Prop 8 Sucks

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Well... Connecticut decided to do the morally right thing today!

Hurray for one "C" state doing what's right! East Coast represents!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I will say the result of elections isn't the fault of any group of voters,
whether we like the outcome or not.
People vote------> majority wins.

Is anyone just as outraged the people of Massachusetts weren't given the opportunity
to vote for, or against gay marriage ?

so...if the majority voted to get rid of the rights to a free press, would that be ok? to stifle free speech, expression?

once again, majority does NOT rule. the constitution is supposed to rule,and all laws that are passed must stand that test. so, does a law that treats some citizens as less equal than others belong in the land of the free? what happened to all being created equal? life, liberty, etc, etc.

[Antitrust32]

Zig if you were not married and were gay I'd be taking you to Connecticut right now!!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so...if the majority voted to get rid of the rights to a free press, would that be ok? to stifle free speech, expression?

once again, majority does NOT rule. the constitution is supposed to rule,and all laws that are passed must stand that test. so, does a law that treats some citizens as less equal than others belong in the land of the free? what happened to all being created equal? life, liberty, etc, etc.

Darn straight, Danzig. It took a court decision to make it legal for interracial couples to marry- if that one had been left to the voters, I suspect some states would STILL have laws on the books against it.

Or as the US State info site puts it on the "What is Democracy" page under "Majority Rule and Minority Rights":

"The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...em/whatdm2.htm

And yeah, certainly it's unfair to blame any group of voters. That said, a lot of incendiary things have been tossed at racial minority voters in the blogosphere since last Tuesday and I thought it was a worthwhile piece on 538- that a lot of what is being said is statistically wrong. Most interesting was the difference in percentages the last time it was on the CA ballot compared with this time. Prop 8 will stand for 4 years at the most. Maybe only 2.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Zig if you were not married and were gay I'd be taking you to Connecticut right now!!

lol

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Darn straight, Danzig. It took a court decision to make it legal for interracial couples to marry- if that one had been left to the voters, I suspect some states would STILL have laws on the books against it.

Or as the US State info site puts it on the "What is Democracy" page under "Majority Rule and Minority Rights":

"The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...em/whatdm2.htm

And yeah, certainly it's unfair to blame any group of voters. That said, a lot of incendiary things have been tossed at racial minority voters in the blogosphere since last Tuesday and I thought it was a worthwhile piece on 538- that a lot of what is being said is statistically wrong. Most interesting was the difference in percentages the last time it was on the CA ballot compared with this time. Prop 8 will stand for 4 years at the most. Maybe only 2.

You are right that its unfair to blame any group of voters.

But I just dont understand how a group of people who have fought for equality and achieved it - how they can vote 70-30 in favor of a prop that takes away equality from a different group of people.

Was talking about this with a very religious black woman I work with - and she doesnt know I'm gay.. & she even said regardless of her personal or religious beliefs - that the government shouldnt be able to take rights away from people - and that people shouldnt be able to vote to take rights away from others. I was surprised to hear this from her - as shes very traditional and morally strict... but I was happy to hear it!!

[letswastemoney]

If a proposition to reinstate slavery existed, there would be plenty of votes for it.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

If a proposition to reinstate slavery existed, there would be plenty of votes for it.

exactly... Prop 8 & the ones in FL, AZ, an AR were so wrong in so many ways... and they all passed.

What does that say about our country?

I know our neighbors to the north & allies in Europe/Australia/New Zealand etc. laugh at the US about this issue... says it sets us back from the countries that have passed civil unions/gay marriage/equality for all.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

apples and oranges. A better arguement can be made the rights for free press
and free speech serve the good of all versus, the legalization of same-sex marriage accomplishing the same overall good.

And let's legalize polygamy while we're at it.

Did you vote for Congressman Murtha?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

No there wouldn't. Slavery doesn't serve anyone well.

and discriminating against gays serves everyone well?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

sorry that's not discrimination.

please explain how supressing peoples rights because you dont agree with their lifestyle is not discrimination?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

That means when polygamists go to the courts for their rights to marry
twenty different underage girls, you'll be OK with it.

Where does the line get drawn ?

I actually wouldn't care. I think the line gets drawn in any case where it isn't marriage between two consenting adults. So no bestiality and no underage marriage. Other than that, who really cares?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

That means when polygamists go to the courts for their rights to marry
twenty different underage girls, you'll be OK with it.

Where does the line get drawn ?

The line is drawn at two adults over 18 , not married to anyone else , not related by blood .......there is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage , it doesnt exist , it never has and it never will.
It seems to me its just about making sure that the people who defile marriage everday get to be the only one's in that exclusive club.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

That means when polygamists go to the courts for their rights to marry
twenty different underage girls, you'll be OK with it.

Where does the line get drawn ?

I'm sorry, this doesnt make sense to me. And no I wont be okay with underage girls getting married off. In the only polygamy cases that I've read about; the girls were married off and were not able to choose who their husband is.

Also do you feel that just because I'm gay that I must have really fucl<ed up morals and think its is okay for 13 year old kids to be forced into marriage with 50 year old men?

To me - that is totally different than having two consenting adults who love each other, want to be garunteed the same rights as two other consenting adults who love each other get.


I'm sorry - I dont see the correlation between gay marriage and polygamists forcing children to marry. Maybe its just me

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Honu

The line is drawn at two adults over 18 , not married to anyone else , not related by blood .......there is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage , it doesnt exist , it never has and it never will.
It seems to me its just about making sure that the people who defile marriage everday get to be the only one's in that exclusive club.

more marriages end in divorce than stay together

people can get married and divorced 1000 times if they want

atheists are able to get married whenever they want


where the hell is sanctity of marriage and why the hell can people use that as their logic against gay marriage. It is so hypocritical I cant even get my brain around it.

If gays cant be married because of "sanctity" and religion then:

There needs to be a Constitutional amendment banning pre-marital sex (even tho I really wouldnt want this cause since i cant get married I'd never be able to get any!!)

Constitutional amendment banning un-wed pregnancies

Constitutional amendment banning people from being able to judge someone else, because according to the Holy Book, only God is allowed to pass judgement.

etc, etc.

If they want their cake - they should be forced to eat the whole darn thing!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

No, unfortunately, it's not just you.
I'm concerned more about the "what's next ?" scenario.
If the example of polygamy with children seems a bit extreme to you......OK.
But they'll look for marriage to girls of age who were brainwashed in their youth.
What's the difference then ?

so you feel that if gays get the right to be married.. than people will push to have the right to marry someone against their will (brainwashed or not)?

I'm not worried about that senario coming in to play to be very honest with you.

Sorry.. I'm pretty passionate about this topic because it hits close to home.

I wish that all hardcore Christians will give birth to a gay son or daughter.. so they have to look their son or daughter in the eye and say "I dont feel you deserve equal rights".

[Antitrust32]

I'll steal the words of another famous person, GPK

"GFY"


"Just don't tell anyone's pastor, rabbi, etc.
what they can say or not in their houses of worship, when same-sex marriage
becomes legal across the land."

Ok I wont, never planned to. They are entitled to their own opinion, but their opinion should not be allowed to become law, especially when it takes rights away from others.

You people bore me.

My work is done.

It was fun while it lasted.

Glad I could bore you... go choke on a dick please.

Where's Morty when I really need him - VAPORIZE THIS SOB!

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Why do you hate our soldiers?

I don't know, why don't you ask them?
oh wait- you can't

so your logic is ?

The majority of the tax dollars goes to the military?

What if the majority of spending shifts away from the military ?

Will the person doing the tax dollar shift away from the military hate our soldiers?

My thinking is that the military is just one thing. it may cost the most but it is still one thing my tax dollars go to. When I say I disagree with the majority of stuff the government spends my money on, I mean all the other bs programs like public education <The public schools in my area are nothing more than drop out factories with a 49% graduation rate. >

as for the topic at hand... If gays can marry, when will people be allowed to marry their pets? (Who are you to judge )

Where I work ~ gay co-habitation couples are allowed to claim their partners on their healthcare benefits but.............

if you are just living with your girlfriend/ boyfriend and are not gay you cannot.

I guess it's because gays cannot get married where a couple living together can and choose not to.

Why should people, that choose to be gay, given benefits that "straight" people who choose not to get married are denied.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

apples and oranges. A better arguement can be made the rights for free press
and free speech serve the good of all versus, the legalization of same-sex marriage accomplishing the same overall good.

And let's legalize polygamy while we're at it.

if polygamy was legal for men, but not for women, i'd have the same argument. rights are given to married couples that aren't available for same sex couples. that's where the line was crossed.
and it's not apples and oranges, either everyone really is equal, or they aren't.

[Mike]

I'm having trouble understanding why more than two persons can't enter into a marriage. Can someone help me to understand why wwe can't have polygamous marriages if all parties are consenting adults?

No moral objections, please