. Honestly you don't need to defend yourself, nor do I feel the need. Voting is a very personal thing and nobody has the right to question that. Really you should concern yourself with your beliefs and ideals not mine. The votes reflect the will of the people and the law will speak when it has something to say.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It sounds like your argument is with the auto rental companies. Take it up with them.

My problem is with being forced to label myself if and when I do want to get "hitched". Can't I just say I have a "ball and chain" and laugh it off like the other guys?

reply to post by caballero


Good.

A step back? i feel like this is definitely a step forward. This is a democracy and the people have spoken. Gay marriage is not a right. and some in california would have us believing that we are the problem for not accepting gay marriage and embracing it. Theres always someone trying to push the envelope, im just glad california pushed back.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Griff

 

It sounds like your argument is with the auto rental companies. Take it up with them.

www.merriam-webster.com...

to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area b: to predict by projecting past experience or known data

dictionary.reference.com...

to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.

en.wiktionary.org...

# An inference about some hypothetical situation based on known facts.

How about a practical example: Take this car rental scenario, and try to apply it to getting a hotel room, or renting an apartment, or applying for a mortgage, or etc. etc. etc.

Marriage, although defined mostly by religion, is a legal term. If you don't get to brandish that same exact term, then you are being singled out unjustly. I think it would be just as good to remove "marriage" from all legal documents, and call it "dual partnership" for everyone. That way, the term "marriage" can retain its sanctity for all the puritans - and "marriage" will only be used in a religious context, not a social or official one, and everyone gets equal rights.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by scientist]

Wow. That is alot, haha.

Let me show you a link:

Read this

I am tired so forgive me if his is not what you were looking for. I stay up way too late sometimes. Ha.

Also it seems younger generations are voting against these measures more and more. Eventually the hardcore conservative base will no longer be in tune with the rest of America.

Are you sure about that? With all of the catholic immigrants? With the religious revival we have seen? With the growing divide between the educated classes and those who turn to superstition? I am not so optimistic.

Originally posted by TheRooster
Perhaps the problem with our country is your view on this. This country has waaaay too many laws on the books as it is, we have been legislated into near slavery.

Firstly, as an Australian, I must be extremely powerful to be the cause of "the problem with our country" (sic).

Secondly, as I said in the post you are quoting from:
"The best we can do when agreeing on laws is to legislate the minimum possible, that will benefit people and society and protect people and society from harm, in the context of society as we know it."

Now what part of "the minimum possible" do you find hard to understand?

If I understand you correctly... your solution is not one to believe in a document and what it represents, take a stand and beat back the change in popular beliefs... but to legislate it for all eternity?

Now let me get this straight.
You said: " I suggest you get outside your own world for a minute and think in terms of a document that is to serve mankind until mankind ceasts' to exist."
I said: "No document made by a government is expected to last until mankind ceases to exist. Governments change, morality changes, civilizations rise and fall.
Yet you appear to be accusing me of wanting to legislate for all eternity.

Sorry, and I'm sure this one will go over well with everyone at the house. That belief is BS!

Great, we agree on something. Yes, the idea that laws are expected to last until mankind ceases to exist is BS.

The demise of this country is only a matter of time because we HAVE NOT defended the Constitution and what it stands for, we have been tweaking it here and there, and each slight adjustment has set the moral compass of this nation on a heading towards the abyss.

Any downfall that may be about to happen to America would be due to what has been done to America's reputation and economy, not to a few thousand gay people living in stable committed relationships.

If you think I am of the opinion that homosexuality leads in any way to bestiality, you are mistaken. For the sake of healthy debate, you must also consider the extremes, ( for the record, I don't "always" take it to illogical extremes, but have been know to go there to stir the gray matter, or is it grey matter, I'll allow you to decide.) the point I was trying to make is... where does it end?

Where does discrimination end?
When does the fear some people have of men expressing physical love together end?
Where does the urge to impose one's religious beliefs on other people in a secular country end?

Are you old enough to remember the days when your arguments were used agains allowing inter-racial marriage in America?
It was not until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. I look forward to the day when laws banning same sex marriage are also realized by the courts to be unconstitutional.

What can society agree on that will NEVER be breached, for eternity?

What society can never be breached for eternity? None, so your question is irrelevant.

IMHO, you can have your marriage, I never said you couldn't (I've had a couple myself

:dn

I just want it clearly defined.

I can? Wow, I'm so grateful.
As a heterosexual woman I never thought my right to marriage was in dispute.
The problem is the harm done to others by denying that right.

Clearly defining marriage could be easy.
- A union, voluntarily undertaken, between two adults*, who plan to love, respect and care for each other, and share responsibilies as a family unit.
*Excluding those related in such a way as to cause this relationship to be incestuous.

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
Wow. That is alot, haha.

Let me show you a link:

Read this

I am tired so forgive me if his is not what you were looking for. I stay up way too late sometimes. Ha.

I love that site. It enforces my argument, thanks. It states clearly here:

Regardless how one attempts to argue in favor of banning same-sex marriage, our Constitution is clear that doing so is illegal, even to the point of disallowing our own Congress to revise the Constitution so that it might contradict itself.

reply to post by caballero


I live in CA. I accept the voice of this state. Democracy has spoken. Sooo... A moot point you bring up, no?

Might I suggest you do as I and all in CA should, accept the fact that the majority of people of spoken, and accept it.

If I read it correctly, which I did, then that establishment was in fact Christianity.

reply to post by kinglizard


I guess that's my point. This should have never been put up to a vote in the first place. It is clearly discriminatory, and that has already been covered by our Founding Fathers. We should keep 'marriage' in our Churches, and recognize legal unions on the state level, no matter the sexual orientation. I think in the end, this will be settled in the courts in accordance to the Constitution.

All citizens, no matter what there origins or beliefs, should all share the same rights. It is the founding principle of this nation, and one that makes us the beacon of freedom and hope in the world (even during the Bush years), and we must do whatever we can to preserve it.

I posted this link in the other Prop 8 threads. Please take the time to read the article if you would like an understanding of the people behind Prop 8.

Religous Bigots!

There was a great article in The Daily Beast by Max Blumenthal. It is called The Man Behind Proposition 8.That man is Howard F. Ahmanson ...one strange cat!

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

...While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
Wow. That is alot, haha.

Let me show you a link:

Read this

I am tired so forgive me if his is not what you were looking for. I stay up way too late sometimes. Ha.

I love that site. It enforces my argument, thanks. It states clearly here:

Regardless how one attempts to argue in favor of banning same-sex marriage, our Constitution is clear that doing so is illegal, even to the point of disallowing our own Congress to revise the Constitution so that it might contradict itself.

Oh, its no problem. *slaps self*

Eh, everyone makes mistakes

[edit on 5-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]