marriage equality in California - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2008, 01:06 AM   #331
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: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
So when the people and their elected officials outlawed Chinese marriage in California, that was cool with you?
Any answers to this?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 01:27 AM   #332
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: 12:59 AM
I was playing that stupid Tetris game and getting my ass kicked thinking about this.

Indy, I think if you said that you were uncomfortable with gay marriage and it creeped you out and you needed some time to get used to it, I could deal with that. But you keep bringing up polygamy, "newly-discovered rights," and all sorts of other things that just sound exclusionary, bigoted, and like excuses to make your fear into law.

And before you start hollering and bringing up your Constitutional rights (without any irony, I might add), no where have I said you aren't perfectly entitled to do all of those things. I'm saying that when you start a fire, don't be surprised when people piss on it to put it out.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 02:34 AM   #333
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:59 AM
Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses - USATODAY.com

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson.

Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:21 AM   #334
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:59 AM
The lawsuit is ridiculous and really has nothing to do with this thread...

The Bible in all legal sense shouldn't have anything to do with the federal courts, so actually he may be making a brilliant move to prove a point and shut some people up.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:31 AM   #335
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Gay man sues publishers over Bible verses - USATODAY.com

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Fowler filed the suit in federal court against Zondervan on July 7, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson.

Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.
I'm fairly certain this fellow doesn't have a case.

Just because some one sues doesn't mean that we all need to worry. . .Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday and life goes on.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:41 AM   #336
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Why is homosexual marriage not the same as interracial marriage. . .yes, yes, I know the obvious difference re: gender, but isn't the real opposition due to the belief that "there's nothing morally wrong with people of different races marrying" but "there IS something morally wrong with people of the same gender marrying?"

Isn't that really what underlies the argument that there is a difference between the two? I think the establishing of new rights argument is just weak (unless of course you believe that the new right established promotes something that is morally wrong. . .well, then it gains considerable strength).

And I'm wondering, Indy if you can't understand that many opponents of interracial marriage did (and still do) believe that such marriages are morally wrong and an affront to God? These people are not raving, foaming-at-the-mouth racists. They wouldn't support a lynching or legal segragation. They have black (or white as the case may be) friends. They just think it's "not right" for blacks and whites to marry, and they are sincere in their belief.

That doesn't change the fact that their belief still represents a racist worldview.

I feel like you want to paint people who hold racist worldviews in this brush of virulent hatred and it's not that way. In the same way those who hold homophobic views aren't all virulent gay-haters either. It's not that simple, and yet the views are still hurtful and problematic even those who hold them "dont' mean" for them to be.

Now couldn't it be possible--just possible--that the same might be true of those who oppose gay marriage?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 07:11 AM   #337
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
[...] There also what I consider to be valid arguments against no-fault divorce, the proliferation of single parent families as well as same-sex marriage. [...] So I don't know, maybe instead of allowing more marriages we should actually be outlawing the entire institution.
I dislike no-fault divorce myself, as I'm not sure that a 50%+1 fault (as in civil liability cases) is too much of a burden to prove sometimes, especially in clear-cut cases of neglect/abuse. That being said, though, throwing out all marriage on account of disagreements and whatnot seems somewhat silly, as some people will choose not to get married and that's fine, and others will have marriages that don't work which is unfortunate but also not atypical of relationships in the larger sense, the only real problem is with people who want to get married but can't. People are going to be together, that much is pretty certain, but to extend benefits to some and not all ... either scrap it all, or be inclusive, I don't think there are many other options if we're talking about legal entitlement. Religious institutions can keep their privileges and traditions as far as I'm concerned, I just want to talk about the contract itself.

Quote:
[...] We have laws against racial discrimination so if they are equal then why not take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Catholic charities in Massachusetts got out of child adoption services because that state held their beliefs against gay adoption to be discriminatory, so they just got out of the business rather than face lawsuits. Someone, somewhere, would challenge the First Amendment rights of a church to refuse to marry people of the same-sex.
This is true, and it's a good question, why don't they take away the tax-exempt status? It's probably because the documentation re marriage which holds all the legal meaning is ultimately issued as a state document, and I'm not sure the church has much real place in the authenticity of the whole thing -- the ceremony itself isn't really a legally binding contract. If a church wants to say the union isn't okay in the eyes of God, that's their prerogative, if they feel they can speak for whatever divinity may exist that's fine, but that doesn't really have legal ramifications on how much tax you pay and whether or not you're entitled to receive the benefits of your partner's life insurance when they die. The churches will continue to get away with it because the essence of the thing is not the location or the words spoken but the documentation. They can say what they do/don't want to in the church, on their own land, according to their own beliefs and principles if they so choose, because the delivery of the service is non-essential to the legal definition of marriage. If gays and lesbians want to be joined under the catholic roof, they should talk to the vatican, not the government. If they just want to be legally married (and they do) that's a state issue, and that's what I think we're trying to resolve here.

Quote:
One has to show that they are in fact not being treated equally.
And I imagine it can be done, but sadly I'm not up on the nuances of what goes on in each of the states to really be able to speak on the American condition of the thing. I'll defer to others on that one.

Quote:
Define equal. Certainly Jefferson's phrase "all men are created equal" is only "virtually" true. In the eyes of the law and God, but in reality, of coarse not. All of us are born with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages.
Well, this is it. In the eyes of the law and God, and logically as well, people are all created equal, being of equal merit in spite of their physical attributes, mental acumen, personality, beliefs, or favourite cold beverage. In reality you're right, no two people are analogues else they wouldn't be individuals, but the whole system that governs society breaks down if you treat people as individuals since you'd have to govern each person based on those individual traits. That's not the issue, though: 'Virtually all of the rights' and 'equal rights' are clearly not the same, since the use of the term virtually in place of 'equal' implies that there is difference. If there's difference between them, that's an inequity, and that's a problem. If marriage is treated the same for black people, white people, hispanics, immigrants, US-natives, English speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers, Jews, Jehova's witnesses, Mormons, Kentuckians and Alaskans but not for gays and lesbians, then the statement 'in the eyes of the law' is false. Inequity is not equity. Since we're talking about the law, and not whether people are deficient individuals or exceptional individuals, I think it's totally apt to make this distinction as I have.

Quote:
The U.S. Constitution anyway, is meant to be a rigid document listing what the federal government can and cannot do, leaving the rest up to the populace.
Ah, Canada's constitution is slightly different in intention that way. It does outline what the government can/can't do in a way but it's less explicit as it underwent major reforms in 1983 with the inclusion of the charter of rights and freedoms, and has been a much more organic animal than the US Constitution and -- though nonetheless rigid -- is less explicit about what can/can't be done but is a summary of key principles and values. If I don't understand your constitution and make or have made a wrong inference relating to it, my apologies.

Quote:
That's one of my points actually. There is no, not any, precedent for same-sex marriage. Not in the law, not in tradition, not in any religious or secular moral system, not even in a previous state wide vote in California. None. That in itself doesn't mean that same-sex marriage shouldn't be recognized in the year 2008, but it does mean that perhaps it's way too big of a change to be decided by 7 or 9 people alone.
There was a time in human history when there was no precedent for marriage, either, and that eventually came into our traditions and religious doctrines, and later into positivist systems. Homosexuality has been around for ages, as long or longer than Western society itself. It doesn't seem outlandish to me that new traditions can be made, or old ones altered, and it seems like a good opportunity to put to rest a long-standing marginalization of people who are no different than you or I. While I agree that perhaps 7-10 people shouldn't have the authority to make the choice, and I don't envy your mode of government for it's lacking of public referendum votes, change has to start somewhere and even starting the dialogue -- even if the decision is overturned at some point -- still offers the potential for progress on the issue.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 10:03 AM   #338
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by camiloj View Post
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.

You're new here-all will be revealed, in time.

I'm all for gay marriage btw, just fyi Perfectly fine with me.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 10:41 AM   #339
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: 12:59 AM
FOX-- You're smart and I like you.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 11:09 AM   #340
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
A student of Biblical translation history can trace where the homophobia originated over the centuries, and--let me give you a hint--it isn't in the source texts. For the most part, the Old Testament passages refer to archaic Ancient Near East practices and taboos that have no "modern translation"--that is, they didn't even have a proper ancient Greek or Latin translation, let alone a proper modern English translation.

The NIV translation of the Bible--published by Zondervan--is the worst offender of them all. It is sloppily translated and is extra homophobic. Their "99.9% accuracy" mainly refers to how it takes traditional conservative Christian interpretations and exaggerates them, I would say.

Perhaps this is the origin of the lawsuit?
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 11:25 AM   #341
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unforgettableFOXfire View Post

Ah, Canada's constitution is slightly different in intention that way. It does outline what the government can/can't do in a way but it's less explicit as it underwent major reforms in 1983 with the inclusion of the charter of rights and freedoms, and has been a much more organic animal than the US Constitution and -- though nonetheless rigid -- is less explicit about what can/can't be done but is a summary of key principles and values.
Heya! Long time no talk.

The introduction of the Charter actually didn't reform the principles of federalism, enumerated in s. 92 of the BNA. Technically, our federal/provincial spheres are better enumerated than those of the Americans (just look at the comprehensive lists in s. 92), but there are also a couple of vague ones like "property and civil rights" and the POGG (peace, order and good government) clause which have allowed our courts to stray from the rigidity in the US.

Furthermore, our Supreme Court has affirmed the living tree doctrine many times, where the justices on the SCOTUS are, for the most part, hostile to that idea.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 02:13 PM   #342
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Heya! Long time no talk.

The introduction of the Charter actually didn't reform the principles of federalism, enumerated in s. 92 of the BNA. Technically, our federal/provincial spheres are better enumerated than those of the Americans (just look at the comprehensive lists in s. 92), but there are also a couple of vague ones like "property and civil rights" and the POGG (peace, order and good government) clause which have allowed our courts to stray from the rigidity in the US.

Furthermore, our Supreme Court has affirmed the living tree doctrine many times, where the justices on the SCOTUS are, for the most part, hostile to that idea.
Heh, hey there. You didn't ever decide to go to Western for law, by any chance, did you?
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:06 PM   #343
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:59 AM
^

I'd PM you but you don't have PM capability!
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:07 PM   #344
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
FOX-- You're smart and I like you.
Thanks martha. I didn't see this when I was replying to anitram, else I would have saved the double post and replied there. You tried to send me a PM the other day but my inbox was full. I didn't reply to it or anything because I didn't get it, also I'm not a prem. user. Just thought I'd let you know I wasn't being rude and ignoring it though


Quote:
I'd PM you but you don't have PM capability!
That's true, I don't. There's always email? maasquarade [.\at'] hotmail [/.dot'] com. Ignore the dots and slashes, obviously. Poorly done obfuscation ftw.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 07:39 PM   #345
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'm fairly certain this fellow doesn't have a case.

Just because some one sues doesn't mean that we all need to worry. . .Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday and life goes on.
They still cost you money in defending yourself. Which is why the Catholic Church is no longer finding homes for children in Boston.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 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 03:59 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