California Fails Again

The California Supreme Court rules that Californians did legally outlaw same-sex marriage, but existing same-sex marriages are valid.  San Franciso Chronicle

I hate Prop 8.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

is it true that in CA, white people are a minority?

if so, could the other people vote on a constitutional amendment to take away some rights from white people?

maybe take away their right to fishing/hunting license?

eh, they wouldn't care about fishing or hunting license...

what do white people like?

i'm thinking this would teach people what it's like to be a minority and have less rights as a result.

Actually the whites and asians leaned toward No on Prop 8 (51%), the hispanics leaned Yes on Prop 8 (53%) and the blacks were for Yes on Prop 8 (70%).

probably won't help to deny fishing and hunting licenses to Hispanics and Blacks?

what can we take away from them?

we need equal discrimination!

 Hispanics and Blacks voted Yes on Prop 8 because of how it was posed as a threat to religion.  If you read the wording of the things it is pretty scary.  It was as if allowing same sex marriages would take away the rights of the church.  But it not surprising that politics can twist and manipulate words to benefit their own causes. 

why? is it just the sex-orthodox (i mean that loosely) religious people who don't like it. i mean are there any atheists who don't want same sex marriages? (ok there's always one in a bunch but i mean the majority).

any person that i know who is atheist or even agnostic is ok with same sex marriage. i know some not-too-religious people are ok with same sex marriages, at least in a civil union way. but there are those holier than thou peeps that i know who are definitely against it. they just keep repeating how its against god and all that.

i'm a religious person who believes in equal rights and i don't want to apply my religious beliefs to local, state or federal government policy

good point, fayeonherway -- i guess people who voted for prop 8 often did so if they thought it meant that churches would be required to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples -- i would not agree with that either. (but i didn't think it required that)

keep your church outta my government and keep your government outta my church -- this aint peanut butter and chocolate we're talking about!

 

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

i'm a religious person who believes in equal rights and i don't want to apply my religious beliefs to local, state or federal government policy

good point, fayeonherway -- i guess people who voted for prop 8 often did so if they thought it meant that churches would be required to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples -- i would not agree with that either. (but i didn't think it required that)

keep your church outta my government and keep your government outta my church -- this aint peanut butter and chocolate we're talking about!

 

 I know!

I find it funny how there is no seperation of church and govt.  It's just one big fairytale I guess...

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

i'm a religious person who believes in equal rights and i don't want to apply my religious beliefs to local, state or federal government policy

good point, fayeonherway -- i guess people who voted for prop 8 often did so if they thought it meant that churches would be required to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples -- i would not agree with that either. (but i didn't think it required that)

keep your church outta my government and keep your government outta my church -- this aint peanut butter and chocolate we're talking about!

 

haha, mmm, peanut butter & chocolate. glad you see it that way, hopefully it'll be more catchy in the future.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

No basic right is being denied. 

The right not be be discriminated against because of your gender is being denied. 

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Original Post by qaowk:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

No basic right is being denied. 

The right not be be discriminated against because of your gender is being denied. 

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

Because they can't marry the person of their choice. Just like not allowing people of different races or religions to marry would be discrimination.

Two people of the same sex are barred from being married.

How is that not exclusion? or discrimination

Exclusion: the state of being excluded, a deliberate act of omission,

Discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

 

In the 60's a group of Americans were excluded from being part of unions, or the police force in their own towns solely based on their ________.

Discrimination is treatment of an individual or a group of individuals which denies opportunity (to marry), participation (in a marriage), or benefit (from a marriage) on any of the identified grounds:

Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation....

Original Post by qaowk:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

No basic right is being denied. 

The right not be be discriminated against because of your gender is being denied. 

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

 Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really follow this line of thinking?

Original Post by purespark:

Original Post by qaowk:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

No basic right is being denied. 

The right not be be discriminated against because of your gender is being denied. 

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

 Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really follow this line of thinking?

I'm starting to think its a joke too LOL!

Original Post by purespark:

Original Post by qaowk:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by qaowk:

No basic right is being denied. 

The right not be be discriminated against because of your gender is being denied. 

 I disagree.  No one is being excluded from marriage, of either gender.  All women  can still marry, and so can all men. How is that discrimination?

 Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really follow this line of thinking?

 

Maybe a  little of both, Pure Spark.  I think both same sex  and opposite sex marriages should be allowed by any and all states where a majority of registered voters allow it. I think all religions and pseudo-religions should have the freedom to sanction those marriages, or not, based on their own beliefs & teachings. I think the federal government should stay the hell out of it. However, for it to be gender based discrimination, there has be some people issued a license to marry same sex, and some people turned away.  That's discrimination. As long as everyone who applies is turned away for same sex marriage, there is no discrimination. If a group of people apply  for opposite gender marriage, the license can be obtained.  No discrimination. (stupidity maybe, but that's a different topic.)

Thank you for clarifying, Qaowk.  I think the reason I wasn't following your argument is that I don't think it's gender discrimination; rather, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is a different phenomenon altogether.

I don't think that's the correct explanation of discrimination.

I am allowed to marry any adult, unmarried man of my choosing (assuming it's consenual). But I'm not allowed to marry an adult woman of my choosing.

The reason I'm allowed one and not the other is because of my gender. That's discrimination.

Maybe it's a big leap, but if men can only marry women and women can only marry men, then why can't a state decide that white people can only marry other whites, and blacks can only marry other blacks? They'd still be allowed to marry, just not the person they love. That is surely discrimination.

Similarly, could a state decide that white people can only go to white schools and black people can only go to black schools? Nobody's saying the black kids can't go to school - they just can't pick from the white schools.... I'm pretty sure there was a court case about this one.

Discrimination applies to gender, race, etc, hence my analogy. Not really trying to make this about race.

 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

I don't think that's the correct explanation of discrimination.

I am allowed to marry any adult, unmarried man of my choosing (assuming it's consenual). But I'm not allowed to marry an adult woman of my choosing.

The reason I'm allowed one and not the other is because of my gender. That's discrimination.

Maybe it's a big leap, but if men can only marry women and women can only marry men, then why can't a state decide that white people can only marry other whites, and blacks can only marry other blacks? They'd still be allowed to marry, just not the person they love. That is surely discrimination.

Similarly, could a state decide that white people can only go to white schools and black people can only go to black schools? Nobody's saying the black kids can't go to school - they just can't pick from the white schools.... I'm pretty sure there was a court case about this one.

Discrimination applies to gender, race, etc, hence my analogy. Not really trying to make this about race.

 

Yep, why don't we just go back to black people sittting at the back of the buses? We may as well, it's exactly the same thing. When did black people get the vote in America? The 60's? Ridiculous!

If two people are so comitted to one another that they want to actually sign legal documents to that effect then bloody well let them! It's a lot more meaningful than some girl getting just hitched cuz she got pregnant or something.

OK fair enough, we can't change the church(es) and unfortunately religion will probably never accept gay people but if they want to do it in a registry office (court house, whatever the secular american equivalent is) then that's totally different. Marraige is about "god" if you want it to be but there are also atheist, hetero couples who do it and gay people should be allowed the same.

Goverment and religion are TOTALLY different things and I think the US needs to learn that. The government SHOULD be about LAW and making things right, the church should be there for whoever seeks it out, it should have nothing to do with the actual running of the country. I mean, FFS, Obama's worth was getting called into question on the possibility that he wasn't CHRISTIAN!! Because God/Goddess/Some secular figurehead forbid he should have any right to speak and act for a country if he isn't christian! But the pope telling the people of Cameroon that condoms spread AIDS is fine though.

Religion has it's place. That place is neither telling people how to run a country, nor deciding who gets to legally validate their love.

When are we going to learn some f**king acceptance and compassion?

Original Post by misscherryjane:

OK fair enough, we can't change the church(es) and unfortunately religion will probably never accept gay people but if they want to do it in a registry office (court house, whatever the secular american equivalent is) then that's totally different. Marraige is about "god" if you want it to be but there are also atheist, hetero couples who do it and gay people should be allowed the same.

I agree, but should point out that some churches (or other houses of worship) do accept gay people. Not that it matters, since what the churches accept or don't accept shouldn't be the basis for our government's laws.

I guess I'm one of the few people on here who isn't upset in the slightest.

*Dodges incoming flames*

Original Post by amethystgirl:

I don't think that's the correct explanation of discrimination.

I am allowed to marry any adult, unmarried man of my choosing (assuming it's consenual). But I'm not allowed to marry an adult woman of my choosing.

The reason I'm allowed one and not the other is because of my gender. That's discrimination.

Maybe it's a big leap, but if men can only marry women and women can only marry men, then why can't a state decide that white people can only marry other whites, and blacks can only marry other blacks? They'd still be allowed to marry, just not the person they love. That is surely discrimination.

Similarly, could a state decide that white people can only go to white schools and black people can only go to black schools? Nobody's saying the black kids can't go to school - they just can't pick from the white schools.... I'm pretty sure there was a court case about this one.

Discrimination applies to gender, race, etc, hence my analogy. Not really trying to make this about race.

 

 

  I can't see it that way , Amethystgirl.  I'm not trained in any kind of legal field, so I may not be able to explain it very well, but here's my best effort. Using your Black/White example: Not allowing women to marry is not discrimination, because you are not singling out anyone, same rule applies to all. Allowing a woman to marry man 1 and not man 2 is discrimination because you are singling out man 2.  Same rule does not apply to all. That's discrimination. Allowing all men and all women to marry a person of the opposite sex  does not single out anyone. No discrimination. Not allowing anyone to marry a same sex person does not single out anyone.  No discrimination. That's why I think there may be another way to change that stupid, intrusive law. Government on any level has zero business trying to legislate morality.  

I'm so sick of this whole situation!
It's so backwards that we're not giving everyone the same rights. Come on people, it's 2009...get with the program.

It really surprises me that this is coming from California.

So if I said that all black men were not allowed to marry white women, that's ok, because it is true for all black men?

I'm really trying to see your point (not trying to fight) but I'm afraid I'm still missing it.

Assuming you see the above statement as discrimination (which I think under our laws, it is), I'd simplify it to:

All Xs are not allowed to marry Ys.

X = black man
Y = white woman

For same-sex marriage,

X = man
Y = man

However you define X and Y (and regardless of whether they are defined as the same thing), whether by race or gender or a combination, I still see that as discrimination.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

So if I said that all black men were not allowed to marry white women, that's ok, because it is true for all black men?

I'm really trying to see your point (not trying to fight) but I'm afraid I'm still missing it.

Assuming you see the above statement as discrimination (which I think under our laws, it is), I'd simplify it to:

All Xs are not allowed to marry Ys.

X = black man
Y = white woman

For same-sex marriage,

X = man
Y = man

However you define X and Y (and regardless of whether they are defined as the same thing), whether by race or gender or a combination, I still see that as discrimination.

 I did not say it's ok, nor did I imply that.  I said it is not discrimination.And using the two examples of X's & Y's you just gave above, there is no discrimination there either, but danged if I know how to make you understand.