|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 5, 2008 23:20:42 GMT -5
Wait, maybe I missed something, but why does the party of small government care about if a small minority of men have sex with each other and refer to that relationship as one thing versus another?
If you think the institution of marriage is legitimately threatened by gays, then you must have very little faith in the institution in the first place.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 23:22:30 GMT -5
And like it or not, the Catholic Church does not like homosexuality (I heard Arlington's bishop tonight rail that marriage was "one man and one woman, and only one man and one woman"). Um, what's your point? The Catholic Church never has to like or support homosexuality. It can continue to oppose homosexual marriages/unions/whatever until the end of time. Doesn't mean the Catholic Church should be deciding what a state government does as far as legal benefits to its citizens. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 6, 2008 10:04:08 GMT -5
If the Republican party REALLY believes in states rights and the ability of states to decide these things for themselves - like we've heard Bush claim since 2000 on a variety of hot topic issues, then that reasoning doesn't hold any water. The LDS Church just painted a giant bullseye on Utah with this campaign, and I'm not sure why gay rights activists wouldn't go after Utah after overturning Prop 8 under the same reasoning (why fight it in our home state when we can fight it in Utah?). If support for gay marriage is so self-evidently overwhelming, then why haven't the gays and their supporters been able to enact a gay marriage statute in a single state? (Possible exception being Mass., where the state supreme court "forced" them to act). California, Hawaii, Oregon, though, somewhere there must be 50% of an elected legislature that would take a stand on the issue. Hell, the Speaker of the House is from San Francisco and even she won't take any action to repeal DOMA or take any other meaningful steps in support of gay rights. I can't imagine how much longer the gay population in America is going to continue to be strung along by their political leadership like this. The Democrat Party has no incentive to fix the problem as long as it keeps sending so many votes their way (much like Republicans with the abortion issue). |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 6, 2008 10:03:42 GMT -5
I think one civil unions between a man and a women and two people of the same sex need to be equal and called the same thing. I don't care what they're called because to me the only thing that's real marriage is the sacrament of matrimony or whatever it's called in other religions. Only religious matrimony is sacred. You can call both civil marriages, marriage or civil unions or whatever else you want to call them. I do think civil unions are a more accurate title but i don't care if couples who are state married only want to call it marriage. You can call an apple an orange it doesn't make it so but it doesn't hurt me to have you call your apple and orange.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 6, 2008 10:58:05 GMT -5
If support for gay marriage is so self-evidently overwhelming, then why haven't the gays and their supporters been able to enact a gay marriage statute in a single state? Why bother enacting one when you can just knock down all the impediments through the courts and the precedence for doing so is already there? Look, I thought Gavin Newsom was doing the wrong thing in 2004 when he started issuing licenses because it skirted the law. He should have been going through the courts. Since then, he's been doing that. I don't think support for gay marriage is overwhelming, but the support for treating relationships equally under the law is becoming significant. When the issue is down to whether to call any legal relationship a "marriage" or not, it's really a semantic issue and you've boiled the opposition down to people who want to keep the US a "Christian" nation (in the big "C" sense of the word, but ironically not in the little "c" sense). |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 10:59:14 GMT -5
If the Republican party REALLY believes in states rights and the ability of states to decide these things for themselves - like we've heard Bush claim since 2000 on a variety of hot topic issues, then that reasoning doesn't hold any water. The LDS Church just painted a giant bullseye on Utah with this campaign, and I'm not sure why gay rights activists wouldn't go after Utah after overturning Prop 8 under the same reasoning (why fight it in our home state when we can fight it in Utah?). If support for gay marriage is so self-evidently overwhelming, then why haven't the gays and their supporters been able to enact a gay marriage statute in a single state? (Possible exception being Mass., where the state supreme court "forced" them to act). California, Hawaii, Oregon, though, somewhere there must be 50% of an elected legislature that would take a stand on the issue. Hell, the Speaker of the House is from San Francisco and even she won't take any action to repeal DOMA or take any other meaningful steps in support of gay rights. I can't imagine how much longer the gay population in America is going to continue to be strung along by their political leadership like this. The Democrat Party has no incentive to fix the problem as long as it keeps sending so many votes their way (much like Republicans with the abortion issue). I believe this is one of those situations where the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein is meant to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Legislation is for spending money and making policy, the Constitution is for ensuring an equal, fair and just interaction between government and citizen. This is a case of the later. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 11:27:41 GMT -5
I think one civil unions between a man and a women and two people of the same sex need to be equal and called the same thing. I don't care what they're called because to me the only thing that's real marriage is the sacrament of matrimony or whatever it's called in other religions. Only religious matrimony is sacred. You can call both civil marriages, marriage or civil unions or whatever else you want to call them. I do think civil unions are a more accurate title but i don't care if couples who are state married only want to call it marriage. You can call an apple an orange it doesn't make it so but it doesn't hurt me to have you call your apple and orange. See, I knew if you could put away the colored goggles, you could see things my way. I believe someone very wise -- if I do say so myself -- has been making that point all along. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 6, 2008 11:31:26 GMT -5
If support for gay marriage is so self-evidently overwhelming, then why haven't the gays and their supporters been able to enact a gay marriage statute in a single state? (Possible exception being Mass., where the state supreme court "forced" them to act). California, Hawaii, Oregon, though, somewhere there must be 50% of an elected legislature that would take a stand on the issue. Hell, the Speaker of the House is from San Francisco and even she won't take any action to repeal DOMA or take any other meaningful steps in support of gay rights. I can't imagine how much longer the gay population in America is going to continue to be strung along by their political leadership like this. The Democrat Party has no incentive to fix the problem as long as it keeps sending so many votes their way (much like Republicans with the abortion issue). I believe this is one of those situations where the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein is meant to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Legislation is for spending money and making policy, the Constitution is for ensuring an equal, fair and just interaction between government and citizen. This is a case of the later. That's why people tried to change the state constitution of California, and it's why the legal action to argue that the amendment needs to go to the legislature post facto is frustrating. No, don't argue that before the measure is up for a vote - trump the will of the people. Or, appeal to the Supreme Court and involve the US Constitution . Finish the issue once and for all. Oh, and the second reference when you Google "As goes California, so goes the nation", is the below article. Gay marriage defenders are not shy about using the decision as a precedent for other states, so those opposing it should have no compunction about fighting it. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/MNDR10N3IC.DTL |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 11:37:23 GMT -5
I believe this is one of those situations where the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein is meant to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Legislation is for spending money and making policy, the Constitution is for ensuring an equal, fair and just interaction between government and citizen. This is a case of the later. That's why people tried to change the state constitution of California, and it's why the legal action to argue that the amendment needs to go to the legislature post facto is frustrating. No, don't argue that before the measure is up for a vote - trump the will of the people. Or, appeal to the Supreme Court and involve the US Constitution . Finish the issue once and for all. Oh, and the second reference when you Google "As goes California, so goes the nation", is the below article. Gay marriage defenders are not shy about using the decision as a precedent for other states, so those opposing it should have no compunction about fighting it. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/MNDR10N3IC.DTLThe concept of changing the Constitution via 50%+1 of a referendum vote is baffling. The point of Constitutions is to serve as bullwarks against the tyranny of the majority, not as a tool to allow them to enshrine their opinions du jour. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 6, 2008 11:57:22 GMT -5
I think one civil unions between a man and a women and two people of the same sex need to be equal and called the same thing. I don't care what they're called because to me the only thing that's real marriage is the sacrament of matrimony or whatever it's called in other religions. Only religious matrimony is sacred. You can call both civil marriages, marriage or civil unions or whatever else you want to call them. I do think civil unions are a more accurate title but i don't care if couples who are state married only want to call it marriage. You can call an apple an orange it doesn't make it so but it doesn't hurt me to have you call your apple and orange. See, I knew if you could put away the colored goggles, you could see things my way. I believe someone very wise -- if I do say so myself -- has been making that point all along. It seemed to me this wasn't the exact point you were making, but if it is i'm glad we agree on something. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 12:06:53 GMT -5
The concept of changing the Constitution via 50%+1 of a referendum vote is baffling. The point of Constitutions is to serve as bullwarks against the tyranny of the majority, not as a tool to allow them to enshrine their opinions du jour. That's why No on 8 advocates are now trying to say that this proposition was actually a constitutional REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, which would actually require it being passed in the legislature before going to the people. Apparently this has happened twice before, where courts struck down a supposed "constitutional amendment" proposition because it was actually a "constitutional revision." They're basing their argument on the fact that "Yes on 8" fundamentally alters the equal protection clause of the CA constitution and therefore is too substantial of a change - making it a revision, not an amendment. I don't know about the likelihood of this argument working, but it sure does point out a lot of problems with the referendum system. Seems silly that there are two rules for amendment and revision. That's just begging for a legal challenge. Way to go CA, way to go. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 12:13:40 GMT -5
Well, Californians just showed that they cared more about the rights of caged farm animals than having equal legal rights for its human citizens. I think California is the King of "silly" right now. The chicken referendum passed? Good grief, CA. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 6, 2008 12:14:23 GMT -5
That's why No on 8 advocates are now trying to say that this proposition was actually a constitutional REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, which would actually require it being passed in the legislature before going to the people. Apparently this has happened twice before, where courts struck down a supposed "constitutional amendment" proposition because it was actually a "constitutional revision." They're basing their argument on the fact that "Yes on 8" fundamentally alters the equal protection clause of the CA constitution and therefore is too substantial of a change - making it a revision, not an amendment. I don't know about the likelihood of this argument working, but it sure does point out a lot of problems with the referendum system. Seems silly that there are two rules for amendment and revision. That's just begging for a legal challenge. Way to go CA, way to go. Well, we all remember how New Jersey got the majority of the toxic waste dumps in America and California got the majority of the lawyers, don't we?  |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 12:22:43 GMT -5
Cambridge, I agree with you with respect to constitutional ammendments. Here in Florida, ammendments must pass with a 60% majority -- making constitutional changes significantly more difficult, and rightfully so I would think.
SinceBirth, my point is fundamentally the same as yours. "Marriage" is a specific thing and has been essentially forever. But that doesn't mean that as a society, people of different sexual preferences should have disproportional advantages. Whether or not you or I think a particular lifestyle is morally right or wrong doesn't really matter.
Maybe this would be a fair analogy: suppose you are very close to your brother, who is also a widower with a 10 year old son. Then your brother dies in an accident and you get custody of your nephew. You raise him, take care of him as you would your own. You can love him as much as anyone else ever could. As you have decided on a life of celibacy, you have no heirs other than your beloved nephew. 10 years later, something tragic happens to you. While your nephew isn't your "son," I think we would all understand that he treated him like his son. He was, for all intents and purposes, the same as his son, and under these circumstances, should probably be treated as his son, upon his death. BUT, he is still not his "son." That being said, the semantics really don't and shouldn't matter. That is what I am saying and when you say that you can call it whatever you want as long as it is treated fairly, then I think we are fundamentally at the same point.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 12:26:00 GMT -5
Well, Californians just showed that they cared more about the rights of caged farm animals than having equal legal rights for its human citizens. I think California is the King of "silly" right now. The chicken referendum passed? Good grief, CA. Indeed. Overwhelmingly so: Proposition 2 Treatment of Farm Animals Choice Votes % Yes 6,243,609 63.1% No 3,648,332 36.9% Although, that one doesn't bother me as much as paying 10 billion for bullet trains we can't afford right now. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 12:27:16 GMT -5
Cambridge, I agree with you with respect to constitutional ammendments. Here in Florida, ammendments must pass with a 60% majority -- making constitutional changes significantly more difficult, and rightfully so I would think. SinceBirth, my point is fundamentally the same as yours. "Marriage" is a specific thing and has been essentially forever. But that doesn't mean that as a society, people of different sexual preferences should have disproportional advantages. Whether or not you or I think a particular lifestyle is morally right or wrong doesn't really matter. Maybe this would be a fair analogy: suppose you are very close to your brother, who is also a widower with a 10 year old son. Then your brother dies in an accident and you get custody of your nephew. You raise him, take care of him as you would your own. You can love him as much as anyone else ever could. As you have decided on a life of celibacy, you have no heirs other than your beloved nephew. 10 years later, something tragic happens to you. While your nephew isn't your "son," I think we would all understand that he treated him like his son. He was, for all intents and purposes, the same as his son, and under these circumstances, should probably be treated as his son, upon his death. BUT, he is still not his "son." That being said, the semantics really don't and shouldn't matter. That is what I am saying and when you say that you can call it whatever you want as long as it is treated fairly, then I think we are fundamentally at the same point. While not familiar with FL law at all, I would imagine in the hypothetical you just set out that the courts would find a constructive adoption occurred. In that case, if it is clear from the actions and words of the decedent that he intended to adopt or thought that he had in effect adopted his nephew, the court would treat it as such. The difference in the case of marriage, is that courts in most states have struck down constructive (or "common law") marriages. Therefore, there is no avenue for the court to come to a "just" result in the case of unmarried couples unlike that of unadopted children. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 6, 2008 12:32:11 GMT -5
The chicken referendum passed? Good grief, CA. Indeed. Overwhelmingly so: Proposition 2 Treatment of Farm Animals Choice Votes % Yes 6,243,609 63.1% No 3,648,332 36.9% Although, that one doesn't bother me as much as paying 10 billion for bullet trains we can't afford right now. I actually think the HSR prop. was for the most part good. These investments need to be made if we're ever going to seriously upgrade our transportation network in this country. Ideally I'd like to see this money come from new highway spending, but it still needed to happen at some point. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 12:33:27 GMT -5
I am hopeful that Prop 8 is just a setback. In 2000, Californians voted 61 percent to 39 percent to pass an act that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." In 2008, 52 to 48 percent voted to constitutionally ban gay marriage. That's a huge narrowing of the gap in just 8 years.
And since 60% of Californians were actually polling NO on prop 8 a few months ago, before the millions of out-of-state donations came in (and aired ads that told us all that allowing gay marriage would cause public schools to teach your kindergarteners to be gay), I do have hope that this will be reversed soon. The Yes on 8 people ran a fantastic campaign. They used extreme scare tactics to win. The majority of Californians didn't care about letting gays marry until the Yes on 8 people ran ads with unfounded accusations.
Also, 61% percent of people ages 18-29 voted against the ban. That gives me tremendous hope as well.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 12:52:18 GMT -5
Cambridge, again, that is my whole point and from what I deduced, sincebirth's as well. I think we should recognize a civil union. It doesn't "just happen" in either case -- common law marriages withstanding. A man and a woman decide to get married. There are ramifications. There are legal ramifications. Adultery for instance, is now grounds for divorce and could and would play into the division of assets should that occur. That is only one example. Inheritence, in the event of the death of one party is another. I have no problem with similar civil unions between members of the same sex. I just don't get too bogged down with the "marriage" term, and in all honesty, I don't understand why the homosexual movement would either.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 6, 2008 12:57:49 GMT -5
Marriage? Civil union? Perpetual Wedding Date?
I care not what my marriage to my wife is called, nor would I care what anyone else's relationship is called.
If two people love one another and wish to commit legally, civilly, religiously, society should erect ramps, not barriers.
As long as the dissolution process is the same for all, the unification process should be as well.
|
|
