3

5/19/2008 11:40:10 AM

I'm still waiting for bigun20 to explain the history of marriage.

5/21/2008 10:22:05 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. A religious person doesn't have the right to tell a gay person that their union is not a marriage, if the gay couple wants to call it a marriage."

If your gay, then just find a religion that supports gay marriage. If another religion or person has a problem with this, they can not recognize it. Simple enough, right? The world still makes sense to you, and the heathens have their anal sex and are happy to.

That is, of course, in the conversation of if marriage was not a legal institution.

5/21/2008 10:53:03 AM

am i the only one who doesn't understand why the economy is an issue in every single election?

we have like 5% unemployment right now, and gas is still cheaper than in europe

the economy is fucking fine, it's going through a cycle right now

5/21/2008 12:04:27 PM

I know right, how many times are we going to hit peak oil before 2100.

sheesh

5/21/2008 12:44:08 PM

Quote :

"these questions remained unanswered"

Well, I think it's fair to say that more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans; but not enough to justify making it a plank in the party's platform. The Democratic party is just that, a political party; expecting it to represent holistically matters of principle is a bit much.

One can make the same argument of most social issues. For example, Republicans generally oppose abortion but have not made meaningful progress in abolishing it after thirty+ years.

As to why specific people don't support gay marriage outright -- well, I suppose it depends on how much they care personally. Many people who ideologically are not opposed to it, are not invested in it emotionally. The emotional connection to the issue crosses party lines. The only genuine moment (sadly) of the 2004 campaign was, in my opinion, when Dick Cheney refused openly to support the FMA in his debate with John Edwards. He deferred by simply saying he loves his daughter very much.

John McCain, I am sure, opposes gay marriage in principle but won't have much to say on the issue otherwise. He just doesn't care about it.

5/22/2008 2:16:14 AM

^ You're definitely on to something here:

Quote :

"Many people who ideologically are not opposed to it, are not invested in it emotionally."

5/22/2008 2:47:11 AM

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/alertmain.php?alid=201

Quote :

"ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to: “Do what’s right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any ‘same-sex marriage’ licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court’s nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted." Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application. Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed."

5/22/2008 11:15:11 AM

^

Well, being a gay jew, I suppose I would've gassed myself during WWII.



It's kind of a sad thing to say -- even on the Soap Box -- but honestly, the people who oppose gay marriage are, well, crazy. They're just crazy. I mean people who oppose it ideologically, not just out of pure ignorance or knee-jerk. People like those nuts.

For one thing, they don't have a leg to stand on -- legally, morally, or intellectually. And for another, their fanatical devotion to this craziness has dragged down every single other, more legitimate, issue conservatives represent. People complain about liberals but this rabid anti-gay thing has kept more moderates away from secular, practical positions like fiscal conservatism and efficient government than practically anything else. Especially, especially, in California.

With the notable exception of SF, the state isn't that liberal. I mean, the people. Powerful, voting, middle class Californians aren't doo-rag wearing sociology professors; they're hard-working, family-oriented people from very diverse backgrounds. They just don't have much truck with this shit, and they don't want to associate with it.

The Republican party really needs to clean up its act and distance itself from these self-aggrandizing morons. It's been dragging the party down, that they get by in elections on social issues, and don't have to worry about actually executing a pragmatic vision. People are noticing. Californians just wizened up to this a long time ago and, unfortunately, there aren't too many alternatives that aren't blue.

[Edited on May 23, 2008 at 9:28 PM. Reason : foo]

5/23/2008 9:27:56 PM

Quote :

"the people who oppose gay marriage are, well, crazy. They're just crazy. "

this is highly dismissive behavior, which, for you, surprises me.

Quote :

"they don't have a leg to stand on -- legally, morally, or intellectually."

i don't think that's the case at all. if they didn't, then there simply wouldn't be the debate that there is on such an issue.

the debate exists in higher intellectual realms than frat houses, redneck bars, and online hate-fountains. i suggest you read the amicus briefs submitted on behalf of the State. They shed light on the legal ramifications, as well as provide some level of intellectual discussion. As for morality... well, morals may be the underlying current, but discussions of that type are worthless to engage in opposition for many reasons.

5/24/2008 7:06:53 AM

^

In years of arguing over this, I've never heard an argument against civil marriage for gays that:

a) acknowledges any material facts about the nature of civil marriage, and the government's proper role in administering it (i.e., that the government is logically and in reality not a body representative of God, implementing a proper sacrament)
b) acknowledges any reasonable position on the limits gays have in enjoying marriage, even when it's acknowledged by the opponent that homosexuality is not a "choice" or a "lifestyle"
c) acknowledges that by failing to include gays -- who are sons and daughters of others, who belong to families themselves -- in the extension of a family through marriage, that position is in fact, logically, "anti family," and the only alternative is for gays to be completely isolated in society over time
d) per c, fails to provide any reasonable alternatives to marriage for gay men and women to lead healthy and happy lives with their partners, aside from some non-existent "miracle cure" for their "homosexuality"

And for the above list, I would say that these failings come not only from comment posters or blog authors, but well-regarded mainstream pundits and religious leaders who discuss the issue.

It's not dismissive to call people crazy who, in the pursuit of a particular end, completely ignore all the facts and their implications. I suppose I could be politically correct and call their positions, um ... "faith based" ... but that's no doing little justice to legitimate religion.

5/24/2008 3:23:35 PM

Quote :

"c) acknowledges that by failing to include gays -- who are sons and daughters of others, who belong to families themselves -- in the extension of a family through marriage, that position is in fact, logically, "anti family," and the only alternative is for gays to be completely isolated in society over time"

Or, you know, create free, egalitarian associations in place of the patriarchal, hierarchical family.

5/24/2008 5:47:11 PM

Yeah, cause that's, you know, the standard worldwide. Patriarchy and hierarchy and all that.

5/24/2008 6:02:18 PM

^ I think you're joking, but I agree completely. Patriarchy is indeed the global standard. See this book for further details and what to do about it:

5/24/2008 6:07:00 PM

Here is a petition to keep it legal past this fall:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac/

5/29/2008 6:09:03 PM

This is great:

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9ca7efa6-5a1d-4443-97be-00cd871b6726

Quote :

"You know the fight against marriage equality has been lost when even Bill O'Reilly has run out of legitimate reasons to opposed it. So has his guest Don Schweitzer who can't seem to come up with anyting either, and he's against it!"

For all O'Reilly's bad raps, I honestly think sometimes he's just in it because he likes being an ass to idiots of either political stripe ...

5/30/2008 5:44:08 AM

i dont ever think i've seen oreilly be more level headed than he was in that video

5/30/2008 5:54:22 AM

Quote :

"Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they?"

I have a rule:

As soon as someone starts comparing those with the opposite viewpoint to Nazis, their argument loses almost all credibility.

Seriously, there are no political issues in America that compare with a brutal extermination of millions of innocent people.

5/30/2008 6:47:29 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, there are no political issues in America that compare with a brutal extermination of millions of innocent people."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6h0lsiQcw

5/30/2008 7:38:22 AM

^^Godwin's Law

5/30/2008 9:01:21 AM

I was just in the car, and heard an interesting commentary on those who believe that gay marraige will destroy hetero marraige.......that the stance is like someone walking down the street, seeing an amputee, and doubting the existance of his own legs.

5/31/2008 1:52:42 PM

It's more analogous to wearing rainbow-colored clothes -- before the gays, a hetero could wear rainbow colored clothes without an associated stigma. Now that the gays have adopted the rainbow, heteros can no longer wear rainbow colored clothes because now it has a whole different meaning from the good old days.

5/31/2008 7:49:06 PM

initiative to ban gay marriage will be on the ballot this fall:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080602-1855-ca-gaymarriage.html

6/2/2008 10:55:28 PM

the largest threat to heterosexual marriage is divorce

6/2/2008 10:58:30 PM

ZOMG gay marriage!

who gives a fuck. the more fags filling up legends; the less of a sausage fest it will be at the bar when i go out.

6/2/2008 11:34:29 PM

good news...

'california court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling'

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080604-0929-ca-gaymarriage.html

6/4/2008 1:09:48 PM

good news...

'most people outside of California don't care'

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : no link ]

6/4/2008 2:42:39 PM

California's a strange place. Wonderful in some ways, terrible in others.

6/4/2008 2:47:39 PM

if anyone wants a free bumper sticker, or a brochure for more info on the HRC you can get it here:
http://www.hrc.org/get_involved/8634.htm

I'm really just bumping the thread so we can have it around for when Nov comes around to see if this becomes permanent or not.

Luckily in the mean time, now that CA has taken the heat as the first to let people from out of the state get married there, MA also opened its doors to out of state gay couples. MA originally would have allowed that, except Romney dredged up an old law that said if you can't legally get married in your home state, then you can't get married here, which was originally designed to keep interracial couples from marrying, but he applied it to gay marriage instead.

8/22/2008 4:55:37 PM

Just keeping this thread alive for next month to see if the ruling sticks or not.


In the mean time, here's this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/10/connecticut.gay.marriage/index.html

Quote :

"Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage # Story Highlights # Eight same-sex couples sued state, saying civil unions were not equal to marriage # Court decided constitution mandates treating citizens applying for marriage equally # In 2005, Connecticut began to allow civil unions"

10/10/2008 8:37:42 PM

^^ why would i want to put a GLBT bumper sticker on my car?

10/10/2008 10:20:03 PM

this thread is gay

10/11/2008 3:09:51 AM

^^if you support equality (the same reason lots of gay rights groups have an A in their alphabet soup of glbta) or are a bumper sticker whore you might want to, i'm not sure that applies to many tdubbers, but nevertheless the option for a free bumper sticker is there. again that was mostly just to make the bump of the thread to keep it alive not completely devoid of content, i didn't expect you specifically would want one.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 7:30:32 PM

i'm not gonna lie. I really don't give a shit about where a man wants to put his penis or where a woman wants to put her vajayjay. Just let individual states decide how they feel and don't force your viewpoint, one way or another, on the entire nation.

10/11/2008 11:17:05 PM

Quote :

"Just let individual states decide how they feel and don't force your viewpoint, one way or another, on the entire nation."

Sorry but we do need a national standard against bigotry and discrimination.

10/11/2008 11:22:27 PM

No we don't.

It says so in the constitution.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 2:39 AM. Reason : Tenth Ammendment, B]

10/12/2008 2:37:46 AM

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Sounds like a perfectly viable justification to persecute minority groups at the state level. What do you think, guys?

10/12/2008 3:47:46 AM

^

I'd hate to bother you with reading the whole thing.

Quote :

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : foo]

10/12/2008 3:51:57 PM

Explain to me how you're not making my point for me?

10/12/2008 4:16:11 PM

Quote :

"Tenth Ammendment, B"

14th Amendment, G.

10/12/2008 4:23:43 PM

Quote :

"Well, being a gay jew"

wait, have i been out of the loop for the last few years, or was that just your wolf-web coming out?

for that matter, i don't think i've ever heard you mention being jewish, either.


______________________

i didn't really read the thread, because i've been busy and this really isn't a hot-button issue to me. really, my solution would be for governments of all levels to not concern themselves with marriage at all, or at least to the minimum extent possible.

10/12/2008 5:04:09 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me how you're not making my point for me?"

I assume you were being sarcastic, then -- my bad. There are lots of raving, frothing-mad Tenth Amendment lunatics on TWW ...

Quote :

" wait, have i been out of the loop for the last few years, or was that just your wolf-web coming out?"

Nah, I think that was a few years ago but I don't remember when. I suppose it's one of the reasons 0EP11 thinks I'm a "leftist" (LOL). Also I am not religious ... just a member of "the club" through the matrilineal system. Hitler wouldn't have cared, hence the comment about WWII.

Quote :

"my solution would be for governments of all levels to not concern themselves with marriage at all, or at least to the minimum extent possible"

Maybe I've said this before but -- ironically in California I think if Prop 8 passes (amendment to state constitution banning gay marriage), then the courts would have a reasonable basis on which to require the abolishment of _all_ civil marriage in the state. Because:

1. The inherent nature of civil marriage, as previously ruled, is that it denies fundamental equal rights to gay people.
2. With the new amendment, civil marriage cannot in a statutory way be modified to provide the rights required of the equal protection clause.

Therefore civil marriage as an institution cannot be allowed to stand. It's like passing an amendment to the constitution requiring a segregated school system or re-instituting slavery.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. This IS California after all.

For me personally, I can't believe California is on the verge of passing an amendment that will drive tons of revenue (not to mention talented and hard working people) out of the state and into Massachusetts and Connecticut. It's just a GREAT thing to do with the economy tanking and the state in a $7 billion budget shortfall situation.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM. Reason : foo]

10/12/2008 7:34:51 PM

i dont think the government has any right to step in and say a religion should allow or not allow homosexual marriage. i mean isn't that the point of separation of church and state?

10/12/2008 10:01:21 PM

I support Donkey marriage

10/12/2008 10:07:02 PM

^^It isn't telling churches they have to conduct those marriages. It merely states that homosexuals have the same rights as straight people. Current marriage laws can't and don't force the catholic church to conduct marriages for non-catholics, so why do mouth breathers think this law change will force churches to have gay weddings?

10/12/2008 10:19:23 PM

C'mon, dude. You're talking to a guy named StraightTalk.

10/12/2008 10:24:29 PM

^ maybe because there have been several lawsuits to date where people sued a church for refusing to allow them to marry in the church or to perform the service. Yes, it will happen.

10/12/2008 10:25:42 PM

I don't think queer couples should get the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples; otherwise i don't give a shit. Beyond the fact that I think its bullshit when a church gets sued for choosing to not go against their beliefs of allowing gay marriage.

10/12/2008 10:26:19 PM

Quote :

"^ maybe because there have been several lawsuits to date where people sued a church for refusing to allow them to marry in the church or to perform the service. Yes, it will happen."

Quit lying.

10/12/2008 10:30:03 PM

gay people do have the same rights as straight people. the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

10/12/2008 10:30:40 PM