marriage equality in California - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-17-2008, 10:17 AM   #256
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so i haven't read all the thread yet, but i find this whole "intimidation" sob-story thing little more than an excuse for not being able to put up an actual argument.
^Not only that, but it's very ironic coming from the man who always brings up 'eliteism'.

The concept of equating polygamy with gay marriage has been brought up time and time again, and has been shot down time and time again. To think anyone has been "intimidated into silence" is laughable at best.

The last couple of pages of this thread really took a turn for the worse.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 10:17 AM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I must applaud Massachusetts in one regard. At least it's the elected legislature and not the courts taking action.



just as an aside, how do you feel about courts taking action in regards to protecting the civil rights of those who would choose to bear firearms in Washington DC?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 10:27 AM   #258
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That discrimination had far more financial and social ramifications as well as going to the very dignity of their worth as humans.


i'm not going to argue that same-sex marriage will suddenly make all gay people be affirmed, but it will be an important step in the social affirmation of the very dignity and worth of gay people.

i don't think you quite understand -- how could you? -- just how your dignity and worth as a gay person, and especially the dignity and worth of your relationships, are under fire by so many aspects of society. if we look at the suicide rates of gay teens versus their straight peers, is it not entirely logical to draw some inferences about their tragic lack of recognition of their dignity and self worth? why is coming out such a fraught, often difficult promises? "no son of mine" and such? why do you think it's specifically called Gay Pride?

no, marriage rights won't suddenly solve everything. but it will create structure, meaning, and purpose to gay relationships -- which, as a conservative, i'm sure you'd applaud, right? since married people are less likely to abuse substances, be promiscuous, and do any number of things that are great big no-no's in the eyes of social conservatives -- and it will create a word into which a young gay person has not only role models but also a means by which to achieve some semblance of social respect for committing to another human being and creating a stabilizing relationship that, in most cases, leads to a more stable society.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 01:30 PM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:08 PM
I like this

Tilting at windmills

By Kevin Cullen, Boston Globe Columnist | July 17, 2008

You would think that with the Senate's vote to allow same-sex couples from out of state to get married and with the House poised to do the same, the self-righteous family values crowd would just fold up tent and move their circus elsewhere.

Like, oh, I don't know, maybe Kansas?

Fat chance. Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, says the campaign to repeal gay marriage is "going to be here until the cows go home."

I have a question: Have you ever tried to move a cow? I did, 30 years ago, in a field in Greenfield with a bunch of other kids from UMass, and I'm telling you, that cow wouldn't budge.

I called Mineau yesterday and, while he seemed like a perfect gentleman, listening to his analysis of the chance of his side prevailing in this was like listening to Don Quixote talk about how he was going to take out those windmills in La Mancha or the left-wing nuts who want to impeach Bush.

But gay marriage is so yesterday anyway. It's been, like, four years, and the sun still rises, the sun still sets, and Lou Gorman still has lunch. I mean, even the Globe played the Senate story on the City & Region front.

Yawn.

I've always had an egalitarian view on this. I think it's unconstitutionally unfair that only heterosexuals are allowed to know what it feels like to get constantly nagged, be told your socks don't match, and find out your wallet has been emptied so your spouse could buy another pair of shoes that will lie unworn in a closet.

And there's nothing you can do about it in the short run because you have a contract binding you to the person who tells you to stop picking your nose. As for the sanctity of marriage, does that refer to the 50 percent that end in divorce or the 50 percent that don't?

I never understood how this became a liberal/conservative thing.

I thought gay marriage was something the religious right would try to foist on gay people. You know, so gay couples could be miserable like the rest of us.

What could be more conservative than being monogamous and raising kids, living an existence that is about as exciting as being a penguin on the Gal√°pagos Islands?

A lot of people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, and they are perfectly entitled to. But, as I recall, the Puritans who first settled Massachusetts were followed by generations who gradually stopped believing that God sat around thinking of ways to smite sinners. And, then, of course, there are many people who don't believe religion should be used to dictate the laws of a democratic republic.

Is this a great country or what? And because this is a great democracy, the people who still get worked up about gay marriage can work to vote out those in the Legislature who have voted at each turn to enshrine it in law.

Of course, they tried that two years ago and got their clocks cleaned. They're entitled to try again, and good luck to them. But at some point, a good fight becomes pointless. Every generation, every century, what was perceived as "normal" or "mainstream" changes, and there's no going back.

You're certainly entitled to not approve of homosexuals, but if you think they're going to go back into the closet to spare you your discomfort, you don't know human nature and you certainly don't know human history.

And if you think that once a civil right is recognized by the state's highest court you can somehow change it back to the way it was, or that you can get a popular referendum so a majority can strip a civil right from a minority, I own a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

Some who oppose gay marriage are deeply principled. Others are bigots. But they share a common cause. Their cause in Massachusetts is dead.

It's over.

Get used to it.

And if you don't like homosexuals, don't marry one.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:28 PM   #260
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
by denying me marriage rights you are saying that my relationship is by definition inferior to yours.

It is Irving in one respect only.
Two men or two women can never have the relationship that one man and one women can have. Gender roles have blurred quite a bit in the last 40 years; with women entering the workforce, artificial insemination, the role of the fathers, etc. Much of this positive or inevitable but yet the fact remains that women and men are not interchangeable.
Bride & Groom
Husband & Wife
Father & Mother, even
King & Queen

A man and a women, it is that distinctive relationship that defines what is marriage. Supported by our terminology, religions, folk tales and laws. Has marriage changed in the past? Sure, and marriage is changing now as Yolland points out. So is society.

I believe in equal protection under the law -- so let's act in that area. I believe any love is better loneliness, that human were created to love, and we're much better off physically and emotionally in long-term committed relationships -- so let's act in that area as well. Let's start off with what we have in common as we work democratically to resolve the issue. Working through sympathetic courts against the will of the people, by the way, is one mistake same-sex marriage advocates make in my opinion. The other is not silencing the anti-religious bigotry that so often comes out. Including here.

Read the thread when you get a chance. I will accept how this issue resolves itself if allowed to democratically. But I really resent, as I have in past threads, the totally false analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Or beaus and belles.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:48 PM   #261
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It is Irving in one respect only.
Two men or two women can never have the relationship that one man and one women can have. Gender roles have blurred quite a bit in the last 40 years; with women entering the workforce, artificial insemination, the role of the fathers, etc. Much of this positive or inevitable but yet the fact remains that women and men are not interchangeable.
Bride & Groom
Husband & Wife
Father & Mother, even
King & Queen


thank you for your honesty.

so Memphis and i can never have the relationship that Britney and K-Fed had.

this is, in essence, what you're saying.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:51 PM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post

Such ideals as freedom and liberty, for instance, may be modern constructions, but it is hard to argue that both ideals were only "right" in modern times; they would, of course, have been right all along...

From a theological point of view, too, there is the idea of "divine revelation," where new divine truths can be newly revealed in modern times, presumably for reasons only divinely known.
Thanks for making this point. Truth and good are always such but man can always misinterpret his world seeking them out. Mistakes that only become clear at a later date.
Quote:
Overall, though, I think we need not fear progress or a departure from tradition necessarily, as long as the arguments are sound.
I agree. But caution -- looking both ways before crossing the street -- is always pretty sound advice.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:58 PM   #263
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
"well as long as you don't have children. . ." one pastor told me when he found out I was marrying my wife back in 1997. **sigh**
That's appalling. Souls in Heaven have no pigmentation so why would he be preoccupied with it here on earth?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:04 PM   #264
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That's appalling. Souls in Heaven have no pigmentation so why would he be preoccupied with it here on earth?


do they have a sexual orientation?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:12 PM   #265
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Working through sympathetic courts against the will of the people, by the way, is one mistake same-sex marriage advocates make in my opinion.

Every time I see a comment like this I wonder whether people actually understand how our legal system works.

The courts show deference to the will of the people. Most of the time they will find that although a law may be unfair, or unreasonable or ineffective, they will nevertheless state that it is better left to Parliament (or Congress or equivalent body) to enact such a change. But when you are dealing with laws which are clearly contrary to constitutional rights, then the Court not only should step in but must step in.

I ask you - what should the courts have done in Griswold v. Connecticut (the marital privacy case which essentially finally allowed women to obtain birth control)? Or in the many, many civil rights cases, where the laws of the time were clearly unconstitutional? This is not the work of a "sympathetic court" as you say - but of one upholding constitutional principles of its nation. It is similarly so with gay rights. If our legislatures are not going to step in and assure that we have laws which comply with constitutional principles, then the courts must. Any suggestion otherwise is a complete misreading of the operational nature of a common law legal system.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:18 PM   #266
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Two men or two women can never have the relationship that one man and one women can have.
How do you know this? How do you have access to this information?


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I believe in equal protection under the law -- so let's act in that area.
I don't think you do. We are trying to act in that area, but people who believe the same way you do keep stopping us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
we work democratically to resolve the issue. Working through sympathetic courts against the will of the people, by the way, is one mistake same-sex marriage advocates make in my opinion.
The Civil Rights movement worked through the courts, not "democratically". Find me some laws that were passed by the Mississippi legislature that gave the coloreds any rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
But I really resent, as I have in past threads, the totally false analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage.
I imagine you do. The comparison isn't flattering to you at all, is it. Did you read Sean's posts? Or are you choosing to ignore them because they hurt?
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:19 PM   #267
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
thank you for your honesty.

so Memphis and i can never have the relationship that Britney and K-Fed had.

this is, in essence, what you're saying.
You might have to settle for the relationship she had with that first guy she married.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:21 PM   #268
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Two men or two women can absolutely have the same relationship that a man and a woman can have. A relationship is defined by the quality and qualities of that relationship, not the genders of the people involved. Thus the Britney/KFed or any other Hollywood relationship mention.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:29 PM   #269
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
just as an aside, how do you feel about courts taking action in regards to protecting the civil rights of those who would choose to bear firearms in Washington DC?
I can find firearms in the constitution. It is silent on the definition of Marriage. THAT MEANS it is up to the people and their elected representatives to define what is, and is not, marriage.
It's simple. If you want same-sex marriage to be legal... change the laws. We can do that. If you wish it to be a right, amend the constitution. We can do that as well.
But don't depend on a handful of MIB to "discover" a new right. That ends debate, but not the acrimony, and it is not how laws are made in this country.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:30 PM   #270
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:08 PM
True story - I lived with 2 roommates up until April. One of them was a woman who came from a very small town in the extreme north of Alberta. She married at 18 (because so did her two sisters and after all, that's what you were supposed to do). She ended up divorcing in her early 20s when her husband was not supportive of her plans to return to school. She was an opera singer and wanted to do her MA/PhD in voice. I lived with her while she was doing her 2 year MA degree. She came out of the closet basically immediately after moving to Ontario and started dating a woman who was an amateur (Olympic) athlete. They had a very supportive and loving relationship and really took care of each other. When her girlfriend had surgery on her ACL, my roommate made sure she got to the hospital, that she was staying with us and helped her get to her physio, etc. When it was Thanksgiving, the girlfriend took my roommate to her family's for the weekend since my roommate had no family in the province. They survived 2 4-month stints apart when my roommate was performing in Europe over the summer. They are living apart now for a year until the girlfriend finishes a program she is in and can move to Montreal so they can be together again.

My other roommate was a woman who was preoccupied with what guy was treating her badly that given week. She made an idiot of herself for men, slept with them indiscriminately which wouldn't have been a problem except she always hoped for more so that a night of sex would be followed by about 7 days of constant crying and sobbing. The guy she was "seeing" at the end would prefer they meet at motels rather than his house or our apartment, and wouldn't return her calls for 3-4 weeks at a time.

Now I was already fully supportive of gay marriage rights. But if I had not been, this is all it would have taken. Because looking at these 2 situations just goes to show that it is all up to the individual - some people can have wonderful, exemplary relationships regardless of gender, while others you just shake your head at. I am somehow supposed to be more supportive of roommate #2 marrying one of these guys she'd be more than happy to marry and not supportive of roommate #1? Why? Because somebody's hung up on a word? Give me a break.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com