Sore Losers
-
Paul Watson wrote:
It is denying basic rights to a subset of people.
I guess I've never viewed marriage as a basic human right. :doh: Not that I'm against gay marriage. Just saying...
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I guess I've never viewed marriage as a basic human right.
I have always used a simple test to determine if something is a basic human right. Do you still have it if you are the only person on earth? Free speech - yep Right to property - yep (and a lot of property it is) Marriage - nope, nobody to be married to Health Care - only what you can provide for yourself Food - only what you can provide for yourself As for gay marriage - knock yourselves out - quickly followed by gay divorce...
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
The whole thing was poorly handled. If it was to be put to a vote, they should never have passed legislation beforehand.. that's a terrible thing to go back on
bulg wrote:
If it was to be put to a vote, they should never have passed legislation beforehand..
The didn't. The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws, and that same court will likely overturn this constitutional amendment as being "destructive of the constitution"
-
Paul Watson wrote:
It is denying basic rights to a subset of people.
I guess I've never viewed marriage as a basic human right. :doh: Not that I'm against gay marriage. Just saying...
United Nations Convention on the Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages (1962)[^]
As soon as a person is legally entitled, he or she has the right to marry and have a family. In doing this, neither the colour of your skin, the country you come from nor your region should be impediments. Men and women have the same rights when they are married and also when they are separated.
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
but when they start to tramp on other people's property or right of opinion (so much for equality at that point), then it becomes an issue.
Yeah damnit. I think those homos should shut the fuck up. How dare they want to marry, the dirty bastards. Its not like marriage really means anything to them, they're just jealous and all. (Sure, violence is the last resort but what Prop8 represents will be seen to be an evil alongside segregation and female discrimination in years to come. It is denying basic rights to a subset of people. No vote should be had on it, it is not a matter of opinion or belief or the peoples will. If you deny me my basic rights I'm going to start giving your white picket fence a good roasting.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is denying basic rights to a subset of people.
No, it isn't. It's a legal and social construct, no more a basic right than paying taxes or becoming a notary public. And regardless of how the vote went on Prop8, there would still be people excluded. Until i can pick and choose random people to be considered "family" for tax purposes, it's merely a discussion of which subsets we want to favor and which ones we don't.
Paul Watson wrote:
No vote should be had on it, it is not a matter of opinion or belief or the peoples will.
This is where the whole discussion goes awry - no matter what the proponents of Prop8 might think, it isn't going to stop anyone from being gay. It's merely the formalization of public opinion: will the people of California recognize unions declared between same-sex couples as "marriage", or will they not. Without the opinion of others, without the will of The People, the distinction is meaningless - therefore, it is a matter of opinion and the people's will.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
United Nations Convention on the Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages (1962)[^]
As soon as a person is legally entitled, he or she has the right to marry and have a family. In doing this, neither the colour of your skin, the country you come from nor your region should be impediments. Men and women have the same rights when they are married and also when they are separated.
:laugh: I love the plain English version for retards, followed by the "illustrated" version (which is the original version in almost unintelligible format with the picture of two happy people in a boot!) Guess the UN's web master does a little work between bong hits.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
United Nations Convention on the Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages (1962)[^]
As soon as a person is legally entitled, he or she has the right to marry and have a family. In doing this, neither the colour of your skin, the country you come from nor your region should be impediments. Men and women have the same rights when they are married and also when they are separated.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
It is denying basic rights to a subset of people.
No, it isn't. It's a legal and social construct, no more a basic right than paying taxes or becoming a notary public. And regardless of how the vote went on Prop8, there would still be people excluded. Until i can pick and choose random people to be considered "family" for tax purposes, it's merely a discussion of which subsets we want to favor and which ones we don't.
Paul Watson wrote:
No vote should be had on it, it is not a matter of opinion or belief or the peoples will.
This is where the whole discussion goes awry - no matter what the proponents of Prop8 might think, it isn't going to stop anyone from being gay. It's merely the formalization of public opinion: will the people of California recognize unions declared between same-sex couples as "marriage", or will they not. Without the opinion of others, without the will of The People, the distinction is meaningless - therefore, it is a matter of opinion and the people's will.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Most gay activists reject "civil union" as an acceptable alternative. They insist on the term marriage being defined to include them, rather than merely insisting on equal protection under the law. Those opposed want a traditional Christian religious definition: 1 man + 1 woman. No compromise is likely from the religious, so the issue will remain contested. The issue is more than just taxation, it is also right of survivorship, "next of kin" privileges, and a plethora of things more fundamental than tax preference. All of these could be had under a "Civil union" law, but this remains unacceptable to many gays. No compromise is likely from the gays, so the issue will remain contested. Idiocy on all sides.
-
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election. Mostly because I feel like the country as a whole will suffer for his policies. I also recognize that this is all opinion on my part, and that time will tell if he was the better choice. But these people[^]... Proposition 8 has some truely sore losers.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Yeah, I'm all for civil unions. And I personally think that's a great solution. It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Actually, it wouldn't. If there are two paths enshrined in law, then there are two classes of citizens. However, civil unions are the solution if government gets out of the marriage business. Tell those who want to define marriage as a religious activity to have at it. However, if they want the rights guaranteed by society to stable couple, then they need to go down to city hall and register their civil union since their marriage certificate is just so much paper and carries no weight legally.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
bulg wrote:
If it was to be put to a vote, they should never have passed legislation beforehand..
The didn't. The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws, and that same court will likely overturn this constitutional amendment as being "destructive of the constitution"
Rob Graham wrote:
The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws,
Actually, the supreme court decision was based on prior law. The nondiscrimination clause in the California constitution. And the judges who gave it the initial go ahead in the appellate court were conservative.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
No.
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
A Wong wrote:
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
Both. Once marriage stops having any legal standing but becomes a religious rite - like Communion or a Beltane orgy - it can be whatever one your little heart desires. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Actually, it wouldn't. If there are two paths enshrined in law, then there are two classes of citizens. However, civil unions are the solution if government gets out of the marriage business. Tell those who want to define marriage as a religious activity to have at it. However, if they want the rights guaranteed by society to stable couple, then they need to go down to city hall and register their civil union since their marriage certificate is just so much paper and carries no weight legally.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws,
Actually, the supreme court decision was based on prior law. The nondiscrimination clause in the California constitution. And the judges who gave it the initial go ahead in the appellate court were conservative.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
As soon as you have two different classes of legal union, you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well. The only excuse for having two different legal unions is to promote discrimination. It should be either just a church thing, or just a legal thing. I see nothing wrong with separating the concepts: no church can grant the legal state, no government the religious state.
-
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
Rob Graham wrote:
I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved.
Betcha a dollar that the minute this was enacted we'd have a group of 3+ people screaming discrimination. Probably ex-communicated Mormons... :doh:
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
As soon as you have two different classes of legal union, you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well. The only excuse for having two different legal unions is to promote discrimination. It should be either just a church thing, or just a legal thing. I see nothing wrong with separating the concepts: no church can grant the legal state, no government the religious state.
Rob Graham wrote:
you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with seperating them either. Which would amount to changing the text on a marriage license to say "Civil Union".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Proposition 8 has some truely sore losers.
I agree. I don't care much about the whole thing, but I do wish gay couples (especially those that have been in committed relationships for many years) would be allowed to form civil unions. Unfortunately only a handful of states have civil unions. Here's[^] more on that.
"When you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." -- John McCain in 2000, on his vote against lowering the top tax rate from 39% to Bush's proposed 35%.
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson