TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- California and their contorversy over gay marriages
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

California and their contorversy over gay marriages

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Today Rosie O'Donell married her girlfriend. O'Donell is taking a proud stand for gay civil rights in San Francisco. The mayor had granted the "allowance" for homosexual-oriented couple to be married. My question to you is; do you believe "the actions and statements of the president are vile and hateful?"

If anything, I find the actions of gay-rights activists disrespectful to the Americans who believe in and follow the rule of law.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok If anything, I find the actions of gay-rights activists disrespectful to the Americans who believe in and follow the rule of law.

Actually, I'm going to agree with you here. I'm in full support of gay marriage , and I do think it's against the US constitution (keeping in mind that i've only glanced at it, as I'm not an American) to deny them the right to marriage, but this was clearly the wrong way to go about it. Why not launch legal action to get the law instead of creating chaos as they have?

People have been trying to challenge these laws, with little success. I see the actions of the San Francisco mayor, as well as the mayor in New York, as being a very good way of bringing these issues to the forefront. More importantly, this will bring it before a high court in California, which will hopefully agree that the current law violates peoples rights.

^So, they didn't try all available course of action before resorting to civil disobedience.

I have no sympathy for that sort of behaviour.

I think in America allowing civil unions instead of marriages will be a much easier pill for the public as a whole to swallow. Even if civil unions allow everything that a nomral marriage does under the eyes of the law (legal benefits, financial, etc.), the word "marriage" in itself carries a denotation of a man and a woman, usually wed under a religious ceremony. I think the fact that this new "gay" marriage does not fit that definition at all is what makes it such a hot topic.

I also think that what the actions in California might do is alienate and offend many of the moderate Americans that could have gone either way on the issue. After seeing this display in San Fransisco, many of these moderates could decide not to support gay marriage because of the blantant disregard for the American legal system being shown by the ones who want it most. Just my 2 cents.

I do think Bush is insane for proposing a constitutional amdendment against gay marriages. I think some day this will be looked back upon much the same way the civil rights movement of the 60's was. I would just say leave the word "marriage" out of it, allow civil unions, and be done with it.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ^So, they didn't try all available course of action before resorting to civil disobedience.

Considering as of now, NO ONE hs declared their actions illegal I really don't see how it's civil disobedience.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think in America allowing civil unions instead of marriages will be a much easier pill for the public as a whole to swallow. Even if civil unions allow everything that a nomral marriage does under the eyes of the law (legal benefits, financial, etc.), the word "marriage" in itself carries a denotation of a man and a woman, usually wed under a religious ceremony. I think the fact that this new "gay" marriage does not fit that definition at all is what makes it such a hot topic.

As much as I do, in a sense see the logic of what your saying, I have to disagree. As long as marriage is a legal term and has a legal value it is not reasonable to use it in a discriminatory fashion.

I also agree that in the future this will be looked apon in a similar light as the civil rights movement of the 60's.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ^So, they didn't try all available course of action before resorting to civil disobedience. I have no sympathy for that sort of behaviour.

What?! Do you have asspirations to live in the USSR or 1984?!

Try telling that to Ghandi's followers, or the Blacks in South Africa......or the Americans who took up arms against the British in the 1700s!

I know the above are on a hell of a lot larger scale, but its the same principle. Jesus some people!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok If anything, I find the actions of gay-rights activists disrespectful to the Americans who believe in and follow the rule of law.

** Usually marriages are done by one member of each sex. Today, the world has evolved into a different operation. Keeping in mind the bible does state (and not exactly in these words) that homosexuality is opposed to God's words. As discussed in other threads, blasphamies is the only sin God will not forgive. Being of homosexuality is an expression of a person. Why, in America, when you have the right to do pretty whatever you want can you not marry whom you wish?! As long as you are not killing someone, why should gay marriages not be accepted?! Polygamy(having more than one spouse) is illegal currently now throughout all of America. Yet, was it not allowed a while back in Utah? The only reason people are against homosexuality is because they are embarrassed or worry too much about other peoples lifestyles. People are worried what other people or countries may think. That is the problem with society today; always competing with one another. What is there to compete about when it comes to loving someone? When you truely love someone you do not care what anyone else thinks. You don't judge them, you don't discourage them. Bush should know better being from Texas (a little humor.) You can flame on all you want, but human emotions are more important than what the government believes!

Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by trancepixie17 http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...EMPLATE=DEFAULT Today Rosie O'Donell married her girlfriend. O'Donell is taking a proud stand for gay civil rights in San Francisco. The mayor had granted the "allowance" for homosexual-oriented couple to be married. My question to you is; do you believe "the actions and statements of the president are vile and hateful?"

this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

The best part of this post is the smiley face. It's like reading Revelation and then finding a winking smiley face at the end.

Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

You idiot. You do realize that Christianity isn't a new concept, right? There were other religions around before Jebus arrived. Did they 'no longer care to follow gods word' as well?

Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

im gay and i find that statement to be blatantly ignorant and immature. Good luck with your new "religion", which is obviously devoid of any kind of legitimate logic or reason. It is plainly obvious that you have never met god, or whatever you believe in, and that your thoughts on spirituality are just coming-out... so to speak. :P A well seasoned religious mind would never deface their own saviours name by demeaning those he represents. But thanks for the condemnation... Also... i think "hell" was more of a metaphorical term; but maybe some simple-tons like you seem to enjoy its literal meaning... and judging by the way you talk, it would seem you are taking part in it's reality..... much love. (thats mr. butt pirate to you)

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Considering as of now, NO ONE hs declared their actions illegal I really don't see how it's civil disobedience.

I was under the assume that the LAW states that gay marriage is illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What?! Do you have asspirations to live in the USSR or 1984?! Try telling that to Ghandi's followers, or the Blacks in South Africa......or the Americans who took up arms against the British in the 1700s! I know the above are on a hell of a lot larger scale, but its the same principle. Jesus some people!

They all resorted to civil disobedience as LAST RESORT, as they have exhausted all available channels to get their case heard and only way is to break the unjust laws.

I fail to see how that is evident in this gay marriage issue.

Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

Hell is for hateful shitheads like you.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I was under the assume that the LAW states that gay marriage is illegal.

actually no, the law states that a marriage is between a man and a women. However it is cities that issues marriage licences, and so whether or not it is their right to determine if they want to give them to gay couples has not been really decided yet. But as it sounds now it is NOT illegal for them to marry gay couples.

If I remember correctly, I believe the issue is since the Constitution does not expressly give the power of marriage licensure to the federal government it is given to the states. This is why you have some states such as Hawaii and I believe Connecticut allowing gay marriages and others, such as Ohio not allowing it. It really depends on the state thus far...unless by some extreme measure Bush gets it added as an amendment to the Constitution. At this point the federal government really has no say so in the matter, it's totally up to the states.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If I remember correctly, I believe the issue is since the Constitution does not expressly give the power of marriage licensure to the federal government it is given to the states. This is why you have some states such as Hawaii and I believe Connecticut allowing gay marriages and others, such as Ohio not allowing it. It really depends on the state thus far...unless by some extreme measure Bush gets it added as an amendment to the Constitution. At this point the federal government really has no say so in the matter, it's totally up to the states.

Do you have some kind of anti-discrimination clause in the constitution though? If so, couldn't that be used to challenge any ban on gay marriages that specific states put into practice.

Down here we have a wide ranging anti discrimination act, which I suspect will eventually be used to justify allowing gay marriages, as it specifically states that it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, colour, sexual orientation and so on. Whether you interpret marriage as discrimination is another matter altogether, but I suspect that the courts will eventually side with the 'gay lobby' as some term it.

I don't even know what our constitution says on it though, as it doesn't seem to have the same 'power' as the US constitution, it's never really discussed, and I'd be surprised if more than 1% of the population had a clue what was on/in it.

Amendments 15 and 19 (if I remember correctly) state that no citizen can be discremenated against when it comes to voting, however I don't think this covers much of anything else. There are civil rights laws in the book, but they are not found in the constitution.

As I said before, I think it's going to have to be a compromise. Conservates and some mainstreamers alike want marriage to be a term only defining the union of a man and a woman. Gays want there to be a legally binding "contract" between two members of the same sex that gives them the same rights under the law as marriage. I think the most feasable answer at this time is to allow civil unions. In ten, twenty or however many years it takes people to lose their phobia, allow them to call it marriage. Until then gives gays the legal standing they want, and allow the other side to keep their sacred "marriage" word.

I think the US Supreme Court will rule 5 to 4, or even 6 to 3 (since they would want to be on the right side of history) that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed when the Republican Party stood up for what was right instead of being a vehicle for crazed Fundies, applies to gays as well as everyone else.

quote:

Amendment XIV 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.

quote:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed by both houses on 8th June and the 13th June, 1866. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Most Southern states refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade, Henry Winter Davies and Benjamin Butler urged the passing of further legislation to impose these measures on the former Confederacy. The result was the 1867 Reconstruction Acts that divided the South into five military districts controlled by martial law, proclaimed universal manhood suffrage and required the new state constitutions to be drawn up.

The Fundies know that equality is a constitutionally protected right, and that's why they are pushing for this constitutional amendment that would also ban civil unions as well as "marriage."

Gay "marriage" is what many people object to, even though I think most would probably be tolerant about giving "rights." I think some people are also afraid of the �slippery slope� theory, in which people eventually end up walking down the aisle with a horse.
I don�t really think that fear is justified though in the slightest, and it�s completely irrational.

This whole mess is caused by not having true separation of church and state when it comes to marriage in the first place.

I say we pass a Constitutional Amendment barring Elvis from performing weddings to drunken pop stars in Vegas if we really want to protect the "sanctity" (religious word) of marriage.



Read this and then tell me you're going to take their marriage license away from them:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Feb12.html

quote:

San Francisco Opens Marriage to Gay Couples By Joe Dignan and Rene Sanchez Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, February 13, 2004; Page A01 SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 12 -- The ceremony, arranged in great haste, was brief and held behind the closed doors of a dreary municipal office. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, a lesbian couple together for 50 years, stood facing each other and beamed when a city official pronounced them not husband and wife but "spouses for life.'' They had not become domestic partners, or joined in a civil union. The couple, both pioneering activists in the gay rights movement, had signed full-fledged marriage licenses and been wed with San Francisco's official blessing, a momentous step that city leaders said has no precedent. Gay activists vowed to defend San Francisco's action. "This is a civil rights movement from coast to coast that touches real people and will not stop until equality is achieved," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the group Freedom to Marry. As couples arrived to get married and other lined up for marriage license papers, Martin, 83, and Lyon, 79, avoided the celebrations around City Hall and went home after their private ceremony. Afterward, Lyon said that she was sure the ceremonies would be challenged in court and was uncertain if they would be upheld. "God knows what's going to happen,'' she said. But she said that she and Martin, who will celebrate their 51st anniversary together on Valentine's Day, were proud -- and amazed -- by what they had been at last allowed to do. "Things are happening that we never dreamed of,'' Lyon said.

I don't think most any court would be that heartless.

The only other people I actually know who have been together for over 50 years are my grandparents, and they've been together since middle school. Why should they be allowed to marry to express their love for each other while Martin and Lyon are not?

I'll agree that what's happening in San Francisco is a violation of law. However, gay people have been trying for years to fight this battle through the legal system. I think recent events are good for gay rights because these issues are now being forced into consideration. Just as Blacks did with the civil rights movement and women's right to vote. The ony way to truly intiate change is to MAKE people listen. People have a right to be happy, especially in the US. If the US is going to pride themselves on being a nation of free people, then gay issues must be dealt with. People always push these topics to the back burner because there are more "pressing" issues, but the truth remains that every issue is pressing to someone! The world needs more love right now! Just because you might not agree with their lifestyle, it's no one's place to deny them their freedom of choice. If you think that it's demoralizing or bad for society, then you are uninformed on the issues....read the psychological research, read the testimonies, read everything that you can and I gurantee that you will come re realize, as I have, that being gay is not a disorder that can be forced out of society. Believe me, there are better things to waste your precious life force hating than homosexuals. Everytime that you hate, you decrese the amount of love in the world....that's how a terrorist functions...do you want to be more like them? Do you want to have more in common? What do you prefer.....people crashing planes into buildings to get their point across? Or people trying to display love to the media to get their cause across? Remember that....

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ^So, they didn't try all available course of action before resorting to civil disobedience. I have no sympathy for that sort of behaviour.

Why does it seem like everyone here is forgetting the First Amendment? Here, I'll post it for you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see how arranging protests is considered civil disobedience when the constitution protects the right to assembly. While some may not have "sympathy" for fighting in what you believe, I find it admirable that people would go out of their way to unite with others and stand up for their beliefs, which in this case, would be to defend their equal rights.

Bush is an idiot. He would try again to create an amendment that would discriminate against a certain group of people. Have we learned nothing from slavery and the civil rights movement?

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz: people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time..[/b]

And some people fail to remember that Christianity is not the only religion out in the world, but most Christians, much like Americans, believe that they're always right and everyone else is insignificant to them. I also fail to see how you would know what "god's" will is. Unless you've talked to the big guy yourself, (Which I highly doubt) I don't think you have any right to presume what God's will is. Jesus...this is why I stopped going to my Church, for dumb arrogant shit like this...

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Why does it seem like everyone here is forgetting the First Amendment? Here, I'll post it for you: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't see how arranging protests is considered civil disobedience when the constitution protects the right to assembly. While some may not have "sympathy" for fighting in what you believe, I find it admirable that people would go out of their way to unite with others and stand up for their beliefs, which in this case, would be to defend their equal rights.

I was under the assumption that gay marriage was illegal, therefore gay marriages that are happening would be illegal under the law, therefore is a civil disobedience. But since that point is under contention whether it's legal or not, I'll just sit back until someone decides.

This thread is such fucking garbage. They broke the law. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you can throw it to the dogs; serial killers often don't consider their actions morally wrong either but you don't see people supporting them as patriots.

And don't give me this shit about gay marriage not harming anyone. I know that. The point is, they decided to break the law when there was still plenty of room for maneuvering in the courts. You have to draw a hard line when it comes to criminals, whether the laws are just or not. If you want to lobby the government to change the law (and they've been doing that, and it's been working) then that's fine, but you don't just go around blatantly disobeying it because you think it's wrong.

Stop talking about religion. Stop talking about conservatism. Stop talking about fundies. Stop talking about the senate. None of that has ANYTHING to do with this. They broke the law, PERIOD.

Dave: thanks so much for that argumentum ad misericordiam. Pity is not going to change anything, though.

This entire thing was just a publicity stunt designed to catapult the issue into public eye and into the courts at top priority. I have no sympathy or respect for the people involved.

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