|
On August 05 2010 08:48 TOloseGT wrote:
Yes, since there are other states in which gay marriage is legal, we're specifically talking about the California State Constitution.
Doesn't the Federal Government leave it up to the states in the case of civil matters?
Well, I'm unfamiliar with the California State Constitution so I guess I can't really say anything on the matter. My mind tends to automatically jump to the US Constitution when talking about issues of human rights, but yes, for the most part civil matter such as marriage are left up to the states. I forgot for a second that this thread is about Prop 8 rather than the nationwide debate over gay marriage, which includes arguments for an Amendment to the US Constitution (an effort, which I believe failed).
|
That first sentence was worded terribly, I admit it. However, I still stand by my belief that not all opinions are equal, just as not all debates can fall to either side. On the case of abortion, I think it's very clear cut.
Oh, it wasn't worded poorly. It was worded honestly. You just restated your original assumption there; "I think the abortion debate is a slam dunk in my favor". Well good for you; that's not an argument. You're just as close minded as the people that you claim are closed minded, if not moreso because you believe that your intolerance is somehow rationally righteous.
Sadly its not. Its actually rooted in the philosophy of secular humanism, which itself has huge undergirding flaws with a number of its assumptions, which give rise to tension when you extrapolate those assumptions into social situations.
This is why I find the American political discourse so corrosive; people don't even bother tracing back where their ideas come from, then are in shock when people don't come to the same conclusions because they're operating from a different assumption base. They then move to demonize and antagonize the other sides in the issue because its impossible to actually 'argue' someone down unless you address the assumptions.
|
On August 05 2010 08:51 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:50 semantics wrote:On August 05 2010 08:35 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 05 2010 07:51 semantics wrote:On August 05 2010 07:44 keV. wrote:On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more. Not really. Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm Woot someone doing my work for me :D Anyways this is the point it's not equal; and even if it was, one can argue and i would side with that argument that the distinction between the usage of those two terms even if they described a contract in which those people would obtain exactly the same rights. The fact that marriage is only for heterosexuals and civil unions/domestic partners? are only for homosexual couples on that basis alone i would call that on as being state sponsored creation of a 2nd class, hell even if the 2nd class was heterosexuals which frankly in some places it could be on that ground alone, separate is not equal and if i recall correctly the government is not allowed to sponsor discrimination. Those are civil unions in general. I should have clarified. Since we are talking about Prop 8, I assumed we were talking about California specifically. There is no difference between a civil union and marriage in California. Also, concerning your 1997 list, an act (or something of that sort) was passed in 2005 which grants members of civil unions ALL the same rights as a married couple. It doesn't cost thousands in legal fees, etc. Heterosexuals can also enter into domestic partnerships I believe. EDIT: Since we are also still talking about CA (I'm assuming) then all arguments about being recognized federally are also null, simply because the federal government still won't recognize a homosexual California marriage. If we have deviated from Prop 8 and gotten to Civil Union vs Gay Marriage in general, or something of that sort, then nvm. I've kept up to date the past ~5 pages though and haven't really seen it change so... actually in cali there are some difference still it's alot better then most states but there are still some differences, on i know off the top of my head is you can get married with parental consent under the age of 18 you cannot enter a civil union until you are 18, so they are no the same i'm sure there are more important ones but that's just the one i know. Are you positive? Because I just looked up a plethora of posts that say there is not ANY differences between the two, with the exception of the form you fill out to apply (marriage license vs civil union form). I've also debated plenty of times with people that have used that argument and not once have I ever heard anything ever brought up to counter that argument. EDIT: You're right, thanks Wikipedia! While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part: * Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2] * Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2] * California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2] * Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6] * There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief. * The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7] * California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)
I just know a few fun facts like the age of consent for heterosexual couples in Nevada is 16 but for a homosexual couple you need to be 18. Or maybe that was just the act of sodomy pituitary to anal sex either way i laugh at that thought.
|
Whatever happened to federalism?
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
-Thomas Jefferson
The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. Banning gay marriage does not break the bill of rights, in which there is no "right to marry" (what the frack does that mean, anyway?) or any other thing which could possibly dictate a right for homosexual unions to be endorsed by the state and called marriages. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to overturn a state constitution to the contrary is totally unconstitutional and opposed to the principles of federalism.
But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism.
If you honestly believe that all opposition to homosexual marriage is simply an attempt to oppress a minority called homosexuals, then there's simply no reason to have a debate in the first place.
But you know as well as I do that this whole exercise is simply a very transparent excuse not to have to think or understand someone else's position; after all, once you can classify someone's opinions as a mental disease, call them crazy or hateful or whatever, then you can just curse them, stone them, and have done. No need to actually talk to them and discover the reasons why they believe what they believe.
Modern western thought has an irritating tendency to force every issue into the narrative framework of racism and the civil rights movement of the '60s, even where it doesn't at all fit; and the reason for that is, again, simply because it's easier than actually having to understand. Compare your opponents to racists, and they may protest, but you've already won the day; in your narrative, they're now vicious oppressors with fire hoses, so you can condemn them and yell at them and try to intimidate them all you want, all without ever having to actually understand a word of what they're saying. Nice, aint it?
The thing is, opposition to homosexual marriage is founded on lots of different viewpoints, religious, philosophical, and political; none of them have ANYTHING to do with the belief that people who are homosexual are subhuman and must be oppressed or destroyed.
The fundamental point of disagreement here is over what marriage is. The issue is that within practically every culture, religion, and philosophy, the definition of marriage (whatever it may be) excludes homosexual unions. A Bhuddist, a Catholic, and a Zulu all have radically differing definitions of marriage, but they all agree that homosexual couplings do not constitute marriage. If you want to prove them wrong, you'll have to have a definition of your own that is consistent and well-grounded in reality, and you'll have to show why your definition is better than theirs.
But simply calling people racist homophobes is never going to do anything at all.
|
But simply calling people racist homophobes is never going to do anything at all. Sure it does. It scares people into shutting up.
|
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote:Whatever happened to federalism? I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.-Thomas Jefferson The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. Banning gay marriage does not break the bill of rights, in which there is no "right to marry" (what the frack does that mean, anyway?) or any other thing which could possibly dictate a right for homosexual unions to be endorsed by the state and called marriages. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to overturn a state constitution to the contrary is totally unconstitutional and opposed to the principles of federalism. Show nested quote +But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism. + Show Spoiler +If you honestly believe that all opposition to homosexual marriage is simply an attempt to oppress a minority called homosexuals, then there's simply no reason to have a debate in the first place.
But you know as well as I do that this whole exercise is simply a very transparent excuse not to have to think or understand someone else's position; after all, once you can classify someone's opinions as a mental disease, call them crazy or hateful or whatever, then you can just curse them, stone them, and have done. No need to actually talk to them and discover the reasons why they believe what they believe.
Modern western thought has an irritating tendency to force every issue into the narrative framework of racism and the civil rights movement of the '60s, even where it doesn't at all fit; and the reason for that is, again, simply because it's easier than actually having to understand. Compare your opponents to racists, and they may protest, but you've already won the day; in your narrative, they're now vicious oppressors with fire hoses, so you can condemn them and yell at them and try to intimidate them all you want, all without ever having to actually understand a word of what they're saying. Nice, aint it?
The thing is, opposition to homosexual marriage is founded on lots of different viewpoints, religious, philosophical, and political; none of them have ANYTHING to do with the belief that people who are homosexual are subhuman and must be oppressed or destroyed.
The fundamental point of disagreement here is over what marriage is. The issue is that within practically every culture, religion, and philosophy, the definition of marriage (whatever it may be) excludes homosexual unions. A Bhuddist, a Catholic, and a Zulu all have radically differing definitions of marriage, but they all agree that homosexual couplings do not constitute marriage. If you want to prove them wrong, you'll have to have a definition of your own that is consistent and well-grounded in reality, and you'll have to show why your definition is better than theirs.
But simply calling people racist homophobes is never going to do anything at all.
Well the issue here isn't about the federal government imposing it's will upon the states it's about if people are change the state constitution with just a small majority vote and if you can, can you remove rights previously given by the state in that process.
Call it what you will but prop 8 was put into place after the california supreme court said that homosexual couples have a right to marriage due to equal protection and low an behold a few months later prop 8 is on the ballot or w.e for the means to reverse that, Prop 8 is completely about taking away the rights of people.
|
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote:
The thing is, opposition to homosexual marriage is founded on lots of different viewpoints, religious, philosophical, and political; none of them have ANYTHING to do with the belief that people who are homosexual are subhuman and must be oppressed or destroyed.
Erm... hate to be technical, but there are PLENTY of people that hold that viewpoint. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. The entire YES ON PROP 8 campaign centered around preserving the traditional family. It targeted schools strongly, with pictures of a man and woman holding hands with a child.
P.S. Personally, I feel the entire religious argument of "radically different religions hold the same viewpoint" is completely countered by the simple concept of separation of church and state. State shouldn't take religious beliefs when determining who to hand out marriage licenses to simply because of how particular religions define something. What if all of a sudden all the scientologists say it's part of their religion that they NEED to have gay marriage? Religions can start and end depending on how many followers I believe according to how the government defines it (this is all me trying to recollect 10th grade Social Studies btw).
|
On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +But they really aren't similar issues at all. The problem of gay marriage is specifically against the subject of the debate, aka homosexuals. The problem of abortion is about a disagreement in definition.
People like to trick themselves and say "I have no problems with homosexuals, but keep them outta our marriages" and etc. Well, they obviously do have a problem with homosexuals then.
Same exact thing as the "I'm not a racist, but keep them away from our neighborhoods" deal. If you wanted to use a hot button issue, you should have gone with racism. If you honestly believe that all opposition to homosexual marriage is simply an attempt to oppress a minority called homosexuals, then there's simply no reason to have a debate in the first place. But you know as well as I do that this whole exercise is simply a very transparent excuse not to have to think or understand someone else's position; after all, once you can classify someone's opinions as a mental disease, call them crazy or hateful or whatever, then you can just curse them, stone them, and have done. No need to actually talk to them and discover the reasons why they believe what they believe. Modern western thought has an irritating tendency to force every issue into the narrative framework of racism and the civil rights movement of the '60s, even where it doesn't at all fit; and the reason for that is, again, simply because it's easier than actually having to understand. Compare your opponents to racists, and they may protest, but you've already won the day; in your narrative, they're now vicious oppressors with fire hoses, so you can condemn them and yell at them and try to intimidate them all you want, all without ever having to actually understand a word of what they're saying. Nice, aint it? The thing is, opposition to homosexual marriage is founded on lots of different viewpoints, religious, philosophical, and political; none of them have ANYTHING to do with the belief that people who are homosexual are subhuman and must be oppressed or destroyed. The fundamental point of disagreement here is over what marriage is. The issue is that within practically every culture, religion, and philosophy, the definition of marriage (whatever it may be) excludes homosexual unions. A Bhuddist, a Catholic, and a Zulu all have radically differing definitions of marriage, but they all agree that homosexual couplings do not constitute marriage. If you want to prove them wrong, you'll have to have a definition of your own that is consistent and well-grounded in reality, and you'll have to show why your definition is better than theirs. But simply calling people racist homophobes is never going to do anything at all.
Suppose the fundamental disagreement is over the definition of marriage, and suppose we take into account the separation of church and state, and then lets look back at how the U.S. Constitution was created as the law of the land. The founding fathers could never have foreseen the advent of homosexual marriage as such a concept was probably not in their mindset, or they just didn't much care. Either way, it's the states' job.
If we take these assumptions for granted, then it's up to us to figure out exactly what constitutes a marriage. On what basis do proponents of Prop 8 have for limiting marriage to only a man and a woman?
|
Well the issue here isn't about the federal government imposing it's will upon the states it's about if people are change the constitution with just a small majority vote and if you can, can you remove rights previously given by the state in that process.
What? The people of the state can amend the constitution using the duly legal means established by that state. When they amend the constitution, they are free to add rights, remove rights, or anything else...as long as they don't trample on the very few rights specifically enumerated in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights (which since the Civil War has applied to state governments as well as the federal one). Proposition 8 was legally passed; it is now part of the state constitution.
The federal court system has ruled a state constitution against the Bill of Rights, on premises that are pretty much non-existent. This is very much an issue of federalism.
|
the traditional family is not monogamous.
also i don't consider marriage as religious, and most people didn't, it was a necessary evil in Elizabethan times for the sake of order. it was a contract. if your daughter ran off and married some guy it would be considered theft because you wouldn't be allowed to choose her suitor and therefore the size of her dowry.
what it is now is completely different than what it was "traditionally". there is no point bringing up the argument of traditional values when those traditions are so far gone already in western culture.
|
On August 05 2010 06:30 G5 wrote:YEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! Finally!!! Machine and Gretorp can make it official! + Show Spoiler +
loooooool the last picture is golden xD
so jealous of gretorp
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I have way more concerns over the legal ramifications of what the judge did, than whatever matter it was he did it with. He could have overturned the order of the clubbing of baby seals, I'd still have a problem with it.
Fortunately its going to go to the next level and actually reach a panel of judges before going into effect. But, right now, this whole 'overturning + stay of execution' thing he's employed is like, he just opened the book, crossed out 7 million votes and thought to himself "Wait a minute. Maybe I'm being a little bit rash".
|
On August 05 2010 08:44 nosliw wrote:
I love how the people against Prop 8 are spinning it into a " ___ right" debate, where the "blank" can be civil, legal, or personal rights. What is the basis of these rights? Then why not legalize polygamy or even legalize "marriage" with animals or un-living objects?
That's a debate for inherent nature versus acquired values/gratification. But hey, tough luck for them to be born that way, right? Maybe they should be born in Chile or something.
|
On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote:
So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions?
Like I said, that would be fine. However, its plainly obvious (from this latest overturning) that civil unions were not allowed/created with the intention of giving equal rights, but rather, to protect the religious values of marriage. If I was gay, I'd go for the gold, if you give conservatives an inch they will take a mile
|
On August 05 2010 09:23 Bibdy wrote:
I have way more concerns over the legal ramifications of what the judge did, than whatever matter it was he did it with. He could have overturned the order of the clubbing of baby seals, I'd still have a problem with it.
Well regardless of a vote, laws are required to be constitutional in order to be valid. If taken to court, judges are given the authority to interpret the constitutionality of a law and either uphold it or overturn it. While there's probably an argument over whether or not the law actually is/was constitutional, I believe what the judge did was within his authority.
|
edit: wait let me read it a few more times
|
The thing is, opposition to homosexual marriage is founded on lots of different viewpoints, religious, philosophical, and political; none of them have ANYTHING to do with the belief that people who are homosexual are subhuman and must be oppressed or destroyed.
Erm... hate to be technical, but there are PLENTY of people that hold that viewpoint. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. The entire YES ON PROP 8 campaign centered around preserving the traditional family. It targeted schools strongly, with pictures of a man and woman holding hands with a child.
I am trying, but failing, to find a contradiction between these two statements. Historical Christianity (and the Bible) condemns homosexual acts as contrary to natural law, that is, as a sin. It also has a very strong belief that every human person has inherent dignity, whether or not they have committed sins or are inclined to sin, and is almost entirely concerned with forgiveness and redemption from sin. From the perspective of the people you're referring to (who are the people I have spent most of my life with), homosexual person are perfectly human in every way, merely "in sin." They oppose homosexual marriage because they don't believe that that sin should be endorsed by the government.
P.S. Personally, I feel the entire religious argument of "radically different religions hold the same viewpoint" is completely countered by the simple concept of separation of church and state. State shouldn't take religious beliefs when determining who to hand out marriage licenses to simply because of how particular religions define something. What if all of a sudden all the scientologists say it's part of their religion that they NEED to have gay marriage? Religions can start and end depending on how many followers I believe according to how the government defines it (this is all me trying to recollect 10th grade Social Studies btw).
It's not just religions, which is what I've been trying to say. The argument can be, and is, made from various things other than religion. It can be, and is, made from historical, religious, philosophical, political viewpoints. In fact, very few apart from some fundamentalist Christians actually argue for their opinions directly from the supernatural.
And separation of church and state does not at all forbid people from making laws based on religious motives; in fact, it encourages it. The point of separation of church and state historically is to protect religious from interference and repression by the state; the irony of all of this seems to be lost on people who see no problem with the state making it unacceptable for people to state in public that homosexual marriage is wrong, or have that belief affect their political views. The Founders would have despised all such attempts to wrongfully repress religion using the state.
|
LOL G5 I LOVE YOU AND I WANT YOUR BABIESSSSS
Machine and I were "fighting" I won clearly :-D :-D :-D
|
On August 05 2010 09:25 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:52 L wrote:
So why push for marriage instead of fight for federal civil unions?
Like I said, that would be fine. However, its plainly obvious (from this latest overturning) that civil unions were not allowed/created with the intention of giving equal rights, but rather, to protect the religious values of marriage. If I was gay, I'd go for the gold, if you give conservatives an inch they will take a mile
The religious values of marriage? I'm pretty sure the evidence adduced at the trial showed the cultural value of marriage, but that's far and away something different than the religious value.
If marriage wasn't so culturally adapted, we'd have had polyandry and polygyny as a rational response to the feminist movement.
|
On August 05 2010 07:36 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:32 semantics wrote:
Homosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuality is not illegal in California.
Heterosexuals get the right to obtain the legal status of marriage in California getting all the befits that come along with that.
Homosexuals do not.
So why do heterosexuals get those benefits and homosexuals do not? Because they can obtain offspring, homosexuals can do that to although it would require a uterus or sperm from a 3rd party it's not different from what heterosexuals have to do to obtain heirs.
That's how i see it. That statement is 100% false. Homosexuals can enter civil unions that gain 100% of the benefits a married couple gets. The fight is about the legal status and the title "marriage," nothing more.
100%? negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img121.imageshack.us/i/ief006.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img405.imageshack.us/i/ief009.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img198.imageshack.us/i/ief2001.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img29.imageshack.us/i/ief3197.jpg/)
