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.
Ok.
This is what I will say.
Love is LOVE. Love does not equal HATE. What is all the fear? Isn't there enough hate in this world?? If two people want to get married, and follow the legal laws of being in a legal union...then it should NOT matter what their gender is!! Who is it for you or for me or for ANYONE to JUDGE? Don't we all have our own problems? Isn't the world in enough disarray...wars....etc? Should we not embrace LOVE?
The bible......written by MAN! Over hundres of years AGO.....by heresay.
To take the bible literally, we should stone a lot of people. Heck, 99 percent of us should be ''stoned'', if taking the bible literally.
What IRKS me....Obama, our president, claims to be such the role model for The citizens of today...BUT..when CA prop 8 got shot down AGAIN...we heard nothing except from Rep. Gov. Arnold S.....who displayed his 'sadness' over the outcome.
Ridiculous.
Why has love become a four letter word.
oye....I could go on and on...
I'll leave it at....
sad.
Original Post by qaowk:The reason that same sex marriage is different, is because before there can be discrimination , there has to be someone allowed, and someone not allowed the same thing.
I'm allowed to marry a woman, Amethystgirl isn't. Therefor, someone (FloggingSully) is allowed to do something, and someone (amethystgirl) is not allowed the same thing. Even using your twisted logic it's still discrimination.
I'm confused about why there is any confusion here? Gay people are being discriminated against.
Original Post by fitnessgirll:
What IRKS me....Obama, our president, claims to be such the role model for The citizens of today...BUT..when CA prop 8 got shot down AGAIN...we heard nothing except from Rep. Gov. Arnold S.....who displayed his 'sadness' over the outcome.
I can't recall a time where Obama specifically claimed he was a role model for all citizens. However, even if that were the case, his position is clear.
He is already on record as being against same sex marriage, but supports civil unions and the repeal of DOMA, stated his opposition to Prop 8 previously, and just signed hate crimes legislation. What should the POTUS have said?
On edit: The only reference he made about what happened in Iowa was a joke at the correspondents dinner, and a released spokesman statement indicated he believes that "...states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of gay marriage."
Besides, he may very well be in the process of formulating his public political response.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by qaowk:The reason that same sex marriage is different, is because before there can be discrimination , there has to be someone allowed, and someone not allowed the same thing.
I'm allowed to marry a woman, Amethystgirl isn't. Therefor, someone (FloggingSully) is allowed to do something, and someone (amethystgirl) is not allowed the same thing. Even using your twisted logic it's still discrimination.
Apply this to inter-racial marriages and the test holds true. White guy can marry white girl, but black guy can't? Loving v. Virginia settled the question. Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on their skin color is discrimination.
Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on gender or sexual orientation is also discrimination.
kathy, I tried making the connection to inter-racial marriages a few pages ago, but apparently was not convincing...
Yes you did. But you forgot italics. Italics makes all the difference. ;D
Ohhhhh. My bad.
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by qaowk:The reason that same sex marriage is different, is because before there can be discrimination , there has to be someone allowed, and someone not allowed the same thing.
I'm allowed to marry a woman, Amethystgirl isn't. Therefor, someone (FloggingSully) is allowed to do something, and someone (amethystgirl) is not allowed the same thing. Even using your twisted logic it's still discrimination.
Apply this to inter-racial marriages and the test holds true. White guy can marry white girl, but black guy can't? Loving v. Virginia settled the question. Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on their skin color is discrimination.
Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on gender or sexual orientation is also discrimination.
No one can marry who they choose. If anyone could, then it would be discrimination.
For instance, no one can marry an underage child.
No one can marry someone who is currently married to another person.
Are you equating sexual orientation to children and bigamists? I don't think you are, and I certainly don't.
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by fitnessgirll:
What IRKS me....Obama, our president, claims to be such the role model for The citizens of today...BUT..when CA prop 8 got shot down AGAIN...we heard nothing except from Rep. Gov. Arnold S.....who displayed his 'sadness' over the outcome.
I can't recall a time where Obama specifically claimed he was a role model for all citizens. However, even if that were the case, his position is clear.
He is already on record as being against same sex marriage, but supports civil unions and the repeal of DOMA, stated his opposition to Prop 8 previously, and just signed hate crimes legislation. What should the POTUS have said?
On edit: The only reference he made about what happened in Iowa was a joke at the correspondents dinner, and a released spokesman statement indicated he believes that "...states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of gay marriage."
Besides, he may very well be in the process of formulating his public political response.
I agree with everything you said here, Santonacci.
President Obama can not be blamed for this mess, it's been around longer than he has.
I think this a States right, and needs to be changed by State laws.
Original Post by fitnessgirll:
What IRKS me....Obama, our president, claims to be such the role model for The citizens of today...BUT..when CA prop 8 got shot down AGAIN...we heard nothing except from Rep. Gov. Arnold S.....who displayed his 'sadness' over the outcome.
Prop 8 passed. That's the problem. :)
Original Post by qaowk:I think this a States right, and needs to be changed by State laws.
States don't have the right to discriminate against people because of their gender.
Original Post by qaowk:
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by qaowk:The reason that same sex marriage is different, is because before there can be discrimination , there has to be someone allowed, and someone not allowed the same thing.
I'm allowed to marry a woman, Amethystgirl isn't. Therefor, someone (FloggingSully) is allowed to do something, and someone (amethystgirl) is not allowed the same thing. Even using your twisted logic it's still discrimination.
Apply this to inter-racial marriages and the test holds true. White guy can marry white girl, but black guy can't? Loving v. Virginia settled the question. Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on their skin color is discrimination.
Denying people the right to marry who they choose based on gender or sexual orientation is also discrimination.
No one can marry who they choose. If anyone could, then it would be discrimination.
For instance, no one can marry an underage child.
No one can marry someone who is currently married to another person.
Are you equating sexual orientation to children and bigamists? I don't think you are, and I certainly don't.
Underaged kids can marry in some states with parental consent and bigamy is certainly practiced by some religious sects in this country.
However, I was obviously assuming the generally accepted definition of marriage as occuring between two consenting unwed adults. And by that definition if one adult is denied the right to marry who they choose, based on gender or sexual orientation then it is indeed discrimination.
Original Post by purespark:
Prop 8 passed. That's the problem. :)
Actually, I've heard it theorized that this is not such a bad thing. Because CA didn't overturn it, now it has the possibility of being appealed to the SCOTUS, which would establish precedent beyond CA. Of course, the decision could not go the way many would like it to.
How probable is it this will go all the way?
Original Post by santonacci:
Actually, I've heard it theorized that this is not such a bad thing. Because CA didn't overturn it, now it has the possibility of being appealed to the SCOTUS, which would establish precedent beyond CA.
How probable is it this will go all the way?
I don't know enough about the Supreme Court right now, but if it went there (with or without Sotomayor?) do you think there's actually be a chance that it gets overturned?
Original Post by amethystgirl:
I don't know enough about the Supreme Court right now, but if it went there (with or without Sotomayor?) do you think there's actually be a chance that it gets overturned?
Well, I'm no lawyer or expert on the SCOTUS, but with or without Sotomayor, it's still a conservative leaning court.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
Original Post by santonacci:
Actually, I've heard it theorized that this is not such a bad thing. Because CA didn't overturn it, now it has the possibility of being appealed to the SCOTUS, which would establish precedent beyond CA.
How probable is it this will go all the way?
I don't know enough about the Supreme Court right now, but if it went there (with or without Sotomayor?) do you think there's actually be a chance that it gets overturned?
As I said early on, I have zero legal training, but I believe I've read more than once that the US Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that same sex marriage is not the same as black / white marriage, and that states are not violating civil right laws to deny same sex marriage.
I've also read that other states are under no compulsion to honor any same sex marriage from any other state, until their own state allows it.
That's why I believe individual states are the best chance for change in the near future. It took the Supreme Court over 100 years to overturn Inerracial marriage laws.
The more states that allow it, the more people will accept it, and the more likely it is to be changed in a neigboring state. (snowball effect?)
Original Post by qaowk:
As I said early on, I have zero legal training, but I believe I've read more than once that the US Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that same sex marriage is not the same as black / white marriage, and that states are not violating civil right laws to deny same sex marriage.
I don't know about "more than one", but upon research I found that there has at least been Baker vs. Nelson, which not only said that Virginia vs. Loving was not applicable, but a states decision on same sex marriage does not "offend" the US Constitution. I'm guessing this decision would have to be overruled for any new case to go anywhere.
So disappointing. Especially because California was seemingly so progressive for same sex marriage to start-- legalizing it long before the more recent states voted on and passed it.
I'm sure it's one of those.. 'three steps forward, two steps back' sorts of things-- this will take time. but it's still disheartening.
It was clear from the prop 8 hearing that the justices had already made up their minds on this situation. Anybody who knew what went on at the hearing should have seen this coming.
What type of food should not be eaten?
Calorie Count does not prescribe a particular diet or tell people to avoid particular foods. We only ask that you eat a balanced diet... Read more