Griff
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 1615
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliation |
 |
|
California, of all states, is least likely of all states to pass a ban against gay marriage. In fact, they have the strongest and most active liberal base of all states, and their supposedly conservative governor has not only failed to endorse the ban but has outright spoken against it. In fact, such a ban would fly completely in the face of California's historical heritage as being a front-runner for civil rights for minorities of all classes and stripes. If the proposed ban goes on the ballot and is knocked down, then the court ruling passed recently will essentially have been given the blessing of the state's voting population.
Foes of gay marriage have a great deal of disappointment in store for them. After all, the greatest fear of those who are truly wicked and depraved is NOT retaliation. What they fear the most is a society that has fully embraced the idea of justice, for the truly depraved can never succeed in a society that is just. Vengeance is but fleeting, and it is the crack of the morally insane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3170
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliatio |
|
|
| I heard that a majority of that state's population are now in favor of letting them marry. But what kind of majority is needed to pass a constitutional ammendment? And is one side on the issue more likely to vote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_Tex
Professor Hineybottom
Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 41865
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if it will ever be legalized in Texas.
_________________
<<<=== This is not the devil, this is the Red Guy from Cow and Chicken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DeanFoley
Deinonychus
Joined: Nov 07, 2007
Posts: 399
Location: England-Birmingham
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm surprised it's still banned in parts of the advanced Western World, of all places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17814
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in "In re Marriage Cases" that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22. The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. The proposed language reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3170
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: |
... what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
|
Absolutely nothing, either way. It boils down to doing what you think is right, just as it does if you get paneled on a jury. Just one of the duties of citizenship.
It is difficult to see how your relationship with your wife would change in either way, nor would the lives of your sons change in any way. And (unlike a bond issue or tax referendum) you can't really put a dollar figure on it (although I would imagine both sides may try).
It really boils down to an issue of rights and how you see that. Society has formally moved away from the idea that being gay is a treatable mental illness - some people are just gay. Do we give them the legal benefits from the long term relationship contract called marriage, or do limit their relationship to "friendship?"
Personally, I think the idea of people voting on other people's 'rights' can be problematic - for example, the kid with Asperger's disease that was voted out of the class in an election by the teacher. The kid has a right to be in the class, unless he is disruptive, in which case he should be removed (by judicial action of the teacher or principal, not a vote). But I would argue that the kid has an inherent right to be in the class - it doesn't depend on the inclination of his peers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17814
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | Fnord wrote: |
... what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
|
Absolutely nothing, either way. It boils down to doing what you think is right, just as it does if you get paneled on a jury. Just one of the duties of citizenship. |
No better response. No elaboration needed.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The_Chosen_One
Lord of all who roam in my domain
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 1371
Location: Looking down on humanity
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in "In re Marriage Cases" that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22. The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. The proposed language reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you. |
Say if you did vote on it, does anybody besides the person counting the vote and yourself have to know who you voted for? Afterall, your vote is meant to kept private, and the people counting these votes (whether in elections or referenda) are meant to sign statutory declarations that they will not disclose the inforamtion they come across. Which means the only way someone else could find out what you voted for would be if you told them yourself. Or maybe it doesn't work that way in the US, which means that no-one can mind their own business.
_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!
Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Griff
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 1615
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in "In re Marriage Cases" that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22. The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. The proposed language reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you. |
Sociological stability. The so-called "Religious Right" is still living with the impression that the gay rights movement will eventually be quelled and done away with. I point you to Moscow, in which governmental crackdowns on such demonstrations have only served to incite scattered demonstrations, every year, all over the city. I point you to Warsaw, in which a deeply conservative government combined with an intensely homophobic youth movement has completely failed to silence the annual gay pride festival held in the city, and the British Embassy will be flying their banner tomorrow as they pass by. I point you to the Middle East: in Iraq, there have been regular, highly organized murders targeting homosexuals. This has only helped to spark off rounds of serious discussion amongst Islamic scholars, who have been surprisingly sympathetic.
The queers just won't shut up. The more we're attacked and mauled by thugs, the less enjoyment we get from being attacked and mauled by thugs. The more we are denied the same rights as others, the more it sticks in our craw. On the other hand, the "Religious Right" will eventually lose interest and find someone else to annoy.
What do you have to gain? Let's first examine what you have to gain from ignoring the issue: absolutely nothing. This issue will just keep coming back until we have closure. The gay community needs closure, and I am sure that you want your peace.
Last edited by Griff on Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:08 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 28
Posts: 11156
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: Re: California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliatio |
|
|
| Griff wrote: | | California, of all states, is least likely of all states to pass a ban against gay marriage. |
only if the mexicans don't show up to the polls and mexicans hate fags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Griff
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 1615
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: Re: California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliatio |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | Griff wrote: | | California, of all states, is least likely of all states to pass a ban against gay marriage. |
only if the mexicans don't show up to the polls and mexicans hate fags. |
This is quite wrong, actually. They tend to be surprisingly supportive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 28
Posts: 11156
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliatio |
|
|
| Griff wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Griff wrote: | | California, of all states, is least likely of all states to pass a ban against gay marriage. |
only if the mexicans don't show up to the polls and mexicans hate fags. |
This is quite wrong, actually. They tend to be surprisingly supportive. |
really? maybe i just encountered different ones. i normally end up seeing the hyper-masculine or christian response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5687
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'Mexicans' can't vote in California unless they have dual citizenship, in which case referring to them as 'Mexicans' is a little specious.
You probably mean 'the conservative Catholics,' many (but by no means all) of whom are of central- and south- American descent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 28
Posts: 11156
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | 'Mexicans' can't vote in California unless they have dual citizenship, in which case referring to them as 'Mexicans' is a little specious.
You probably mean 'the conservative Catholics,' many (but by no means all) of whom are of central- and south- American descent. |
i mean more culturally, not simply saying that illegals will vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2194
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hispanics are as a whole not the most sympathetic towards homosexual marriages, similarly those with African ancestry.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
