marriage equality in California - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2008, 10:27 AM   #301
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I can read any map, anytime, anywhere. I'll challenge you to a drive off. Name the country and provide the maps, dear.
Take 10,000 men and 10,000 women and I think there would be a significant difference, individual capability is irrelevant to group differences.

The point was that there are implications for brain sex, would it be acceptable if I was to highlight that women are more socially perceptive than men, a positive difference?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 10:30 AM   #302
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Sorry to disagree, but this is exactly what I meant about much of modern society having forgotten something previously understood as manifestly true.

Goofy feminist claptrap aside, science has proven beyond a doubt that men and women differ in more ways than just their naughty bits. They differ in genetics, physiology, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. There is no unisex brain, they differ in structure and hormones. Boys are wired to be boys and girls to be girls. They learn in different ways and at different rates.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. How quickly they forget.

So, if men and women are inherently different, isn't it dishonest to suggest that a man marrying a man is the precise equivalent of marrying a woman?


so what does this have to do with my being treated like a 2nd class citizen.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 10:31 AM   #303
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Because two gays marrying means that one man and three women will demand marriage rights, you really are behind the curve.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 02:19 PM   #304
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:45 AM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

Surrounded by cheering, clapping gay-rights activists and legislators, Governor Deval Patrick today signed a bill repealing a 95-year-old statute that had prevented gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

"It's a good day," said Patrick, declaring that the repeal will "confirm a simple truth: that is, in Massachusetts, equal means equal."

Massachusetts will "continue to lead the way as a national leader" and affirm "all people come before their government as equals," Patrick said in a bill-signing ceremony at the State House's Grand Staircase. Gay marriage "is still troubling for some of our citizens," he said, "but it is still the law."

Patrick, who turned 52 today, also called the bill "a great birthday present."

Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a gay-rights organization, said, "This is really a new day. We welcome everyone from New York to come here and get married. We think it's a shame people can't get married in their own states."

The repeal took effect immediately, making Massachusetts the second state after California to allow same-sex couples to marry, regardless of residence. It opened the borders for potentially thousands of nonresident same-sex couples. That includes an estimated 49,000 couples from New York, where Governor David Paterson has instructed state agencies to recognize and grant benefits to gay couples who marry elsewhere, even though the Empire State does not authorize same-sex marriages.

The law specifically barred out-of-state residents from marrying here if the marriage would be considered void in their home state. The origins of the law could be traced to the national backlash over the interracial marriage of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. At the time, 30 of 48 states banned interracial marriage, and many other states, including Massachusetts, enacted provisions that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.

The law remained on the books but fell into obscurity until gay marriage became legalized in Massachusetts, and Governor Mitt Romney cited the law as a means to prevent Massachusetts from becoming what he called "the Las Vegas of gay marriage."

Unlike past same-sex marriage debates, the repeal of the 1913 law did not draw protesters to the State House. Advocates cited the absence of demonstrations as a sign that same-sex marriage has become an accepted fact of life in Massachusetts, after lawmakers in a joint session last year rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

The repeal passed swiftly in the Senate earlier this month on a unanimous voice vote. The House voted 118 to 35 to pass the repeal bill on Tuesday after a 45-minute floor debate.

Supporters called the 1913 law a vestige of racist opposition to interracial marriage, while opponents argued for keeping it in deference to the rights of other states to set marriage laws. Several representatives called for keeping the law on the books because they said it would create legal chaos for other states that would be forced to consider same-sex marriage or resolve disputes among couples who marry in Massachusetts but want benefits, or to divorce, back home.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 02:52 PM   #305
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

The origins of the law could be traced to the national backlash over the interracial marriage of heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson. At the time, 30 of 48 states banned interracial marriage, and many other states, including Massachusetts, enacted provisions that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.
Just for kicks.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 11:33 PM   #306
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You know, INDY, you can go ahead and keep repeating your misogynist views, your "some of my best friends are gay" crap, your insistence that you really do believe the gays are almost our equals, your Christian justifications for limiting access to rights, and your equating simple gay marriage with polygamy (which has been addressed repeatedly).

None of this is going to change the progress of time. Democracy itself has been successfully redefined to meet the needs of modern humans. Now that non-property owners, blacks, and (God forbid) women can vote, democracy has survived and improved with universal participation. Redefining marriage to include gays and lesbians won't hurt you, it won't hurt me, and it can only strengthen marriage and families.

So wring your hands, make offensive comments, be smug in your assumptions of Christian righteousness, but be ready to stand aside for progress and inclusiveness when the time comes.
I know this is from a few weeks ago, but what a load of shite.

The above is horrible, personalised, offensive, nonsense that should not be tolerated.

Why is it ok for the extreme left wing on FYM to go tossing around accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc at anyone that doesn't share their take on things?

Why is it ok that the left-wing on FYM get away with this crap ALL THE TIME?

The fact is there are two or three people on FYM that are simply not interested in a debate or in a discussion, they are only interested in abusing people.

This person Martha obviously does not have a lot of faith in her own ability to argue a point if she posts the above extremist, offensive, bigoted nonsense every time she is challenged.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 12:27 AM   #307
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Dude, take a chill pill and get over it.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 01:24 AM   #308
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Why is it ok for the extreme left wing on FYM to go tossing around accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc at anyone that doesn't share their take on things?

Why is it ok that the left-wing on FYM get away with this crap ALL THE TIME?


Because the right-wing is just bonkers?
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 10:59 AM   #309
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:45 AM


That's all
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 04:08 PM   #310
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post


Because the right-wing is just bonkers?
Indeed. I'm a conservative, 'right wing' in Canada, and I recognize that a human rights issue isn't about party politics, partisan rhetoric, and divisiveness. It isn't about being left wing or right wing, it's about recognizing humanity and acknowledging that we systematically reject some aspects of an individual's humanity when we shouldn't. My arguments should speak for themselves where I stand on the matter. It should be about inclusiveness, but strangely people seem to feel alienated when someone says that a group different than them is on equal footing. It amazes me that a species that's so sweepingly xenophobic is actually engaging in the exploration of space, of all things. What are we hoping to find? Something worse than homosexuality or Islam so we can blow it up? Flegh.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 05:10 PM   #311
War Child
 
camiloj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 695
Local Time: 03:45 AM
I'm super late on this only because I started paying attention to this Forum again recently, but...let me just say...

Marriage in California is a legal contract. It's a piece of paper between TWO ADULTS.

That is all. There is nothing religous about marriage in California, one's religous beliefs should have no part in the legislation of state laws.

The State Supreme Court ruled it was UNconstitutional to say those two adults could not be the same sex.

There is no logical, compelling legal reason that the Court's decision should be thrown out.

If gays getting married is against your religion, don't worry, we won't do it in your church.

It's one of the reasons I became an Ordained Minister after this passed, so that gays and Lesbians can get married without all the problems related to finding a religion or minister that would marry us.

So that said, what is the compelling legal argument that gays and Lesbians should not be allowed to be married in the state of California?
__________________
camiloj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 05:24 PM   #312
War Child
 
camiloj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 695
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I know this is from a few weeks ago, but what a load of shite.

The above is horrible, personalised, offensive, nonsense that should not be tolerated.

Why is it ok for the extreme left wing on FYM to go tossing around accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc at anyone that doesn't share their take on things?

Why is it ok that the left-wing on FYM get away with this crap ALL THE TIME?

The fact is there are two or three people on FYM that are simply not interested in a debate or in a discussion, they are only interested in abusing people.

This person Martha obviously does not have a lot of faith in her own ability to argue a point if she posts the above extremist, offensive, bigoted nonsense every time she is challenged.
AM I the only one who didn't see anything abusive in what Martha said? Why did it make clear sense to me what she said? Oh, maybe it's because I am one of those gay people who wants to have the same rights (not special rights) that everyone else has as far as marriage laws.
__________________
camiloj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 06:37 PM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by camiloj View Post
Marriage in California is a legal contract. It's a piece of paper between TWO ADULTS.
If expanding the definition of marriage is all about inclusiveness, then why arbitrarily limit it to TWO?
Quote:
There is nothing religous about marriage in California, one's religous beliefs should have no part in the legislation of state laws.
Well of coarse that's not true, I know plenty of Californians that were married in a church during a religious ceremony. But if you are correct that "religous beliefs should have no part in the legislation of state laws," does that mean that anti-discrimination laws should be used against religious institutions which discriminate on whom they would marry or that fail to recognize same-sex marriages? Remember, we have people here arguing that opposition to gay marriage is no different than opposition to interracial marriage.
Quote:
The State Supreme Court ruled it was UNconstitutional to say those two adults could not be the same sex.
Based on which part of the California constitution?
Quote:
There is no logical, compelling legal reason that the Court's decision should be thrown out.
Yet, that is what the people of California may well do this Fall. Their voice should count for something, no?
Quote:
If gays getting married is against your religion, don't worry, we won't do it in your church.
So there are "religious" marriages in CA. Someone will sue churches sooner or later and you know it. It's what Americans do.
Quote:
So that said, what is the compelling legal argument that gays and Lesbians should not be allowed to be married in the state of California?
In the California decision the court itself noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." So we really aren't talking about equal protection especially since gay men and lesbians in California already enjoy the right to marry; the same right, no more no less, as any other adult in that state. What they demand, and what the California supreme court has now "discovered" is a new right. A right not enumerated in either the California or U.S. constitution. The right to marry someone of your sex. A right to define marriage as the individual parties see fit.
We have procedures to amend constitutions if marriage must be a right and we also have elected bodies to write new laws defining marriage, but we do live in a democracy so what we don't need is courts making up stuff.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 06:42 PM   #314
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
but we do live in a democracy so what we don't need is courts making up stuff.
Exactly. Loving vs. Virginia and Brown vs. Topeka Board of Ed were complete bullshit.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 06:43 PM   #315
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
If expanding the definition of marriage is all about inclusiveness, then why arbitrarily limit it to TWO?
You just keep ignoring the responses to this.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 03:45 AM.


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