TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

I'll put myself out on a limb here and live with the repercussions.

My lawyer speak: (prior to voting)

As much as I am extremely against Proposition 8, I believe supporting it essentially sets the precedent for the courts to overturn already existing California law even on completely legal legislation. The Supreme Court has opened Pandora's box and possibly headed into ridiculous open-ended litigation. If something isn't the way one particular group likes, take it to the courts. The people spoke, the law was passed, that's unfortunately that.

In this case I decided to abstain. I hoped it would pass, but I decided to stick with my guns.

quote:

Originally posted by selfEvolution They couldn�t win with the truth so they resorted to something far more sinister. They even stooped so low as to distribute a campaign mailer fraudulently suggesting that President-elect Obama supported their efforts, when they knew for a fact that he had come out in opposition to Proposition 8.

I didn't see this flyer, but during the Vice President Debate, they were asked if they supporte gay marraige.

Biden tried to get around it by saying he though everyone should have equal rights no matter their partner's gender...

But when pushed to answer the question (after Palin said she was against gay marriage), Biden said that both he and Obama were against gay marraige. Not for it, but against it.

SNL actually did a skit of this part of the debate on Monday night, hehe. (I saw Biden actually say it during the VP debate....I didn't get the details from SNL, lol)

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by SFtrance I'll put myself out on a limb here and live with the repercussions. My lawyer speak: (prior to voting) As much as I am extremely against Proposition 8, I believe supporting it essentially sets the precedent for the courts to overturn already existing California law even on completely legal legislation. The Supreme Court has opened Pandora's box and possibly headed into ridiculous open-ended litigation. If something isn't the way one particular group likes, take it to the courts. The people spoke, the law was passed, that's unfortunately that. In this case I decided to abstain. I hoped it would pass, but I decided to stick with my guns.

i invite the supreme court to overturn democracy in any instance where voters choose to take away rights from a group of people. rights that have no demonstrably negative affect on people or society as a whole. equality is a fundamental american ideal. if 50% of california decides tomorrow that slavery should be legal, that is not something the courts should uphold either.

Something for you SFTrance -




Article 1 Section 7:
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.


-----------------------

"Ruling against same sex marraige is not against the constitution of California, as it places the equal requirement upon all citizens to marry someone of the opposite gender." (not an exact quote, taken out of memory)

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia





An interesting way to put it, but I guess it works like that legally. Who knows.

Off the top of my head, just thinking, it isn't looking like I can form a rational rebuttal for Article 1. Though most benefits/privileges are on the federal level which wouldn't apply either way due to Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I need to look more into the Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act to do a comparison.

Promise I'll write something back more in depth. Busy as hell writing on a liability case study and on the other side of the bloody country.

Oh not a lawyer by any means. yet. (I'm sticking with Patents, screw liability and civil rights)

quote:

Originally posted by pnutttty oh wow. you have it all wrong. you must be listening to your church because this has nothing to do with churchs/schools/etc...this has everything to do a minority group wanting equality.

1. I dont go to church
2. Where do you think gay couples will take their marriages to? Churches.
3. Do you think that the history books would leave out such a monumental proposition? Im willing to bet prop 8 will still make it into the grade school history books.
4. What rights would you have recieved by the failure of prop 8 other then the right to a "marriage"
5. Whatever rights you isolate from #4, add those to a civil union and the jesus lovers are happy, as are the gay couples.

quote:

Originally posted by SFtrance Off the top of my head, just thinking, it isn't looking like I can form a rational rebuttal for Article 1. Though most benefits/privileges are on the federal level which wouldn't apply either way due to Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I need to look more into the Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act to do a comparison. Promise I'll write something back more in depth. Busy as hell writing on a liability case study and on the other side of the bloody country. Oh not a lawyer by any means. yet. (I'm sticking with Patents, screw liability and civil rights)

Thanks buddy, I can already tell its going to be a good response.

Me neither, I just do trial media and document handling for the family firm. AKA BITCH WORK!!!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH i invite the supreme court to overturn democracy in any instance where voters choose to take away rights from a group of people. rights that have no demonstrably negative affect on people or society as a whole. equality is a fundamental american ideal. if 50% of california decides tomorrow that slavery should be legal, that is not something the courts should uphold either.

classic. that is hilarious, if you think about it. inviting the supreme court to overturn democracy. OMG LOL4LIFE!

Also @ SFtrance, looking forward to seeing that, sounds super interesting, thanks for taking time to put that together!

On another note, there really is a lot of us vs. them in this thread that is starting to make me sick. Just because this all boiled down to a yes vs. no, doesn't mean there are a million beautiful shades of gray. It is amazing how tolerance has been a completely one way street here...

There were mass Anti Prop 8 protests tonight in West Hollywood / Hollywood. It was amazing. A total uncoordinated march up San Vicente, down Sunset, then spurred off into four smaller protests where people just marched in the middle of the streets stalling traffic, sometimes getting beat by the LAPD (because they're pigs). I also witnessed some gays stalled a bus and beating on it's windows until they shattered. It was pretty cool to see on TV (and march in, I got lots of vids including one of this crazy lady).

There will be another protest outside of that huge mormon churc (just West of Beverly Hills) on Santa Monica BLVD tomorrow at 2PM.

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis classic. that is hilarious, if you think about it. inviting the supreme court to overturn democracy. OMG LOL4LIFE! Also @ SFtrance, looking forward to seeing that, sounds super interesting, thanks for taking time to put that together! On another note, there really is a lot of us vs. them in this thread that is starting to make me sick. Just because this all boiled down to a yes vs. no, doesn't mean there are a million beautiful shades of gray. It is amazing how tolerance has been a completely one way street here...

The tolerance hasn't been one way. The religious (and to be fair even some non-religious) people are forcing the others to participate in their view of what marriage should be. That is discriminatory.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen 1. I dont go to church 2. Where do you think gay couples will take their marriages to? Churches. 3. Do you think that the history books would leave out such a monumental proposition? Im willing to bet prop 8 will still make it into the grade school history books. 4. What rights would you have recieved by the failure of prop 8 other then the right to a "marriage" 5. Whatever rights you isolate from #4, add those to a civil union and the jesus lovers are happy, as are the gay couples.

like i said, this is about loving committed couples wanting the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any other married couple (ie full equality).

Again, this has nothing to do with the children in schools, church or even straight couples�or any other lame attempt to divert/twist/make other arguments�but in the end, this is about equality.

quote:

Originally posted by pnutttty like i said, this is about loving committed couples wanting the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any other married couple (ie full equality). Again, this has nothing to do with the children in schools, church or even straight couples�or any other lame attempt to divert/twist/make other arguments�but in the end, this is about equality.

this is a never ending circle, once again, what rights are gay couples missing with a civil union that they would be afforded with a "marriage?" nobody seems to be able to answer this question. If this directly effects you, and you are so passionate about it, shouldnt you know what right you are not granted?

im surprised nobody has posted anything like this. I am putting my foot in my mouth. Finally a bit of factual substance

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesex...vilmarriage.htm

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen this is a never ending circle, once again, what rights are gay couples missing with a civil union that they would be afforded with a "marriage?" nobody seems to be able to answer this question. If this directly effects you, and you are so passionate about it, shouldnt you know what right you are not granted?

What rights were Blacks not granted when "separate but equal" was in place? It is still discriminatory. Period. You are singling out a group of people due to their beliefs. You can not do that in the eyes of the law.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen im surprised nobody has posted anything like this. I am putting my foot in my mouth. Finally a bit of factual substance http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesex...vilmarriage.htm

Shit I really like this. I am forwarding it to my buddies parents. To prove they lose rights.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen this is a never ending circle, once again, what rights are gay couples missing with a civil union that they would be afforded with a "marriage?" nobody seems to be able to answer this question. If this directly effects you, and you are so passionate about it, shouldnt you know what right you are not granted?

see page one of this post.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen im surprised nobody has posted anything like this. I am putting my foot in my mouth. Finally a bit of factual substance http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesex...vilmarriage.htm

I'm surprised no one posted this either. And it proves so many points aside from the fact that maybe, just maybe, they would like to call the one they love "my husband" or "wife."

Who da thunk it? A bunch of tranceheads would be so passionately political! Who ever thinks "clubbers are mindless pill popping machines that listen to simple, repetitive music" needs to look at this thread! I am so happy and impressed that I could engage in such a mind blowing discussion!

Anyways, I have a very human story that was told to me be a classmate yesterday. A girl's aunt is in a RDP with her partner of 7 years. Her partner was artificially insiminated (sp?) and she gave birth to triplets. One of the babies was born in critical condition, whence the child slowly died in intensive care. Throughout the two days immediately following the birth of her children, the girl's aunt was NOT ALLOWED to mourn with her partner, nor see her own child pass, because she was NOT next of kin. The hospital made it clear that it you are not married or related by blood to the mother of the child, you cannot be allowed to interfere in such a sensitive matter.

Makes you go hmmmmmm......

Good article djjoshuaallen

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Reese I'm surprised no one posted this either. And it proves so many points aside from the fact that maybe, just maybe, they would like to call the one they love "my husband" or "wife."

you dont need the state in order to call your significant other anything you like IMO

quote:

Originally posted by teknotexan Who da thunk it? A bunch of tranceheads would be so passionately political! Who ever thinks "clubbers are mindless pill popping machines that listen to simple, repetitive music" needs to look at this thread! I am so happy and impressed that I could engage in such a mind blowing discussion!

hmmm, well i dont think you will find such a thread on ravelinks lol

Protest Rally & Differences in Domestic Partnership verses actual Marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson There were mass Anti Prop 8 protests tonight in West Hollywood / Hollywood.

Thanks for the update, Jake. I posted about the upcoming rally/protest several hours before the event on several websites, including in this thread a couple of pages back. I don't know if it had much effect, but so far I've learned that at least three of my friends who went. I live in Hollywood and I was at the rally to support them also. There were at least five helicopters above us - probably news helicopters and possibly some cop helicopters to watch just in case things got out of hand. I didn't see the unfortunate beat-down of one of the protesters live, but later I saw it on the local news. It almost looked like another Rodney King incident - with three big cops all over one guy and one cop freely using his club despite the fact the victim didn't attack anyone and was merely trying to get back on the sidewalk and join his friends.

In terms of the other posts asking about the difference between NONheterosexual "marriage" verses "domestic partnership" (DP) there are plenty of significant differences. For one, in a DP, the lover's biological family trumps visitation rights and burial rights over that of the "spouse" - in a marriage, the spouse's rights trump that of the other spouse's biological family. Also there is a matter of taxation, which In2Musik brought up several posts back.......


"Here's an article that backs my point up...domestic partners must pay taxes on the employer paid portion (typically 80%) of their health insurance premiums, but married couples do not. In the example below, that amounted to $1,800 per year.

So for everyone who believes that domestic partners have exactly the same benefits as married couples, then all married couples should pay $1,800 more in taxes for their health insurance too, no? Think about it, if you had to take out your checkbook now and pay the IRS for that, then that's the only way things would be "equal" on this one of many issues that separate domestic partnerships from marriages."


==================

source: http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/mem...er_benefits.htm

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen you dont need the state in order to call your significant other anything you like IMO

Right, but legally you do. To be recognized, it is required.

The prop is passing and there is nothing legally that can be done to over turn it.

I voted NO of course, but if you really wanna know how people really feel about this, discuss this with your parents. It will end in less than 5 minutes. The idea of same sex marriage grosses people out, most of my neighbors (who put up vote yes signs) just say its fine if they wanna live that life style but to get married, why? or God says that's wrong.

I propose Proposition 69 ban divorce, since marriage is so sacred.

quote:

Originally posted by JCIZZLE! The prop is passing and there is nothing legally that can be done to over turn it. I voted NO of course, but if you really wanna know how people really feel about this, discuss this with your parents. It will end in less than 5 minutes. The idea of same sex marriage grosses people out, most of my neighbors (who put up vote yes signs) just say its fine if they wanna live that life style but to get married, why? or God says that's wrong. I propose Proposition 69 ban divorce, since marriage is so sacred.

Here is an answer to the god bullshit that all these religious idiots are professing. They are basically fucking wrong. This was from another thread on TA that I posted about the bible verses that were posted earlier in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Only the Romans passage is from the new testament, the others are from the old. Starting with the old: The Sodom story is misunderstood. Yes, the Bible states that homosexual activity was rampant in Sodom; however, it has been over-emphasized in the Christian teachings. If one looks at the Jewish teachings it is clear that the final straw to God is the attempted rape of two angels (as it is in the Christian teachings); however, the Jewish teachings cite God's wrath as being more due to the townspeople inhospitality exhibited in the attempted rape rather then the homosexual aspect. Additionally, Rabbinic texts expand on the story found in Genesis and explain that the "wickedness" in the Genesis story included economic crimes, organized starvation of the poor, violence and blasphemy. Anyone who believes that God destroyed Sodom simply due to homosexuality has missed some critical aspects of the story and is likely the same type of Christian who believes every word their minister tells them without question because they've never bothered to actually read the Bible let alone take the time and do the necessary research to understand it. I cannot argue the Leviticus quote... that's in there; however, if one looks as the entirety of Leviticus one will find a number of ridiculous "laws" that pretty much all Christians ignore or have deemed invalid... like burning your sheets if a woman sleeps on them during her period. In truth, Leviticus is more likely rules made up by Moses and his inner circle then the word of god. They are inspired by God in that they were largely written based on interpretations of earlier stories; however, very few people believe that they are the actual word of god and are still applicable (and by very few I mean the Hasidic Jews and that's it). I would suggest to you that anyone who styles themselves a Christian and holds to this particular verse does so because it supports their prejudice rather then because it is theologically sound (as evidenced by the fact that they likely reject most of the "laws" in Leviticus). Now the New... The passage from Romans you note is the allusion to homosexuality I was referring to. The person who quoted it did so (intentionally I suspect) out of context. Paul's letters to various Christian communities were essentially his attempts to encourage those communities to continue to Jesus' ministry in their own communities (see Christianity is a faith one must live... it means nothing if you do not take action). It was believed in those times that people who had physical or mental illness were so afflicted as punishment for their sins. The letter lists the loss of the natural use of women and burning lust between men amongst the "afflictions" suffered along with mental defect rather then with the sins that resulted in these suffering, which he lists later (murder, envy, unrighteousness, disobedience to parents, etc). Perhaps the most important thing that the original poster omitted; however, is the first verse of the next chapter where Paul chastises those who would judge their fellow man for their perceived sins... "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (Romans 2 verse 1). This is another good example where if you pick a single line from any of the books of the bible you can make it mean whatever you want... the original poster wanted to claim that St. Paul was saying homosexuality is a sin and should be condemned; however, what he's really saying is that no matter what someone is suffering and for what sins you believe they are suffering it a man should not stand in judgment/condemnation of his fellow man. In fact, he goes on to state that in place of condemnation we should be trying to help those we believe suffer from various afflictions.... not really the same thing as "god hates fags and so should we."

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No, no, no... if one is truly a Christian and understands their faith they also understand that loving god and their fellow man takes precedence above all else and any "law" that contradicts that is invalid. If you want theological support for this there is a story (sorry, I cannot remember the citation) in the Gospels where Jesus is asked by one of the pharacies which of God's laws is most important... rather then picking one of the laws of Leviticus (considered the law in those times) he states that the most important is to love god above everything else, then to love your neighbour as you do yourself... meaning that the love of god and the love of your fellow man is inseparable and any "law" that is not consistent with loving your neighbour is therefore not consistent with loving god and is an offense to god... therefore invalid.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Craig, I really wish you were with me a couple weeks ago to put a friend in his place. I am not religious and therefore don't know the bible or it's teachings very well at all. Thank you for the explanation. It really does give me something to credit and show that these religious people are ignorant of their own religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Never a problem. You hit the nail on the head, BTW... these people who claim to be Christians and spew hatred or intolerance are simply ignorant of their own faith... Jesus was all about love and inclusiveness. Ultimately, from the Christian perspective homosexuality is not something that God intended and is not the preferred way for humans to live; however, homosexuals should be loved and accepted just as much as any other person. You don't show love for someone by calling them a fag, telling them they're not as worthy of love as you are, and that they will suffer eternal punishment in hell (also not something that anyone who understands Christianity would ever believe).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.